Class, Gender, and Neoliberalism

Class, Gender and Neoliberalism
Nancy Lindisfarne and Jonathan Neale

(This is a work in progress. Parts One and Two were published as What Gender Does in International Socialis !"#$ %&!"$ !%"'!(". ) *ersion o+ Part Three is a*ailable on www.isj.org.uk$ but is not eas, to +ind. We ha*e also incorporated so e +or ulations +ro the short su ar, o+ our argu ent in -indis+arne and .eale$ %&!"$ Gender +or the ## per cent$ )nthropolog, Toda,$ %#/($ pp. !"'!0.1
Times are hard and there is an upsurge of class feeling. This feeling is not necessarily the same as class consciousness, and it often takes unfamiliar forms.There is an upsurge of interest in gender and feminism too, and among the same people. Yet most of the available feminist ideas ignore, or even deliberately obscure, the relation between gender and class. In this article we seek to put that right. We think there are three likely reasons why the connection between class and gender has become tenuous as a subject for serious study. The most important reason is that for three decades identity politics has dominated the places where Western feminist theory is produced: in the media, the academy, among policy wonks, and the ways we have learned to live our lives. The discourse of identity politics dictates that class and gender and race and sect! are of e"ual importance in e#plaining social relations and social change. We approach ine"uality differently. We see class as prior, causal, and the motor for change. $nd we argue that gender, like race, works to support class ine"uality and offers a powerful tool to those who would divide and rule. The second reason class and gender are rarely treated in tandem is "uite different. %o one has any doubt that owners and managers e#ercise e#"uisite and finely tuned control of relations at work and over economic matters of all kinds. Yet there is a widespread reluctance to believe that the ruling class deliberately controls and manages gender to their own advantage. &ut there is great deal of evidence that is e#actly what ruling classes have strived to do throughout history. The third reason the relation between class and gender has been obscured comes from the left. In the '()*s socialist and +ar#ist feminists revived ,riedrich -ngels. classic The Origin o+ the 2a il,$ Pri*ate Propert, and the State as a foundational te#t of the women/s movement. 0eft1leaning feminists took from -ngels that 2the family/ was the source of women/s oppression.
Class, gender and neoliberalism
page 1
3ere we challenge these approaches to class and gender, and aim to offer some new, and perhaps surprising, ideas about what gender does, in theory and in our everyday lives. ' &ecause we are interested in how and why ine"uality changes, we try here to avoid the levels of abstraction found in much gender theory. 4lass and gender and race are analytical concepts. 4oncepts do not construct, enforce, and defend ine"uality. %or do concepts commit violence. +en and women construct, enforce and defend ine"uality. 5o the "uestion becomes not how concepts interact, but which men and women do what to whom6 We argue that the men and women who direct economic relations are the most powerful people in a society. This is true not only abstractly, but in daily life. These same people, therefore, also have more power in structuring and reconfiguring gender relations to serve their wider purposes. 7ur interest is in when and how this happens, and in how what they do changes. This re"uires an e#plicit turn to historical e#planation. We also emphasise elite control in this paper. We do so because so much of the literature and popular media comment ignores that control and it is an emphasis that puts put class relations at the centre of our approach. 5o here we try to start from scratch to reconsider gender in a way which makes sense historically, and across cultures, but is also relevant to the whole range of social issues that confront us today. The argument we present is not difficult, but it is unfamiliar. $nd indeed, It may even seem perverse, for the very reasons the relation between class and gender has become obscured. In 8art 7ne of this paper we set out the basic argument about the relationship between class and gender. In 8art Two, we argue against earlier feminist ideas that suggested that the notion of 9social reproduction: and an ideali;ed notion of 9the family: can e#plain the myriad forms of gendered ine"uality in class society throughout history. In 8art Three we present a detailed case study of neoliberalism in the <nited 5tates to illustrate something of how the relation between class and gender have changed over the past forty years. PART ONE: THE A!"C ARG#$ENT
'
We have many people to thank for their very useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper: =uard $bsaroka, +iriyam $ouragh, 4olin &arker, $ndrea &ird, =ui de 5ilva, >eronica ?oubleday, $nna -den, ,rances ,arrar, Takis @eros, %ik Aeffs, 5tephanie Bitchen, 0aura +iles, &etty +o#on, 8ablo +ukherjee, @eorge 8ai;is, ?avid =adford, 8aru =aman, 5h;r -e Tan, =ichard Tapper and 5ophie Williams. Thanks too to $ndrea 4ornwall: the work done together for Dislocating 3asculinit, was an important starting point for this paper see 4ornwall and 0indisfarne,'((Ca!.
Class, gender and neoliberalism page 2
We begin 8art 7ne with a brief note on class to get across an absolutely key point: that social ine"uality in all class societies is arbitrar,. This is the foundation for our argument about gender, which we get to soon enough. 4lass is a relationship between those who work and those who live off their labour. It is everywhere held in place by violence. D 4lass hierarchies, and the conse"uent ine"ualities, are always and inevitably a relationship based on spurious criteria. $nd however such class relationships are justified, validated and enforced in any particular society, they remain arbitrary, contradictory and contested. 5ay that @roup $ are feudal landlords. They live off the labour of @roup &, who are slaves, serfs, peasants, whatever. ,or the duration of this relationship, the &s will be kept in thrall by social rules, e#pectations, rewards, and by violence. Yet, however much @roup $ denies the common humanity of the &s, there is no fundamental difference between the two groups, so the relationship can be reversed. The &s could force the $s to work and keep them working by the use of violence. It is easy to imagine a world turned upside down, and many people all over the world have used this striking image as a metaphor for radical change.E 7r class hierarchies may be challenged and destroyed from the outside. @roup 4 may come along and usurp the land, mills and money, and then e#ploit both @roup $ and @roup &. The arbitrary ascendence of the people who run any class society means that they are always vulnerable to challenges from below. If @roup $ is to e#ploit @roup &, they must find ways to reproduce the hierarchy and their claims to superiority. +oreover, they have to find some way of transferring their privilege as $s, and their une"ual share of land or goods, to the ne#t generation. &ut the justifications @roup $ offer for their privilege always smell fishy, because they are fishy. @roup $ may claim to have a longer history, more honour, a better name, to be smarter, blonder or anointed by @od. &ut every one of these attributes is cultural, and variable. This means that such attributes can be learned, copied, redefined, stolen or usurped. $fter all, how blond is blond6 $nd are bottle blondes 7B6 3ow well do you have to know the classics, or how tall do you have to be, before it counts6
$nd often e#perienced as debt. 5ee particularly the impressive early chapters of ?avid @raeber.s D*''! new history of human society. E The idea turns up in many places: early modern -urope, in the 4argo 4ults of '(th and D*th century +elanesia, in D*th century 4hina, and in D'st century -cuador. 5ee 3ill, '(('F 0awrence, '(GCF Worsley, '(GHF 3inton,'(GGF and 8arra, D*'D.
&ecause the attributes that e#plain and justify ine"uality are precarious and dubious, they must be naturalised, that is, made to seem 9natural:. The differences between the $s and &s must be made to seem unalterable, enduring, and important. This is where a gender justification is needed, and has always been needed, throughout the history of class society. The Gender J%stification 7ur argument starts with the idea that social ine"uality in class societies is based on arbitrar, divisions between people that are ultimately enforced by violence. &ut violence by itself is never enough to perpetuate ine"ualities over time. 5o these ine"ualities must be finessed ideologically to manufacture at least some consent. &ecause ine"uality is arbitrary, those who benefit must make it seem obvious, normal and right. $nd, as we have suggested, this is best done by making ine"uality seem utterly and completely 9natural:. The lie has to go deep to be persuasive, and gender goes deep. 0ike all e#perience, gender is embodied. $nd in an une"ual society, gender brings ine"uality into the most intimate and cherished parts of our lives. @ender informs all our close relationships, in bed, over breakfast, everywhere, day by day, in every interaction, as spouses, partners, parents and children, brothers and sisters, friends and lovers. $ll of us live gendered ine"ualities all the time. They infuse our bodies, our se#uality and our social practices. C In any particular time and place, the cultural habits of gendering affect each child before she, or he, is born and for the whole of his or her life.I We make love, take one another inside our bodies, give birth, nurse babies, and drink mother.s milk. Yet at the same time, our words, and our wordless looks and movements, can reproduce gendered ine"uality as part of the best and most loving side of ourselves. 9+y father and mother love each other, and they love me. I want to grow up to be a man like my ?ad.: This lad.s wish e#presses love and admiration for his father. &ut where there is a deep ine"uality between women and men at home, at work, and in all aspects of peoples. live, his wish automatically carries with it, whether he knows it or not, a deep understanding of gendered ine"uality as well. ,rom gendered ine"uality thus naturalised, it is a short step to accepting institutionalised ine"ualities of all kinds. 7r, to put it
C
0indisfarne, D**D. 7f course our bodies have physical properties, but when we say that gender is embodied, we mean that the way we live in and e#perience our bodies is socially constructed, that it is something we learn, and is something we can change. I Jeldin,'((C.
another way, ine"ualities at work and elsewhere, would be far less acceptable if people had the daily e#perience of e"uality within intimate se#ual and family relationships. If there were a radical discontinuity in people/s e#periences of e"uality and ine"uality in different social settings, resistance to ine"uality would be more widespread, easier and much more threatening to those who are privileged in hierarchical societies. "nheritance, Class and Gender @ender gets entangled with class in another way too K inheritance. ,or class ine"uality to continue, there has to be some way of passing class status on to new people as older people die. 7therwise the whole class system falls apart. 4lass membership may be conferred institutionally. 7ne e#ample is the 4atholic 4hurch, which is in effect a corporation. In corporations, elites share collective interests in managing the wealth or goods they hold in common, and have collective interests vis1L1vis the people who work for them and whose work supports them. 5o the monks together own the monastery.s land and e#ploit the peasants together. &ut in corporations too ine"uality is gendered by the same processes we describe below. $nd in this case, the monks are not nuns. 8arenthood and kinship provide another way of passing on property and money. Binship also seems like a 9natural: way of passing on the position of being a slave, a serf or a worker. &ut when this happens, ideas about gender are a fundamental part of inheriting ine"uality. This means that from the beginning of your life, gender is not just about love and intimacy. It is also about ine"uality and violence. You feel, 9I hold the hand of the son I love who will inherit my farm.: 7r, 9I breastfeed and love my daughter who will be a slave like me.: The way institutionalised privilege and kinship combine is varies at particular times and places. &ut in all cases it means that, just as class is a relationship, so too is gender. That is, there is never simply one way of being masculine or one way of being feminine. =ather there is always a class relationship between the different ways of being a man or being a woman. These class styles are e#pressed through every aspect of the way we move, talk, eat, dress, parent and make love. 5o, there is the masculine style of a rich and powerful man, the masculine style of a middle manager, and the masculine style of a blue collar worker. $nd these different masculine styles e#press relationships. The rich and powerful man is e#pressing his position as a man in relation to rich and powerful women, who have their own style. 3e is also e#pressing his position as a powerful man in relation
to the blue collar man. The rich and powerful woman also uses her style to e#press her relationship to the blue collar man, and to her maid. In class society, no one is ever simply a man or a woman. Gendered !tereoty&es and Class Hierarchies In -urope and the $mericas today, a powerful set of stereotypes shape our e#perience of gender ine"uality. 3ow they work is how gendered ine"uality becomes deeply naturalised. We all know that the minute we challenge any stereotype we see immediately the contradictions it was meant to hide. &ut too often we dare not "uestion stereotypes that are, after all, tools of power. These days, thank goodness, it is easy to see how a racial slur pigeon1holes a person and is a clear act of aggression and oppression. 5e#ism works the same way, but because gender differences are more completely naturalised, it is often harder to see. In -urope and the $mericas, dominant class and capitalist ideologies have for centuries, and indeed millennia, conjured with a number of supposed universals to divide the world into une"ual parts. These are familiar to all of us. The trick is that they work together, so that K +en are to women K as strong is to weakF as rational is to emotionalF as active is to passiveF as culture is to natureF as public is to domestic, as production is to reproductionF G as adult is to childF as able1bodied is to disabledF as heterose#ual is to homose#ualF as upper class is to working classF as rich is to poorF as white is to blackF
G
In the preoccupying debates of the late '()*s and early '(H*s, some socialist and +ar#ist feminists got lost in circularities when they tried to use the contrast set, 2production/ and 2reproduction/, analytically and many failed to notice that these notions were part of the very ideology they sought to "uestion. 5imilarly, other feminist thinkers treated the ideal that 2men are to women as public is to private: as if it were analytically useful. $nd of course there were other important conceptual difficulties when feminists sought to generali;e cross1culturally from Western stereotypes. Thus the association of 2men with culture and women with nature/ was definitively criticised by +ac4ormack and 5trathern in '(H*F see also 4ornwall and 0indisfarne, '((Cb, ppD(ffF and see also 8art Two below.
as civilised is to savageF as west is to eastF as modern is to traditionalF as 4hristian is to +uslimF and on and on. This ideological structure is an enormously powerful device because it admits endless additions and permutations, and it resonates with the many changes it has survived over time. &ecause it is easy to slide, and jump, from one set of parallel categories to another, a bias in favour of men may also favour whiteness, adulthood, heterose#uality and a healthy, able body, as well as an upper1class, western imperial identity. 5o when gender is heavily marked to signify deep naturalised ine"uality between women and men, it can automatically serve to naturalise great ine"uality elsewhere. The resonances between the different stereotypes are used in complicated ways. ,or e#ample, adult male slaves in the <nited 5tates were feared as irrational, like women. %onetheless, as presumed heterose#uals they were seen as powerful, highly se#ed and dangerous, yet in an ugly parado#, they were further stigmatised as 9boys: and their labour and oppression disappeared. 5imilarly, recent Western se#ism feminised gay men. &ut in a curious twist, lesbian women were often masculinised because the idea of heterose#uality in the dominant ideology actually depends on adopting a male point of view. 5o heterose#uality turns out to mean 2having se# with women/. +eanwhile, in another variant on the same theme, brain scientists can/t decide if gay men are more, or perhaps less, masculine because they have se# with men. ) $nd in a further variation, it seems that lesbian sportswomen seem to have found it easier to come out, perhaps because, as 3adley ,reeman writes, they are 9e#pected to be unfeminine, or even masculine:, while gay men who 9are assumed to be nerdy, girlish, feminine K in other words, the opposite of how people think of male athletes:. H The binary construction of interlocking stereotypes is powerful because it is so malleable. In any one setting, it can account for virtually every prejudice going. $nd this makes it difficult to "uestion any one stereotype, because challenging one can lead to challenging the lot, and that can pose a revolutionary threat to your entire world view, and to the society in which you live. Enforcin' "ne(%ality
) H
Aordan1Young, D*'*. ,reeman, D*'EF and compare 8engelly, D*'E, also writing about the basketball star, Aason 4ollins, who has recently come out in the <5.
$ll relations of ine"uality are resisted, fought over, negotiated and re1enforced. In every village and city, the e#ploited and downtrodden know that things could be different and better. There may be limits to what they can imagine, but they do resist. They may mutter, turn away, tell jokes about the landlord, curse the priest, miss church, poach rabbits, arrive late for work, smoke in the toilet, "uit, desert, elope, run away to sea, organise, preach, pray, build political parties, demonstrate, burn down the big house, go on strike, and throw up the barricades. 7r just fart silently when the great lord walks by.( The opposite is true too. ,rom the top, the ruling class and their agents are always pushing down, trying to make changes which favour themselves. Ideology is not simply something which takes place in the heads and psychology of individuals. It is enforced. 9=uling class: is now almost a taboo phrase in &ritain and the <5. Yet une"ual class relations are still very much with us, and somebody is still in charge of them. To avoid seeming old fashioned and monotonous, we refer variously in what follows to elites, managers, landlords, the ruling class, and the corporate elite. &ut in every case, we mean the people who run and enforce the system. 5o, who e#actly enforces class and gender ine"uality6 In the small kingdom of 3un;a in the Barakoram in 'H**, the +ir, or ruler, and the big landlords in every village could intervene directly and daily in everyone/s life to protect their privilege. In the much larger north Indian kingdom of 7udh in 'H**, the ruling class had to act through a wide variety of local enforcers. In the <B, or the <5 today, comple# networks based on private school education, intermarriage, holiday homes and interlocking corporate directorships, tie the ruling class together.'* They too work through an army of enforcers, whose work it is, whether or not they identify with the ruling class. The ruling class, though, is not something distant. Take a class society where large landlords e#ploit sharecroppers. The landlords, their younger brothers, and their agents will be found in every village. 7r take a capitalist society, where corporations employ workers. In every town, there will be senior managers and their minions who identify with the controlling capitalists. This means that in villages, and cities, the ruling classes and their henchfolk watch and listen to what people say and do. 0andlords, bosses, foremen, bailiffs, priests, social workers, judges,
(
5cott, '(H),'((*. 5ee ?omhoff, D**(, and our e#tended discussion in 8art Three. ,or an important e#ample of how the $merican ruling class sought deliberately to create and implement particular ideological constructs, see the fine grained study of the manipulation of the arts during the 4old War by ,rances 5tonor 5aunders, D**'. 5ee also Blein, D**H.
'*
page 8
police, elders, chiefs, politicians, teachers, editors and line managers monitor the rules that keep ine"uality in place. =oger 0aw of 4Spitting I age, the popular T> satire of the '(H*s, offers an e#ample. 9When we made our first puppet of +argaret Thatcher, we had no idea how uncomfortably close we would become.: 0ater Thatcher closed down a commissioned e#hibition of the puppets at the %ational 8ortrait @allery: 9Thatcher/s odus operandi was to place her people at the top of institutions and very "uickly everything would fall into line.: '' =uling classes, women and men, manage the rhetoric and practices of gendering with ferocity and great care. $fter all, this is one important way their privilege is created and sustained. @endered labelling and struggles over gendered practices are also a constant feature of everyone.s life. They happen at home, at school, at work, in the fields and in the church, the mos"ue and in a million conversations every day. $s =oy 8orter writes of early modern -urope: 8atriarchy.s scandalous secret M is that it had to be obsessively vindicated K often in grotes"ue or brutal ways like witch hunting or wife beating. 5colds were routinely chastised if they behaved as though they wore the trousersF fops were taunted, .rough music. directed against cuckolds for letting the side down. $bove all, masculinity was systematically beaten into boys. $s with army recruits today, early brutalisation was believed to be an indispensable training for later instinctive e#ercise of authority.'D When enforcing gender differences, violence is never far away. +others and fathers hit immodest daughters, playground bullies beat up sissy boys. The landlord.s enforcer in an Indian village may rape and kill the wife of an insolent labourer. $ woman who defies the priest may be driven from the village, and an openly homose#ual man may beaten or raped. Women who complain too loudly may be forcibly medicated. =uling classes may sometimes also use race, sect and nationality to divide and rule. &ut always they use gender. =ace works better than gender to separate and stigmatise people. &ut it usually re"uires more violence to keep racialised ine"uality in place. The violence associated with heavily marked racial divisions is often e#plicit, rigidly e#ercised and relentlessly vicious. @endered violence, by contrast, is more likely to be contingent and unpredictable. +others and fathers may well hit immodest daughters, but as they do so, they will argue with each other about what is
'' 'D
0aw, D*'E. 8orter, '((I, p.E'.

acceptable behaviour from a twelve year old girl. 8layground bullies may be beat up sissy boys, but the bullies themselves may also be punished if they get caught. In an Indian village the landlord.s enforcer may rape and kill a labourer.s wife, but the target chosen may be intentionally random. $ gay man may be beaten or raped 9just because: he is in the wrong place at the wrong time. 5ome women who complain may be medicated, but others may flee or fight back. Ideologically and practically, gender is a more comple# and clever way to divide working class people than either race or sect. 3owever, gendered divisions also pose a problem for ruling class people as they too are thus divided into opposed categories of men and women. &ut the people at the top also share privileges that give them a considerable incentive to negotiate and smooth gender relations among themselves, so that their collective class interests are not threatened.'E ,or the rest of us, when gender is effectively made to seem 9natural:, ine"uality and class conflict are often e#perienced as a battle between the se#es. In any particular setting, some men are certainly likely benefit from the oppression of some women, and from the ideologies that pri;e men over women. This is, in part, of how gendered ine"uality works. $nd often there is an additional class twist to blaming men. +any feminists and others who write on gender issues implicitly assume that it is working men in particular are the problem. $nd while many working class men may indeed rally to defend gender ine"uality 1 this is, in a sense, our point: that lived, embodied gender ine"uality becomes part of our very being 1 if we step back, it is easy to see that neither 9men:, nor 9women: are the problem. ,or one thing, it is not possible to e#plain actual changes in relations between people in terms of such universal categories. &ut also, even mild carping of the 9Aust like a woman: or 9$ll men are bastards: type hides class privilege from us and is a powerful form of divide and rule.'C )iolence We began by saying that class ine"uality is always kept in place with violence K which means that, of course, gendered ine"uality is also always kept in place by violence. We return to the "uestion of se#ual
'E
This is one of the reasons 8rincess ?iana/s T> interview was so electrifying. 14 The 9new feminist revival: with its insistent focus on 9women: seems to being doing just this. 5ee 5mith, D*'E, p'C. 4ontrast +oore/s D*'Ea! resolute but now unusual attention on class.
violence later. 3owever, in anticipation of that discussion, let us sound a warning note here. -#plaining degrees of violence, and whether or not it is e#plicitly gendered, must be part of any comparative analysis of what gender does. &ut we should be careful. 9>iolence: is usually a catch1all term used by people in power. $s such, it rarely is used to include institutional violence, such as arrest, imprisonment, targeting killing, or presidential kill lists. +oreover, it often includes crimes that hurt no one physically, like breaking a shop window and stealing a television. $nd we also need to be wary of the media focus on e#treme violence, from the shock and awe assault on &aghdad, to the e#aggerated coverage of the &oston marathon bombing. $ top1down focus on e#treme violence also works to create a culture of fear, and particularly fear for people you love. $nd fear can be used to enforce ine"uality very effectively indeed. 'I +oreover, a focus on e#treme violence obscures more ordinary forms of violence that are just as important in enforcing ine"uality.'G $nd violence is only a part of enforcement. Watch television, and count the number of times, and the variety of ways, different masculine and feminine styles are heavily marked in features programmes, the news and ads. Gendered $ar*in' @endered marking changes over time and place. The history people bring to the present also matters. There are no 9dowry killings: among people who do not pay dowries. This may be obvious, but most cultural differences are comple# and make comparison difficult.') @reater e"uality benefits most men and women, as =ichard Wilkinson and Bate 8ickett have so impressively demonstrated. 'H When women gained the vote and abortion rights in the <B, and the <5, a few individuals, women and men, may have lost out. &ut the
'I
@lassner, '(((: 5ee ?as and others, D***, and %i#on D*'E for other approaches to violence. 7n violence and the media, see Aenkins, D*'EF Younge, D*'E. 5ee also 5aid '((E! on the comple# ways culture and values enforce ine"uality. 'G 5ee for instance +acBay, '((I, for a finely wrought novel about the ordinariness of child se#ual abuse and domestic violence in an -nglish village. ') To take one e#ample, in India, many people married within sub1castes with ranked roles in the economy. This means that gendering in rural or urban India now takes a different form from gendering in south 4hina where many villagers married outside village patrilineal descent groups. $mong many ethnographies which e#plore these themes, see +ayer, '(GIF and 4hen,'((D. 'H Wilkinson and 8ickett, D**(.
vast majority of the population, men and women, gained K from universal suffrage, electoral democracy and by being able to separate se# from reproduction by legal means. <nfortunately, however, the opposite is also true. The greater the ine"uality in any particular place and time, the more gendered differences are likely to be emphasised and enforced. +oreover, when ine"uality increases, though forms of oppression may shift, it is likely that the vast majority of women and men will suffer more. '( &oth women and men of the ruling class benefit from ine"ualityF most working people, men and women, do not. The idea of gendered marking is useful here. It helps us to think comparatively and evaluate changes over time. $s a rule of thumb, when gender is used to enforce increasingly une"ual class relations, gendered differences are more heavily marked. $nd, typically, the converse is also true.D* Gender and Race 5o far we have been using the notion of gender casually. %ow we need to e#plain more e#actly what we mean by gender, and why we talk about gender, and not about 9women: and 9men:. 7ur e#planation owes much to the ways many of us now understand race.D' We know that differences in skin colour are real, and biological. &ut we also know that these differences are trivial compared to what all people have in common as human beings. 5kin colour differences are also unimportant compared to the other biological differences between human beings 1 differences of anatomy, metabolism and dispositions to sickness and health. We also know that differences of skin colour have been marked in very different ways at different times and places. In the <nited 5tates during slavery a drop of $frican blood meant that a person was classified as black.DD In 5outh $frica a distinct mi#ed category of 9coloureds: e#isted under apartheid. &ra;il also had slavery, but in that country there was, and is, a graded continuum of skin colour and appearance.DE In each case, we can e#plain the
'(
8art Three of this article is a detailed account of how this has happened under neoliberalism in the <5. D* This also happens with race. 5ee ,rankenberg '(('! for an important introduction to raciali;ed marking. D' 4allinicos, '((EF hooks, D***. DD &efore genetics, 9blood: was a dominant, but by no means the only, metaphor for talking about the inheritance of physical and other traits. $fter slavery the distinctions became much more complicated, and kept changing. &rodkin, D***, is a good introduction to a large literature. DE 3arris, '()*, is very useful for thinking about this. $nd compare 5toller,'(('.
particular racialised divisions between people in terms of history, capitalism and class struggle. We do not need to believe in race. We approach gender in a similar way. $s with skin colour, there are biological continua linking se#ual traits. It may be the case that this person has a penis, and that person a clitoris and a vagina. &ut not all penises are the same, neither are all breasts, nor are all adults e"ually fertile. We are all, of course, completely familiar with such variation. We are also aware that gender differences may be , or less, marked at different times and places. This variation makes two "uestions important. ,irst, when and why do such differences become particularly salient, heavily marked and used to discriminate between human beings6 $nd second, who benefits, and who is hurt, when such marking takes place6 7f course, se# organs, however they look and function, are important, but they are no more important than the liver or the heart. +oreover, se# organs matter mostly in their sameness, not their difference. Through our se#ed bodies, people share e#periences of touch, stimulation, orgasm, affection, intimacy, growing up, growing old, reproduction and love.DC This understanding of sameness is a powerful knowledge which can unsettle all the conventions of gender difference. This knowledge is rarely discussed or theorised, almost certainly because of its subversive potential. &ut large numbers of people live their lives in this knowledge. In short, biological gender differences, like racialised differences, are real, but it is the socially created racial and gender differences that matter. &oth have been used to legitimi;e great ine"uality and suffering. $ll human beings everywhere have used se#ual imagery to describe their world and their social relationships. 3owever, the character of such images, and their relation to social e#perience, is neither fi#ed nor universal, though they are often vivid and very rich. DI 5e#ual imagery can also be used to describe anything: material objects and virtual states, as well as events and places. 4ars can be
DC
Interestingly, the idea that what was important about the genitals of women and men was their sameness was common sense in -ngland in 'G**, as in many other countries, but this did not mean that men and women were e"ual. 5ee ?abhoiwala, D*'D, a flawed but fascinating book. ,or a nuanced discussion that pays careful attention to subordinate daily e#perience, see @owing, D**E. 25 ,or e#ample, 9$fter 7.B., +uck must be about the most versatile of all -nglish words. It can be used to describe a multitude of conditions and phenomena, from making a mess of something +uck up! to being casual and provocative +uck around!, to inviting or announcing a departure +uck o++!, to being estimable +ucking')!, to being baffled I5 +ucked i+ I know!, to being disgusted +uck this!, and so on and on and on:, &ryson,'((*, pp D'D1D'E.
cute, or se#y or macho, clothing can be sissy or butch, and table manners can be effete or boorish and so on, and on, and on. If we think of 9gender: analytically as a way of discovering when and how people use se#ual imagery to describe their e#periences in the world, this allows us to talk comparatively, and historically, about gender relations without assuming that we know anything about .women. or .men..DG This also allows us to see that, in any local setting, se#ual images are only one among many sets of metaphors used to describe human beings. This does not mean that people are gendered in random ways, nor are we being postmodern here. The mode of production and the particular form of class society matter greatly in determining how people are gendered. 7ur project is to ask when and where gendered metaphors are prominent, and whose interests are served when gender labelling is prominent and gender is heavily marked. 5o we use the notion of 9gendering: for analytical clarity. We also use it because we want to dislodge, as thoroughly as we can, the fierce dichotomy between women and men that dominates our lives and fills our heads with nonsense. This also means we must avoid the circular reasoning that comes when you try to e#plain something in terms of itself. -#plaining changes in the relations between women and men in terms of the differences between women and men is circular. &ut it is often done, and this very circularity makes gendered ine"uality seem 2natural/ . +escribin' ,-omen. and ,$en. There is a better way of thinking of gender relations. In all une"ual societies there are different styles of masculinity. It is useful to think of these as elite, ruling class, or hegemonic masculinities, on the one hand, and working class or subordinate masculinities, on the other. $nd there are different styles of dominant and subordinate femininities.D) 5uch an approach works well because it focuses immediately on ine"uality. The various masculine styles of 8rince 4harles, &arack 7bama and a Wall 5treet trader look and feel "uite different from the masculine styles of a car worker, a train driver or a ja;; musician. Things too can reflect dominant or subordinate gender styles, as is
DG
We owe a considerable debt to the anthropologist +arilyn 5trathern for this powerful intellectual tool. ,or 5trathern, .@ender is an open ended category of persons, artefacts, events, se"uences which draw upon se#ual imagery and make concrete people.s ideas about the nature of social relationships.. 5trathern,'(HH, p i#. D) 4arrigan, 4onnell and 0ee,'(HIF 4onnell, '(H)F and 4ornwall and 0indisfarne, '((Cb, pp'(ffF and 5hire,'((C, for how une#pected comparations can be.
evident from the clothes the men wear, the cars they drive, and whether they drink wine or beer. ?ominant and subordinate masculinities are constructed in relation to each other, and are an e#pression of class conflict. The same is true of the differences between the rich woman and her cleaner.DH 7f course there are shadings between the two. &ut once we have the idea that dominant and subordinate masculinities and femininities are related to each other, it becomes evident that, whatever else they are, gendered styles are also e#pressions of class interest. 7f course, people can, and do, play with these styles in comple# ways, as individuals and collectively. You can dress up, you can dress down, and you can get it spectacularly wrong. $nd, as we shall see, challenges to gendered conventions can also be a very effective threat to privilege and class hierarchy. Ambi'%ity, Anomalies and Contradictions In une"ual societies the apparently self1evident categories of 9women: and 9men: have ideological force precisely because they hide a greater truth: anatomy is not destiny. $nd whoever is doing the labelling has a great deal of power and is making a claim to superiority.D( 3ere we need to push our earlier comparison between race and gender a bit harder to get to an important idea about ambiguity, anomaly and contradiction. This idea comes from anthropology. E* The starting point is that the natural world is of a piece, and continuous. $s human beings we divide up this world into socially relevant continua. The shading of skin colours of human beings is one such continuum. >ariation in height among human beings is another. 8ut height on a graph you will see that a small number of human beings are very tall, and another small number are very short. The largest proportion is in the middle. 5o, for instance, among -uropeans, on average, the ?utch are the tallest. 8eople who live around the 3orn of $frica are also, on average, very tall. @ender doesn/t come into the bell curve for height at all. &ut of course you can also divide the height continuum by gender. Then men as a category are likely to be on average somewhat taller than the women of any particular group, whether ?utch or 5omali. &ut a glib statement that men are taller than women is untrue, and makes much life harder for tall women and short men wherever they live.
DH D(
4liff,'(HCF Jetkin, '(H)F -hrenreich and 3ochschild, D**D. Tambiah,'(GH. E* 0each, '(GC, '(G(,'()GF ?ouglas,'(GG, and '()*.
4ontinua lie behind the ways we characteri;e all aspects of our bodies, including reproduction, se#uality and desire. In fact, the entire gamut of social behaviours can also be seen in this way. Take, for e#ample, the continuum between life and death. Then consider the debates about living wills, brain death, assisted dying, euthanasia and organ donation. 5o too the battles over abortion are fought to resolve such unclarity, as are the debates on the morning after pill, I>, treatments, surrogacy, and the adoption of children from =ussia and $frica. 7r consider how we alter our bodies, through grooming, make1up, designer gear, a face1lift or penis enhancement, to feel good about ourselves and to make ourselves attractive to others. E' When people chop up continua, whatever system they arrive at will be riven with overlaps, gaps and contradictions.. Wrestling with these areas of ambiguity and anomaly is the very stuff of social life. 5ometimes, though, we barely recogni;e it as a social process at all: as when we divide the spectrum of visible light into the colours of the rainbow. $t other times, the process is fraught with pain and oppression. ?uring $merican slavery, for instance, it made a difference to be a light1skinned house slave or a darker field hand. ED $s with race, when gender categories are sharply defined, the people and behaviours that fall in1between present acute problems for those who would defend ine"uality. The problem may hinge on the blurring the categories. 5o, for e#ample, when light1skinned people with some $frican ancestry crossed the colour bar and 9passed: in the <5, they posed a threat to the system of racial segregation. If their deception was discovered, t were punished. $t other times the people in1between are set apart and celebrated, like the >irgin +ary. +ore often they are stigmatised and harmed. 7r both may happen: the cross1dressing virgin maid Aoan of $rc was first a war hero, then burned as a witch, and then canoni;ed as 5t. Aoan.EE $s 0aura +iles has pointed out, 9there was an important class dimension to her story. Aoan had strong support from the peasant class as a military leader and visionary, but met suspicion and betrayal from the aristocracy. The 4atholic 4hurch sought to mark her transgendered behaviour as blasphemous, as a way of pursuing the class interests they shared with royalty and the aristocracy.:EC 5imilarly, alternative se#ualities are also framed by class and struggle in complicated, historical and mediated ways. EI 0esbian and
E'
5ee, for e#ample, 0amb, D***F Aeffrey, Aeffrey and 0yon, '(H(F 5cheper13ughes,'((E. +ascia10ees and 5harpe, '((D, is a useful introduction to the large literature on body alternation. ED ?ay.s '((C! ethnography about what counts as rape among 0ondon se# workers is a good e#ample of the subtle "uestions posed by this approach. EE 5ee Warner, '(H', D*'E. EC 8ersonal communication. 5ee also ,einberg, '((G. EI 5ee ?ee, D*''F Wilson, D*''F and =ofel, D**).
gay se#ual practices have often been hidden because they disrupt elite investment in the strongly marked categories of .women. and .men. linked by heterose#ual desire and practice. Transgendered people can present an even greater threat. 3owever, dividing people up into 0@&T 1 0esbian, @ay, &ise#ual and Transgendered 1 identities is only one among many possibilities.EG There are also times and places in class society when 9homose#uality: is hardly marked. &ut this can change "uickly in response to the interests of a dominant elite, as with the trial of 7scar Wilde. 4onsider two such e#amples when gender was suddenly heavily marked in order to reinforce ine"uality. 7ne moment was the great wave of mutinies that swept through the &ritish =oyal %avy in ')(). &efore those mutinies, same se# relationships were tolerated in the %avy. 7ccasionally, a man was flogged for 9uncleanness:, and very rarely indeed a man was e#ecuted for rape of another man. &ut when the mutinies threatened to spread to the +editerranean fleet, $dmiral 5t >incent immediately sentenced two men to death for buggery to create a fearsome e#ample. When the men.s shipmates demonstrated in support of the two, four more men were hung as ringleaders. >ice1$dmiral Thompson resigned in protest against hanging them on a 5unday. &ut speed was of the essence in punishing sodomy to forestall mutiny. $s 3oratio %elson, one of the judges at the court1martial put it, 9had it been 4hristmas ?ay, instead of 5unday, I NstillO would have e#ecuted them.: E) In @ermany, after the ,irst World War, socialists and communists were closely associated with a strong movement for gay e"uality. This was a positive marking of gender from below. When the %a;is came to power, they sent socialists, communists and gay men to concentration camps. This was horrific gendered marking from above. $t different times, different kinds of gendered ambiguity, or anomaly, have been the focus of attention. &iological interse#uality has sometimes been a 9problem:. In an ethnography of the medical treatment of interse#ed children, Bar;akis tells a story of minute cruelty by surgeons, doctors and psychologists who felt they had to make these people unambiguously one se# or the other. EH
EG
There is a very large literature, and many e#cellent ethnographies, on alternative se#ualities: for e#ample, Whitehead, '(H'F 3erdt, '(HCa, '(HCb,'(HCc,'((HF 4ornwall, '((CF &ray, '((IF and ,einberg, '((G. E) %eale, '(HI, p''GF Bennedy, '(HI, ppHC1HGF ?ugan, '(GG, pp EH*1EHE. EH Bar;akis, D**H. 4ompare the kinder e#ample described by 5anders/ study '(('! of the gendering of hermaphrodites by medieval Islamic jurists.
=esistance often follows the fault lines of the labelling process itself. $ common form of transgression is to break the rules about se#ual eti"uette and modest dress. 5ometimes the resistance is aimed at gender discrimination. Women/s liberation activists in the <5 had the idea of burning their bras. Take &ack the %ight and 5lutWalk demonstrators also aim to shock. &ut just as often gendered resistance is an aspect of class struggle. 0ady @odiva rode bare and bare1back into 4oventry in a protest over ta#es. In opposition to authority, young men moon, and streak naked across football fields. ?uring the Women/s =evolt against the &ritish in -astern %igeria in '(D(, women protested injustice by e#posing their genitals. @endered resistance can be left1leaning, like 8ussy =iot, or right1wing, like the Islamophobic ,emen, bare1breasted activists from <kraine. E( >iolence, including se#ual violence, also needs to be understood in terms of continua. We return to this point at the end of 8art Three.
E(
Ifeka1+oller, '()IF www.freepussyriot.org F 4ochraine, D*'E.

PART T-O: ,THE /A$"L0. AN+ PREH"!TOR0 In this part we argue against 9social reproduction theory.: 5ince the '()*s, some socialist and +ar#ist feminists have argued that the crucial dynamic of gender ine"uality springs from the family.C* There is, they say, a female sphere of unpaid domestic work and a male sphere of paid work outside the home. The argument is that capitalists value the oppression of women because the unpaid labour of women in the home is essential to the supply of cheap male labour for production. There is a fundamental problem with this argument. It cannot account for the character of gender relations in most class societies. It may apply to some capitalist societies at certain moments in time. &ut capitalism is a very recent and unusual form of class society. What we need to e#plain is why there has been gender ine"uality in all class societies. 5ocial reproduction theorists assume that in most class societies, throughout most of history, there was a sharp division of labour between men who did the work of production and women who did the work of reproduction. This is simply mistaken. ,The /amily. 5ocial reproduction theorists also often write of the family, as a sort of essential family. &ut in In the same way we want to escape from universalising stereotypes of 9women: and 9men:, we also need to beware of universalising 9the family:. This is easily done, because the ideological pressure to treat all families as the same is great. Yet there are many kinds of family in class society, and many ways of structuring intimate relationships and nurture. +oreover, we need to be wary of being ethnocentric: capitalism is only one kind of class society, and recent in history. 3owever, .the family. and 2family values/ are key ideas in the present dominant ideology in -urope and the $mericas, and they are trotted out all the time. ,or instance, the right1wing philosopher, =oger 5cruton, recently claimed that the -<, immigrants, same1se# marriage, and even wind1turbines, threaten -nglishness and hard1won privileges and freedoms. 3e admonished the 4onservative 8arty for its recent electoral humiliation, writing: 94onservatives believe, with &urke, that the family is the core institution whereby societies reproduce themselves and pass moral knowledge to the young.:C'
40
,or different perspectives on these debates see +olyneu#, '()(F 3artmann, '(H'aF 3arris and Young, '(H'F %icolson, '(HCF @erman, '(HHF 8earson, D**)F +c@regor, D*'Ea, D*'Eb. 5ee also note H above.
5cruton/s account is e#treme and ugly. Yet even those who would utterly disagree with 5cruton, can be seduced by the habit of universalising the family. ,eminists who would blame the family for the situation of 9women: and gender ine"uality can also become trapped in circularity. Then, instead of offering a critical analysis of the family, they may inadvertently reproduce elements of the dominant ideology instead. +ost commonly, people talk about the family as if it resembles their family. This is understandable. Yet consider the range of things individuals in different countries have said to us at one time or another: 9When a teenage boy has troubles at school with other boys, he always confides in his mother. $fter all, his mother is always a boy.s best friend. That.s why men put their mothers in front of their wives.: 93e should put me first ahead of his mother. I.m his wife.: 9$ man always loves his father more than anyone else.: 9The good thing about being married to two brothers at the same time is that just when you.re getting bored with the older brother, suddenly you have an energetic eighteen year old in your bed.: 9$ study of happy families in ?allas found that both the children and the parents agreed that in their families the parents loved their children, but the love between the parents was stronger.: 9The -nglish people are dreadful. They put their parents into old people.s homes.: 97f course your mother has to go into a home. You have done so much for her, and you can.t look after her full time.: 9We tie @ranny into a chair in the kitchen. It.s the best we can do, and she likes having the grandchildren play at her feet.:
C'
5cruton, D*'E, p CE. ,or an earlier, more mainstream take on economics and family values, see ,olbre, D**'.
$ll of these people were living in families in capitalist societies and all of them were talking about sentiments they considered completely normalCD. 4ertainly se#ual arrangements in class societies are not uniform. 5ometimes men marry several women, and more rarely vice versa. 5ometimes most people try for a stable heterose#ual relationship but don.t formally marry. -lsewhere women and men are monogamous, or monagamish, or serially monogamous, or monotonogous, or just cheat a lot. We also have assumptions about how families, or more accurately households, grow and change through time. $s with marriage, often rich people have one kind of family, middle class people another, and working people a third, though of course the differences shade from one to the other. 5ome people assume that a nuclearCE family of father, mother and children is best. 7thers may pri;e large joint households. 5ome people assume that one of the daughters should live with the elderly parents, others say that the son should bring the parents to live with him. The differences between us are manifold, even before we begin to look at how some people take in lodgers, and hire cleaners, au pairs, nannies, and jobbing gardeners. The "deolo'y of !e&arate !&heres 3owever, since the '()*s, some socialist and +ar#ist feminists have argued that the crucial dynamic of gender ine"uality springs from the family, and the gendered division between a female sphere of unpaid work in the home and a male sphere of paid work outside the home.CC This argument is flawed in several ways. ,irst, it focuses on a difference between waged and unwaged labour. Yet for most of the history of class societies, paid work for wages was either unusual or unknown. @eneralised wage work characterises capitalism, a recent and unusual system. 5o if you e#plain gendered ine"uality in terms of the needs of capitalists for waged workers, you have no e#planation at all for gendered ine"uality in most class societies for most of human history.
CD
-#cept perhaps the $fghan man who loved his father. In '()* $fghan politics and economics were dominated by big landlords who lived in forts in the countryside, not capitalists. $nd the %epali woman did point out that younger women no longer married two brothers at once. CE Though the 9nuclear family: is a new notion that dates only from the '(D*s. CC ,or different perspectives on these debates see +olyneu#, '()(F 3artmann, '(H'aF 3arris and Young, '(H'F %icolson, '(HCF @erman, '(HHF 8earson, D**)F +c@regor, D*'Ea, D*'Eb. 5ee also note H above.
5econd, this argument can only apply to economies where young children do not work and domestic servants are rare. 5o the argument cannot e#plain gender relations in -urope or the $mericas in the nineteenth century. Third, there is a slippage in the word 9reproduction:. 5ometimes it is used to mean housework that women do for men so the men can get out to work. +ore usually it means the labour necessary for raising children and reproducing the workforce. &ut that includes a great deal more than unpaid housework. It includes the necessities for children that fathers and mothers buy with their wages. It includes family ta# rebates, welfare payments, and child benefits. $nd it includes wage labour by child minders, teachers, school meals workers, coaches, health workers, social workers, and school bus drivers. It is simply not true that there is a separate sphere of reproduction. It is true, however, that the separate spheres proposition has been an important part of recent capitalist ideology in -urope and the $mericas. Indeed, it is something we all have to believe to survive emotionally in capitalist society. It comforts us to think of the family as separate. The relationship between worker and boss dominates our lives, but it is to#ic. 5o we try to build an emotional firewall between work and home, even if you work from home. 5ome of the most wrenching moments are when the imaginary firewall is breached. It is not an accident that the thing couples fight about most is money. /antasy families 5upporting an argument about separate spheres of production and reproduction leads to the invention of fantasy families. This is not as strange as it sounds. When people talk about the family, they often invent such a fantasy family, in prehistory, or in more recent times. 5ometimes the prehistoric family is idyllic, peaceful, and egalitarian. 7ften people chant a lot and worship a higher power. 5ometimes this goes with companionate marriage, and sometimes with e#citing group se#. 7ther fantasy families are brutal and competitive, dominated by cave men obsessed with passing on their jeans.CI What these fantasy families have in common is that the people who write about them are unconcerned with evidence. They simply know how things would have been. 5ometimes the fantasy family is set in either late >ictorian -ngland or '(I*s suburban $merica. These e#ceptional moments are chosen because they fit most closely with the ideology of separate spheres. The clue that we are dealing with something ideological, and not careful social history, is that the comparisons are casual and sloppy. Why are '(th century $mericans not compared to
CI
This is a joke.
D*th century $mericans6 Why are early D*th century workers in rural $merica not compared with rural workers in India, or 4hina, of the same period6 Why are suburban families in $merica in '(II more .capitalist. than urban families in $merica in D*'E6 There are whole cultural industries dedicated to describing versions of the family pushed by a ruling elite at a particular time. 4onsider the T> sit1com -i+e with 2ather made for <5 audiences in the mid1D*th centuryF and compare how 6pstairs/Downstairs, made in the <B in '()', has been reworked as Downton )bbe, for both <B and <5 audiences forty years on.CG $s 5tephanie 4oont; puts it for the <nited 5tates in '(**: ,or every nineteenth century middle1class family that protected its wife and child within the family circle then, there was an Irish or a @erman NimmigrantO girl scrubbing floors in that middle1class home, a Welsh boy mining coal to keep the home1baked goodies warm, a black girl doing the family laundry, a black mother and child picking cotton to be made into clothes for the family, and a Aewish or Italian daughter in a sweatshop making 9ladies: dresses or artificial flowers for the family to purchase.C) Whatever the circumstances, ideologically driven fantasies, and imaginative stories, rarely come near describing how most people lived. !ocieties 1itho%t Class .7ur analysis of class and gender is materialist. That means we start from human needs, particularly those crucial to survival. We need clean air, water, food and warmth because we are animals. We need nurture because we are mammals, and our young are helpless for longer than in most animals. 0ike many plants and animals, we reproduce se#ually. &ut we are also, unusually, an animal where both
CG
$nd it is no accident that 9classic: novels and plays are oppositional and challenge contemporary myths. 4onsider, for e#ample, +elville/s 3ob, Dick, in part a paean to homose#uality, ,laubert/s 3ada 7o*ar,, &ronte/s Wuthering 8eights, or Ibsen/s The Doll5s 8ouse. &ut this must be a discussion for another time. C) 4oont;,'((D, pp ''1'D. 5toller, '((I, describes women of elite ?utch colonial families in Indonesia in the early D*th century. These women thought of themselves as members of ideal nuclear families. 3owever, children were sent away to private schools, there was a high death rate among mothers, and there were adoptions, nursery maids, mistresses, and brothels. +oreover, the way the ?utch colonisers operated depended on many other people in the %etherlands and Indonesia living in "uite other kinds of households.
female and male adults are se#ually active year round. $nd we need love and friendship, because we are social animals, as are dogs and most monkeys. 0ike +ar# and -ngels, but unlike many +ar#ists, we start from needs, not labour. 0abour is the most important way of meeting human needs, and that is why it matters. &ut labour cannot be the only material consideration. 0ove and se# are also basic needs. This means that gender has always had been an aspect of social relations. &ut gender has not always been une"ual. We argue that the origins of ine"uality, and so gendered ine"uality, come with class society. To understand class, we have to begin with what class is not, since humanity has not always lived in class societies. In the '()*s socialist and +ar#ist feminists turned to ,riedrich -ngels 'HHC book, The Origin o+ the 2a il,$ Pri*ate Propert, and the State. The book was revived as a key +ar#ist te#t in debates about women/s liberation, though it was often treated uncritically.CH -ngels. book has important strengths and great weaknesses. -ngels argues against the idea that human nature is unchanging, against the reification of gendered differences, against the notion of an innate will to power, and against the idea that men and women are always une"ual. -ngels also attests to the possibility of egalitarian societies. <nfortunately, the foundation -ngels laid for these ideas was deeply flawed. 5ome of his mistakes occurred because -ngels was unable to do much research. 5ome sprang from the method he borrowed from right1wing social ?arwinism. +any of his formulations essentialise race or gender, or validate e#isting ine"ualities. &ut these are not isolated mistakes. 3e is wrong on more than a hundred topics, including the superiority of $ryan and 5emitic races, the superiority of @erman monogamy, the small brains of 8ueblo Indians, fish, pottery, cannibalism, kinship terminologies, cultural survivals, matriarchy, group marriage and homose#uality. C(
CH
5ee, for e#ample, 5acks, '()I, '()(F 0eacock, '(H'F 5ayers, -vans and =edcliff, '(H)F >ogel '(HEF @erman, '(HH. C( The problems are not because the book is outmoded, -ngels was wrong on most of these points in 'HHC. $mong his contemporaries, the abolitionist ,redrick ?ouglas, the socialist anthropologist ,ran; &oas, the labour organiser +other Aones, the +ar#ist journalist 4lara Jetkin, the socialist writer 7scar Wilde, and the +ar#ist revolutionary >ladimir 0enin were all careful not to make such mistakes. &oth Jetkin and 0enin praised -ngels/s book, but did not repeat his mistakes. The weaknesses of The Origin do not detract from -ngels. other achievements. &ut to get the measure of the book, contrast it with 9apital, and +ar#.s broad reading in theory, deep reading in original sources, great care with concepts and formulations, and automatic identification with the oppressed in all circumstances.
In any case, we do not need to rely on -ngels. 5cholars now know a great deal about the past. What information we now have suggests that for at least '**,*** years people managed their access to food, water, shelter, love, se# and nurture in more or less egalitarian waysI* We also have descriptions of recent hunting and gathering societies, many of which were also egalitarian.I' In those societies people shared food and no one could own more than they carried on their backs. $ge and gender were typically lightly marked, structurally unimportant, and sometimes found little ritual or institutional e#pression. 8eople gathered food and hunted animals to feed the young and the old, but no one relied on another.s labour all their life. 7ne has to be careful with the evidence from these societies. The reports often describe colonial situations. The hunters live, for at least part of their lives, alongside farming peoples. In some cases, they speak the same language as the farmers. +oreover, the customs of hunting peoples are not a survival from an earlier stage. $ PBung hunter in the Balahari has e#actly the same thousands of years of history behind him as a record company e#ecutive in 4alifornia or a carpenter in ?ubai. $ll three are alive now and are 9.modern:.FID the PBung are not 92living fossils:/. 7ur understanding is that culture flows from the ways people meet their basic needs. 3unters and gatherers behave like hunters and gatherers not because they have always been such, but because they are now such. 3owever, not all hunting and gathering societies were egalitarian. 5lavery and class could, and did, develop in some places where groups controlled great concentrations of resources, like the salmon runs of the west coast of 4anada.IE We also have descriptions of farming communities which .slash and burn. their fields and move every few years. +any of these communities, too, were fle#ible and egalitarian. Aoanna 7vering.s e#cellent account of 8iaroa communities in >ene;uela is of particular
I* I'
5ee -hrenberg, '(H(F ,lannery and +arcus, D*'D. 5ee Woodburn, '(HDF and 5ahlins,'()C, for a summary of the theory of egalitarian societies. ,or e#amples see Woodburn, '(GHa, '(GHbF 0ee, '()(F -li;abeth +arshall Thomas, '(I(F 5hostack, '((*F &rody, D**'F Turnbull, '(GIF and 0eacock, '(H'. &ut see also the discussions in 0ancaster, D**E, pp GC1GHF and in ,lannery and +arcus, D*'D, pp '(1E(. ID 5ee the masterpiece by -ric Wolf, '(HD. The term 9modern: is best avoided. It has been the key concept used to reconfigure the old colonial biological racism as the new imperialist cultural racism. IE ,lannery and +arcus, D*'D, pp GG1(*. 3owever, the ,irst %ations people along this coast had been trading with =ussian and 4anadians for a long time, and that may have increased ine"uality. 7n the other hand, many 8aleolithic hunters would have had access to far richer resources than D*th century hunters and gatherers.
interest, because gender was highly marked there, but was not associated with gendered ine"uality. 23 7ther slash and burn communities tolerated considerable ine"uality, but people usually did not pass their une"ual status down to their children. II 3owever, most societies with settled agriculture, where people farm the same fields from one generation to another, have been class societies. In class societies some people are fed all their lives by the work of other people, and they are able to pass this privilege down to the ne#t generation. $nd it is with the rise of class that we see the rise of gendered ine"uality. $t this point we offer our own Aust15o story. It is an attempt to address the elephant in the room: why do there seem to be only two choices K either an egalitarian society or une"ual societies where ideologies favour men, and in practice some men dominate most women and other men6 We would suggest that the answer lies in the importance of violence in reinforcing ine"uality. 0et us return to the prehistory of gender ine"uality. +any 92origin stories:/ trace the difference to war. 5ome say that men are biologically more aggressive. The evidence for this myth of testosterone is lacking.IG 7thers suggest that women were e#empted from war because they were needed for childbearing and child care. This ignores that war in small1scale societies usually involves few fighters, kills few people, and often centres on raids that kill both women and men.I) We would look elsewhere K to enforcing ine"uality in villages and towns. 3ere the violence of the enforcers is crucial, and they have usually been big, athletic men. =ichard 0ee makes an interesting point in his ethnography of PBung hunters and gatherers in &otswana. IH 7ne natural difference did threaten the e"uality that PBung people valued. +en did the hunting of large animals. The problem here was not the division between men and women. It was that between a "uarter and a third of men killed the great majority of the large game. Aust as the
IC
5ee 7vering,'(HG, and 7vering Baplan, '()I. ?avid Thomas, '(HD, describes similar e"uality among the neighbouring 8emon, and his account fits with Aonathan %eale.s e#perience during three months research in a 8emon village in '((). 5ee also =iviere, '(G(, '(HC. II There were also many slash and burn societies around the world where 9&ig +en: controlled the labour of other women and men, but they did not pass on their status to their children. 5ee ,lannery and +arcus, D*'D, pp ('1'HGF and 5trathern, '()D, '(HH. IG 5ee 0ancaster, D**E, pp'ID1'I(. 57 =. &rian ,erguson, '((D. There is also a wide literature on warfare in %ew @uinea and among %ative $mericans on the plains. +oreover, human populations have comple# ways of adjusting the birth rate to the carrying capacity of the land. IH 5ee 0ee, '()(, pp DCE1C(.
distribution of athletic ability, eye1hand coordination and strength at your school was not uniform, so too some PBung hunters were more physically gifted than others. The PBung had two main customary ways of dealing with this problem. 7ne way of preserving e"uality was a set of rules by which a hunter gave parts of the animal to his partner, her mother, and various other people. These rules effectively shared the meat among all members of the camp. 5econd, they believed that men should never boast about hunting. Indeed, a skilled hunter was e#pected to return to camp and claim he had killed nothing. Then, under repeated "uestioning, he would admit that perhaps he had killed a small animal and was so weak he needed help carrying it back. 7thers went with and when they found his impressive kill, they would say things like: 9You mean you have dragged us all the way out here to make us cart home your pile of bones6: 7r, 9To think I gave up a nice day in the shade for this.: The hunter should reply: 9You.re right, this one is not worth the effort.: $nd even a small antelope 9would be better than this mess:. Then they all carry the animal home and eat their fill. Toma;ho, a famous healer, e#plained to 0ee: When a young man kills much meat, he comes to think of himself as a chief or a big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as his servants or inferiors. We can.t accept this. We refuse one who boasts, for some day his pride will make him kill somebody. 5o we always speak of his meat as worthless. In this way we cool his heart and make him gentle. I( It is possible that with the coming of class society, such differences in ability between men would matter K at least before guns. >iolence within the household is also key to gendered ine"uality. 3ere too si;e may have mattered. >iolent enforcement would be more straightforward if it were put in the hands of the biggest and strongest people around. This e#planation puts aggression at the heart of class, where it belongs, but is almost never placed. &ut it too is a Aust15o story, and for the moment only a suggestion. Toma;ho reminds us that ine"uality meets resistance. The archaeologists Bent ,lannery and Aoyce +arcus make an important point in their magisterial survey of The 9reation o+ Ine:ualit,.G* They point out that in many places the archaeological record shows a gap of hundreds or thousands of years between when class ine"uality became ecologically possible and when it actually happened. They
I( G*
0ee, '()(, p DCG. ,lannery and +arcus, D*'D, pp'H)1D*).

also point to many sites where the record shows une"ual societies, and then e"ual ones, and then une"ual ones again. ,lannery and +arcus suggest the likely e#planation is that some people were trying to become a ruling class, and others were resisting them, or deposing them. ,lannery and +arcus point to the many cases in the historical and ethnographic record where people did e#actly that. G' This underlines the point that gender ine"uality would not have been a frill for new ruling classes. They needed it. 8erhaps this e#plains the universal presence of gender ine"uality in class societies. !%mmin' #& There have been a wide variety of family forms in capitalism. $nd capitalism itself is only one of many forms of class society. &ut, again, we do not mean to be postmodernist here. We argue for a particular direction of causation. The forms of class relationships change, and when they change, the ruling class also tries to change relationships of gender so they can more effectively naturalise the new forms of class ine"uality. The work men and women do is patterned in ways that fit with history and the interests of the ruling class. ,or e#ample, in the early '()*s each of us lived in $fghanistan.GD The gendered division of labour we saw there was typical of peasant societies and many rural class societies. In the several villages we knew well, perhaps one out of fifty households was rich enough to protect women and men from heavy labouring work by hiring servants and sharecroppers. In such households women were pleased to be able to dress discreetly and wear long veils. In the other households, women worked both indoors and outdoors, as did most men. $mongst these poorer families women wore less cumbersome head scarves, and they and their menfolk felt cruelly oppressed. 4hildrearing too was shared work, and not necessarily done at home. When babies were very small, they stayed with their mothers as the women worked. &ut in the villages we knew, infant and maternal mortality was shockingly high, and it was not unusual for infants to be fostered and grow up with their 9milk siblings:. When a little older, babies went everywhere with an older brother or sister or cousin who looked after them. 8ashtun fathers spent far more time with their children than &ritish fathers do now. 4hildcare was collective and kindly. 4hildren played everywhere because all adults
G' GD
5ee for instance 0each, '()'F 5cott, D*'*F and 5alemink, D**E. 5ee Tapper 0indisfarne!, '(('F 0indisfarne,'((CF %eale, '(H', D**', D**Ha, D**Hb.
always had an eye on them, and would intervene if trouble looked likely. ,or the 8ashtun women and men we knew, surviving as a household was the collective concern. Women and men pulled together to provide clean water, food, and warmth for themselves and their children. ,or the poor, women.s work and men.s work were not strongly marked, apart from some conventional tasks K women milked and men ploughed. &ut even that division of labour would be altered in the face of necessity. $nd in a 8ashtun village it was only the relatively wealthy who could afford a stronger gendered division of labour. These 8ushtun villagers shared the work of production and reproduction. There was still "uite marked gender ine"uality between them. The division of labour does not e#plain that gender ine"uality. GE The $fghan case is normal. This pattern of shared child care and work outside the home has been true of farm families in many parts of the capitalist world. We have seen it in India, >ene;uela, Turkey, %epal, and &olivia. It has been true historically of many class societies in -urope, $frica, $sia and the $mericas. In the writings of social reproduction theorists, you constantly come across mentions of working for wages and 9outside the home:. This ignores the fact that in many class societies in most of human history the majority of people have worked together as a household, and not for wages. The unthinking assumption that men do the work of production and women for the work of reproduction and the care of the workforce in class societies is wrong. $t times the unpaid labour of some women in the home is common and important. 5ometimes most women work for wages, and sometimes they do not. 5ometimes jobs will be seen as masculine, some as feminine, and some will be seen as unise#ual, and others hardly gendered at all. 3ow jobs are marked depends in part on cultural habits, but also on what labour is needed and what becomes available. ,or e#ample, factory jobs in e#port ;ones in northern +e#ico and southern 4hina were women.s jobs in '((*. &y D*** the demand for labour was so large that the factories were full of both men and women. The key characteristic of such 9divisions of labour: is that they change in response to the needs of capital. $nd as they change, the elite promote an ideology that insists that the new arrangements are gendered in ways that make them seem timeless and 9natural:. &ut there is one last point we would return to now. 5ome readers may feel that gender ine"uality does not simply come down to us from the ruling class. $nd of course, we agree. We all perform gendered ine"uality, we do it to each other, and in many ways we
GE
,or some of the e#planation see 0indisfarne, '((CF and Tapper 0indisfarne! '(('.
accept it as well. Indeed, that is precisely our point. &ecause gender is embodied, very intimate, and taught from birth, it feels a natural part of us. 3owever, there is always a tension and always resistance, so gendered ine"uality has to be constantly re1enforced. 7ne deep source of our resistance is love, intimacy, shared food and shared work. There is a similar process with class ine"uality. There too we accept much of the ideology, and perform it, and do it to each other. &ut the e#perience of shared work constantly reminds us of our common humanity and pushes ine"uality back. In both cases, interventions from managers, the corporate media, and authorities at every level are aimed at reinforcing that ine"uality. These interventions happen at key moments, but they also happen every day. $nd these ideological interventions are not simply abstract ideas K people are made to do things, and in the doing accept and embody the ideas. 5o it feels as if the struggle between people, and between e"uality and ine"uality, take place inside our love and inside our intimate selves.
page 30
PART THREE: NEOL" ERAL"!$ AN+ GEN+ER "N THE #! We have now developed a model for understanding the relationship between class and gender. In 8art Three we will show how that model works in practice. 7ur e#ample is the way that neoliberalism has changed <5 capitalism since the '()*s, and how that, in turn, has changed the gendering of $merica. GC We touch upon the gendered reconfiguration of wages, work, welfare, marriage, childhood, masculinity, $?3?, eating disorders, theories of mental illness, theories of mind, imprisonment, academic feminism, voting, imperialism, child abuse and rape. These may seem disparate topics, because the more conventional procedure is to focus on women. In that understanding, when women get a bigger share, men get less. @ender then revolves around a contest between men and women. We start from a different place. We look at the way the corporate elite try to change the whole range of gendered relations to reinforce increasing ine"uality. When the elite try to reconfigure gender, they play with the parallel lists of contrasting stereotypes which make it easy to slide between a whole variety of ideas about men and women, upper and working class, straight and gay, white and black. These ruling class efforts meet with resistance. The upshot is never a ;ero sum game between men and women. If women and men of the ruling class win, the majority of women and men lose. The Elite We begin our case study of neoliberal gender by first e#plaining what we mean by 9corporate elite:. Then we give a brief overview of the economy, before looking at processes of gendering per se. There are three key aspectts to what we mean by the 9corporate elite:. ,irst, there is the ruling class narrowly defined. These are a small group of men and women who run the country. In the <5, these people are largely knit together by the boards of directors of the I** or so largest corporations. These boards meet monthly, and a small number of people hold "uite a lot of directorships. These meetings, together with the meetings of boards of foundations and meetings with politicians, make it possible for the people who run the corporations and the governments to have thousands of strategic conversations with each other over a few months and reach collective decisions.GI
GC
The analysis of $merican neoliberalism we provide here is based on %eale, D**C. GI This process is e#plained in detail in ?omhoff, D**(.
5econd, there are the media. +ost of the media are owned and controlled by large corporations. 7n major issues of class, gender, politics, and foreign policy, these media tend to follow a common line. This is common in two senses K they suddenly decide that an issue is important, and that a certain line must be taken on it. This is not because journalists necessarily agree, but because senior managers and editors are telling them to. Third, there is an army of more than two million managers. These people take their cue from the corporate directors and the media. 7n a day to day basis, they are the people who enforce the ruling class consensus. $re we talking about a conscious conspiracy here6 In one sense, yes. &oard meetings and cabinet meetings are secret K we do not see the minutes. $nd many people at the top do think clearly about what they are doing, and discuss it with each other. In another sense, no. +ost of the large number of managers, professors, judges, editors and others who enforce the line on gender issues are not part of any secret political discussion. =ather, they listen to the media and their bosses. $nd they understand the implications of one approach as against another from their own position and privilege. +any could write cogently about that understanding. &ut most understand these matters viscerally. .Instinct. tells them that if one sort of e"uality is allowed to increase, then many other sorts of e"uality could follow. They know, from long e#perience, which side they are on, and so they act together. The converse is true. 8eople who value e"uality also know these things in their heads and guts, and they take sides accordingly. The elite do not simply get their way. They come up against resistance, and have to negotiate, dodge, change the subject, and use what comes to hand.GG 7f course, the elite are not always united. They are dealing with comple# and contradictory matters, and they must always operate in the face of resistance from below. They have important debates among themselves K a matter we shall return to. &ut the striking thing is how often they speak with one voice and act together. The Economy To e#plain how the elite reconfigured gender in the <nited 5tates, we start with the economy. Aonathan %eale has written about neoliberalism in the <5 at length elsewhere. G) To summarise that analysis: in the late '(G*s capitalists across the industrialised world
GG
,or some of the comple#ity of how ideology is negotiated, see %eale, D**Hb. G) 5ee %eale, D**C. ,or useful different takes on neoliberalism, see Blein, D**HF 3arvey, D**IF and +onbiot, D**C, D*'E.
faced a sharp decline in profits from industry. 8rofits are the life blood of capitalism. &y the late '()*s capitalists, led by $mericans, worked out what they hoped was a solution to the problem of profits. &y every means possible, they decided to reduce the share of national income that went to workers/ wages and public services. That way they could increase the share of national income going to profits. That project is called 9neoliberalism:, and it has gone further in the <5 than in any other rich country.GH $merican neoliberalism was not a right wing =epublican project. 4orporate leaders and politicians of all sorts saw it as necessary. The administrations of 4linton and 7bama pushed it just as hard as the administrations of =eagan and &ush. G(. To some e#tent, the project worked. 8rofits recovered a bit, but not to the levels seen before '()*. &y D**H the whole system was in crisis. &ut even if neoliberalism did not work, we have to remember that the problem of falling profits was real, and the corporate elite could not see any other way to solve it. %eoliberalism cannot work without increasing ine"uality. &ut to make that stick, the capitalist ruling class needed to get rid of the idea that e"uality was right and proper, and a good thing. )* This was not easy. In the <5 mass movements for e"uality K like civil rights, women.s liberation, gay liberation and many more K had won major victories during '(G*s and early '()*s. Those mass movements were uprisings from below led by educated people who could hope for good careers. In the '()*s and '(H*s well1educated $frican1$mericans, feminists and others were offered a compromise they could hardly refuse. ?oors to education and careers opened for black people, women and other minorities. %ot for everyone, but in the '(H*s there were substantial rises in income for the top D* percent of women, the top '* percent of black men, and the top I percent of black women. $frican1$mericans took over administering key parts of the system, as big city mayors, police chiefs, and eventually as president. These compromises accelerated a shift to identity politics that was already under way. The politics of resistance in the '(G*s came from the civil rights movement. That movement, in turn, took their political understanding from the global anti1colonial movements of the mid1D*th century. In $merica this produced movements with a contradictory ideology. 7n the one hand, they were fighting for human liberation. 7n the other hand, they were fighting for an elite of
GH
7n falling profits see 3arman, '(((, D*'*F =obert &renner, D**D, D**GF Bliman, D*''F 4hoonara, D**(F and +osely, '(('. G( 5ee 5uskind, D*''F and +eeropol, '((H. )* 5ee -hrenreich '(H(, and, for instance, ?outhat, D*'E.
$frican1$mericans and women to be admitted to the top table. In the '(H*s, the second half of that contradiction won out. Women.s pay began to rise relative to men, but almost all of this increase was accounted for by the top '* percent of women, and specifically by the pay of woman managers, doctors, and financial sector workers.)' It was different for most working women. 0et.s take the e#ample of the median woman. 5he is the woman right in the middle of the income tables. 3alf of women make more than her, and half make less. $fter '()I the real hourly income of that median woman was rising. Which seemed a good thing, but it hid the fact that women.s incomes were rising more slowly than they had in the boom years between '(CI and '()*. 4ontrast this to the median man. 3alf of men made more money than him, and half made less. 5ince '()I his real hourly income has fallen slightly. This fall in real wages did not happen by accident. It was the result of a sustained attack on unions that was a key part of the neoliberal project. The gap between men and women was closing, not because women made some gains, but because men were losing out. +en and women in families responded to this fall in men.s hourly wages by working more. 5o did single women and men. +en worked about H percent more hours K another month of work in every year. The percentage of women in the workforce had been increasing slowly but steadily since the 5econd World War. In '(G* women were a third of the workforce. &y D*'D they were C) percent. Women were now as likely to work as men, although more women worked part1time.)D With most men and most women working, the employers as a whole were getting more labour. 5o they were producing and selling more goods and services, and making more profits. They could pay the men less, and women had to go out to work to keep a family afloat. 5o getting women out of the home and into work was a key part of the neoliberal project. What happened to pay is a good e#ample of what was happening to gender generally. The 9position of women: improved and women at the top did well. In the middle, women seemed to be closing the gap with men. &ut it only appeared that way because men.s economic situation was getting worse, and that hurt both men and women. Women seemed gained e"uality from going out to work, but women and men together had to work harder, with less protection at work and less security for the future.)E
)' )D
+ishel, &ernstein, and &ushey, D**E, pp D*H1(. Website of the <5 4ensus for '(I* and '(G*F Website of <5 &ureau of 0abour 5tatistics for '()D and D*'DF and Aacoby, D*'E. )E 5ee -hrenrecih, D**'.
7n the one hand, the corporate elite wanted to hold onto older forms of gendered ine"uality that were effectively naturalised and supported 9the family: and a conservative, stable view of society. &ut they also wanted to s"uee;e more profit from workers by getting women out of the home and into the workforce. They also had to make concessions to women because the ideas of women.s liberation had gone wide and deep. The ruling class had to compromise on many fronts, and pursue a course full of contradictions. The contradictions arose because they wanted to defend an idealised notion of 9the family: while changing actual living arrangements. ,or e#ample, in '()E $merican women won the right to abortion. $n anti1abortion 5upreme 4ourt faced thousands of organised nurses and doctors openly conducting illegal abortions, and a march in Washington of three "uarters of a million people. The 5upreme 4ourt backed down and issued the =oe v. Wade decision. )C &ut by the '(H*s mainstream feminist organisations also accepted a compromise over abortion. Women would have access to abortion, if they could drive far enough to reach a clinic, and if they had the money to pay for the operation.)I -elfare $others and ridesmaids $long with the assault on working incomes went an assault on the economic position of women on welfare. <ntil about '(GI, a 9good: woman had stayed home to raise the children. &y '(H*, both parents worked in the T> sit1coms and everywhere else you looked.. That year =onald =eagan made an attack on 9welfare mothers: a key part of his presidential campaign. This was a coded attack on $frican1$mericans. &ut it was also an attack on women for staying at home with their children when they could be out working. This was a major shift in ideology, because the corporate elite needed more women working. This was a push from the top. &ill 4linton campaigned in '((D to 9end welfare as we know it:, and in '((G he signed the 8ersonal =esponsibility $ct. That re"uired women on welfare to take any job
)C
@orney, D***, is an e#cellent study of this conflict on the ground. 5aletan, D**E. 8lanned 8arenthood worked to bring down the very high rates of teenage pregnancy, but a young woman still has to pay QI* for the morning after pill =abin, D*'E!. In D**(, in Wichita, Bansas, the doctor of the one remaining abortion clinic in the state was murdered. -fforts are being made now to reopen the clinic, but elsewhere the assault goes on. 0egislation is being used to close the four remaining clinics in $labama, and the one that remains in +ississippi, while in %orth ?akota new legislation is being introduced to prevent abortions si# weeks after conception when a foetal heartbeat can be heard, but before a woman may even know she is pregnant .ew ;ork Ti es, D*'Eb!.
75
page 35
they could find, and forbade them to stay at home to look after toddlers.)G This was presented as an attack on loose women. In fact two thirds of the people on welfare were children. In '((G, one child in eight was living on welfare. &y D**', it was only one child in twenty. $s the economy became more une"ual, families too began to change. Two different styles of family developed K one for the E* percent who had finished college, and another for the )* percent who had not completed college, which included most manual and routine white collar workers. &y the late '((*s, the two family styles were strikingly different. 7nly G percent of the children of college graduates were born to unmarried parents. &ut C) percent of the children of non1graduates were born to unmarried parents. That.s almost half. 7f course many of these parents were living together, but they were turning away from marriage. When they did marry, E) percent of non1graduate women were divorced within ten years. &ut only '' percent of college graduates were divorced within ten years. )) &ehind the numbers were real changes in e#pectations. There became a new fashion for 9new men:, and companionate marriages developed among graduates. The ideal here was two working adults, with the wife 9juggling: home and work. $ part1time cleaner or a nanny often helped with that.)H These people celebrated marriage, with lavish weddings and ostentatious hen and stag parties, all endlessly portrayed in movies like 2our Weddings and a 2uneral , 3, 7est 2riend<s Wedding, and 7rides aids. $ good wedding and a good marriage were class markers that seemed like 9traditional: gendering, but were not. =ather, they marked a new kind of gendering, and the increasing social distance between the educated E* percent of women and the )* percent.
)G
3ays, D**E, is an outstanding book about welfare reform. 5ee also +organ, $cker, and Weigt, D*'*F and @ans, '((I. )) Wilco#, D*'*, pp'(, DE. Wilco#.s figures underestimate the e#tent of change, because about 'I percent of adult $mericans were college graduates in '()*, and about E* percent by D*'*. $nd his figures on births overstate the difference a bit, because it measures the percentage of births, not the percentage of women giving births, and less affluent women were having more children. )H 5ee =osin, D*'D, ppC)1))F and Wilco#, D*'*. &arbara -hrenreich, D**E, points out that one conse"uence of the adoption of part1time cleaners by professional women was that women.s domestic labour largely disappeared as a concern of professional feminists. It was too embarrassing to write or complain about the humiliation of picking up socks and cleaning the toilet for a man, when another woman was picking up your socks and cleaning your toilet.
The decline in marriage among working class people was not something the ruling class wanted. &ut it was a conse"uence of the other ways they were changing incomes and gender. Their reaction was not to give up on 9family values:, but to wield family values as a weapon to make working class people feel bad about their lives. )( -or*in' Class $asc%linities $long with these changes in the economy and family, from the '(H*s on there was also pressure on working class masculinities. The mi# of jobs in the economy was changing. Well1paid professional jobs and low1paid service jobs were increasing. 5killed working class jobs in the middle, often in industry and often unionised, were decreasing, and unemployment was rising.H* +oreover, the skilled jobs in the middle that remained were increasingly demanding. $s an aircraft mechanic who flew E** miles twice each day to his work and back described, 9It/s "uite a commute, don/t you think6 I/ve done it for si# years, I/m e#hausted, and I don/t see my kids. I hate it, but it/s a good job, so what can I do6 &ut I.m thinking of leaving, I can.t keep it up.: H' +any men had been raised to celebrate styles of working class masculinity that no longer fitted the demands of capital. Working class masculinities had emphasised dignity, courage, individualism, honest speaking, friendship and solidarity between working class men, standing up for yourself, and supporting your family. These ideas did not help the man whose wife was working, perhaps earning more than him, and supporting him when he was out of work. The older ideals just hurt him in this situation. HD They were also no help in the office. +any feminist writers and journalists say that women did better in the new economy because they were more 9caring and sensitive:. What stares us in the face is that earlier idealised styles of femininity encouraged women to be compliant. $nd compliance is what management wants of an office
)(
?avid 4ameron, the &ritish 8+, criticised absent fathers at the same time the 5ecretary for Work and 8ensions, Iain ?uncan15mith was describing the sins of single mothers, causing Joe Williams D*'Ec! to ask, 9Is se#ual morality just a cover to castigate the poor, when what you really find wanting in them is that they are insufficiently rich6 I worry to see the Tories characterise one class or group as aberrant or immoral which same behaviour is perfectly reasonable from their friends. It looks like a process of re1feudalisation:. H* ,aludi, '(((F and $bel and ?iet;, D*'D. 5ee also Aack, D*'EF and 5yal, D*'E. The 9crisis of masculinity: has also become a new topic for discussion in the <B. H' 8ersonal communication. HD ,aludi, '(((, is insightful. =osin, D*'D, too, is fascinating but uneven.
worker or a professional. The neoliberal euphemism for 9compliant: is 9fle#ible:. It is often asserted that women also flooded into low wage service jobs because their 9caring feminine: nature fitted those jobs. Whether or not this is true of serving at +c?onald is open to "uestion. The larger reason they took those jobs, of course, is that those jobs were growing in number. Working class men also began to work at service jobs, including those in the caring industries, where the consideration and responsibility that was part of an older masculine style has come back into its own as kindness to the sick and elderly. &ut older working class styles have been little help to schoolboys. $s feminism opened the possibility of academic success for women, the old ratios flipped. %ow more women than men finish high school, go to college, and enter graduate school. +any working class boys saw what awaited them and rebelled. &ut even when they conformed,, older masculine styles were a problem. Teachers were increasingly reviled from the top, stressed, and teaching to the test. %aughty boys had once been accepted as charming rogues, to be both disciplined and admired. %ow lively, bored, unruly boys have $ttention ?eficit 3yperactivity ?isorder $?3?!, for which they must be heavily drugged.HE $?3? was a new diagnosis, and utterly gendered. -#perts noticed the gendering, and asked how boys were biologically different from girls. They did not ask how what was being done to boys had changed. %or why Tom 5awyer now needed =italin, and 3uck ,inn was in juvenile detention. @irls had a different gendered and class1inflected .disease. K eating disorders. +ore women worked, people ate more fast and processed food, and corporations put more sugar in the food. HC Aust as education ratios flipped, so too did idealised body types. -#ercise, muscles, and thinness, once the mark of the working class body, became associated with upper class bodies. @irls on the edges of the thin class, but at the mercy of corporate sugar, began to vomit. HI The assault on working class styles of masculinity has been of no help to working class women. $fter all, most of them are heterose#ual and have found it difficult to find partners among men
HE HC
,or what.s wrong with $?3? diagnoses, see &reggin, D**D. 0ustig, D*'EF and =oberts and -dwards, D*'*. HI Bellaway, D*'E, describes <5 studies that show there is a beauty premium: gorgeous men and beautiful women earn '* to D* percent more than the rest of us. 5ee Waters, D*'*, pp (1)* for an interesting account of the spread of anore#ia to 3ong Bong.
whose incomes and life prospects were falling. HG Working class children also suffered. There has also been a change in evangelical religious practice. 0uhrmann, for instance, describes working class people who find increasing comfort in a @od who is a gentle and sympathetic listener, like a good therapist. -hrenreich describes people who now pray to @od for specific material goods and good luck in an increasingly desperate economy. +any probably pray in both ways, and most of them are women. H) The -ar on +r%'s %eoliberalism had to attack not just feminism, but all the movements for e"uality of the '(G*s. That meant an attack on ideas and breaking people to show that resistance was futile. $frican1$merican workers had been the heart of the civil rights movement and the northern riots of the '(G*s. The weapon here was the War on ?rugs and mass imprisonment, which began in the early '()*s. +ichelle $le#ander, in The .ew =i 9row, lays out the history and shows how mass imprisonment was a conscious attack on $frican1$merican communities from the top. HH In '()*, D**,*** $mericans were behind bars. %ow there are over two million, more than ten times as many in prison. We should not forget that the majority of prisoners were white and 3ispanic. They were not the intended target of mass imprisonment, but they suffered with the rest. The great majority of these prisoners were men. This was racialised and gendered suffering. The women left behind usually find themselves single mothers of broken families. Their gendered suffering increases too. The effect of mass incarceration was to break the people who came out of prison, their families and whole working class urban communities. 4rucially, the leaders of $frican $merican communities, including feminist activistsH( and the new professionals, did not organise against the War on ?rugs and mass imprisonment. Instead, they condemned drugs and crime and urged young people to get an education. In effect, they were blaming the young people for their imprisonment and oppression. There was another gendered change K a massive increase in prison rape.(* This was because of a tenfold increase in prisoners,
HG
Aacoby, D*'E. ?orling, D*'', pp C*1GC, is interesting on why educated women over DI, in particular, began to feel the world was running out of men. H) 0uhrman, D*'D, D*'EF and -hrenreich, D*'*. HH $le#ander, D*'*. 5ee also %eale, D**C, pp H)1'''F 8arenti, '(((F and 0e&lanc, D**E. H( &renner, D***. (* 5ee %eale, D**C, pp '**1'*DF +ariner, D**'F and 5inger, D*'E.
but also because this increase was not matched by an increase in prison officers. What estimates we have suggest that at least two million men and boys were raped in this way over the last twenty years. The media, the governments and the courts all tacitly approved of this. It has become a clichR in T> shows and books for the detectives to threaten the suspect with 9what will happen in the showers:.(' 3ere again, the ruling class had to change society to justify increased ine"uality. $nd here again, the conse"uence was a reconfiguration of gendered e#perience and gendered suffering. Gay Liberation 8recisely because the ruling class had to compromise with women.s liberation, they looked for other ways to increase gendered ine"uality. When $I?5 appeared in the '(H*s, gay liberation suddenly seemed like the weak link. The $merican media endlessly repeated that $I?5 meant the end of gender liberation and the se#ual revolution. $t times they almost gloated over corpses. It seemed that all the government had to do to hurt gay men, and therefore gay and lesbian liberation, and therefore women.s liberation, was to do nothing. 5o they did nothing. 8resident =eagan did not even mention $I?5 for the first five years of the epidemic.(D &ut gay men fought back in several ways. They went back to the basic principles of gay liberation K come out, fight together, se# is good K and found the strategy of safe se#. They took care of each other with courage and kindness. They reached out for allies in that caring among their family and friends. 0esbians, in particular, helped gay men because they understood both the human and the political importance of doing so. @ay men also forged political alliances beyond the gay world. They built a radical direct action mass movement to get new medicines into their bodies. There was much grief and many deaths, but politically they won. 5ince that time, the gay and lesbian movement has grown in confidence. $lone of the mass movements in the <5, gays and lesbians are now fighting offensively, not defensively K for same se# marriage. 3owever, after the gay movement had won medication for $I?5, neoliberalism did manage to reconfigure gay and lesbian lives in important ways. ,irst, the market provided the means to mark
(' (D
5ee 5myth, D*'', on everyone knowing about prison rape. The 4enter for ?isease 4ontrol in $tlanta was the honourable e#ception. ,or the politics of $I?5 in the <5 see %eale, '(('F and 5hilts, '(H). ,or the feel of the time read the novels of $rmistead +aupin and Tony Bushner.s play )ngels in ) erica.
gayness, especially for men. This was a class1inflected kind of gendering, for all the markers cost serious money. @ay men began to define themselves through their desire for commodities, and sometimes felt they were desiring other men as if they too were commodities. In the process working class gay men seemed to disappear from the stage.(E Indeed, gay men were in some ways celebrated by neoliberal advertising as the best possible e#ample of commodified desire. &ut gay men were still regularly beaten up on the streets. $lso during this period the identities of gay men, lesbians and transse#uals were biologised and redefined as natural categories. The argument was that they were born that way. $n endless hunt for gay genes found none, but no matter. %obody could figure out how to place bise#ual people as a biological category, but again no matter. In the universities a 9"ueer theory: developed that argued that same se# identities were socially constructed, not innate. (C This theory had almost no effect in the world beyond the academy, where gay men, lesbians and trans people mostly chose to believe they were born that way. Indeed, for many people this became a left wing idea. You cannot persecute us, it was said, because we were born like this, and did not choose it.(I The Ne1 Nat%ral 4 iolo'y and Gender These biological and genetic ideas about 0@&T identities fitted neatly with the larger drive to e#plain human ine"uality in terms of biology. Indeed, gay men and lesbians were often used as the type case which most clearly demonstrated the biological nature of gender. (G The ruling class had made important concessions to women in the top D* percent, and particularly to the top '* percent. They had also made important ideological concessions, accepting that e"uality between men and women was desirable. &ut that was a lot of ground to give up, so the elite waged an ideological campaign on all fronts to prove that women and men had utterly different biological 2natures/. /. They also wanted to prove that suffering was the result of biology and all kinds of personal weakness, and not ine"uality.
(E (C
,orrest,'((CF 3ennessey, D***, pp'''1'CDF ?ee, D*''F Wilson, D*''. ,rom the start, there were strong objections to the biologising social relations, see 5ahlins, '())F and =ose, Bamin and 0ewontin, '(HC. 7n gender, see Wilson, D*''. (I 0ancaster, D**E, ppDG'1GH, has a good discussion of this. (G 5ee for instance, Aordan1Young, D*'*. 7f course e#plaining ine"uality in terms of biology removes the discussion from historical or cultural comparison, and makes it seem 2natural/, eternal and timeless. 5o you don/t have to think about why one $merican boy in eight has been diagnosed as having $?3?, but only one ,rench boy in D** is said to have the condition.
7ne way to make gender ine"uality seem natural and to blame the victims was an intensive and wide1ranging project to reconfigure emotional life. &efore '()* people drank, took drugs, got fat, felt sad, went mad, and suffered in many other ways. +ost of their friends understood that those kinds of suffering had roots in those people.s lives. You presumed they had a reason to drink. ,rom the early '(H*s all of these problems were redefined as biological or genetic. $lcoholism, 9depression: and 9schi;ophrenia: became innate diseases. $lthough this became the consensus among scientists, doctors, and journalists, this e#planation is scientific nonsense. Years of research have never found a gene for alcoholism. &iological theory said that depression was caused by serotonin, but depressed people and happy people had the same levels of serotonin. $nd what is obvious about depressed people is that they are far more likely to be women and working class. $ study in 4hicago found that 9during the first two sessions of treatment, more than HI percent of the depressed patients spontaneously brought up issues relating to inade"uate financial resources, difficult working conditions or unemployment.: $nd almost all of them became sad because they were mourning a death, a love, a job, a house or something else dear to them. () 5ocial problems, the real hurts of class and gender, have been turned into biological problems and therefore made to seem innate, and natural. This turn to a false biology was partly driven by large pharmaceutical corporations working to create chronic 9diseases: which would re"uire their drugs.(H It was also partly that insurance corporations refused to pay for talking therapy and re"uired biological diagnoses before they would pay for any treatment. (( &ut more than anything else, social problems were increasing, because the economic position of most people was itself becoming more precarious. ,rom the '(G*s scientists of the 9mind: also looked relentlessly for evidence of differences between female, and male brains. Their science is nonsense. It has been brilliantly and comprehensively demolished by the scientist =ebecca Aordan1Young in her book 7rain Stor .'** 8articularly hilarious is her demonstration that until '()( all brain scientists included love of home in the markers of biological femininity, and career ambition in the markers of biological masculinity. $fter '(H', when the neoliberal push to get
()
Birsch, D**(, p ')I. ,or new sensible thinking on depression, medication,and mental illness, start with Birsch, and then &enthall, D*'*F +oncrieff, D**(F &reggin,'((E and D**HF Watters, D*''F @oldacre, D*'DF and Young,'((I. (H @oldacre, D*'DF and 0uhrmann, D***. (( 0uhrmann, D***. '** Aordan1Young, D*''.
women into the work place began to bite, no brain scientists referred to this difference. &ut despite having no clothes on at all, this brain .science. commands general assent. $nd it is endlessly popularised, so that men and women are presented as different species, or even from different planets, as in the self1help book 3en are +ro 3ars$ Wo en are +ro >enus, and its innumerable spin1offs. '*' $nd throughout the neoliberal project of regendering class relations, consumerism has kept pace. Two contrasting e#amples of gendered marking are instructive here. In the '(G*s and early '()*s, unise# children.s clothing was fashionable, but over the past D* years the new 9pinkification: has coloured the less e#pensive children/s. clothing market. 8ink.5tinks activists deplore the child1targeted se#ism and the e#treme marking of clothing, mobile phones and bicycles meant for girls, and the se#ualised consumer niche this creates.'*D &ut perhaps more important, pinkification is strongly marking a dichotomy which e#aggerates the differences between the girls and boys, and women and men, of the working class and separates them radically from each other. In the second e#ample the connection between gender and class is e#plicit, yet a liberal twist makes the resonances comple#. $ full page advertisement appeared in the .ew ;ork Ti es in spring D*'E. The ad featured a portrait of 4ameron ?ia;, the beautiful blond movie star. 5he was wearing a vastly e#pensive, large 5wiss watch. &i;arrely, the te#t of the ad reads: 9$ 4ommitment to &enefit <% Women. 4ameron ?ia; and T$@ 3erer support <% Women and its mission to empower women worldwide.: The same ad appeared, many meters tall, on hoardings in airports all around the <5 at the same time. $pparently there are new easy profits to be made by 9just adding some diamonds to an e#isting men/s watch and reducing the case:.'*E In this ad we have both blatant elitism and a marked closure of the gender gap at the top. 5oon afterwards, =ole# and 0ongines also picked up on the unise# theme in ads for e#pensive watches. '*C
'*'
@ray,'((D. 4ameron, D**(, is useful on this, and see &unting, D*'*. $nd sometimes the dichotomy is reinforced, even by those who would resist it. In spite of the eye1catching title, Pink 7rain$ 7lue 7rain? 8ow S all Di++erences grow into Troubleso e Gaps$ -lliot, D*'*, is arguing that gender differences emerge through sociali;ation and are not based on biological facts. '*D www.pink.stinks.org.uk. 5ee also 5chor, D**C. '*E .ew ;ork Ti es, D*'EaF and Bolensnikov1Aessop, D*'E. It is worth noting that a watch by from =omain @autier costs Q')*, (DI, but The @rand 4omplication watch by $ 0ang S 5ohne costs QD,CID,)** 8rince, D*'E!. 5o we are not all e"ual. 5ome people keep better time than others. '*C =ole# in the International 8erald Tribune on DD +ay D*'E and 0ongines there on DC +ay.
#ni5ersity /eminism The neoliberal assault also reconfigured feminist thought. =eading feminist books was an important part of early women.s liberation. ?uring the '()*s, many of the people who read and wrote these books moved into the universities, as graduate students and then teachers.'*I There were more jobs for women in universities, and more hope of promotion. $lthough there was still discrimination at every stage, the opportunities were in stark contrast to what was happening to most women, and to most working class families. Yet by the '((*s, the position of university women, and men, also grew increasingly precarious. The length of time needed to finish a 8h? in the <5 increased, and the prospect of a permanent job receded. &y D*'D, the majority of college teachers were low paid 9adjunct staff: with no job security. These economic facts disciplined university women, and men, just as postmodernism became the intellectual fashion. 8ostmodernism was a decisive turn to the right, with its rejection of +ar#ism, the enlightenment, and any possibility of human liberation. Yet it seemed left1wing to many. ,or some this was because post1modernism embraced identity politics. ,or others, thinkers like +ichel ,oucault, @ayatri 5pivak, 3RlTne 4i#ous, and Audith &utlerseemed radical and e#citing,, but even ,oucault and &utler avoided class arguments.'*G In effect, gender studies were allowed in the university, but class was deemed intellectually passR at a theoretical level. +oreover, a continuous media assault simultaneously ridiculed feminism and said that it had won. %onetheless, women within the universities were still discriminated against. These pressures led to the familiar 9I.m not a feminist, butM:. Tellingly, when the new anti1capitalist movement came along in D***, the two leading intellectuals, $rundathi =oy and %aomi Blein, were both women. That was the legacy of women.s liberation. &ut they both strongly opposed the turn to identity politics. $t the World 5ocial ,orum in +umbai in D**C many women activists attended, and many women spoke, but the meetings specifically on gender were predictable and theoretically flat. '*) "ntersectionality
'*I
The following section is indebted to 3ennessey, D***, especially pp E)1)D, and ')I1D*D. $hmed, '((D, is also useful. ,or how ideology is enforced in universities, see %eale, D**H. '*G 4ompare 3artmann, '(H'b. '*) 0indisfarne, D**C.
This does not mean that class has completely disappeared from university feminism. $t the end of the '((*s the idea of 9intersectionality: became popular. This is the idea that gender, race and class are simultaneously created together, in the same space K they .intersect.. The different heirarchies reinforce each other, but no one sphere is dominant. Intersectionality is a welcome advance, because at least people are talking about race and class. <nfortunately, many books and articles begin by name checking race, class and gender, and then go on to talk only about race and gender. '*H &ut we have another problem with the idea of intersectionality. We are interested in causality: in how and why forms of ine"uality change. In this light, there is no a priori reason to assume that all three spheres are of e"ual weight. There is enormous historical evidence that when relations of production change, other social changes follow. $lso, as we said at the outset, to think clearly about the relationship between class and gender, we need to avoid the reification which characterises much of gender theory. 4lass, gender and race are analytical concepts. They are abstract nouns, not people. $bstract nouns do not do things. They cannot change things. +en and women can. 4oncepts do not actually intersect. +en and women act in the world. +en and women of the elite have much more power day to day in class societies. They use that power to reinforce, and to change, all kinds of ine"ualities. Ethno'ra&hy The proletarianisation of academic life has also produced a split between ethnography and theory. It is heartening that class is now salient in many new ethnographies of gender relations. 8erhaps this should not be surprising. These ethnographies describe the lives of ordinary people. $nd in those lives the connections between class ine"uality and gender have become immediate and obvious at every turn. Take, for instance, $lejandor 0ugo.s superb book on women and men workers in 4iudad Aaure;, +e#ico. 0ugo leads with race
'*H
+oore, D*'Ea, is good on the absense of class. There are e#ceptions, including &renner, D***F -isenstein, D**(F and -hrenreich, D**E. $s Joe Williams, D*'Eb, has elo"uently described, privilege theory has also become fashionable among academic specialists of gender, many of whom are white and middle class. 8rivilege theory chastens those who would speak on behalf of others while paying no serious attention to what is being said.
and gender, but class informs everything he writes. 4onsider only the beginning of his moving dedication to: $ll the working class women of Aaure; who have been killed ... and in special memory of 4laudia Ivette @on;ale;, who disappeared and was never seen again after she was sent back home by a factory guard who did not let her in because she arrived too late for work.:'*( It is heartening that many other serious academics have also produced research that understands the lived realities of class and gender. 5haron 3ays, Baren &rodkin 5acks, 0ise =ofel, 8un %gai, Aoma %a;pary, Bevin ?enys &onnycastle and others have written stunning work.''* &ut almost all their research was ethnographic, looking at the lives of working class people on the ground, and it has had little influence on feminist theory. Those who do theory no longer seem to care much about lived working class e#perience. %ot by coincidence, they write in language so obscure that even most white collar workers cannot understand.''' 4lass was disappearing from the work of university feminists at the same moment that they were being turned into a low paid, insecure workforce where increasingly teaching was less important than educational 9business:. Indeed, theories of class and gender were disappearing because the workforce were being proletarianised, and so felt so vulnerable. The pressure to turn away from class came from the top, from the women and men of the corporate elite. This pressure came down through the senior staff at the elite universities, and the ways that this happened were comple# and nuanced.''D There is another reason why it is difficult to think coherently about class ine"uality from within universities. +arking or grading in the <5! has become a key process for creating and supporting class ine"uality. $ large majority of young people in most industrialised countries are now finely ranked by numbers that seem to turn their intelligence into a real measurable thing. The distribution of jobs and money is justified by these numbers. +any people are persuaded that they are where they are because they are stupider than the people above them. They accept this with pain and resentment, even hatred. It takes years of humiliation, but accept it they do. This
'*( ''*
0ugo, D**H, p. i#. 3ays, D**EF 5acks, '(HHF =ofel, '((( and D**)F 8un, D**IF %a;pary, D**'F and &onnycastle, D*'D. ''' 5chuessler, D*'E, reports on a musical evening of "ueer theory in %ew York that set Audith &utler and others to music, fondly sending up their incomprehensible language. ''D This process deserves far more attention than we can give it here. We have begun the discussion elsewhere: 0indisfarne, D**DF and %eale, D**H.
grading and ranking is a historically unprecedented project K evil on an industrial scale. Teachers mostly hate doing it. &ut they themselves have also succeeded, and failed, through that very process, so they do believe some people are smarter than others, and that jobs should be awarded on that basis. =oss ?outhart warns us never to forget the secrets of 8rinceton: -very elite seeks its own perpetuation, of course, but that project is uni"uely difficult in a society that.s formally democratic and egalitarian and colorblind. $nd it.s even more difficult for an elite that prides itself on its progressive politics, its social conscience, its enlightened distance from heirarchies of blood and birth and breeding. Thus the importance, in the modern meritocratic culture, of the unacknowledged mechanisms that preserve privilege, reward the inside game, and ensure that the advantages enjoyed in one generation can be passed safely onward to the ne#t. ''E Contradictions of Genderin' The reconfiguring of gender has not been a simple process. 4hanging gendered relations presented conservatives themselves with a problem. 4onservative ideology tries to do two things. It tries to maintain things as they are, and it tries to justify the ways that the ruling class wants things to change.''C $t the top, the ruling class has least problem with that contradiction. We know little of the domestic arrangements and se# lives of the people at the top. 8rivacy is one of the perks of class. ''I They clearly have more choices, and much less liability for transgression. 5ome are predators, but many seem to be wrestling with the same emotional dilemmas as the rest of us, albeit with more resources. &ut whatever their families and se# lives are like, the ruling class still want to hang onto the conservative supports of the old ideology. $nd the foot soldiers of conservatism can find change difficult. This has produced splits of various kinds. The upper class supporters of the big corporations had long dominated the =epublican 8arty. They supported the reconfiguration of gender to fit neoliberalism. The middle class and working class =epublicans were numerous. They had more votes, and they were more committed to
''E ''C
?outhat, D*'E. 5ee ,rank, D**C ''I 5ee $ldrich, '((GF and 4olt, D**E.
maintaining old social ine"ualities. 5o in primaries they chose candidates with more e#treme social views.''G The ?emocratic 8arty after '(H* was largely united as the party of 9social issues:. This did not mean defending welfare or social security. It meant defending the compromise that had favoured the top D* percent of women and the top '* percent of $frican1$mericans. The key 9wedge: issue over the whole period was abortion. The result was that national politics, seen as competition between =epublicans and ?emocrats, was dominated by identity politics to the e#clusion of class. The other result was that voting behaviour became markedly gendered. $ majority of women voted ?emocrat, and a majority of men voted =epublican. '') Genderin' im&erialism The capitalist system is global and has always involved imperial competition. $nd just as capitalist formations are gendered, so too are the international patterns of resource e#traction, markets, labour migration and imperial wars. ,or the $merican ruling class, neoliberalism is not just for home consumption. It is for everybody 6778 3ere we consider briefly an e#treme e#ample: the gendering of the $merican invasion of $fghanistan. ,rom the Iranian revolution of '()HU)( on, the $merican ruling class felt their control of +iddle -astern oil under threat from popular uprisings. &ecause the left in the +iddle -ast had collaborated, in various ways with the secular dictatorships in the region, most opposition to neo1imperialism was led by various kinds of Islamists. The ideological response was Islamophobia. &y D*** this racism against +uslims was the only acceptable public racism in $merica. There had been a communist coup in $fghanistan in '()H. The communists were secularists, committed to land reform and women/s emancipation. &ut during the communists/ struggle for power, these ideals became utterly contaminated. To support the $fghan communists, the 5oviet <nion invaded $fghanistan in '()(, and during the ne#t eight years a million people died a proportion of the population comparable to three million dead in the <B, or fifteen million in the <5!. ,eminism is now very weak in $fghanistan, because many $fghan supporters of feminism, men and women, also
''G '')
,rank, D**C. &y D*'E &ritain, the country with the most similar e#perience of neoliberalism to the <5, was also showing gendering of voting, and other countries in -urope were tending that way. 5ee +ilne, D*'E. 118 ,or reading on imperialism, gender and war, 5toller, '(('F -nloe, D**'F and %ordstrom, D**C, are good places to start.
supported the 5oviet occupation, while the only people who implacably fought the 5oviets were Islamists. ''( The <5 government initially backed the Taliban, from '((C to '((H. In those years, they ignored women, just as they do for their key allies in the royal family in 5audi $rabia. +eanwhile, the liberal aid agencies, first in the refugee camps, and since D**D, in $fghanistan, described gendered ine"uality as something basic or 9natural: to 9$fghan culture: and 9$fghan Islam:. 'D* $fter (U'' $merican Islamophobia increased enormously, and a .feminist. Islamophobia was part of this racism. This was not e#clusive to liberals or the left. Three weeks after the $merican bombing started in D**', 0aura &ush, and 4herie &lair both wives of millionaire warlords, spoke simultaneously of a war to liberate $fghan women.. 5ince then, 9feminism: has been consistently used to justify the invasion and occupation. The9feminist: spin focuses attention on the undoubtedly se#ist rule of the Taliban and serves to distract us from thinking about the tens of thousands of $fghans women, men and children! killed, wounded or orphaned by the $merican war. 'D' The class basis of Taliban support has also been ignored. Within $fghan politics, the Taliban were a 8ushtun movement. $mong 8ashtuns, the Taliban were a movement of poor peasants and sharecroppers against the big landlords, and their leaders are men of humble origins. The poor 8ushtuns we wrote about in 8art Two are e#actly the people who have become the Taliban. 'DD The economics of the $fghan war are staggering. 5ince D**' the cost of the $merican War in $fghanistan has e#ceeded one trillion dollars, with $merica spending more than Q'** billion a year. Though 9international aid to the country is roughly e"uivalent to its @?8, little of this has ever reached the $fghan people.: 'DE Yet even as the war has wound down, much lip service has continued to go to those who would help women, as if this were sufficient to salve a liberal conscience. $s with the &ritish before them, the $merican 9decision to withdraw troops has turned on factors with little relevance to
''(
,or $fghan politics after '()H, see %eale, '(H', D**', and D**HaF and 0indisfarne, D**D, D**H, and D*'E. 'D* 5ee, for e#ample, Aones, D**GF =odrigue;, D**H, and compare +olyneu#, D**). 121 The spin about women is particularly confusing when we consider the $merican war in Ira". There too the civilian population has suffered greatly, yet we heard almost nothing about Ira"i women, since such a discussion would call attention to the previous considerable gender parity in the affluent, secular Ira"i state. 'DD %ancy 0indisfarne has written about this in more detail elsewhere, see 0indisfarne, D*'E. In the same volume, see also $bou Jahab, D*'E, 0indholm, D*'EF +artin, D*'EF and %ichols, D*'E. 'DE The Guardian, D*'E, editorial of 'E +ay.
$fghanistan, namely the state of the occupier.s troubled economy and the vagaries of politics back home.: 'DC Yet with each setback, and in retreat, there has been spin about $fghan women. This persistent focus is misleading, not least because it ignores the fact that a large majority of $fghan women are opposed to the $merican occupation. &ut the focus has had a deep resonance in $merica itself. In all this, 9$fghan women: have become absurdly stereotyped. $nd foreign stereotypes of $fghan men have changed beyond all recognition over the last one hundred years. $fghans were once celebrated as guerilla fighters, the 9wily 8athans: whose courage and intelligence justified and somehow assuaged &ritish defeats.'DI %ow they have become fanatical, savage hajjis, hardly people at all.'DG This leaves the <5, <B and %$T7 soldiers with a serious problem. 3ow do they, with their drones, electricity, air conditioning, hot showers, mobile phones and body armour e#plain why they have lost the war6'D) There has also been a rise of 9pinkwashing: to give "ueer justifications for supporting the $merican empire. 8inkwashing is the idea that +uslims are homophobic, and therefore 0@&T people should support invasions and coups to overthrow Islamist governments.'DH It ignores the fact that Bandahar, the heart of the Taliban homeland, has long been more tolerant of public male homose#uality than any place in -urope or the $mericas. 'D( Indeed, the only change in this under the Taliban was that powerful men were forbidden to se#ually e#ploit young boys and girls. The Taliban themselves emphasised over and over how they protected boys and girls from rich and powerful warlords. &ut Taliban hostility to upper class men abusing peasant children went unnoticed outside $fghanistan.'E*
'DC
?alrymple, D*'EF ?orronsoro, D**IF @iusto;;i, D**(F and see the interesting ethnography by Blaits and @ulmanadova1Blaits, D**G. 'DI ?alrymple, D*'D, D'*E. 'DG Though 8ushtun men today dance the atan as if they still wore their hair in the waist1long dreadlocks of the nineteenth centuryP 'D) =ico, D**)F and ,riedman, D*'E. 'DH 5ee 8uar, D**)F and the admirable, even historic, academic conference at the 4ity <niversity of %ew York in $pril D*'E on 3omonationalism and 8inkwashing. www.homonationalism.org 'D( ?wor;ak, D**EF and 0indisfarne,'((). 'E* In Bhaled 3osseini.s D**G! pro1imperalist novel The @ite Aunner, and the film of the same name, this founding myth is inverted, and the Taliban are portrayed as advocates of child abuse. ,or the traditional use of male child prostitutes at upper class $fghan weddings, see 0indisfarne, '(()F 4entilivres, '((DF and see +ahawatte, D**C.
Gendered )iolence %eoliberalism has also changed the way that gendered violence K rape and child abuse K are understood and reinforced in the <5. To e#plain how this has worked, we need start with some general points about se#ual violence. The usual way to think about rape starts by seeing the cause of rape in the 9perpetrator:. &ehind that perpetrator, we are told, there is a broken culture, or a broken community, or a broken family. $nd perhaps the perpetrator was himself abused when he was little. -#planations vary, but they do not start at the top of society. They start with less powerful men, and with individuals. 3owever, if someone has the courage and determination to take a case of rape to a university administration, or to the police, those in authority may well not listen. $nd if they listen, they may well not act. 8eople usually say this is because the authorities are not doing what we should e#pect. They are betraying the woman who brings the case. &ut this is to get things the wrong way round. In reality, the courts, police chiefs, managers, deans, judges and politicians are the problem. The authorities are not failing to act. They have acted, over a long period, to make it clear to everyone what is permitted. 'E' 7nce what is allowable is clear, some men are largely free to rape or abuse, especially if they are rich or careful. The large majority of men do not behave in that way. &ut power authorises a minority. 3owever, this is not the usual way to think of rape. ,or a long time $merican feminists used the slogan, 9You just don/t get it:. In truth, the authorities do get it. 7nly too well.'ED The ruling class and managers structure and reinforce se#ual violence. &ut it is easy to miss their role in this process. 0et us consider two further e#amples to show how this works in practice. +ass rape has often been a weapon of war, but only when commanders permit it.'EE +ass military rape was central to the 5oviet advance on @ermany in '(CI and the $merican occupation of >ietnam.'EC %either the 5oviet arm in the '(H*s nor the $mericans in
'E'
5u;anne +oore, D*'Eb, makes this argument powerfully. This is the same process we now understand well from $bu @hraib prison in &aghdad, and &aba +usa/s death in military custody in Ira". 'ED ?owd, D*'E. 'EE This means, in &osnia or 4ongo, sometimes submitting to rape is the only way of saving your life. 7r consider when killing is too easy, and rape is used systematically to enforce in a more damaging and permanent way the une"ual relation between victims and perpetrators. The systematic use of rape in war also changes the kinds of human beings soldier rapists are, and strengthens the hold their officers have over them. 5ee &racken, @iller and Babaganda, '((DF %ottage, D*'*F and +ookherjee, D**H. 'EC ,or different approaches to rape in war see 0ittlewood, '(()F and Weaver, D*'*.
this century used mass rape in $fghanistan. $nd the $merican armed forces did not use it in Ira". The political conse"uences would have been too grave. In $fghanistan, this was partly in response to the general $fghan contempt for the use of rape in the politics of war. &ut it was also because the 5oviets and the $mericans used versions of feminism to justify their invasions of that country. 3owever, the 8entagon has continued to allow $mericans to rape other $mericans in Ira" and $fghanistan. In D**E almost a third of women veterans applying for help with 8ost Traumatic 5tress ?isorder 8T5?! said they had been raped. 7f that number, E) percent had been raped multiple times, and 'C percent had been gang raped. The journalist 3elen &enedict interviewed D* women who had served in Ira". They all agreed that 9the danger of rape by other soldiers is so widely recogni;ed NthatO officers routinely told NwomenO not to go to the latrines or showers without another woman for protection.:'EI 7fficial figures estimate that DG,*** men and women in the $merican armed services were se#ually assaulted in D*'D, and DEE were convicted.'EG When the generals permit rape, as they do within in the <5 armed forces, it happens. When they seriously forbid it, as they have forbidden the rape of $fghan civilians, it is rare. 'E) $s another e#ample, let us consider the ?elhi rape protests. In ?ecember D*'D a physiotherapy intern in ?elhi was gang raped and eventually died of her injuries. 5he was from a humble background K her father was a loader who had sold his land to pay for her education. $s word of the case spread, there were large and angry demonstrations by women and men across India. &ut the moment crystallised a long standing rage against the refusal of the state to protect women. The demonstrators in ?elhi marched to the 8resident.s residence to protest. They soon found themselves under attack by the police and =apid $ction ,orce units, using bamboo club lathis and tear gas. The violent response by the authorities was not surprising. =ape of 9?alit: agricultural labourers and indigenous 9$divasi: women has long been an important weapon of class rule in Indian villages. 7ver the last DI years, the Indian $rmy has used rape
'EI 'EG
Weaver, D*'*, pp#iv1#vii. ?owd, D*'E. 'E) 7r sometimes things are "uite complicated. 5ee +ary 0ouise =oberts. e#cellent book What Soldiers Do D*'D! is about $merican soldiers in %ormandy in '(CC. There, in the midst of a terrible war, occupation, $merican bullying of ,rench men and women, and $merican and ,rench racism, twenty1nine $merican servicemen were hung for rape. The hangings were public, and advertised beforehand in local papers. Twenty1five of the twenty1nine men were $frican1$mericans, and many were clearly innocent. It is clear from =oberts. careful discussion that ultimate responsibility for these hangings lay with the $merican generals.
e#tensively to control disaffected areas of Bashmir. In the cities and town, se#ual harassment by managers is a fact of working life. The police, and public institutions, tolerate a culture of 9-ve1teasing: on the streets that is far more brutal than it sounds. $nd the police usually do not investigate or prosecute rape. These facts, and the fear and rage they produced, led to the demonstrations. The police were authorised to attack the demonstrators for a reason. The politicians understood that a largely middle class protest against rape in ?elhi was also an immediate threat to a whole comple# of se#ual violence and class terror. The #! Case In the spring of D*'E the <nited 5tates also began to see the first signs of a revolt from below against rape. 3owever, in the <5 now there is a move by people in authority to speak broadly of 9battery: to include everything from unwanted touching to attempted manslaughter. This means battery may include everything from an ill1judged but well1meaning touch of a hand or a shoulder to a grievous, life1threatening beating. This is very confusing. It leaves boundaries unclear and people unsure about right and wrong. The effect of such a broad definition divides people and makes them wary of each other. The same is true of the new understanding of se#ual abuse as a continuum including everything from an offensive remark or a construction worker.s wolf whistle to a rape so violent it re"uires emergency surgery to save the life of the woman or man raped. ,ramed this way, all spontaneous desire or physical attraction for another person is made to feel wrong. 'EH What is happening in the <nited 5tates is that the mildly offensive ends of the continua of violence, and of the continua of se#ual violence, are being made to seem far more reprehensible than they used to be. $t the same time, the other, deeply evil ends of the continua seem to disappear. This too is very confusing. It completely unsettles moral certainties and creates considerable leeway for those who do the labelling. &ecause, of course, there is a class difference here too, some men, and some women, are being protected, while others have become increasingly vulnerable. Two contrasting e#amples show how this works. 7ne e#ample is the young women Aody +iller and her research team interviewed in 5t. 0ouis are among the vulnerable. 'E( +iller, in her book 7eing Pla,ed, lets those women.s voices be heard.
'EH 'E(
Williams, D*'Ea. +iller, D**H. 7ur understanding of what was happening builds on +iller.s, but our emphasis in places is different from hers. ,or an e#ample from the <B, compare 0ees, '(HG.
Their average age was si#teen. They were all attending a high school for girls and boys who had been e#pelled from ordinary schools. These young people knew they were on the edge of permanent e#clusion, or prison. They were hurt, and often very angry, and knew they had no reason to trust authority. These boys and girls were among the most vulnerable in the $merican working class. The girls also had a great deal of insight about the situations they found themselves in. &oys in the school would test out girls with approaches that might lead to flirting, to consensual se#, or to romance. 5ometimes the boys were also testing the limits of how vulnerable a girl was. If she seemed too 9loose:, or responded too meekly, she might be putting herself at danger of rape at home or in the neighbourhood. It was not easy to judge what the boys were doing. The boys often were not sure themselves. The girls spent a lot of time trying to sort out what was happening. 5ometimes a girl would e#plode in rage to make it clear she was not vulnerable, and then a humiliated boy would beat her up in class. &ut when girls were being clearly harassed, and even when they were beaten, the teachers and the principal would not intervene to back the girl. 4omplaining about the boys was also a violation of a value of working class solidarity that all the girls and boys honoured K don.t snitch. These girls were negotiating comple# continua, and so were the boys, in in the hope of finding someone to love them. The key "uestion about any continuum of behaviour is who decides how to divide it up. The girls were not allowed to do so. %or were the girls and boys allowed to sit down together and discuss as a group and make those decisions together. %or were the teachers allowed to sit down with the students and talk about what was happening, on pain of losing their jobs. $nd the public school authorities refused to clarify anything, e#cept that there would be no help. +iller describes the lives of particularly vulnerable people. %ow let.s look at the opposite end of the class continuum. ?artmouth is an elite Ivy 0eague college, whose students have far more money, more class confidence, and far better futures to look forward to. &ut they are not invulnerable. When %ancy 0indisfarne taught anthropology and gender at ?artmouth in '((H1((, her women students said that rape was a regular occurrence in some of the campus fraternity houses, and was never punished. This may have changed since, but probably not, because D*'E saw spirited demonstrations on campus against se#ual violence. 5ome male students responded on social media with remarks that called the protesters vile names, and threatened them, in general terms, with se#ual violence. These were people who shared a small campus, and saw each other every day. The women protesters were enraged, and probably also afraid.
The college administration stepped in. They cancelled all classes for a day, saying that they wanted everyone to calm down. The authorities said very clearly that ugly posts were utterly unacceptable at ?artmouth. They threatened anyone who did such things in future with suspension or e#pulsion. 3owever, the authorities did nothing about the se#ual assaults and rapes behind the protests. They responded to words, but acted as if the deeds were not the problem. 3ad they opened a broad investigation into what had happened, the college itself would have been seriously damaged, and the rich and powerful families of the young men involved would have been outraged. $ ?artmouth student, %athan @usdorf, writes, We are mired in demands for 9constructive criticism and dialogue.:M5et up a panel, schedule a meeting, use the time to schedule the ne#t meeting, and on and onM In reality, this means that undesirable changes can be avoided by directing their advocates into endless cycles of nonsense. 4learly there are forces at play that protect and enable offenders, the structure of fraternity1centred social life is one obvious case M $ny proposal for change that doesn/t satisfy the desires of parties more powerful than rape victims will meet with little success. 7ther methods are needed. 'C* The young college women at ?artmouth were far more privileged, and visible, than the high school girls in 5t. 0ouis. 5o when the high school girls complained, nobody took them seriously. When the college students complained, the authorities pretended to take them seriously, changed the subject, and did nothing to protect the women. What happened in ?artmouth happens all the time in the <nited 5tates. It often works, because many of the 9feminist: ideas available to young women on the edges of the elite encourage them to fight within a formal framework of smoke and mirrors. That formal framework hides the ine"uality of class power and personal privilege behind the se#ual violence. 7f course the fraternity brothers at ?artmouth will now be more careful about who they rape. Indeed, fraternity brothers have long picked on the more socially vulnerable women. 8owerful men who rape are less impulsive, less angry, and more likely to get away with it. The ?artmouth rapists are e#pressing their power, not their damage.'C'
'C*
@usdorf, D*'E. ,or more on the ?artmouth protests, see realtalkdartmouth.wordpress.com and thedartmouthradical.wordpress.com 'C' 5ee 5anday, D**)F 0efkowit;, '(()F and Turow, D**G. The case of ?omini"ue 5trauss1Bahn seems the e#ception that proves the rule. 3e was the head of the I+, and the 5ocialist favourite to be the ne#t president of
There are other ways to tackle se#ual violence. 5ampat 8al ?evi founded the @ulabi @ang in a rural district of <ttar 8radesh in northern India in D**G.'CD @ulabi is the 3indi word for pink, @ang is the -nglish word.! ?evi was the daughter of a shepherd. 5he organised groups of women to remonstrate with men who beat their wives. If the men did not listen, they would be publicly shamed by crowds. When that did not work, gangs of women would beat the men. The @ulabi gang now has D*,*** members. They have branched out into larger issues of social justice, and when necessary they confront the police. They inspired <sha >ishawakarma, a teacher and the daughter of a carpenter in a working class neighbourhood in the city of 0ucknow. 5he told the Ti es o+ India: 95ome years back, an ''1year1old girl I gave lessons to was raped by her uncle. $ few months after the incident, one of my colleagues attempted to rape me. I found back and managed to escape. It took a year to recover.:'CE When she did, she formed the =ed &rigade, a neighbourhood gang of fifteen young women with lathis between si#teen and twenty1five, all of whom had been abused and assaulted. They too confront, shame and beat men who harass women. These were not vigilante actions. They happened in the light of day, in front of public crowds, and thus mobilised and organised the morality of working class communities.
Child Ab%se We turn now from rape to the se#ual abuse of children and young people, concentrating on the e#ample of the <nited 5tates. That abuse was abhorrent to those who held 9traditional family values:. 3owever, managers of capitalist institutions who at least paid lip service to the same 9traditional family values: have long concealed, and therefore enabled, abuse. Then women.s and gay liberation opened a space where it became possible for a few people to talk openly about what had been done to them as children. 7nce they began to talk, other abused people took courage. 5o did the
the ,rench =epublic. 3e was arrested in %ew York in D*'' over an alleged se# attack on %afissatou ?iallo, an immigrant hotel worker. 94harges of attempted rape, se# abuse, forcible touching, and unlawful imprisonment were eventually dropped,: following an out of court settlement for an undisclosed sum 4hifasis, D*'E!. &ut see &onnycastle, D*'D, for a detailed account of rape by the powerless that is both unflinching and deeply humane. 'CD 5ee the website of the @ulabi @ang at www.gulabigang.inF Bim 0ongiotto.s documentary film Pink Saris, D*'*F and ,ontanella1Bhan, D*'E. 'CE $garwal, D*'E. 5ee also @opalan, D*'E, and the website of the =ed &rigade at red1brigades.blogspot.com
medical, social and drug workers who already knew that many of their patients, or clients, had been abused. There was a sudden outpouring of stories. 4onservative defenders of the idealised family were appalled. 5enior managers who had covered up abuse in organisations over many years were frightened. They included managers in the police, the military, courts, prisons, social services, hospitals, care homes, schools, churches, sports teams, corporations, political parties, the media and the entertainment industry. The most important individual, and the one who had organised the most systematic cover up of the most abuse, was the pope. In the early '(H*s the capitalist elite, and particularly the senior managers in corporations and public services, reconfigured the threat of child abuse as 9stranger danger:. This was, and is, a rare form of child abuse. &ut public discussion centred on strangers, not managers. $nd a generation of children became fat and bored as they were prevented from playing outside to keep them 9safe:. 'CC The people who had been abused in, and by, institutions were marginalised. &ut they continued to organise. $nd abuse survivors abroad, particularly in Ireland and &ritain, helped give the $mericans confidence. The discourse of stranger danger stopped working so well after D***. It was replaced by a different 9feminist: discourse that still protected the people at the top. This discourse, which drew on feminist hostility to the family, said that most abuse happened in 9 the family:. This re"uired a special definition of family. ,or this purpose, the word meant anyone known to the parents, like a friend, relative, co1worker or coach. What this construction did, however, was again to hide the institutions and managers. In &ritain even this 9family: construction has begun to wear thin. In the wake of the Aimmy 5aville revelations, many other prominent men have been arrested. %ot that they are that rich or powerful: most of them have been ?As, actors, musicians or entertainers. The managers, prosecutors and police who had protected and enabled them have had to apologise, but they have not been punished. 7ne last e#ample will reinforce the point. In D*'E several men were tried in 7#ford for running a commercial se# abuse ring. In the way the press reported it, 9failure: of the authorities on all sides was key. &ut one young woman ran away from care over a hundred times, and the police were repeatedly told by the victims themselves.
'CC
The epidemiologists Ian =oberts and 8hil -dwards D*'*! elegantly trace the connections between the oil, auto, and food industries, the culture of fear, and climate change.
To date, no police officers in 7#ford have been charged or disciplined, and they have all refused to resign. 'CI In the press, including the socialist press, attention focussed on the significance of the fact that men on trial were $sian. >irtually no one focussed on the overwhelmingly white police force, prosecutors and social services who have systematically allowed such things to happen. Concl%sion The regendering of ine"uality in $merica was not primarily produced by changes in domestic life. It was relentlessly pushed by television, films, media, books, hospitals, government policy, university courses, and the police. $t every point, men and women of the elite were pushing ideas that fitted their own e#perience and needs. They were also medicating, imprisoning, and taking away welfare benefits from others. @endering did not change because various abstract concepts were interacting with each other. It changed because some living women and men acted to promote ine"uality. 'CG We have now described some of the ways gendering has changed in the <5 in the last forty years. The direction of our e#planation is important. We started with the way industrial profits fell in the late '(G*s. We saw neoliberalism as a way that the corporate elite tried to solve their problem with falling profits. The ruling elite worked hard using gendered rhetoric and practices to support new forms of class ine"uality. $nd we have argued that changes in capitalism and in the class struggle have led to changes in gender relations, and not the other way round. This does not mean that class suffering matters more than gendered suffering or racialised suffering. ,or some people the worst thing in their lives is rape or domestic violence. ,or some it is being sent to prison, or to war. ,or some it is unemployment or being treated like an animal at work. $nd you never suffer in only one way. +any women do feel that their suffering as women eclipses all their other troubles. This may be true in their lives, but that truth can hide the driving forces that frame their gendered hurt.
145
5ee &lume, 3owarth, and ?alley, D*'EF 0aville and Topping, D*'EF 0aville, D*'EF 3ill, $melia, D*'EaF and 3ill, D*'Eb.
'CG
These points are also made by =ofel, D**), in her brilliant analysis of the way 9neoliberalism with 4hinese characteristics: reconfigured gender in 4hina. 5ee also =ofel, '(((. ,incher, D*'E also looks at elite gendering in 4hina and the effects of the new economic s"uee;e on the gendering of the working class.
References $bel, Aason = and =ichard ?iet;, D*'D, 9Aob 8olari;ation and =ising Ine"uality in the %ation and the %ew York K %orthern %ew Aersey $rea:, 9urrent Issues in Bcono ics and 2inance , 'H )!, at www.newyorkfedUresearchUcurrentVissues. $bou Jahab, D*'E, 9Bashars against +ashars: Aihad and 5ocial 4hange in the ,$T$:, in 3opkins and +arsden. $garwal, 8riyangi, D*'E, 9=ed &rigade takes guard against women tormentors on 0ucknow streets:, Ti es o+ India, H +arch. $hmad, $ija;, '((D, In Theor,? 9lasses$ .ations$ -iteratures. >erso!. $ldrich, %elson W. Ar., '((G '(HH!, Old 3one,? The 3,tholog, o+ Wealth in ) erica $llworth!. $le#ander, +ichelle, D*'*, The .ew =i 9row? 3ass Incarceration in the )ge o+ 9olor 7lindness The %ew 8ress!. $rmbruster, 3eidi and $nna 0aerke, eds., D**H, Taking Sides? Bthics$ Politics and 2ieldwork in )nthropolog, &erghahn!. &allantyne, 0isa, D*'D, The Guilt, One William +orrow!. &enthall, =ichard, D*'*, Doctoring the 3ind? Wh, ps,chiatric treat ents +ail 8enguin!. &lume, =occo, 5arah 3owarth, and @illian ?alley, D*'E, 0etters about the 7#ford se# abuse ring, Guardian, ') +ay. &onnycastle, Bevin ?enys, D*'D, Stranger Aape? Aapists$ 3asculinit, and Penal Go*ernance Toronto!. &racken, 8atricia, Aoan @iller and 5tella Babaganda, '((D, W3elping >ictims of >iolence in <gandaW, 3edicine and War, HUE. &ray, $lan, '((I, 8o oseCualit, in Aenaissance Bngland 4olumbia!. &reggin, 8eter, '((E, ToCic Ps,chiatr, 3arper4ollins!. &reggin, 8eter, D**D, The Aitalin 2act 7ook ?a 4apo!. &reggin, 8eter, D**H, 3edication 3adness 5t. +artin/s!. &renner, Aohanna, D***, Wo en and the Politics o+ 9lass (+onthly =eview!. &renner, =obert, D**D, The 7oo and the 7ubble? The 6S) in the World Bcono , >erso!. &renner, =obert, D**G, The Bcono ics o+ Global Turbulence >erso!. &rody, 3ugh, D**', The Other Side o+ Bden? 8unter'gatherers$ 2ar ers and the Shaping o+ the 3odern World ,aber!. &rodkin, Baren, '(((, 8ow =ews 7eca e White 2olks$ and What that Sa,s about Aace in ) erica =utgers!. &ryson, &ill, '((*, 3other Tongue? The Bnglish -anguage 8enguin!. &unting, +adeleine, D*'*, 9The truth about se# difference is that if men are from +ars, so are women:, Guardian, 'I %ovember. 4allinicos, $le#, '((E, Aace and 9lass &ookmarks!. 4ameron, ?eborah, D**), The 3,th o+ 3ars and >enus 7#ford!.
4arrigan, Tim, &ob 4onnell and 0ee Aohn, '(HI, 9Towards a new sociology of masculinity:, Theor, and Societ,, 'CUI. 4entlivres, 8ierre, '((D, :0e Aeu des @arcons:, in Aac"ues 3ainard and =oland Baehr, eds., -es 2e es %euchatel +useRe d/ethnographie!. 4hakrabortty, $ditya, D*'E, 90ots of people are wondering why the employment figures aren/t worse. Well, if you measure them properly, they are:, Guardian, 'G $pril. 4hen, $nita, '((D, 9hen >illage under 3ao and Deng 4alifornia!. 4hifasis, $ngeli"ue, D*'E, 95e# and debauchery in 5trauss1Bahn, the movie:, Guardian, ') +ay. 4hoonara, Aoseph, D**(, 6nra*elling 9apitalis . &ookmarks!. 4liff, Tony, '(HC, 9lass Struggle and Wo en<s -iberation? !0D& to Toda, &ookmarks!. 4ochrane, Bira, D*'E, 9%aked Warriors:, The Guardian, D' +arch. 4olt, @eorge 3owe, D**E, The 7ig 8ouse? ) 9entur, in the -i+e o+ an ) erican Su er 8o e 5cribner!. 4onnell, =. W., '(H), Gender and Power? Societ,$ The Person and SeCual Politics 8olity!. 5tephanie 4oont;, '((D, The Wa, We .e*er Were? ) erican 2a ilies and the .ostalgia Trap &asic &ooks!. 4ornwall, $ndrea, '((C, 9@endered identities and gender ambiguity among travesties in 5alvador, &ra;il:, in 4ornwall S 0indisfarne, '((Ca. 4ornwall, $ndrea, S %ancy 0indisfarne, eds., '((Ca, Dislocating 3asculinit,? 9o parati*e Bthnographies =outledge!, 4ornwall, $ndrea and %ancy 0indisfarne, '((Cb, 9?islocating masculinity: gender, power and anthropology:, 4ornwall S 0indisfarne, '((Ca. ?abhoiwala, ,aramer;, D*'D, The Origins o+ SeC? ) 8istor, o+ the 2irst SeCual Ae*olution 7#ford!. ?alrymple, William, D*'Ea, Aeturn o+ a @ing? The 7attle +or )+ghanistan &loomsbury!. ?alrymple, William, D*'Eb 9The @hosts of $fghanistan/s 8ast:, .ew ;ork Ti es, 'C $pril. ?as, >eena, $rthur Bleinman, +amphela =amphele and 8amela =eynolds, eds., D***, >iolence and SubEecti*it, 4alifornia!. ?ay, 5ophie, '((C, 9What counts as rape6 8hysical assault and broken contracts: contrasting views of rape among 0ondon se# workers:, in 8enelope 3arvey and 8eter @ow, eds., SeC and >iolence? Issues in Aepresentation and BCperience =outledge!. ?ee, 3annah, D*'', The Aed in the Aainbow? SeCualit,$ Socialis and -G7T -iberation &ookmarks!. ?omhoff, @. William, D**(, Who Aules ) ericaF +c@raw 3ill!. ?orling, ?anny, D*'', InEustice 8olicy 8ress!.
page 60
?orronsoro, @iles, D**I, Ae*olution 6nending? )+ghanistan !#G# to the Present 4olumbia!. ?ouglas, +ary, '(GG, Purit, and Danger =outledge!. ?ouglas, +ary, '()*, .atural S, bols =outledge!. ?outhat, =oss, D*'E, 9The 5ecrets of 8rinceton:, .ew ;ork Ti es, ) $pril. ?owd, +aureen, D*'E, 9+ilitary Injustice:, International 8erald Tribune, ( +ay. ?ugan, Aames, '(GG, The Great 3utin, ?eutsch!. ?wor;ak, Thomas, D**E, Taliban Trolley!. -hrenberg, +argaret, '(H(, Wo en in Prehistor, &ritish +useum!. -hrenreich, &arbara, '(H(, 2ear o+ 2alling? The Inner -i+e o+ the 3iddle 9lass 3arper 4ollins!. -hrenreich, &arbara, D**', .ickel and Di ed? On (.ot1 getting b, in ) erica 3enry 3olt!. -hrenreich, &arbara, D**D, 9+aid to 7rder:, in &arbara -hrenreich and $rlie =ussell 3ochschild, eds., Global Wo an? .annies$ 3aids and SeC Workers in the .ew Bcono , @ranta!. -hrenreich, &arbara, D*'*, 7right'Sided 8icador!. -isenstein, 3ester, D**(, 2e inis Seduced 8aradigm!. -lliot, 0ise, D*'*, Pink 7rain$ 7lue 7rain? 8ow S all Di++erences Turn into Troubleso e Gaps 7ne World!. -ngels, ,riedrich, '()D 'HHC!, The Origin o+ the 2a il,$ Pri*ate Propert, and the State 0awrence and Wishart!. -nloe, 4ynthia, D**', 7ananas$ 7eaches and 7ases? 3aking 2e inist Sense o+ International Politics 4alifornia!. ,aludi, 5usan, '(((, Sti++ed? The 7etra,al o+ the ) erican 3an 3arper4ollins!. ,einberg, 0eslie,'((G, Transgender Warriors &eacon!. ,erguson, =. &rian and %eil 0. Whitehead, eds., '((D, War in the Tribal Hone? BCpanding States and Indigenous War+are Aames 4urrey!. ,incher, 0ela 3ong, D*'E, 94hina.s entrenched gender gap:, International 8erald Tribune, D' +ay. ,lannery, Bent and Aoyce +arcus, D*'D, The 9reation o+ Ine:ualit, 3arvard!. ,leisher, +ark and Aessie Breinert, D**(, The 3,th o+ Prison Aape? SeCual 9ulture in ) erican Prisons =owman and 0ittlefield!. ,olbre, %ancy, D**',The In*isible 8eart? Bcono ics and 2a il, >alues The %ew 8ress!. ,orrest, ?avid, '((C, 9.We.re here, we.re "ueer, and we.re not going shopping.: changing gay male identities in contemporary &ritainW, in 4ornwall and 0indisfarne, '((Ca. ,rank, Thomas, D**C, WhatIs the 3atter with @ansasF +etropolitan!.
page 61
,rankenberg, =uth, '((E, White Wo en$ Aace 3atters? The Social 9onstruction o+ Whiteness +innesota!. ,reeman, 3adley, D*'E, 94oming out is never easy for a sports icon:, Guardian, H +ay. ,riedman, =ichard, D*'E, 9Wars on ?rugs:, .ew York Times, ) $pril. @erman, 0indsay, '(HH, SeC$ 9lass and Socialis &ookmarks!. @ilbert, $rthur %., '()Ga, 9&uggery and the &ritish %avy, ')**1'HG':, =ournal o+ Social 8istor,. @ilbert, $rthur %., '()Gb, 9The $fricaine 4ourts1martial: $ 5tudy of &uggery and the =oyal %avy:, =ournal o+ 8o oseCualit,. @iusto;;i, $ntonio, ed., D**(, Decoding the .ew Taliban? Insights +ro the 2ield 4olumbia!. @lassner, &arry, '(((, The 9ulture o+ 2ear? Wh, ) ericans are )+raid o+ the Wrong Things &asic!. @oldacre, &en, D*'D, 7ad Phar a? 8ow drug co panies islead doctors and har patients ,ourth -state!. @opalan, ?ivya, D*'E, 9=ed &rigade 4onfronts India 5e# $buse:, )lEaJeera Bnglish, ') +ay. @orney, 4ynthia, D***, )rticles o+ 2aith? ) 2rontline 8istor, o+ the )bortion Wars 5imon and 5chuster!. @owing, 0aura, D**E, 9o on 7odies? Wo en$ Touch and Power in Se*enteenth 9entur, Bngland Yale!. @raeber, ?avid, D*'', Debt? The 2irst ($&&& ;ears +elville 3ouse!. @ramsci, $ntonio, D*'', Prison .otebooks 4olumbia!. Guardian, D*'Ea, 9-ditorial: Ways of 5eeing:, ( +arch. Guardian, D*'Eb, 9Ira" War in %umbers, '* Years 7n:, 'C +arch. @usdorf, %athan, D*'E, 9$ defense of the recent protests:, The Dart outh Aadical, $pril DC, at thedartmouthradical.wordpress.com. 3arman, 4hris, D**(, Ho bie 9apitalis &ookmarks!. 3arris, +arvin, '()*, 9=eferential $mbiguity in the 4alculus of &ra;ilian =acial Identity:, Southwestern =ournal o+ )nthropolog,, DG. 3arris, 7livia and Bate Young, '(H', 9-ngendered 5tructures: 5ome 8roblems in the $nalysis of =eproduction:, in Aoel Bahn and Aosep 00obera, eds., The )nthropolog, o+ Pre'9apitalist Societies +acmillan!. 3artmann, 3eidi, '(H'a, 9The ,amily as the 0ocus of @ender, 4lass and 8olitical 5truggle: The -#ample of 3ousework:, Signs? =ournal o+ Wo en in 9ulture and Societ,, G E!. 3artmann, 3eidi, '(H'b, 9The <nhappy +arriage of +ar#ism and ,eminism: Towards a +ore 8rogressive <nion:, in 0ydia 5ergent, ed. Wo en and Ae*olution? The 6nhapp, 3arriage o+ 3arCis and 2e inis 8luto!. 3arvey, ?avid, D**I, ) Short 8istor, o+ .eoliberalis 7#ford!. 3ays, 5haron, D**E, 2lat 7roke with 9hildren? Wo en in the )ge o+ Wel+are Ae+or 7#ford!.
page 62
3ennessy, =osemary, D***, Pro+it and Pleasure? SeCual Identities in -ate 9apitalis =outledge!. 3erdt, @ilbert, ed., '(HCa, AitualiJed 8o oseCualit, in 3elanesia 4alifornia!. 3erdt, @ilbert, '(HCb, 9=ituali;ed 3omose#ual &ehaviour in the +ale 4ults of +elanesia, 'HGD1'(HE: $n Introduction:, in 3erdt, '(HCa. 3erdt, @ilbert, '(HCc, 95emen Transactions in 5ambia 4ulture:, in 3erdt, '(HCa. 3erdt, @ilbert, '((H, Sa e SeC Di++erent 9ultures? BCploring Ga, and -esbian -i*es Westview!. 3ill, $melia, D*'Ea, 9$ssaults and abuse the price of e#posing a criminal secret:, Guardian, 'I +ay. 3ill, $melia, D*'Eb, 9They got me addicted to crack first, then they gave me heroin:, Guardian, 'I +ay. 3ill, 4hristopher, '((', The World Turned 6pside Down? Aadical Ideas During the Bnglish Ae*olution 8enguin!. 3inton, William, '(GG, 2anshen? ) Docu entar, o+ Ae*olution in a 9hinese >illage +onthly =eview!. 3omonationalism and 8inkwashing 4onference, D*'E, $pril '*1'', presented by the 4enter for 0esbian and @ay 5tudies, 4ity <niversity of %ew York @raduate 4enter. 5ee www.homonationalism.org. hooks, bell, D***, Where We Stand? 9lass 3atters =outledge!. 3osseini, Bhaled, D**), The @ite Aunner &loomsbury!. 3opkins, &enjamin and +agnus +arsden, eds., D*'E, 7e,ond Swat? 8istor,$ Societ, and Bcono , along the )+ghanistan'Pakistan 2rontier 3urst!. Ifeka1+oller, 4aroline, '()I, 9,emale +ilitancy and 4olonial =evolt: The WomenWs War of '(D(, -astern %igeria: in 5hirley $rdener, ed., Percei*ing Wo en +alaby!. Aack, Ian, D*'E, 95"uee;ed +iddle is too cuddly a term for the permanent harm done:, Guardian, 'G +arch. Aacoby, 5usan, D*'E, 98ity the +en on Top:, .ew ;ork Ti es, ) $pril. Aeffery, 8atricia, =oger Aeffrey S $ndrew 0yon, '(H(, -abour Pains and -abour Power? Wo en and 9hildbearing in India Jed!. Aenkins, 5imon, D*'Ea, 9$fter the bomb, hysteria is the terrorist/s best weapon:, Guardian, ') $pril. Aones, $nn, D**G, @abul in Winter? -i+e without Peace in )+ghanistan 8icador!. Aordan1Young, =ebecca, D*'*, 7rainstor ? The 2laws in the Science o+ SeC Di++erences 3arvard!. Bar;akis, Batrina, D**H, 2iCing SeC? InterseC$ 3edical )uthorit, and -i*ed BCperience ?uke!. Bellaway, 0ucy, D*'E, 9?on.t hate the successful because they.re beautiful:, 2inancial Ti es, D( $pril. Bennedy, @avin, '(HI, .elson and his 9aptains 4ollins!.
Birsch, Irving, D**(, The B peror5s .ew Drugs? BCploding the )ntidepressant 3,th &odley 3ead!. Blaits, $le# and @ulchin @ulmandova1Blaits, D**G, -o*e and War in )+ghanistan 5even 5tories!. Blein, %aomi, D**H, The Shock Doctrine? The rise o+ disaster capitalis 8enguin!. Bliman, $ndrew, D*'', The 2ailure o+ 9apitalist Production? 6nderl,ing 9auses o+ the Great Aecession 8luto!. Bolesnikov1Aessop, 5onia, D*'E, 9Watches K a cut above:, .ew ;ork Ti es, DG $pril. 0amb, 5arah, D***, White Saris and Sweet 3angoes? )ging$ Gender and the 7od, in .orth India 4alifornia!. 0ancaster, =oger, D**E, The Trouble with .ature? SeC and Science in Popular 9ulture 4alifornia!. 0aville, 5andra, D*'E, 97fficers refuse to resign over se# traffic scandal:, Guardian, 'G +ay. 0aville, 5andra and $le#andra Topping, D*'E, 9>ulnerable girls lives turned into a living hell:, Guardian, 'G +ay. 0aw, =oger, D*'E, 9When we made our first 5pitting Image puppet:, Guardian, 'H $pril. 0awrence, 8eter, '(GC, Aoad 7elong 9argo +anchester!. 0each, -dmund =, '(GC, W$nthropological $spects of 0anguage: animal categories and verbal abuseW, in -3 0ennenberg, ed., .ew Directions in the Stud, o+ -anguage +IT!. 0each, -dmund =, '(G(, Genesis as 3,th and Other Bssa,s 4ape!. 0each, -dmund =, '()' '(IC!, Political S,ste s o+ 8ighland 7ur a $thlone!. 0each, -dmund =, '()G, 9ulture and 9o unication 4ambridge!. 0eacock, -leanor, '(H', 3,ths o+ 3ale Do inance +onthly =eview!. 0e&lanc, $drien %icole, D**E. Aando 2a il,? -o*e$ Drugs$ Trouble and 9o ing o+ )ge in the 7ronC ,lamingo!. 0ee, =ichard, '()(, 3en$ Wo en and Work in a 2oraging Societ, $ldine!. 0ee, =ichard and Irvin ?e>ore, eds., '(GH. 3an the 8unter $ldine!. 0ees, 5ue, '(HG, -osing Out? SeCualit, and )dolescent Girls 3utchinson!. 0efkowit;, &ernard, '((), Our Gu,s? The Glen Aidge Aape and the Secret -i+e o+ the Per+ect Suburb 4alifornia!. 0indholm, 4harles, D*'E, 95wat in =etrospect: 4ontinuities, Transformations and 8ossibilities:, in 3opkins and +arsden. 0indisfarne, %ancy, '((C, 9>ariant +asculinities, >ariant >irginities: =ethinking 23onour and 5hame/:, in 4ornwall and 0indisfarne, '((Ca. 0indisfarne, %ancy, '((), 9Xuestions of @ender and the -thnography of $fghanistan:, in Aac"ues 3ainard and =oland Baehr, eds., Dire les
page 64
autres? Ae+leCions at prati:ues ethnologi:ues -ditions 8ayot 0ausanne!. 0indisfarne, %ancy, D**D, 95tarting from &elow: ,ieldwork, @ender and Imperialism %ow:, 9riti:ue o+ )nthropolog,, DDUC. =eprinted in $rmbruster and 0aerke. 0indisfarne, %ancy, D**C, W$nother World is 8ossibleW, )nthropolog, Toda,, D*UD. 0indisfarne, %ancy, D**H, 94ulture Wars:, )nthropolog, Toda,, DCUE. 0indisfarne, %ancy, D*'E, 9-#ceptional 8ashtuns6 4lass 8olitics, Imperialism and 3istoriography:, in 3opkins and +arsden. 0ittlewood, =oland, '((), 9+ilitary =ape:, )nthropolog, Toda,, 'EUD. 0ongiotto, Bim, director, D*'*, Pink Saris, documentary film. 0uhrmann, T+, D***, O+ Two 3inds? The Growing Disorder in ) erican Ps,chiatr, 8icador!. 0uhrmann, T+, D*'D, When God Talks 7ack? 6nderstanding the ) erican B*angelical Aelationship with God Bnopf!. 0uhrmann, T+, D*'E, 9When @od is Your Therapist:, .ew ;ork Ti es, $pril 'C. 0ugo, $lejandro, D**H, 2rag ented -i*es$ )sse bled Parts? 9ulture$ 9apitalis and 9on:uest at the 6.S.'3eCico 7order Te#as!. 0ustig, =obert, D*'E, 2at 9hance? The 7itter Truth )bout Sugar ,ourth -state!. +c4lintock, $nne, '((I, I perial -eather? Aace$ Gender and SeCualit, in the 9olonial 9ontest =outledge!. +ac4ormack, 4arol and +arilyn 5trathern, eds., '(H*, .ature$ 9ulture and Gender 4ambridge!. +c@regor, 5heila, D*'Ea, 9The =oots of 4hild $buse: Socialist Ae*iew. +c@regor, 5heila, D*'Eb, 9+ar#ism and Women/s 7ppression Today:, International Socialis , 'EH. +acBay, 5heena, '((I The Orchard on 2ire William 3einemann!. +ahawatte, =oyce, D**C, 90oving the 7ther: $rab1+ale ,etish 8ornography and the ?ark 4ontinent of ?esire:, in 8amela @ibson, ed., 3ore Dirt, -ooks &,I!. +ariner, Aoanne, D**', .o Bscape? 3ale Aape in 6. S. Prisons 3uman =ights Watch!. +artin, %icolas -milio, D*'E, 94lass, 8atronage and 4oercion in the 8akistani 8unjab and in 5wat:, in 3opkins and +arsden. +ascia10ees, ,rances -. S 8atricia 5harpe, eds., '((D, Tattoo$ Torture$ 3utilation and )dorn ent? The denaturaliJation o+ the 7od, in 9ulture and TeCt 5<%Y!. +ayer, $4, '(GI, 9aste and @inship in 9entral India =outledge!. +eeropol, +ichael, '((H, Surrender? 8ow the 9linton )d inistration 9o pleted the Aeagan Ae*olution +ichigan!. +ilbank, ?ana, D*'E, 95ame1se# marriage can/t be stopped by the courts:, St. -ouis Post'Dispatch. DH +arch.
+iller, Aody, D**H, Getting Pla,ed? )+rican') erican Girls$ 6rban Ine:ualit,$ and Gendered >iolence %Y<!. +ilne, 5eamus, D*'E, 9Women are now to the left of men, It/s a historic shift:, Guardian, G +arch. +ishel, 0awrence, Aared &ernstein and 3eather &oushey, D**E, The State o+ Working ) erica$ %&&%/%&&" 4ornell!. +olyneu#, +a#ine, '()(, 9&eyond the ?omestic 0abour ?ispute:, .ew -e+t Ae*iew ''G. +olyneu#, +a#ine, D**), 9The chimera of 5uccess: @ender ennui and the changed international policy environment:, in $ndrea 4ornwall, -li;abeth 3arrison S $nn Whitehead, eds., 2e inis s in De*elop ent? 9ontradictions$ 9ontestations K 9hallenges Jed!. +onbiot, @eorge, D**C, 9apti*e State +acmillan!. +onbiot, @eorge, D*'E, 9If you think we.re done with neoliberalism, think again,: Guardian, 'I Aanuary. +oncrieff, Aoanna, D**(, The 3,th o+ the 9he ical 9ure? ) 9riti:ue o+ Ps,chiatric Drug Treat ent 8algrave!. +ookherjee, %ayanika, D**H, 9,riendships and -ncounters on the 8olitical 0eft in &angladesh:, in $rmbruster and 0aerke. +ookherjee, %ayanika, in press, The Spectral Wound? SeCual >iolence$ Public 3e ories$ and the 7angladesh War o+ !#G! ?uke!. +oore, 5u;anne, D*'Ea, 9I don/t care if you were born a woman or became one:, Guardian, '* Aanuary. +oore, 5u;anne, D*'Eb, 9$buse can only happen as a result of the unspoken agreement that it will be covered up:, Guardian, DH ,eb. +orgen, 5andra, Aoan $cker and Aill Weigt, D*'*, Stretched Thin? Poor 2a ilies$ Wel+are Work$ and Wel+are Ae+or 4ornell!. +osely, ,red, '((', The 2alling Aate o+ Pro+it in the Postwar 6nited States Bcono , +acmillan!. %a;pary, Aoma, D**', Post'So*iet 9haos 8luto!. %eale, Aonathan, '(H', 9The $fghan Tragedy:, International Socialis 'D. %eale, Aonathan, '(HI, The 9utlass and the -ash? 3utin, and Discipline in .elsonIs .a*, 8luto!. %eale, Aonathan, '((', 9The 8olitics of $I?5:, International Socialis IE. %eale, Aonathan, D**', 9The 0ong Torment of $fghanistan:, International Socialis (E. %eale, Aonathan, D**C, WhatIs Wrong with ) ericaF >ision!. %eale, Aonathan, D**Ha, 9$fghanistan: the case against the good warW, International Socialis 'D*. %eale, Aonathan, D**Hb, 9=anting and 5ilence: The 4ontradictions of Writing for $ctivists and $cademics:, in $rmbruster and 0aerke, D**H. .ew ;ork Ti es, D*'Ea, $dvertisement for Tag heuer:, '' $pril. .ew ;ork Ti es, D*'Eb, 94ourage in Bansas:, 'C $pril.
%ichols, =obert, D*'E, 94lass, 5tate and 8ower in 5wat 4onflict:, in 3opkins and +arsden. %icholson, 0inda, '(HG, Gender and 8istor,? The -i its o+ Social Theor, in the )ge o+ the 2a il, 4alifornia!. %i#on, =ob, D*'E, Slow >iolence and the Bn*iron entalis o+ the Poor 3arvard!. %ordstrom, 4arolyn, D**C, Shadows o+ War? >iolence$ Power$ and International Pro+iteering in the Twent,'+irst 9entur, 4alifornia!. %ottage, 0ynn, D*'*, Auined %ick 3ern!. 7vering Baplan, Aoanna, '()I, The Piaroa? ) People o+ the Orinoco 7asin 4larendon!. 7vering, Aoanna, '(HG, W+en control women6 The .4atch1DD. in @ender $nalysisW, International =ournal o+ 3oral and Social Studies , 'UD. 8arenti, 4hristian, '((', -ockdown ) erica >erso!. 8arra, $"uiles 3ervas, D*'D, 9The @lobal Youth +ovement:, The OC+ord -e+t Ae*iew (. 8earson, =uth, D**), 9=eassessing paid work and women/s empowerment: lessons from the global economy:, in $ndrea 4ornwall, -li;abeth 3arrison S $nn Whitehead, eds., 2e inis s in De*elop ent? 9ontradictions$ 9ontestations K 9hallenges Jed!. 8engelly, +artin, D*'E, 9I.m gayP 5tar breaks <5 sports taboo:, Guardian, E* $pril. 8orter, =oy, '((I, 93ow shrews were tamed:, Ti es -iterar, Supple ent, 'H 7ctober. 8rince, =uss, D*'E, 9What.s the future for ultra1lu#ury:, 2orbes, 'I +ay. 8uar, Aasbir, D**), Terrorist )sse blages? 8o onationalis in Lueer Ti es ?uke!. 8un, %gai, D**I, 3ade in 9hina? Wo en 2actor, Workers in a Global Workplace ?uke!. =abin, =oni 4aryn, D*'E, 94ontraception and the courts:, .ew ;ork Ti es, ( $pril. =ico, Aohnny, D**), 7lood 3akes the Grass Grow 8residio!. =iviere, 8ierre, '(G(, 3arriage a ong the Trio 4larendon!. =iviere, 8ierre, '(HC, Indi*idual and Societ, in Guiana 4ambridge!. =oberts, Ian, with 8hil -dwards, D*'*, The Bnerg, Glut? The Politics o+ 2atness in an O*erheating World Jed!. =oberts, +ary 0ouise, D*'D, What Soldiers Do? SeC and the ) erican GI in World War II 2rance 4hicago!. =odrigue;, ?eborah, D**H, The @abul 7eaut, School 3odder!. 0isa =ofel, '(((, Other 3odernities? Gendered ;earnings in 9hina a+ter Socialis 4alifornia!. 0isa =ofel, D**), Desiring 9hina? BCperi ents in .eoliberalis $ SeCualit, and Public 9ulture ?uke!.
page 67
=ose, 5teven, =ichard 0owentin and 0eon Bamin, '((*, .ot in Our Genes 8enguin!. =osin, 3anna, D*'D, The Bnd o+ 3en and the Aise o+ Wo en >iking!. 5acks, Baren, '()I, W-ngels =evisited: Women, the 7rgani;ation of 8roduction, and 8rivate 8ropertyW, in +ichelle =osaldo and 0ouise 0amphere, eds., Wo en$ 9ulture and Societ, 5tanford!. 5acks, Baren &rodkin, '()(, Sisters and Wi*es? The Past and 2uture o+ SeCual B:ualit, @reenwood!. 5acks, Baren &rodkin, '(HH, 9aring b, the 8our? Wo en$ Work and OrganiJing at Duke 3edical 9entre Illinois!. 5ahlins, +arshall, '()C, Stone )ge Bcono ics Tavistock!. 5ahlins, +arshall, '()), The 6se and )buse o+ 7iolog, Tavistock!. 5aid, -dward, '((E, 9ulture and I perialis Bnopf!. 5alemink, 7scar, D**E, The Bthnograph, o+ >ietna Is 9entral 8ighlanders 3awai.i!. 5aletan, William, D**E, 7earing Aight? 8ow 9onser*ati*es Won the the )bortion War 4alifornia!. 5anday, 8eggy =eeves, D**), 2raternit, Gang Aape? SeC$ 7rotherhood and Pri*ilege on 9a pus, second edition %Y<!. 5aunders, ,rances 5tonor, D**', The 9ultural 9old War The %ew 8ress!. 5aunders, 8aula, '((', 9@endering the <ngendered &ody: 3ermaphrodites in +edieval Islamic 0aw:, in %ikki Beddie and &eth &aron, eds., Wo en in 3iddle Bastern 8istor, Yale!. 5ayers, Aanet, +ary -vans S %anneke =edclift, eds., '(H), Bngels Ae*isited? .ew 2e inist Bssa,s Tavistock!. 5cheper13ughes, %ancy, '((E, Death Without Weeping? The >iolence o+ B*er,da, -i+e in 7raJil. 4alifornia!. 5chor, Auliet &, D**C, 7orn to 7u, 5cribner!. 5chuessler, Aennifer, D*'E, 9Xueer Theory +ay %ot 3ave a &eat, but $cademics 4an 5till ?ance to It:, .ew ;ork Ti es, G $pril. 5cott, Aames, '(H), Weapons o+ the Weak? B*er,da, 2or s o+ Peasant Aesistance Yale!. 5cott, Aames, '((*, Do ination and the )rts o+ Aesistance. %ew 3aven: Yale!. 5cott, Aames, D*'*, The )rt o+ .ot 7eing Go*erned? )n anarchist histor, o+ upland Southeast )sia Yale!. 5cruton, =oger, D*'E, 97ur values have been betrayed:, Guardian, '' +ay. 5hilts, =andy, D*'D '(H)!, )nd the 7and Pla,ed On? Politics$ People and the )IDS Bpide ic 5ouvenir!. 5hire, 4henjerai, '((C, 9+en don/t go to the moon: 0anguage, space and masculinities in Jimbabwe:, in 4ornwall S 0indisfarne, '((Ca. 5hostak, +arjorie, '((*, .isa? the -i+e and Words o+ a M@ung Wo an =outledge!.
5inger, +ichael, D*'E, Prison Aape? )n ) erican Institution 8raeger!. 5mith, Aoan, D*'E, 9The great feminist revival:, Guardian, 'C +ay. 5myth, +ichael, D*'', Prison Aape 0,& 5cholarly 8ublishing!. 5toller, $0, '((', 94arnal Bnowledge and Imperial 8ower: @ender, =ace and +orality in 4olonial $sia:, in +ichaela di 0eonardo, ed. Gender at the 9rossroads o+ @nowledge? 2e inist )nthropolog, in the Post odern Bra 4alifornia!. 5toller, $nna 0aura. '((I, Aace and the Bducation o+ Desire? 2oucault<s 8istor, o+ SeCualit, and the 9olonial Order o+ Things ?uke!. 5trathern, +arilyn, '()D. Wo en in 7etween? 2e ale Aoles in a 3ale World? 3ount 8agen$ .ew Guinea 5eminar!. 5trathern, +arilyn, '(HH, The Gender o+ the Gi+t 4alifornia!. 5uskind, =on, D**', 9on+idence 3en? Wall Street$ Washington$ and the Bducation o+ a President 3arper!. 5yal, =ajeet, D*'E, 9&ritish men face a crisis of masculinity:, Guardian, 'I +ay. Tambiah, 5tanley A., '(GH, WThe +agical 8ower of WordsW, 3an E. Tapper 0indisfarne!, %ancy, '((', 7artered 7rides? Politics$ Gender and 3arriage in an )+ghan Tribal Societ, 4ambridge!. Thomas, ?avid, '(HD, Order without Go*ern ent? The Societ, o+ the Pe on Indians o+ >eneJuela Illinois!. Thomas, -li;abeth +arshall, '(I(, The 8ar less People. Bnopf!. Turnbull, 4olin, '(GI, Wa,ward Ser*ants? The Two Worlds o+ the )+rican P,g ies %atural 3istory 8ress!. Turow, 5cott, D**G, -i itations ,lamingo!. >ogel, 0ise, '(HE, 3arCis and the Oppression o+ Wo en? Toward a 6nitar, Theor, =utgers!. Warner, +arina, '(H', =oan o+ )rc? The I age o+ 2e ale 8erois 8enguin!. Warner, +arina, D*'E '()G!, )lone o+ )ll 8er SeC? The 3,th and 9ult o+ the >irgin 3ar, 7#ford!. Watters, -than, D*'*! D*'', 9raJ, -ike 6s? The GlobaliJation o+ the Western 3ind 4onstable S =obinson!. Weaver, @ina +arie, D*'*, Ideologies o+ 2orgetting? Aape in the >ietna War 5<%Y! Whitehead, 3arriet, '(H', 9The bow and the burden strap: a new look at instutitionali;ed homose#uality in nature %orth $merica:, in 5herry 7rtner and 3arriet Whitehead, eds., SeCual 3eanings? The cultural construction o+ gender and seCualit, 4ambridge!. Wilco#, W. &radford, D*'*, When 3arriage Disappears >irginia!. Wilkinson, =ichard S Bate 8ickett, D**(, The Spirit -e*el? Wh, e:ualit, is better +or e*er,one 8enguin!. Williams, Joe, D*'Ea, 95e# is in the spotlight, so let/s talk about it properly:, The Guardian, DH ,eb.
Williams, Joe, D*'Eb, 9$m I too white, rich and heterose#ual to be a feminist6:, Guardian, 'H $pril. Williams, Joe, D*'Ec, 9Why do these tories think they can rule on marriage6:, Guardian, DE +ay. Wilson, 4olin, D*'', 9Xueer Theory and 8olitics:, International Socialis 'ED. Wolf, -ric, '(HD, Burope and the People without 8istor, 4alifornia!. Woodburn, Aames, '(GHa, 9$n Introduction to 3ad;a -cology:, in 0ee and ?e>ore. Woodburn, Aames, '(GHb, 95tability and ,le#ibility in 3ad;a =esidential @roupings:, in 0ee and ?e>ore. Woodburn, Aames, '(HD, 9-galitarian 5ocieties:, 3an, ')UE. Worsley, 8eter, '(GH, The Tru pet Shall Sound +ac@ibbon and Bee!. Young, $llen, '((I, The 8ar on, o+ Illusions? In*enting Post'Trau atic Stress Disorder 8rinceton!. Younge, @ary, D*'E, 9$trocities such as &oston are hard to tackle, gun crime isn.t:, Guardian, DD $pril. Jeldin, Theodore, '((C, )n Inti ate 8istor, o+ 8u anit, 5inclair 5tevenson!. Jetkin, 4lara, '(H), Selected Writings International!.
page 70

Class, Gender, and Neoliberalism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class, Gender, and Neoliberalism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class, Gender and Neoliberalism

Nancy Lindisfarne and Jonathan Neale

Class, gender and neoliberalism

Class, gender and neoliberalism

0aw, D*'E. 8orter, '((I, p.E'.

Ifeka1+oller, '()IF www.freepussyriot.org F 4ochraine, D*'E.

0ee, '()(, p DCG. ,lannery and +arcus, D'D, pp'H)1D).

Class, gender and neoliberalism

Class, gender and neoliberalism

Class, gender and neoliberalism

Class, gender and neoliberalism

Class, gender and neoliberalism

Class, gender and neoliberalism

Class, gender and neoliberalism

Class, gender and neoliberalism

You might also like