Sociology 459, Section 2
Sociology of Gender
Spring 2007
Section 2: 10:00-10:50am MWF
216 HAURY
Section 3: 2:00-2:50pm MWF
208 BIO W
Instructor:
Office:
Office Hours:
Email:
Phone:
Monika Ulrich, M.A.
Social Sciences 436
Monday and Wednesday, 11am-1pm and by appointment
mjulrich@u.arizona.edu
(520) 621-5765
Course Objectives and Goals
Where does gender come from? How does gender impact institutions like education,
employment, and religion? How does gender intersect with race, class, and sexuality to
form our identities? In this class we will address the complexities of gender. We will
read difficult material, but we will discuss this material in class extensively to help all
students master the reading. We will address three major areas of gender studies:
1. Gender theories. We will learn how to think abstractly about complicated
concepts.
2. The Body and Sexuality. We will learn how gender impacts the body and
sexuality.
3. Education and Employment. We will learn how and why men and women differ
in terms of education and employment outcomes.
This is an advanced, upper division course. The additional goals of this course are to:
1. Improve your critical thinking abilities. Specifically, we will improve your ability
to understand abstract concepts, synthesize complex information, and critique
arguments.
2. Prepare you for graduate school or a career that requires the ability to grasp
sophisticated concepts.
3. Sharpen your ability to write persuasive and coherent arguments.
4. Learn how to read and understand dense, academic writing.
5. Learn how to facilitate a small group discussion.
Course Materials
1
Reading materials from this course will be available in the course packet available at the
University bookstore. All readings are required. Additional readings and the in-class
power point presentations will be available on the course D2L website.
Course Requirements (Grades and Assignments)
There are 400 possible points in this class.
50
50
50
50
50
25
25
100
Paper #1
Paper #2
Paper #3
In class quizzes (5 X 10 quizzes)
Discussion question submission (5 X 10 submissions)
Small Group Facilitation
Small Group Participation
Final Exam
Course Grades
A=360-400 points
B=320-359 points
C=280-319 points
D=240-279 points
E=0-239 points
Assignments
All class assignments must be submitted through D2L. This allows me to quickly read,
comment on, and grade assignments. Unless otherwise specified, the deadline for
assignments is 5pm on the due date.
You will submit three short (1-2 page) papers throughout the course. These papers will
require you to synthesize and critique an academic article.
The final exam will consist of one essay question: you will be required to analyze and
critique an academic article. This will require you to understand how the article fits into
the literature, what theory the article uses, logical errors in the article, the author's bias,
the validity of the conclusions, and alternative explanations for the author's findings.
Regular attendance is expected in this class. There will be at least thirteen in class
assignments or quizzes offered on random days throughout the course. Each in-class
assignment will be worth five points. The ten highest writing assignments will count
toward your final grade. Because you can miss three class assignments without it
impacting your grade, I do not excuse any absences. This provides you the privacy to
miss up to three classes without needing to explain your absence to the instructor.
However, if you miss class, you are responsible for speaking with a classmate to get
2
caught up on what you missed. I do not offer personal review sessions during office
hours to cover material that you missed because you did not attend class. I strongly urge
you to exchange contact information with a fellow student early in the class. In class
discussion and lecture is essential to success in this class.
Friday Class Small Group Discussion
While we will have discussions throughout the semester, each Friday class will entirely
consist of student led discussions in organized small groups of about 10-15 people each.
Every week, students will submit discussion questions on D2L before 9am on
Wednesday. Each student is responsible to submit ten discussion questions throughout
the semester. You may not submit more than one question per week. During class on
Friday, students will work in small groups to discuss these discussion questions.
Students will take turns leading the group discussions, so that every student has an
opportunity to lead. Group leaders will be responsible for organizing the discussion
questions in a logical way, facilitating discussion, managing conflict, keeping the group
focused on the material, and keeping track of time. We will spend time the first week of
class talking about how to facilitate group discussion.
At two different times during the semester, each student will rate all small group
members on the basis of the quality of their contribution to the discussion.
Course Policies
Instructor Availability
I want you to succeed in this class. I invite you to meet with me to discuss your progress
in this class. I am particularly eager to meet with you to discuss ideas for future research
and criticism of the literature that you are reading. I am happy to talk with you about
career options, graduate school, study skills, and success as a college student. I am
always open to talking with students about how to improve the course and what I can do
as an instructor to help you learn. While I am happy to speak with you about why you
received the grade that you did on an assignment or how to improve your written work, I
frown on efforts to try to persuade me to give you a higher grade on a previous
assignment simply because you want one. By your Senior year, you should be focused
on learning more than grades.
Policy on Late Work
To be fair to all students, I will not consider personal illness, hardship, financial interests,
or personal emergency in the grading process, although these situations may justify extra
time for an assignment. By university policy, I cannot change a final course grade after
the end of the term unless I made a mathematical error in calculating it. Except in cases
of serious illness or emergencies, students must submit the papers and take exams on the
scheduled dates. Documentation (a Doctor’s note, an obituary notice) will be required
for any exceptions.
3
Tolerance
While all respectful comments are tolerated, comments that intentionally degrade any
race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or family form are not acceptable. Violations will
result in dismissal from the class and/or University sanctions. We will read and discuss
material that uses explicit sexual language. Maturity is expected as we read, view, or
discuss these materials.
Course Outline
Week 1:
Introduction, Basic Concepts and Study Skills
January 10-12
We will focus this week on basic study skills, including how to facilitate a discussion,
how to use the online website, and academic v. non-academic sources. We will also talk
about logical fallacies.
No Class January 15 Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Unit 1:
Gender Theories
Week 2:
What is Gender? What is Sex?
January 17-19
Early social theorists, including Unger, argued that there is a difference between sex (the
biological nature of male and female) and gender (the social distinction between men and
women). This distinction has now been widely adopted in the sciences and popular
media. Later on, postmodern researchers (including Grosz, Fausto-Sterling, and Gatens)
began to argue that sex and gender are actually interconnected and indistinguishable.
Concepts:
Sex, Gender, Mobius Strip
Unger, Rhoda. 1979. Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender. American Psychologist,
34. 1085-1094.
Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile Bodies. Indiana: Indiana University Press: vii-xvi.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of
Sexuality. Basic Books. 20-29.
Walsh, Mary and Moira Gatens. 2004. “Twenty years since 'A Critique of the
Sex/Gender Distinction': A Conversation with Moira Gatens.” Australian Feminist
Studies. 19. July. 213-224.
Week 3:
Are Men and Women Different or are They the Same?
4
January 22-26
There are three major branches of feminism: Cultural Feminism, Liberal Feminism, and
Radical Feminism. Cultural feminism, also name as “difference feminism” and
represented here by Gilligan, believes that men and women are different, and that
women's unique abilities and skills should be recognized. Liberal feminism, also known
as “sameness feminism” believes that men and women are currently treated differently in
society but should be treated the same. Changes should happen by legislation, such as
the Equal Rights Amendment. Tong gives an overview of Liberal feminism. Radical
feminism, also known as “dominance feminism” and represented here by MacKinnon,
believes that women have been actively oppressed by men in society and that society as
we know it must be radically altered in order to allow gender equality.
Concepts:
Cultural feminism, Liberal Feminism, Radical feminism
Gilligan, Carol. 1982 [1993]. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's
Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chapter 2.
Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction.
Westview Press. 1989: 26-44.
MacKinnon, Catherine. A. 1987. Feminism Unmodified. “Difference and Dominance:
On Sex Discrimination.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 32-45.
Week 4:
Where do Gender Differences Come From?
January 29-February 2
There are many different approaches to try to explain where gender differences come
from. The readings in this section represent four of these approaches. Chodorow argues
that socialization reproduces gender, specifically mothering. Engels argues that
capitalism creates and reproduces gender. Rubin argues that gender differences predated
capitalism and stemmed from the exchange of women in early society. West and
Zimmerman argue that gender is a verb (“doing gender”).
Concepts:
Socialization, Economic, Exchange, and Doing Gender
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering. Berkeley: University of
California Press. 199-210.
Engels, Freidrich. 1978 [1884]. “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd edition. New York: W.W. Norton. 651-659.
Rubin, Gayle. 1975. “The Traffic in Women.” Toward an Anthropology of Women by
Rayna Reiter (ed.) New Haven: Yale University Press. 157-210. [D2L]
5
West, Candace and Don Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society, 125151.
Week 5:
How Should We Study Gender?
February 5-9
The small group discussion this week will take place on Wednesday, February 7
There are many challenges in studying gender. DeVault gives an overview of feminist
methodology and discusses the ways that feminist methodology has been integrated in
sociological research. Gorelick argues that we must do research beyond “giving voice”
to oppressed groups. In contrast, Alway argues that sociologists have historically ignored
the contributions of feminist methodology, one of which is the idea of “giving voice”.
Together, these readings explore the tension between feminist methodology and
sociology.
Concepts: Feminist Methodology, Giving Voice, Standpoint-Based Methodology
DeVault, Marjorie. 1996. “Talking Back to Sociology: Distinctive Contributions of
Feminist Methodology.” Annual Review of Sociology. 22: 29-50.
Gorelick, Sherry. 1991. “Contradictions of Feminist Methodology.” Gender and Society.
5: 459-477.
Alway, Joan. 1995. “The Trouble with Gender: Tales of the Still-Missing Revolution in
Sociological Theory.” Sociological Theory. 13 (3): 209-228.
No Class February 9
February 9 Paper #1 due
Week 6:
What is the Best Way to Understand Gender as it Overlaps with
Race?
February 12-16
Race matters. Early feminists, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, claimed to speak for all
women. However, a careful examination of their writings demonstrates that they are
really speaking for White, middle-class, native-born women. In response to this Whitefocus of this movement, a small number of Black women such as Sojourner Truth spoke
about how the White feminist movement did not reflect their life experiences. These
early writings were essential to later developments in racial theory. In 1989, Crenshaw
coined the term “intersectionality” in a small legal journal out of Chicago.
Intersectionality means that race, class, and gender, as well as other orientations like
sexual orientation, constantly interact. One cannot speak about “women” without an
awareness of race and class. Since Crenshaw's writing, intersectionality has become one
of the dominant feminist theories today. Collins is critical of intersectionality. Collins
proposes an alternative theory called Standpoint theory. Collins argues that
Intersectionality theory cannot adequately explained shared group experiences (206-207).
6
This is a very subtle argument and I encourage you to carefully compare intersectionality
theory and standpoint theory.
Concepts:
Intersectionality, Standpoint Theory, Black Feminism
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. 1994 [1890]. “Womanliness.” in Feminism: The Essential
Historical Writings, second edition. Miriam Schneir (Ed.). New York: Vintage. 155-156.
Truth, Sojourner. 1972 [1851]. “Ain't I a Woman.” in Feminism: The Essential Historical
Writings. Miriam Schneir (Ed.). New York: Vintage. 20.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black
Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist
Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum: 139-169.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1998. Fighting Words: Black Women and the Search for Justice.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 201-228.
Unit 2:
The Body and Sexuality
Week 7:
Is Female Sexuality a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?
February 19-23
Feminists have long struggled with sexuality. Some feminists, like Rubin, are sexpositive. She believes that women are sexual beings and should celebrate their sexuality.
Other feminists, like MacKinnon and Dworkin, are more critical of sexuality. Dworkin is
even sometimes (falsely) quoted as saying “all sex is rape.” Adrienne Rich's work
reflects “Lesbian Feminism,” a brand of feminism which claims that only lesbian sex is
truly feminist. Chancer sums up what we have learned from these “sex wars” and calls
for significant changes in how feminists deal with sexuality.
Concepts: Sexuality, Sex Wars,Compulsory Heterosexuality, Lesbian Feminism
Rubin, Gayle. 1992. "Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of
Sexuality." in Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Ed. Carol Vance.
Pandora: London.
Dworkin, Andrea. 1997 [1987]. Intercourse: 10th anniversary edition. New York: Free
Press. Chapter 7.
Rich, Adrienne. 1980. “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 5(4): 631-660.
Chancer, Lynn. 2000. “From Pornography to Sadomasochism: Reconciling Feminist
Differences.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
571(1): 77-88.
7
Week 8:
Where does Sexual Orientation Come From?
February 26-March 2
The small group discussion this week will be on Wednesday, February 28
Sociologists debate where sexual orientation come from. D'Emilio argues that sexual
orientation comes from capitalism because capitalism allowed young adults to live in
cities where they were able to meet other same-sex attracted people. Foucault also
believes that sexual orientation emerges from capitalism but for very different reasons.
According to Foucault, capitalism coincided with the glorification of science, which
created categories for sex, including the categories of sexual orientation. Bem has a
creative theory that explains why children become either heterosexual or homosexual.
You should also think back to last week's reading on Rich. Rich has a unique
understanding of lesbianism as an eternal and fundamental part of being a woman.
Concepts: Sexual orientation, capitalism
D'Emilio, John. 1983. “Capitalism and Gay Identity.” The Lesbian and Gay Studies
Reader. Henry Abelove, Michele Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin (Eds.). New York:
Routledge. Pp. 467-476. [D2L]
Foucault, Michael. 1990. The History of Sexuality, vol. 1. New York: Vintage Books. 114.
Bem, Daryl J. 1996. “Exotic Becomes Erotic: A Developmental Theory of Sexual
Orientation.” Psychological Review, 103 (2): 320-335.
No Class March 2
March 2 Paper #2 due
March 2 Small Group Discussion Evaluation #1 due (D2L)
Week 9:
a Child?
March 5-9
Should Women Have Reproductive Freedom to Have or to Not Have
Feminists in this section focus on two very different ideas. First, much of the debate on
reproductive freedom is focused on abortion. Luker (1984) does an excellent study of
both pro-choice and pro-life women. Second, other researchers have focused on women's
freedom to reproduce even when they face social pressure to not do so. Roberts focuses
on how society has limited Black women's freedom to reproduce through involuntary
sterilization and birth control. Luker talks about how society has limited the right of
young, welfare-dependent women to reproduce. Briggs discusses how international
adoption exploits birth mothers.
Concepts: Reproductive Freedom, Abortion
8
Luker, Kristin. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press. 192-215.
Roberts, Dorothy. 1997. Killing the Black Body. New York: Vintage Books. 104-149.
Luker, Kristin. 1991. “Dubious Conceptions: The Controversy Over Teenage
Pregnancy.” The American Prospect 5: 73-83. [D2L]
Briggs, Laura. 2006. "Making American Families: Transnational Adoption and
U.S. Latin America Policy" in Ann Laura Stoler, Ed. Haunted by Empire. Duke.
606-642.
No Class March 10-17: Spring Break
Unit 3:
Education, Employment, and Social Class
Week 10:
Are Boys Disadvantaged in our Educational System?
March 19-23
While there are several debates in education and gender that we could focus on, we're
going to focus on the very current debate on boys in education. Kindlon and Thompson
portray an increasingly common finding today: boys are doing poorly in education.
Michael Kimmel responds to this debate by explaining that masculinity, not boyhood, is
to blame for these poor outcomes and that both boys and girls will both benefit from
educational reforms. Gurian agrees with Kindlon and Thompson about boys experiences
in schools and argues that single-sex schools will benefit boys. Tsolidis responds to
Gurian by drawing our attention to how the intersection of class and gender will lead to
privileging upper-class boys if single-sex schools became available.
Concepts: Masculinity, Single-Sex Schools
Kindlon, Michael and Dan Thompson. 1999. Raising Cain: Protecting the Emotional
Life of Boys. New York: Ballantine.
Kimmel, Michael. 2006 [1999]. “'What about the Boys?' What the Current Debates Tell
Us—and Don't Tell us—About Boys in School.” in Reconstructing Gender: A
Multicultural Anthology, 4th edition. Ed. Estelle Disch. 361-375.
Gurian, Michael. 2005. The Minds of Boys. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 192-210.
Tsolidis, Georgina and Ian R. Dobson. 2006. “Single-sex schooling: is it simply a 'class
act'?” Gender and Education. 18, March: 213-228.
Week 11:
Are Boys Really Better at Math and Science and Girls Really Better at
English?
March 26-30
9
Leahey helps to debunk some of our myths about women and men's differences in math
education. Hanson does an excellent study which implies that reducing choice of major
and requiring more general education would decrease the gender disparity in science
majors. Jacobs gives an overview of the gender differences in higher education.
Leahey, Erin and Guang Guo. 2001. “Gender Differences in Mathematical Trajectories.”
Social Forces. 80(2): 713-732.
Hanson, Sandra L., Maryellen Schaub, and David P. Baker. 1996. “Gender Stratification
in the Science Pipeline: A Comparative Analysis of Seven Countries.” Gender and
Society. 10(3): 271-290.
Jacobs, Jerry A. 1996. “Gender Inequality in Higher Education.” Annual Review of
Sociology. 22: 153-185.
Week 12:
Why Don't Men do More Work at Home?
April 2-6
The small group discussion this week will be on Wednesday, April 4
Men and women struggle over how to balance domestic labor with paid labor. Several
sociologists have documented that men do less work at home, but they have different
explanations for this difference. Brines explores two opinions in this debate: men don't
do housework because they make more money or men don't do housework because they
want to maintain their masculinity. Brines finds evidence for both. Tichenor believes
that men do less housework in order to maintain their masculinity. Gersel and Gallagher
believe that the behavior of wives, daughters and sisters in men's lives determines their
household participation. Hook believes that men do less housework because of national
policy issues, not individual characteristics.
Concepts: Domestic Labor, Division of Labor, Status-Reversal, Care Work
Brines, Julie. 1994. “Economic Dependency, Gender, and the Division of Labor at
Home.” The American Journal of Sociology. 100, 3 (Nov): 652-688.
Tichenor, Veronica Jaris. 1999. “Status and Income as Gendered Resources.” Journal
of Marriage and the Family 61, 3 (Aug.): 638-650.
Gerstel, N and S.K. Gallagher. 2001. “Men's Caregiving: Gender and the Contingent
Character of Care.” Gender and Society. 15(2): 197-217.
Hook, Jennifer. 2006. “Care in Context: Men's Unpaid Work in 20 Countries, 19652003.” American Sociological Review. 71 (4): 639-660. [D2L]
No Class April 6
April 6 Paper #3 due
1
0
Week 13:
April 9-13
Why do Women Earn Less than Men? Supply Side Explanations
There are two major explanations for why women earn less than men. Supply side
arguments say that women and men choose jobs that pay different amounts. According
to this argument, women end up in lower paying jobs because they leave the market for
family responsibilities, because they are socialized to study and pursue careers in lower
paying areas, and because they prepare less for paid work. Jacobsen, an economist,
explains this argument, called the “Human Capital” argument. Hachen, a sociologist,
while somewhat critical of human capital theory, still finds some evidence to support it.
Budig and England, also sociologists, find evidence that number of children dramatically
impacts a woman's income.
Concepts: Occupational Sex Segregation, Comparable worth, Socialization arguments,
Human Capital Theory
Hachen, David. 1988. “Gender Differences in Job Mobility Rates in the United States.”
Social Science Research. 17: 93-112.
Jacobsen, Joyce. 2003. “The Human Capital Explanation for the Gender Gap in
Earnings.” Women, Family, and Work: Writings on the Economics of Gender. Karine S.
Moe (Ed.). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell. 161-176. [D2L]
Budig, Michelle J. and Paula England. 2001. “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood.”
American Sociological Review. 66: 204-255.
Week 14:
April 16-20
Why do Women Earn Less than Men? Demand Side Explanations
A different group of researchers from those we studied last week argue that employer
discrimination and occupational sex segregation lead to women's lower overall pay
instead of human capital explanations. Roth's study of women on Wall Street shows that
women earn substantially less money, even when controlling for supply-side factors.
Jacobs shows how women's jobs differ from men's because of discrimination. Williams
shows that men in women-dominated fields receive an income advantage over the women
in those fields because of positive discrimination toward men. Together, this research
presents a compelling counterpoint to the supply side arguments we studied last week.
Concepts: Occupational sex segregation, Revolving Doors, Glass Elevator, Glass
Escalator
Roth, Louise Marie. 2003. “Selling Women Short: Gender Differences in Compensation
on Wall Street.” Social Forces 82 (2): 783-802.
1
1
Jacobs, Jerry A. 1989. Revolving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women's Careers.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Chapter 1.
Williams, Christine L. 1992. “The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the
'Female' Professions.” Social Problems 39 (3): 253-267.
Week 15:
How does Social Class impact Gender?
April 23-27
Early work by Pearce argued that women are disproportionately impacted by poverty.
This feminization of poverty argument is still widely accepted today. Edin and Lein
examine how women on welfare survive. In contrast, Nonn examines how men are
impacted by poverty. This can be seen as evidence against the feminization of poverty
argument.
Concepts: Feminization of Poverty, Welfare, TANF, Housing Segregation
Pearce, Diane. 1978. “The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work, and Welfare.” Urban
and Social Change Review. 11 (1/2): 28-36. [D2L]
Edin, Kathryn and Laura Lein. 1997. “Work, Welfare, and Single Mothers: Economic
Survival Strategies.” American Sociological Review. 62 (2): 253-266.
Nonn, Timothy. 2004. “Hitting Bottom: Homelessness, Poverty, and Masculinity.” in
Men's Lives, 6th edition. Ed. Michael S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner. Boston, MA:
Pearson. 258-267.
Week 16:
Catch up and Final Thoughts
April 30-May 2
May 2 Small Group Discussion Evaluation #2 due (D2L)
Final Exams:
Section 2
Wednesday May 9, 11am-1pm
Section 3
Friday May 4, 2-4pm
1
2