Fall 2010
Sociology 623
Gender, Society and Politics
Professor Myra Marx Ferree
7103 Sewell Social Science Bldg.
phone: 263-5204
e-mail: mferree@ssc.wisc.edu
Office Hours: Tuesdays 2:30 – 4 and by appointment
Course Description
This is a course that takes a feminist perspective on gender relations. I define feminism as an orientation
to women’s empowerment, particularly by challenging and changing those relations that subordinate
women to men. How many such policies there are, which ones do have this effect or not, and how they
should change are always a subject of debate. We will focus particularly on the ways that discourse
matters for gender politics, and look at the debates that frame the meaning of terms like gender, women,
men, equality, feminism etc. I will also emphasize the intersectionality of gender with other forms of
social inequality. We will consider theory (terms like the highlighted ones above) as a way of
understanding concrete struggles over meaning (in applications to particular debates).
Politics is always contentious, but regardless of what disagreements you may have with other students or
with me about general or specific interpretations of policies and practices, I expect our discussions
always to be respectful of our differences while engaging critically and passionately with the evidence.
We should all strive to neither give nor take personal offense in discussing even the most controversial
issues, in challenging our own and others’ preconceptions about gender, and considering how our own
discourses reflect economic inequalities, cultural values, and national history.
Course Organization and Requirements
Class format: This course is a discussion-based examination of the readings (in the style of a seminar),
and class preparation and class participation is absolutely crucial.
Requirements:
1. Attendance, participation in class discussions, and engagement with the reading on an ongoing
basis (25% of grade). Reading should be completed before the first class every week. You will have
difficulty in this class if you are not regularly prepared.
a) Each week (after the first two weeks), a set of (usually 3) students will be assigned responsibility for
“raising the bar” on discussion: they will start off the seminar by summarizing what they see as the main
contributions of that week’s set of articles and identifying the most difficult or controversial parts of the
arguments. The criteria for grading this starter role are that you be clear, provocative and brief. THE
PREPARATION GROUP should turn in at class the OUTLINE of their summary/questions. Grades are
excellent (A), fine but not provocative (AB), somewhat disorganized/overlong (B), muddled (BC) and
confusing and/or misleading (C). This will count for at least 10% of your grade, more if doing more
than one presentation.
b) ALL students are encouraged every week to post their own ideas and questions both before and
after class meetings as an extension of in-class discussion. Responses to readings, class discussions and
other postings that substantively add insights into the issues raised count MOST. Personal anecdotes that
don’t fit in the framework of class discussion but relate to the readings, ideas you thought would get
discussed but weren’t, ideas you had walking to or from class or that we just didn’t get to in time – all of
these types of on-line participation are also valuable. Grades reflect frequent and thoughtful comments
and questions (A), relevant but less reflective contributions (AB), less frequent and less engaged but
relevant postings (B), few or merely organizational questions (BC) and on-line disengagement (C). 15%
of overall grade is based on this on-going on-line work.
2) For any 2 weeks (of your choice) you need to turn in short papers (about 1200 words each) about
the week’s readings. These are not about ANY week’s readings, but about the particular issues for the
specific week in which you turn them in. (each paper is worth 15%)
They are due on MONDAY at 5pm (the day before we begin discussing that week’s readings). These
individual papers do not replace the group preparation for a discussion, but should position you to
respond particularly thoughtfully to the student-led initial discussion. Each “response paper” should be
placed in the appropriate “drop box” in Learn@UW. These are “real papers” in the sense that they
should be organized, have an argument and conclusion, and use topic sentences and good grammar.
They do NOT require any library research but should show thought given to the ideas in the assigned
readings, citing the author and presenting your own ARGUMENT about one or more specific ideas.
Your paper should (a) compare and contrast one reading with another or (b) use a reading to
discuss/analyze some personal experience you’ve had or (c) connect a reading with something you
learned in some other course or context, (d) compare and contrast some aspect of the assigned week’s
reading with issues previously raised in this class, or (e) apply a reading to analyze a film, photos, ads or
a news article relevant to the course. AT LEAST one paper MUST be completed by October 12 and
both must be completed before November 15. One re-do of ONE paper is permitted (a new week’s
work however, not editing) before the Nov. 15 deadline. An A on a response paper represents not only
good understanding of the author’s point, but a coherent argument about its strength or limitations for
understanding something; AB reflects good basic understanding but less success in applying, critiquing
or connecting it; B suggests some shortcoming in getting the author’s point(s), but an effort to construct
an argument based on that understanding; BC is underdeveloped in both understanding and argument; C
is significantly mistaken in claims made about the reading and/or offers opinion rather than readingbased argument; F is too vague, unfocused or purely anecdotal to tell if there was misunderstanding or
not, or what the argument would be.
3. The (one and only) take-home essay exam will give you considerable choice. You will get the
questions on November 23 and the answer-essays are due in the appropriate dropbox December 6.
The questions will be broad and integrative, not tests of memorization (hence it is an open-book exam).
This exam counts 20% (10% for each essay). The response papers are good practice for this (another
reason to do them early and have feedback on your performance) since the exam is graded the same way
as they are. .
4. Final project – a short RESEARCH paper applying some of the readings to a discussion of
gender politics anywhere in the world. You need to pick a political issue or struggle that is relevant
for studying gender relations and focus on analyzing how the concepts of the course apply to your
2
chosen case. It may be American, European, non-Western, or comparative in focus. It could be tied to a
social movement (like pacifism in the US, or feminism in Chile), a policy (like affirmative action in
Germany, welfare reform in the US), an organization (like the European Women’s Lobby or DAWN), a
campaign (for a policy change like legalizing prostitution, stopping sex trafficking, or increasing the
number of women on corporate boards). The paper has to be done in stages, each of which carries points
toward the final grade, and it has to make real, appropriate use of at least THREE of the books or
articles of the assigned reading list as well as whatever outside research sources you need (a
MINIMUM of three additional books or articles). This paper counts for 25% of your final grade.
Stage 1. Pick a topic and find one book or article that deals directly with it. Write a short (300 word or
so) review that summarizes what you now know about the topic and ends with a question that you want
to do some more research/reading to answer. Stage 1 DUE in class November 16 (12 points)
Stage 2. Do a search in the library and on the web for additional information on your topic and put
together a one-page bibliography that includes at least 5 possible scholarly sources (to use in addition to
class readings). Stage 2 DUE in class November 23. (12 points)
Stage 3. Do the reading and write a new 500 word thematic statement describing your current take on
your topic, what has changed in your thinking about it as you have been reading, and what you want the
thesis/argument of your paper to be. Include the revised bibliography you have put together and are
using, and make sure your project has some argument to make about the case. Stage 3 DUE in class
December 14 (12 points)
Stage 4. The final paper, approximately 10-15 double-spaced pages or 2500-3500 words.
The final paper will be judged on thoughtful use of concepts from the course (showing that you
understand and can apply them) as well as on the quality of outside research done on the particular case
you have chosen to look at in more detail. You are expected to quote appropriately from both the
assigned readings and the additional research you did. FINAL PAPERS DUE December 20. (64
points) in the dropbox (which will close at 5pm that day).
The whole final project (all 100 points) is worth 25% of your grade but the first three stages together
contribute more than a third of the value of that grade. Any early stage work that is turned in late loses a
point for each day that it is late. Any of the stages can be turned in early. Late final papers will only be
accepted by prior arrangement and with a grade penalty. An A means that your knowledge of course
materials is used constructively with your library research to say something thoughtful about the
particular instance of feminist politics you chose. AB is well researched and shows good understanding
of the course but does not integrate the two well. B means you fell somewhat short on the research OR
understanding elements, BC represents some weakness in both or serious weakness in one element; C
means serious weaknesses in both aspects but some positive work in one or the other respect; F is
inadequate work in both regards.
There is NO Final Exam for this course: your appropriate use of the assigned readings in developing
and carrying out your final project is how I will test your knowledge of the material.
Additional issues:
All students are encouraged to use the resources of the Writing Lab (located in Helen C. White),
especially if you have not previously done this sort of writing. They offer both group classes and
individual tutoring. In addition, they have a collection of books on how to write good papers, including
3
A Guide to Writing Sociology Papers, by the Sociology Writing Group (St. Martin's, 1994 [third
edition]) and A Writer's Reference, by Diana Hacker (St. Martin's, 1995 [third edition]). I personally
recommend Writing for Social Scientists by Howard Becker (Univ. of Chicago). Start exploring topics
for your project early and take time to get feedback from the Writing Center and to talk with me about
your plans. I do NOT read advance drafts.
I have set aside a class for working together on using the library effectively for researching gender
politics; in my experience even graduate students can learn a few more good tricks; in addition there is a
class in which you will be presenting your project ideas and can develop research teams on related
topics (although the final paper must be written individually).
All students are also reminded of the university’s rules on academic honesty and plagiarism. Knowledge
of these rules is your responsibility, and lack of familiarity with the rules does not excuse
misconduct. A clear definition of plagiarism as well as information about disciplinary sanctions for
academic misconduct may be found at the Dean of Students web site:
http://www.wisc.edu/students/UWS14.htm. In addition, note that I reserve the right to enter any
work submitted for this class into the anti-plagiarism database maintained by the department where it
can be checked against a huge multi-source inventory of past papers and will be kept on record so that it
cannot be plagiarized from in future semesters. I deeply regret that the actions of a few require such
safeguards to protect the rights of the many.
Honors and Graduate Students:
Honors students are invited to register for 3 credits with honors or to add a fourth credit. For 3 credits
with honors, you are expected to do extra session of discussion-leading on the readings. For four credits
you are expected to do an extra session of discussion-leading and either an extra short paper OR make
your final paper reflect some original research (a content analysis of texts, interviews, observational data
collection, etc). If the latter, you must clear the topic for your research with me before November 2
(ideally sooner) in a meeting in my office. Graduate students are expected to do the same additional
work as a four-credit honors undergraduate.
Reading assignments.
Articles are available in a print-on-demand course pack from the Social Science Copy Center (6th floor
of Sewell) and on electronic reserve via MadCat and as links on Learn@UW.
In addition, there are links, visual materials and thought-questions that are ONLY available on
Learn@UW. I will also post timely news (announcements of talks on campus, news stories about groups
or events, etc). I invite you also to send links to articles to be shared.
Outline of topics and readings by week
WEEK 1: Sept 2 (Thursday) Organizational meeting and overview of the course.
Focus: Introductions, discussion of requirements and syllabus, conceptual overview of “feminism” as a
principle and gender as a political relationship.
Guiding questions: What is your own definition of feminism? How are women’s rights secured
4
politically and how might this need improvement (i.e. where and how do you see women’s
subordination still evidenced?) How does the US look in a global perspective, and how do you explain
why it does well/poorly for women in the ways you note?
WEEK 2: Sept 7-9 - Thinking about gender, women, inequalities
Focus: Developing a theoretical vocabulary with which to talk about gender politics as something both
changing and contested. Intersectionality, gender, neoliberal, institution and regime as concepts.
Assigned:
Joan Scott, 1986 “Gender: a useful category for historical analysis” American Historical Review, Dec.
1986, pp. 1053-1075.
Evelyn Nakano Glenn, “The social construction and institutionalization of gender and race” Pp. 3-43 in
Ferree, Lorber and Hess, Revisioning Gender
V. Spike Peterson, 2005. “How (the meaning of) gender matters in political economy.” New Political
Economy, 10 (4): 499-521.
Guiding questions: THEORY: What is the difference between “women” and “gender” as the object of
politics? How does “woman” and “feminine” have a symbolic value apart from actual “women”?
How is this contested and changing? How does the intersection of gender with other social
inequalities (especially race and class) shape the potential meaning of “women” in more or less
inclusive ways? APPLICATION: How do Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Nancy Pelosi, George W.
Bush and Barack Obama function as political symbols in the US understanding of gender? Can
they provoke change and/or reflect change, or does discourse about them only provoke/reflect
stereotyping?
WEEK 3: Sept 14-16 – The political discourses of motherhood and citizenship
Focus: Nation, citizenship, reproduction, femininity and discourse as concepts. The most common
political discourse around women focuses on women-as-mothers, and this discourse often has to do with
the meaning of the nation, membership in the national community (and exclusions from this) and the
state’s interest in encouraging (or discouraging) women to reproduce (or not). But each national context
offers its own types of discourse – here we look at three non-US cases that may illuminate the politics of
the US too.
Assigned:
Barbara Baird, “Maternity, whiteness and national identity,” 2006, Australian Feminist Studies, 21 (5):
197-221.
Jessica Autumn Brown and Myra Marx Ferree, 2005, “Close Your Eyes and Think of England:
Pronatalism in the British Print Media” Gender & Society, 19 (1): 5-24.
Nitza Berkovich 1997 “Motherhood as National Mission: The construction of womanhood in the legal discourse
of Israel” Women's Studies International Forum, 20 (5/6): 605~519.
Guiding Questions: THEORY: what do these authors mean by a discourse and how do they identify
particular discourses to study empirically? How are their arguments about the uses of
motherhood as nation-constructing similar and how are they different? How does each discourse
exclude women as well as target women? APPLICATION: How would you describe the national
discourse around motherhood in the US? How does it contribute to our national identity as
“American” and whom does it include and exclude?
5
WEEK 4: Sept 21-23 – The political discourse of war and peace
Focus: The concepts of honor, masculinities, authority and power/empowerment. Associating men and
masculinity with war and being warriors is as pervasive a discourse as that which frames women
through motherhood. Speaking about men and machismo can serve to justify wars or to criticize them.
The conflicting ideas about national honor and male violence that are used in these debates can shape
reactions to specific actions or policies but also to nations imagined in terms of gender relations as weak
or strong, feminine or masculine.
Assigned:
Kristin Hoganson, Fighting for American Manhood, Intro &Ch 1 (pp. 1-42)
Carole Cohn, 1987 “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals” Signs, 12 (4):687718.
Wendy Christensen and Myra Marx Ferree, 2008, “Cowboy of the World? Gender discourse and the
Iraq war debate” Qualitative Sociology 31 (3):287-306.
Bush as Cowboy, Women Warrior Images (L@UW)
Guiding Questions:THEORY: What is the specific use of masculinity as a discourse in each article? Is
it one unified discourse or many (with what differences if any among them) and who uses
it/them? In the authors’ views, is it the direct or indirect use of masculinity discourse that
primarily shapes perceptions of a nation, a conflict, a policy or a strategy? APPLICATION:
What would be politically powerful or weak ways to talk about US foreign policy today? Can
you think of ways to talk about war and peace that do NOT use images of masculinity in either
positive or negative ways? Is Barack Obama’s masculinity being called into question in current
war debates?
WEEK 5 – September 28-30 – Aliens among us? The gendered political discourse of immigration
Focus: Concepts of community(ies), borders, belonging, othering. Political questions often carry a
gendered text or subtext in which the visibility or invisibility of women and men as the causes of or
solutions to problems will vary. Here we explore migration and immigrants from a gendered perspective
of who speaks and who is spoken about.
Assigned:
Nira Yuval-Davis, Floya Anthias and Eleonore Kofman, 2005. 'Secure borders, safe havens and the
gendered politics of belonging: Beyond social cohesion' Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28 (3):513535.
Laura Agustin, 2005. “Migrants in the mistress's house: Other voices in the "trafficking" debate” Social
Politics, 12 (1): 96-117.
Rhacel Salazar Parreñas, 2001. Transgressing the nation-state: The partial citizenship and "imagined
(global) community" of migrant Filipina domestic workers. Signs, 26(4): 1129 -1154
Deeb-Sossa, Natalia and Jennifer Bickham Mendez, “Enforcing Borders in the Nuevo South: Gender
and Migration in Williamsburg, Virginia and the research Triangle, North Carolina,” Gender &
Society, October 2008.
Guiding Questions:
6
THEORY: Why and when is gender made visible in debates about “otherness”? How do actors with
different political interests frame immigrant women: as victims in need of protection? As reproductive
threats? As national heroes? As essential providers of labor and services in the global economy?
APPLICATION: What are some of the ways that migrant women are discussed in the US in heated
debates about immigration? When do they become more visible or invisible? Do they get to speak?
WEEK 6 - October 5-7 – Gender in the world polity – how women’s rights are made to matter
Focus: Concepts of human rights, world polity, normative conflict, advocacy networks. World polity
theory claims that there are links among nation states that enable and constrain the flow of discourse
reframe the significance of “women” and “rights” over time. Here we consider the big shifts in women’s
position on the world stage, and whether the transformation of women’s human rights is related to other
broad shifts in discourse and/or to women’s concrete struggles to make their voices heard.
Assigned:
Ramirez, F., Soysal, Y. and S. Shanahan. 1997. "The Changing Logic of Political Citizenship: CrossNational Acquisition of Women's Suffrage Rights, 1890 to 1990." American Sociological
Review, 62, 5: 735-745
Farida Jalalzai and Mona Lena Krook, 2010 “Beyond Hillary and Benazir: Women's Political
Leadership Worldwide” International Political Science Review 31(1): 5-21.
Lisa Alfredson, 2005. Expanding Women’s Human Rights: The Role of National Rights and Transnational Actors in Developing Inter-State Responsibility for Gender-Persecution. Presentation at
American Political Science Association Annual Meeting.
Peggy Leavitt & Sally Merry 2009. Vernacularization on the ground: local uses of global women’s
rights in Peru, China, India and the United States Global Networks 9 (4): 441-461.
Guiding Questions: THEORY: Think about changes over time without making “time” the social actor
responsible for these shifts: what are the forces that lead to change? How does change spread over space
and time? How do earlier changes relate to later ones? APPLICATION: Do you know of any struggles
to extend more political recognition to women? How do newspaper editorials today talk about women,
human rights and gender equality? That is, what aspects are still controversial and what is consensus?
October 12 – deadline to have at least one reaction paper finished
WEEK 7 – October 12-14 Gender and globalization: preserving or remaking masculinity(ies)?
Focus: Concepts of discrimination, equality, justice, globalization. While most scholars and people at
large are in agreement that “women’s roles” have been changing, the question of whether men are
changing is more hotly debated. If there is change, who or what is changing masculinity, why and how?
Assigned:
Tyson Smith and Michael Kimmel 2005, “The hidden discourse of masculinity in gender discrimination
law” Signs 30 (3): 1827-1849.
Raewyn(RW) Connell 2005, “Change among the Gatekeepers: Men, masculinities and gender equality
in the global arena” Signs 30 (3): 1801-1825.
Connell, Raewyn 2008. “Men, Masculinity and Gender Justice” pp. 51-68 in Lenz, Ilse, Charlotte
Ullrich and Barbara Fersch (eds) 2008. Gender Orders Unbound: Globalization, Restructuring
and Reciprocity. Farmington Hills MI: Barbara Budrich.
7
Stacey, Judith 2005. The families of man: Gay male intimacy and kinship in a global metropolis. Signs.
30(3): 1911-1935.
Related news and views: Lisa Belkin, "the evolution of dad" NYTimes June 2010.
Kathleen Gerson Lecture Wednesday/Thursday
Guiding Questions: THEORY: What is the patriarchal bargain? which men are privileged and how?
What differences do you see among the discourses about men as workers and as fathers in these
articles? How does gender become discursively equated only with women? what are the effects
of this (in)visibility on policy and politics? APPLICATIONS: How has the globalized economy
of production affected men you know? (does it vary by generation? by class? by race? by
politics?). Have you noticed Americans talking about boys-in-school as "falling behind" women
these days? What conclusions are drawn from this "emerging inequality"?
WEEK 8 - October 19-21 - race and gender in making and remaking the US welfare system
Focus: Key concepts are carework, welfare state, dependency, genealogy, racialization. While "poverty"
is supposed to be the target of welfare policy, in many ways women, especially Black women in
the US are the practical targets. Here we look at a discourse about race, gender, mothers/fathers
and families that usually hides its specificity in the universalizing language of "dependency."
Assigned:
Fraser, Nancy, and Linda Gordon. 1994. "A Genealogy of Dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the U.S.
Welfare State." Signs, 19 (2): 309-336.
Haney, Lynne, & March, M. 2003. “Married fathers and caring daddies: Welfare reform and the
discursive politics of paternity.” Social Problems, 50, 461-481.
Korteweg, Anna 2006. The Construction of Gendered Citizenship at the Welfare Office: An
Ethnographic Comparison of Welfare-to-Work Workshops in the United States and the
Netherlands. Social Politics. 13 (3): 313-340
Soss, Joe and Sanford Schramm 2001. Success Stories: Welfare reform, policy discourse and the politics
of research. The ANNALS, 577( 1): 49-65.
Other useful references:
White, Lucie 2001 Closing the care gap that welfare reform left behind. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 577( 1): 134-143.
Mayer, Victoria 2008. Crafting a new conservative consensus on welfare reform: Redefining citizenship,
social provision, and the public/private divide. Social Politics,15 (2): 154-181
Guiding Questions: THEORY: How are the discourses of dependency gendered even if not explicitly
so? How does "dependency" frame what "reform" should accomplish? What makes
"dependency" so negative in American framing? How does dependency relate to thinking of all
women and men as rights-bearing citizens (or not)? What is the relationship between
motherhood and dependency in this discourse? APPLICATIONS: Does it matter to non-recipient
women and families how Americans talk about welfare and “welfare mothers”? How might it
affect your personal rights, obligations and freedoms?
Week 9 October 26 – 28 Islam and racialized gender politics
Focus: Key concepts are modernity, tradition(alism), identity, subject position. In Europe, the veil
symbolizes a complex of supposedly traditional practices of patriarchy (arranged marriages, honor
killings, purdah, etc) and is part of a discourse constructing Europe as modern and thus gender
8
egalitarian. Here we look at the construction of Muslims as a threat and the struggle over control of
women’s bodies as a response.
Assigned:
Yakin Ertürk, 2006. “Turkey’s Modern Paradoxes: Identity politics, women’s agency and universal
rights.” Pp. 79-109 in Myra Marx Ferree and Aili Mari Tripp, Global Feminisms
Korteweg, Anna and Goekce Yurdakul, 2006. Islam, gender, and immigrant integration: boundary
drawing in discourses on honour killing in the Netherlands and Germany. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 32 (2): 218 -238
Susan Rottmann and Myra Marx Ferree 2008, “German feminist debates about headscarf and
antidiscrimination laws” Social Politics, 15 (4): 481-513.
Jen'Nan Ghazal Read and John P. Bartkowski, 2000. To Veil or Not to Veil? A Case Study of Identity
Negotiation among Muslim Women in Austin, Texas. Gender& Society, 14(3): 395-417.
Other useful references:
Birgit Sauer, 2009, Headscarf Regimes in Europe: Diversity Policies at the Intersection of Gender,
Culture and Religion. Comparative European Politics, 7(1):
Gresh et al. 2008. Tu felix Austria? The headscarf and the politics of non-issues. Social Politics 15 (4):
Guiding Questions: THEORY: How do the different authors characterize the types of discourses being
used to frame veiling as a threat? What consequences do discourses like modern/traditional,
forced/free, secular/religious, us/them have for Muslim communities and for the non-Muslim
communities around them? How do boundaries and contrasts work discursively? Who gets to
speak about the implications of veiling or arranged marriage? APPLICATIONS: How is “our”
emancipation exaggerated by focusing on “their” gender oppression (whatever form it may take
– genital cutting, honor killing, etc)? In your experience, how are Americans similar to/different
from Europeans in politicizing women’s bodies?
Week 10 – Nov 2-4 Struggling over non-normative sexualities
Focus: Concepts are autonomy, choice, freedom, embodiment, regulation. Like race and class,
sexuality and age intersect with gender to define some women and men as more entitled to autonomy,
sexual freedoms and citizenship rights. Homosexuality and non-marital sex are particularly controversial
in the US and can lead to denial of rights. We consider this domain “intimate citizenship” as it relates to
the embodied individual and their rights to relationships.
Assigned:
Schalet, Amy T. 2000. “Raging Hormones, Regulated Love: Adolescent Sexuality and the Constitution
of the Modern Individual in the United States of America and the Netherlands.” Body and
Society 6(1): 75-105.
Murray, Melissa 2008 “Equal Rites and Equal Rights.” California Law Review
Heath, Melanie 2009 “State of our Unions: Marriage Promotion and the Contested Power of
Heterosexuality” Gender & Society, 23 (1): 27-48.
Amy Schalet 2009. Subjectivity, Intimacy, and the Empowerment Paradigm of Adolescent Sexuality.
Feminist Studies; Spring 2009; 35 (1): 133-210.
Guiding Questions: THEORY: Citizenship as a relationship to the state may be in tension with other
relationships because the state has the authority to decide what relationships count and for what.
How do states do this? Do these authors think it is succeeding in making its decisions count?
9
Why or why not? APPLICATION: Is marriage a good thing (not just for same-sex couples but
for anyone) or would we all be better off with civil unions or no ceremony at all? How about
changing your name at marriage – is that a patriarchal imposition or what?
Week 11 – November 9-11 – struggling for family equity in a context of class competition
Focus: Concepts are ideology, agency, commodification, de-institutionalization. While the notion of the
two-earner family is increasingly normalized, how feminist is it in its effects? Here we look at
the pressures to make children successful and the institutional obstacles to taking time off and
continuing a career trajectory as cultural constraints on gender equality.
Assigned:
Macdonald, Cameron 2009. What's culture got to do with it? Mothering ideologies as barriers to gender
equality. In Janet Gornick and Marcia Meyers, Gender Equality. Polity Press.
Albiston, Catherine 2005. Bargaining in the shadow of social institutions: competing discourses and
social change in workplace mobilization of civil rights. Law and Society Review 39:11–50
Morgan, Kimberly and Kathrin Zippel 2003. Paid to care: The origins and effects of care leave policies
in Western Europe. Social Politics 10(1): 49-85.
Barbara Hobson and Susanne Fahlen 2009 Competing Scenarios for European Fathers: Applying Sen's
Capabilities and Agency Framework to Work-Family Balance The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 624: 214-233.
Related news and views: NY Times articles on L@UW including Leonhardt, David 2010 “A labor
market punishing to mothers” and Bennhold, Katrin 2010 “the stigma of being a housewife”
Some other good resources on L@UW:
Goldin, Claudia 2004 The long road to the fast track; career & family The ANNALS, 596: 20-37
Ramey & Ramey, 2009 The Rug-Rat-Race, NBER working paper.
Runte, Mary and Albert Mills 2006. “Cold War, chilly climate: Exploring the roots of gendered
discourse in organization and management theory.” Human Relations. 59(5): 695–720.
Guiding Questions:
THEORY: How do the debates about women and work, gender and families, work-family balance get
shaped by histories of state provision? By changing transnational norms? By continuing assumptions
about the different roles of men and women in families? By the intensification of competition in the
global labor market? APPLICATION: What are the realistic constraints on and idealistic norms for
gender balanced relationships (same or opposite sex) that are being considered in your generation? How
would you envision them changing by the time your children are your age?
November 15 – deadline for both reaction papers (including rewrite, if any)
November 16 –stage 1 (topic) of final paper due
Week 12 & 13 - Nov 16-18 - 23 – What is still radical about gender equality?
Focus: concepts include social movement, mobilization strategies, radicalism, pragmatism, The relation
between current discourses of gender equality as an aspect of modern society and the ongoing struggles
for women’s empowerment and intersectional social justice.
Nov 16 – web of science and research strategies for final paper
10
Nov 18 – Discussion of radical changes and movement struggles; Raewyn Connell guest lecture
Nov 23 – discussion of exam questions, paper topics and process in final paper
November 23 – Stage 2 (first bibliography) of final paper due
THANKSGIVING
WEEK 14 – Nov 30-Dec 2 – Gendered citizenship: creating subjects and drawing boundaries
Assigned: Adams, Julia and Tasleem Padamsee 2001 “Signs and Regimes: Rereading Feminist Work on
Welfare States.” Social Politics 8(1): 1-23
Nov 30 – guest lecture – Hae Yeon Choo, gendered incorporation in S. Korea
Dec 2 – guest lecture – Nicole Kaufman, prisoner reentry and US women’s citizenship
WEEK 15 – Dec 7-9 – Social movements, radical discourse and political transformations
Focus: Concepts are coalition, solidarity, transnationalism, agenda-formation. We consider where an
intersectional feminism may go in the future, including the obstacles to and strategies for coalitions for
social justice across differences.
Assigned:
Laura Macdonald 2005 Gendering transnational social movement analysis: Women’s groups contest
free trade in the Americas. Pp 21-41 in Joe Bandy and Jackie Smith, Coalitions Across Borders.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Dongxiao Liu 2006 When Do National Movements Adopt or Reject International Agendas? A
Comparative Analysis of the Chinese and Indian Women's Movements. American Sociological
Review 71: 921-942
Tripp, Aili Mari 2006, “Challenges in Transnational Feminist Mobilization.” Global Feminism:
Transnational Women’s Activism, Organizing, and Human Rights, Pp. 296-312 in Myra Marx
Ferree and Aili Mari Tripp. New York, NY: New York University Press,
Cole, Elizabeth and Zakiya Luna 2010 “Making coalitions work: solidarity across difference in US
feminism” Feminist Studies 36(1): 71-98.
Guiding Questions: THEORY: what makes coalitions difficult and how and when are such difficulties
being overcome? Where are struggles to create a more inclusive feminism more successful and
how do the movement actors deal with the challenges they face? APPLICATIONS: How do you
see US feminists coping with these challenges? How does global discourse impact the local
feminist discourses you hear? How might feminist activists in the US learn from history or from
struggles in other places and what would they learn?
December 14 – stage 3 (thematic statement and revised bibliography) of final paper due
WEEK 16 – December 14 – discussion of final papers in process (theoretical contributions of inclass readings taken as a whole and how the assigned readings contribute to your
argument)
December 20. FINAL PAPER DUE (in dropbox of L@UW).
11
12