Sexploitation

Sexual Profiling and the Illusion of Gender

Michèle Alexandre

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780415827508
• eBook ISBN: 9781134068746
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Michèle Alexandre's innovative study examines how sexual profiling represses, oppresses, and hinders various aspects of life for both genders, and explores the ways in which the law and the community can help eradicate the practice of sexual profiling. Alexandre defines "sexploitation" as the perpetuation of myths and stereotypical notions regarding men and women in order to further an agenda of oppression and subordination in certain spheres of society. The most popular means through which this sexploitation is achieved is through a method Alexandre coins as "sexual profiling." She argues that sexual profiling ultimately stifles the growth of our society by creating inefficient as well as oppressive systems, and that its eradication can help increase the productivity as well as the morale of society.

Alexandre opens the book by exploring in detail the various ways in which normative views of gender are constructed and perpetuated through media and societal norms. She then focuses on the ways in which recent legal opinions and developments contribute to perpetuate these restrictive and oppressive norms. Finally, Alexandre outlines a plan to help eliminate the presence of these destructive norms and attitudes from different sectors of society.

1
Sexual Profiling Defined

There were neither witches nor bewitched until they were written and talked about.¹

Fra Alonso de Salazar (1612)

Then the story came back to me as my mother had often told it. On that day so long ago, in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, in the Massacre River, my mother did fly. Weighted down by my body inside hers, she leaped from Dominican soil into the water, and out again on the Haitian side of the river. She glowed red when she came out; blood clinging to her skin, which at the moment looked as though it were in flames.²

These two quotes hark back to times and places in history, one to the Spanish Inquisition and the other to mid-twentieth century Haiti, where noncon-forming women were viciously hunted, punished, and even killed. Labeled as “witches,” these women, like at various times in history, were powerless in the face of social disapproval and collective thirst for punishment. Yet, although these contexts now seem remote, we have not sufficiently severed all ties with these barbaric practices. Still today, nonconforming women and those that are analogized to women pay a high price for being and surviving in this society.

The body represents the front line of attacks when it comes to gender norms. These norms are perpetuated through control and restrictions imposed on everyone’s bodies and even harsher penalties are levied against noncon-forming individuals. In fact, the notion of gender itself is rooted in body-based restrictions and oppression. These burdensome and self-perpetuating restrictions manifest themselves most visibly through sexual stereotyping of bodies and behaviors. Control of sexual behavior and mores through the body maintains a cycle of exploitation that this book refers to as “sexploitation.” Sexploitation is the perpetuation of myths and stereotypical notions about men and women so as to further oppression and subordination in certain spheres of society. Sexual profiling is the tool commonly used to support sexploitation through the maintenance of longstanding stereotypes and regulated norms. These stereotypes associate meanings related to individuals’ use of their bodies by construing behaviors and choices as gendered, and thereby crystallizing certain negative associations in the social psyche. This practice maintains the dominant, patriarchal status quo.

Expressions of sexploitation take myriad forms and span the gamut, from linguistic pejoratives to legal classifications. The relatively recent, pervasive use of the word ratchet to condemn the behavior of nonconforming individuals—particularly individuals from lower social echelons—represents an example of this routine social phenomenon. Labels like ratchet litter the Internet, often with videos to boot. These online videos make the level of contempt targeted at the behaviors in question visual and palpable. Not surprisingly, these labels are more readily applied to vulnerable groups in their body expression. Nonconforming men and women of color particularly feel their force. Members of the trans community, poor women, and women of color are particularly at risk from virtual and literal attacks. Seemingly harmless Internet memes, like that targeting Charles Ramsey after rescuing the three Cleveland captives, ingrain further the practice of deriding noncon-forming individuals.³ Similarly, the viral targeting of rescuer Antoine Dodson (interviewed after rescuing his sister from an attack) and fire escapee Sweet Brown demonstrate the routine operation of these classifications.⁴ In a telling fashion, the often underprivileged setting, the non-traditional nature of of interviewees and speech, are routinely seized as justification for denigrating the subjects. These stereotypes’ destructive effects, unfortunately, do not stop there. Pervasive stereotypes affect vulnerable women and men in every context, including family law adjudication, employment, and practically all aspects of public and private life. As such, these stereotypes bear great influence on evaluators’ assessments, employers, and judges, for example, of individuals’ potential value and contributions to a setting.⁵ And the more vulnerable the individual, the lower his or her value to society, the less they are deemed to belong in these settings. Restrictive, biased meanings and expectations connected to each gender permeate every aspect of life and produce sexual profiling. They come to life, for instance, in criminal investigation and prosecution of rape, routinely illustrating society’s views of appropriate behavior and manner of dressing for women and men.⁶ They also underlie society’s still prevalent view of women as the primary caretakers of children.⁷ A vicious cycle, thus, ceaselessly operates.

A. A Vicious Cycle: Sexual Profiling and Nonconforming Men

Yet, even those who resist sexual profiling may be tempted to disregard how these constructed hierarchies harm men. Undoubtedly, men who depart from normative views of masculinity are harshly penalized. Thus, masculinity, like femininity, is harshly regulated. Penalties associated with masculinity should, however, bear greater scrutiny. One glaring example of this resides in recent studies showing that men experience rape at a higher rate than previously thought.⁸ The lack of discussion regarding this, and similar issues facing men, confirms how much sexual profiling renders men invisible as well as invalidates their trauma. Thus, gendered constructions of masculinity present examples of the inhibiting and counterproductive effects of sexual profiling. Normative understandings of masculinity have, for example, particularly limited men who seek to make employment decisions that allow them to actively participate in caretaking.⁹ These men, when prioritizing their families, experience ridicule and feminization in ways that dissuade others from following their example.¹⁰ Such conditioning has destructive ramifications for the family in general and for the male psyche in particular. It forces men to choose between family and work, removing them from active participation in childrearing if they choose work, and blocking them from gainful employment if they choose to balance work with family obligations. It also sends a resounding message that nonconforming men will not have access to any support system. Lastly, neglecting the impact of stereotypes on nonconforming men further burdens women as restrictions that target men simultaneously increase the correlative obligations and restrictions attached to femininity.

Consequently, sexual profiling creates a cycle of vulnerability. Men adhere to the role of the breadwinner to avoid feminization, forcing women to undertake childrearing with minimal help, give up remunerative employment, or make compromising choices. This causes the family structure to risk operating at a deficit due to a lack of more equitable partnerships and support. Societal pressure for men to prioritize careers over families also creates a psychic vulnerability—men who would prefer to prioritize family live in closeted frustration and discontent, often spiraling into depression because of their forced choices.¹¹ This psychic vulnerability may also contribute to violence and scapegoating. Indubitably, patriarchy generally advantages men more than women. However, normative understandings of masculinity can oppress both men and women, such as when men strive to live up to burdensome ideals of masculinity or when they accept society’s treatment of them as less valuable. It is, therefore, in our interests, as well as in society’s interest, to fight the stereotypes applied to men as hard as we fight those imposed on women. If not, the domino effects caused by stereotypes will continue to impose increased burdens on women and vulnerable partners.

Sexual profiling hinders, rather than benefits, society at large. The oppressive operation of sexual profiling of otherly gendered individuals and non-traditional family structures must be exposed, leading to its eventual eradication. Such eradication could lead to a more efficient and self-reliant society. Curtailing the nefarious effects of sexual profiling requires examining legal, social, and educational approaches. Without such measures, sexual profiling will continue to stifle societal growth. Examining how sexual profiling represses, oppresses, and hinders various aspects of life for both genders requires a focus, particularly, on the lives of men, women, and otherly gendered individuals. Only then can we fully grasp the ways in which the law and the community can be used to eliminate the practice of sexual profiling.

Sexual profiling has lingered for as long as it has because of the failure to incorporate personal accountability in reform movements, legal or otherwise. To illustrate, this book explores the systematic failings of legal reforms and judges in contexts affecting all aspects of society. Personal accountability and deliberate eradication of both preconceived notions and attachments to gender require exhaustive efforts in order to tackle scientific sexism and create methods to dismantle long-established assumptions regarding men and women. To do so, this book utilizes legal, cultural, and structural lenses for elucidating issues of equity affecting men and women and an individual and structural process for accountability. Using this approach, each chapter unearths the lived realities and struggles in real-life contexts and cases. Particularly, the final chapter explores proposed individual and structural accountability paradigm. It calls both for deliberateness and for overhauling longstanding language and assumptions through individual choices and relationships. It is a call to arms to every member of society to undergo the uncomfortable process of overhauling our language and thought processes regarding men and women. To do so, we must routinely question seemingly convenient assumptions about gender roles and differences, which defy reality but persist because many people view them as comforting.

Similarly, the final chapter seeks to generate continuous, uncomfortable conversations,¹² which should lead us to question the privileged motivations that often impede meaningful equitable responses to problems and situations.

B. Equity-in-Action Methodology for Breaking the Cycle

Yet, consider that these accountability-based approaches could help overcome the limitations of formal equality by using a rigorous methodology guided by equity-in-action. This methodology entails asking these key questions when doing equity: (1) does the context in question present multiple and diverse narratives, (2) do patriarchal assumptions play a role in the outcomes of conflicts that the narratives have identified, (3) in what ways do the women and nonconforming men described in these narratives try to resist and counter these assumptions, and (4) what can we learn, as gender equity activists concerned with vulnerability, from the tools and methods used by organic gender equity activists in their resistance? These questions could help identify site(s) of specific vulnerabilities. Such a process could also be instrumental in helping to understand how dependency and inequality manifest in particular contexts. Understanding the roots and implementation of vulnerabilities could aid us in devising ways to remove them. In doing so, the lived narratives of organic equity activists are a good starting point for deciphering the presence and effect of vulnerabilities. By studying their methods of resistance, we can both honor the spirit of equity-in-action and fix immediate issues on the ground.

Tuning to issues on the ground and fixing them requires trusting the judgment of the communities one seeks to help. One of the major fears behind some gender equity activists’ reluctance to defer to individual choice lies in the belief that false consciousness sometimes underlies certain choices, particularly choices by women commonly viewed as patriarchal, such as sex work. Some scholars identify false consciousness as an absolute negative. They view raising the consciousness of women who fall prey to false consciousness as a key function of gender activism.¹³ Unfortunately, the more these gender equity activists maintain that choices like these are inherently wrong, the wider the gap between them and these communities becomes. Viewing such vulnerable groups exclusively as dupes and victims creates a schism that makes it difficult to empower them.

Thus far, mainstream reliance on the idea of false consciousness to dismiss individual choices with which they disagree has been inappropriate and ultimately self-defeating. By doing this, some equity activists, even, have missed important opportunities to learn about the lived realities of the people making these choices. Similarly, the dangers faced by men and otherly gendered individuals who are engaged in sex work are overlooked by mainstream activism. In relying on this theory of false consciousness, they risk alienating these individuals and, thereby, miss many opportunities to work with them on how to widen their range of choices. In fact, the ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Terminology
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 Sexual Profiling Defined
• Part I Roots and Tools of Sexual Profiling
• 2 De-Gendering Men Sexual Profiling and Masculinity
• 3 Ground Zero of the Battle Sexual Profiling in the K–12 Setting
• 4 The Body Revisited, Again1
• 5 What is in a Name? Who Are You Calling a B****?
• 6 Prostitution and the Madonna/Whore and Men/Effeminate Dichotomies*
• Part II The Legal Legitimization of Sexual Profiling
• 7 When the Ideal of Womanhood and Criminal Law Collide Portrayal of Vulnerable Women as Deviant1
• 8 Rape Law and Sexual Profiling1
• 9 Employment Law and Sexual Profiling1
• 10 Other Forms of Profiling in Employment—Grooming Standards
• 11 Family Law and Sexual Profiling
• 12 Inheritance Law and Sexual Profiling1
• Part III Now What? A Cross-Sectional Model for Reversing the Status Quo
• 13 The Personal as Political and the Political as Personal A Proposal for an Organic Gender Equity Model
• 14 Moving Forward
• Epilogue Toward Individual Accountability
• Bibliography
• Index