Patti Giuffre

NOT JUST BODIES Strategies for Desexualizing the Physical Examination of Patients

Health care professionals use strategies during the physical examination to stay in control of their feelings, the behaviors of their patients, and to avoid allegations of sexual misconduct. To investigate how health care practitioners desexualize physical exams, the authors conducted 70 in-depth interviews with physicians and nurses. Three desexualizing strategies were general ones, used by both male and female health care providers, and were employed regardless of the characteristics of the patients: engaging in conversation and nonsexual joking, meeting the patient clothed before the exam, and using medical rather than colloquial terms. Six strategies were used only in specific contexts or were used primarily by men or women. These gendered strategies include using a chaperone, objectifying the patient, empathizing with the patient, joking about sex, threatening the patient, and looking professional. The authors conclude that desexualizing the exam is gendered and, in some contexts, (hetero) sexualized. Using certain strategies bolsters stereotypes about gender and heterosexual relationships in the hospital.

Teaching the Sociology of Gender and Work

This paper describes two teaching strategies from our workshop, “Teaching the Sociology of Gender and Work,” that can help students understand the mechanisms and consequences of workplace gender inequality at the macro- and micro-levels. Cynthia Andersons class project uses wage and sex composition data that allows students to learn actively how data are used to study general trends and changes over time. It encourages students to explore the reality of their possible careers and fields in terms of wages, proportion of women and men, and other factors. Sharon Birds class exercise requires students to consider the interactional dynamics of everyday work life and encourages them to see the subtle processes of marginalization and exclusion while also thinking about how to overcome gender biases. Some of this information will contribute to student angst about inequality in the workplace; thus, we conclude with suggestions for decreasing potential student distress and increasing student empowerment.

“Not one of the guys”: women chefs redefining gender in the culinary industry

Sociologists have documented how women in male-dominated occupations experience subtle and overt forms of discrimination based on gender stereotypes. This study examines women professional chefs to understand how they perceive and respond to stereotypes claiming women are not good leaders, are too emotional, and are not “cut out” for male-dominated work. Many of our participants resist these stereotypes and believe that their gender has benefited them in their jobs. Using in-depth interviews with women chefs, we show that they utilize essentialist gendered rhetoric to describe how women chefs are better than their male counterparts. While such rhetoric appears to support stereotypes emphasizing “natural” differences between men and women in the workplace, we suggest that women are reframing these discourses into a rhetoric of “feminine strength” wherein women draw from gender differences in ways that benefit them in their workplaces and their careers. Our conclusion discusses the implications of our findings for gender inequality at work.

Editors’ Comment: Incorporating Globalization in the Sociology Curriculum

As readers of Teaching Sociology know, the sociological imagination involves connecting personal biographies to the world at large, institutionally, historically, and culturally (Mills 1959). C. Wright Mills argued that the sociological imagination permits people to have a “grasp of what is going on in the world” (1959:7) and transform one’s thinking into a contextualized “self-consciousness” (1959: 7). Although explicit theorizing, studying, and teaching about globalization were not a part of Mills’ original conceptualization of the sociological imagination, the roots of the sociology of globalization are present in his arguments about the social world. Simply asking students to look at the labels in their clothing and to consider how their personal choices for their clothes are actually connected to factories, workers, labor, government policies, gender, race, culture, and social class in China, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, and Vietnam (as examples) can help them engage in a global sociological imagination. The articles and notes in this special issue highlight innovative ways to incorporate globalization into the sociology curriculum. They demonstrate how to teach students to identify and understand interconnections that exist between cultures, nation-states, governments, religions, and technology. Each article and note offers a widely applicable pedagogical technique for teaching about globalization. Many sociology programs now include courses on or related to globalization. Our perusal of papers presented at the annual American Sociological Association (ASA) conference program over the past five years, and of undergraduate textbooks on introduction to sociology and specific topics in sociology (e.g., sex and gender, race and ethnicity, criminology), suggests that globalization and transnational emphases have become integrated in sociology, but the topics and pedagogical techniques are still somewhat new and less widely recognized. The complexities of globalization can be overwhelming for faculty who want to incorporate transnational perspectives in their curricula but are not sure of how to get started. Approximately 15 articles in Teaching Sociology have discussed teaching globalization and transnational topics broadly defined (for examples of articles that are not in this issue, see Arabandi, Sweet, and Swords 2014; Davis and Robinson 2006; Harris, Harris, and Fondren 2015; Peterson, Witt, and Huntington 2015; Sohoni and Petrovic 2010). The papers that follow demonstrate that incorporation of globalization into the sociology curriculum can contribute to many student learning outcomes that are common in sociology, including critical thinking and cross-cultural understanding. As articulated in the ASA report The Sociology Major in the Changing Landscape of Higher Education: Curriculum, Careers, and Online Learning (Pike et al. 2017:3), departments are advised to “underscore, at all levels of the curriculum, inequality and difference in local, national, and global contexts.” This recommendation follows prior advocacy for integration (see SpalterRoth and Scelza 2009). In addition, sociology programs often assess critical thinking. The articles and notes in this issue demonstrate global critical thinking, which builds on Grauerholz and BoumaHoltrop’s (2003) definition of critical sociological thinking. Engaging in critical sociological thinking means that students “perceive and understand that their individual life choices, circumstances, and troubles are shaped by larger social forces such as race, gender, social class and social institutions” (Grauerholz and Bouma-Holtrop 2003:493). Incorporating globalization in some way (e.g., via study-abroad programs, online or face-to-face interactions with students in different countries, or a section of a course) encourages students to apply the sociological imagination and engage in global critical thinking. Global concerns have been at the heart of sociology from its start as a discipline, for example, in the writings of Marx. However, the focus on global concerns as applied to teaching priorities is a recent agenda, taking hold in the 1990s, as evidenced by content included in sources such as introductory textbooks. Explanations of the history, meaning, 728506 TSOXXX10.1177/0092055X17728506Teaching SociologyEditorial research-article2017

They Don’t Get It: The Promise and Problem of Using Student Resistance as a Pedagogical Tool

Sociology faculty often feel frustrated when students don’t “get it,” i.e., when students are resistant or hostile to course material or faculty, and have little increase in sociological critical thinking. Those of us who teach about gender must find ways to manage student resistance to the course material. Dealing with student resistance might increase some students’ critical thinking, while simultaneously frustrating progressive students. As we engage with resistance, we must consider whether we are engaging in feminist teaching or teaching feminism (Weitz (2010). Feminist Teacher, 20(3), 226–236). This chapter describes a faculty member’s engagement with student resistance in the classroom, and the strengths and weaknesses of doing so. After she describes how she confronts resistance, two of her former students (both of whom identify as feminists) describe the promise and problems of using student resistance as a pedagogical strategy.

Pole Dancing, Empowerment and Embodiment:

In Plural Masculinities, Sofia Aboim engages the changing dynamics of masculinity in the lives of men, and ultimately how the growing plurality of performances impacts the gender order. In emphasizing the existence of a diversity of masculinities, she claims that ‘‘different routes to change’’ (p. 10) can impact the hegemonic standard. She is, in a sense, deconstructing the homogeneous form of hegemonic masculinity to show that change is possible by conveying how ‘‘complicit’’ men produce alternative versions of masculinity based on an individualized experience, as opposed to historical institutionalized beliefs. She utilizes multiple methods from different data sources, which strengthen the claims that the diversity of masculine performances within the ‘‘private’’ sphere are impacted by social and familial changes. While Chapter Four derives from cross-cultural data, the final two chapters (Five and Six) are based on data drawn from men in Portugal, which limits specific application in other cultures, but is extremely useful when discussing change in general. Whether it is factor analysis of cross-cultural quantitative data concerning attitudes of the breadwinner role versus practices of work in the home (Chapter Four) or qualitative interviews with men as they respond to changes in family structures (Chapter Five), Aboim’s findings emphasize how gender expectations are slow to change even as the structure and organization of the family changes. Furthermore in Chapter Six, her qualitative analysis of sexuality and gender roles claims that, over time, expectations are changing about men’s and women’s roles in sexual relations (albeit slowly) which she argues impacts the hegemonic standard. Developing masculinities are hybrid masculinities, offering alternative masculinities that borrow from feminine experiences. The text exhibits that changes in masculine expectations and displays are apparent and they are linked to societal change, which impacts the gender order. Her use of multiple methods offers strong credibility to her claims, as each finding supports the overall idea. Although the interpretation of hybrid masculinities cannot be challenged, it can be debated. Throughout the text, Aboim demonstrates a complete understanding of the field, drawing on a range of theoretical ideas to express an inclusive discussion about the topic of masculinities, often moving beyond masculinity studies, and even feminist theories. In Chapter One, she offers a brief history of the development of the field to establish the context of her argument. The author, however, extends the discussion beyond the gender field, locating it within larger sociological discussions. For example, she reviews discussions of family (Chapter Three) and domination and hegemony (Chapter Two), allowing readers to comprehend the basis of her argument and the theoretical underpinnings that have helped to develop the ideas. This is a great tool for any graduate student who is interested in the field. But Aboim’s extensive theoretical development also appears to be a key limitation in the book. Although all aspects of the theories appear to be applicable to the discussion, the thorough discussion leads a reader to get mired in the theoretical discussions, losing focus on the key points the author is attempting to convey. The author dedicates the entirety of Chapter Three to justify family, or at least the ‘‘private’’ sphere, as an important venue for discussion, setting up the following three chapters. The author engages the discussion of the separation of spheres, which is interesting and thorough, but does not explicitly identify which aspects of it are relevant, nor does she offer examples to help the reader follow the context of the discussion. She relies predominantly on indepth theoretical discussions, which tend to be extremely abstract, making it difficult to

Book Review: Doing Gender Diversity: Readings in Theory and Real-World Experience

rap music or other forms of popular culture exists in a context of a society still mired in gender inequality. More specifically, Sternheimer contends that the discourse surrounding rap is a way to further (de)construct African Americans as a dangerous threat in urban America. She asserts that rap lyrics directly reflect a heightened form of masculinity and as such, it makes more sense to view rap music as developing from societal norms and values that encourage and foster misogyny and other antisocial behaviors. The threat is not just about violence, it is in fact sociopolitical. Rap music is especially troublesome because underneath concerns about sex or violence in music lie fears of politically explicit language that challenges not only adult sensibilities, but the current power structure as well. Chapter 10 is the summary. Sternheimer concludes that media conglomerates have a lot to gain by keeping us focused on the popular culture problem. That in effect, pop culture functions as a diversion to economic realities, by providing consumers with a temporary escape in their lives and diverting their attention from the extent to which poverty and inequality remain epidemic in American society. Using the metaphor of a wolf in sheep clothing, Sternheimer argues that although our social institutions thrive on conformity, the media are actually politically driven and based on fear. In our materialistic consumer society (i.e., capitalism) we are consumed by false consciousness. We envision prosperity and wealth in a positive light and believe we can become affluent. Children are at the center of most of these issues, and they have the most to lose. As consumers we are guilt ridden, buying items for our children because we do not spend enough quality time with them. Sternheimer reminds us that popular culture often reflects the contemporary experience of youth, which adults often view as frightening. Though she does not provide a definition of power, it can be surmised that she considers power to be the capacity to influence a person or institution. Sternheimer suggests that rather than avoid the media, we should engage in more media analysis. Our media culture provides a great text for both artistic and social criticism, and as such, media analysis is a great tool for exposing the complexities of society. Though the media may be harmful, they are not all powerful. Sternheimer asks us to take another look. Her book is a well written rationale as to why we should.

Book Review: Changing Corporate America from Inside Out: Lesbian and Gay Workplace Rights

“Emily”) provides a way to focus on conflicts within male autonomy. While this is an extreme example, over and over again, Miller reduces the female characters in Chaucer’s tales to mere reflections or complications of the men’s search for a less conflicted sense of self. Miller claims that Chaucer’s women differ from fruit or sheep only in that they look back at desiring men, desiring themselves. And even this interesting avenue is shut off, as Miller never shifts the focus to the women themselves but stays firmly focused on what happens to men when the objects of their desires express themselves. Even when he addresses major women characters, such as the Wife of Bath, he reduces them to mere representations within philosophical codes only concerned with masculine issues. An inability to really focus on women is the greatest disappointment, but this book is problematic for at least three other reasons. First, it is a very dense, theoretical book. Theory and theoretical writing are not in themselves bad—complex things often need to be said complexly. However, Miller is drawing from so many different systems that it is impossible for any but the most specialized reader to follow and understand his work. In addition, Miller’s focus is extremely tight. He deals with only four of the tales and several sources, and within those tales, his attention is usually on a few key moments, while large swaths of text are ignored. I have already commented on how he does not address anything Emily actually says; most of the chapter on the Wife of Bath concerns a few dozen lines out of 800 and, in the discussion of the Clerk’s Tale, no attention is paid to the way Griselda functions between her trials when she is sent back to her father’s house or at the end of the tale when her children are returned to her. These omissions would be problematic no matter what, but it is very troubling that all the omissions concern moments when women are most expressive and active. Finally, there is a point of style that may seem minor but that is representative of all the problems. Despite the scholarly nature of the text, Miller regularly uses the second person pronoun, creating sentences such as “This is the thrilling freedom of a commitment to a desire that seizes you, and to which you devote yourself with no question of reflective endorsability entering your mind” (p. 110). Pausing only momentarily over the grating effect of the informal “you” juxtaposed against “reflective endorsability,” I will point out that this sentence is taken from the paragraph that reduces Emily to “Emily,” a mindless prop that allows the lovers to define their own sense of self. Thus, the “you” in this sentence, and throughout the book, can be directed only at readers who are just like Miller—scholarly, erudite, and male. Despite the theoretical polish, Miller has written the most old fashioned of books; one that claims to illuminate the world but only reflects the narrow views of the writer.

Book Review: What Is Sexual Harassment? From Capital Hill to the Sorbonne:

The title of this book asks a compelling question about which there is much sociological, political, and legal debate. Saguy attempts to answer, “What Is Sexual Harassment?” by comparing how sexual harassment is conceptualized differently in France and the United States. She undertook an impressive comparative qualitative and quantitative analysis, including content analyses of legal texts; interviews with representatives from a multinational corporation; in-depth interviews with feminists, lawyers, and other experts on sexual harassment; and an analysis of articles on sexual harassment from newspapers and newsmagazines. Sexual harassment is defined in French penal codes as a form of sexual violence, similar to—although considered less serious than—rape. As a form of sexual violence, sexual harassment in France can occur legally outside of the workplace (e.g., between a landlord and tenant). Sexual harassment is viewed as a form of “hierarchical abuse” rather than as a case of group-based employment discrimination. French laws recognize quid pro quo harassment between hierarchical unequals (although, as the book went to press, laws were modified to include “sexual pressure from co-workers,” similar to the U.S. hostile environment form of sexual harassment). In contrast, Saguy finds that both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment in the United States are forms of sex discrimination, illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964). Unlike laws in France, sexual harassment laws in the United States are confined to workplace experiences as forms of employment discrimination and are not considered a form of violence. These two conceptions have distinct consequences for victims, perpetrators, and businesses. Because employers in the United States are held liable and can be sued for sexual harassment, many businesses have responded by requiring employees to attend training and by having strict policies. French employers, however, are not held responsible or liable for occurrences of sexual harassment, but perpetrators can be sentenced to jail and fined if convicted. Therefore, employers in France are not concerned about sexual harassment and do not feel the need to take preventative measures adhered to by many businesses in the United States. This difference was reinforced during the author’s interviews with attorneys. Lawyers in the United States describe a climate in which sexual harassment laws are taken seriously, whereas in France, sexual harassment statutes lack legitimacy. Both plaintiffs and lawyers are stigmatized in sexual harassment cases. Interestingly, Saguy found that both nations have negative perceptions of the other and that these ideas fueled differing definitions of sexual harassment in each country. The French tend to see the United States as puritanical and excessive in terms of defining many minor sexual behaviors as sexual harassment in America. For example, one French respondent was critical of the United States because even holding a door open for a woman is (supposedly) considered sexual harassment. U.S. lawmakers and other public figures in the study