Gender and Society, Volume 11
Gender and Society is the publication of the Sociologists for Women in Society organization. This journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of social science research that relates to issues about gender. Although a majority of the works come from a sociological perspectives, entries which are more attuned to anthropology and history were also included. The editors make a point to say that the journal is not exclusively for sociologists. Topics of articles ranged from cross-cultural studies about work to what components of a fraternity make it a high-risk environment for rape.This journal seems mainly targeted at an academic audience of sociologists, as it uses sociological terminology that is not as common in other disciplines. While the audience is certainly an academic one, I do not think that it has to be an exclusively feminist one. Many of the articles deal with issues of poverty, race, and other issues that are feminist issues, but also look at other issues. For example, an article by In-Sook Lim entitled "Korean Immigrant Women's Challenge to Gender Equality at Home: The Interplay of Economic Resources, Gender, and Family" (No. 1), looks at gender issues, but also examines the problems of racism and immigrant status. The interlocking nature of systems of oppression is a primary focus in several articles. The issues are examined through the lens of gender, but they do not seem to be alienating to a non-feminist reader, particularly if the reader is concerned with other types of oppression. For instance, I can imagine that a person who is concerned with immigration issues would be able to use the Lim article because it is not an exclusively feminist text.
There is a very broad spectrum of content in this journal. There were some historical articles, including a piece by Laura Sanchez and Elizabeth Thomson on "Becoming Mothers and Fathers: Parenthood, Gender, and the Division of Labor" (No. 6), which compared fatherhood roles over time. In addition, there were cross-cultural examples, like Evelina Panayotova and April Brayfield's "National Context and Gender Ideology: Attitudes Towards Women's Employment in Hungary and the United States" (No. 5). Another common type were of a social psychological perspective, like a Kristen Dellinger and Christine Williams article entitled "Makeup at Work: Negotiating Appearance Rules in the Workplace" (No. 2). It was difficult to determine if there was an explicit political or editorial statement being made, but I assume that the main goal is to create a forum for publication and further discussion of gender issues. Overall, I think that the articles came from a liberal viewpoint since many were emphasizing the need for changes within the existing system, like Irene Padavic and James Oraitt in "Perceptions of Sexual Harassment in the Florida Legal System" (No. 5). Another common political stance was a more socialist viewpoint, like the Messias et al piece "Defining and Redefining Work: Implications for Women's Health," (No. 3) which took a socialist definition of work. One major commonality of the articles is that almost all were based on empirical studies. With the exception of a few articles about theory and the book reviews, all of the stories were based on the findings of the authors' own studies. Again, there was a great deal of variation in the methodology used. There were examples of almost every type of sociological research that I could think of including nationwide surveys, like the Sanchez and Thomas piece, in-depth interviews, used by Dellinger and Williams, comparative studies, like Panayotova and Brayfield, and focus groups, as used by Esther Madriz in "Images of Criminals and Victims: A Study on Women's Fear and Social Control" (No. 3). Despite the fact that the editors stated that the articles did not have to be based on independent research, this comprised the majority of articles in the issues that I examined.
In the theoretical arena, the journal continued to display its broad spectrum. Similar to the methodology, there was a wide variety of theoretical backgrounds. I read articles from theoretical backgrounds which ranged to macro level conflict theorists and Marxist feminists, like Messias et al, to symbolic interactionists, like Dellinger and Williams, as well as a few which were not so clearly defined. I think that this highlights the broad interests of the sociological field as well as demonstrates how wide the focus of the journal's editorial board is. The main similarity is that all were women and all seemed to be coming from a feminist background. Although the editorial policies do not exclude male researchers from publication, there were very few entries by men. The main goal of the journal is to provide a space for the discussion of issues regarding gender, especially experiences pertaining to women, which the editors mention are frequently overlooked in mainstream academia. This is obviously a very broad scope, which is highlighted in the huge variation of topics, methodology, and theoretical background. I think that this is a very important journal because even in a discipline like sociology, gender bias occurs. I have read this journal for several sociology classes, and have found it to be a very helpful supplement to the mainly male dominated sociological writings. This journal is crucial in spreading word about women's issues, but it is also important because it probably helps women writers to get published. In addition, the space provided to book reviews, responses, and speeches helps to promote dialogue between scholars as well as showcase more gender-oriented material. This is a forum that gives female sociologists a space to share their research that might otherwise not be published.