Gender and sexuality and ethnic and race relations

Thinking Sociologically about gender and sexuality

• Society – deeply structured – gender and sexuality

• Shaped by gender and heteronormative expectations

• “The assumption that heterosexuality is a universal norm therefore making homosexuality invisible or “abonormal”” (Siltanen, Doucet and Albanese, 171, in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018)

Gender and Sexuality as Critical Vantage Points

• Gender and sexuality – central part of Canadian sociological study

• Historically – sociology heterocentric/male centred

• “Assessing social relations and structures by the norms of heterosexuality.” (Siltanen, Doucet and Albanese, 171, in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018)

• Dorothy Smith – including/centring women’s experiences with research and theory

• Sexuality studies – challenge fixed/inaccurate ideas human sexuality

Gender and Sexuality as Critical Vantage Points: feminist Scholars

• Social construction of sex and sexuality

• Control of women’s bodies and reproduction

• The objectification of women

• Sexual double standards

• The link between sex and power

• Sexual abuse and oppression

Gender and Sexuality as social constructions

• Early - challenged idea –gender identities easily mapped to biological identities

• Gender and Sex – terms introduced

  • “Socially produced differences, primarily of character, ambition and achievement.” (Siltanen, Doucet and Albanese, 158, in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018)

  • “Biologically based differences, primarily related to chromosomes and reproductive functions.” (Siltanen, Doucet and Albanese, 158, in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018)

• Sociology – challenged notions of being dichotomous

  • “…a more dynamic relationship between identified features of sexed bodies and what these features come to mean, in social situations and personal identities.” (Siltanen, Doucet and Albanese, 159, in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018)

• Current sociological scholarship – undoing gendered/heteronormative assumptions/structures

Gender and sexuality in school

• Gender differences – schooling experiences – significant attention

• Early research – classroom experiences, curriculum, measurement of success – favouring of boys

• Early 1980’s – Enrolment of women in university > men

• 2011- 60% of university/college enrolment, less than half doctoral programs

• Women –underrepresented: engineering, physical sciences, computer sciences

• 26% of students in math, and comp/info science, 20% of architecture, engineering and related tech.

sexual violence

• Schippers: Sexual domination of women – cornerstone of gender hegemony

• “…to identify hegemonic masculinity and hegemonic femininity as a relation of dominance supported by the eroticization of difference, and the power imbalance in heterosexual sex.” (Siltanen, Doucet and Albanese, 171, in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018)

• Schipper’s theory of gender hegemony – built on Connell’s “hegemonic masculinity”

• “A dominant form of masculinity that may vary depending on the social context, but typically valorizes physical strength, economic power, heterosexuality and the domination of women and subordinate men.” (Siltanen, Doucet and Albanese, 171, in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018)

Gender and Sexuality in Work

• Gender segregation – university programs – gender segregated jobs

• Same career – men start at higher salary – women – glass ceiling

• Organizational sexuality: “Social practices that determine explicit and culturally elaborate rules of behavior to regulate sexual identities and personal relationships in the workplace.” (Siltanen, Doucet and Albanese, 171, in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018)

• Some organizations – mandate sexualization of workers –institutionalized component of work

gender and sexuality in the family

• Areas of study: inequality within the family/gender divisions of domestic labour

• Three features:

  • Domestic labour/care for children –not small issue that only concern to women

  • gender imbalance of family based care work – political, economic, personal, social costs.

  • Not caring affects men – shorter lifespans

• More men –doing more housework

• Only recently – some families allowed to legally “count” as families –Bill C 23 (2000), C-315 (2005)

the body

• Gender negotiation of youth – globalized relational context.

• Greater exposure – diverse images/practices – masculinity, femininity and sexuality

• Also – pressure – homogenized, conservative, stereotyped, exploitative messages

• Body – site - worked out

Gender relations and social change

• Youth –key source of energy '

• Involved in campaigns/activist work

• Examples:

  • Femmetoxic

  • White Ribbon Campaign

  • Egale Canada

Ethnicity and Race

• Ethnic and race relations – central to/growing - Canadian sociology

• “…refers to social distinctions and relations among individuals and groups based on their cultural characteristics (language, religion, customs, history, and so on)…” (Liodakis, 174 in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018).

• “…refers to peoples assumed but socially significant physical or genetic characteristics…” (Liodakis, 174 in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018).

Canadas Development through immigration

• Until 1960’s – image of Canada – British and French peoples – founders

• Notion – built country, others joined later – inaccurate

• Colonized and settled –expense of Indigenous peoples

• Immigration – confederation – build infrastructure, agriculture, industry

• “Free land” – 1st large wave of immigration – from 1896-WW1

• Until liberalization of policies in 1960’s – policies – exclusionary

• Preferred vs. “non-preferred”/excluded groups

• 1962 – racist criteria eliminated

• 1967 – introduction of “points system” – objective criteria

Recent immigration Trends

• Until 1950’s – US/UK/Europe- 90% -2014 – 14.8%

• 2014: 84.8% - Asia and Pacific Region/Africa and Middle East/South and Central America

reasons for immigration trends

• Immigrants – several classes:

  • Economic

  • Family Class

  • Refugees

  • Others

• 2015:

  • largest – economic -62.7%

  • Family class – 24%

  • Refugees – 1.8%

• Geographical distribution:

  • Ontario – 38.1%

  • Quebec – 18%

  • Alberta – 17.4%

  • BC – 13.1%

  • Manitoba – 5.5%

  • Saskatchewan – 4.6%

• Urban-rural divide

• Urban centres

multiculturalism

• Prior, to multiculturalism – Canadian society – ethnocentrism

• Pressure – adopt British/French cultural values/customs

• Assimilation - processes/practices - “fuse” into dominant culture

• First introduced as policy - 1971

prejudice and racism

• Historically – unjust treatment of Indigenous peoples by Canadian Gov’t

• During two world wars- internment – Germans, Italians, Japanese/Russians, Ukrainians, Jews – barred from immigration

• First ½ of 20th century – policy – exclusion of Chinese, South Asia

  Today – discrimination – more covert

the vertical mosaic and the colour coded mosaic

• The Vertical Mosaic - 1965

• Vertical Mosaic: “Porter’s metaphor about Canadian society implying that it comprises many ethnic groups (mosaic) but that there is an ethnic hierarchy with the British and the French on the top and all other groups at the bottom of social, economic and political structures (vertical).” (Liodakis, 197 in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018).

• Today – racialized rather than ethnic form

• Colour-coded Vertical Mosaic: “The argument that “race” or “visibility” has replaced ethnicity in the structure of social, economic, and political inequality in Canada.” (Liodakis, 196 in Tepperman and Albanese, 2018).