#i know a recession hates to see suzanne coming

[lauren-in-the-world-blog]

Unit 2 Blog Post: Homophobia as a Weapon of Sexism by Suzanne Pharr

In this essay, Pharr analyzes the ways that gender roles and patriarchy have maintained such a strong effect in society. She blames this ability to keep sexism in place on three “weapons of sexism”: economics, violence, and homophobia. The entire basis of sexism in America, argues Pharr, is the idea instilled in women’s minds that they must be dependent on men in order to succeed. A woman is not valuable in society unless she has men supporting her because, using the three weapons, the system has been built in such a way that it is impossible for women to succeed without this dependency.

Pharr argues that economics is the “great controller of both sexism and racism.” Inequity in both income and wealth have contributed to a system where women must depend on men on a survival level, for food, shelter, and clothing. The major tactic is “to provide unrecompensed… labor for the benefit of those who control wealth.” This refusal of equal pay and access to women is a confirmation to men that they have a right to control women, abusing them both emotionally and physically. Not only this violence but also the threat of violence have acquired enough power to control the lives of women. Fear has become so commonplace that it often goes unrecognized. This fear puts women further in a position where they are forced to depend on men for safety and security. Economics and violence work hand in hand to put women into the hands of man, desperate for protection and vulnerable to exploitation.

While explaining the economic weapon of sexism, Pharr uses a series of statistics about inequity in income and wealth in the US. These statistics point out inequity between the wealthy and the poor. However, Pharr uses them to prove a point about inequality between men and women. The statistics are not relevant to the point Pharr is explaining, and therefore is not a useful source of information. Further, Pharr uses ambiguous citations for her statistics, making them difficult to be found and fact-checked.

EX: “Among the industrialized countries of the world, the US has the most unequal distribution of income of all. (See The State of Working America 2000/2001. p388)

This is the only proper citation Pharr uses in her essay. The quote from the resource says “The United States has the most unequal income distribution and one of the highest poverty rates among all the advanced economies in the world.” The book is by Jared Bernstein, a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; John Schmitt, an American economist serving as a senior economist with the Center for Economic Policy Research; and Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute. The authors have authority in the subject. Despite this, the statistic is not used properly by Pharr because it does not mention gender or race, the two factors that Pharr mentions in her essay. The stat is correct according to this article by Fortune.

http://fortune.com/2015/09/30/america-wealth-inequality/

EX: “an OpEd piece distributed by Knight/Ridder/Tribune NewsService… poverty rates in 2001 were higher than in the 1970′s and the top 5% of households got richer at the expense of everyone else.” 

According to the US Census, poverty rates were higher in 2001 than in the 1970′s.

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html

A study by two professors at UC Berkley confirms the statistic that over the past quarter or a century, only America’s most affluent families have added to their net worth. But this does not mention them necessarily doing so at the expense of everyone else.

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2015.pdf

EX: “US government figures for 1997… the wealthiest 10% of US families own more than 72% of the total wealth, with 39% of the total wealth concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest 1%. In contrast, the bottom 40% of the population own less than 1%.”

Across different sources, the numbers of this statistic fluctuate. Forbes says wealthiest 20% hold 72% of the wealth, and poorest 20% hold 3%.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/04/19/the-growing-disparity-in-wealth-made-the-great-recession-worse-and-the-recovery-weaker-than-ever-before/#3ec367ba69c4

Both of these stats are irrelevant to the point being made by Pharr and lack a proper citation. I was unable to find either resource online due to the ambiguity of the citations.

Homophobia is the third weapon Pharr attributes to sexism. When a woman is not dependent on a man, she is told that she is vulnerable, that she is endangered, or that something must be wrong with her. An independent woman is called a lesbian, not suggesting that she is sexually attracted to other women, but to warn her that in resisting the dependency on man, she is removing herself from society’s protection against the persistent violence she will be faced with. A woman who finds support in other women rather than through a dependence on men is seen as a divergence from the norm, a threat to man’s control and power. Man is faced with a threat of disloyalty and counteracts with a further threat of violence.

Woman-hating is a deeply imbedded piece to society, supporting the violence against them. Many women argue that verbal violence causes more harm than physical violence. Other women try to stay away from this idea, out of fear that they will fine a revelation within it: virtually every woman is a battered woman. Through years in a women-hating society, where women are constantly assaulted, both by members of and by the society itself, Pharr says we experience internalized sexism.

Pharr adds that homophobia works especially well as a weapon of sexism because it is partnered with heterosexism, the assumption that the world is and must be heterosexual and the systematic display of homophobia in institutions of society. The height of this heteronormative pressure is adolescence, when words like “pervert” and “faggot” start being used as insults. Adolescents are at the pinnacle os society’s pressure to conform to heterosexuality and society’s norm of woman-dependence-on-man. Even after adolescence, some of the most common words used to insult a woman are “whore” and “lesbian.” With these words comes a threat of loss of power and security from society. To be a woman not dependent on a man is perceived as to be a woman that hates men, therefore wanting nothing to do with the privilege associated with them. A woman faces a world of losses when perceived this way, including in areas like employment, safety, mental health, and community.

Pharr concludes with this strong statement: “…without sexism, there would be no homophobia. Finally, we know that as long as the lesbian can strike fear in any woman’s heart, the work on behalf of women can be stopped; the only successful work against sexism must include work against homophobia.”

Overall, Pharr’s essay uses speculative and hypothetical language and arguments to prove her points. While this essay provides insight on one view of the ingrained sexism in society, it lacks hard evidence or facts to support it. Because of this, it cannot be used as an authoritative source.