|Tuesday, April 19th|
3:45 PM - 4:00 PM
Recent discourse about sports politics focuses on inequalities among men and women: pay discrepancies, media coverage and inconsistencies in access to resources. I examine the way in which language in sports commentary reveals a society grappling with the growing participation of women in sports traditionally defined by masculine values. This results in an otherness, a position on the periphery, for women athletes. I examine language used by commentators to describe men and women competing in tennis and basketball. Previous studies prescribe purposeful labeling of gender markers in sports to correct the dialect of men’s sports as the “original” and women’s sport as the “other.” I find this labeling practice equally problematic, forcing a categorization and identification that automatically excludes. Is all-inclusivity possible? Let’s play ball.
4:00 PM - 4:15 PM
In recent years, trans* representation in pop culture has grown tremendously. From popular shows such as Orange Is the New Black and Transparent to icons such as Laverne Cox, Scott Schofield and Caitlyn Jenner, transgender narratives are enjoying record levels of representation and interest. At the same time, the images of transgender individuals are often highly distorted and driven by a highly transphobic ideology. Rarely presented as fully realized or happy characters, trans* individuals are often portrayed as the butt of jokes, long-suffering victims or moral deviants (murderers, rapists, drug addicts, etc.). I explore the ways in which trans* individuals are exploite iin popular narratives for the “stories” surrounding their gender identity, and how, ultimately, trans* representation in its current form often does more harm than good.
4:15 PM - 4:30 PM
Historic and current controversies related to gender surround the operationalization and use of certain psychiatric diagnoses from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Researchers have argued that gender bias may be present in either the diagnostic criteria or practices pertaining to the personality disorders, specifically histrionic and antisocial personality disorders. According to gender schema theory, gender categories and stereotypes play a central role in social cognition and lead people to make certain assumptions about the personalities of men and women. If certain disorders, such as histrionic and antisocial, are in fact constructed on the basis of hyper-femininity and hyper-masculinity, then schematic effects of gender on our perceptions of men and women could explain gender differences in diagnoses for these disorders. Through correlational analysis of survey responses, I evaluate interactions between observers—perceptions of targets—gender and gender roles in predicting levels of perceived personality pathology.