The Bear Hugger and What it Means in a Gendered World

There's been lots of hype about the "bear hugger" this week after two clery releases were sent out about  a third-degree assault on the MU campus. 

Pretty much everyone had something to say on the topic, and whatever your stance on the police, the subsequent arrest of the alleged assaulter, and the wording of the clery releases, it got me thinking about how this whole ordeal and the buzz surrounding it was affected by gender.

I noticed that most people took it as a joke, especially the first email, which described the assault as a "bear hug"- not a stranger forcibly holding a female or another more detailed description of what happened. When people did stand up for the victim, whether it was through social media or verbally, it was almost always women. Perhaps as fellow women, we feel an empathy with the female victim more than men do.

As far as the actual assault goes, both victims were women- and African American women, which adds  another cross-sectional factor into the mix.

I wondered if the clery release would have been worded the same- or even been reported at all- if a male had been the victim. To me, this would be another way that masculinity and hegemonic masculinity can get in the way of health and safety- a man would feel too "manly" to report something that may seem harmless to some, but made him feel threatened or uncomfortable. Similarly, I wondered if the same outcome would have occurred if the "bear hugger" was a female- would the circumstances have played out the same way, or would it have been reported at all? Women are seen as more docile and weak- perhaps a victim wouldn't have felt as threatened by a female as opposed to an unknown male.

Gender and Work

Gender and work was an interesting topic for us to discuss this week, as I recently received a job offer in Chicago for after I graduate. It got me thinking about how many things I will need to plan about a move to Chicago- obviously where to live, who to live with, etc.,  but even other things in the more distant future. I realized that if I plan to stay at the same company for a while, I will also need to look at factors like how long they allow for maternity leave, how flexible hours are to allow for family-work balance, and the quality of school districts in the city. I then realized many of these things are factors that men don't usually have to worry about, especially this early in the future. 

As Joan Acker says in our recent reading, "Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations," the typical 9-5 workday is structured around the needs of a white, middle class man who does not need flexibility for childcare and has no other worries during the day except making a living. It wasn't until I read this that I realized how true- and how outdated- this was.

With all the technology available to us, and the ability to communicate halfway across the world with just a touch of a button, a work-life balance should be easy to maintain. The typical rigid, 8-hour, Monday to Friday workday is not necessary or conducive to the normal family now- nor does it allow for a balance of power in families who have dual incomes. 

Gender Relationships and Roles in Marriage

This week in lecture we talked a lot about gender differences in the family and how mothers and fathers often have different roles. In one of our assigned readings, "Thinking About Gender and Power in Marriage," Veronica Tichenor discusses the idea of gendered power in marriages and how this can affect the family dynamic. She talks about how since men are seen as the breadwinners and the ones that must provide for the family through working, this takes power away from the woman and puts her in a more submissive position.

We discussed this same idea in class when we watched the video about the struggle that one family had while trying be fair and balanced in the amount of housework they did and the time they spent with their children. They took days off work and split household chores 50/50 for the amount they did. This family was held up as the standard to which we should all model our families and didn't present any other ways that a marriage could be evenly split in power.

I was raised in a very traditionally-structured home where my father was the breadwinner and my mother was the stay at home mom who cleaned and cooked. I know from first hand experience that they had a very fair and balanced marriage and that this kind of family structure can work. I always had enough time to spend with both parents, and both of them made important decisions together- they just had a different kind of "work."

I think that several of the examples and readings we have had in class have looked at the issue of power balance in marriage in a very universal way and have not presented all the options that are available for families who want to have more balance of power in their lives. The issue must be taken on a case by case basis, accounting for the unique situations of each family and what is best for the members in it.

If it's not on, it's not on: College Edition

Reading "If it's Not On, It's Not On" by Gavey, McPhillips and Doherty reinforced the "Hookup Culture" that we learned about last semester. In college and (in my observation) in the Greek system, both the coital imperative and the scarcity of discourse around female desire coupled with the male sex drive discourse are both exhibited prominently.

A coital imperative is defined as "how much control women (or men) have in determining what sexual activity counts as 'real sex' (Gavey, McPhillips and Doherty 323).  I have often heard my friends, especially girls, talking about their night with a guy or boyfriend. Their friends will ask them if they "hooked up" "made out" or "had sex," and each "category" has a specific meaning. When they ask if the girl "had sex," they almost always mean traditional heterosexual coitus.

This also reinforces what the women interviewed said when they often felt like using condoms meant a relationship was less serious. They said condoms were more of a "one night" thing. In the same way, girls in college often feel like going "all the way" means they may get more serious, while they save other sex acts (not "real sex") for one-night stands.

I also see the male sex drive discourse at work in the college/Greek environment. Girls often talk about going further than they normally would, but say that they "feel bad" because they're giving guys "blue balls," which guys often complain about to get girls to do just that. I've heard several different girls talk about how they feel like a "tease" if all they do is kiss, even if that's all that they personally want to do. They want to have a reputation as a good date or a fun girl, and not as a tease or a prude.

One extreme example of this that I have come across is a man who is in the same fraternity as my friend. He once said that if a girl doesn't go "far enough," he criticizes them or their sorority. Girls feel like they need to "prove themselves" and go further than they really want to so that they can protect their and their sorority's reputation. This is the opposite of what sororities are supposed to stand for: educated, strong and empowered women and sisterhood, and shows how women buy into the male sex drive discourse.