Man in the [Socialized] Box

For those of you who may be familiar with Jackson Katz, this may sound familiar. While I don't believe that he is the only source of today's topic, he is one of the primary sources of this information and one of the people who introduced me to it.

And now...a pop quiz!

Not really, but I would like for you to think about the following questions:


1. What disparaging terms (labels, names, stereotypes, etc.) have you, or someone you know, used and/or heard when describing a LGBT person?


2. What do all (or at least the greater majority) of your answers to the question above have to do with women?


Think about it.


Give up?


What if I told you that the majority of disparaging terms used toward LGBT people also happened to be misogynistic? Does that really surprise anyone? But wait, there's more...


You see, there is a model in which men in the United States are expected to fit. We learn about it through our socialization process. This image of what a man in our society does and does not do. A process known as sex-role socialization. Some of these things can be easily seen by filling in the blank in one, or both, of the following sentences:


A 'real' man can ___________


A 'real' man doesn't ___________


Take a minute and try them out. I'm certain most of use can rattle of three or more answers for each of these without much effort.


Notice anything about your answers?


If you're like most people in the United States, the behaviors associated with the first statement are primarily masculine, while the behaviors associated with the second statement are primarily feminine.


Why is that?


Because that is what we've been taught.
We learn this perspective from all of the sources of socialization; Family and media being among the most significant contributors.


From the color of the clothes our parents picked out for us as infants, to the toys we were steered into playing with or avoiding, to the electives in school, to the jobs we should seek, to our role in a relationship, etc., etc.

A word cloud developed from the vocabulary used to advertise popular children's toys. Boy's toys comprise the top cloud; girl's toys comprise the bottom cloud.

See the original article on this image by following the link here.

We are taught what a good (or bad) boy or girl should and should not do.


So what happens when a man in our society steps out of the boundaries that have been outlined for him?


Well, one thing that often happens is that other men challenge that behavior with disparaging terms. Not just any ole disparaging terms however, no... men often rely on terms that are hateful toward women, or misogynistic. It's peculiar, but it is. What men do, in effect, is challenge the targeted man's masculinity by taunting him with these terms. These things aren't always verbal either. Often, signs, symbols, and other forms of non-verbal communication is also deployed in an attempt to socially 'push' the targeted man back into the predefined role.


I say all of that to say this: Before one passes judgment on someone else because their behavior doesn't fit "in the lines" that society has drawn for us, one should take some time to reflect on their own feelings. It is much more difficult to think critically about oneself than it is to discount the lifestyle of someone else. But it isn't until we truly know ourselves that we can begin to appreciate others.

The Lesson Behind the Teacher

How much of an affect does what we hear about ourselves have on who we become?

Late last month, an article was published by NorthJersey.com about a first grade teacher who posted a statement on her Facebook page regarding her feelings toward some of her students.

 "I'm not a teacher - I'm a warden for future criminals"

Jennifer O'Brien, the teacher, stated that her post was written out of "exasperation" for not knowing "what else to do" in regards to the six or seven students in her classroom who, according to O'Brien, routinely demonstrate unruly behavior. Some hours after her original post, O'Brien followed up by posting that she didn't understand why she couldn't take her first graders to the "Scared Straight" program that the school was implementing for its sixth grade students in which students are allowed to speak with convicted criminals in order to sway them from following similar paths.

Rather than analyze O'Brien's comment for implicit bias or prejudice, I would like to share something else. Last night I came across a documentary that I believe demonstrates a wonderful point and, although a bit aged, is extremely relevant to this discussion.

The name of the documentary is A Class Divided. It is the story of a third grade teacher, Jane Elliott, who was also concerned about the futures of her students. Jane Elliott, soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, decided to conduct an experiment in her classroom to teach her students a little about the dynamics of discrimination. I've included an excerpt of the film below.

**WARNING: This video clip contains offensive language**

What I believe Jane Elliott demonstrates is that people are influenced by what they are told about themselves and about others. The effect is not limited to children however. Jane Elliott has reproduced this same experiment with the same results with adults as well. You can view the entire documentary, including an adult group here.

The lesson for me here is simple: rather than using her influence to guide the first grade students down the path of her own biased expectations, perhaps O'Brien ought to take a lesson from Elliott and provide the children with a reason to exceed them.

Entitlement and Privilege

           I've been engaged in a conversation lately on the topic of entitlements. Specifically, I have been discussing Florida's new state law which requires all welfare applicants to pass a drug screening prior to being able to receive benefits. I was introduced to the legislation through an article published by Time.com. As with any issue, there are multiple views; the following information is indicative of mine:

          From the onset, I was apprehensive about House Bill 0353 because it targeted a specific group of individuals, specifically: Florida's poor. To be clear, my apprehension would likely be present no matter the geographic location of the group. Despite my skepticism, I read several different views about the bill. Most of the articles and comments I read that support the bill centered on the argument that it is not fair for Florida's taxpayers to have their money spent on assisting those in need, if those receiving the assistance are spending it, in part or wholly, to purchase illicit drugs. On the surface, this argument sounds valid. Many people within our society, especially those in political circles (left or right, it doesn't matter) believe that the use of illegal drugs is wrong. Logic follows then, that those who maintain these values and beliefs would not want to contribute to another person's drug habit, even if indirectly.

          This is the point where my views on this matter tend to separate from many others. House Bill 0353, while described as a method for preventing taxpayers' money from being given to people who would use the money to buy drugs, is in my opinion, ill-suited for its stated purpose and instead, serves to further marginalize an already stigmatized group. If one were concerned about preventing their taxes from contributing to illegal drug habits, wouldn't it be better to focus on the population where the majority of illegal drug use occurs?
          Before we get there however, I believe it is prudent to look at what welfare is and who gets it. According to the Office of Management and Budget, there is no category of the Federal budget titled 'welfare'. There is, however, a portion of the Federal budget apportioned for 'Income Security'. Other agencies, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, call these 'Safety Net programs'. Income security consists of several subgroups, many of which are traditionally associated with the term welfare. These groups include: Food and Nutrition Assistance, Unemployment Compensation, and Housing Assistance. Another subset of income security is Earned Income and Child Tax Credits. The inclusion of this program under income security helped to facilitate an interesting thought process for me. What do we, as a society, consider to be welfare? Is it only compensation derived from government programs designed to provide assistance directly to the poor? By some definitions, there are government programs that provide assistance or a type of financial aid to people and families that live above the poverty line. Should we then require those recipients of federal benefits to also pass a drug test?
          The graph you see below was taken from the 2009 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).

 

"Current illicit drug use differed by employment status in 2009. Among adults aged 18 or older, the rate of illicit drug use was higher for unemployed persons (17.0 percent) than for those who were employed full time (8.0 percent) or part time (11.5 percent). Among those in the "other" employment category, which includes retired persons, disabled persons, homemakers, students, and other persons not in the labor force, the rate of current illicit drug use increased from 4.9 percent in 2008 to 6.0 percent in 2009."

"Although the rate of past month illicit drug use was higher among unemployed persons compared with those from other employment groups, most drug users in 2009 were employed. Of the estimated 19.3 million current illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2009, 12.9 million (66.6 percent) were employed either full or part time. The number of unemployed illicit drug users increased from 1.3 million in 2007 to 1.8 million in 2008 and 2.5 million in 2009, primarily because of an overall increase in the number of unemployed persons between 2007 and 2009. Increases also were seen in the numbers of past month illicit drug users among adults who were employed part time (from 3.1 to 3.6 million) and those in the "other" employment category (retired persons, disabled persons, homemakers, students, and other persons not in the labor force) (from 3.1 to 4.0 million). NSDUH estimates the numbers of persons who were employed full time were 122.2 million in 2008 and 114.8 million in 2009; the estimated numbers of unemployed persons were 9.0 million in 2008 and 14.7 million in 2009. The rate of current illicit drug use among unemployed adults was 19.6 in 2008 and 17.0 percent in 2009; although this difference is not statistically significant, the rate in 2009 may reflect the inclusion of persons who had been employed in 2008 but were unemployed at the time they were interviewed in 2009."

          Given the information above, one might think that in order to prevent taxpayers' money from being given to those who may use that money, in part or wholly, to purchase illegal drugs, one might draft a bill that requires everyone to take a drug test in order to receive federal benefits. Why focus solely on those who comprise less than one-third of the issue? Unless that's not the real issue...
          What else might there be? Another aspect of this argument that lies just beneath the surface is that there are those who feel their money is being abused by those receiving welfare. In other words, those receiving welfare don't deserve it. I will not argue that there aren't any people who receive federal or state assistance that take advantage of the system...I  don't consider myself to be that naive. I do however believe that those who do take advantage of welfare are fewer in number than most people would care to think. The American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on Women, Poverty, and Public Assistance published a paper titled "Making 'welfare to work' really work" which examines some of the stereotypes associated with people who receive welfare:

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support

Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent

A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility

Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages

Welfare programs have been our country's response to poverty, and everyone agrees that those programs have not solved the problem. Jared Bernstein (1996) of the Economic Policy Institute identifies wage decline as the crucial economic factor that has had the largest impact on poverty rates in the 1980s and 1990s. While hourly rates of pay have fallen for the majority of the workforce since the late 1970s, by far the largest losses have been for the lowest paid workers. According to Bernstein (1996), between 1979 and 1989, the male worker, for example, at the 10th percentile (meaning 90 percent of the male workforce earns more) saw his hourly wage decline 13 percent, and since 1989 he lost another 6 percent. For women workers at the 10th percentile, the decline over the 1980s was 18 percent. The low-wage female worker gained slightly since 1989, but by 1995, her hourly wage rate was $4.84, down from $5.82 in 1979 (all dollars are in 1995 inflation-adjusted terms).

Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women

Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children–Most Women on Welfare Are White

Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).

          For me, the argument that supports laws such as Florida's HB 0353 is not focused on the true issue. That issue being that people who have the privilege of not being in need of government assistance are allowing some of their implicit biases about poor people and families to influence decisions that are aimed directly at those same poor people and families. Perhaps its attribution error at work that causes people to see welfare recipients as lazy people who just want a free ride rather than the environmental causes that put that person into their present situation. Perhaps its the myth of meritocracy that so many Americans subscribe to that says "You can achieve anything as long as you work hard for it" that causes people to then look at someone using food stamps and come to the conclusion that they just aren't trying hard enough.
          It is far easier to focus on groups who have little to no voice, or are socially and politically marginalized. What do you suppose the response would be to a bill that would require all retired military veterans to take a drug test each month before receiving their pension check?
          I don't think that Florida's HB 0353 was conceived with ill intent. I do however, believe that it stopped well short of addressing the issue it claims to represent. While I don't think that everyone needs to be treated the same to be treated fairly, to me, this legislation certainly seems to be less than equitable to all parties involved.