Mulvey 1

Rosemary Mulvey
Prof. Corewyn
Anthro. of Sex and Gender
10 March 2017
Fuchs Epstein Reaction Paper

In Cynthia Fuchs Epsteins paper, Great Divides: The Cultural,

Cognitive, and Social Bases of the Global Subordination of Women, the

author overviews the reasons, mechanisms, and necessity for study and

change of gender stratification and subjugation of women seen all over the

world. She argues that the subordination of the women is the foundation of

most societies and institutions and must be studied and understood to

properly understand societies. This paper makes many intriguing and valid

points about gender stratification, but I found her to be very United States-

centric with her global examples coming across as at least ethnocentric if not

outwardly racist at points.

Epstein begins her paper with this statement:

In this address, I argue that the boundary based on sex created

the most fundamental social divide a divide that should be the

root issue in all sociological analysis if scholars are to adequately

understand the social dynamics of society and the influential role

of stratification. (Epstein 2007, 156).

Epstein bases her paper on the assumption that the subjugation of women is

the foundation of all societies, and science has for the most part in the past

either overlooked or excepted gender issues as another divide in society. The

categorization of individuals based on characteristics either is used as

 Mulvey 2

justification of marginalization of other groups or creates a self-fulfilling

prophecy to force individuals to conform.

She goes on to say that in everywhere, in every social class, males are

more privileged than females and females are subordinate for men, except in

the cases of outliers where women outrank men in some way. She uses this

assumption to suggest that the divide of biological sex constitutes a marker

around which all major institutions of society are organized, (158) and

biological sex is used to create the divide by placing social statuses and roles

on the sexes which are not biologically inherent but social prescribed. She

states first that the prescribed roles of the sexes are the foundation for group

formation and dynamics, second, all societies and institutions rooted in the

subordination of women, and third, that the more a group is in question by

society, the stronger the gender differentiation and womens subjugation is,

using cultural and ideological means to justify differentiation. Womens

subjugation is more than an example of social inequality because it is so

foundational and is actively worked towards to maintain social cohesion and

stratification of ruling and governing groups, (159).

In the next sections of her paper, Epstein discusses the role of women

in the United States and in the study of sociology and the global context of

female subordination. According to her, Betty Friedan did more than any

other person in modern times to change popular perceptions of women and

their place in the world, through writing The Feminist Mystique and her

advocacy work with NOW (160). The revolution that Epstein attributes to
 Mulvey 3

Friedan and her compatriots motivated a lot of research in sociology and the

other social scientists about gender stratification and women. Epstein begins

her global context section by stating that the denigration of women is used

to reinforce male bonds, to protect the institutions that favor men, and to

provide societies the basic work they need to function. She finished the

introduction of this sections with a series of violent examples of female

abuse from around the world.

Epstein states that there are no inherent or natural differences

between males and females, and that these suggested differences have

been discredited by a lot of reliable research; the cognitive abilities and

emotions of males and females are no different. However, Epstein notes that

nowhere in the world to women have the adequate political control to give

women fully equal rights. Wage gaps, glass ceilings, and hostility against

women in the work place keep most women for reaching the full potential of

their careers, and the women outside of the wage-earning structure are often

disregarded even though they are essential to the economy. Women are

often seen as a commodity or property of their family to be used for their

gain and to be disposed of if they disobey the family or society (e.g. using

the loss of virtue as justification for the murder of a female family

member.)

In conclusion, Epstein states that because women perform the most

important tasks to a society, men control womens labor and behavior to

hold onto their authority, legitimizing it and justifying it through ideological

 Mulvey 4

and theological constructs using both force and cultural and cognitive

mechanisms which keep women in a subordinate position. She finishes her

paper by issuing a challenge to other sociologists to recognize and take down

these subjugating foundations from all social institutions or the sake of

knowledge and justice, (170).

Overall, I thought Epsteins paper made a very strong and interesting

point about gender stratification. She was very direct and precise in her

arguments, and her points were very clear. There were parts of the paper

that I fully agreed with and resonated with, such as her point about women

losing or gaining equality depending on the state of society, the economy,

current events, and the political situation of the time. This can be seen very

clearly in current events in the United States, with the 2017 election. Donald

Trumps blatant, unapologetic sexism opened a dam in the United States for

flagrant misogyny. As a woman, I have distinctly noticed a change in gender

dynamics as Donald Trump normalized sexism. The response of womens

movements is also in line with Epsteins statements because of our ability to

form these social movements although we are being subjugated. The deeply

ingrained misogyny and subordination of women in many societies is

something I can agree with her on. You can find examples of men taking

advantage of womens positions in society to further themselves all over the

world and all through history. Women are the core of society as the child-

bearers, but Epsteins paper is not watertight.

 Mulvey 5

Epstein fell short in communicating her points in a global context and

became ethnocentric, and focused on a gender binary that does not fully

encompass the reality of gender stratification. She repeatedly created a

United States-Rest of the World dichotomy that weakened her argument in

my eyes. Her paper implied that violence against women is only a problem

outside of the United States in other cultures, disregarding domestic

violence, workplace violence, and violence against transgender women in

the United States. In fact, at the very beginning of her paper, Epstein uses

the terms transgendered, transsexual, and hermaphrodite; all

offensive and outdated terms that demonstrate the inadequacy of her

knowledge outside of the gender binary. The way in which she discussed kin

structures was incredibly ethnocentric in my opinion. She homogenized

Middle Eastern and African countries in her discussion in a way that is both

inaccurate and racist. The way she used honor killings, genital mutilation,

and rape to make her point about female denigration globally was offensive

and tactless. These horrible acts against women deserve more respect than

what she gave them, and her portrayal of them exemplified her

ethnocentrism.

Epsteins portrayal of women as the center of society is problematic.

Her flavor of feminism does not sit right with me, and it might be due to the

evolution of feminism over the past decade and the generational difference

between Epstein and myself. Women deserve equality with men, but are not

inherently better because of their biology. She states that women are the
 Mulvey 6

foundation of society because of their role as mother and homemaker. This s

in the same vein of the hostility against women who are not at home with

her family that she condemns. Epstein seems to place the value of women

on their childbearing and central role in the family. This may be some

ingrained misogyny on her part, but is central to her argument when one

analyzes it.

I think the gap between Epsteins feminism and todays feminism, and

her Western-centric viewpoint is best demonstrated through her discussion

of clothing as a tool for differentiation. Traditional clothing like the hijab is, to

her, a way for men to keep women from performing activities and restricting

their movements. The sheer number of women who wear veils or other head

coverings and religious clothing who have spoken out against the notion in

recent years is astounding. So, her statement that even cultural relativists

must admit [that culturally prescribed clothing] serves to restrict womens

mobility (167) is chiefly Islamophobic and prejudiced towards other religions

who prescribe certain ways of dress, and demonstrates how she believes

that Western feminism is the correct feminism. She explicitly states that as

feminism has progressed, women are being allowed to wear western

clothing. Her mentions of religious clothing in Europe and the United States

are brief and fundamentalist restrictions. Epstein clearly sees certain

religious customs as restrictions against women rather than what we now

understand they are, the choice of a woman to follow her religion as it

prescribes. Epstein thinks that all societal institutions are based in the
 Mulvey 7

subjugation of women, including religion, so that she has this view is

unsurprising, but that in itself invalidates the choices of a large group of

women.

Epsteins paper is rooted in a wave of feminist theory that has been

since restructured and re-understood. Certain foundational points are still

valid, but her universal view of the role of women in society does not account

for cultural differences that are important to understand before passing

judgement. Her ethnocentrism sours her valid points. Because she believes

that the subjugation of women is the root of all society, she cannot accept or

understand the true power of women in the societies she condemns,

including in the United States but especially in the cultures she blatantly

judges. Her bias is clear and understandable because of her background and

influences, but is unacceptable in the current feminist understanding of the

world.