Not Just a Woman
What are women’s varied social characteristics, how do they influence an individual woman’s experience, and how do they connect to the matrix of domination?
A woman is not just a woman. Her identity also includes a race/ethnicity, social class, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, and age as well as a variety of other characteristics. These categories form a social identity, a person’s sense of self, which is based on that individual’s affiliations with different social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). As individuals, our social identity is deeply personal because it ultimately determines how we experience and express ourselves (Shields, 2008). At the same time, our social identity is connected to other people. For example, we derive positive feelings of self-worth and belonging when a member of our group succeeds, and we worry that poor behavior on the part of a fellow group member might reflect poorly on us (Cohen & Garcia, 2005; Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997). Additionally, how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us isn’t necessarily fixed—it can vary across time and from situation to situation. For example, Evelyn Alsultany, director of Arab and Muslim American Studies at the University of Michigan, reports that she is perceived to be Latinx in some U.S. contexts, Arab in some other places, and not adequately Arab, Latinx, or American in other places (Alsultany, 2002).
Power Hierarchies
What are the mechanisms by which those with a dominant status maintain their power, and why is this often difficult to see?
As discussed in Chapter 1, there is a widely held perception that merit often accounts for why some people have more than others. However, life’s playing field isn’t level, and some people have advantages simply because of aspects of their identity. Privilege is a term that describes the social, economic, and/or political advantages that people enjoy simply because they’re part of a certain group, rather than because of anything they did or failed to do (Johnson, 2006; McIntosh, 1989). Privilege results in tangible benefits—such as increased security and money for housing, food, health care, and education—which almost always results in greater power (Case, 2013). Table 2.2 shows key characteristics associated with people who have either more privilege or less—that is, who are members of either dominant or subordinate groups.
TABLE 2.2 Characteristics Associated with Members of Dominant and Subordinate Groups
|
Dominant Group |
Subordinate Group |
|
Have access to power and resources |
Have reduced access to power and resources |
|
Establish norms and standards |
Are perceived as less than or deviant from dominant norms and standards |
|
Have limited awareness of or knowledge about subordinate groups |
Have increased awareness of and knowledge about dominant groups |
|
Are believed to be competent and credible—given the benefit of the doubt |
Are viewed suspiciously—not given the benefit of the doubt |
|
Create “truth” or “reality” |
Have their truth and experiences dismissed and/or invalidated |
|
Are seen as individuals |
Are seen as representing a group |
|
Have a sense of belonging |
Feel invisible or hyper-visible |
Note. Content adapted from Goodman (2011).
Unearned Entitlements Privilege gives people unearned entitlements, or things of value that ideally should be provided to everyone but aren’t (Johnson, 2006; McIntosh, 1989). Let’s consider high school sports events. Boys’ teams tend to have more fanfare and publicity than girl’s teams. Girls’ sporting events are less likely to have halftime performances, cheerleaders, or a stadium full of spectators (Dusenbery & Lee, 2012). Also, teams from wealthy school districts generally have more access to nicely fitting uniforms and transportation to games. In fact, even the ability to have a high school sports team is more likely in wealthier districts (Wong, 2015). In other words, some athletes enjoy additional perks simply because they live in a wealthy school district (mostly likely indicating that they were born into an upper-class or upper-middle-class family) or because they play on male sports teams. In this sense, the perks are an unearned entitlement because they aren’t necessarily based on performance.
Another aspect of an unearned entitlement is that the characteristics of privileged groups are considered normal (or the default), and all others are compared to that group. For example, being male is considered the norm, and many institutions are organized around a male standard. As one feminist scholar pointed out, “Men’s physiology defines most sports, their health needs define insurance coverage, their social needs define biographies, workplace patterns and career expectations . . . their image defines god, and their genitals define sex” (MacKinnon, 1989, p. 224). The same dynamic occurs with Whiteness. For example, as we’ll discuss in Chapter 6, White beauty is considered the norm, and women are held to that standard, even when reaching it is impossible. When celebrities of color are featured in beauty magazines, they’re often “whitewashed” or “anglicized” (Kite, 2012). And in theatrical contexts, lighter-skinned actresses are often given the parts of darker-skinned characters, although the reverse is rarely true. For example, the singer/songwriter Nina Simone was a dark-skinned Black woman who often spoke out about how she was mistreated due to her skin tone. However, when a movie was made about her life (Nina, 2016), an all-White team of directors and producers cast Zoe Saldana—a light-skinned actress with more typically European features—in the title role.
In 2016, controversy erupted when an all-White team of directors and producers cast Zoe Saldana (left) to play Nina Simone (right) in the biopic about the singer. Although Saldana identifies as Black, some critics claimed that Saldana’s features are much whiter and more anglicized than Simone’s, and that Simone was being white-washed.
The idea that White is normative is also evident in what’s considered an appropriate hairstyle. For example, companies such as Air France, Six Flags, and FedEx faced—and lost—lawsuits when they created policies that banned people of color from wearing their hair natural and/or in dreadlocks (Afro-Europe, 2012; Battle, 2017; Cukan, 2001; Gandy, 2017; Gearty, 2001; Gordon, 2006; Honey, 2017). The companies claimed that such hairstyles were not typical or appropriate for the workplace (Dossou, 2013). In one study, Black women reported more anxiety surrounding their hair and more pressure than White women to straighten their hair for work (Johnson, Godsil, MacFarlane, Tropp, & Goff, 2017). To combat such discrimination, many career women have posted pictures of their natural hair to the #naturalisprofessional campaign (Wells, 2016). Feminist scholars have identified that an unearned entitlement of White people is the ability to wear their hair as it grows and to have their hairstyle considered normal, professional, and appropriate. This is an entitlement that White women rarely think about. Black women, however, must spend time, money, and effort managing their hair if they want to more closely match the dominant norm. In fact, market research indicates that Black female consumers are the highest users of hair-care products, resulting in a $2.7 billion industry in the United States (Hare, 2016).
Invisibility As another consequence of dominant groups being considered normative, individuals with multiple marginalized social characteristics are often invisible (Purdie-Vaughns & Eiback, 2008). This is because their identity isn’t considered prototypical in a particular social category (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). For example, in the category of race, the prototypical member is White, and in the category of gender, the prototypical member is male. As a result, Black women often go unnoticed or unheard because of their non-prototypical status in regard to race (Black) and gender (female). This is very evident in the fact that the contributions of White women are more readily associated with second wave feminist activism (Freedman, 2013) and in the fact that the contributions of Black men during the 1960s civil rights movement tend to overshadow those of Black women (hooks, 1989).
The tendency to render non-prototypical people less visible has been tested empirically. In one study, researchers provided White college students with a memory task and found that the participants were less likely to remember photos of Black women than those of White women or Black men (Sesko & Biernat, 2010). The same participants were also less likely to recall statements made by Black women than those made by White women or Black men. In another study, participants read about a pair of employees assigned to work together at a task in which they either succeeded or failed (Biernat & Sesko, 2013). Participants were then asked to rate the competence and deserved salary of each of the employees. Researchers found a pro-male bias in the White male–White female work pair, but not in the White male–Black female pair or the Black male–Black female pair. The researchers speculated that the Black women were buffered from the effects of gender bias by virtue of their non-prototypicality, or invisibility. These findings support the idea that both White women and Black men have the privilege of being seen as prototypical members of their groups (women and Black people, respectively), and that they are more likely than Black women to be noticed and remembered.
Conferred Dominance A second component of privilege is conferred dominance, in which one group (e.g., men) is socially assumed to have more authority or power over another group (e.g., women; Johnson, 2006). There are many ways in which men are considered more dominant and, therefore, more capable than women. One way this assumption plays out is in the expectation that men are more effective leaders than women or that men should be in charge and women should follow (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009; Ryan, Haslam, & Postmes, 2007; Schlehofer, Casad, Bligh, & Grotto, 2011). Another example occurs among people with disabilities, who are often treated as if they are much younger than their actual age or not capable because of their disability (Johnson, 2006). For example, in the 1988 Winter Paralympic Games, Diana Golden Brosnihan won a gold medal skiing on one leg with regular ski poles. Although she wanted to be admired for her athleticism and skill, in media reports her capacity to “overcome” her disability became the sole focus of her success (Litsky, 2001; Lorber & Moore, 2007).
Why don’t people regularly challenge such expressions of privilege? This is because most people adhere to legitimizing myths (Chen & Tyler, 2001). These are attitudes, values, or beliefs that exist to justify social hierarchies. Many people tend to believe that certain things are “just true”—for example, that men are natural leaders and that women are naturally better at doing care work (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Many legitimizing myths about gender are based on assumptions about gender differences—a topic we’ll explore in Chapter 3. Other legitimizing myths may involve race, class, or ability status. For example, some people believe that individuals with disabilities are less competent than those without disabilities or that people who speak English as a first language will be better representatives of an organization than those for whom English is not their first language (Cichy, Li, McMahon, & Rumrill, 2015; Lee & Rice, 2007).
The Invisibility of Privilege
Why is it often difficult to notice privilege, what does it mean to check your privilege, and how can having a subordinate status positively influence someone?
You may have heard the phrase “check your privilege,” but you may not be entirely sure what that means or how you’re supposed to do that. As was evident during the Women’s March, there’s often a lot of confusion about privilege, who has it, and how it works. It’s also difficult to see when we have privilege. Indeed, privilege is often invisible to those experiencing it, even among people who are socially conscious and trying to address inequality (McIntosh, 1989; Wildman, 1996). This might have been the case for the White women who responded angrily and defensively in discussions about White privilege during the planning of the Women’s March. White people probably don’t spend a great deal of time contemplating their Whiteness and what it means to their position in society. Likewise, heterosexual people probably don’t spend much time wondering if they’re heterosexual and why they are, or wondering when or if they should come out as heterosexual to friends or family. In the same vein, a Christian student probably wouldn’t notice that classes are cancelled for Christmas but not for Yom Kippur—but a Jewish student probably would.
Because most people have both subordinate and dominant identity characteristics, people can be in one or more privileged groups but still not think they have a great deal of status or power overall (Wise & Case, 2013). For example, if a White man is poor, not well educated, and under-employed, he may think he doesn’t have much power or status in society. In this case, the social class dimension may be more noticeable to him than the race or gender dimensions. He still benefits from a great number of privileges associated with being White and male. For example, this man would probably be perceived as more competent than a similarly educated woman, especially within a masculinized setting like a blue-collar job (Eagly & Carli, 2003). He would also be less likely than a man of color in his social class to be pulled over by police or harassed while shopping (Brunson, 2007).
However, it can be difficult to notice the rewards associated with being in a dominant group because people generally don’t notice when things are not happening to them. For example, the man described above may feel angry and put upon, especially when listening to upper-class people of color speaking about race or upper-class women speaking about feminism. In fact, he may resent people telling him that he’s privileged because he’s a White man, because he certainly does not feel privileged. The privileges he does have are invisible to him, and when people point them out, he may feel that he’s being criticized. This is a major barrier for creating positive change because, rather than directing anger at the power structure that causes his feeling of subordination, he may engage in scapegoating. In other words, he may blame a person or a group for things that are not their fault. Even though his resentment may be directed toward women or ethnic minority individuals, the real source of his perceived low social status is the social stratification that makes his social class subordinate.
Individuals who have multiple social characteristics that are low in privilege face many challenges. However, there is evidence that they also develop unique perspectives (Fiske, 2010a). In a study that explored altruism among Black adults in an urban, economically distressed housing community, participants reported a heightened sense of responsibility toward their fellow community members (Mattis et al., 2008). Those with slightly more resources shared food, clothing, housing, or child care because they empathized with the challenges of others less well-off than them. In interviews with three Afro-Peruvian female leaders participating in the World Conference against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, sociologist Sylvanna Falcón (2008) discovered that their approach to political action was unique because of their capacity to encompass race, gender, and nationality in their worldview. In other words, their multiple marginalized identities gave them unique insights and interpersonal skills to navigate between and among different social identity groups.
What might you discover if you “checked your privilege”? Recognizing privilege can be difficult, but feminists and other activists recommend that everyone consider their own privileged identities when thinking about the challenge of eradicating oppressive systems, including sexism. We’ll return to these ideas in Chapter 14.
Glossary
- social identity
A person’s sense of self based on that individual’s affiliations with different social groups.
- social stratification
A social structure by which people are ranked in a hierarchy such that some people and groups have more power and status than others.
- matrix of domination
The idea that all systems of bias (e.g., racism, homophobia, sexism) stem from the same systems of social stratification.
- privilege
The social, economic, and/or political advantages that some people enjoy simply because they’re part of a certain group, rather than because of anything they did or failed to do.
- legitimizing myths
Attitudes, values, or beliefs that exist to justify social hierarchies.
- scapegoating
Blaming a person or a group for things that are not their fault.
Social Identity
One way to think about social identity is through a model developed by psychologist Pamela Hayes (2001) called the ADDRESSING model (see Table 2.1). She outlined 10 social characteristic variables with initial letters that spell the word addressing, and noted that these characteristics are linked to power. This situation reflects social stratification, or the idea that people are ranked in a hierarchy such that some people and groups have more power and status than others. In contemporary society, being White, male, able-bodied, heterosexual, well educated, and middle-aged are all social categories that are deemed powerful.
TABLE 2.1 The ADDRESSING Model for Exploring Social Identity with Examples from the United States
Social Characteristic
Power
Less Power
Age
Adults
Children, adolescents, elders
Developmental disability
Neurotypical individuals
Neurodivergent individuals
Disability status (acquired)
People without a disability
People with acquired physical/ cognitive/psychological disability
Religion
Christians
Jews, Muslims, atheists, other non-Christians
Ethnicity
European Americans
People of color
Social class
Middle-class and educated people
Poor and working-class people
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual people
People with sexual minority identities
Indigenous background
Non-native people
Native peoples
National origin
U.S.-born people
Immigrants and refugees
Gender
Men
Female, transgender, non-binary, and intersex people
Note. Content adapted from Hayes (2001).
In Chapter 1, we discussed intersectionality, a concept that describes the ways in which different types of oppression (e.g., racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, sexism) are interconnected and cannot be examined as separate entities (Crenshaw, 1993). When an intersectional framework is applied to social identity, it’s best to think of the social characteristics outlined in the ADDRESSING model as a cake, rather than as a beaded necklace (Bowleg, 2013; Ferber & O’Reilly Herrera, 2013; Ken, 2010; Spelman, 1990). In the beaded necklace analogy, individual social characteristics (e.g., race, gender, religion) are seen as different-colored beads strung together to make up a single piece of jewelry (Spelman, 1990). This analogy is problematic because any bead can be removed or added as a separate entity without changing the substance of another bead (Ferber & O’Reilly Herrera, 2013). In the cake analogy, each social characteristic is seen as an ingredient in a cake (Ken, 2010). For example, gender could be sugar, and religion could be eggs. Once the cake is baked, the result is something fundamentally different from any and all of its ingredients (Bowleg, 2013). Each ingredient changes form and interacts with the others during the process of baking, with the result that, say, the sugar can no longer be separated from the eggs. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but the parts also change in relation to one another. In this way, the cake analogy is a better depiction of social identity. It’s not truly possible to study gender in isolation because it’s only one part of the overall cake (Ken, 2010).
your turn
Using the characteristics in the ADDRESSING model, how do you understand your social identity? In what ways do these characteristics inform one another to make your social identity unique? On which characteristics do you have power, and on which do you have less power? Which of these characteristics do you routinely think of as part of your identity, and which ones are not typically included in how you define yourself?
Research provides support for the notion that individuals perceive inextricable links among their various social characteristics (Chun, Lipsitz, & Shin, 2013; Harnois, 2015; Juan, Syed, & Azmitia, 2016). For example, in one study of 89 Black women, all participants rated the combination of a Black-woman identity as more important than a singular identity of race (Black) or gender (woman; Settles, 2006). Therefore, for these participants, race and gender couldn’t be separated, resulting in a unique racialized gendered identity. In another study, researchers found that across three biracial subgroups of women and men (Latinx-White, Asian-White, and Black-White), socioeconomic status, religion, and gender determined how participants defined their racial identity (Davenport, 2016). For example, those who were upper class and had a Jewish religious affiliation were likely to identify as White, whereas those affiliated with religions that are usually associated with racial minorities were likely to claim a minority identification. Women, however, were more likely to identify as multi-racial than were their male counterparts. Overall, then, how people see themselves on one dimension (e.g., race) may be affected by their status on another (e.g., class, religion, gender).
Our different identity characteristics can also influence how others see us. In a study conducted in the United Kingdom, researchers found that South Asian Muslim women were less likely to receive employment than their similarly credentialed White Christian female counterparts (Tariq & Syed, 2017). This finding suggests that the combination of race, religion, and gender influenced and changed another social characteristic—class (because class is connected to social mobility and income, which are affected by employment status). Class intersected with other social characteristics in another study comparing working-class and upper-middle-class Chinese immigrant women (Zhou, 2000). After immigrating to the United States, participants reported a shift in gender roles within the family, but this outcome was based on class. Upper-middle-class participants experienced a decline in their power to make financial decisions for the family, and working-class participants reported increased power because they had begun to financially contribute to their families.
The various aspects of women’s social identities are intertwined and complex. No two women’s experiences are the same because access to power varies. According to an intersectional perspective, it’s not enough to examine bias based on sex/gender without also considering the ways other forms of oppression contribute to any given situation (Cole, 2009; Gunnarsson, 2017). The idea that each system of bias (e.g., racism, homophobia, sexism) interconnects with and stems from the same system of social stratification is known as the matrix of domination (Collins, 1990). From this perspective, it’s impossible to eradicate sexism without also ending other interconnecting oppressions (e.g., racism, classism). Therefore, many feminist scholars argue that developing the capacity to work together—even with tensions and conflicts like those experienced during the planning of the Women’s March—is the best approach for undoing the overall structure of oppressive forces.