Gender Polarization refers to the tendency to construct more homogenized, mutually exclusive ideal

types of male/female characteristics rather than embracing the naturally occurring diversity within the
gender spectrum. This also refers to the ways we initially stereotype the ways we think others relate to
the world.

Stratification on the basis of sex/gender channel males and females into very different and often
unequal life situations. However, resistance to this system is often mitigated by the process of
enculturation, whereby individuals encountering hegemonic gendered discourses and institutions
gradually internalize socially acceptable standards of behavior and are rewarded for constructing
identities consistent with them.

Androcentrism refers to the idea that our society is male-centered, that is, hegemonic notions of
masculinity are what most individuals must live up to in order to access positions of high status and
prestige.

Throughout history, men in positions of power have argued that gender stratification is inherent in
societies due to biological essentialism (sociobiology). Others have used religious texts as justification.
The same lines of argument were long used to oppress all racial/ethnic groups outside of Nordic
Europeans, but it seems that with gender, this reasoning has not been so fully discredited and still
curries public favor.

• Gendered conservation of energy was used to justify women's exclusion from education and voting
because proponents argued that women would use up their “vital energy” on intellectual pursuits, thus
leaving insufficient quantities for the optimal development of reproductive faculties.

• Darwin concluded that males of a particular species are always more highly evolved than the females
because males' selection relies on more competition with sexual rivals.

• Evidence that men are innately more active and dynamic can be found in the behavior of sperm, while
evidence that females are innately passive can be found in the behavior of the egg.

When thinking about how biology influences behavior, as it doubtlessly does, we have three choices:

1. Exaggerate biological dispositions 2. Try to change biological limitations through other innovations
(technological, social) 3. Accept biological limitations and adapt within them

We have made significant strides in minimizing #1 and expanding #2, but the third option still seems to
be our cultural default. The real flaw in this reasoning lies in the notion that common sense folk
knowledge or science as it's currently practiced (tools and ethics) can really apprehend “human nature”,
especially gender
Since it seems that more and more we're settling on option #2, we should look at how people attempt to
alter the cultural environment and corresponding social systems of meaning corresponding with
gender…

We've witnessed in the Western world and in much of the non-Western world a political movement
over the last 150 years that has transformed women from an almost totally disenfranchised and
disempowered population whose social relevance only extended as far as their father/husband to full
fledged equal citizens

Still, gross inequities remain. Most all of these cannot be effectively chalked up to biology. With the
opportunities for women seemingly expanded to such a large degree, it seems strange that persistent
social patterns that disadvantage women remain. Equally as strange has been men's role change
stagnation. Why?

Possible explanations: 1. Entrenched cultural scripts… example = linguistic sexism

• Think of some popular slang to describe intercourse… and what do you find?

• 500 synonyms for prostitute and 1000 sexually derogatory words/phrases to describe women

• 10 times as many slang terms for stupid/superficial women as for similar men

• “girls and guys” not “boys and girls” – women often described as irresponsible, immature, small

• women professionals are often linguistic derivatives of masculine nouns – men get male nurse

• formal distinctions based marriage status are only used for women – Ms. is best perceived

• he, his, and man are still used as our generic descriptors – men and women respond differently

Does language merely represent our past values and prejudices or does it actively reinforce it? Social
psychologists have shown that people given a position paper to read enough times will begin to adjust
their own attitudes towards that position, regardless of initial disposition, this is how “brainwashing” is
done…

2. Workplace androcentrism and power

• women are underpaid and underemployed relative to men – hence the higher poverty

• the more women in a specific profession, the more its prestige declines
• model behavior for success in the professional/corporate workplace is traditionally unfeminine –
women must vanquish their femininity lest they be seen as weak or sexually conniving, but then face the
stigma of being labeled “manly” - demanding too much and stepping out of their “place”

• the subordination of all other life activities to the service of workplace achievement requires that
someone else take care of your other essential life activities for you (food, children, cleaning) – in effect,
a wife – however, few men will take a position and look after their wives' affairs

• women know how to work in teams, but not in teams that don't want token players on them.

• Minorities have great difficulties exercising power because they need approval from the majority

• Women must also negotiate disproportionate burdens at home while in fulfilling their female role over
the life course – “the double shift”

3. Ineffective tactics of the feminist movement

• Why do you think most American adults don't favor women using collective action to better their
social position? Is it because they truly fear gender equity at a visceral level, or because they fear
particular representations of feminism? Where are their public relations advisors?

• Like most movements that seem to achieve success in their early days (1960s) – certain subgroups
with more extreme agendas (for better or worse) branched off – deflecting public attention off their
core mainstream goals (mentioned in book) and socialist and radical versions emerged

• Furthermore, the rhetoric wasn't well tuned from the beginning – in retrospect, why name a
movement that advocates equality for men and women feminism – we can see the early justifications,
but today most uninformed people interpret the term as a female power grab…

• How do feminist organizations go about attempting to persuade men, the assumed principle
opposition to the feminist agenda, of the righteousness of their political vision?

• Feminists have had a lot of trouble reconciling different cultural beliefs as well, especially along
religion lines, but along class and racial ones as well

• What is the feminist vision today and what group is responsible for disseminating it to the public at
large? How could it be improved to advance the interests of women in America ?

4. Men and Masculinities

• Men haven't been paid nearly as much attention to over the last 50 years or so and their change
movements have been even more hokey and ineffective than women's – Christian revival of family
values (the “Promise Keepers”) and wilderness retreats to revive the “wild man within” (read Robert
Bly's Iron John)
• Men haven't changed their behaviors and attitudes nearly as fast as women – as is usually the case
with a group in power responding to a challenge to that power – its only now in the last decade or so
that some men have begun to soften their masculine displays, hence the metrosexual emergence

• Why would men in their current mindset relinquish power, especially when they think it comes
directly at the expense of their manhood?

Sex refers to biology-- "sex roles" refer to what the sexes do biologically-- male; female.

Gender refers to society-- "gender roles" refer to what rights, obligations, responsibilities,
behaviors, society sets for the two sexes. Gender roles are "masculine" and "feminine".

Our text confuses these two concepts by defining "gender identity" as the self-concept of being either
male or female and then defining gender roles as society's "expectations regarding the proper behavior,
attitudes, and activities of males and females." (p. 307). (I would have preferred that the text use the
term "sex" identity just to maintain the distinction between gender and sex defined above).

A child develops the sense of a "gender" (or sex) identity between the ages of 1.5 and 3 years old.

Back to Chapter Contents

The power of society to define "gender roles"

The power of society to define "gender roles" appropriate to each of the sexes is illustrated cross
culturally: World wide, there exists a wide variation of gender roles, as these examples illustrate:

Ojibwa Indians of North America: The few women who pursue careers as hunters
and shamen (traditionally masculine roles) were considered to be endowed with supernatural powers.
(Other women may view them as strange, but they are respected by the men).

The Blackfoot Indians of North America: The "manly hearted women"-- women who have wealth and
property; who display aggressiveness, independence, ambition, boldness, and sexual
prowess." Atypically, the manly hearted women dominates her husband, and runs business affairs--
controlling use of personal property, etc. She is, nevertheless, very much respected by all men in the
tribe, including her husband-- (even hangs out with the guys).

 
The Zuni Indians: Two women seeking the same lover have brutal fist fight in village plaza. Men do not
settle their love problems in a physical manner.

The Navajo: If gender is culturally (and not biologically) defined, it should be possible to have more
genders than sexes. Reese (1980) describes this among traditional Navajo groups. He points out that in
all societies there is a very small percentage of infants born with "ambiguous genitalia." In traditional
Navajo societies, these individuals were called "nadle." But, these societies also allowed individuals who
did not wish to identify themselves as males or females to take on a third gender.  Nadles preferred
female clothing and activities, but...

1.  They could wear clothing prescribed for either males or females (or both)

2.  They could live in a marriage-like status with an individual of either genetic sex.

3.  Except for hunting and warfare, they could perform the duties assigned to either males or females.

Margaret Mead's work, Sex and Temperament also illustrates the wide diversity of gender roles cross-
culturally.

Mundugumor of New Guinea: No dramatic gender distinctions-- Both men and women are equally fierce
and viscous. Women are not submissive. If husband has a disagreement with his wife, he arms himself
with superior force before hand-- the jaw of a crocodile.

Arapesh of New Guinea: Again there are no major gender distinctions, but in this society people behave
just the opposite from the above. Both men and women are socialized not to be aggressive, but
gentle. Also prudish about sex-- not for pleasure only associated with marriage. Concept of rape is
utterly foreign to them. Sexual passion is considered dangerous and is repressed. (Shepard, p. 342)

Tchambuli of New Guinea: There are significant gender distinctions in this tribe: Men devote lives to art
and ceremony, wearing frivolous costumes, curling their hair, etc. -- women are "unadorned" and run
the economy.

Back to Chapter Contents

The United States has sharply defined gender roles: Feminity and masculinity are clearly distinguished
(and enforced) through the use of formal and informal sanctions. (Although discriminatory laws are
increasingly being challenged in the courts, e.g. women in combat; opening of formerly
restricted olympic events to women; etc.)

The U. S. A.: The aggressive women is considered "unfeminine," and "abnormal." Non-aggressive men
are considered "wimps" or "fairies." In the 1980s, women runners have a special race all their own--
the Avon Classic-- in D.C.  Some of the fastest women in the country participate.  (Male runners have
derisively referred to it as the "Dyke Derby")-- "all in fun," of course.  But what under lying sentiments
does this reflect?

Back to Chapter Contents

Gender Roles and Socialization:

What are they based on?-- process of socialization.  Can't say that they are biologically derived because
we have observed wide differences across cultures.  We often fail to distinguish sex-- a biological term
denoting physiological characteristics; from gender-- a psychological and cultural term which denotes
learned behavior which is associated with biological characteristics.

Biological factors:

Are there any innate biological differences between males and females which produce characteristic
behavior differences between men and women? (Nature vs Nurture)

Obviously there's the "biological division of labor in reproduction," which leads to the foundation and
elaboration of gender roles (Shepard, p. 344). (But given this very basic distinction, society can shape
these roles in many different ways).

 
Some studies have shown that genetic differences have predisposed males toward more aggressive
behavior-- (hormones like testosterone and androgens in the male and progesterone and estrogen in
the female). But outside of aggression, other biologically derived differences have not been conclusively
discovered.

Cultural factors:

Margaret Meade studied the three primitive peoples of New Guinea described above, and found
significant differences in gender roles. This, she took to indicate that human nature is sufficiently
malleable to rule out biological determination of gender roles (Sheppard, p. 346).

But, Meade's societies were the exception, not the rule.  Cross culturally, the predominant feature has
been for the men to be dominant and the women to be nurturing.  Women are usually found to do the
domestic chores, care for kids, and promoting family emotional harmony.  Men, on the other hand, are
more likely to provide for the family and to represent the family in activities outside the home
(Sheppard, p. 346).

Why is this so?  Men have the physical advantage of size and women have been restricted to child care
because of pregnancy and lactation.  Physical advantages lead to economic, political and social
advantages. Once these have been gained, hard to give them up.

Back to Chapter Contents

What happens when society tries to eliminate gender roles?

Numerous societies have made deliberate efforts to reduce or eliminate gender roles that have
traditionally served to distinguish "men's work" from "women's work."  The results have been mixed:

 (Jean Block, 1973) compared U.S. to Sweden and Denmark (democratic-socialist countries) and did find

The Israeli kibbutzim are supposed to be examples of gender equality, but (Padan-Eisenstark, 1973)
found women to be concentrated in "feminine occupations."
 

In former Soviet society, where sexual equality was an explicit goal, women were relegated to
lower paying, lower status occupations and men dominated the economy (Lund, 1970).  (50% of wage
earners in former USSR were women, but they worked in lower paying jobs and were not equally
represented in managerial classes:

32% were engineers but only 12% were plant directors.

73% were schoolteachers but only 23% were school directors.

42% were scientists but only 204 women were members of the Soviet Academy of Scientists.

79% were doctors, but doctors only received 2/3rds the salary of a skilled worker (blue collar).

Only 3 (1.5%) of the Communist Party Central Committee were women.

Back to Chapter Contents

Theoretical Approaches:

Functionalist Explanations of Gender Roles:

The division of labor based upon sex has survived because it is beneficent and efficient for society. This
view states that even today, this is the case. (Parsons and Shills) argued in the 1950s that family stability
was maintained because one member, the male assumed the "instrumental role" of bread winner; while
the female adopted the "expressive role" of managing relationships within the family and keeping it
together. (If both members were to work, this would place strain on the family because of role
competition).   This sexual division of labor traces its roots to prehistoric times where women's
movement was restricted due to child-bearing and nurturing.  Men had more freedom of movement
and thus, adopted instrumental roles.
 

Conflict Theories of Gender Roles:

Conflict theorists will buy the idea of how gender roles developed, but they disagree as to why they
have continued. In this case they would argue that such a division of labor is not necessarily beneficial to
society, but has been maintained by those in power.  Men have a vested interest in keeping things the
way they are because they enjoy economic, political, and social privileges.  Present gender role divisions
are outdated-- ok for hunting and gathering societies but no longer appropriate to the modern world.

The Symbolic Interactionist Viewpoint:

From the micro perspective, symbolic interactionists examine gender stratification on the day-to-day

Back to Chapter Contents

Gender Roles and Socialization:

Studies have been conducted of children who were mistakenly assigned the wrong sex at birth,
intentionally raised as the wrong sex by their parents, or born as hermaphrodites.  These studies suggest
that individuals can easily be socialized into the gender role of the opposite sex.  Furthermore, once
socialized to this role, it's very difficult to switch roles.  It seems that male and female infants are neutral
at birth with respect to gender (or sex) identity, but by age 3 a child's gender identity is well established. 
Thus, gender role is independent of anatomy.  (This is also supported by cross-cultural studies that
demonstrate the tremendous variation in gender roles).

Acquisition of gender roles: Several theories---

 
Social Learning Theory: children receive rewards for behavior appropriate to their sex; and receive
punishments for inappropriate behavior. (Some of these are subtle-- an approving nod from dad for boy
who wants to be a fireman-- a mild rebuke from mom for the girl who wants to be computer
programmer. Others are obvious-- spanking a boy who acts like a sissy, or sending a girl to her room for
being a tom-boy).  

Cognitive Development Theory: children acquire gender roles through their awareness of their own sex
and their perceptions of behavior appropriate to their own sex. Two stages involved:

1.    Children become aware that their sex doesn't change. It stays constant over time.

2.    Over time children seek out and categorize those behaviors appropriate to the sex they've identified
with.

Identification Theory: This theory asserts that we adopt gender roles through identification with a role
model. Boys have a more difficult time in developing gender identities because in early childhood they
have more contact with women than with men.

Sources of gender role socialization:

 Parents: Even before the baby is born, the process of socialization begins. (Boy-girl names decided
upon, nursery set up. And if the sex is known in advance...) From the moment of birth on-- what is the
first question asked by mom? (Is it a boy or a girl?) Girls get pink ribbon in hair-- pink clothes-- pink
nursery wall paper; boys get blue.

Peers: The peer group has a powerful impact on gender role socialization-- often quite different from
parents.

 The Media: (Killing Us Softly--)  Educator Jean Kilbourne has produced a series of lectures on gender role
stereotyping in the media.  Based upon an extensive examination of print and film advertising she
concluded that women are presented as objects of pleasure for men;  and that they are trivialized.

Back to Chapter Contents

Four of the five Minority Characteristics fit women--  See the Chapter on Stratification by Race and
Ethnicity-- (Obviously, women are not endogamous).  Because women lack power in society, sociologists
consider them to be a "minority."

Only until most recently (within the last five years in the United States) has the gap between women's
and men's salaries begun to close.  Between 1950 and 1990, women earned about .65 for every dollar
earned by a man (even when comparing full-time workers within the same job category). In the mid-
1990's it was about 70-75 cents.   In 2003 it was around 78 cents.

Even though today over 50 percent of women are not in the paid labor force as full time workers, and
nearly half of the U. S. full-time labor force is comprised of women, women find themselves in lower
paying "women's" jobs. Less than 5 percent are VP's or better in major U.S. Corporations.

However, the numbers are improving for women in business at the middle management level of this
country's major corporations where approximately 40 percent of management, executive, and
administrative positions are now held by females.

The Second Shift: Sociologist Arlie Hochschild has studied dual career and dual worker families
extensively.  Her data indicate that when taking a job outside the home, a wife's "work week" increases
because her husband does not pick up a proportional amount of household chores. (These wives have
15 hours less of leisure time than their husbands each week).  The "Second Shift" is a term she uses to
describe what women must do when they get home from their jobs-- They take on a "second shift" at
home, cleaning, preparing meals, and caring for children.

Poverty:  While families maintained by a women represent 18 percent of all American families, they

Gender stratification refers to the social ranking, where men typically inhabit higher statuses than
women. Often the terms gender inequality and gender stratification are used interchangeably. There are
a variety of approaches to the study of gender stratification. Most of the research in this area focuses on
differences between men’s and women’s life circumstances, broadly defined. Scholarly debates focus on
which dimensions of inequalities are most relevant and the level at which inequalities are generated and
maintained (i.e., individual, couple, family, group, or societal level). Researchers have been challenged
to explore gender, race, and class inequalities from an intersectional perspective, rather than treating
gender as independent of race and class. There is little acknowledgment of the heteronormativity that is
present in gender stratification research. Perhaps that will change once data regarding sexual
orientation, gender identity, and gender expression becomes more widely available. In this section, we
present key areas of gender stratification research. Gender stratification can be examined at the level of
individual outcomes and interactions or with a macro perspective that compares indexes of gender
inequalities across countries. Although welfare states research examines many aspects within and across
societies, it provides important insights in how state policies can shape patterns of gender stratification.
Gender inequality in the area of education, economic resources, and family are closely linked in
individuals’ lives, but distinct strands of research have emerged and will be discussed separately.
Although we provide examples of research noting gendered health disparities are outcomes of gender
inequalities within societies, not all health research makes this connection. Research on crime as well as
migration and citizenship has traditionally focused on men. Yet a recent shift to include women more
explicitly and gender more broadly has great potential to inform other areas of research on gender
stratification.

General Overviews

Feminist scholars, such as Joan Acker, have criticized “traditional” stratification research, which has
mostly ignored gender altogether (Acker 2006). Crompton 2003 writes that a mere cultural approach to
gender inequalities ignoring class is also flawed. Blumberg 1984 argues that economic dimensions of
inequality are paramount, as they precede inequalities in other domains. Keister and Southgate
2012 posits that gender is often seen as one dimension of stratification. However, Risman
2004 and McCall 2005 argue for an intersectional approach where gender is analyzed across all
dimensions. In addition to questions about which dimensions of inequality are important for
stratification, the level at which to examine gender stratification is also a key aspect of scholarly debate.
Some scholars compare men and women within couples, others men and women within societies,
and West and Zimmerman 1987 makes a compelling argument that gender and, by extension, gender
inequality is created in everyday interactions. Nevertheless, Blau, et al. 2006 points out that
understanding contextual factors and their interactions with gender within organizational contexts are
essential for a holistic understanding of gender stratification.

Acker, Joan. 2006. Class questions: Feminist answers. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

E-mail Citation »

This book illustrates the importance of and difficulty with integrating class analysis in feminist research.
The book makes a strong argument that it is problematic, if not impossible, to examine class properly
without also examining gender and race. A foundational work on intersectionality.
Blau, Francine D., Mary C. Brinton, and David B. Grusky, eds. 2006. The declining significance of gender?
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

E-mail Citation »

This edited volume should be required for all sociology graduate students. Macro-level mechanisms
(economics, organization, politics, and culture), shape gender stratification and our perception of gender
inequality. All essays show how macro-level mechanisms and individual outcomes are linked and need
to be considered jointly.

Blumberg, Rae Lesser. 1984. A general theory of gender stratification. Sociological Theory 2:23–101.

DOI: 10.2307/223343E-mail Citation »

Blumberg’s essay is a challenging read. The key argument is that women’s access to economic resources
is crucial to achieving other forms of power. It provides rich anthropology and debunks the idea of
inevitability of women’s dependence on male breadwinners.

Crompton, Rosemary. 2003. Class and gender beyond the “cultural turn.” Sociological Problemas e
Practicas 42:9–24.

E-mail Citation »

Crompton provides a summary of the conflicts between economically oriented “class” research and the
“normative/cultural” approach underlying gender research. She argues that a class orientation is crucial
in gender research and should not be merely replaced by a new focus on sexuality.

Keister, Lisa A., and Darby E. Southgate. 2012. Inequality: A contemporary approach to race, class, and
gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

E-mail Citation »

This textbook’s review of basic theoretical and empirical approaches to stratification research can serve
as a primer before students move to understand the other readings included in this entry. Their
discussion of the persistence of gender inequality in education, paid work, and within families is very
accessible.

McCall, Leslie. 2005. The complexity of intersectionality. Signs 30:1771–1800.

DOI: 10.1086/426800E-mail Citation »

This is a classic work discussing the importance and challenges of intersectionality. This is not an “easy”
read; rather, it is suitable for researchers seeking an understanding of different approaches for
examining intersectional gender inequality. McCall’s is an appropriate text for advanced contemporary
theory seminars.

Risman, Barbara. 2004. Gender as social structure. Gender & Society 18:429–450.

DOI: 10.1177/0891243204265349E-mail Citation »

Gender is more than one aspect along that we can measure inequalities. Risman suggests that an
intersectional approach to studying inequalities that takes into account that individuals’ self-perceptions
are nested within interactions, which themselves are nested in institutional settings. This is a must-read
for anyone who examines gender inequality at any level.

West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society 1:125–151.

DOI: 10.1177/0891243287001002002E-mail Citation »

This very influential article advances a new way of understanding how gender stratification is produced
in everyday social interaction. This paper can be thought-provoking even for advanced undergraduates
and illuminates how actions and interactions may be at the core of the persistence of gender
inequalities at all levels.