Centro de cronometraje

In this chapter, I discuss the importance of gender roles and expectations of gendered behavior for both men and women and their treatment by the correctional system. I begin by discussing social construction feminism (Lorber, 2001) and the concept “doing gender” developed by West and Zimmerman (1987) and subsequent research concerning the process of “doing gender” by adhering to norms of appropriate gendered behavior and attributes. I also explore how this concept developed by West and others has been criticized for its micropolitical view of gender, and how other factors, particularly race, effect behavioral expectations as well. I then examine how these gendered and racial behaviors influence expectations in broader society (i.e., division of labor, masculinity, femininity, and consequences for misbehavior) through controlling images. I also discuss the historical lack of emphasis on gender within the criminal justice system and the use of the male standard, and finally, I examine how the correctional system employs gender and other socially defined roles in work and programming expectations.

Social Construction of Gender

According to social construction feminism, gender is a social institution that is reinforced through the interactions of individuals throughout our society, and in essence, creates differences among men and women due to socialization rather than biology

(Lorber, 2001). Moreover, daily interactions both enforce behavioral expectations and recreate boundaries between men and women (Lorber, 2001). Indeed, social

constructionists note that for all people in our society, there are social definitions for being male and female, masculine and feminine; these definitions create expectations that influence gendered behavior (Goffman, 1977). Gender is not a static entity or identity, but rather a dynamic and continual state of accepted norms and behaviors learned,

enforced, and reinforced through social interactions (Goffman, 1977; Lorber, 2001; West & Fenstermaker, 1995; West & Zimmerman, 1987). West and Fenstermaker (1995) state, “doing gender involves a complex of perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical

activities that cast particular pursuits as expressions of manly and womanly ‘natures’”(p. 9). Importantly, gender is not the same as sex - it is not essential or biological (Lorber, 2001). West and Zimmerman (1987) stipulate that there are three differentiating groupings: sex, sex categorization, and gender.

Accordingly, sex is a determination made through biological, yet socially accepted, criteria that in our society isdetermined by genitalia (West & Zimmerman, 1987, 2009). In the Western world, sex and gender are binary statuses; an individual is either male or female (Kelan, 2010; Pullen & Simpson, 2009; West & Fenstermaker, 1995). Kelan (2010) notes that this view of gender has been criticized and that, “gender is like an empty binary construction into which meaning can be poured” (p. 188). Still, no other category is socially, legitimately recognized in the United States or other Western countries. Therefore, sex, in our society, remains a binary status. Sex categorization is achieved through the application of one’s sex determination and oftentimes stands as a proxy for one’s sex (i.e., male or female) (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Furthermore, sex

categorization is the appearance of one’s sex, and it outlines the expectations of an individual accordingly (i.e., masculine or feminine). Individuals act out the expectations of their sex categorization through their gendered behavior (e.g., appropriate activities for individuals with regard to their gender as either male or female – for instance, men being aggressive and women nurturing children).

Gender, unlike sex and sex categorization, is a process. It is the activity of

managing one’s behaviors and attitudes in a socially appropriate manner due to one’s sex and sex categorization (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Gender is what an individual does, not who s/he is (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Since gender is seen as a continual process, it is argued that it is (re)produced by interactions with others (Kelan, 2010; Lorber, 2001; Pullen & Simpson, 2009; West & Fenstermaker, 1995; West & Zimmerman, 1987). West and Zimmerman (1987) refer to this process as “doing gender.” The concept, of “doing gender” follows a constructionist approach, meaning it is based on the idea that

interactions are the foundations of our socially defined world (Kelan, 2010; Lorber, 2001). It is these interactions among individuals in our culture, and expected behaviors which are (re)produced through encounters which construct our views of gender. Moreover, some believe that gender is relevant in shaping all situations at all times, especially gender in combination with race and class (Kelan, 2010).

Goffman (1977) noted that masculinity and femininity are viewed as “prototypes of essential expression” (p. 75). In fact, many aspects of our lives and behaviors may be labeled as either feminine or masculine. Moreover, West and Zimmerman (1987) note that gender is not just a coincidence, but rather an all important factor in social

Gender is not something that happens in the nooks and crannies of interaction fitted here and there and not interfering with the serious business of life. While it is plausible to contend that gender displays – construed as conventional

expressions – are optional, it does not seem plausible to say that we have the option of being seen by others as male or female (p. 130).

Society expects men and women to behave in certain ways because they are men and women. These expectations will change over time, however, since gender is fluid and dynamic and is constantly negotiated and renegotiated through social interactions (Chan et al., 2010; Kelan, 2010).

Over time, there have been changes to the norms that define gender and sexuality that have broadened the meanings and conditions of actions and behaviors attributed to these concepts (Kelan, 2010). For example, for several hundred years women,

specifically white, middle-class women, were expected to stay at home and work within the household (e.g., household chores, child care tasks). Yet, over the last several decades, more women have entered the workplace in record numbers. During this time, an expectation of appropriate work and behaviors for women have progressed to a point that now it is acceptable for all women to enter the workforce (Morash & Haarr, 2012). Still, not all jobs are believed to be appropriate for women (i.e., policing, construction work), and while it is important to note that our concept of gender is constantly changing, one should also remember that gender is a larger function of society rather than just an individual role. Individual men and women behave in gender appropriate ways because it is expected of them by society. As argued by West and Fenstermaker (1995), gender is “a mechanism whereby situated social action contributes to the reproduction of social structure” (p. 21). Therefore, individuals behave according to societal expectations, and

social expectations are reinforced through individual behavior. One mechanism through which this process is accomplished is during the early socialization of children.

Gendered expectations and how to properly “do gender” are taught to all members of our society. Two institutions through which children are gendered are the family and school (Lorber, 2001). Children are often taught from an early age what it means to be a boy and what it means to be a girl (Lorber, 2001; Miller, Lurye, Zosuis, & Ruble, 2009). Furthermore, they are taught that there are consequences for behaving in ways that are outside of socially accepted gender expectations (i.e., ridicule and mocking). Miller and colleagues (2009) note, “from birth, children are surrounded by information that

communicates the beliefs and behaviors that are considered appropriate for each gender group” (p. 870). One of the first places where children are taught gendered expectations is in the home, where men and women divide labor along stereotypical lines with women often doing more of the housework (i.e., laundry, dishwashing, cooking) and men

completing more of the outside tasks (i.e., car or lawn maintenance; Lorber, 2001). Children are also taught gendered behavior in schools, where girls and boys are responded to differently and according to their gender (Lorber, 2001).

As I noted earlier, gender is not what someone is or something one has achieved, rather it is something that is continually practiced on a daily basis throughout one’s lifetime (Shield & Dicicco, 2011). During childhood, boys are typically taught to value physical strength or appropriate skills characteristic of masculinity such as construction or problem solving (Goffman, 1977; West & Zimmerman, 1987), whereas girls are usually taught to value their appearance (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Once learned, these attitudes are reinforced both in the home and in school (Lorber, 2001). Throughout their

adolescence and adulthood, individuals learn and employ “appropriate” attributes and behavior according to their gender (Shield & Dicicco, 2011).

Some scholars have criticized the works of West and Zimmerman (1987) and West and Fenstermaker (1995) and their view of gender (e.g., Collins, Maldonado, Takagi, Thorne, Weber, & Winant, 1995). These critics note that West and Fenstermaker (1995) focus more on micro-level interactions in everyday life, than on larger, macro- systems that influence our views of gender (Collins, 1995; Weber, 1995). Additionally, these scholars note that race, class, and other factors shape the meanings and expectations associated with gender.Furthermore, race and class are important social statuses that work in conjunction with gender in shaping individuals’ social position within society (Collins, 1995). Furthermore, in order to truly understand a person’s social position, gender along with race and class must be examined, and they must be examined at both the individual- and societal-level. Weber (1995) notes that West and Fenstermaker (1995) over-emphasize micro-level interactions, and in doing so, ignore social structures (i.e., institutional arrangements, community structures, and family systems) that are important in influencing the social positions of individuals. This scholarship

acknowledges that “race, class, and gender are pervasive social arrangements” (Weber, 1995, p. 501) that influence day-to-day behaviors.

Consequently, a growing number of feminist scholars have evolved from solely focusing on gender in explaining women’s oppression and treatment in society to looking at the simultaneous effects of race, class, and gender (i.e., Black and critical race

feminists and multiracial or multicultural feminists; Burgess-Procter, 2006; Collins, 2000; Lorber, 2001). For example, Burgess-Procter (2006) notes, “intersectionality

recognizes that systems of power such as race, class, and gender do not act alone to shape our experiences, but rather, are multiplicative, inextricably linked, and simultaneously experienced” (p. 31). These systems work together to construct a social location for individuals, which when taken together produces varying types of oppression depending on one’s membership in the multiple systems of domination (Lorber, 2001). It is not possible to disentangle gender from each of these other systems, but gender can be understood within the context of them (Barak, Leighton, & Flavin, 2010; Lorber, 2001; Shield, 2008). Thus, it is important to recognize that one system (i.e., gender) is not solely responsible for expectations of how people should act, but rather multiple systems of dominance and oppression shape behavioral expectations. As is the case with gender, race and class are also social constructions that are dynamic, continuously changing and evolving, and shaped through interactions over space and time (Shields, 2008; Weber, 1998; Weber, 2010).

Intersectional research has also criticized feminist scholarship for focusing on the experiences of white, middle-class women (Collins, 2000; Shields, 2008; Weber, 1995) and failing to acknowledge that these experiences do not represent the lived experiences of all women. Intersectional research notes the importance of understanding systems of privilege and oppression through multiple factors rather than one. This research also argues the importance of understanding the context of groups and their situations in systems of privilege in order to understand societal expectations of behavior and individuals’ social environments (Shields, 2008). When we talk about issues of

dominance and oppression, including differentiated power between men and women, we need to recognize other factors which influence power and privilege as well, especially

when these factors help build and sustain controlling images (Shields, 2008; Collins, 2000).

Controlling images, as defined by Collins (2000), are images used to justify oppression. These images are typically based on sexist and racist ideologies and are found throughout our social structure in the U.S. (Collins, 2000). For instance, two controlling images of Black women are the “black matriarch” who dominates the Black family and is in control of the household, and the “mammy” who works for a White family and becomes a substitute or second mother to the White children (Young, 1986). These controlling images and the ideologies that influence them are often seen as

“natural, normal, and inevitable” (Collins, 2000, p. 5), and perpetuate myths we hold about how people should behave and act. These images which are found throughout society influence our perceptions of how individuals “fit” in society. In the paragraphs below, I discuss expectations of masculinity and femininity, and how they vary by race and class.

Masculinity

Men are considered the standard by which all else is measured in our culture and society (Franklin, 2008), particularly white, upper-/middle-class men. Men also

command the public sphere, or activities conducted outside the home (Furnham & Mak, 1999; Goffman, 1977), meaning that men are expected to leave the home and join the workforce. Additionally, men have been perceived as the “breadwinners” for the family because of their freedom to venture out of the private sphere of the home and into public. Besides being gainfully employed, there are additional societal and behavioral

Men in U.S. society are supposed to be strong, in control, rational, autonomous, and they should be able to “stand apart” from other members of society on their own merit (Carpenter & Trentham, 1998; Franklin, 2008; Gilligan, 1993; Pullen & Simpson, 2009). Certain behaviors are associated with being more masculine and, therefore, more appropriate for men. Men are supposed to be more rational than women; they are also supposed to be able to keep a “cool head” in all situations (Pullen & Simpson, 2009). Men are also deemed more competent, disciplined, and authoritative than women in both the public and private spheres (Furnham & Mak, 1999; Pullen & Simpson, 2009), hence they often comprise the majority of legislators and lawmakers. Additionally, men are seen as more physically aggressive than women and are thought to be more physical in nature because men are supposed to enjoy horseplay and various other outdoor and/or physical activities (Goffman, 1977; Miller et al., 2009).

In regards to career expectations for men, the most favorable role for men in our society is that of the businessman because men in business positions are seen as in

control, autonomous, and rational – all the characteristics that embody masculinity (Vonk & Ashmore, 2003). Men are also deemed appropriate for work that is considered violent, dangerous, and risky such as policing, correctional work, construction work, or mining (Morash & Haarr, 2012). Hegemonic masculinity signifies the acceptance of heterosexual male dominance in our society and is consistent with the views that men are suited for careers where they must be aggressive, strong, and assertive (Morash & Haarr, 2012). Again, careers as construction workers, handymen, businessmen, and police officers are all deemed appropriate for men. These career paths are considered traditional paths because they emphasize masculine qualities.

However, many men are blocked from entering these traditional career paths due to either class or race. For example, historically, Black men have been forced into occupations where they do not make enough money to sustain their family (Collins, 2000), and cannot achieve the masculine goal of being the “breadwinner.” These

occupations often consist of low-skilled manufacturing jobs, and while these occupations pay more than jobs that Black women have been able to find (i.e., domestic jobs, service- industry jobs), they are often unstable and temporary positions (Collins, 2000). Collins (2000) notes that the instability of employment for Black males post-Civil War led to many Black men becoming employed through the drug trade of the 1980s – which was, itself, divided along gendered lines with males and females performing specific tasks. Additionally, Miller (1998) notes that robbers are disproportionately Black males and indicates this may be one way urban youth are accomplishing their gender – through being tough and masculine. Both of these career-types criminal and non-criminal, while not the ideal “business-man” role for men, still embody many traits that are deemed masculine, such as skill (i.e., manufacturing), and the need to be strong, aggressive, and ready to face danger (i.e., the drug trade; robbery). Therefore, it is important to note how these roles of masculinity vary due to social factors (i.e., class and race) in determining appropriate vocations. It is also important to note that not all men enter traditional career paths or vocational trades.

Some men enter non-traditional career paths, or occupations that are generally seen as more suitable for women (i.e., nursing, teaching), even though they are generally regarded as less prestigious, offer lower pay, and may cause them to face stigma and shame (Pullen & Simpson, 2009; Simpson, 2005). Research has found that men who

work in these job fields often face social consequences for their decisions (Pullen & Simpson, 2009; Simpson, 2005). Entering a non-traditional career path is one way that men may violate gender norms however it is not the only way that they might do so. They might violate their masculinity by being unemployed, lazy, or by staying home with their children, or by being homosexual (Pullen & Simpson, 2009; Simpson, 2005; Vonk & Ashmore, 2003). Men who fit these descriptions often face consequences or

repercussions.

One frequent consequence for violating masculinity is that men are mocked or are labeled with a feminine attribute. Men may experience feelings of embarrassment,

discomfort, and shame when they violate gender norms, especially if their actions are questioned by their friends, family, or other loved ones (Simpson, 2005). When confronted with this shame, embarrassment and/or resistance, men may become aggressive or overly assertive (Pullen & Simpson, 2009), presumably in an effort to compensate for perceived challenges to their masculinity. Hence, there are many reactions to these consequences, some of which might focus on trying to meet an appropriate gender standard or reinforcing one’s manhood by behaving in traditionally very masculine ways. Women, too, have prescribed roles, behaviors, attributes, career paths, and consequences based on their gender.

Femininity

Goffman (1977) noted in the late 1970s that the social roles of men and women tend to give women lesser rank and power, restrict women’s use of public space, and may leave women focused on their domestic duties. Females are typically associated with less status and authority than are males (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Moreover, women,

specifically white, middle-class women (or “good” women), are seen as precious,

ornamental, fragile, passive, emotional and ill-suited for various tasks that require trained skill sets because they are not seen as capable or as competent as men (Goffman, 1977; Young, 1986). This may be one reason that women are generally expected to do more work in the private sphere than men (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Additionally, two principle feminine attributes for women are that they should be nurturing and gentle, which is why housewives are typically viewed most favorably of all women in society (Haddock & Zanna, 1994; Morash & Haarr, 2012; Vonk & Ashmore, 2003).

Women who subscribe to traditional feminine attributes are highly regarded by both men and women alike (Haddock & Zanna, 1994) for their appropriate gender behavior. Traditional feminine attributes include characteristics such as compassion, emotion, empathy, passivity, supportiveness, dependence, vulnerability, and fragility (Goffman, 1977; Morash & Haarr, 2012; Young, 1986). All women should embody these characteristics in their attempts to “do gender.” Furthermore, these attributes dictate appropriate vocations for women, along with appropriate actions and behaviors.

Historically, women have been expected to stay at home to maintain the household and take care of the kids. However, this was not an option for all women.