Policing Behavior Through Labels

Today we got to talk about the power of labels. As we discussed, labels are a shortcut. They are a way that we maintain beliefs about race, class, gender, ability, size, sexuality and so forth. We also use them when we want to imply something about the person we are labeling, not just their behavior. Some of you had some really great analysis on your homework handouts.



For example, one of you talked about the label "bitch." As your classmate expressed so well, this label is "used to express scorn for a woman overstepping the bounds of feminine submissiveness. Men (and other women) expect women to be passive and to get along with others, and deviation from this expectation is met with a negative reaction." Great way to say it! This label is a great example of the way we use labels to try to keep people in their expected roles, even if those roles are just based in stereotypes. We punish aggression in women by using this word.

Another way we police gender is using the label "tomboy," as one of you pointed out. As this classmate said: "A tomboy challenges emphasized femininity, or what/who women are supposed to do/spend time with. In our society girls are supposed to have girl friends and only have romantic relations with boys, not platonic ones." If you think about all that is packed into that sentence, we use "tomboy" to monitor a lot of beliefs we have about women and girls. First, women and girls are supposed to care about relationships. But, they are supposed to have friendships with girls, as the assumption is heterosexuality--boys are for dating. Also think about the implications of how it is acceptable for a young girl to be masculine, but it is less acceptable for an adult woman. Also, when the reverse happens, and a young boy is seen as feminine, red flags go up. Everyone thinks he must be gay. There is much less tolerance for this option, and parents will even try to "fix" this. Here is the story of one mom that dared to challenge that, and the backlash she faced.

Labels can be powerful. One of you talked about the label of "welfare mom" which I think is a leftover relic of the "welfare queen" stereotype created by Ronald Reagan during his 1976 campaign that still seems to linger. When you call someone one of those labels, you are diminishing their entire existence into a package of assumptions tied up in race, class, gender and so forth. Labels can be funny (c'mon--eye broccoli?!?)...but they come with assumptions. Some can be harmless, but often they are based in assumptions that just aren't true, and by using them, we are keeping stereotypes alive. No one wants to be boiled down to a few inaccurate assumptions, no matter our race, class, gender, ability level, and so forth. Who says a "meathead" can't also be a smart, hardworking student? Who says redheads have to be misfits?