Gender Inequality: A Sociological Perspective PDF

Gender Inequality 10 In 2017, what proportion of all CEOs of Fortune 500 companies were women? a 5 percent b 10 percent c 25 percent d 50 percent Turn the page for the correct answer. 279  M os...

Gender Inequality 10 In 2017, what proportion of all CEOs of Fortune 500 companies were women? a 5 percent b 10 percent c 25 percent d 50 percent Turn the page for the correct answer. 279  M ost of us know that far fewer women than men hold leadership positions in business and politics today, yet we also know that women have made tremen- dous strides in education, politics, and the workplace over the past century. Business magazines regularly tout the accomplishments of women such as Safra Catz, who was named chief executive officer (CEO) of Oracle in 2014, and Mary Barra, who became CEO of General Motors the same year (that’s her at the start of the chapter). In 2017, four out of eight Ivy League universities were led by women presidents: Christina Paxson (Brown University), Martha Pollack (Cornell University), Drew Gilpin Faust (Har- vard University), and Amy Gutmann (University of Pennsylvania). Given these highly visible accomplishments of women in business and technology, we might think that at least one-tenth (answer b) or one-quarter (answer c) is the correct answer. Yet, accord- ing to Fortune magazine, which tracks the CEOs of the nation’s top revenue-generating companies, women held just 27 of all Fortune 500 CEO positions in 2017. Stated other- wise, women held just 5.4 percent of all Fortune 500 CEO slots in 2017, although they account for roughly half of the total workforce (Brown, 2017). Why do so few women hold leadership positions in business? This question is important because women are dramatically underrepresented in the upper echelons of business and industry, no matter the metric used. For instance, women account for 44 percent of all employees at Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 firms, yet they hold just 20 percent of all board seats and just 9.5 percent of top- earner positions (Catalyst, 2017). Few would point to outright discrimination as the culprit, yet most experts say that dis- crimination often takes place in subtle and hard-to-prove ways. Climbing to the top-tier positions at competitive Wall Street and Silicon Valley firms requires round-the- clock LEA R NING OBJECTIV ES 1 BASIC CONCEPTS Understand the ways that differences between women and men reflect biological factors, sociocultural influences, and the complex interplay between the two. 2 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF GENDER INEQUALITIES Recognize and contrast competing explanations for gender inequality. Learn some feminist theories about gender equality. 3 RESEARCH ON GENDER TODAY: DOCUMENTING AND UNDERSTANDING GENDER INEQUALITIES Learn how gender differences are a part of our social structure and create inequalities between men and women. Learn the forms these inequalities take in social institutions such as the workplace, the family, the educational system, and the political system in the United States and globally. 4 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: WHY DO GENDER INEQUALITIES PERSIST? Understand how sex segregation contributes to the gender gap in pay, learn about family-leave policies in other countries, explore the effects of gender inequality on men, and evaluate the competing explanations for the persistence of gender-based violence. 280 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality work along with “really macho kinds of behavior,” including aggressiveness and even ruthlessness, according to Ilene Lang, president of Catalyst, a research organization focused on gender and work. These traits are at odds with traditional gender role social- ization; “it is behavior that’s admired in men but despised in women,” Lang observes. Others point to lack of female mentors in corporate upper echelons and the tendency of some male decision makers to hold stereotypical and incorrect beliefs about what women are capable of doing. Others say that women are kicked off the corporate “fast track” when they start having children and their colleagues view them as unfit for com- petitive and time- consuming work. Women are striking back against both overt and subtle forms of gender discrimination at major Wall Street firms. In the past decade, banks including Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, and others have been targets of sex discrimination lawsuits. Kelley Voelker, a former vice president with Deutsche Bank’s securities lending desk, filed a sex-discrimination lawsuit against her employer in September 2011. Voelker claimed that despite consistently high performance reviews, Deutsche Bank denied her a promo- tion and eventually demoted her, one of its few female vice presidents, solely because of her gender and recent childbirth. Voelker said that shortly before she took her maternity leave for her first child, in 2003, her supervisor aired his doubts that she would return to work. In her lawsuit, Voelker accused the bank of “mommy-tracking” female employees, claiming that her supervisors “never took her seriously because she was a woman start- ing a family, and this was seen as a huge negative within the company.” She also pointed to excessively “macho” behavior from some of her male colleagues—including vulgar language in the office and taking clients to strip clubs—as further evidence that her work climate was not friendly to women. Wall Street banking firms are not alone in discriminating against their women executives. In April 2017, media giant Fox News was besieged with multiple gender- discrimination lawsuits, while the U.S. Department of Labor charged Google with “sys- temic compensation disparities” on the basis of gender (Lam, 2017; Steel and Chokshi, 2017). The Google allegations were just the latest outcry against both subtle and bla- tant sexism in the male- dominated high-tech industry in California’s Silicon Valley. In July 2014, Whitney Wolfe, a cofounder and former executive at the dating app Tin- der, filed a lawsuit against the company and its majority owner, the corporation IAC/ InterActive Corp. According to the lawsuit, Wolfe said that she was subjected to “a bar- rage of horrendously sexist, racist, and otherwise inappropriate comments, e-mails and text messages” sent by Tinder’s chief executive and chief marketing officer. Yet her lawsuit also cited more subtle slights; Wolfe said that although she played an essential role in launching the app, her colleagues often omitted her name from media coverage about the firm. Wolfe recalled that her senior male colleagues said that a 24-year- old “girl founder” would undermine the company’s value (Wortham, 2014). It’s not only female corporate executives and high-tech wizards who experience obstacles to their career advancement. One of the largest and most famous gender- discrimination lawsuits in recent history was filed against Walmart by Betty Dukes, a cashier. When Dukes started her job at Walmart in 1994, she had more than 20 years’ experience in retail and was eager to advance her career. When she approached her store manager about her desire to work her way up the ladder, she was brusquely dis- missed. Dukes was undeterred. She performed well as a cashier, earning regular raises in her hourly wage. She repeatedly asked her manager for a promotion, and she requested opportunities to learn more about the store and take on more challenging assignments. Gender Inequality281  She continued to be denied promotions and was not informed of postings for available positions or management training programs at the retailer. All the while, she watched her male associates get promoted, and she later learned that they were paid more than she was for the same job—although she had more years of work experience in retail and greater seniority at the company (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011). The final straw came when Dukes was demoted from cashier to greeter. She contacted a lawyer and subsequently sued Walmart on the grounds that the retailer was violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, or religion. Dukes alleged that Walmart systematically paid women less than men who did the same jobs and promoted men to higher ranks at faster rates than women. When Dukes filed her case, her lawyer told her she wasn’t alone, and that many other women had also complained that they weren’t getting ahead with the mul- tinational firm. The class-action lawsuit that was filed on behalf of roughly 1 million “similarly situated” plaintiffs eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. Dukes and her fellow female Walmart employees were disappointed and angry when the Supreme Court threw out their case in June 2011. Observers say the verdict does not mean that discrimination did not happen in Dukes’s case. Rather, all nine Supreme Court justices thought there was not “significant proof” that Walmart “operated under a general policy of discrimination” against each and every one of the million or so women who filed the suit. Nor did they find proof that all the women were systematically victim- ized by a discriminatory “corporate culture” at Walmart (Toobin, 2011). These far-ranging cases, which affect professional and working- class women alike, raise awareness about the overt and subtle ways that gender shapes all aspects of our lives. Many people who encounter someone such as Betty Dukes might make certain assumptions about her life. They might assume, for example, that a disproportionate number of women become cashiers because it is “natural” for women to have certain kinds of occupations, including retail or secretarial jobs. People who hear the story of Kelley Voelker might assume that women prefer to work part time, or they do so because part-time work is compatible with child-rearing, while full-time work on Wall Street might be “bad for the children.” Others might think that women’s underrepresentation in high-tech start-ups reflects a lack of scientific aptitude or entrepreneurial risk-taking among women. It is the job of sociologists to analyze these assumptions and to adopt a much wider view of our society. Sociology allows us to understand why women make up only a minuscule proportion of all top CEOs in the United States, why women are more likely than men to work in low-paying clerical and retail jobs, why women are likely to spend more time on child care, and why women on the whole have less economic and political power in society than men. In this chapter, we will take a sociological approach to the exploration of gender dif- ferences and gender inequality. Gender is a way for society to divide people into two categories: “men” and “women.” According to this socially created division, men and women have different identities and social roles. Men and women are expected to think and act in different ways across most life domains. Gender also serves as a social sta- tus, since in almost all societies, men’s roles are valued more than women’s roles are (Bem, 1993). At the same time, the cultural expectation that men must be strong, silent breadwinners creates tremendous pressure, with some researchers going so far as to argue that these pressures can be physically and emotionally dangerous to men, espe- cially those who do not live up to this expectation (Springer, 2010). Sociologists are interested in explaining how society differentiates between women and men, and how these differences serve as the basis for social inequalities (Chafetz, 1990). 282 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality Yet sociologists recognize that gender alone does not shape our life experiences. Rather, there are pronounced differences in women’s and men’s lives on the basis of race, social class, age, birth cohort, religion, nation of origin, and even one’s marital or parental status (Choo and Ferree, 2010). This recognition that gender intersects with other traits, such as race or social class, to affect our life chances is referred to by sociologists as the study of intersectionality (McCall, 2005). The distinctive challenges women and men face in wealthy Western nations also vary markedly from those experienced by individuals in the global south (Mohanty, 2013). We will first identify core concepts related to sex and gender. Next, we will provide an overview of influential sociological and feminist theories that guide our understand- ing of gender. We will then review cutting-edge research on the ways that gender shapes our lives in the United States and throughout the world. In this section, we will focus on major social institutions such as the educational system, the workplace, the family, and the government. We will conclude by addressing several unanswered and controversial questions about the importance of gender in contemporary society. T HE ANSWER I S A. 1 BASIC CONCEPTS Before we explore the origins of differences between men and women, boys and girls, it is important that we define and differentiate those attributes and processes that make us male or female. One critical distinction is between sex and gender. Sex refers to physical differences of the body, whereas gender concerns the psychological, social, and cultural differences between males and females, such as personality, goals, and social roles. The distinction between sex and gender is fundamental because many of the most impor- tant differences between males and females are not biological. While sex is something we are born with, gender is something that we both learn and do. Sex and gender histori- cally have been viewed as a binary, where the two categories of male and female, or mas- culine and feminine, were viewed as distinctive and nonoverlapping—even opposite—categories (Lorber, 1996). However, as we shall soon see, sex #(.,-.#)(&#.3ŚĊŚA sociological perspective and gender can be fuzzy and overlapping catego- that holds that our multiple group memberships affect our lives in ways that are distinct from ries, and the boundaries demarcating “male” and single group memberships. For example, the “female” behaviors, traits, and even bodies are experience of a black female may be distinct fluid and evolving. from that of a white female or a black male. Gender role socialization is the process -2ŚĊŚThe biological and anatomical differences distinguishing females and males. through which we learn about male- and female- typed roles and practices from socializing !(,ŚĊ Social expectations about behavior regarded as appropriate for the members of agents such as the family, peers, schools, and the each sex. Gender refers not to the physical media (as discussed in Chapter 4). For example, attributes distinguishing men and women but to socially formed traits of masculinity and boys may learn how to engage in rambunctious femininity. and aggressive play by watching their favor- !(,ŗ,)&ŗ-)#&#4.#)(ŚĊŚThe learning of ite male superheroes on TV, while young girls gender roles through social factors such as may learn how to nurture their younger siblings schooling, the media, and family. by following the model set by their mothers or Basic Concepts283  grandmothers. Through contact with primary and secondary agents of social- ization, children internalize the social norms and expectations that correspond with their sex. Gender differences are not biologically determined; they are cultur- ally produced. We also learn how to “do” gender in our daily interactions with others (West and Zimmerman, 1987). Our clothing choices, how we wear our hair, even the pitch and intonation of our voice are all indications of how we “do gender” each day. This process of doing gender under- scores the notion that gender is “socially constructed.” Theorists who believe in the social construction of gender reject biological bases for gender differ- ences. Gender identities emerge, they argue, in relation to perceived sex dif- ferences in societies and cultures, which in turn shape and even perpetuate those differences. For example, a society in which cultural ideas of masculinity are characterized by physical strength and tough attitudes will encourage men to How do children’s toys contribute to gender role socialization? cultivate a specific body image and set of mannerisms (Butler, 1989; Connell, 1987; Scott and Morgan, 1993). Men who fail to comply with what scholars call “hegemonic masculinity”—the social norms dictat- ing that men should be strong, self-reliant, and unemotional—may be subtly sanctioned for not enacting gender roles in a way that is consistent with prevailing cultural norms (Con- nell and Messerschmidt, 2005). We will elaborate on these four concepts—sex, gender, gender role socialization, and social construction of gender—in the following sections; as you will soon see, our identities as “male” or “female” are not as simple as they seem. Understanding Sex Differences: The Role of Biology How much are differences in the behavior of women and men the result of sex—that is, biological differences—rather than gender? Some researchers assert that innate behav- ioral differences between the sexes appear in some form in all cultures; studies of sociobiol- social construction of gender Ċ The learning ogy (Goldberg, 1999) and evolutionary behav- of gender roles through socialization and ior strongly support this idea (Eagly and Wood, interaction with others. 2011). For example, the fact that in almost all hegemonic masculinity Ċ Social norms dictating that men should be strong, self-reliant, cultures, men rather than women take part in and unemotional. hunting and warfare suggests that men possess biologically based tendencies toward aggression 284 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality that women lack. Scholars who endorse this perspective might also look at current occu- pational patterns and attribute them to biology. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), in 2016, 97 percent of dental hygienists, 95 percent of all sec- retaries, and 90 percent of registered nurses in the United States were women, whereas 98 percent of auto mechanics and 96 percent of welders were male (BLS, 2017d). Sup- porters of the “nature” perspective might point out that women are “wired” to choose jobs that are supportive and nurturing, whereas men opt for jobs that require more physical strength or mechanical ability. Most social scientists are unconvinced by these arguments, and even view them as potentially dangerous. In her classic book The Lenses of Gender, Sandra Lipsitz Bem (1993) notes that this kind of biological essentialism rationalizes and legitimizes gender dif- ferences as the natural and inevitable consequences of the intrinsic biological natures of women and men. As such, social influences are neglected or minimized. For example, social scientists who denounce biological essentialism would argue that the level of aggressiveness in men varies widely across cultures, and women are expected to be more passive or gentle in some cultures than in others (Elshtain, 1981). Further, some argue that women are just as aggressive as men; however, women use strategies that are consistent with gender role socialization. One meta-analysis of aggression in “real-world” (rather than laboratory) settings found that men generally show higher levels of aggression than women at all ages, yet among children and teens, women were more likely to use “indirect aggression” (Archer, 2004). For instance, adolescent girls will use “interpersonal aggression,” such as malicious gossip or “ bad- mouthing,” rather than physical fights (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Osterman, 2006). Other data suggest that as gender roles change over time, girls may become more physi- cally aggressive. A national study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA, 2010) found that 19 percent of adolescent females got into a serious fight at school or work in the past year, 14 percent participated in a group-against-group fight, and nearly 6 percent attacked another person with the intent to cause serious harm. Theories of “natural difference” are often grounded in data on animal behavior, crit- ics say, rather than in anthropological or historical evidence about human behavior, which reveals variation over time and place. Despite critiques of the “nature” perspec- tive, the hypothesis that biological factors determine behavior patterns cannot be wholly dismissed. Studies document persuasively that biological factors—including genetics, hormones, and brain physiology—differ by gender, and that these biological differences are associated with some social behaviors, including language skills, interpersonal inter- actions, and physical strength. However, nearly all social scientists agree that theories based solely on an innate predisposition neglect the vital role of social interaction in shaping human behavior. What does the evidence show? One group of studies investigates gender differences in hormonal makeup. Some have claimed that the male sex hormone, testosterone, is associated with a propensity for violence (Archer, 1991). Research has indicated, for instance, that male monkeys castrated at birth become less aggressive than noncastrated monkeys; conversely, female monkeys given #)&)!#&ŗ--(.#&#-'ŚĊŚThe view that differences between men and women are testosterone become more aggressive than nor- natural and inevitable consequences of the mal females. However, it has also been found intrinsic biological natures of men and women. that providing monkeys with opportunities to Basic Concepts285  dominate others actually increases testosterone levels. It is not the case that the hormone causes increased aggression; instead, aggressive behavior may affect production of the hormone (Steklis et al., 1985). In other words, there might be slight biological differences between men and women, but these small differences may be exacerbated and amplified by social contexts that promote behaviors that are consistent with gendered stereotypes and expectations. Another source of evidence is direct observation of animal behavior. Researchers who connect male aggression with biological influences often emphasize male aggressiveness among the higher animals. Among chimpanzees, they say, males are consistently more aggressive than females. Yet critics note that there are large differences among types of animals. Gibbons, for instance, show few sex differences in aggression. Moreover, many female apes or monkeys are highly aggressive in some situations, such as when their young are threatened. Other evidence comes from studies of identical twins, who derive from a single egg and have exactly the same genetic makeup. In one anomalous but particularly high-profile case, one identical male twin was seriously injured while being circumcised, and the decision was made by his physician and parents to reconstruct his genitals as female. He was thereafter raised as a girl. At age six, the twins demonstrated typical male and female traits as found in Western culture. The little girl enjoyed playing with other girls, helped with the housework, and wanted to get married when she grew up. The boy preferred the company of other boys, his favorite toys were cars and trucks, and he wanted to become a firefighter or police officer (Colapinto, 2001). For some time, this case was treated as conclusive evidence of the overriding influence of social learning on gender differences. However, when the girl was a teenager, she was interviewed during a television program and revealed some unease about her gender iden- tity, even wondering if perhaps she was “really” a boy after all. She had by then learned of her unusual background, and this knowledge may have led to an altered perception of herself (Colapinto, 2001). Technological advances in the last two decades have provided a new source of evidence: brain-imaging research, which has identified several key differences between men’s and women’s brains (Brizendine, 2007, 2010). For example, Burman and colleagues (2007) found that the brains of school-age girls were more highly “activated,” or worked harder, than the brains of school-age boys when presented with spelling and writing tasks. This greater level of activation has been associated with greater accuracy in performing such tasks. The authors do not conclude that girls’ language skills are superior to those of boys, yet they do argue that their data show that girls and boys learn language in different ways. A mounting body of research concludes that gender differences in brain functioning may contribute, in part, to a wide range of social outcomes, including communication style, empathy, depression, anxiety, and fear. However, most scholars conducting this research are careful to point out that biological differences are almost always exacerbated or fos- tered by social contexts and norms (McCarthy, 2015). Gender Socialization: How Gender Differences Are Learned As we noted earlier, gender role socialization describes the processes through which we learn what it means to be “male” or “female” in our society. This approach distinguishes between biological sex and social gender—an infant is born with a sex and develops a gender. Children are guided in this process by positive and negative sanctions, that is, 286 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality socially applied forces that reward or restrain behavior. For example, a young boy could be positively sanctioned for complying with masculine expectations (“What a brave boy you are!”) or negatively sanctioned for violating these expectations (“Boys don’t play with dolls. What are you, a sissy?”). Historically, if an individual developed gender prac- tices that did not correspond with his or her biological sex, the explanation given was inadequate socialization. According to functionalist perspectives, socializing agents help maintain the smooth continuation of the existing social order by overseeing the smooth gender socialization of new generations. (See Chapter 1 for a review of the core themes of functionalism.) Functionalist perspectives prevailed during the mid-twentieth century, yet in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, this rigid interpretation of sex roles and social- ization has been criticized on a number of fronts. Many writers argue that gender social- ization is not an inherently smooth process; different agents, such as families, schools, and peer groups, may be at odds with one another. Moreover, socialization theories ignore individuals’ ability to reject or modify the social expectations surrounding sex roles. Humans are not passive objects or unquestioning recipients of gender programming, as some sociologists have suggested. People actively create and modify roles for themselves. Gender is a product of individual choices and preferences, as well as social, contextual, and biological influences. Consider the following two scenes. Two newborns, a few hours old, lie in the nursery of a hospital maternity ward. One, a male, is wrapped in a blue blanket; the other, a female, is in a pink blanket. Their grandparents are seeing them for the first time. The conversation between one pair of grandparents runs along these lines: Grandma A: There he is—our first grandchild, and a boy. Grandpa A: Hey, isn’t he a hefty little fellow? Look at that fist he’s making. He’s going to be a regular little fighter, that guy is. (Grandpa A smiles and throws out a boxing jab to his grandson.) Atta boy! [... ] Grandma A: Let’s go and congratulate the parents. I know they’re thrilled about little Fred. They wanted a boy first. Grandpa A: Yeah, and they were sure it would be a boy, too, what with all that kicking and thumping going on even before he got here. When they depart to congratulate the parents, the grandparents of the other child arrive. The dialogue between them goes like this: Grandma B: There she is... the only one with a pink bow taped to her head. Isn’t she darling. Grandpa B: Yeah—isn’t she little. Look at how tiny her fingers are. Oh, look—she’s trying to make a fist. Grandma B: Isn’t she sweet... You know, I think she looks a little like me. Grandpa B: Yeah, she sorta does. She has your chin. Grandma B: Oh, look, she’s starting to cry... Poor little girl. (To the baby) There, there, we’ll try to help you. Grandpa B: Let’s find the nurse. I don’t like to see her cry... Grandma B: Hmm. I wonder when they will have their next one. I know Fred would like a son, but little Fredericka is well and healthy. After all, that’s what really matters. Grandpa B: They’re young yet. They have time for more kids. I’m thankful too that she’s healthy. (Walum, 1977) Basic Concepts287  The contrast between the two conversations sounds so exaggerated that it’s tempt- ing to think they were made up. In fact, they are composed of transcripts of actual dia- logue recorded in a maternity ward. The first question usually asked of a new parent—in Western culture, at least—is “Is it a boy or a girl?” In fact, expectant parents today can buy over-the-counter tests to determine the sex of their fetus, and a new trend is “gender reveal” parties, where expectant parents share pink or blue cakes with their friends as a celebratory way to announce the sex (O’Connor, 2012). The implication is that sex matters, because parents will raise boys and girls in different ways (Nugent, 2012). Once the infant is born and is marked as male or female, everyone who interacts with the child will treat it in accordance with its gender. They do so on the basis of the society’s assumptions, which lead people to treat women and men differently, even as opposites, affirming the gender binary (Zosuls et al., 2009). Clearly, gender socialization is very powerful, and challenges to it can be upsetting. Take the case of Baby Storm, for example. When Storm was born in 2011, the baby’s parents did not want to place a “male” or “female” label on their infant, recognizing that such an assignment would virtually guarantee that their baby would be treated in highly gender- typed ways. For the first few years of Storm’s life, the parents kept the baby’s sex a secret from everyone except their very closest family members. Their goal was to allow their child to express his or her gender freely and creatively. However, Storm’s parents, Kathy Witterick and David Stocker, found themselves at the center of an angry international debate and were accused of being psychologically abusive to their child and using Storm as part of an ill-advised social experiment. Two years later, Storm was reported to be a happily adjusted toddler; when a journalist asked about Storm’s gender, Witterick replied, “Sometimes Storm says, ‘I’m a girl,’ and sometimes Storm says, ‘I’m a boy’” (Poisson, 2013). Another three years later, when Storm was six, the child had “picked a pronoun—her gender identity is she,” according to her father. Storm’s parents thought that their unconventional approach to child-rearing was necessary to free their child from constraining and sti- fling gender expectations (Ostroff, 2016). As sociological studies repeatedly show, once a gender is “assigned,” society expects individuals to act like “females” and “males.” These expectations are fulfilled and reproduced in the practices of everyday life (Bourdieu, 1990; Lorber, 1994). The Social Construction of Gender: How We Learn to “Do Gender” Recently, a growing number of sociologists have criticized socialization and gender role socialization theories. Rather than seeing sex as biologically determined and gender as culturally learned, they argue that both sex and gender are socially constructed products. Not only is gender a purely social creation that lacks a fixed essence, but the human body itself is subject to social forces that shape and alter it in various ways. Scholars who focus on gender roles and role learning accept that there is a biological basis for some gender differences. Adherents to socialization perspectives believe that the biological distinction between the sexes is the starting point for differences that become culturally elaborated and amplified in society. In contrast, theorists who believe in the social construction of gender reject all biological bases for gender differences. Proponents of this view argue that gender is more than learning to act like a girl or boy; rather, it is something that we continually “do” in our daily interactions with others (West and Zimmerman, 1987). We learn how to present ourselves as “male” or “female” 288 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality through our choice of behaviors, clothing, hairstyle, stance, body language, and even tone of voice. For example, a number of scholars have uncovered the discouraging finding that some young heterosexual women “play dumb” both because they believe it is consistent with gendered expectations for how girls should act and because they believe that doing so may help bolster the feelings of masculinity among the boys they are hoping to attract as romantic partners (Gove, Hughes, and Geerken, 1980). At the same time, young men feel great pressure to be strong, confident, and funny to attract a partner. As sociologist Maria do Mar Pereira discovered in her 2014 qualitative study of 14-year-old boys and girls, “Young people try to adapt their behavior according to these pressures to fit into society. One of the pressures is that young men must be more dominant—cleverer, stronger, taller, funnier—than young women, and that being in a relationship with a woman who is more intelligent will undermine their masculinity” (University of Warwick, 2014). But precisely how we “do gender” varies widely by race, social class, and social con- text. We selectively choose to enact different aspects of gender expectations based on what we think will work best in a particular setting. For example, sociologist Nikki Jones (2009) found that young inner-city African American women would adjust their voice, stance, walk, and style of speaking in different situations, thus giving off the impressions of being “aggressive,” “good,” or “pretty” when they thought a particular type of feminin- ity would “pay off.” Jones described the ways that 22-year-old Kiara would “do gender.” Kiara was hoping to collect signatures for a petition to stop a new development in a poor neighborhood adjacent to her own. As Jones (2009: 90) describes: [Kiara] confidently, assertively, even aggressively approaches men on the street to sign her petition and then draws on normative expectations of manhood and femininity to encourage them to add their names to the list: Babies and women are in danger, she tells them, letting the implication that real men would sign up to protect babies and women hang in the air. She switches from aggressive to demure just long enough to flirt with a man passing by on the street and then to defiant when she passes the police station on the corner. “They don’t give a fuck!” she declares loudly. Kiara’s behavior shows the complexities of gendered expectations in contemporary social life. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER IN OTHER CULTURES The subtle ways in which we do gender are so much a part of our lives that we don’t notice them until they are missing or radically altered. Cross-cultural research conducted by anthropologists, in particular, helps us recognize how deeply entrenched gendered categories are in the United States and shows us strong evidence that gender is fluid and socially constructed. After all, if gender differences were mostly the result of biology, then we could expect that gender roles would not vary much from culture to culture. New Guinea In her classic New Guinea study, Sex and Temperament in Three Primi- tive Societies, Margaret Mead (1963; orig. 1935) observed wide variability among gender role prescriptions—and such marked differences from those in the United States—that any claims to the universality of gender roles had to be rejected. Mead studied three sepa- rate tribes in New Guinea: In Arapesh society, both males and females generally exhibited characteristics and behaviors that would typically be associated with the Western female Basic Concepts289  role. Both sexes among the Arapesh were passive, gentle, unaggressive, and emotionally responsive to the needs of others. In contrast, Mead found that in another New Guinea group, the Mundugumor, both the males and females were characteristically aggres- sive, suspicious, and, from a Western observer’s perspective, excessively cruel, especially toward children. In both cultures, however, men and women were expected to behave very similarly. In a third group, the Tchambuli tribe of New Guinea, gender roles of the males and females were almost exactly reversed from the roles traditionally assigned to males and females in Western society. Women “managed the business affairs of life” while “the men... painted, gossiped and had temper tantrums” (Mead, 1972). The !Kung The !Kung of the Kalahari Desert have specific gender roles, but it is very common for both men and women to engage in child care. Due to the nonconfrontational parenting practices of the !Kung, who oppose violent conflict and physical punishment, children learn that aggressive behavior will not be tolerated by either men or women. Although the !Kung abide by the seeming traditional arrangement where “men hunt and women gather,” the vast majority of the tribe’s food actually comes from the gathering activities of women (Draper, 1975). Women return from their gathering expeditions armed not only with food for the community but also with valuable information for hunters. The Bacha Posh in Afghanistan In contemporary Afghanistan, boys are so highly prized that families with only daughters often experience shame and pity; as a result, some transform one young daughter into a son. The parents cut the girl’s hair short, dress her in boy’s clothes, change her name to a boy’s name, and encourage her to participate in “boys’ activities” such as bicycling and playing cricket. These children are called bacha posh, which translates into “dressed up as a boy.” Parents of bacha posh believe that boys are afforded so many advantages in Afghan culture that it is helpful, rather than cruel, to transform their girls into boys. A bacha posh can more easily receive an education, work outside the home, even escort her sis- ters in public, allowing freedoms that are unheard of for girls in a society that strictly segregates men and women. In most cases, a return to womanhood takes place when the child enters puberty, a decision almost always made by her parents (Nordberg, 2010). BLURRING THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE GENDERS Adherence to the gender binary, or the belief that only two genders (i.e., male and female) exist, is not universal. The Spaniards who came to both North and South America in the seventeenth century noticed men in the native tribes who had taken on the mannerisms of women, as well as women who occupied male roles. Several Native American cultures hold a special honor for persons of “integrated gen- ders.” For example, the Navajo term nádleehí literally means “one who constantly trans- forms” and refers to a male-bodied person with a feminine nature, a special gift according to Navajo culture. The Navajo believe that to maintain harmony, there must be a balanced interrelationship between the feminine and the masculine within a single individual. Native activists working to renew their cultural heritage adopted the English term two- spirit as useful shorthand to describe the entire spectrum of gender and sexual expres- sion that is better and more completely described in their own languages (Nibley, 2011). In the contemporary United States, growing numbers of young adults are challeng- ing the male-female dichotomy and embracing both genders—or switching between the two. Eschewing labels such as “male” or “female,” a small but growing community of 290 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality Formerly called Manoush, Mehran Rafaat, left, with her twin sisters, is regarded as a boy by her family. As a bacha posh, Mehran can work outside the home and appear in public without an escort. college-age adults in particular are instead choosing to identify as “androgyne,” “gender- queer,” “genderfluid,” “bigender,” “agender,” or “non-cis” (Schulman, 2013). “ Non-cis” is shorthand for “non-cisgender.” The term cis is Latin for “on the same side as,” thus cisgen- der refers to a person whose gender identity matches his or her biological sex: for exam- ple, a person born male who identifies as a man. “ Non-cis,” by contrast, refers to a person whose gender identity does not align with the sex the person was assigned at birth. Some choose to identify as a gender different from the one assigned at birth; these people, broadly described as transgender, may encompass those who move between genders, who live as a person of the opposite gender, or who use medical assistance to physically transition from one category to the other. Celebrities like Olympic athlete Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner and Jazz Jennings, the young transgender girl who is the focus of the reality show I Am Jazz, have drawn national and international attention cisgender Ċ Individuals whose gender identity matches his or her biological sex. Statistically, to the experiences of transgender persons. this is the most common gender. It would Although sociologists do not know for cer- include persons who are born female who tain precisely how many individuals define identify as female and persons born male who identify as male. their gender in ways beyond the male/female transgenderĊ A person who identifies as or dichotomy, it soon may be possible to calculate expresses a gender identity that differs from a number in some parts of the world. Several their sex at birth. nations have begun to collect official statistics Basic Concepts291  on persons who identify as “third gender” or intersex Ċ An individual possessing both male “third sex,” terms that encompass diverse and female genitalia. Although statistically rare, this subpopulation is of great interest to gender experiences such as identifying as transgender scholars. or being born intersex. Intersex, like trans- gender, is a broad and diverse category that may encompass those possessing both male and female genitalia or those with ambiguous genitalia. In 2011, Nepal became the first country to include a third gender category in its national census; India soon followed (Bochenek and Knight, 2012). By the end of 2013, a third sex option was available on passports in New Zealand and all “personal documents” in Australia. In Germany, par- ents now have the option of not specifying a child’s sex in birth registries. The intention is to allow babies born with biological characteristics of both sexes to make a choice about who they are once they get older. Under this new law, “individuals can... opt to remain outside the gender binary alto- gether” (Heine, 2013). Taken together, anthropological and CONCEPT CHECKS 3 sociological studies of gender reveal that culture, not biology, underlies gender dif- ferences. Sociologists have noted that 1. What is the difference between sex and gender? 2. How do both biology and gender socializa- while society teaches “masculine” and tion contribute to differences between men “feminine” gender roles, such an approach and women? does not explain where these roles come 3. What does it mean to say that gender is some- from or how they can be changed. For this, thing we “do”? Give an example of a way you do gender in your daily life. we need to delve into classic and contem- 4. How can studies of other cultures contribute porary theoretical perspectives that shed to the argument that gender is socially con- light on how gender roles and gendered structed? inequalities are built into social institu- tions (Lorber, 1994). 2 SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF GENDER INEQUALITIES Investigating and accounting for gender inequality has become a central concern of sociologists. Explanations vary widely, from functionalist approaches, which view such differences as key to societal stability, to radical feminist approaches, which view gen- der inequalities as a product of male oppression. These perspectives have been advanced to explain men’s enduring dominance over women—in the realm of economics, politics, the family, and elsewhere. In this section, we review the main theoretical approaches to explaining gender inequality in society. Functionalist Approaches Functionalist approaches see society as a system of interlinked parts that, when in bal- ance, operate smoothly to produce social solidarity. Thus, functionalist and functionalist- inspired perspectives on gender argue that gender differences, and, specifically, men’s and women’s specialization in different tasks, contribute to social stability and integration. Though popular in the 1950s and 1960s, these perspectives have been heavily criticized for 292 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality neglecting social tensions at the expense of consensus and for perpetuating a conservative view of the social world. Scholars who support the concept of natural differences argue that women and men perform those tasks for which they are biologically best suited. The anthropologist George Murdock (1949) saw it as practical and convenient that women should concen- trate on domestic and family responsibilities while men worked outside the home. On the basis of a cross- cultural study of more than 200 societies, Murdock concluded that the sexual division of labor is present in all cultures and that, although not the result of biological programming, it is the most logical and efficient basis for the organization of society. Sociologist Talcott Parsons studied the role of the family in industrial societies (Parsons and Bales, 1955). He was particularly interested in the socialization of chil- dren and believed that stable, supportive families were the key to successful socializa- tion. He saw the family as operating most efficiently with a clear- cut sexual division of labor in which women carry out expressive roles, providing care and security to children and offering them emotional support, and men perform an instrumental role—namely, being the breadwinner. Because of the stressful nature of men’s role, women’s expres- sive and nurturing tendencies should also be used to comfort and care for men. This complementary division of labor, springing from a biological distinction between the sexes, would ensure the solidarity and stability of the family, according to Parsons. Another perspective on gender differences that is consistent with core themes of functionalist theories is attachment theory, advanced by psychologist John Bowlby (1953). Bowlby argued that the mother is crucial to the primary socialization of chil- dren. If the mother is absent or if a child is separated from the mother at a young age, the child may be inadequately socialized. This can lead to serious social and psy- chological difficulties later in life, including antisocial and psychopathic tendencies. Bowlby argued that a child’s well-being and mental health require a close, personal, and continuous relationship with the mother or a female mother substitute. Some have used Bowlby’s maternal deprivation thesis to argue that working mothers are neglectful of their children. Feminists have sharply criticized claims of a biological basis for the sexual division of labor, arguing that there is nothing natural or inevitable about the allocation of tasks in society. Women are not prevented from pursuing occupations on the basis of biological features; rather, humans are socialized into roles that are culturally expected. Further, a steady stream of evidence suggests that the maternal deprivation thesis is questionable; studies have shown that children’s educational performance and personal development are in fact enhanced when both parents work outside the home at least part of the time (e.g., Brooks-Gunn, Han, and Waldfogel, 2010). Parsons’s notion of the “expressive” female has also been attacked for implicitly con- doning the subordination of women in the home. There is no basis for the belief that the “expressive” female is necessary for the smooth operation of the family—rather, the role is promoted largely for the convenience of men. In addition, cross- cultural studies show that societies vary greatly in terms of the degree to which they differentiate and assign tasks as being exclusively men’s or wom- en’s (Baxter, 1997; Gornick and Meyers, 2003). The extent to which certain tasks can be shared, and even how open groups and societies are to women performing men’s activities and roles, differs across cultures, across time, and in different political and economic contexts. Finally, cultures differ in the degree to which men are seen as “naturally” Sociological Theories of Gender Inequalities293  dominant over women. Thus, gender inequali- ties do not seem to be fixed or static. Biological determinists see gender inequal- ities and differences based on gender as inevitable and unchangeable because they are consequences of biological necessities, not of social processes. Feminist scholars do not deny that men and women have distinctive biologi- cal characteristics, yet they argue that physical differences alone cannot explain the stark gen- der differences in men’s and women’s social and economic roles (e.g., Grosz, 1994). Sociological approaches, in general, hold that society, more than biology, guides gendered roles, interac- tions, and status differences today. Sociologists also emphasize that gender inequality is tied to issues of race and class. Women—rich and poor, black and white, immigrant and native born— may share similar biological characteristics, yet their social experiences are vastly different (Rothenberg, 2007). Feminist Theories The degree to which a society is open to women perform- The feminist movement has given rise to a ing stereotypically male activities changes across time andlarge body of feminist theory that attempts by context. For example, during World War II many women to explain gender inequalities and set forth took jobs in aircraft factories. agendas for overcoming those inequalities. While feminist writers are all concerned with women’s unequal position in society, their explanations for it vary substantially. There is no one “feminism.” Rather, differ- ent schools cite a variety of deeply embedded social processes such as sexism, patriarchy, capitalism, and racism. The following sections look at the arguments behind five main feminist perspectives—liberal, radical, socialist, black, and postmodern feminism. LIBERAL FEMINISM Liberal feminism sees gender inequalities feminist theory Ċ A sociological perspective as rooted largely in social and cultural atti- that emphasizes the centrality of gender in tudes. Unlike radical feminists, liberal femi- analyzing the social world and particularly the uniqueness of the experience of women. There nists do not see women’s subordination as part are many strands of feminist theory, but they all of a larger system or structure. Instead, they share the desire to explain gender inequalities in identify many separate factors that contribute society and to work to overcome them. to inequalities—for example, sexism and dis- liberal feminismŚĊŚThe form of feminist theory that posits that gender inequality is produced by crimination in the workplace, in educational unequal access to civil rights and certain social institutions, and in the media. They focus on resources, such as education and employment, establishing and protecting equal opportuni- based on sex. Liberal feminists tend to seek solutions through changes in legislation that ties for women through legislation and other ensure that the rights of individuals are protected. democratic means. Liberal feminists actively supported legal advances such as the Equal Pay 294 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, arguing that mandating equality in law is essential to eliminating discrimination against women. Because liberal feminists seek to work through and within the existing political and economic systems to bring about reforms in a gradual way, they are more moderate in their aims and methods than radical femi- nists, who call for an overthrow of the existing system (Tong, 2009). While liberal feminists have contributed greatly to the advancement of women over the past century, critics charge that they have been unsuccessful in dealing with the root cause of gender inequality and do not acknowledge the systemic nature of women’s oppression in society (Bryson, 1999). Critics say that by focusing on the independent deprivations women suffer—sexism, discrimination, the glass ceiling, unequal pay— liberal feminists draw only a partial picture of gender inequality. Radical feminists accuse liberal feminists of encouraging women to accept an unequal society and its competitive character. RADICAL FEMINISM At the heart of radical feminism is the belief that men are responsible for, and benefit from, the exploitation of women. The analysis of patriarchy—the systematic domina- tion of females by males—is of central concern, being viewed as a universal phenomenon that has existed across time and cultures. Radical feminists identify the family as one of the primary sources of women’s oppression. They argue that men both exploit women by relying on their unpaid domestic labor in the home and, as a group, deny women access to positions of power and influence in society (Tong, 2009). Radical feminists differ in their interpretations of the basis of patriarchy, but most agree that it involves some form of appropriation of women’s bodies and sexuality. Shulamith Firestone (1970) argued that because men control women’s roles in repro- duction and child-rearing, women become dependent materially on men for protection and livelihood. This “biological inequality” is socially organized in the nuclear family. Firestone argued that women can be emancipated only through the abolition of the family and the power relations that characterize it. Other radical feminists point to male violence against women as central to male supremacy. In this view, intimate partner violence, rape, and sexual harassment are all part of the systematic oppression of women, rather than isolated cases of pathological or criminal perpetrators. Even interactions in daily life—such as nonverbal communi- cation, patterns of listening and interrupting, and women’s sense of comfort in public— contribute to gender inequality. Moreover, popular conceptions of beauty and sexuality are imposed on women by men to produce a certain type of femininity. For example, social and cultural norms emphasizing a slim body, youthful face, and caring, nurturing attitude toward men perpetuate women’s subordina- tion. The objectification of women through the radical feminismŚĊŚThe form of feminist media, fashion, and advertising turns women theory that posits that gender inequality is the into sexual objects whose main role is to please result of male domination in all aspects of social and economic life. and entertain men (Kilbourne, 2010). patriarchyŚĊŚThe dominance of men over Radical feminists do not believe that women women. All known societies are patriarchal, can be liberated from sexual oppression through although there are variations in the degree and legislative reforms or gradual attitudinal change. nature of the power that men exercise as compared with women. One of the prime objectives of Because patriarchy is a systemic phenomenon, women’s movements in modern societies is to they argue, gender equality can be attained only combat existing patriarchal institutions. by overthrowing the patriarchal order. Sociological Theories of Gender Inequalities295  In asserting that “the personal is political,” radical feminists have drawn attention to the many linked dimensions of women’s oppres- sion. Their emphasis on male violence and the objectification of women has brought these issues into the heart of mainstream debates about women’s subordination. Many objections can be raised to radi- cal feminist views. A key objection is that the concept of patriarchy is inadequate as a general explanation for women’s oppression (Tong, 2009). Radical feminists have tended to claim that patriarchy has existed throughout history and across cultures—that it is a uni- versal phenomenon. Critics argue, however, that the conception of patriarchy as a universal phenomenon does not leave room for historical or cultural variations. It also ignores the impor- tant influence of race, class, and ethnicity on the nature of women’s subordination; in short, it fails to recognize that not all men have equal power to act as oppressors, and not all women are equally subjugated. In fact, seeing patriar- chy as a universal phenomenon risks biological reductionism—attributing all the complexities of gender inequality to a simple distinction between men and women. Radical feminism maintains that the objectification of women in advertising contributes to gender inequality by turning women into sexual objects for men’s pleasure. SOCIALIST FEMINISM Developed in the 1970s, socialist feminism incorporates key themes of Marxist theory, which we introduced in Chapter 1. Like Marxist theory, socialist feminism argues that capi- talist society is oppressive toward ethnic minorities, the working class, and the poor. Like radical feminism, it also recognizes the fundamental oppression of women in patriarchal societies. Bringing these two themes together, socialist feminism focuses on the ways that gender and social class intersect. Importantly, adherents of this perspective depart from Marxists theorists because they believe that dismantling the capitalist hierarchical system is not sufficient to eradicate inequalities; gendered systems of stratification also must be eradicated (Martin, 1986). Socialist feminists depart from other types of feminists in important ways. First, they challenge liberal feminists’ vision that equality for women in all institutions of society, including government, law, and education, is possible through policy reforms. Rather, socialist feminists reject the notion that true equality is possible in a society whose social and economic structures are fundamentally flawed. They depart from radi- cal feminists, however, because socialist feminists believe that women should work with men to fight class oppression. Socialist feminists do not generally believe that sex and the patriarchy are the sole roots of oppression; rather, gender is just one of several axes of oppression (Holmstrom et al., 2002). 296 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality BLACK FEMINISM AND TRANSNATIONAL FEMINISM Do the versions of feminism just described apply equally to the experiences of both white women and women of color? Many black feminists and feminists from the global south claim they do not. They argue that the main feminist schools of thought address the dilem- mas of white, predominantly middle-class women living in industrialized societies and in traditional two-parent families, and that it is not valid to generalize theories about women’s subordination from the experience of a specific group. Moreover, the very idea of a uni- fied form of gender oppression that all women experience equally is problematic (Collins, 2008) and neglects the concept of intersectionality, or the recognition that challenges fac- ing women of color are often distinct from those facing white (and especially white middle- class) women (McCall, 2005). Dissatisfaction with existing forms of feminism has led to the emergence of black feminism, which concentrates on the problems facing black women. Black femi- nist writings emphasize aspects of the past that inform current gender inequalities in the black community: the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the civil rights move- ment. They point out that early black suffragettes supported the campaign for women’s rights but realized that the question of race could not be ignored because black women were discriminated against on the basis of both race and gender. In recent years, black women have not been central to the women’s liberation movement in part because their race informed their identities and political allegiances more than their gender did (Collins, 2008). Author, feminist, and social activist bell hooks argues that explanatory frameworks favored by white feminists—for example, the view of the family as a mainstay of patriarchy— may not apply in black communities, where the family often is headed by a woman and provides a safe, supportive haven against racism. In other words, the oppression of black women may be found in different locations than that of white women. Black feminists contend that any theory of gender equality that does not take racism into account cannot adequately explain black women’s oppression. Likewise, social class cannot be neglected. Some black feminists hold that the strength of black feminist theory is its focus on the interplay among race, class, and gender concerns. When these three fac- tors interact, they reinforce and intensify one another (Brewer, 1993). Transnational feminism, by contrast, focuses primarily on intersections among nationhood, race, gender, sexuality, and economic exploitation against the contemporary backdrop of global capitalism. This perspective recognizes that global processes, including colonialism, racism, and imperialism, shape gender relations and hierarchies in powerful ways (Mohanty, 2003). Pioneers of transnational femi- black feminismŚĊŚA strand of feminist theory nism recognized that the key themes of liberal that highlights the multiple disadvantages of gender, class, and race that shape the feminism, such as concerns about equal pay for experiences of nonwhite women. Black feminists equal work or the division of household labor, were reject the idea of a single, unified gender not relevant for many women in the global south. oppression that is experienced evenly by all women, and argue that early feminist analysis Scholars working in this tradition often have a reflected the specific concerns of white, middle- strong human rights orientation and see research class women. as integral to social change. For instance, by under-.,(-(.#)(&ŗ '#(#-'ŚĊŚA branch of standing the processes through which female feminist theory that highlights the way that global processes—including colonialism, racism, agricultural workers in Brazil are subordinated, and imperialism—shape gender relations and transnational feminists can work to increase these hierarchies. women’s bargaining power (Thayer, 2010). Sociological Theories of Gender Inequalities297  POSTMODERN FEMINISM postmodern feminism Ċ The feminist perspective that challenges the idea of a unitary Like black feminism, postmodern feminism basis of identity and experience shared by all challenges the idea that all women share a sin- women. Postmodern feminists reject the claim gle basis of identity and experience. (Postmod- that a grand theory can explain the position of women in society, or that there is any single, ern approaches in sociology were introduced in universal essence or category of “woman.” Chapter 1, and it may be helpful to review that Instead, postmodern feminism encourages the section.) This strand of feminism draws on the acceptance of many different standpoints as equally valid. cultural phenomenon of postmodernism in the arts, architecture, philosophy, and economics. Postmodern feminists reject the claim that there is a grand theory that can explain the position of women in society or that there is any universal category of “woman.” Consequently, these feminists reject the accounts others give to explain gender inequality— such as patriarchy, race, or class—as “essen- tialist” (Beasley, 1999). Instead, postmodern feminism encourages the acceptance of many different standpoints, representing very different experiences (heterosexuals, lesbians, black women, working- class women, and so on). The “otherness” of different groups and individuals is celebrated in all its diverse forms. Emphasis on the positive side of otherness is a major theme in postmod- CONCEPT CHECKS 3 ern feminism and symbolizes plural- ity, diversity, difference, and openness: 1. Contrast functionalist and feminist approach- There are many truths, roles, and con- es to understanding gender inequality. structions of reality (Tong, 2009). 2. What are the key ideas of liberal feminism? What are criticisms of this perspective? Postmodern feminism is said to have 3. What are the key ideas of radical feminism? the most difficult relationship with the What are criticisms of this perspective? strands of feminism just discussed (Tong, 4. How do the key ideas of socialist feminism 2009). This is largely because of its belief challenge the main themes of liberal and radi- that many feminists are mistaken in cal feminism? assuming that it is possible to provide 5. Do you think that postmodern feminism is incompatible with liberal, radical, and black overarching explanations for women’s feminist perspectives? Why or why not? oppression and to find steps toward its resolution. 3 RESEARCH ON GENDER TODAY: DOCUMENTING AND UNDERSTANDING GENDER INEQUALITIES As we have learned so far, gender is one of the main dimensions along which we dif- ferentiate humans in society. Yet men and women are not merely viewed as different in most societies; in many domains, men and women experience unequal treatment, with men consistently holding more political, economic, and social power. Male dominance in a society is patriarchy. Although men are favored in almost all societies, the degree of patriarchy varies. In the United States, women have made tremendous progress in educa- tion, work, politics, and economics, but several forms of gender inequality persist. 298 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality  Sociologists define gender inequality as the difference in the status, power, and pres- tige that women and men have in groups, collectives, and societies. In the following sec- tions, we will review contemporary research that documents both the magnitude of, and the explanations for, gendered inequalities across multiple domains, including education, the workplace, the family, and politics. We will focus primarily on the United States but will also demonstrate that the disparities in the United States pale in comparison to those in other nations, where the cultural devaluation of women is widespread. Gendered Inequalities in Education: Unequal Treatment in the Classroom Sociologists have found that schools help foster gender differences in outlook and behav- ior. In the past, school regulations compelling girls to wear dresses or skirts served as an obvious means of gender typing. The consequences went beyond mere appearance. As a result of their clothes, girls lacked the freedom to sit casually, to join in rough-and-tumble games, or to run as fast as they were able. Although strict enforcement of school dress has become rare, differences in informal styles of dress persist, still influencing gender behavior in school. School reading texts also perpetuate gender images. Although this, too, is changing, storybooks and coloring books used in elementary school often portray boys showing initiative and independence, and girls being more passive and watching their brothers. Stories written especially for girls often have an element of adventure, but usually in a domestic or school setting. Boys’ adventure stories are more wide-ranging, with heroes who travel to distant places or who, in other ways, are sturdily independent (Fitzpatrick and McPherson, 2010; Statham, 1986). In general, people interact differently with men and women, and boys and girls (Lorber, 1994)—even in elementary schools. Studies document that teachers interact differently, and often inequitably, with male and female students in terms of the frequency and content of teacher-student interactions. Such patterns are based on, and perpetuate, traditional assumptions about male and female behavior and traits. One study showed that, regard- less of the sex of the teacher, male students interact more with their teachers than female students do. Boys receive more teacher attention and instructional time than girls do. This is partly because boys are more demanding than girls (American Association of University Women [AAUW], 1992). Another study reported that boys are eight times more likely to call out answers in class, thus grabbing their teachers’ attention, and that even when boys do not voluntarily participate in class, teachers are more likely to solicit information from them than from girls. However, when girls try to bring attention to themselves by calling out in class without raising their hands, they are reprimanded (Sadker and Sadker, 1994). In addition, the content of teacher-student interactions differs depending on the sex of the students. For example, the assumption that girls are bad at math may lead teachers to shy away from engaging girls in discussion during math class, ultimately perpetuat- ing girls’ insecurity about their ability to succeed at this subject (Gunderson et al., 2011). After observing elementary school teachers and students over many years, researchers !(,ŗ#(+/&#.3ŚĊŚThe inequality between found that teachers helped boys in working out men and women in terms of wealth, income, and the correct answers, whereas they simply gave status. girls the correct answers and did not engage Research on Gender Today: Documenting and Understanding Gender Inequalities299  them in the problem-solving process. In addition, teachers posed more aca- demic challenges to boys, encouraging them to think through their answers to find the best possible response (Sadker and Sadker, 1994). Boys were also disadvantaged in important ways, however. Because of their rowdy behavior, they were more often scolded and punished than the female students. Moreover, boys out- number girls in special education programs by startling percentages. Sociologists have argued that school How does gender affect student-teacher interactions in the personnel may be mislabeling boys’ classroom? behavioral problems as learning disabil- ities. These patterns can have long-term effects; punishment, especially the most severe forms, such as school suspension, are linked with poorer grades, lower graduation rates, and ultimately poorer prospects for gainful employment (e.g., Shollenberger, 2014). The ways that gendered stereotypes and expectations hurt boys and girls are even more harmful for African American children, underscoring the importance of intersectionality. A study of what it was like to be a black female pupil in a white school reported that while the black girls were, like the boys, initially enthusiastic about school, they altered their attitudes because of the difficulties they encountered. Even when the girls were young, age seven or eight, teachers would disperse them if they were chatting in a group on the playground, while tolerating similar behavior among white children. Once treated as “troublemakers,” the black girls rapidly became so (Bryan et al., 1987). Other work shows that black girls were reprimanded more than black boys or white girls for talking loudly, as such behavior was not considered appropriately feminine. As sociologist Edward Morris (2007) found in his study of elementary school classrooms, black girls’ manners were occasionally criti- cized by teachers, who would refer to outspoken girls as “loudies” rather than “ladies.” Racial differences in how girls are treated emerge as young as preschool. A recent Depart- ment of Education (2014) study found that black girls are suspended or expelled at a rate six times higher than that of white girls: Fully 12 percent of black preschool–age girls (but just 2 percent of their white peers) received an out-of-school suspension. Similar racial gaps emerge among boys, albeit for different reasons. Black boys are more likely than white boys to be disciplined harshly, consistent with stereotypes that equate black masculinity with aggression. As with girls, these black-white disparities start in preschool. The Department of Education (2014) study found that 20 percent of black preschool–age boys (but just 6 percent of white preschool boys) received an out- of-school suspension. Black boys in elementary, middle, and high school also are more likely than any other subgroup of students to be physically restrained and even referred to law enforcement for misbehavior. Experts attribute these strong disciplinary reac- tions to stereotypes about race and masculinity, and to the fact that young black boys are viewed as older than they actually are. One fascinating study concluded that “black boys [are] seen as responsible for their actions at an age when white boys still benefit from the assumption that children are essentially innocent” (Goff et al., 2014). 300 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality THE GENDERING OF COLLEGE MAJORS College is a time of exploration, when students take both general-education classes and specialized classes within their chosen major that prepare them for a career after graduation. Men and women differ starkly in the majors they choose, opting for fields that are consistent with gender-typed socialization; women focus on fields associated with caring and nurturing, whereas men tend to pursue fields that emphasize logic and analysis. Yet the majors women tend to choose are precisely those fields that garner the lowest earnings after graduation, whereas men are channeled into majors with high eco- nomic returns. Researchers at Georgetown University documented gender differences in college majors using national data collected by the Census Bureau (Carnevale, Strohl, and Melton, 2011). They found that the college majors with the highest proportion of female students were those in the education and health fields. For instance, 97 percent of all per- sons majoring in early childhood education were women, while more than 90 percent of all majors in nursing, elementary education, library science, and school counseling were female. By contrast, more than 90 percent of engineering majors were men. Feminist scholars note that this stark gender segregation among college majors is one important reason for the persistent gender gap in pay. The Georgetown researchers ranked college majors based on graduates’ earnings and found that the two lowest-earning majors were counseling psychology (with median annual earnings of $29,000) and early childhood education (with median annual earnings of $36,000). Both of these fields are dominated by women. By contrast, of the 10 highest-earning majors, 8 were engineer- ing fields heavily dominated by men, including petroleum engineering (with median annual earnings of $120,000) and aerospace engineering (with median annual earn- ings of $87,000). Research on how young people choose their majors consistently shows that subtle forces, including input from parents, friends, and guidance counselors; a lack of same-sex role models; active encouragement (or discouragement) from teachers; and limited exposure to particular fields of study tend to channel women into female-typed majors and men into male-typed majors (Morgan et al., 2013; Porter and Umbach, 2006). Gendered Inequalities in the Workplace Gender plays a powerful role in shaping workplace experiences. Everything from the jobs we hold, to how much we earn, to even our treatment at the hands of coworkers, is power- fully shaped by gender. Although women have seen tremendous progress in both rates of labor force participation and entry to a wide variety of occupations over the past century, as we shall see, stark inequities persist. Women currently account for roughly half (47 percent) of the total workforce. This proportion is a stark increase from 1950, when women represented just 30 percent of the paid workforce. Nearly 57 percent of women are now employed outside the home, up from just 34 percent of women in 1950 (BLS, 2017m). Although women’s entry into the paid labor force is a fairly contemporary phenomenon, dating back only to the early 1970s, some women have always worked for pay. Poor, immigrant, and ethnic minority women have always had relatively high rates of employment. For example, in the United States in 1910, the female labor force consisted mainly of young, single women and children. More than a third of gainfully employed women were maids or house servants. When women or girls worked in factories or offices, employers often sent their wages to their parents. When young women married, they typically withdrew from the labor force. Research on Gender Today: Documenting and Understanding Gender Inequalities301  Since then, women’s participation in the paid labor force has risen more or less con- tinuously, especially since the 1950s (Figure 10.1). However, since peaking at 60 percent in 2009, women’s labor force participation has declined slightly. Men’s rates of labor force participation declined during this period, from 86 percent in 1950 to 80 percent in 1970 to roughly 69 percent in 2015; these patterns largely reflect the fact that more younger men are in college and more older men are exiting the labor force in their fif- ties and sixties, due either to the early onset of work-related disabilities, or the fact that Social Security benefits enable them to retire comfortably—a benefit that was not avail- able in the 1950s and 1960s (BLS, 2017e). A more telling number may be the proportion of men in their prime working years, ages 25 to 54, who are currently working. In 2000, fully 92 percent of men in that age group were working, although the figure had dipped slightly to 90 percent by 2017 (Fox, 2017). Macroeconomic conditions are an important influence on the gender composition of the paid labor force. For instance, during the Great Recession of the late 2000s and early 2010s, men’s employment rates dropped more steeply than women’s employment rates because the types of jobs men work in were affected more severely (Mulligan, 2010). Men are more likely than women to work in the industries of finance, insurance, real estate, and construction, which were particularly hard hit during the recession. Some pundits Figure 10.1 Women’s Participation in the Labor Force in the United States, 1948–2016 70 60 Women’s labor force* participation rates 50 Percentage 40 30 20 Women as a percentage of the total labor force** 10 0 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 *Women in the labor force as a percentage of all civilian women age 16 and over. **Women in the labor force as a percentage of the total workforce (both men and women) age 16 and over. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017m. 302 CHAPTER 10Gender Inequality went so far as to dub the economic downturn a “ he-cession” or “man-cession” to reflect the fact that 80 percent of the jobs lost were jobs held by men. Some would argue further that women’s employment is essential for families’ financial well-being during this difficult economic period. Perhaps an even greater change in labor force participation has occurred among mar- ried mothers of young children. In 1978, only 14 percent of married women with preschool- age children worked full-time year-round, yet this figure had increased to 64 percent by 2015; three- quarters (75 percent) of women with children between the ages of 6 and 17 were in the labor force in 2015 (BLS, 2017m). One impetus behind women’s increased entry into the labor force was the increasing demand for clerical and service workers in the mid-twentieth century, as the U.S. economy expanded and changed (Oppenheimer, 1970). From 1940 until the late 1960s, labor force activity increased among women who were past their prime child-rearing years, such as “empty nest” women whose children had left the family home. During the 1970s and 1980s, as the marriage age rose, fertil- ity declined, and women’s educational attainment increased, the growth in labor force participation spread to younger women. Many women now postpone marriage and child- rearing to complete their education and establish themselves in the labor force. Despite family obligations, today, a majority of women of all educational levels work outside the home during their child-rearing years (Padavic and Reskin, 2002). Unmarried mothers are even more likely than married mothers to work during their child-rearing years. In 2015, 75 percent of unmarried mothers with children under 18 years old were in the labor force, compared with 68 percent of married mothers (BLS, 2017m). OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION Until recently, women were overwhelmingly concentrated in routine, poorly paid occupa- tions. The clerk (office worker) provides a good illustration. In 1850 in the United States, clerks held responsible positions requiring accountancy skills and carrying managerial responsibilities; fewer than 1 percent were women. The twentieth century saw a general mechanization of office work (starting with the introduction of the typewriter in the late nineteenth century), accompanied by a downgrading of the clerk’s status—together with a related occupation, secretary—into a routine, low-paid occupation. Women filled these occupations as the pay and prestige of such jobs declined (Reskin and Roos, 1990). In 2016, 95 percent of all secretaries and administrative assistants in the United States were women (BLS, 2017m). Studies of certain occupations reveal how gender typing occurs in the workplace. Expanding areas of lower-level