Fluent Essays

LESSON 2 Please review the course materials for this lesson and create one question from each of the following sources (4 questions): Kaleidoscope, Chapter 2 Lecture 3 Lecture 4 Video: “The Urgency of Intersectionality” SYD 3804-Question Development (QD) Assignment Handout I.QD ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLE QUESTIONS:A number of materials (text, films, lectures, etc.) are used in this course to survey a Sociology of Gender. Each of these materials contributes important perspective to an overall understanding of the field. Each of these materials also is required to complete assignments throughout the course. One of the highest demonstrations of learning is the ability to craft a good question about it.1.  You will create one multiple choice question from each resource in each lesson. Within each lesson folder and on the left-hand course menu, you will find the Question Development link.2.  Questions can be of three types:a.   Definition of Key Termsb.  Summary of Key Ideasc.   Critical Thinking/Application Questions3.  You are required to submit at least one of each type of question.4.  Please indicate the correct answer for your question.Examples of each type of question follow:EXAMPLE OF “DEFINITION...” QUESTION1.  Parents, attempting to curb their child’s nonconformity to gender norms, might purchase a doll for their child but not a dress. According to Rahilly, this could be termed:a. gender binaryb. gender literacy*c. gender hedgingd. playing along EXAMPLE OF “SUMMARY...” QUESTION2. According to Musto, children on the Sharks swim team interacted during practice and competitions but not outside the pool. Which of the following are among the reasons for this self-segregation? (please mark all that apply)*a. sex segregated locker rooms formally marked boys and girls as different as they entered and exited the pool deck.b. the children avoided being in situations where they might be compared to the other sex.*c. the crowded nature of the pool and deck created the risk of heterosexual teasing.*d. there was a lack of structure or rules upon which the children could focus together during unsupervised times.EXAMPLE OF “CRITICAL THINKING...” QUESTION3.Five-year-old Kaley is really happy to be a girl, to wear princess dresses, sing the princess songs, and see all the princess movies. Kaley could be said to be:a. gender variantb. sex normative*c. cisgenderd. transgender ---- 1 photos from kaleidoscope chapter 2 2 lecture 3 in one file 3 lecture 4 in one file 4 this is the video of the urgency of intersectionality  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akOe5-UsQ2o Intersectionality History The term “intersectionality” was coined in 1989 by American critical legal race scholar Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw (1989). However, the central ideas of intersectionality have long historic roots within and beyond the United States. Black activists and feminists, as well as Latina, post-colonial, queer and Indigenous scholars have all produced work that reveals the complex factors and processes that shape human lives (Bunjun, 2010; Collins, 1990; Valdes, 1997; Van Herk, Smith, & Andrew, 2011). Defining Intersectionality Intersectionality promotes an understanding of human beings as shaped by the interaction of different social locations (e.g., ‘race’/ethnicity, Indige-neity, gender, class, sexuality, geography, age, disability/ability, migration status, religion). These interactions occur within a context of connected systems and structures of power (e.g., laws, policies, state governments and other political and economic unions, religious institutions, media). Through such processes, interdependent forms of privilege and oppression shaped by colonialism, imperialism, racism, homophobia, ableism and patriarchy are created. Key Assumptions Human lives cannot be explained by taking into account single categories, such as gender, race, and socio-economic status. People’s lives are multi-dimensional and complex. Lived realities are shaped by different factors and social dynamics operating together. When analyzing social problems, the importance of any category or structure cannot be predetermined; the categories and their importance must be discovered in the process of investigation. Relationships and power dynamics between social locations and processes (e.g., racism, classism, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, sexism) are linked. They can also change over time and be different depending on geographic settings. People can experience privilege and oppression simultaneously. This depends on what situation or specific context they are in. 5. Multi-level analyses that link individual experiences to broader structures and systems are crucial for revealing how power relations are shaped and experienced. 6. Scholars, researchers, policy makers, and activists must consider their own social position, role and power when taking an intersectional approach. This “reflexivity,” should be in place before setting priorities and directions in research, policy work and activism. 7. Intersectionality is explicitly oriented towards transformation, building coalitions among different groups, and working towards social justice. Principles of Intersectionality Intersecting Categories From an intersectionality perspective, human lives cannot be reduced to single categories, and policy analysis cannot assume that any one social category is most important for understanding people’s needs and experiences. intersectionality conceptualizes social categories as interacting with and co-constituting one another to create unique social locations that vary according to time and place. These intersections and their effects are what matters in an intersectional analysis Multi-level Analysis Intersectionality is concerned with understanding the effects between and across various levels in society, including macro (global and national-level institutions and policies), meso or intermediate (provincial and regional-level institutions and policies), and micro levels (community-level, grassroots institutions and policies as well as the individual or ‘self’). Attending to this multi-level dimension of intersectionality also requires addressing processes of inequity and differentiation across levels of structure, identity and representation The significance of and relationships between these various levels of structure and social location are not predetermined. Rather, they reveal themselves through the process of intersectional research and discovery. Power Attention to power highlights that: i) power operates at discursive and structural levels to exclude some types of knowledge and experience (Foucault, 1977); ii) power shapes subject positions and categories (e.g., ‘race’) (e.g. racialization and racism); and iii) these processes operate together to shape experiences of privilege and penalty between groups and within them (Collins, 2000). From an intersectional perspective, power is relational. A person can simultaneously experience both power and oppression in varying contexts, at varying times (Collins, 1990). These relations of power include experiences of power over others, but also that of power with others (power that involves people working together) Within an intersectionality-based policy analysis (or IBPA), the focus is not just on domination or marginalization, but on the intersecting processes by which power and inequity are produced, reproduced and actively resisted Reflexivity Reflexivity is the fact of someone being able to examine their own feelings, reactions, and motives One way that intersectionality pays attention to power is through reflexivity. Reflexivity acknowledges the importance of power at the micro level of the self and our relationships with others, as well as at the macro levels of society. Reflexive practice recognizes multiple truths and a diversity of perspectives, while giving extra space to voices typically excluded from policy ‘expert’ roles Time and Space time and space are not static, fixed or objective dimensions and/or processes, but are fluid, changeable and experienced through our interpretations, senses and feelings, which are, in turn, heavily conditioned by our social position/location, among other factors How we experience and understand time and space depends on when and where we live and interact It is within these dimensions of time and space that different kinds of knowledge are situated, our understandings of the world are constructed, and the social orders of meaning are made Moreover, privileges and disadvantages, including intersecting identities and the processes that determine their value, change over time and place The Diversity of Knowledges Given the focus in intersectionality-based policy analysis (IBPA) on addressing inequities and power, knowledge generated through an IBPA can and should include the perspectives and knowledges of peoples who are typically excluded in policy analysis. IBPA expands understandings of what is typically constituted as “evidence” by recognizing a diversity of knowledge, paradigms and theoretical perspectives, such as knowledge generated from qualitative or quantitative research; empirical or interpretive data; and Indigenous knowledges Social Justice Theories of social justice frequently challenge inequities at their source and require people to question social and power relations. Intersectionality strongly emphasizes social justice (Grace, 2011). Approaches to social justice differ based in whether they focus on the redistribution of goods (Rawls, 1971) or on social processes (Young, 1990); however, all approaches share a concern with achieving equity (Sen, 2006) Equity The term equity is not to be confused with equality. For example, where inequality may refer to any measurable difference in outcomes of interest, inequities exist where those differences are unfair or unjust. Closely tied to the social justice principle of intersectionality, equity is concerned with fairness. As expressed by Braveman and Gruskin (2003), equity in public policy exists when social systems are designed to equalize outcomes between more and less advantaged groups. References Olena Hankivsky, PhD (April 2014) Intersectionality 101. The Institute for Intersectionality Research & Policy, SFU. Biosocial Perspectives on Gender These views treat sex as objectively, identifiable “real” distinctions between females and males that are rooted in human physiology, anatomy, and genetics. These distinctions become the raw material from which gender is constructed. Sociobiology Sociobiologists propose that certain behaviors are inherited through one’s genes. The reason certain behaviors have a genetic link is simply because these behaviors proved advantageous to the species’ survival throughout the evolutionary period. An evolutionary interpretation of sexuality Fact: Universally, males initiate sexual activity more than females Why? While a woman incubates and nurses one infant at a time and for only a segment of her life, men can spread their genes through numerous females. This is our genes’ way of reproducing themselves – one sex assures many births, while the other assures the offspring’s survival Fact: men tend to prefer women with a youthful appearance, smooth skin, with a waist that is much smaller than her hips; Women tend to prefer healthy-looking men, too, but are especially attracted to mature, dominant, bold, affluent men. You can see this in how each sex advertises the qualities that make it more attractive to the opposite sex—e.g. women spending time and money on makeup, plastic surgery, clothing and men trying to establish their status and dominance (usually through work) Why? A woman who is young and healthy is prime for fertility; a man with the qualities listed above is primed to support and protect a family. Criticisms of this perspective The genes responsible for sex-specific behaviors haven’t been identified yet. There is an extreme difference in terms of time when we compare biological evolution to cultural evolution. While biological evolution takes thousands of years, social customs and rituals are changing all the time. For example, take the contention that women, by virtue of their biological and evolutionary makeup, make better parents. While the “distant father” syndrome might have been true even 30 years ago, but now: Researchers have identified a strong bond that forms between fathers and their newborns, which psychologists call engrossment. Research has shown that, increasingly, fathers do, in fact, give considerable attention to and show affection for their newborn infants Outside western cultures, sex-specific behaviors are expressed differently. Some also fear that sociobiology opens the door to justifying the oppression of one group by another on the basis of biological inferiority (a pattern humanity, unfortunately, has followed in the past) Individualist Perspectives An assumption of this perspective is that we must see gender in operation, rather than viewing it through the lens of social situations or institutions. Individualists also believe that the differences between women and men as groups are greater than the differences within each sex category. Sex imposes limits or constraints on gender. These constraints come primarily from the different reproductive roles of women and men. Hence, those who view gender as an attribute of individuals tend to believe that there are some differences between the sexes that are relatively stable across situations. Researchers in this framework generally pay less attention to differences among women (or men) with respect to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, class, etc. than do researchers adopting other frameworks. Individualists believe that sex distinctions are the most powerful organizers of human capabilities and behavior. Example: Sex difference research Sex difference research has been especially popular among psychologists, who are generally more interested than sociologists in individual attributes. It assumes a perspective that views gender as a set of individual traits, abilities, or behavioral dispositions and attempts to understand how women and men differ in those areas. Researchers in this area are especially interested in challenging negative cultural stereotypes about women by demonstrating the essential similarities between men’s and women’s personalities and behavioral dispositions. They believed that scientific research on women and sex differences would help eliminate damaging stereotypes and cultural views that assumed women were inferior to men. If research showed that the 2 groups were not really that different, according to this logic, it would be more difficult for societies to defend gender inequality. So, they studied EVERYTHING, including but not limited to: Nurturing interest and ability among women Aggression among men Sex differences in personality traits Assertiveness Self-esteem Cognitive abilities, such as language use Attitudes, such as those related to sexuality What is the significance of these differences? Magnitude – For many of the characteristics examined by sex difference researchers, women and men are much more similar than different. Consistency (their relative stability across samples of people) – Studies of a particular sex difference are rarely perfectly consistent; the same magnitude and even the direction (e.g. favoring females, favoring males, no difference) of effect may vary from study to study. So, researchers must be able to identify the reasons the results vary – disentangling those that are a result of sex difference and those that are the result of something else. Also, most of this research is descriptive in nature (ascertaining if there is a difference, then describing it) and there has been less of an attempt to integrate and synthesize findings. So, with the exception of a few differences that have been studied extensively, there is little cumulative scientific knowledge about the ways that men and women differ. Criticisms of this perspective Others point out that differences are rarely just differences. Instead, they reflect an imbalance of power between the sexes. “Difference” almost always means unequal. Some argue that focus on differences may act as self-fulfilling prophecies. Some suggest that denying differences is no more compatible with equality than acknowledging them, and dispute the claim that differences must necessarily be seen as deficiencies on the part of one group. Equality is best served by having accurate knowledge about women and men. Differences don’t imply inequality any more than similarity guarantees equal treatment. “Becoming gendered” How do children come to understand themselves as male or female? How is it that people take on characteristics seen as socially appropriate for their gender? From an individualist perspective, there are 2 general answers to these: Biological and genetic contributions to sex differences Researchers from this perspective argue that accepting the possibility that biological or genetic factors may influence human personality and behavior doesn’t imply that personality and behavior can be reduced to these factors. Instead, understanding how biology, genetics, and culture interact to shape personality and behavior, rather than examining each factor separately, is the best way to proceed as we explore these issues. Interest in precisely how sex differences may develop focuses on 2 general areas: Epigenic research on sex differences is based on the notion that “both genes and environment, acting together at all times, determine the structure and function of brain cells and thus the behavior of the organism.” For example: Women exposed to high doses of prenatal androgens are found to be less receptive to traditional female socialization than girls who did not have this exposure. In contrast, among women exposed to low levels of prenatal androgens, traditional female socialization had a strong effect on their adult gendered behavior. [However, this perspective is criticized for focusing more on the biological than the environmental.] Evolutionary psychology is another field that may yield knowledge about sex differences. evolutionary psychologists believe that sex differences stem from differences in the adaptive problems each sex confronts during evolution. They argue that humans develop through their attempts to effectively respond to their surroundings. they argue that sex selection is the key domain in which women and men confront different kinds of challenges. [see sociobiological perspective above] they have been criticized for ignoring learning and experience as important factors in human and animal behavior. Sociologists and other psychologists suggest that the sex differences evolutionary psychologists try to explain could just as easily be explained by social factors.