On September 23rd the Globe and Mail published an article entitled “Canadian Teens Ambivalent about Gender Equality.” This article compared the prevalence of gender stereotypes among teenagers in Canada, India, United Kingdom and Rwanda. Canadians ranked high in their adherence to traditional gender roles; men’s primary responsibility as being in the public sphere, earning money to support his family, whereas women belong in the private sphere, taking care of the home and raising children. One of the central themes of the article was gender equality and many of the interviewees stated that women and men ought to be in conversation with one another in order to achieve this aim.
This article resonated with me, as it reflects this week’s questions and themes. As I read through it I wondered how language continues to shape the public-private dichotomy and how this in turn perpetuates gender stereotypes. I will discuss how Aili Tripp’s article “Why So Slow? The Challenges of Gendering Comparative Politics” and Claire Duncanson and Catherine Eschle’s artcile “Gender and the Nuclear Weapon State: A Feminist Critique of the UK Government’s White Paper on Trident” relate to the themes of gender and language.
Tripp’s article is concerned with the lack of gender within the subfield of comparative politics. Her article is divided into five subsections: the small number of women researching these topics, the invisibility of gendered comparative politics, methodological issues, trends in research and a lack of mentors and classes devoted to this subject. The central argument of her article is the way these five issues perpetuate the small niche gender currently represents in comparative politics.
The gender stereotypes discussed in the Globe and Mail article are present in Tripp’s analysis. The public-private divide is exemplified in her discussion of how men conducting field work often bring their spouse assist in child care, whereas women engaged in field work usually bring their children, but leave their spouse. Tripp also points to the difficulty many women face in conducting field work abroad, as academic and funding agencies rarely offer enough (financial) support for their children. This means fewer women receive their PhD’s after having children and in turn, fewer women obtain tenure in comparison to their male colleagues. These examples show how terms like “public” and “private” have serious repercussions on gender stereotypes.
The impact of language and gender is highlighted in Tripp’s methodology section. Quantitative research is characterized by statistics and mathematical models and this type of approach neutralizes gender. As Tripp points out, it is this type of research that is found in the top political science journals. In contrast, research focused on gender tends to incorporate a qualitative methodology, which is less likely to be published in the top journals. This means that research focused on gender is marginalized within academic structures. How can teens be less ambivalent about gender equality when research presents itself as neutral when it ought to be read as deeply gendered?
The way gender and language intersect and reflect common stereotypes is also illustrated in Duncanson and Eschle’s article. Their work builds on Carol Cohn’s findings of the masculinised and sexualized language that characterizes the nuclear state discourse. Using a post-structural textual analysis, they deconstruct the UK government’s White Paper on Trident. Duncanson and Eschle claim that while the White Paper is not seeped in overtly sexualized language, nuclear discourse is still relies on a gendered language. For instance, they discuss how security is conceptualized using a realist perspective, whereby the state is understood as the protector (read: masculine and public sphere) and the citizens are understood as in need of protection (read: feminine and private sphere). Also, the discourse on the “enemy Other” illuminates the way language dichotomizes gender, as the “enemy Other” is irrational and emotional thus casting the UK in the role of controlled and rational. This is reflected in the Globe and Mail article, as about 45% of the Canadian teens interviewed said an important characteristic of men is “being tough.”
Duncanson and Eschle also discuss the way the White Paper shapes a role for the UK as a “responsible steward.” They found this to be laden with contradictions, as paper claimed the UK would act unilaterally, which ignores the strategic influence of the United States as well as the UK`s dependence on this alliance. Imagining itself as a “responsible steward” reflects the notion that the UK is a protector and by deconstructing this, Duncanson and Eschle demonstrate the inherent contradictions in dichotomies. The language used in this article is heavily gendered, which helps to shape gender stereotypes.
The Globe and Mail article articulated the importance of gender equality, but before this can be achieved, it is necessary to reflect upon the way language and gender intersects. Tripp, Duncanson and Eschle all discuss these themes and their work illustrates the very real way in which language impacts our practices and beliefs regarding masculinity and femininity.
Bibliography
Baluja, Tamara. Globe and Mail, September 27,011. Accessed September 28, 2011. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-teens-ambivalent-about-gender-equality/article2177091/
Duncanson, Claire and Catherine Eschele. “Gender and the Nuclear Weapon State: A Feminist Critique of the UK Government’s White Paper on Trident.” New Political Science 30:4 (December 2008), 545-563.
Tripp, Aili. “Why So Slow? The Challenges of Gendering Comparative Politics.” Politics and Gender 2:2 (2006), 249-263.
No comments:
Post a Comment