[kinsey] Being On The “Down Low”: What Does It Mean?

8 01 2013

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

“Keep it on the down low.”  A few years ago, many knew this expression simply to mean that something should be kept secret or confidential.  This could refer to anything — a friend’s surprise birthday party, an embarrassing  accident, an affair.  Over the past decade, the use of the phrase “the down low” or “DL” has narrowed to refer to one thing: Black men who date women while secretly having sex with men.  But, this limited definition misses much of the diversity and complexity of life on the down low, and sexuality in general.

“Down Low”

In general, keeping something on the down low means keeping it a secret.  But, some suggest that the expression originates among Black communities in the US to refer specifically to secret relationships, including infidelity or extramarital affairs in heterosexual relationships.  However, one particular use of the term — men in heterosexual relationships who secretly have sex with men — was forced into the national spotlight.

Many people, regardless of race and ethnicity, gender, and social class hide from others that they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, have sexual and romantic relationships with members of their own gender, and/or experience desire for such relationships.  In large part, this is due to fear of homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic violence, discrimination, prejudice, and rejection from friends and family.

Hiding one’s sexual or gender identity is ofter referred to as being “in the closet.“  So, how is being on the “down low” different?  And, why have down low or DL men received so much attention over the past decade?

Scapegoats?

Hiding one’s non-heterosexual sexual identity, relationships, or desires, and the bias against these components of sexuality, are obviously not new phenomena.  But, shortly after the new millennium began, men who have sexual relationships with men — particularly those who also have sexual and romantic relationships with women — became the focus of discussions about the high rates of HIV among Black Americans.

Many celebrities (even Oprah!), politicians, and activists concerned about the HIV epidemic among Black people in the US began pointing to these men as a potential source for the staggeringly high rates of new HIV cases among (heterosexual) Black women.  The logic became that some men in heterosexual relationships were secretly having sex with men, and doing so without using condoms to reduce their risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STI).

Essentially, Black DL men were thought to be a “bridge” for bringing the high risk for HIV among men who have sex with men to heterosexual relationships.  However, researchers have found little evidence to support this proposal.  But this myth has persisted.  Why?

One possibility is that homophobic and biphobic prejudice has allowed down low men to serve as scapegoats, an easy target to lay blame for HIV rates among Black women.  Unlike “out” gay and bisexual men, hostility toward DL men is seen as justifiable because they are deceitful, intentionally lying to their female partners.  In fact, the disdain toward men on the down low spread beyond concerns about risk for HIV and STIs to general suspicion: “how to find out if your husband is on the down low“, “how to tell if a man is on the DL.”

The Role Of Race And Racism

As I noted earlier, feeling or actually being forced to hide one’s same-gender sexuality — whether identity, relationships, or desires — is experienced by many.  And, being on the down low is also not limited to Black men.  In a recent study published in Deviant Behavior, sociologists Brandon Robinson and Salvador Vidal-Ortiz found use of the term down low, or even identifying as DL, was just as common among white men as it was among Black men using Craigslist.com for casual sexual encounters with other men.  Another sociologist, Jane Ward, has also studied postings on Craigslist, specifically looking at white men who identify as “str8 dudes” or “str8.”

So, why have Black men been singled out?  Some have argued that Black men on the down low are simply the most recent victim of a long history of demonizing or pathologizing Black sexuality.  That is, somehow the sex lives of Black DL men are more deceitful, immoral, and risky (i.e., HIV risk) than those of exclusively-heterosexual Black men and DL men of other races.  And, they understandably face greater pressure to hide their “true” sexualities because Black communities in the US are stereotyped as more hostile toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

“True” Sexuality?

Are men on the down low really just gay and bisexual men who are in the closet?  Yes, in the sense that they hide some aspect of their same-gender sexuality.  However, no, there is a great deal more diversity and complexity than most discussions of the down low assume.  While some identify as bisexual (or even gay), many identify as heterosexual; also, some do not claim a particular sexual identity, while others actually identify as DL.  Also, as found in a recent study of DL men in New York City, their defining characteristic is hiding their same-gender sexuality from their female partners, yet some are “out” as DL (or gay or bisexual) to friends and family.

This diversity is missed, in large part, because the complexity of sexuality is overlooked.  In particular, one’s sexual identity is conflated with one’s sexual behavior is conflated with one’s sexual desires.  Whether for men on the down low, other people in the closet, out lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, or heterosexuals, these dimensions — identity, desire, and behavior — are related, yet distinct.  These dimensions tend to align for the majority of adults, but there is a sizable minority for whom these dimensions do not appear congruent nor permanently fixed.

Sexuality Is Complex

Focusing on the sexual practices of Black men on the down low is shortsighted, missing the complexity of sexuality and the great deal of sexual diversity in America.  Even for these men, such a narrow focus misses other important aspects of their lives and well-being, including poverty, prejudice and discrimination, limited access to quality health care, and so forth.

It is crucial for our understanding of sexuality and sexual health that we pay attention to other important dimensions, namely race and ethnicity, gender, and social class. In addition, we must consider how various social factors shape and constrain our sexualities.  This will help to move beyond a focus only on individuals’ actions while ignoring the limitations, constraints, and disadvantages they face.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : America, Biphobia, Black Communities, Black Men, Black People, Black Women, Class, Coming Out, Dating, Discrimination, Gay Men, Gender, Health, Health Disparities, Heterosexuality, Heterosexuals, HIV & AIDS, Homophobia, Intersectionality, Kinsey Confidential, LGBT Communities, LGBT Health, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Men, Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), Mental Health, Minorities, Oppression, People of Color, Poverty, Queer People of Color, Race, Racial Identity, Racism, Relationships, Research, Sex, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Health, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Prejudice, Sexuality, Society, Sociology, Stereotypes, Stigma, Transphobia, White People, Women, Women of Color

[kinsey] Who Are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Americans?

5 11 2012

LGBT Americans.

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

Over the past few years, we have been hearing new estimates of the number of adults in the United States who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.  It seems the number came down from the 10 percent figure from the work of Alfred Kinsey, to 8 percent with the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior, to 3.8 percent in a report from the Williams Institute (UCLA).  The latest estimate from a Gallup poll last month suggests that 3.4 percent of Americans identify as LGBT.

Only 3.4 Percent?!

The size of a minority group — in this case, LGBT people — is important for numerous political and social reasons.  So, it is understandable that some were initially panicked when the commonly-cited figure of “one-in-ten” seemed to drop to a low of 3-4 percent.

Why was there such a drop in estimates of the size of the LGBT population in the US?  The primary reason for what appears to be a drop is how we have counted LGBT people.  When Dr. Kinsey conducted his major studies in the 1940s-1950s on the sexual behaviors of women and men in America, he asked them about sexual encounters with individuals of their same gender.  In fact, when measured this way, even 2008 estimates come close to 10 percent of adults who have engaged in same-gender sexuality.  But, the majority of those adults identify as heterosexual — that is because, while they are related, sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and sexual identity are distinct aspects of our lives.

In addition, as Indiana University professor Brian Powell points out, these are estimates — 3.4 percent — of those who are “out,” or at least willing to tell a researcher that they are LGBT.

You may be thinking, “3.4 percent?  That’s pretty small no matter how you measure it!”  Generously rounding to 4 percent, that is the equivalent of one LGBT person in every twenty-five people.  At approximately ten million people of the 315 million people in the US, that places the size of the LGBT population between the state populations of Michigan (9.8 million) and Ohio (11.7 million).

Who Are LGBT People?

There has been a great deal of attention over the past decade on the relationships and families of LGBT people.  But, since researchers are just now beginning to collect national data on sexual identity, we know still do not know a great deal about who LGBT people are.  With recent research, including last month’s Gallup/Williams Institute poll, we can begin painting a picture of the sociodemographic and political profile of LGBT Americans:

  • Race:  There is notable racial and ethnic diversity among LGBT people, with 3.2 percent of white Americans identifying as LGBT, while over 4 percent of Black, Latina/o, and Asian American adults self-identify as LGBT.  As the report suggests, “Overall, a third of LGBT-identifiers are nonwhite (33 percent), compared with 27 percent of non-LGBT individuals.”
  • Gender:  There is a slightly larger percentage of women (3.6 percent) who identify as LGBT, compared to men (3.3 percent).
  • Age:  LGBT identification appears to be skewed toward younger populations, with slightly more than six percent of 18-29 year olds identifying as LGBT, compared 30-49 year olds (3.2 percent), 50-64 year olds (2.6 percent), and adults 65 and older (1.9 percent).
  • Socioeconomic Status:  Contrary to the stereotype of wealthy LGBT people (gay men, in particular), the greatest percentage of LGBT adults has completed only some college (but no degree), followed by having a high school diploma or less education.  Also, LGBT people are skewed toward lower levels of income ($60,000 or less, but especially under $24,000).
  • Relationship Status:  About 20 percent of LGBT people report that they are married, and 18 percent are either in a domestic partnership or living with a partner, while 48 percent are currently single.  This compares to 54 percent of heterosexuals who are married, and 23 percent who are single.
  • Parental Status: Equal percentages of heterosexual and LGBT women have children under the age of 18 (32 percent for each).  But, 16 percent of LGBT men have young children in the home compared to 31 percent of heterosexual men.  Interestingly, Latina/o, Black, and Asian American LGBT adults are more likely than white LGBT individuals to be parents.
  • Region: LGBT people make-up similar percentages of each region of the country, though the numbers are slightly higher for the East (3.7 percent) and West (3.6 percent) coasts, compared to the South (3.2 percent) and Midwest (3.4 percent).  Indeed, LGBT people and same-gender couples live in just about every part of the country.
  • Political Views: LGBT Americans are generally more liberal, and more likely to identify as (or at least with) the Democratic political party, than heterosexuals.  Also, the majority favor President Barack Obama over presidential contender Mitt Romney, while heterosexuals appear more evenly split between the candidates.

Beyond Sexual Identity

The biggest caveat for these results is that LGBT adults were examined as a singular group, so we do not know how these characteristics vary among lesbian women, bisexual women and men, and gay men.  And, more importantly, the unique profile and experiences of transgender people cannot be distinguished, either.

Also, while LGBT people differ somewhat from the general, predominantly-heterosexual (and cisgender) population, they are not a homogenous group.  There is a great deal of diversity within LGBT communities, namely in terms of race and ethnicity, gender identity and expression, social class, relationship and family structure, and so forth.  As such, it is important to think about the many identities and statuses individuals LGBT hold — not just sexual and gender identity.  For example, in pushing for greater visibility, support, and equality for LGBT families, it is crucial to acknowledge that LGBT people of color and LGBT women are more likely to have kids, and face the additional burdens of racial and gender inequality.  LGBT families are just as much an LGBT issue as they are about race, ethnicity, gender, class, immigration, etc.

As I concluded in my last post on the size of the LGBT population, we still need more research to capture the profile and experiences of LGBT people in the US and worldwide.  Indeed, sexual and gender identities are a core part of who we are as people — not just in the bedroom, or in our private lives, but also for our experiences in and view of the world!


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Age, Cisgender People, Civil Rights, Class, Coming Out, Community, Equality, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Heterosexuality, Heterosexuals, History, Inequality, Intersectionality, Invisibility, Kinsey Confidential, Latina/o People, LGBT Communities, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Minorities, People of Color, Queer People of Color, Race, Research, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Social Change, Society, Sociology, Transgender, Visibility

How To Derail The Push For Equal Rights: Talk About Sex!

4 11 2012

Man entering women’s restroom.

“We just plain don’t like ‘em!” would be a difficult argument to sell as grounds to oppose equal rights and protection under the law for a marginalized group — and, this especially true in this era of supposed “political correctness,” “color-blindness,” and “post-racial”ness.  As such, opponents of equality must find more palpable reasons to either prevent the enshrining of equality into law or to strip away existing civil rights laws.

A few anti-equality strategies have existed for what seems forever:

  • Spread prejudice like a contagious virus!  Essentially — in the example of race — convince the white majority that people of color are inferior, whether it be due to biology, education, or culture, thus deeming them worthy of unequal treatment.
  • Selectively cite passages from the Bible!  Whether you want to justify the continuance of enslaving an entire race of people, or oppose interracial marriage or same-gender marriage, or maintain arbitrary restrictions on when and who can have sex, simply flip through the Bible (note: other religious texts do not seem to carry the same weight) until you find a passage that can be interpreted to support the status quo.  Or, if you are really gutsy, you can just make something up, like blaming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people for natural disasters that affect everyone, including heterosexuals and cisgender people!
  • Pit marginalized groups against one another!  Want to really distract the majority from the problematic position of opposing equal rights?  One sure way to mix things up is to pretend to care about the well-being of a minority group, and suggest that granting more, “special” (i.e., undeserved) rights to one marginalized group threatens those of another.  A great example is the on-going effort to demonize Black Americans as a bigoted, uneducated mass that blindly follows religion in opposing the legalization of same-gender marriage.  Clearly, they are so behind the times, in this overwhelmingly LGBT-friendly nation!  This strategy is great because you can restrict the rights of one group while demonizing the other, or even convince the majority that the latter group has achieved full equality.

Scare Them With Sex

Hope is a great way to motivate and inspire a mass.  It worked for gay activist Harvey Milk, and it sure seemed to work to elect President Barack Obama.  Arguably, on the other side of the coin of hope is fear.  What better way is there to get people stirred up about something than to make them feel threatened.  And, if you really want to stall social progress, toss in some element of sex: promiscuity, teen pregnancies, sexual violence, pedophilia, pre- or extra-marital sex, sex work, etc.

Scholars who study how some matter related to sex is used as a fear tactic have called this “sex panic.”  That is, some sexual issue is argued to threaten the smooth functioning of society.  In many ways, the issue — say, comprehensive sexuality education in public schools — is intentionally shrouded by myths, stereotypes, biased or falsified research, and is often used to oppose or at least stall movement on a particular social or political issue.  Sometimes, the sexual issue is not even centrally related to the key issue being debated.  Here is a recent example:

Beware: Male Rapists Pretending To Be Transwomen!

Do you oppose the legal protection of transgender individuals from discrimination?  Hmm, well — one potential distraction is to draw on the cisgender majority’s fears of (cis)women helplessly being raped, and occasionally toss in some panic about pedophilia and threats to children’s sexual virtue.  Ongoing at Evergreen College:

“The decision to allow a transgender 45-year-old college student who identifies as a woman but has male genitalia to use the women’s locker room has raised a fracas among  parents and faith-based organizations, who say children as young as 6 years old use the locker room.”

This also has an element of pitting groups against one another.  Do we want to protect transpeople from discrimination, or do we want to protect (cis)women and children from sexual violence?

There are so many problems with this logic… where do I begin?  First, I will note that it is interesting that we go from protecting transpeople from discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and so forth, to concerns about the bathroom, nudity, and sex.  This stems from the real concerns that transpeople are frequently subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence — even in the bathroom!  Yet, ironically, the debates have flipped concern for the well-being of a marginalized group to concern for the protection of the privileged majority from the minority group.  The threatened has become a threat; the victim has become the victimizer.  This makes me think of one of my favorite lines from the 2007 remake of Hairspray:

Penny Pingleton, a young white girl (Amanda Bynes): I’m very pleased and scared to be here.

Motormouth Maybell, a middle-aged Black woman (Queen Latifah): Now, honey, we got more reason to be scared on your street.

Second, there is some effort to confuse the boundaries of who falls into the minority group, and who to the majority group.  Despite the challenges around accepting one’s (trans)gender identity, and to publicly acknowledging one’s identity, gender identity is talked about as an elective, easily moveable boundary.  So simple, a man could dress in feminine attire and freely use women’s facilities.  Somehow, transmen are erased from the conversation, and we reinforce the notion of males as natural rapist and females as natural victims.  And, transwomen continue to remain outside of the category of women; when we speak of concerns about women being raped in the bathroom, we only mean “real,” cisgender women.

Third, the rhetoric of rapists posing as women perpetuates the myth of the stranger lurking behind the bush, waiting to leap out and assault a helpless, unsuspecting victim.  Though most survivors of sexual violence know the perpetrator as romantic partners, relatives, friends, coworkers, etc., many carry an image of a mysterious, masked perpetrator, in this case, going to the lengths of dressing in feminine attire to prey on girls and women.

Fourth, bodies are conflated with sex, and sex is perpetually conflated with risk and danger.  In this case of the locker room at Evergreen College, complaints were made that girls saw a transwoman’s penis.  Okay?  And, I am sure they also see other women’s genitals, as well.  They have also seen women’s — cis and trans included — feet, hair, backs, arms, faces, and so on.  Clearly, genitals stand out as especially sexualized and provocative.  And, because we are talking about sex, we are worried about the harm it may cause — even outside of sexual violence.

Of course, sex panics are not limited to efforts to oppose equal rights and protections for transgender and genderqueer people.  The supposed concerns of gay men raping heterosexual men were often raised, or at least alluded to, from those who opposed repealing the US military’s ban on open LGBT servicepeople.  There is a long history of painting Black men as sexual predators who threaten the well-being and sexual virtue of white women — a viscous myth used to justify segregation, banning interracial marriage, and grounds to execute Black men through lynching based on lies or questionable evidence of a crime.  And, we continue to see myths shroud effective discussions about reproductive rights (especially abortion) and sexuality education in schools, namely by drawing forward concerns of sexual “irresponsibility” (i.e., promiscuity, unintended pregnancies, teen mothers).

Moving Forward: Education And Accountability

I will not attempt to provide a solution for ceasing the effective use of sex panics to derail equality.  But, there are some things that would be extremely helpful to move in that direction.  First, it is important that we take responsibility for educating ourselves.  This means taking the time to learn about the issue at hand in full.  In less than 24 hours, many voters around the country will be deciding whether to legalize same-gender marriage, bar public funding for abortion services, and eliminate Affirmative Action policies.

Rather than only hearing some of the overly-dramatic, often bigoted perspectives that call to deny marriage equality or rollback government initiatives to support women’s reproductive health and the equal opportunities for people of color, I would encourage taking a moment to find out what is really at stake.  Whether or not same-gender couples can get legally married has no bearing on the lives and relationships of heterosexual people — so, what will opposing it do?  Defunding Planned Parenthood would severely constrict its abortion services, but it also will constrain its resources and services for other aspects of sexual and reproductive health; further, only a small portion of PP’s budget goes to abortion services.  And, the sad reality is that doing away with abortion all together will not eliminate abortion — just access to safe, legal abortion services.  Affirmative Action — a policy that aims to redress the history of racist and sexist oppression in the US and promote equal opportunities — in its current, scaled down form, primarily serves to make hiring and admissions practices transparent and highlight the importance of taking into consideration a candidate’s background.  Doing away with the policy eliminates what little inequality-conscious practices exist in jobs and education.

I would also suggest that we must do a better job holding politicians, religious leaders, celebrities, and so forth accountable for the tactics they use to advocate certain causes.  It almost appears that little recourse exists, besides talk, for advancing lies, myths, stereotypes, and bigotry.  Though, for example, the Republican party may be slightly hurt in terms of votes and donations by their ongoing War on Women, many like Todd Akin continue on in their position.  It seems it is only when they are the subject of sex panics (i.e., sex scandals) that they are either forced out of their position or voluntarily step down from it.  Or, as many say, “no one died when Clinton lied,” referencing former President Bill Clinton’s extramarital affairs, leading to a Republican-led effort to impeach him from office.  Yet, his successor, George W. Bush, attempted to enshrine homophobic discrimination into the US Constitution, and failed to provide urgent aid following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita because of the large disadvantaged Black population in affected areas.  So long as we vote for and financially support leaders who lie and recycle tired stereotypes and myths, they stay in power.

Other than self-education and holding leaders accountable — Vote!  And, please keep these things in mind when you do.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Abortion, Activism, Affirmative Action, Black People, Bodies, Children, Cisgender People, Civil Rights, Criminal Justice, Discrimination, Divide & Conquer, Education, Elections, Equality, Gay Men, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, Hate Crimes, Heterosexuals, History, Human Rights, Inequality, Injustice, Interracial, Irony, Justice, LGBT People, Marginalized Groups, Marriage Equality, Men, Minorities, Moral Panics, Morality, Oppression, People of Color, Politics, Power, Prejudice, Progress, Queer, Race, Racism, Rape, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Sex, Sexism, Sexual Assault, Sexual Health, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Violence, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Movements, Society, Stereotypes, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, Violence, Voting, Women, Youth

The Importance Of Representation: Voice, Visibility, And Validation In America

24 09 2012

For one obvious reason, disadvantaged groups are often called “minorities” — the groups are smaller in size than another group.  In this sense, people of color (or racial and ethnic minorities) and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (or sexual minorities) are numerical minorities.  However, these groups, as well as women, are also minorities by virtue of having less power in society than their majority counterparts: whites, heterosexuals, and men.  Unfortunately, this latter point is often forgotten; look, for example, at the hope that racial equality will be realized once people of color outnumber whites in the US.  Indeed, the history of Apartheid in South Africa serves as evidence that a group’s minority status in terms of power is not the mere product of being a numerical minority.

Minority Status: The Roles Of Size And Power

The size of a minority group is an important component that plays a role in shaping the experiences of minority group members.  In particular, by virtue being a member of a smaller group, minority group members theoretically have a lower chance of seeing other minority group members across various contexts.  Whereas non-Hispanic whites make up two-thirds of the US population, white people have the greatest chance of any racial or ethnic group of seeing other white individuals at work, the grocery store, church, on the street, at the doctor’s office, and so forth.  In these terms, women and men have roughly the same chance of seeing other women and men, respectively.

However, the unequal allocation of power, resources, and opportunities also plays a role in shaping minority and majority group members’ experiences.  In terms of gender, despite slightly outnumbering men in the US, women are often underrepresented in many contexts.  Take as a very important example the US Congress: there are 76 congress women in the US House of Representatives (compared to 362 men), and 17 in the US Senate (compared to 83 men).  Do the math.  Women make up roughly 50 percent of the US population, yet only 17 percent of congresspeople are women!  Though 10 percent of congresspeople in the House are Black, not a single member of the US Senate is Black.  Indeed, other factors play roles in the outcomes of elections, including — I add emphatically — prejudice and discrimination.  But, it is safe to say that something other than a numbers game is at play when there is such a stark underrepresentation of women and people of color in one of the most important institutions in this country.

Representation: Why Group Composition Matters

There are a host of reasons why the extent to which a subgroup is represented matters.  Continuing with the example of the gender and racial and ethnic composition of the US Congress, it is important to note that the House and Senate, with their underrepresentation of women and people of color, is making important decisions that impact the lives of every person in the US.  So, two groups that consists primarily of white middle-class heterosexual men — many whom are only interested in the needs and desires of other white wealthy heterosexual men — are making decisions right at this moment on behalf of people of color, working-class and poor people, LGBT people, women, and other disadvantaged groups.  In fact, the leadership of every organization and institution in the US — most which are also dominated by white heterosexual middle-class men — is making decisions as I write this post that impacts the lives of every person of every race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and class-standing.  Indeed, the decisions these individuals are making has great influence in guaranteeing that the next generation of leaders will also be white middle-class heterosexual men.

So, in a big way, what a group produces is shaped by the composition of the group.  Since individuals can only truly speak from their own experiences, the contributions of women and people of color systematically excluded from important decision-making processes.  But, the composition of a group also shapes the interactions among the groups’ members.  For example, a recent study on the gender composition of small groups found that the presence of fewer women is associated with less contribution from women group members:

When voting by majority decision, women deferred speaking if outnumbered by men in a group.  However, when voting unanimously, the researchers found that women were much more vocal , suggesting that consensus building was empowering for outnumbered women. The researchers also found that groups arrived at different decisions when women did participate. These findings, however, are not simply limited to business settings.

In this case, when women are underrepresented in a group, especially where reaching a consensus is the primary goal of the group, they are less likely to contribute to group decision-making.  And, the group loses out on what could be a unique contribution and voice not offered by male group members.  Because so many important, powerful groups include few or no women, the contribution of women is systematically excluded in important decision-making.  I would say the most shameful of these exclusions is the absence of women in important conversations about women’s health (e.g., contraception for women!).

Unfortunately, it seems that the challenges that arise from being a member of a minority group are sometimes exacerbated when one is also in the numerical minority in a group.  I would suggest one factor that contributes to women’s underparticipation in groups that are dominated by men is the stress associated with being the token woman. Social scientists, including professors Cate Taylor , Pamela Braboy Jackson, and Peggy Thoits, in Sociology at Indiana University, have examined the stressfulness (and resultant problems for health) of being “the only X” or token in groups and organizations that are heavily white and/or male.  The uneasiness one may experience as the token woman, token Latino person, or token lesbian, can contain so many different concerns and feelings, ranging from the discomfort of always being evaluated as a woman, Latina, or lesbian, to the discomfort of feeling that one is perceived as speaking on behalf of their entire group, to feeling that one has to contribute the perspective of a member of one’s group.  I can think of many discussions where I have been overwhelmed by anxiety that stemmed from being the only person of color or queer person present or, more often, from feeling the urgent need to interject that the group has systematically overlooked the importance of race, sexuality, and/or gender.

Seeing Yourself

The importance of representation extends beyond small groups and decision-making processes.  The visibility of minorities in the media is an extremely important arena of representation, one that has been extensively studied and debated.  For example, each year the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) analyzes the representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in film and television each year.  The positive portrayal of women, people of color, immigrants, LGBT people, same-gender couples, interracial couples, working-class people, people with disabilities, fat people, and so on is crucial so that people are aware of diversity, but also appreciate and celebrate that diversity.

Specifically for the members of minority groups, seeing oneself reflected in the media is crucial, particularly in the face of prejudice, discrimination, and the constant barrage of invalidating comments and actions.  In fact, there was a recent study featured in the media this summer that finds evidence of a self-esteem boosting effect of television for white boys, but self-esteem damaging effects for white girls, black girls, and black boys.  One primary reason?  White boys see lots of white boys and men in the shows they watch.  And, not just that, but they regularly see these characters and actors in positive, powerful, and central roles.  This is less so the case for other kids.

Though less frequent for members of minority groups, to see a face or body that looks like your own is powerful in its effect to simply validate you as a worthy human being.  I can think of the range of emotions I saw or heard about in people of color, especially Black Americans, when President Barack Obama was elected in 2008.  Some had tears streaming down their faces simply because they were overwhelmed with joy, hope, and likely some sense of relief.  I am not ashamed to admit that I get this feeling in terms of race and ethnicity in the media, but also sexuality.  To not only see LGBT people on my television screen — again, I emphasize positive portrayals — but to see them loved by others, or in love, is sometimes emotionally overwhelming because these images are new to me.  I am disappointed, however, that I have to feel such joy just to see someone who looks like me — a joy whites, men, heterosexuals, and other privileged groups do not experience because their representation is the norm and, as a result, their presence is treated as the default.

Though things have changed, and are continuing to change, there is still much work to be done until we stop seeing systematic underrepresentation and hearing about “the First African-American X” or “the First Woman to Y.”


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Black People, Congress, Discrimination, Elections, Equality, Ethnicity, Gender, Government, Health, Inequality, Institutional Change, Justice, Latina/o People, LGBT People, Love, Marginalized Groups, Me, Media, Men, Mental Health, Minorities, People of Color, Politics, Power, Race, Relationships, Representation, Research, Sexism, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Social Change, Society, Sociology, Transgender, Voting, White People, Women

“And…?” Is This What White Upper-Class Heterosexual Male Privilege And Entitlement Looks Like?

17 03 2012

Source: Huffington Post

I have not written much about individuals’ sense of entitlement, though I have written quite a bit about privilege.  In my everyday observations, I constantly note that some individuals, typically of privileged backgrounds (e.g., whites, men, heterosexuals, middle-class people), operate in the world in a way that seems to suggest their sense of entitlement.  When something is denied to them or offered below their expectations, they are quick to complain and demand that the situation be rectified.

Here is an example.  While on a Caribbean cruise with my parents, we had to tough out a heavy storm for a day.  Due to the strong winds, the top two outdoor decks of the ship were closed to guests for safety reasons.  You could see deck chairs being lifted off of the ground somewhat, with staff who were frantically working to tie them down being pushed in the wind.  In my curiosity, I watched from a safe place behind sliding doors.  A woman with a child walked up to the chained off staircase leading to the closed-off top floor.   Looking at the chain and the “closed for safety reasons” sign, she shouted to a crew member “Why is this closed off? We want to go up here.”

Maybe this is an extreme example, but I could offer many that are more mundane, yet that still suggest this difference: those who are privileged may have a strong sense of entitlement as a result of their privileged status; those who are marginalized, due to histories of oppression, discrimination, and violence, may not, and may actually accept denial and mediocre treatment for fear of retaliation if they question things.  What is worse than this latter point is due to the regularity of differential treatment, members of marginalized groups (e.g., people of color, women, LGBT individuals, working-class people) may not even be aware of additional opportunities or better treatment.

An Example From The Media

A Coke Zero commercial that has been airing over the last few months, in my mind, is a great demonstration of this sense of entitlement.  From a young age, the young white male who is the focus of the commercial asks “and…?” after he has received service or a gift.  At the start, his mother orders a plain vanilla ice cream cone for him.  Upon receipt, rather than saying, “thank you,” he asks, “and…?” beginning a life where he expects something more.  And, in each of such encounters, the service person obliges with something more.  A clothing store clerk even obliges with, “and I get off at four,” implying her interest to have sex with him after she is finished with her.  Apparently, the only thing that satisfies his infinite sense of entitlement is a tasty, yet zero-calorie soda.  See the commercial below:

Prove It

Hmm, how do you prove that privileged individuals feel a sense of entitlement by virtue of their privileged status?  That, because they expect high quality service and full access to opportunities, they are more likely to complain or demand change if they do not get their way?  And, alternatively, that marginalized individuals do not share this strong sense of entitlement and, consequently, select out of demanding more?

Let us think about the consequences of marginalized individuals behaving in entitled ways.  Let’s say a woman points out that her coworkers are not cooperating and making her work more difficult, or that her food at a restaurant is cooler than it should be.  She may find her complaints dismissed.  Further, she might be called a “bitch,” “dyke,” or some other term that is used to criticize a woman for stepping outside of the bounds of traditional femininity.  That is, she would be sanctioned for behaving in ways deemed appropriate for men and inappropriate for women.  Think the scene from Waiting, in which the entire server staff takes the time to do disgusting things to a customer’s food upon her demand for better quality food (be warned, it’s gross!):

Other marginalized individuals, including people of color, run the risk of being called “uppity” for stepping beyond the boundaries considered appropriate for people of color.  We could even look broader at the increasing sentiment that discrimination is a thing of the past, and that minorities are pushing too far for “special rights” — a sentiment included in what scholars have defined as modern racism, modern sexism, and modern homophobia.  That is, at the group level, privileged groups (i.e., whites, men, and heterosexuals) believe that marginalized groups, including people of color, women, and LGBT individuals, are demanding too much.

Some among the most conservative privileged individuals believe that legal initiatives to level the playing field, namely Affirmative Action, actually discriminate against them (i.e., white men).  However, as some scholars have pointed out, what these policies do is minimize the privileges unfairly afford to whites and men because of their race and gender; so, those who are accustomed to a history of privilege likely feel harmed by these policies because their unfair advantage is now limited.

Now What?

Should we make changes to this difference?  And, if so, how?  To be clear, I would argue that making marginalized groups feel more comfortable to challenge unfair or unequal treatment would likely only make a tiny change in the larger disparities we see.  Thus, our attention must attend to the very systems that create this sense of entitlement or lack thereof in the first place.  For, these same systems create the barriers to fighting against inequality and discrimination in the first place: being dismissed, told one is being too sensitive or “playing the race/gender/sexuality card,” retaliation for reporting discrimination or inferior service, etc.  Yet, even the most liberal minded privileged individuals struggle to make changes as well because, in large part, their privileges are invisible to themselves.  Peggy McIntosh‘s writings about privilege as an “invisible knapsack” does a great job of highlighting this problem:

After I realized the extent to which men work from a base of unacknowledged privilege, I understood that much of their oppressiveness was unconscious. Then I remembered the frequent charges from women of color that white women whom they encounter are oppressive. I began to understand why we are justly seen as oppressive, even when we don’t see ourselves that way. I began to count the ways in which I enjoy unearned skin privilege and have been conditioned into oblivion about its existence.

My schooling gave me no training in seeing myself as an oppressor, as an unfairly advantaged person, or as a participant in a damaged culture. I was taught to see myself as an individual whose moral state depended on her individual moral will. My schooling followed the pattern my colleague Elizabeth Minnich has pointed out: whites are taught to think of their lives as morally neutral, normative, and average, and also ideal, so that when we work to benefit others, this is seen as work that will allow them to be more like us.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Class, Commercials, Discrimination, Entitlement, Gender, Media, Men, People of Color, Privilege, Race, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Social Norms, Unfair Treatment, White People

Let’s Make Men’s Bodies Political Battlegrounds, Too

31 01 2012

Virginia aims to become yet another state that will require women seeking abortion services to view an ultrasound before undergoing an abortion.  Lawmakers in the state will decide this week whether it, like states like Texas, wishes to further make women’s bodies sites for political battles.  One senator, Janet Howell (D-Fairfax), has caught some media attention in her proposal to make men’s bodies political battlegrounds, as well:

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

“We need some gender equity here,” she told HuffPost. “The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we’re going to do that to women, why not do that to men?”

Though proponents of this bill claim that it gives women the ability to make “informed” consent in seeking abortion services, its opponents note:

[T]he bill compels physicians to perform an unnecessary and costly medical procedure and is a thinly-veiled attempt to shame and intimidate women from having an abortion.

Unfortunately, the mandatory ultrasound bill passed in a voice vote yesterday, and the senate will formally vote at some point today.  Sen. Howell’s bill was not passed, however.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Abortion, Difference, Equality, Gender, Health, Men, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Sexism, The Body, Women

Courtney Martin On Today’s Feminist And Social Justice Movements

29 01 2012

Courtney Martin on TEDWomen Talk

I just came across an amazing TEDWomen talk from 2010 — that of Courtney Martin on reinventing feminism.  Martin was (until last year) a co-editor of the popular feminist blog, feministing.com.  You can see the full video here:

In it, she discusses some of the shifts have occurred in feminism.  These changes largely include the expansion of feminism to take on a global focus, and to acknowledge the intersections among various systems of oppression (e.g., racism, sexism, classism).  She also talks about her personal journey, beginning with the upbringing that planted the seeds for her feminist ideology and commitment to social justice today, to bumps along the road to making a difference in the world.  She points out, importantly, that working for change requires patience with slow change, setbacks, and failures.  And, from those failures, she notes, sometimes comes triumphs.  At a self-described dark moment, feeling that her work was in vain, she said she was forced to “write the book [she] needed to read.”  Indeed, as her experience, and those of many other activists and advocates, reveals, being an agent of change requires many moments of uncertainty, doubt, resistance, patience, and creativity.  It is quite difficult, after all, to challenge large systems of injustice, corruption, and inequality that have persisted for centuries.  But, we can at least stand on the shoulders of giants to build upon their successes and learn from their failures.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Activism, Civil Rights, Equality, Feminism, Gender, Human Rights, Intersectionality, Media, Men, Progress, Social Change, Social Movements, Society, Teaching, Women

Men Can Be Raped

25 01 2012

Yes, men can be raped.  For the first time since 1927, the US federal definition of rape was changed to include sexual violence against men, as well.  The previous definition was narrowly defined to cover sexual violence against women only:

The old definition, in effect since 1927, said that “forcible rape” was “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” It covered only forcible penile penetration of a vagina. The new definition is “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

This is a late, but much needed change to account for the reality that men are raped.  The New York Times featured an article two days ago on men as survivors of sexual violence.  They include some troubling statistics, many which challenge the stereotypes and myths about sexual violence.

While most experts agree women are raped far more often than men, 1.4 percent of men in a recent national survey said they had been raped at some point. The study, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that when rape was defined as oral or anal penetration, one in 71 men said they had been raped or had been the target of attempted rape, usually by a man they knew. (The study did not include men in prison.)

And one in 21 said they had been forced to penetrate an acquaintance or a partner, usually a woman; had been the victim of an attempt to force penetration; or had been made to receive oral sex.

Other estimates have run even higher. A Department of Justice report found that 3 percent of men, or one in 33, had been raped. Some experts believe that one in six men have experienced unwanted sexual contact of some kind as minors.

And, other research points to the role of certain social institutions, and how sexual violence intersects with race and ethnicity, poverty, age, and health status:

In one study of 3,337 military veterans applying for disability benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder, 6.5 percent of male combat veterans and 16.5 percent of noncombat veterans reported either in-service or post-service sexual assault. (The rates were far higher for female veterans, 69.0 percent and 86.6 percent respectively.)

A Pentagon report released on Thursday found a 64 percent increase in sexual crimes in the Army since 2006, with rape, sexual assault and forcible sodomy the most frequent violent sex crimes committed last year; 95 percent of all victims were women.

Some studies have reported that the risk of rape is greatest for men who are young, are living in poverty or homeless, or are disabled or mentally ill. The C.D.C. study found that one-quarter of men who had been raped were assaulted before they were 10 , usually by someone they knew.

Like sexual violence against women, such violence is vastly underreported and usually does not lead to arrest and criminal punishment.  Sexual violence, as an expression of power over another person, is, at least partially, a manifestation of other systems of power, including racism, homophobia, ableism, ageism, and classism.  And, some institutions (e.g., colleges, military, churches) are structured in ways that can promote, condone, or make invisible sexual violence.  Unfortunately, however, the gendering of sexual violence shapes men’s exposure to, experience with, and willingness to report sexual violence in ways that leave them doubting or questioning their gender identity, sexual orientation, and strength:

But men also face a challenge to their sense of masculinity. Many feel they should have done more to fight off their attackers. Since they may believe that men are never raped, they may feel isolated and reluctant to confide in anyone. Male rape victims may become confused about their sexual orientation or, if gay and raped by a man, blame their sexual orientation for the rape.

The change in the legal definition of rape is a good start.  But, we have a long way to go to challenge our narrow, problematic understanding of sexual violence, rife with myths, stereotypes, victim-blaming, and narrow focus on individuals rather than the role of communities, society, culture, and social institutions.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : Men, Oppression, Power, Rape, Sexual Assault, Sexual Health, Sexual Violence, Social Norms, Society, Stereotypes

Gender Equality … Sort Of

18 12 2011

I cringe when I hear the suggestion that gender equality has been achieved, or that we are now living in a post-gender society, or something of the sort that suggests that women now occupy an equal status to men.  But, I do acknowledge that major gains have been achieved for women, inching further away from an exclusively subordinate status and, sometimes, closer to an equal status to that of men.  (I do not, however, buy arguments that men are now a disadvantaged, subordinated group, even if women numerically outnumber men in some contexts, like college.)

Gender Equality For Which Women?

If we learn only one thing from Black and multicultural feminism, third world feminism, lesbian feminism, working-class feminism, and other strands of feminism that challenge the narrow perspective and actions of mainstream (white, heterosexual, Western, middle-class) feminism, it is that the category of “woman” does not consist of one universal set of experiences, needs, and interests.  Acknowledging this point, I regularly correct people who suggest that women began entering the labor force in the 1960s and 1970s.  Rather, white heterosexual middle-class women in the West were beginning to enter the labor force upon the weakening of the societal norm that a woman’s place is in the home.  Women of various disadvantaged backgrounds would have experienced the freedom to stay home as a luxury, for they were/are forced, either due to enslavement in our ugly historical past or poverty in our ugly contemporary present, to work to support themselves and their families.

As such, it is crucial that we attend to whether all women have achieved equal status in society, or at least inched closer to it.  In many ways, gains toward gender equality are realized for the relatively privileged class of women but not others; worse, sometimes those gains are experienced at the expense of disadvantaged classes of women.  (Who do you think is taking on housekeeping and childcare responsibilities while white middle-class women are off working full-time jobs when they aren’t doing it themselves?)

Equality For Two

By virtue of their gender identity and expression, transgender and gender non-conforming people are not treated as equals in our society.  Rather, transphobic people, groups, and institutions attack, exclude, and belittle transpeople in ways that suggest more than a subordinate status — their humanness itself is challenged.  This is seen in the resistance to acknowledging individuals who occupy spaces outside of the female-male/woman-man sex/gender binaries, resisting individuals’ right to define their own gender identity and expression, and, in more subtle ways, like referring to transpeople as “it,” as if they are inanimate objects.

Liberating Gendered People, But Not Gender

Yes, gains have been made for women and, to a lesser extent, transgender and gender non-conforming people.  But, what we usually miss in our assessment of the presence or absence of gender equality (besides thinking of equality/inequality in binary terms) is whether all components of gender have moved toward equality.  There are a number of dimensions of gender: gendered people, sexed people, gender identity, gender expression, among others that I likely have missed here.  We typically focus on the full and equal inclusion of gendered people.  For example, we attend to whether equal access exists for women and men in education and the labor market, and whether household labor is equally divided between female and male partners in heterosexual couples.  (Again, note that transpeople are regularly excluded from these assessments, seen instead as a special case or even a matter of sexuality rather than gender.)  Now that we think about gender instead of sex, we seem to fail ask about the inclusion and treatment of particular sexed people.  One need only to look at the treatment of intersexed people to see evidence of this reality.

Finally, what I find most ironic about traditional assessments of gender equality is that we fail to ask about individuals’ freedom of gender expression.  To be frank, it appears that women are increasingly welcomed in traditionally male-dominated spaces if they become men — not to literally transition their sex to become males and gender to become men, but to become masculine.  Women are freer today to express themselves in masculine ways (e.g., wearing suits, jeans); however, men are not substantially freer today to express themselves in feminine ways.  In fact, femininity is devalued, even at times when women themselves are not.  The policing of gender is sometimes seen in the most surprising places: the “no femmes” and cultural femmephobia seen in gay male spaces, women criticizing other women for being too feminine or “girly” especially in male-dominated space, men snapping at other men to “man up,” and so forth.  Further, society still expects gender conformity.  This means for women, in particular, the double bind of needing to behave like men to get ahead in life, but the expectation to be women at the end of the day to avoid any challenges to their woman-ness and sexual orientation.

What’s My Point?

My overarching point is that we must acknowledge the complexity of gender equality and gender inequality to comprehensively assess whether they are reflected in society today.  This means fully understanding the complexity of gender itself: there is no universal category of “woman,” nor are humans limited to the two gender categories of women and men.  We must acknowledge the experiences, needs, and interests of transgender and gender non-conforming people, as well as women of various racial, ethnic, class, sexuality, nationality, ability, and religious backgrounds to begin to assess equity.  We must also acknowledge that there is no universal category of “man,” a point that reflects that men of disadvantaged backgrounds do not fully enjoy the privileged status as men.  Finally, we cannot miss the absence of full liberty to express one’s gender freely without risk of harm or consequence.  For to see women and transpeople equally valued while femininity and gender non-conformity are devalued is only halfway to equality.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : Academia, Activism, Bodies, Civil Rights, College, Feminism, Gender, Gender Identity & Expression, Gender Non-Conformity, Genderqueer, Inequality, Intersectionality, Intersexed, LGBT People, Progress, Queer, Sexism, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexuality, Social Change, Social Norms, Society, The Body, Transgender, Transphobia, Women

[kinsey] Bottoms, Tops, Versatiles! Gay and Bi Men’s Positional Identities

17 05 2011

This was originally posted at Kinsey Confidential.

We talk a lot about identity here at Kinsey Confidential, especially the labels people take on to describe their sexual orientation and gender expression.  There is also another set of sexual identities — those self-labels people take on to describe their interest in and desire for particular sexual behaviors.

Gay And Bisexual Men’s Positional Identities

In recent years, the labels gay and bisexual men use to describe their preferred position during anal sex has gained quite a bit of attention by researchers and in the media.  Some researchers, including sociologist Trevor Hoppe, refer to these as positional identities.  There are three of such labels.

  • Bottoms are men who prefer to be the partner whom is penetrated (the “insertee”) during anal sex.
  • Tops are men who prefer to penetrate their partners during anal sex (the “inserter”).
  • And, there’s another group of men, versatiles (or “vers”) who either prefer both or do not have a preference.

However, it is important to note that some gay and bisexual men do not engage in anal sex, and that there are numerous other sexual activities besides anal sex.

Is It More Than Just Sex?

Unlike the sexual roles used by individuals who participate in BDSM (bondage, domination, and sadomasochism), gay and bisexual men’s versatile, bottom, and top positional identities do not necessarily translate into being more or less dominant or submissive.  However, some initial research that has attempted to assess how many vers, bottom, and top men there are, where they are, and what determines these positional identities, has hinted that there may be something more about these labels than sexual tastes.

A new study by David Moskowitz and Trevor Hart examined whether men’s physical body traits differ among tops, versatiles, and bottoms.  Using a sample of 400 men who posted personal ads (seeking a sexual partner) on Craigslist.com, they found that tops’ and bottoms’ labels correspond with their actual usual sex role during anal sex; however, only half of the versatile men reported behavior that corresponded with their vers positional identity.  Although these three groups of men did not differ in reported hariness, weight, and height, tops reported being more masculine and having larger penises than bottoms — versatile men fell somewhere between the two.  Other researchers have found that tops may be less likely to identify as gay or bisexual, and more likely to also have sexual relationships with women.

The Beauty Of Gay Sex, Right?

When sex advice columnist Dan Savage spoke at Indiana University for Sexploration in 2009, he joked that the sex lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer people have is a lot freer than the sex heterosexuals have because there is little emphasis on predetermined sex roles and behaviors.  This is true, in part, because gender cannot be used to decide sex roles if both partners are the same gender.

However, some have noted that there is stigma attached to the bottom role among bisexual and gay men, leading some who prefer to bottom to identify as tops or versatiles.  Some scholars and advocates have noted that this stigma is the result of stereotyping bottoms as submissive and feminine.  This is similar to the activo (top)-passivo (bottom) dichotomy found in parts of Latin America, where activo men are not considered gay, rather they are “real” men.  However, besides self-reports, there is no evidence that suggests that bottom, versatile, and top men differ in terms of masculinity and femininity.


Comments : Comments Off
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Bodies, Gender, Kinsey Confidential, LGBT People, Men, Men who have Sex with Men (MSM), Sex, Sexual Identity, Sexual Orientation, Sexual Pleasure, Sexuality, The Body

« Previous Entries Next Entries »