Sociology 200

Introduction to Women’s Studies

Written By Katie Coleman

with Contributions from Robert Wonser and Kim Bonfiglio

Version 1 – Spring 2017

College of the Canyons, 2017
CC-BY 4.0
Photo by Brooke Cagle

1|Page
 Attributions

Written By
Katie Coleman

With Contributions from

Robert Wonser and Kim Bonfiglio

Published at
College of the Canyons
Santa Clarita, California 2017

Special Thank You to Natalie Miller

This material is listed under a CC-BY 4.0 License.

2|Page
TOC
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Sex and Gender ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Gender Roles ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Gender Inequality ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Gender, Language, and Media .................................................................................................................... 39
Gender, Emotions, and Relationships ......................................................................................................... 50
Gender, Sex, and Sexuality.......................................................................................................................... 64
Gender and Education ................................................................................................................................ 78
Women and Work ....................................................................................................................................... 87
Women and Crime ...................................................................................................................................... 98

3|Page
Introduction
Learning Objectives
At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Define sociological theory.

2. Differentiate between various theoretical frameworks.
3. Describe the three waves of feminism.

What is Sociology?
Sociology’s roots are in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, from where founding fathers Karl
Marx, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Georg Simmel hail. Sociology waxed and waned in popularity
outside of the U.S. over its short history. Today, sociology has become a United States-centered
scientific discipline with most sociologists living in the U.S.. There is significant sociological work being
done in various countries of the world, but most of the 14,000 members of the American Sociological
Association (the world’s largest professional sociology organization) live in the U.S

Sociology is a relatively new discipline in comparison to chemistry, math, biology, philosophy and other
disciplines that trace back thousands of years. Sociology began as an intellectual/philosophical effort by
a French man named Auguste Comte who coined the term “Sociology.” Sociology is the science of
society and of human behavior when influenced by society.

Social integration is the degree to which people are connected to their social groups. Emile Durkheim
suggested that religion was a powerful source of social solidarity, or unity in society, because it
reinforced collective bonds and shared moral values. However, since the power of the collective over
the individual could also take secular forms (e.g., the workplace, family, political groups, or schools), he
recognized that traditional religious beliefs were not the only source of social stability.

Sociological Imagination
The sociological imagination by C. Wright Mills provides a framework for understanding our social world
that far surpasses any common sense notion we might derive from our limited social experiences. Mills
(1916-1962) was a contemporary sociologist who brought tremendous insight into the daily lives of
society’s members. Mills stated: “Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be
understood without understanding both.”1

The sociological imagination allows one to make the connection between personal challenges and larger
social issues. Mills identified “troubles” (personal challenges) and “issues” (larger social challenges), also
known as biography, and history, respectively. Mills’ conceptualization of the sociological imagination
allows individuals to see the relationships between events in their personal lives, biography, and events

1
Mills, C. W. 1959. The Sociological Imagination page ii; Oxford U. Press.

4|Page
in their society, history. In other words, this mindset provides the ability for individuals to realize the
relationship between personal experiences and the larger society.

Mills taught we live much of our lives on the personal level, while much of society happens at the larger
social level. Without a knowledge of the larger social and personal levels of social experience, we live in
what Mills called a false social consciousness which is an ignorance of social facts and the larger social
picture.

Personal troubles are private problems experienced within the character of the individual and the range
of their immediate relation to others. Mills identified the fact that we function in our personal lives as
actors and actresses who make choices about our friends, family, groups, work, school, and other issues
within our control. We have a degree of influence in the outcome of matters within the personal level. A
college student who parties 4 nights out of 7, who rarely attends class, and who never does his
homework has a personal trouble that interferes with his odds of success in college. However, when
50% of all college students in the United States never graduate, we label it as being a larger social issue.

Larger social issues are those that lie beyond one’s personal control and the range of one’s inner life.
These pertain to society’s organizations and processes; further, these are rooted in society rather than
in the individual. Nationwide students come to college as freshmen ill-prepared to understand the rigors
of college life. They haven’t often been challenged enough in high school to make the necessary
adjustments required to succeed as college students. Nationwide, the average teenager text messages,
surfs the Net, plays video or online games, hangs out at the mall, watches TV and movies, spends hours
each day with friends, and works at least part-time. Where and when would he or she get experience
focusing attention on college studies and the rigorous self-discipline required to transition into college
credits, a quarter or a semester, study, papers, projects, field trips, group work, or test taking?

The real power of the sociological imagination is found in how we learn to distinguish between the
personal and social levels in our own lives. Once we do, we can make personal choices that serve us
best, given the larger social forces that we face.

Sociological Theory
A sociological theory is a set of interrelated concepts used to describe, explain, and predict how society
and its parts are related to each other. Let’s use eyeglasses as a metaphor to illustrate the usefulness of
a theory. Glasses can serve to magnify, enlarge, clarify, or expand our view of the thing we are looking
at. You can even have multiple pairs of glasses to help you see near or far or in sunlight or darkness.
Unlike eyeglasses, you can’t see or touch a theory, but it is a framework to help you “see” the world
sociologically. And we can use and change our “theory lenses” depending on what we’re trying to clarify,
describe, or predict. “Some things need the lens of Conflict Theory, while others need a Structural
Functionalist or Symbolic Interactionist lenses. Some social phenomena can be viewed using each of the
three frameworks, although each will give you a slightly different view of the topic under investigation.”2

2
Hammond, R. and Cheney, P, et all. Introduction to Sociology. 2012. Social Theories. Page 1.

5|Page
Conflict Theory
Conflict theory is a macro-level theory founded by Karl Marx. Marx was a witness to oppression
perpetrated by society’s elite members against the masses of poor during the industrial revolution.
Conflict Theory describes society as being defined by a struggle for dominance among social groups
competing for scarce or valuable resources. Valuable resources in contemporary U.S. society include
things like jobs, housing, safety, education, and health care. According to Conflict Theory, social actors
are in a state of perpetual conflict competing for these valuable resources. Conflict Theory seeks to
explain who might be benefitting and who might be exploited in a given social situation. Conflict Theory
assumes that those who “have”, perpetually try to increase their wealth at the expense and suffering of
those who “have-not.” It is a power struggle that is most often won by the wealthy elite.

In the context of gender, some conflict theorists argue that gender is best understood as men (as a large
group) attempting to maintain (masculine) power and privilege to the detriment of women (femininity).
How might Conflict Theory help us describe or explain sex inequality? The traditional gendered division
of labor and the social inequality it produces contributes to unnecessary social conflict and can be seen
in wage disparity, the metaphorical “glass ceiling,” and the bread-winner still being traditionally thought
of as being male.

Functionalism
Functionalists focus on questions related to order and stability in society. According to functionalists,
society is a system of interrelated, interdependent parts. The Functionalist Theory perspective claims
that society is in a state of balance and kept that way through the function of society’s component parts.
Society can be studied the same way that the human body can be studied: analyzing what specific
systems are working or not working, diagnosing problems, and devising solutions to restore balance. The
economy, religious involvement, friendship, schools, health care, peace, war, justice and injustice,
population growth or decline, community, sexuality, marriage, and divorce are just a few of the
evidences of functional processes in our society. To be clear, the functionalist approach does not
condone functions or inequalities; rather the perspective identifies functions of such? For example,
crime is considered to be a social problem, right? What are some functions of crime in contemporary
society? Well, crime creates jobs. Police officers, detectives, social workers, judges, lawyers, insurance
companies, self-defense companies, support groups, prison guards and staff, therapists, and burglar
alarm manufacturers have jobs because we have crime. This is not a comprehensive list, of course, but it
should serve as an example of the function crime is serving to create or maintain jobs.

Arguing that all parts (even the undesirable parts) contribute in some way the overall stability of the
larger system has become the most controversial part of functionalist theory. Herbert Gans argued this
point in a functionalist analysis of poverty. He asked, “Why does poverty exist?” in other words, he was
attempting to explain the functions of poverty. He concluded poverty had at least fifteen functions. A
few of those functions included:

1. Occupations (such as social workers or police officers) exist to serve the needs or to
monitor the behavior of poor people. Therefore, poverty creates jobs.
2. Affluent people hire poor people for many time-consuming activities such as house
cleaning, child care, and yard work and pay them lower wages to give them more time
for more “important” things.

6|Page
 3. The poor buy goods others do not want, thereby prolonging their economic usefulness.

Gans concluded that poverty—even though it is perceived as problematic—remains in tact because it

contributes to the stability of the overall system.

Functionalists maintain that for much of human history women’s reproductive role has dictated that
their gender role be a domestic one. Given that women bear and nurse children, it makes sense for
them to remain at home to rear them. Then, if women are already at home taking care of children, they
will assume other domestic duties. Functionalist also argue women’s work is functional. Women
reproduce society: by giving birth, socializing kids to accept traditional gender roles, and by providing
others with affection and physical sustenance.

A Structural Functionalist view of gender inequality applies the division of labor to view predefined
gender roles as complementary: women take care of the home while men provide for the family. Thus
gender, like other social institutions, contributes to the stability of society as a whole. While
functionalist theory was the dominant theory used to describe gender roles and gender inequality in the
early to mid-1900s, the theory falls short in explaining why or how gender roles and inequality are
maintained. With widespread social protest and activism in the 1960s (Civil Rights, campus unrest,
women’s movements) functionalism was unable to explain or keep up with the progressive, unfolding
events.

Symbolic Interactionism
In contrast to Functionalists (who ask how parts of society contribute to the overall stability of the larger
system) and conflict theorists (who ask who is benefitting from a particular social arrangement)
symbolic interactionists focus on how people make sense of the world, how people interpret what they
and others are doing, and how they influence and are influenced by others. A symbol is any kind of
physical phenomenon—such as a word, an object, or a feeling—to which people assign a label, a name, a
meaning, or a value. According to symbolic interactionists, these symbols play a central role in our
ability to interact with one another. Think about it: Have you ever tried communicating with someone
who does not speak the same language as you? What do we (almost instinctively) do? That’s right, we
almost always begin relying on non-verbal commination such as hand gestures, body language, etc. It
becomes an impromptu game of charades! Consider some other non-verbal ways we communicate: A
ring is just a ring, but if one wear’s a ring on the left “ring finger” we interpret that person is married.
And usually we assume that person is married to someone of the opposite sex. That means that ring
that was “just a ring” became a symbol of marital status and sexual orientation based on where it is
worn. That’s a lot of information gathered from one little piece of jewelry.

Symbolic Interactionism claims that society is composed of ever-present interactions among individuals
who share symbols and their meanings. Symbolic interactionists argue people must share a symbol
system if they are to communicate with one another (verbally or non-verbally). Without mutual
understanding, interactions would be confusing. This is a very useful theory for understanding other
people, improving communication, and in understanding cross-cultural relations. Symbolic interactionist
theories of gender focus on gender roles, gender expectations, and gender values. Symbolic

7|Page
interactionist theories of gender inequality focus on how inequality is perpetuated by the transmission
of traditional cultural definitions of masculinity and femininity from generation to generation. Learning
these definitions influences people's expectations about the statuses that women and men are capable
of occupying and the roles they are capable of performing.

Feminist Theory
Feminist theory acknowledges the significance of both nature and nurture in the attainment of gender.
However, because gender socialization begins even before birth (choosing names, buying baby clothes,
decorating the nursery) drawing a line between the two can be difficult. While gender is socially
constructed and learned and produced through social learning, the fact remains that gender is largely
assigned to people based on their biological sex category and often justified using biological
components like hormones.

Feminist theory is a theoretical perspective that is couched primarily in Conflict Theory assumptions,
but has added the dimension of sex or gender to the study of society. Feminist theorists are interested
in the inequalities in opportunities between men and women. To be clear, males are not always the
beneficiaries of gender inequality. For example, think for a moment about how females might benefit
from current gender roles in the form of gender expression, itself. Women are socially permitted to
wear just about anything with very little to no social repercussions. Tube tops, crop tops, spaghetti tops,
tank tops, t-shirts (form-fitting or loose), sweaters, sweatshirts, v-necks, scoop necks, turtle necks, booty
shorts, low-rise shorts, high-waist shorts, short shorts, Bermuda shorts, mid-length shorts, coolotts,
skirts (short, midi, long), gowns, dresses (form-fitting, smock, shift), high-heels, sandals, sneakers, slip-
ons, wedges, knee-high boots, booties, whatever we want! And let’s not get started on the possibilities
for self-expression through make-up, hair, or nails. Now, think for a moment what males are expected to
wear to represent their masculinity in society. Masculinity has become a much more confining,
restricting gender representation than femininity. Not to say the feminine ideal is easier to achieve, but
there is much more room for self-expression within the structure of femininity than in the structure of
masculinity. Unless a couple of gals want to play a game of shirts v. skins, that would still be a masculine
form of expression and gender representation.

Before the feminist perspective and through the mid 1900s, sociology was largely the male study of
male society. Most sociological studies had been conducted by men and used male subjects, even
though findings were generalized to all people. When women were studied, their behaviors and
attitudes were analyzed in terms of a male standard of normalcy.

Intersectional Theory
Intersectional approaches arose from feminist scholarship, which recognized that there were important
differences among women and men rather than simply between them. One critique intersectional
theory offers of others theories is that others typically only explore one variable at a time. Feminist
scholars argued that gender, race and class are interconnected as “intersecting oppressions.”3 Race,
class and gender, have been the traditional triumvirate of intersectional studies, but we took a broad
approach and also included studies that examine the intersections of any social statuses including
sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and age. Intersectionality is practiced in a variety of ways by sociologists,

8|Page
but Patricia Hill Collins is largely considered the foremost theorist of intersectionality within sociology.

Collins’ intersectional work begins with her own experiences as an African American female. Collins
argues Black Feminism creates and validates knowledge in ways that are very different from the
American educational system, which has been historically dominated by elite White men. Because Black
women were long denied access to formal academic pursuits, their collective knowledge is less likely to
be found in scholarly texts. Collins encourages us to find this knowledge elsewhere: poetry, music, oral
histories, etc. Collins states, and this may be obvious for some readers, that in order to produce Black
feminist theory, one would have to be a Black feminist. But she also stresses that does not mean that
those of us who are not Black feminists cannot learn from these ideas. While the study of Black feminist
thought puts Black women at the center of analysis of study, intersectionality is a broader and more
general theoretical approach that can be used to examine any group or community by placing them at
the center of study.

Waves of Feminism
The first wave of feminism took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, emerging out of urban
industrialism and liberal, socialist politics. While the major goal of this movement was to win women the
right to vote, these women (and men) were addressing numerous dimensions of gender inequality, it
just became popularized when these activists fought the right to vote. By gaining political power with
the right to vote, the leaders of this movement realized they could then gain political momentum
concerning issues such as sexual, reproductive, and economic matters. Women had been systematically
excluded from history-making because men had the power to define what history was and what (and
whom) was important. While often taken for granted, this first wave is largely credited for fueling the
feminist fire.4 The first wave of feminism is credited with the development of the feminist
consciousness: a recognition by women that they were treated unequally as a group and that their
subordination is socially created and maintained by a system that can be replaced through collective
action.

In 1920 women won the right to vote. However, once the vote was won, women did not turn out to the
polls as often as men, and when they went, they often voted similarly to men (maybe as they had been
told to by men). Many women withdrew from the movement, believing that once the vote was won,
there was no more work to do. Young women especially neglected to see the necessity of the
movement by depicting feminists as lonely, unmarried women who unnecessarily antagonized and
provoked men.

Coming off the heels of World War II, the second wave of feminism focused on the workplace, sexuality,
family, and reproductive rights.5 Betty Freidan’s book The Feminine Mystique is credited with stoking
the fire for the second wave. Freidan exposed a voice of unhappiness and boredom of white, educated,
middle-class housewives. She even referred to the suburbs as “comfortable concentration camps.” She

4
Bailey, C. (1997). Making waves and drawing lines: The politics of defining the vicissitudes of feminism. Hypatia,
12(3), 17-28.
5
Ibid

9|Page
named the depression, loneliness, and empty feeling experienced by so many housewives as “the
problem that has no name.” Freidan revealed that this was not an individual problem, but rather it was a
social problem. Freidan and 27 others founded the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966. It
has since become the largest feminist grassroots organization in the U.S., with hundreds of chapters in
all 50 states and hundreds of thousands of contributing members and supporters, focusing on a broad
range of women’s rights issues, including economic justice, pay equity, racial discrimination, women’s
health and body image, women with disabilities, reproductive rights and justice, family law, marriage
and family formation rights of same-sex couples, representation of women in the media, and global
feminist issues.

The second wave began in the 1960s and continued into the 90s. Prior to the spark of the second wave
of feminism, it was largely perceived that women had met their equality goals. This wave unfolded in
the context of the anti-war and civil rights movements and the growing self-consciousness of a variety of
minority groups. Much of the movement was focused on passing the Equal Rights Amendment to the
Constitution guaranteeing social equality regardless of sex. While the first wave of feminism was largely
driven by middle class, Western, cisgender, white women, the second wave of feminism drew in women
of color and developing nations, seeking solidarity, claiming, “Women's struggle is class struggle.”
However, the feminists group at that time attracted mainly women who felt a personal sting of gender
discrimination, including many lesbians. An eventual split between homo- and heterosexual activists
resulted after the heterosexual feminists largely felt the lesbian presence would hurt the movement by
devaluing or delegitimizing it.

The third wave of feminism began in the mid-90's, and in this phase many constructs were destabilized,
including the notions of body, gender, sexuality, and heteronormativity.6 There are three major themes
in the third wave of feminism: 1) there is a greater focus on women’s issues in less developed nations; 2)
criticizing values that dominate work and society, such as challenging competition, toughness, and
independence as ideal qualities (traditionally thought of as “male” qualities) and arguing to replace
them with cooperation, connection, and interdependence as being ideal qualities; and 3) there has been
an emphasis placed on women’s sexual pleasure.

There has been debate whether or not we are experiencing a fourth wave of feminism. Some contest
the fourth wave can be seen in terms of participants’ rising concern with intersectionality, whereby
women’s suppression can only fully be understood in a context of the marginalization of other groups
and genders. In other words, feminism is part of a larger consciousness of oppression along with racism,
ageism, classism, abelism, and sexual orientation.

6
Snyder, R. (2008). What Is Third‐Wave Feminism? A New Directions Essay. Signs, 34(1), 175-196.
doi:10.1086/588436

10 | P a g e
Sex and Gender: What’s the Difference?
Learning Objectives
At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Define sex and gender.

2. Differentiate between sex and gender.

3. Explore cultural variations of sex and gender.

Let’s talk about sex!

Did that subtitle catch your attention? Good! But in this section we won’t be discussing intercourse, or
sexual activity; rather, we’ll be talking about sex ( as a biological category) and gender. People often use
the terms “sex” and “gender” interchangeably; however, these terms are two separate entities. Sex is
one’s biological classification and characteristics as male or female.7 A person’s sex is determined as
soon as the sperm reaches the egg. Every egg is an X chromosome, and sperm can be either X or Y
chromosome. Therefore, if an X sperm reaches the egg, the individual will have XX chromosomes
(female), and if a Y sperm reaches the egg, the individual will have XY chromosomes (male). The term
“sex” refers to biology and should be used when biological distinctions are emphasized. For example,
“There are sex differences in hormone production”.

The main differences between sexes are reproductive body parts, which develop in reaction to hormone
levels introduced when the embryo is only about nine weeks. At this point in the pregnancy, the embryo
will develop the gonads, or reproductive glands. They are the tiny beginnings of either testes or ovaries.
However, hormonal anomalies can (and do) occur during those early stages of development. These
anomalies can result in external genitalia not being easily discernable as either male or female. In these
cases, the individual will likely be identified as intersexed.

Males and females have far more in common than they have differences. For example, think about our
organs, hair, skin, limbs, nervous systems, endocrine systems, etc. The similarities in these things far
outweigh the differences in males and females. However, we pay a lot of social attention to the
differences between sexes, often even looking to those physiological differences to explain behavioral
differences.

Gender, on the other hand, serves as a cultural indicator of a person’s personal and social identity.8
Gender, for the individual, starts with sex assignment, and sex is assigned on the basis of the observable
genitalia at birth. In other words, sex is nature, and gender is nurture. Sex is predetermined, and gender
is learned through socialization. Gender is something we do.9 Therefore, gender is a psychologically

7
Young, R. (20090401). Sex/Gender. AMA Manual of Style. Retrieved 17 Oct. 2016, from
http://www.amamanualofstyle.com/view/10.1093/jama/9780195176339.001.0001/med-9780195176339-div2-
350.
8
Ibid
9
Doing Gender. Candace West; Don H. Zimmerman. Gender and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Jun., 1987), pp. 125-151.

11 | P a g e
ingrained social construct that actively surfaces in everyday human interaction and behaviors. We learn
masculinity; we learn femininity. Then we do masculinity, and we do femininity. And how about all those
behaviors we don’t describe as either strictly masculine or feminine? Enter androgyny! Androgynous
behaviors are all behaviors that do not fit neatly into our constructions of masculine or feminine.
Therefore, our behaviors can be described as masculine, feminine, or androgynous. And just like walking
or talking are learned behaviors, so are our interpretations of labeling our behaviors as masculine,
feminine, or androgynous.

Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s
biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative;
behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity.10
Gender expression is the presentation of an individual, including physical appearance, clothing choice
and accessories, and behaviors that express aspects of gender identity or role. Gender expression may
or may not conform to a person’s gender identity. Gender identity refers to one’s sense of oneself as
masculine, feminine, androgynous, or transgender.11 Gender dysphoria refers to discomfort or distress
that is associated with a discrepancy between a person's gender identity and that person's sex assigned
at birth.12 Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe the full range of people whose gender
identity and/or gender role do not conform to what is typically associated with their sex assigned at
birth.13

Gender is shaped through our learning process, and is influenced by all kinds of things outside of the
individual, such as family, friends, television, social media, teachers, politicians, legislation, institutions,
and culture. Western gender conceptualization reflects a bipolar construction, recognizing two major
gender categories (masculinity and femininity) as being dominant. Western construction of gender also
reinforces the idea that males are masculine while females are feminine, and often this idea is taken
further with the western interpretation of gender suggesting people are born a specific gender.
Constricting? Yes. Over-simplified? Absolutely. Completely inaccurate? You betcha’! This interpretation
of gender is narrowly fashioned by a traditional European perpesctive. Take, for instance, many of the
Plains Indians’ interpretation of gender wherein people can be two-spirited, known as berdache.14
Berdache was not recognized as a third category; instead, the term was used to describe the continuum
of human behavior that didn’t fit neatly into European notions of what it meant to be male or female. In

10
American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay,
and Bisexual Clients. American Psychologist, 67(1), 10–42. doi: 10.1037/a0024659
11
Ibid
12
American Psychological Association & National Association of School Psychologists. (2015). Resolution
on gender and sexual orientation diversity in children and adolescents in schools. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/about/policy/orientation-diversity.aspx
13
American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender
and Gender Nonconforming People. American Psychologist, 70(9), 832-864.
14
Estrada, Gabriel S. 2011. "Two Spirits, Nádleeh, and LGBTQ2 Navajo Gaze." American Indian Culture and
Research Journal 35(4):167-190.

12 | P a g e
fact, the term berdache has a history deflecting its Eurocentric origins and ethnocentrism of most 17th,
18th, and 19th century European and European American observers of Native American cultures.

Identical male twins, Bruce and Brian Reimer, were born in 1963 to parents Janet and Ron Reimer.
During a routine circumcision, Bruce had his penis nearly burned off. Dr. John Money was a psychologist,
sexologist, and author, specializing in research into sexual identity and biology of gender. Janet Reimer
wrote to Dr. John Money seeking help for her son who she feared would not have a sex or gender
identity because his genitalia had been mutilated. At the strong encouragement of Dr. Money, the boy’s
parents opted for sex reassignment surgery for their 17-month-old baby. The boy was sexually
reassigned to a female with lifelong hormone therapy. Dr. Money declared the surgery and
reassignment a total success in 1973. From a young age, Bruce (who had been renamed Brenda)
demonstrated behaviors indicating she did not want to wear dresses, play with dolls, or help with
traditionally feminine household chores. At age 12 (many years earlier) Brenda began experiencing
severe emotional problems because, even though she was receiving estrogen regularly, she appeared
very masculine and was the brunt of a lot of joking and bullying in school and from her peers. At 14
years old, the child refused any more hormone therapy or genital surgeries, and her father finally told
her the truth about her medical history. She was reportedly relieved and started male hormone therapy,
underwent genital reconstruction surgery to create a penis, and had a mastectomy, and changed his
name to David. Researchers concluded a person could NOT be “successfully” socialized as a female
because essentially his brain “knew otherwise.”

In addition to his difficult lifelong relationship with his parents and peers and his own identity, Reimer
had to deal with unemployment and the death of his brother Brian from an overdose of antidepressants
in 2002. In 2004, his wife Jane told him she wanted to separate. On the morning of May 4, 2004, Reimer
drove to a grocery store's parking lot and took his own life by shooting himself in the head with a sawed-
off shotgun. He was 38 years old.

David Reimer taught us a lot about sex category and gender attainment. While gender is learned
through a socialization process, we cannot socialize or train someone into their sex identity. In other
words, a boy can be socialized to “act like a girl” or a girl can be socialized to “act like a boy,” but you
cannot socialize someone into believing they are the opposite sex. He also taught us our brains develop
as being either male or female. And most often time, our genital development will align with our brain’s
development, but sometimes not. David Reimer reported that from a young age he “just knew” he
wasn’t a girl, even though he never knew he had been born a male.

Testosterone and Gender

Males and females produce the same hormones, but in different amounts. Females secrete more
estrogen and males secrete more testosterone. Studies conducted have, in fact, concluded more
testosterone does lead to more aggressive behavior. However most of these studies have been done in
animals, wherein the animal will be injected with high levels of testosterone and aggressive behavior
will ensue. Many people feel these findings are indicative of male behaviors, sometimes been excusing
overly aggressive behavior with excuses like, “Boys will be boys.” But maybe a more appropriate
response would be “boys will be a$$h*les” when we see overly aggressive behavior. Because people
need to be cautious when interpreting results from the previously mentioned studies, as there is
tremendous variation in behavior among animal species.

13 | P a g e
In research in human, higher levels of testosterone have been linked to higher levels of edginess,
competitiveness, and anger—in females and males. Also, hormone levels fluctuate throughout the day
and are influenced by environment. Think about it: What do you think your hormone levels look like
when you’re about to jump out of a plane versus sitting on the couch watching TV? Therefore, biology
itself is influenced and affected by environment. The myth that testosterone alone affects men’s
behavior has been debunked.

In addition, hormones do not dictate behavior. Hormones may affect mood, but they do not dictate
behavior. Consider a time when you felt like you were unable to demonstrate your desired behaviors
because of the social context in which you were engaged. Maybe you were in a classroom or a
workplace or whatever, and when you were feeling aggressive, upset, or angry you were able to control
your emotions and behaviors because of the social context. So while hormones were affecting mood,
they did not dictate your behavior. You were able to control your behavior because of the setting you
were in. Therefore, behavior is highly governed, not by hormone, but by the situation or context in
which it occurs.

Further, research indicates women can be just as aggressive as men when they’re either rewarded for
their behaviors (athletes) or when they think it is safe to do so while avoiding social sanctions. Think
about people like Ronda Rousey, Serena Williams, Hillary Clinton, Pink, or Chyna. All of these women
have in common being rewarded for what have traditionally been described as masculine behaviors. Is
there something wrong with them? No. Are they biologically less female than other females? No.

Women, Hormones, and Behaviors

Jokes about women’s hormone levels are old ones. Seriously, very old. Like, we need some new
material. How are people even still laughing at PMS jokes? I don’t know, but women’s hormone levels
(especially testosterone) do not fluctuate as much as men’s throughout the day. I’m going to say that
again to make sure you really read that last sentence. Women’s hormone levels (especially
testosterone) do not fluctuate as much as men’s throughout the day. Rather female hormone
production is influenced by the monthly reproductive cycles as well as the cessation of the reproductive
capacity (menopause) during the life course. So, really, instead of accusing women of getting crazy once
a month, women could accuse men of getting crazy every day! No, no, I’m kidding, and that is not the
kind of equality sociologists are fighting for.

Both girls and boys learn negative attitudes toward menstruation at early ages. These negative beliefs
influence women’s experiences with PMS symptoms. Meaning, if women are taught PMS is horrible,
women may expect the horridness, and then produce behaviors reflective of that horridness. While
many women report mood swings, research shows that negative chance in mood as well as physical
changes may have more to do with stressful external events than with the phase of PMS. So, women
might be reacting to PMS and excusing our sometimes horrid behavior by blaming it on this occurring
phase. Kind of like that whole “boys will be boys” thing, huh?

In studies where both men and women participated, men were equally likely to express mood swings,
problems at work, and physical discomfort. Men are actually subject to a daily hormone cycle in which
testosterone levels peak at about 4am and are lowest at 8pm. “When people say women can’t be
trusted because they cycle every month, my response is that men cycle every day, so they should only

14 | P a g e
be allowed to negotiate peace treaties in the evening.” -- June Reinisch.

Gender Views Revisited

In the mid-1900s anthropologist Margaret Mead observed gender in three tribes uninfluenced by
Westernized culture and tradition: Arapesh, Mundugamor, and Tchambuli. Her observations of gender
behaviors in these tribes created a national discussion which lead many to reconsider the traditional and
established sex=gender assumption. In these tribes she found the following:

Arapesh: both men and women displayed what we typically call the feminine traits of
sensitivity, cooperation, and low levels of aggression.

Mundugamor: both men and women were insensitive, uncooperative, and very
aggressive. These were typical masculine traits at the time.
Tchambuli: women were aggressive, rational, and capable and were also socially
dominant. Men were passive, assuming artistic and leisure roles.

In her observations, gender definitions were varied and unique among peoples less influenced by
Westernized cultures. She reached the conclusion that tradition (culture) was the stronger social force
over biology in determining one’s gendered behavioral output, as well as their interpretations and
valuing of gender. Mead’s work and her public influence helped to establish the belief that biology is
only a part of the sex and gender question. Therefore, Mead established that sex≠gender. She
discovered gender and social constructs of gender were really very plastic. Not too shabby for a woman
in the mid-1900s who began her research merely trying to explore and question traditional gender
roles!

Cultural Diversity and Gender Norms

There is some variation in cultural gender-role
standards both within the United States and
across cultures; however, within the United
States, for example, standards vary depending on
ethnicity, age, education, and occupation. These
variables will be discussed more fully in coming
chapters. But now that we’ve explored the
definitions and constructions of sex and gender,
let’s more closely examine some traditional
gendered norms from cultures that don’t totally
reflect Eurocentric, Westernized ways of doing
gender.

Mojave Native Americans

Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons, the free media
First we’ll talk about the Mojave in North repository
America. This culture taught and reinforced

15 | P a g e
parallel institutional structures for males and females.15 For example, the Mojave husbands and wives
worked together to farm their fields. Men planted and watered the crops, and women harvested them.
Both sexes took part in storytelling, music and artwork, and traditional medicine.16

In Mohave society, pregnant women believed they had dreams predicting the anatomic sex of their
children. These dreams also sometimes included hints of their child’s future gender variant status. A boy
who “acted strangely” before he participated in the boy’s puberty ceremonies in the Mohave tribe
would be considered for the transvestite ceremony. The ceremony itself was meant to surprise the boy.
Other nearby settlements would receive word to come and watch. A circle of onlookers would sing
special songs. If the boy danced like a woman, it confirmed his status as an alyha. He was then taken to
a river to bathe, and was given a skirt to wear. The ceremony would permanently change his gender
status within the tribe. He then took up a female name. The alyha would imitate many aspects of female
life, including menstruation, puberty observations, pregnancy, and birth. The alyha were considered
great healers, especially in curing sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis.

Oaxaca, Mexico

Photo Source: okinreport.net

The Juchitán in Oaxaca, Mexico, practice gender norms that do not comply with traditional
Western practices. For example, the women traditionally run businesses, wear colorfully bold
traditional clothing, and hold their heads firmly high. The women are regarded as being
empowered and the tolerance of homosexuality and transgender individuals has been part of
their cultural tradition. men who take on the traditional roles of women, referred to as
“Muxes,” are not only accepted, but cherished as symbols of good luck. This community

15
Hill, W. W. (1935). The status of the hermaphrodite and transvestite in Navaho culture. American
Anthropologist, 37, 273-279.
16
Nanda, Serena. Gender Diversity: Crosscultural Variations. Waveland Press, 1999. Print. Pages 21-23

16 | P a g e
exemplifies an alternative gender system unlike the binary gender categories that have been
established throughout many parts of the world.

Indian Hindu
In Indian Hindu culture, when compared to the
native North Americans, the gender system is
essentially binary, but the ideas themselves are
quite different from Western thoughts. These
ideas often come from religious contexts. Some
Hindu origin myths feature androgynous or
hermaphroditic ancestors. Ancient poets often
showed this idea by presenting images with
mixed physical attributes between the two
sexes. These themes still exist in the culture,
and are even still institutionalized. The most
prominent group are the hijras.17 Hijras, today,
are not seen either male or female, but rather
are typically identified as “hijra.” “Being a hijra
means making a commitment that gives social
support and some economic security, as well as
a cultural meaning, linking them to the larger
world.”18

Brazil
Photo Source: GSDM
As in Indian culture, Brazilian culture does
follow a gender binary, just not the traditional
western one. Rather than men and women,
certain areas of Brazil have men and not-men. Men are masculine, and anyone who displays
feminine qualities falls under the category of “not-man.” This concept is a result of sexual
penetration as the deciding factor of gender. Any one who is penetrated is not-male. Everyone
else, regardless of sexual preference, remains a male in Brazilian society.19

The most commonly discussed group of people when discussing gender in Brazil are the
travestí, or transgender prostitutes. Unlike in native North America and India, the existence of
the travestí is not from a religious context. It is an individual’s choice to become a travestí. Born
as males, they go to extensive measures to try to appear female. The travestí recognize they are

17
Nanda, Serena. Gender Diversity: Crosscultural Variations. Waveland Press, 1999. Print.pg. 27,28
18
Ibid
19
Kulick, D. "The Gender of Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutes." American Anthropologist 99.3 (1997): 574-85.
Page 578

17 | P a g e
not female, and that they cannot ever become female. Instead, their culture is based on this
man/not-man premise.20

Thailand
In Thailand the term kathoey is
used by both males and
females that allow them to be
alongside the normative
masculine and feminine
identities. Up until the 1970s
cross-dressing men and
women could all come under
the term kathoey, however the
term has been dropped for the
cross-dressing masculine
females who are now referred
to as tom.21 As a result of the
shifts, kathoey today is most
commonly understood as a Photo Source: https://maytermthailand.org/2015/04/27/the-third-gender-in-
thailand-kathoey/
male transgender category,
and these people are now
sometimes referred to as “lady-boys.” Kathoey is derived from the Buddhist myth that
describes three original human sex/genders, male, female, and a biological hermaphrodite or
kathoey.22 Kathoey is not defined as merely being a variant between male or female but as an
independently existing third sex.

Nigeria
The Nigerian Yoruba social life and gender roles do not duplicate those found in the West.
Instead of focusing on gender distinctions, this culture typically focuses on age distinctions. In
addition, men who choose to wear women’s clothing, jewelry, and cosmetics will be labeled as
“wife of the god,” as only women can be wives of mortal men.

Waria, Indonesia
Waria is a term used for the third gender in Indonesia outside of the masculine and feminine
ideals in this Islamic nation. The waria are born male but live along a continuum of gender
identity not constrained to the traditional Western interpretation of the masculinity. The term
“waria” includes individuals who continue to identify as male but who imitate certain feminine
mannerisms, and can occasionally wear makeup, jewelry, and women’s clothing. Others

20
Ibid
21
Nanda, Serena. Gender Diversity: Crosscultural Variations. Waveland Press, 1999. Print. Page 73
22
Ibid

18 | P a g e
identify so closely as female that they are able to pass as female in their daily interactions in
society.

Sistergirls and Brotherboys, Australia

In Australia, indigenous transgendered people are known as "sistergirls" and "brotherboys". As
in some other native cultures, there is evidence that transgender and intersex people were
much more accepted in their society before colonization. Therefore, the Eurocentric tendencies
that shaped Western gender ideals have also played a huge part in the contemporary view of
the sistergirls and brotherboys in Australia today. For example, today there are more stigmas
attached to these individuals. But through an increasing number of support groups specifically
aimed at sistergirls and brotherboys, perhaps times will change again. If there’s anything we’ve
learned from gender so far, it’s that it is constantly being constructed and re-constructed.

Mahu, Hawaii
In traditional Hawaiian culture, creative expression of gender and sexuality was celebrated as
an authentic part of the human experience. Throughout Hawaiian history, “mahu” appear as
individuals who identify their gender between male and female. A multiple gender tradition
existed among the Kanaka Maoli indigenous people. The mahu could be biological males or
females inhabiting a gender role somewhere between or encompassing both the masculine and
feminine. Their social role is sacred as educators and conservators of ancient traditions and
rituals. The arrival of Europeans and the colonization of Hawaii nearly eliminated the native
culture, and today mahu face discrimination in a culture dominated by white Eurocentric
ideology.

Suggested articles for further reading:

Candace West; Don H. Zimmerman. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2.
(Jun., 1987), pp. 125-151.

Patricia A. Adler, Steven J. Kless and Peter Adler. (1992). Socialization to Gender Roles:
Popularity among Elementary School Boys and Girls. Sociology of Education. Vol. 65, No. 3 (Jul.,
1992), pp. 169-187.

Suggested films:
Middle Sexes: Refining He and She (2005)
Examines the diversity of human sexual and gender variance around the globe, with commentary by scientific
experts and first-hand accounts of people who do not conform to a simple male/female binary.

Two Spirits (2009)

Filmmaker Lydia Nibley explores the cultural context behind a tragic and senseless murder. Fred Martinez was a
Navajo youth slain at the age of 16 by a man who bragged to his friends that he 'bug-smashed a fag'. But Fred was
part of an honored Navajo tradition - the 'nadleeh', or 'two-spirit', who possesses a balance of masculine and
feminine traits. Through telling Fred's story, Nibley reminds us of the values that America's indigenous peoples

19 | P a g e
have long embraced.
- Written by Outfest

Half the Sky (2012)

This documentary—filmed in 10 countries with narrations from celebrities such as Olivia Wilde, Eva
Mendes and Meg Ryan—tells uplifting stories of women around the world who are fighting back against
systemic oppression. The film presents gender equality as the unfinished business of the our time and
highlights women who are working to improve everything from healthcare to education.

20 | P a g e
Know your Role! An Exploration into
Gender Roles
Learning Objectives

At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Define gender roles.

2. Compare and contrast traditional and contemporary gender roles,

3. Examine some effects of traditional and contemporary gender roles.

Gender Socialization
In Chapter 1, we learned that gender is achieved, rather than ascribed. We discussed gender is
something we do rather than something we are. So, if gender is something we learn, how do we learn
it? This can be achieved through gender socialization, or the shaping of individual behavior and
perceptions in such a way that the individual conforms to socially prescribed expectations for males and
females.23 In other words, our gender roles are socially proscribed expectations and attitudes assigned
to and associated with one's biological sex. A gender role is a set of societal norms dictating the types of
behaviors that are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for people based on their
actual or perceived sex.

Gender is so taken for granted, that we don’t often recognize our gendered behaviors. Since we do
gender every day, it’s not something we challenge or question very often. Until, that is, someone or
something challenges our assumptions and taken for granted positions on the topic. In fact, it’s so taken
for granted, most people believe (and reinforce) the idea that gender is something we are born with,
rather than something we create and recreate. Therefore, gender is a human production that exists only
when people do it.24

Think about this for a moment: How many people do you know who want to know the sex of a fetus?
Why? Does the parents knowing their baby’s sex affect the health of the baby? No. Does knowing the
baby’s sex have any correlation with the happiness of the baby? No. Does knowing the baby’s sex before
birth help improve its development? No. Then why? So we know what color to paint the nursery, of
course! I mean, how could we possibly put a female baby in a blue nursery? That would be insanity!

23Hammond, Ron, Cheney, Paul. Introduction to Sociology.

24Doing Gender. Candace West; Don H. Zimmerman. Gender and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Jun., 1987), pp. 125-
151.

21 | P a g e
According to a study conducted in 2001 by a team of doctors at Harvard Medical School in Boston with
over 1,300 participants, about 58% of parents-to-be wanted to know the sex of the fetus before the
birth.25 So sex is a pretty important variable for most parents-to-be. But why? So they can start planning,
of course! Boy or girl, pink or blue? How should they decorate the nursery? What toys should they play
with? What books should they read? Historically, and even today, a lot of the answers to these
questions will be mostly shaped by the sex of the baby. Does the baby know its sex? Or that it’s in pink
or blue? Of course not! So who cares? Many parents form gendered expectations for their child before it
is even born, after determining the child's sex. The child thus arrives to gender-specific clothes, games,
and even ambitions. And, enter gender socialization: Our primary caregivers will be the most influential
in our gender socialization in our primary years (we’ll discuss other influences later on). While various
socializing agents—parents,
teachers, peers, movies,
television, music, books, and
religion—teach and reinforce
gender roles throughout the
lifespan, parents probably
exert the greatest influence,
especially on their very young
offspring.

Adults perceive and treat

female and male infants
differently. Parents and
guardians probably do this in
response to their having been
recipients of gender
expectations as young
children. Sociologists have
found that in the U.S.,
traditionally, fathers teach
boys how to fix and build
things; mothers teach girls
how to cook, sew, and keep
Bar Graph of “Parents Who Want to Know the Sex of Their Baby” house.26 Sound old-fashioned
and out of date? I hope so!
And certainly sociologists accept and acknowledge exceptions, but the truth is, today children still
receive parental approval more often for conforming to gender expectations and adopting culturally
accepted and conventional roles. Despite social revelations that girls are not too fragile to play sports
and boys can benefit from learning to manage household responsibilities, we still find ourselves

25 Shipp, T. D., Shipp, D. Z., Bromley, B., Sheahan, R., Cohen, A., Lieberman, E. and Benacerraf, B. (2004), What
Factors Are Associated with Parents’ Desire To Know the Sex of Their Unborn Child?. Birth, 31: 272–279.
doi:10.1111/j.0730-7659.2004.00319.x
26 The Social Construction of Gender, Margaret L. Andersen and Dana Hysock, Thinking about Women, Allyn &

Bacon, 2009

22 | P a g e
surrounded by limited gender expectations and persistent gender inequalities. Additional socializing
agents, such as media, peers, siblings, etc, reinforce all of this. In other words, learning gender roles
occurs within a social context, the values of the parents and society being passed along to the children.
This results in children adopting a gender identity early in life, resulting in them also developing gender-
role preferences.27 Gender identity is one’s concept of self as female, male, or neither. Gender-role
preference is one’s preference for the culturally prescribed roles associated with gender identity.

Gender roles adopted during childhood normally continue into adulthood. People have certain
presumptions about decision‐making, child‐rearing practices, financial responsibilities, and so forth. At
work, people also have presumptions about power, the division of labor, and organizational structures.
None of this is meant to imply that gender roles are good or bad; rather, this is an acknowledgement
that they exist and shape our perceptions of reality. Gender roles are realities in almost everyone's life,
but since they are not biologically determined, our “realities” surrounding gender can differ from
generation to generation, from group to group, even from individual to individual.

Gendered social arrangements also dictate or create external means of control of how females and
males should act, and they are often justified by religion and cultural morés. In Western culture,
alternatives to our constructed gendered norms has largely been virtually unthinkable.28 While there is
no “essential” gender for human beings, society and culture holds the individual responsible for
reproducing the expected gendered norms assigned to them. The individual is expected to recreate the
already prescribed gendered behaviors laid out for them, and, in turn, they themselves become the re-
creators of what it means to be a women or a man in their society. “If we fail to do gender
appropriately, we as individuals may be called to account (for our character, motives, and
predispositions).”29

Gender Differences and Theories of Development

Of the many presumed differences between the behaviors of males and females, some are real, some
are found only inconsistently, and some are wholly mythical. Girls are more physically and neurologically
advanced at birth. Boys have more mature muscular development but are more vulnerable to disease
and hereditary anomalies. Girls excel early in verbal skills, but boys excel in visual-spatial and math skills.
Boys’ superior mathematic abilities, however, reflect only a better grasp of geometry, which depends on
visual-spatial abilities. In the early years, there are no major gender differences in sociability,
conformity, achievement, self-esteem, or verbal hostility.

Piaget’s and Kohlberg's Cognitive Developmental Theory (Psychology)

Piaget and Kohlberg study the mental process children use to understand their observations and
experiences. Children develop organizing categories called schemas. Sex is a very important schema for
young children. Their interpretations of the world, of interactions, and of others are limited by their
mental maturity. Early on children’s thinking tends to rely on simple (often visual) cues. Females and

27 Ibid
28 Foucault, Michael. 1972. The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. NY, New York.
Pantheon.
29 Doing Gender. Candace West; Don H. Zimmerman. Gender and Society, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Jun., 1987), pp. 146.

23 | P a g e
males look differently in Western culture. Think of how women and men often dress or are often
represented in popular culture. What are some of the common characteristics of female/maleness on
TV or in movies or children’s books? So children often rely on those “obvious” physical cues to
differentiate between men and women.

Cognitive factors in children's understanding of gender and gender stereotypes may contribute to their
acquisition of gender roles. Kohlberg's three-stage cognitive developmental theory of gender typing
suggests that children begin by categorizing themselves as male or females with reinforcement from
outsiders such parents, and then feel rewarded by behaving in gender-consistent ways from external
means. 30 According to Kohlberg, children acquire gender roles after she/he has gained an
understanding and awareness that her/his sex is permanent, constant, and will never change. Children
who are highly gender schematic often have parents or caregivers, especially fathers, who give them a
lot of positive and negative reinforcement when it comes to gender-related activities. This teaches
children gender-type behaviors as encourages them to pay more attention to gender as a social
organizing category. Gender constancy emerges somewhere between 3-7 years of age.31

Social Learning Theory (Sociology)

Social Learning Theory regards gender identity and roles as a set of behaviors that are learned from the
environment. Environmental influences include parents, peers, images in the media, toys, books, etc.
The main way that gender behaviors are learned is through the process of observational learning
wherein children observe the people (or images of people) around them behaving in various ways.
During these observations of behaviors, they’re internalizing what it means (culturally) to be a female or
male in society. They observe these people and mimic their behaviors. As their skills for parroting
behavior increase, so does their ability to imitate behavior at times later than when they first observed
it. They are also able to observe sanctions assigned to those for acting out unexpected behaviors, and, in
an attempt to avoid those same sanctions, will interpret some of those behaviors as being more or less
appropriate for females or for males. Reinforcement is the process of encouraging or establishing a
belief or pattern of behavior, especially by encouragement or reward. Punishment is the infliction or
imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense. A behavior followed by a reward will likely reoccur,
whereas a behavior followed by a punishment will less likely reoccur. Reinforcement can come in many
forms: smiles, verbal praise, gifts, etc. And Punishments also come in many forms, such as displeased
looks, frowns, verbal sanctions, etc. Children who do gender “appropriately” often receive rewards in
the forms of praise and are more likely to act it out again.

Parental Behavior Toward Girls and Boys

The strongest influence on a child’s gender development often occurs in the family, with parents or
guardians passing on, both overtly and covertly, to their children, their own beliefs about gender. One
study indicates that parents have differential expectations of sons and daughters as early as 24 hours

30 Martin, C. L., Ruble, D. N., & Szkrykablo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. American
psychological association. 4(23), 544–557
31 Ruble DN, Martin C. Gender development. In: Damon W, Eisenberg N, editors. Handbook of child

psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 1998. pp. 933–1016.

24 | P a g e
after birth.32 In addition, girls and boys are viewed and treated differently by their parents, particularly
their fathers. Boys are thought to be stronger and are treated more roughly and played with more
actively than girls as early as birth. As children get older, girls are typically protected more (physically
and emotionally) and allowed less autonomy than boys, and girls are not expected to achieve as much in
the areas of mathematics and careers as are boys.33

Further, research has indicated that many parents attempt to define gender for their sons in a manner
that distances the sons from femininity. Emily Kane, professor of Sociology and author of The Gender
Trap, found “the parental boundary maintenance work evident for sons represents a crucial obstacle
limiting boys’ options, separating boys from girls, devaluing activities marked as feminine for both boys
and girls, and thus bolstering gender inequality and hetero-normativity.”34 Parents provide messages
regarding gender and what is acceptable for children’s gendered selves based on their sex category--
messages that are internalized by the developing child and translate into adolescence and adulthood.
However, their sex role stereotypes will be well established early in their childhood.35

Books
Many influences outside of the family affect gender-role socialization. Male and female roles are
portrayed in ways that might be described as being “gender-stereotypic” in television and many
children's books. For example, males are more likely than females to be portrayed as aggressive,
competent, rational, and powerful in the workforce. Females are more likely than males to be portrayed
as involved primarily in housework or caring for children.

Typical themes for books aimed at boys include robots, dinosaurs, astronauts, vehicles, football and
pirates; while girls are more often allowed princesses, fairies, make-up, flowers, butterflies, fashion, and
cute animals. There’s nothing wrong with these things, but it is wrong when they are repeatedly
presented as only for one gender (really, only for one sex since we promote constructed gender
normativity for specific sex categories). Girls can like pirates and adventure, and boys can like cute
animals and dressing up. Why tell them otherwise? What do we have to gain from telling kids what their
personal interests should be based on their sex category and subsequent prescribed gender? These
points will also be discussed further in the chapter “Language and Media.”

Television
Former Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson once said “All television is
educational; the only question is: what is it teaching?”36 Children start watching television from a very

32 Rubin, J., Provenzano, F., & Luria, Z. (1974). The eye of the beholder: Parents' views
on sex of newborns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 44, 512-519.
33 Eccles, J. S., Jacobs, J. E., & Harold, R. D. (1990). Gender role stereotypes, expectancy
effects, and parents' socialization of gender differences. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 186-
201.
34 Spade, Joan. The Kaleidoscope of Gender. London: SAGE. pp. 177–184.
35
Arliss, L. P. (1991). Gender communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
36Thompson, Teresa L. and Zebrinos, Eugenia. (1995). Gender Roles in Animated
Cartoons: Has the Picture Changed In 20 Years? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. 32: 651 - 674.

25 | P a g e
early age, about 18 months.37 And television is perhaps the most influential form of media.38 Since very
young children often have difficulty telling fantasy from reality, they are particularly susceptible to the
portrayals of gender types on television, especially cartoons, which make up the majority of children's
television viewing between the ages of two and eleven.39 Therefore, it can be assumed that children
might use the portrayals of males and females in cartoon format as a model for performance of their
own genders, in order to assimilate into the norms of their culture. Researchers coded and analyzed 175
episodes of 41 different cartoons, showing large discrepancies between prominence and portrayal of
male and female characters.40 They noted that, compared to female characters, males were given much
more prominence, appeared more frequently, and talked significantly more.

“Traditional gender roles, wherein men are encouraged to be decisive and to show leadership
qualities while women are encouraged to be deferential and dependent, do not benefit anyone,
particularly women. Traditional gender roles discourage the full range of expression and
accomplishment. Children should be allowed to develop a sense of self in a gender-fair
environment that encourages everyone to fully feel a part of society.”

– Susan D. Witt is Assistant Professor, School of Family and Consumer Sciences, The University of Akron,
Akron, Ohio.

Toys
Parents and guardians are who most often provide children with toys. Meaning, rarely do very small
children have any autonomy in what’s purchased and brought into the home. How could they, right?
However this also results in parents choosing gender-specific (and gender-differentiated) toys and
rewarding play behavior that is gender stereotyped.41 “A study of children's rooms has shown that girls'
rooms have more pink, dolls, and manipulative toys; boys' rooms have more blue, sports equipment,
tools, and vehicles.”42

Females are less likely to be leading characters on television, and male characters are over-represented
in children's books. We have seen some shifts to more equal gender role representation between the
sexes in shows in recent years.

Peers, Gender Roles, and Self-Esteem

Peers also serve as a significant influence on a child’s gender-role socialization. For example, children are
likely to react when other children violate expected gender-role behaviors. In addition, boys are more
likely to receive negative sanctions from peers for acting out “gender-bending” behaviors than are
females. Think for a moment: What do we often call a little girl who likes to wear boys’ clothes? That’s
right, a “tomboy.” But what are some of the names given to little boys who feel more comfortable
wearing feminine-looking clothes? In Dude: You’re A Fag C. J. Pascoe argues the "specter of the fag" has

37
Thompson, Teresa L. and Zebrinos, Eugenia. (1997). Television Cartoons: Do Children
38
Lauer, R. H., & Lauer, J. C. (1994). Marriage and family: The quest for intimacy. Madison, WI: Brown &
Benchmark.
39 Witt, Susan D. (1997) Parental Influence on Children's Socialization to Gender Roles.
40
Thompson, Teresa L. and Zebrinos, Eugenia. (1997). Television Cartoons: Do Children
41Etaugh, C. & Liss, M. B. (1992). Home, school, and playroom: Training grounds for adult
gender roles. Sex Roles, 26, 129-147.
42 Witt, Susan D. 1997. Parental Influence on Children's Socialization to Gender Roles. Adolescence.

26 | P a g e
become a disciplinary mechanism for regulating boys and how the "fag discourse" is even more focused
on gender than to sexuality.43 Reactions from peers, especially negative reactions, typically result in
changes in behavior, particularly if the feedback is from a child of the same sex. This pattern of
responsiveness reinforces traditional gender roles in children who might otherwise exercise more
freedom in their gender expression.

Schools and Teachers

Teachers also treat girls and boys differently. Let’s make clear teachers are not bad people or people
who should be blamed for reinforcing gender norms during the socialization process. Rather, they are
just another piece to a huge puzzle! Due to the emphasis in school on typically feminine characteristics
such as quietness, obedience, and passivity, girls tend to like school better and perform better than boys
in the early grades. Even in preschool, boys receive more criticism from teachers, who often react to
children in gender-stereotypic ways. The lack of public awareness of research findings, such as that in
most areas of math, girls do as well as boys, may prevent parents and others from encouraging girls to
excel in these areas. We will also be looking further into these points in the chapter “Gender and
Schools.”

Western Tradition and Gender Roles

More often times than not, the “masculine” is treated as the default human experience by social norms.
Masculine behaviors are typically rewarded over and above feminine ones. Because we often devalue
qualities we construct and label as “feminine,” we see social reproductions such as men (in general)
being paid better than women, enjoying more sexual and social freedom, and having other benefits that
women do not by virtue of their socially prescribed gender. While there are variations across race, class,
education, sexuality, religion, and other socio-economic measures, the human capabilities labeled as
“masculine” still remain more valued than the human capabilities labeled as “feminine.”

In Western societies, gender power is held by White, highly educated, middle-class, able-bodied
heterosexual men whose gender represents hegemonic masculinity – the ideal to which other
masculinities must interact with, conform to, and challenge. It is not enforced through direct violence;
instead, it exists as a cultural “script” that we’re taught throughout our socialization processes.

In her book Dude You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School, sociologist C.J. Pascoe argues
young working-class American boys enforce the masculine ideal by using jokes exemplified by the
phrase, “Dude, you’re a fag.” Boys are called “fags” (a derogative and homophobic slur, at its best) not
because they are homosexual, but when they engage in behavior considered to be “un-masculine”. This
might include dancing, taking “too much” care with their appearance, being too expressive with their
emotions, or being perceived as incompetent. So in this case, boys who are exhibiting behaviors labeled
as “feminine” by Western culture become vulnerable to being harassed. This not only reinforces the
ultra-constricting masculine ideal in boys, but it also reinforces the devaluing of anything labeled as
“feminine” in the culture.

This leads us to another point: Because Western culture is largely indoctrinated with patriarchal ideals
and traditions, femininity in Western culture is constructed to be inferior to masculinity. As a result,

43
Pascoe, C. J. (2012). Dude, you're a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley, Calif: University of
California Press.

27 | P a g e
women often lack the same level of cultural, political, and economic power as men. However women
are typically afforded more agency to resist their prescribed gender ideals than are men. Meaning,
femininity and feminine roles have developed to include more variation in expression than has
masculinity in recent decades. Men, then, typically endure harsher social punishments more often for
exercising behaviors thought to be “feminine” by the culture than are women who exercise behaviors
thought to be “masculine.” Women are also more socially permitted to actively challenge gender norms
by refusing to let patriarchy define how they portray and reconstruct their femininity. However, this
becomes a double-edged sword, because more often than not, some social problems will then be
labeled as women’s problems. For example:

Rejecting the double standard assigned to sexual behaviors for males and females
Fighting rape culture
Fighting sexual harassment
Fighting for equal pay and permission to enter male-dominated fields
Representation of women as sexual object in advertising and other forms of popular culture
Bringing attention to the issue and combatting domestic violence

Gender Over the Life Span

Gender experiences will evolve over a person’s lifetime. Gender is therefore always in flux; it’s fluid. It
changes as our likes/dislikes, morals, values, interpretations, and constructions change. We see this
through generational and intergenerational changes within families, as social, legal, and technological
changes influence social values on gender.

Suggested articles:
The Social Construction of Gender, Margaret L. Andersen and Dana Hysock, Thinking about Women,
2009

Suggested books:

Pascoe, C. J. (2012). Dude, you're a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley, Calif:
University of California Press

Vincent, Norah. 2009. Self Made Man: My Year Disguised as a Man. Penguin Publishing.

28 | P a g e
Gender Inequality
Learning Objectives

At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Define women as a minority.

2. Explore violent traditions disproportionately affecting women globally.
3. Explore forms of oppression affecting women in the United States.

Females as a Minority
Gender can be a primary division for different groups around the world. Societies often separate people
by sex category and prescribe behaviors for them based on those sex categories; however, those
behaviors (considered masculine or feminine) change depending on the culture in which they are
practiced. No matter how gendered behaviors are labeled and assigned, the outcome remains the same:
Women and men will have different access to power, prestige, and life chances. These divisions typically
favor males, as most societies still assign males to be the standard and females to be a deviation from
that standard. Consequently, sociologists identify females as being a minority group. This might seem
odd, since women outnumber men. But a minority group is not determined by numbers of people
making up a group. Rather, a minority group is a term referring to a category of people differentiated
from the social majority; i.e., those who hold the majority of positions of social power in a society. A
minority group is a group discriminated against based on characteristics such as sex, race, age, class,
religion, sexual orientation, etc., regardless of their numbers. In this chapter, we’re going to focus on
gender discrimination, and women’s struggle against gender discrimination around the world.

How did females become a Minority?

Some studies indicate that in hunting and gathering societies, females and males were seen as equal.44
In addition, horticultural societies are thought to have had more egalitarian roles in their social
structures.45 In these groups, women may have contributed to as much as 60 percent of the food supply.
Yet today, sex and gender have become a basis for discrimination.

44Leacock, Eleanor. Myths of Male Dominance. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1981
45
Collins, Randall, et all. “Toward an integrated Theory of Gender Stratification.” Sociological Perspectives, 36, 3,
1993:185-216.

29 | P a g e
So, how did women become a minority? The main theory proposed to explain the origin of patriarchy—
male dominated society—centers on human reproduction. 46 In early human history, life was short.
Among traditional hunter-gatherers, the average life expectancy at birth varied from 21 to 37 years, but
longer than their “cavemen” ancestors who lived to about 25 years of age in the Paleolithic Era. Because
life was short, if groups were to survive, women needed to give birth…a lot! An infant needed a nursing
mother; without one it would die. This brought about severe social consequences for women. With
children to carry, birth, nurse, and care for, women were not able to stay away from camp as long as
men. When they did leave camp, they often had to move slower to accommodate the infants and
children. When hunting large animals, men were able to leave for longer periods and move faster.
Women around the world began taking on roles and tasks associated with the home and childcare.

This led to men being seen as dominant in tribes and groups around the world. While they were hunting
and leaving their camps, they were also meeting people from other tribes. They communicated with
them, traded with them, and waged war with them. Women’s work began to be devalued, as they were
keeping fires going and caring for the home and children. They were not seen as risking their lives for
the group. They were not bringing food for the tribe. Rather, they were preparing it. Their work was
often dull, routine, and taken for granted. But without their work, their giving and sustaining the lives of
the children, the groups would have died out.

These gender roles allowed for men to take control of society. Their sources of power included their
items from trade, their triumphs in war, and the knowledge they gained from interacting with other
groups. Women became second-class citizens, subject to men’s control and decisions.

Traditional and Contemporary Violence Against Women

Female Genital Mutilation
Female genital mutilation (FGM) is the traditional cutting, circumcision, and removal of most or all
external genitalia from women with the end result of closing off some or part of the vagina until such
time as the woman is married and cut open. Female genital mutilation is often performed in order to
preserve the purity of females before marriage—a cultural ideal in some societies. In some traditions,
there are religious underpinnings. In others, there are customs and rituals that have been passed down.
In no way does the main body of any world religion condone or mandate this practice. Many countries
where this takes place are predominantly Muslim; yet local traditions have corrupted the purer form of
the religion and its beliefs. Female genital mutilation predates Islam.47

There are no medical or therapeutic benefits from female genital mutilation. Quite the contrary, there
are many adverse medical consequences that result from it, ranging from pain, difficulty in childbirth,
illness, and even death. Many human rights groups, the United Nations, scientists, advocates, the United
States, the World Health Organization, and others have made aggressive efforts to effect the cessation

46
Lerner, Gerda. The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford. 1986.
47
See Obermeyer, C.M. March 1999, Female Genital Surgeries: The Known and the Unknowable.
Medical Anthropology Quaterly13, pages 79-106;p retrieved 5 December from
http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/maq.1999.13.1.79


30 | P a g e
of this practice worldwide, but progress has come very slowly. Part of the problem is that women often
perform the ritual and carry on the tradition as it was perpetrated upon them.

Foot Binding
A small foot in China, no different from a tiny waist in Victorian England, once represented the height of
female refinement. For families with marriageable daughters, foot size translated into its own form of
currency and a means of achieving upward mobility. Tiny feet were a symbol of wealth, as women
whose feet were bound were unable to work in the fields or on their feet for a long period of time. This
economic symbol eventually translated into a sexually desirable symbol for possible suitors. The most
desirable bride possessed a three-inch foot, known as a “golden lotus.” It was respectable to have four-
inch feet—a silver lotus—but feet five inches or longer were seen as too large and named “iron lotuses.”
The marriage prospects for a girl with feet five inches or larger were slim.

Do you have an iPhone? If so, hold it up. Your iPhone (doesn’t matter the model) is close to five inches
long. So feet the size of your iPhone were seen as unattractive, minimizing a woman’s opportunity for
marriage to someone with high social worth. In fact, women with feet one inch shorter than that iPhone
were still not allotted the same worth as women whose feet were two inches shorter than that phone.

How does foot binding work?

First, beginning at the age of two or three, her feet were plunged into hot water and her
toenails clipped short. Then the feet were massaged and oiled before all the toes, except the big
toe, were broken and bound flat against the sole, making a triangle shape. Next, her arch was
strained as the foot was bent double. Finally, the feet were bound in place using a silk strip
measuring ten feet long and two inches wide. These wrappings were briefly removed every two
days to prevent blood and pus from infecting the foot. Sometimes “excess” flesh was cut away
or encouraged to rot. The girls were forced to walk long distances in order to hasten the
breaking of their arches. Over time the wrappings became tighter and the shoes smaller as the
heel and sole were crushed together. After two years the process was complete, creating a deep
cleft that could hold a coin in place. Once a foot had been crushed and bound, the shape could
not be reversed without a woman undergoing the same pain all over again.48

The truth, no matter how unbelievable, is foot-binding was experienced and enforced by women.
Though the practice is rejected in China today—the last shoe factory making lotus shoes did not close
until 1999—it survived for a thousand years in part because of women’s social investment in the
practice.

Child Marriage
Child marriage, defined as a formal marriage or informal union before age 18, is a reality for both boys
and girls, although girls are disproportionately affected. Today, about a third of women aged 20-24
years old in the developing world are married as children. Children who are married before the age of 18

48
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-footbinding-persisted-china-millennium-

31 | P a g e
are more at risk for domestic violence, rape from their husbands, and even murder.

Some 10 million girls a year are married off before the age of 18 across the world, according to a UNICEF
report released this year.49 While the majority of child marriages in any singular region are performed in
Sub-Sarah Africa, India is responsible for a disproportionate amount of these underage unions, as well.

Chart of “The Highest Rates of Child Marriage are Found in sub-Saharan Africa”

Child marriages are illegal in India, and are punishable with a fine and two years in prison for anyone
who performs, conducts, or negligently fails to prevent a child marriage. But this tradition is so ingrained
in Indian culture that, especially in remote villages, child marriage is usually fully supported by the entire
community, and it is rare for someone to inform the police so these marriages can be stopped.

In many communities girls are seen as an economic burden, and marriage transfers the
responsibility to a girl’s new husband. Poverty and marriage expenses such as the dowry may
lead a family to marry off a daughter at a young age to reduce these expenses.

Patriarchy, class, and caste also influence the norms and expectations around the role of
women and girls in India. In many communities restrictive norms limit girls to the roles of
daughter, wife, and mother. Girls are seen as the property of their father and then of their
husband. Poor educational opportunities for girls, especially in rural areas, also increase girls’
vulnerability to child marriage.

49

32 | P a g e
Rape
Rape is another violent act of oppression disproportionately geared toward women. Rape is not the
same as sex. Rape is violence, motivated primarily by men and primarily for power. Rape is dangerous
and destructive and more likely to happen in the United States than in most other countries of the
world. There are 195 countries in the world today. The U.S. typically is among the top five percent in
terms of rape. Consecutive studies performed by the United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the
Operations of Criminal Justice Systems confirm that South Africa is the most dangerous, crime-ridden
nation on the planet in all crimes including rape.50

The United Nations reported, according to World Bank data, women aged 15 to 44 are more at risk from
rape and domestic violence than from cancer, motor accidents, war, or malaria.51

A 1997 study on the non-institutionalized, non-military population by the U.S. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, which defines rape as forced penetration by the offender,52 found that 91% of
reported rape victims are female and 9% are male.53

The majority of rapes in the United States go unreported.54 According to the American Medical
Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-
reported violent crime. 55 Some of the most common reasons given by victims for not reporting
rape are fear of retaliation, shame, and blaming themselves for the occurrence of the act itself.
Under-reporting affects the accuracy of this data.

Other Forms of Oppressions

Veiling
The mandatory covering of females’ bodies from head to toe has been opposed by some and applauded
by others. Christians, Hindus, and many other religious groups have the practice of covering or veiling in
their histories. Yet, over the last 30 years, fundamentalist Muslim nations and cultures have returned to
their much more traditional way of life. Hijab is the Arabic word that means to cover or veil and has
become more common in recent years (ħijāb or ‫حجاب‬,). Often Hijab means modest and private in the
day-to-day interpretations of the practice. For some countries it is a personal choice, while for others it
becomes a crime not to comply. The former Taliban punished such a crime with death (they also
punished formal schooling of females and the use of makeup by death). Many women’s rights groups
have brought public attention to this trend, not so much because the mandated covering of females is
that oppressive, but because the veiling and covering is symbolic of the religious, traditional, and labor-

50
See http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/United-Nations-Surveys-on-Crime-Trends-
and- the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html
51
Retrieved 5 December, 2008 from http://www.un.org/women/endviolence/docs/VAW.pdf, Unite To
End Violence Against Women, Feb. 2008

52
Retrieved 2016-11-19 from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317#terms_def
53
Retrieved 2016-11-19 from http://www.bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov. Pages 5 and 8.
54
"Reporting of Sexual Violence Incidents". National Institute of Justice. Retrieved June 7, 2016.
55
American Medical Association (1995) Sexual Assault in America. AMA.

33 | P a g e
forced patterns of oppression that have caused so many problems for women and continue to do so
today.

Misogynistic Language
The public demeaning of women has been acceptable throughout various cultures because publicly
demeaning members of society who are privately devalued and or considered flawed, fits the reality of
most day-to-day interactions. Misogyny is the hatred of women often manifested as physical or verbal
abuse and oppressive mistreatment of women. Verbal misogyny is unacceptable in public in most
Western Nations today. With the ever-present technology found in cell phones, video cameras, and
security devices, a person’s private and public misogynistic language can be easily recorded and shared.
Can you think of any examples of public figures privately demeaning women, only to be shared in a
public forum later?

Perhaps this fear of being found out as a woman-hater is not the ideal motivation for creating cultural
values of respect and even admiration of women and men. As was mentioned above, most of the world
historical leaders assumed that women were not as valuable as men. Women were treated as the
totality of their reproductive role, as breeders of the species, rather than the valued human beings they
are throughout the world today.

Gender Inequality in the United States

Wage Disparity
Wage disparities between males and females are often justified as labor-based economic supply and
demand. Statistics show past and current discrepancies in lower pay for women. Diane White, during a
1997 presentation to the United Nations General Assembly, stated that, “Today the wage disparity gap
cost American women $250,000 over the course of their lives.”56

Nationally, the median

annual pay for a woman
who holds a full-time, year-
round job is $40,742 while
the median annual pay for a
man who holds a full-time,
year-round job is
$51,212.This means that,
overall, women in the
United States are paid 80
cents for every dollar paid to
Graph of “The Gender Pay Gap: Annual Earnings”

56
Retrieved 5 December from
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/statements/Diane%20White.pdf


34 | P a g e
men, amounting to an annual gender wage gap of $10,470.57

The wage gap can be even larger for women of color. For example, among women who hold full-time,
year-round jobs in the United States, African American women are typically paid 63 cents and Latinas
are paid just 54 cents for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men.58 Asian women are paid 85 cents
for every dollar paid to white, non-Hispanic men, although some ethnic subgroups of Asian women fare
much worse.

Why the lower wages for women? The traditional definition of the reproductive roles of women as being
“broken, diseased, or flawed” is part of the answer of wage disparity. The idea that reproductive roles
interfere with the continuity of the workplace play heavily into wage disparity. The argument can be
made that (outdated) traditional and economic factors have led to the existing patterns of paying
women less for work requiring their same education, experience, and efforts compared to men.

Wage disparity will be discussed further in the Women and Work chapter.

Politics
Women have had to fight for equal treatment in American politics, from fighting for the right to vote to
fighting for a seat at the political table. Women are still fighting to break the highest political glass
ceiling of all--the presidency. While the United States has legislation mandating gender equality, gender
discrimination occurs regularly in politics. It wasn’t until 1981 that the first female Supreme Court
Justice (Sandra Day O’Connor) was appointed. She was later joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and has
been succeeded by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Currently, three of the nine sitting justices are
women. In 1996, President Bill Clinton appointed Madeline Albright to be the first female Secretary of
State, a post later given to Condoleezza Rice by President George W. Bush in 2005, and later held by
Hillary Clinton under President Obama.

Women in politics took center stage in the 2008 election. In the primary season, New York Senator
Hillary Clinton ran against future President Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Although
Clinton was the twenty-fifth woman to run for U.S. President, she was the first female candidate to have
a significant chance of winning the nomination of a major party and the general election. Comments
about Clinton's body, cleavage, choice of pantsuit, and speculation about cosmetic surgery popped up
over airwaves. Many wondered if the same fixation on a candidate's body and style would happen to a
male candidate. Clinton would later become the first woman to win the nomination of a major party in
2016. Good news for women, right? Well, it wasn’t until 2016, and only one woman has accomplished

57
U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic (ASEC)
Supplement: Table PINC-05: Work Experience in 2015 –People 15 Years Old and Over by Total Money
Earnings in 2015, Age, Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex, and Disability Status. Retrieved 12 October 2016, from
http://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-pinc/pinc-05.html
(Unpublished calculation based on the median annual pay for all women and men who worked full time,
year-round in 2015)
58
Ibid

35 | P a g e
this feat, making Hillary Clinton an exception rather than indicative of the bigger gender picture in
American politics.

Despite the increasing presence of women in American politics, gender stereotypes still exist. Data from
the 2006 American National Election Studies Pilot Study confirmed that both male and female voters,
regardless of their political persuasions, expected men to perform better as politicians than women.

Out of the 100 senate seat positions, women occupy only 20. Making only 20% of the senate female.
Women occupy only 104 of the 535 Congress seats. And women hold only 24% of statewide executive
positions.

Education
In the United States most females and males complete some form of formal education. After high
school, many go to college. Even though the U.S. population of 18 to 24-year-old males is higher than
that of women, women are more likely to attend college based on percentages (57%).59

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in fall 2016, some 20.5 million
students are expected to attend American colleges and universities, constituting an increase of
about 5.2 million since fall 2000.60 Females are expected to account for the majority of college
students. About 11.7 million females will attend in Fall, 2016, compared with 8.8 million males.
Also, more students are expected to attend full-time than part-time (an estimated 12.7 million,
compared with about 7.9 million).61

About 7.2 million students will attend two-year institutions, and 13.3 million will attend four-
year institutions in Fall, 2016. Some 17.5 million students are expected to enroll in
undergraduate programs, and about 3.0 million will enroll in post-baccalaureate programs.

However, even while making the gains women have by entering college at higher rates than men, they
have not achieved equality in the classroom. Today’s college classrooms still contain subtle, and not so
subtle, gender biases. A large body of research shows that instructors.1) Call on male students more
frequently than female students; 2) are more likely to use male students’ names when calling upon
students and in attributing ideas advanced in discussion; 3) ask male students more abstract questions
and female students more factual questions; and 4) are less likely to elaborate upon points made by
female students.62

There is, however, a notable gender segregation in degree choice, correlated with lower incomes for
graduates with "feminine" degrees, such as education or nursing, and higher incomes for those with

59
USA Today 19 October, 2005, College Gender Gap Widens: 57% are Women, retrieved 8 December
2008 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_xhtm

60
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_105.20.asp?current=yes
61
Ibid
62
Gender Issues in the College Classroom. Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Teaching Center. Columbia
University. New York.

36 | P a g e
"masculine" degrees, such as engineering.63 The STEM fields—science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics—have traditionally had more males than females. For example, men dominate the tech
industry, and for women, the numbers aren’t growing. A 2011 report by the U.S. Department of
Commerce found only one in seven engineers is female. Additionally, women have seen no employment
growth in STEM jobs since 2000. The problem starts as early as grade school. Young girls are rarely
encouraged to pursue math and science, which is problematic considering studies show a lack of belief
in intellectual growth can actually inhibit it. In addition, there exists an unconscious bias that science and
math are typically “male” fields, while humanities and arts are primarily “female” fields. These
stereotypes further inhibit girls’ likelihood of cultivating an interest in math and science.

Transphobia
Between 0.3% and 0.5% of Americans — nearly 1 million people — identify as transgender, according to a
recent report, Understanding Issues Facing Transgender Americans, written by the Movement
Advancement Project (MAP), the Transgender Law Center (TLC), NCTE and GLAAD (formerly the Gay &
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation). Another widely cited study, from the Williams Institute of the
University of California, Los Angeles, estimated the number at about 700,000 Americans.64

Transgender women of color are the most common targets of transphobic hate crimes. During the first
two months of 2015, a transgender woman of color was murdered almost once a week, according to the
Southern Policy Law Center.65 One man charged with attempted murder of a trans woman said the
woman and her friend were deceiving him by dressing as women, even though they weren't even talking
to him. Perhaps this reflects one reason trans women tend to be targeted: In addition to hating trans
people in general, some men behave as if women are property. Transphobia and misogyny are a deadly
combination.

Violence
On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United
States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men. Overall data suggests 1
in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of (some form of) physical violence by an intimate partner
within their lifetime. Further, 1 in 5 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence
by an intimate partner in their lifetime. 1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked by an intimate
partner during their lifetime to the point in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone
close to them would be harmed.

Intimate partner violence accounts for 15% of all violent crime. Physical, mental, and sexual and
reproductive health effects have been linked with intimate partner violence including adolescent
pregnancy, unintended pregnancy in general, miscarriage, stillbirth, intrauterine hemorrhage,
nutritional deficiency, abdominal pain and other gastrointestinal problems, neurological disorders,
chronic pain, disability, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as non-communicable

63
Jacobs, Jerry A. (1996). "Gender inequality and higher education". Annual Review of Sociology. 22: 153–185
64
65
Retrevied on 18 November, 2016 form https://medium.com/hatewatch-blog/in-the-crosshairs-
3700fbf2203d#.v67ddiplq

37 | P a g e
diseases such as hypertension, cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Victims of domestic violence are also
at higher risk for developing addictions to alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.66

Rape and Sexual Assault

The United States Justice Bureau defines rape as “forced sexual intercourse including both psychological
coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s).
Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and same sex rape.
Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.”67 One in five women and one in 71 men in the United
States has been raped in their lifetime. Almost half of female (46.7%) and male (44.9%) victims of rape in
the United States were raped by an acquaintance. Of these, 45.4% of female rape victims and 29% of
male rape victims were raped by an intimate partner. From 1995 to 2010, the estimated annual rate of
female rape or sexual assault victimizations declined 58%, from five victimizations per 1,000 females age
12 or older to 2.1 per 1,000. In 2005-10, females who were age 34 or younger, who lived in lower
income households, and who lived in rural areas experienced some of the highest rates of sexual
violence. In 2005-10, 78% of sexual violence involved an offender who was a family member, intimate
partner, friend, or acquaintance.

The United States Justice Bureau defines sexual assault as a “wide range of victimizations, separate from
rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving
unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force
and include such things as grabbing or fondling. It also includes verbal threats.”68 One in 5 women and
one in 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college. While rape remains the most under-reported
crime; 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police. 46.4% lesbians, 74.9% bisexual women and
43.3% heterosexual women reported sexual violence other than rape during their lifetimes, while 40.2%
gay men, 47.4% bisexual men and 20.8% heterosexual men reported sexual violence other than rape
during their lifetimes.69

66
World Health Organization. 2013. Global and regional estimates of violence against women:
prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85239/1/9789241564625_eng.pdf?ua=1.
67
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Rape and Sexual Assaults. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317
68
Ibid
69
Walters, M.L., Chen J., & Breiding, M.J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Retrieved from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control:
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_SOfindings.pd

38 | P a g e
Gender, Language, and Media
Learning Objectives

At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Define linguistic sexism.

2. Describe examples of linguistic sexism.
3. Examine some effects of gender-stereotyping in media.

Gender Socialization
In previous chapters, we’ve explored the differences between sex and gender as well as the importance
of socialization in our prescribed gender roles. In this chapter, we’ll be exploring how language and the
media often reinforce or exacerbate the gap in the United States. For example, one could ask, “What are
gender differences?” But consider for a moment the question, “What differences does gender make?”
While the questions might seem very similar to one another, the first question is evoking a description
of the concept of gender, while the second question is evoking an exploratory descriptive of inequality
resulting from gender construction.

What the English Language is Made Of

Many people run into trouble when trying to choose “appropriate” words in their everyday discourses.
For example, imagine you’re getting pulled over for speeding. The policeman walks up to the side of
your vehicle to request your license and registration. The policeman is female. Now her status has
changed from policeman to police officer. While police officer is more inclusive to both sexes, policeman
remains the standard in our culture, and we have yet to culturally adopt the term policewoman. Either
way, you’re getting a ticket for speeding, but how will your interpretation of the citation change based
on the sex of the officer? How will you describe the officer in your recounts to your friends or family?

Now you’re getting ready for a meeting, and the chairman of the board walks in. Until you see she’s a
female--and now the chairperson has arrived. The English language is full of linguistic sexism, language
that intentionally (or unintentionally) excludes or privileges one sex over the other. More often than
not, linguistic sexism is excluding or trivializing women and what they do, while maintaining the sex
status quo from which men are currently benefitting.

Creating inclusive language for underrepresented bodies--specifically, the feminine and other
“unmarked” gender categories--creates a reality more inclusive of all sexes and genders.70 Anne
Pauwels, Professor of Sociolinguistics at the University of London, identifies one of the major
motivations for language change as “a desire to amend the present language system to achieve a

70
Frank, Francine Wattman and Paula A. Treichler. 1989. Language, Gender, and Professional Writing:
Theoretical Approaches and Guidelines for Nonsexist Language Usage. New York: The Modern Language
Association of America

39 | P a g e
symmetrical and equitable representation of women and men.”71 Using inclusive language can shape
our social realities and dialect. While this is not an exhaustive list, here are a few examples of using
more inclusive language:

Example of Explanation Alternatives

Sexist/Gendered
Usage
The generic ‘he’ Every student must have Defines student as Every student must have
a pencil, and he should exclusively male. a pencil and they should
always bring it to class. always bring it to class.

Man as a verb I have four students to Implies that persons I have four students to
man the internship table. referred to are attend the internship
exclusively male. table.
Man used to mean Is man inherently The human race is Is humankind inherently
humankind capitalistic? interpreted then as capitalistic?
male-centric,
linguistically placing non- Other alternatives:
males on the outside of human race, human
the species. beings.
Gendered words in Chairman Assumes male Chair or Chairperson
titles and work Freshman dominance in these First Year
positions Fireman fields. Firefighter
Policeman Police officer
Postman Postal worker
Stereotyping Using gender/sex This assumes that a Refrain from using
qualifiers for certain particular sex/gender is gender markers, and
occupations, such as: fit for only a particular refer to a female doctor
lady doctor or male set of jobs. simply as a doctor or a
nurse. male nurse simply as a
nurse.
To avoid stereotyping
occupations, vary
pronoun usage or use
the singular they.
Referring to a married Mrs. John Smith Defines a woman in Jane Smith or with the
woman through her terms of a man. appropriate honorific
husband’s name. (such as doctor or
captain).
Honorifics Mrs. Smith vs. Miss Defines a woman in Ms. Smith
Smith terms of martial status. Or for professors of any
gender the honorific
should be professor or
doctor.
Suffixes waiter/waitress Applies gender Server
aviator/aviatrix irrelevantly. Pilot
bachelor/bachelorette Single person

71 Pauwels, Anne. 2003. The Handbook of Language and Gender.

Holmes, Janet; Meyerhoff, Miriam, eds. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

40 | P a g e
Source: University of Wisconsin
https://www.uwec.edu/usenate/.../130402GenderInclusiveExamples.pdf

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
There has been extensive research on what is known for linguists as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Linguists and other social scientists,use this hypothesis to analyze the complex relations between
language and culture. In short, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis explains that language shapes or influences the
culture in which it is spoken.72 In other words, the languages we speak shape our social and cultural
realities. So if we are speaking English, English (and all of the linguistic sexism found in it) would shape
our cultural realities. Going by this hypothesis, one might argue labeling people as “female” or “male”
shapes the idea of who the default individual would be. In that sense English can indeed be perceived as
sexist, as it conveys intuitive notions that might shape the speaker’s and listener’s point of view. Take,
for instance, the examples below:

(S)HE
(WO)MAN
(FE)MALE
(HU)MAN
In addition to language creating “defaults” in our standards for normalcy (and thereby creating
deviations from those standards) we also create (or recreate) degradations of the female noun. For
example, hound keeping its canine meaning, but bitch gaining another meaning entirely. Mistress and
master used to be equal in meaning; now master evokes power, excellence, and ownership, whereas
mistress is someone with whom you can cheat on your spouse. Incidentally, you cannot use master in
the same way. Consider this old riddle that goes something like this: A father and son go out for a
camping trip. On the way home from the camping trip the father and son get into a terrible car accident
where the father is killed immediately upon impact. The son promptly gets rushed to the emergency
room where the doctor inside prepares to save the boy’s life. Until, the doctor walks over to the
critically injured boy and says, ‘I can’t operate on this boy. He’s my son.’ This is the end of the riddle. The
question then becomes; who is the doctor? If you are like many people you’ll be puzzled at first thinking,
“Uh, but you said the father died. How could he be in the emergency room if he is dead?” To which, of
course, he cannot be (though, I’ve heard variations on the ghost dad / zombie dad theme numerous
times!). That leaves only one option: the boy’s mother is the doctor. “Ahhhhhh, duh!” Yes, duh. But why
was this obvious answer not immediately apparent? The answer has to do with the theme of this
section: language has ways of seeing and understanding the world built into it that both reflect and
reconstruct our social structures through our use of them. Since the word ‘doctor’ connotes a position
of power, it is often understood to be held by a man. Though we now know full well women can and are
doctors, the cultural and linguistic vestige from the past, the legacy of the power in Western culture,

72Deutscher, G. (2011). Through the language glass. Why the world looks different in other languages, Arrow
Books, London

41 | P a g e
predisposes us to thinking the doctor must be a man, blinding us from the obvious fact that most people
have two parents (and often a mother and a father)!

So who do we blame? English, right? Grab the pitchforks! Not quite. We cannot blame language;
linguistic sexism is abstract and draws on human experiences to give it shape and meaning. And yet
there is something in our heads that associates feminine with ‘pretty’ and masculine with ‘strong’. While
language isn’t to blame, language does reflect and reinforce the culture of its users. Us!

Is language sexist? Only as much as the user is. Is sexism linguistic? Not only linguistic, but yes,
the evidence in grammar is enough to draw conclusions pointing to sexism. How can we fight
linguistic sexism and sexist language? Language is a reflection of us and does not exist without
us, and our realities are shaped by language. So it’s almost like looking in a mirror and
becoming frustrated when the image won’t change without us changing it. We would have to
reconstruct sexism in thought before we could eliminate sexism in speech. Then, eliminating it
in speech would reinforce eliminating it in thought. (However, going back to the examples
provide earlier on using inclusive language can help the process of reconstruction our thoughts
on sexism and gender standards.)

Media
We often speak of ‘the media’ as some amorphous social institution that is foisted upon us. In some
ways this is true of all institutions and the mass media are no exception. But in other ways, this view
glosses over the real people and social processes that create one of the biggest shapers of our
worldview and outlook on life. Therefore, it is important to note who specifically makes the media
content we all consume. It may not be surprising at this point, but especially behind the scenes, the
majority of the cultural gatekeepers; producers, directors and screenwriters are men. This creates a
distortion of reality when it comes to whose stories are being told and becoming a part of the culture.
For example, “a study, by sociologist Stacy L. Smith, analyzed 11,927 speaking roles on prime-time
television programs aired in spring 2012, children's TV shows aired in 2011 and family films (rated G, PG,
or PG-13) released between 2006 and 2011. Smith's team looked at female characters' occupations,
attire, body size and whether they spoke or not.”73 Their analysis showed, regarding women employed
in key behind the scenes roles for movies, only 18% of these positions were held by women from 1998 –
2012. The study also revealed similar results in primetime television. Although progress has been made,
it has been slow. Children’s television programming follows a similar pattern as well with males about
twice as likely as female characters. And when there are female characters they are more likely to be
shown in sexy attire (in children’s programming!)74. Another study of G-rated films from 1990-2005
showed that only 28 percent of the speaking characters (both live and animated) were female and more
than four out of five of the narrators were male. Finally, eighty-five percent of the characters were
white75. What kinds of stories are being told? And what message might children take away from these
stories presenting a ‘normal’ view of the world so heavily skewed?

73 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/women-in-the-media-female_n_2121979.html
74 www.now.org/issues/media/women_in_media_facts.html
75 www.now.org/issues/media/women_in_media_facts.html

42 | P a g e
Much of a child’s socialization is indirect, coming to them through observation, observation in their real-
world experiences and observation of the media. Television, film, video games, social media, and other
forms are involved in selecting, constructing and representing “reality.” In doing so, the media tend to
emphasize and reinforce the values and images of those who create the messages and own the means
of distribution. Thus, media play a large role in creating social norms, because various forms of media
are present almost everywhere in current culture. In addition, the owners of distribution also take into
account commercial (selling) considerations. As a result, the viewpoints and experiences of other
people are often left out, or shown in negative ways. In Gendered Media: The Influence of Media on
Views of Gender, Julia Woods explains:

“Three themes describe how media represent gender. First, women are
underrepresented, which falsely implies that men are the cultural standard and women
are unimportant or invisible. Second, men and women are portrayed in stereotypical
ways that reflect and sustain socially endorsed views of gender. Third, depictions of
relationships between men and women emphasize traditional roles and normalize
violence against women.”

The underrepresentation of women has a two-pronged effect: 1) We are tempted to believe there really
are more men than women, and 2) Men are the cultural standard. In general, media continue to present
both women and men in stereotyped ways that limit our perceptions of human capabilities. Typically
men are portrayed as active, adventurous, powerful, sexually aggressive, and largely devoid of emotion.
Women are often portrayed as sex objects who are usually young, thin, passive, dependent, and often
incompetent or dumb. Female characters devote their primary energies to improving their appearances
and taking care of homes and people and “landing” the perfect guy. And as far as stereotyping
relationships for males and females in media, homosexuality is barely recognized and representations of
bisexuality and asexuality are practically non-existent. Sex is a driving force behind advertising, because
after all, sex sells…everything. But not just sex, heterocentric representations of sex. Women are often
seen as dependent in sexual relationships while men are depicted as being independent and emotionally
empty. And men are still portrayed (overwhelmingly) as breadwinners while women are typically
awarded the roles of caregivers. Lastly, within the relationship sphere, women are typically represented
as objects for men’s pleasure while men are still depicted most often as sexual aggressors. According to
the feminist film critic Laura Mulvey (1975), this phenomenon is known as the male gaze. The male gaze
is the idea that, within popular culture generally, women are portrayed as objects for men’s pleasure.
The vast majority of media consumed in the United States depicts women from men’s point of view. An
interesting case study in the male gaze happened in 2015 when Caitlyn Jenner first appeared on the
cover of Vanity Fair magazine as a transgender woman she was immediately praised for her good looks.
However, when she was known still known as Bruce Jenner she was praised for her athletic
accomplishments and competition in the Olympics.

In order to create a medium which is universal, understandable, and acceptable for diverse recipients,
senders very often use stereotypes, which fill the social life and evoke certain associations. For example,
when you think of family, what do you see? When you think of a criminal or a victim, what do you see?
When you think of a CEO or an assistant, what do you see? Maybe race, age, religion, or class came to
mind, but almost certainly sex and gender played roles in all of the images. What sex and gender roles

43 | P a g e
did you see when prompted to imagine a family? When I asked you to imagine a criminal and a victim,
what sexes and genders were they? Almost always (and of course there are exceptions) people will
imagine a nuclear heterosexual family structure with traditional gender roles. When prompted to
imagine a criminal, people almost always imagine a male, and often people will see a victim as female.
And when asked to imagine a CEO and an assistant, people will often imagine a male and female. But
where did these images come from? Or at the very least, are they still being reinforced in popular
imagery?

Another mechanism by which popular culture defines reality has come to be known as the smurfette
principle. Coined by Katha Pollitt’s 1991 New York Times article,

"Contemporary shows are either essentially all-male, like "Garfield," or are organized on
what I call the Smurfette principle: a group of male buddies will be accented by a lone
female, stereotypically defined... The message is clear. Boys are the norm, girls the
variation; boys are central, girls peripheral; boys are individuals, girls types. Boys define
the group, its story and its code of values. Girls exist only in relation to boys."

We see this phenomenon in classics like Miss Piggy in the Muppets, Penny in the first three seasons of
The Big Bang Theory, Princess Leia in Star Wars, April in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Elaine Benes in
Seinfeld, Gamora in Guardians of the Galaxy, and Black Widow in The Avengers. The messages portrayed
by this trope contribute to the symbolic disempowerment by defining girls’ and women’s stories as
unworthy of being told. The Hunger Games’ producer Nina Jacobson has spoken about the difficulty in
convincing Hollywood studio executives that a female fronted film would be financially viable by
appealing to more than just girls at the box office.76

However, mass media not only provides people information and entertainment, but, it also affects
people’s lives by shaping their opinions, attitudes, values, beliefs, norms, and realities. So, how might
media affect our interpretations of gender roles? In various forms of media, women and girls are more
likely to be shown: in the home, performing domestic chores such as laundry or cooking; as sex objects
who exist primarily to service men; as victims who can't protect themselves; and as the “natural”
recipients of beatings, harassment, sexual assault or murder.

Men and boys are not exempt from being stereotyped in the media. From Don Draper to Jason Bourne
to the Terminator, masculinity is often associated with economic success, competition, independence,
emotional detachment, aggression, and violence. Despite the fact that men have considerably more
economic and political power in society than women, these trends are very damaging to boys. Think for
a moment how most disagreements between men are dealt with in popular culture: a fight, a car race,
something to demonstrate whom the “better man” is through physical assertion.

Research tells us that the more television children watch, the more likely they are to hold sexist notions
about traditional male and female roles. The problem arises when the traditional gender roles

76 http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/the-business/the-hunger-games-producer

44 | P a g e
represented on in the media are so tightly constricting of the human potential, turning women into
objects of men’s pleasure or care-takers and turning men into aggressors.

Advertisements are arguably the most pervasive form of media in our construction of reality. It’s
estimated we are exposed to as many as 5,000 advertisements per day (and this is compared to about
2,000 ads per day just thirty years ago).77 This includes commercials, print ads, Brand labels, Facebook
Ads, Google Ads, ads on your phone, or anything a business can produce to get your attention and
compel you to buy. Some researchers estimate we are exposed to up to 20,000 ads per day, but those
higher numbers not only include ads, but also include every time you pass by a label in a grocery store,
all the ads in your mailbox whether you see them or not, the label on everything you wear, the
condiments in your fringe, the cars on the highway, etc. However, just because we are in close proximity
to an ad, doesn’t mean we saw it.

Figure 2: Average Adult’s Daily Media Ad Exposure78

Bar Graph of “Average Adult’s Daily Media & Ad Exposure”

Consider the work of highly influential sociologist Erving Goffman. Specifically, his work on advertising
and gender presentation and what he calls commercial realism. For Goffman, this is the way advertising
portrays a world, which without critical reflection appears normal to us but is anything but (and should
not appear normal or natural to us). This is one of the ways in which mass media influences how we see
ourselves and learn to present ourselves in highly gendered manners. Advertisements in which women
are portrayed as subordinate, weak, docile, delicate and fanciful contribute to what he calls ‘the
ritualization of subordination’. This process helps to create (and recreate) a world in which to be
feminine is to be less than and subordinate to a man. One that relies on the ‘benign-ness of the
surround’ where women are perpetually at a disadvantage vis-a-vie men, blithely unaware of the world

77 Papazian, Ed. TV Now and Then: How We Use It; How It Uses Us. January, 2016. Media Dynamics, Inc.
http://www.mediadynamicsinc.com/product/tv-now-and-then-how-we-use-it-how-it-uses-
us/Bbb51dec37661d7/#sthash.YYd2J5FB.dpuf
78 Media Dynamics, Inc. retrieved from TV Now and Then: How We Use It; How It Uses Us.

45 | P a g e
around them and men are showed in an opposite manner; poised, aware and ready to react. Consider
this example Goffman outlines: body clowning. He says, “The use of entire body as a playful
gesticulative device, a sort of “body clowning” is commonly used in advertisements to indicate lack of
seriousness struck by a childlike pose (p. 50). It helps to present women in a manner that is not meant to
be taken seriously (see: the blog “Women Laughing Alone With Salad”79). One way to notice the silliness
of these sorts of images is to ‘flip the script’ by imagining the reverse image: men laughing alone with
salad, for instance! If we monitor our reaction and are startled, we know a gender norm reinforced
through advertising and commercial realism has been breached.

Perpetual discontent is a two-pronged advertising scheme, which emphasizes 1. how broken and flawed
we are, and 2. how we can buy hope in the form of a product being sold. Women in the U.S. are
bombarded daily with advertising images that point out their flaws. They are constantly having it
brought to their attention how they are too: thin, fat, short, tall, round, wrinkled, blond, brunette, red,
dark, light, pale, freckled, flat, busty, etc. This trend is exceptionally cruel for teen and young adult
women, but men are not exempt from the abuse of perpetual discontent. However, the media has
created an unrealistic feminine ideal resulting in the desire to fulfill this impossible standard. This has
resulted in women comparing their real selves to phony, made-up, photo-shopped images of women,
and it also allows for men to judge real women against those constructed photos. This is not to imply all
men are sexually interested in women, or all women are concerned with how men are viewing them,
but these are still two major themes sprouting from the media’s creation of gender and physical ideals.
This media-created ideal has also commonly been blamed for the skyrocketing numbers of eating
disorders as well as the rising numbers of cosmetic surgical procedures in the U.S. (especially among
young women). At least 30 million Americans suffer from an eating disorder in their lifetime, and eating
disorders are the 3rd most common chronic illness among adolescent females.80

79http://womenlaughingalonewithsalad.tumblr.com/
80Hudson, J. I., Hiripi, E., Pope, H. G., & Kessler, R. C. (2007). The prevalence and correlates of eating disorders
in the national comorbidity survey replication. Biological Psychiatry, 61(3), 348–358.

46 | P a g e
Figure 2. Numbers in Millions of Plastic Surgery Procedures between 1997-201581

Not only has the media created an unrealistic feminine ideal that no one (and I mean no one!) can
achieve, but media most often portray as being endlessly preoccupied by their appearance, and
fascinated primarily by improving their appearance for the purpose of becoming sexually desirable to
men. When children, specifically, are exposed to these messages, they internalize them and make them
part of their own reality.

Furthermore, children are increasingly being exposed to messages about gender that are really intended
for adult eyes only. Girls as young as six years old wanted to be more like dolls who were dressed in a
sexy way and showing more skin than dolls who were dressed stylishly, but covered up.82 These young
girls associated being sexy with being the way they wanted to look, being popular in school, and with
whom they wanted to play. According to the American Psychological Association, girls who are exposed
to sexual messages in popular culture are more likely to have low self-esteem and depression, and suffer

81 Data courtesy of American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery www.surgery.org. Taken November, 2016
82Jennifer Abbasi. 2012. Why 6-Year-Old Girls Want To Be Sexy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/6-year-old-girls-sexy_n_1679088.html. Retrieved 30
November 2016.

47 | P a g e
from eating disorders.83

The media is perhaps one of the most underestimated elements of society. At the personal level people
think of it in terms of convenience and entertainment rather than political influence, power, and
control. However, advertising, in particular, has a slow cumulative affect on our perceptions of reality.

According to Debra Pryor and Nancy Nelson Knupfer, “If we become aware of the stereotypes and teach
critical viewing skills to our children, perhaps we will become informed viewers instead of manipulated
consumers.”84 Moreover, the commercials evolve along with the development of a society and are the
answer to many social and political changes, such as emancipation of women, growing role of
individualism, the dismantling of current gender roles reinforcing inequality. More and more advertising
specialists produce non-stereotypical commercials, depicting people in non-traditional gender roles.
However, the attempts to break down the stereotypes threaten to reject the message; they challenge
well-established “common sense”. Hence, a society has to achieve an adequate level of social readiness,
so that messages breaking gender stereotypes could be effective.

Suggested Activities (adapted from Video and workbook, Minding the Set--Making Television Work for You)

Images - Using TV or video clips and magazine or newspaper pictures, chart similarities and differences
in appearance and body size for the good and bad characters. Look again at the clips and make note of
the type of camera shots used for the good and bad guys or gals. Compare the characters with self and
peers and family members.

Working women - List the jobs that TV mothers have such as teacher, doctor. Do we ever see them
working at their jobs? Does your mother have a job? If she works outside the home do you ever visit her
there? Why or why not?

I'd rather be me - Form two groups - one of males, the other of females. From various media have the
boys list female traits and interests that are most commonly featured, while the girls do the same for
male characteristics and concerns. Form new mixed groupings and discuss how males and females feel
about the stereotypes by which their sex category and gender have come to be represented. Is there
anything artificial about these stereotypes?

Jobs - Examine the media to determine how certain occupations are portrayed, and then interview
people in those occupations to ascertain how realistic portrayals are. Count the number of women or

83 American Psychological Association,Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.(2007).

Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls.

Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report-full.pdf
84Pryor, Debra; Knupfer, Nancy Nelson, 1997 Gender Stereotypes and Selling Techniques in Television
Advertising: Effects on
Society.http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/c4/8c.
pdf, retrieved 10 November 2016.

48 | P a g e
men portrayed in jobs. List the types of jobs for women and men portrayed. How do these findings
compare to the jobs held by the parents of students?

Posed photos - Select pictures from magazines ads that show the difference between posed
photographs of females and males (this can include children, as well). Describe what is emphasized for
each.

Twisted tales - Rewrite a fairly tale from the point of view of the opposite sex.

Video games - Design a video game for girls and boys that is not stereotypical or violent.

49 | P a g e
Gender, Emotions, and Relationships
Learning Objectives

At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Describe gender trends as they relate to emotions.

2. Identify trends pertaining to gender and friendships.
3. Identify gender trends in dating.
4. Apply theories to the study of families and intimate relationships.

Sex, Gender, and Emotions

Girls cry and boys don’t, right? I mean, girls are just naturally more emotional than boys, right? Hold on
to your hats: Males and females are not victims of biological processes dictating their emotional stability
or strength based on sex category. In fact, scientific research reveals culture and environment, rather
than biology, is a greater indicator for emotional experience.

Western culture often maintains the idea of a binary opposition between reason and emotion, with
reason widely believed to be a masculine behavior and emotion being a feminine behavior. This
stereotype has become a power social force in constructing and reinforcing the false belief that it is sex
category that will determine whether a person is more reasonable or emotional. Once established, we
see this pattern replicate throughout most, if not all, of society’s institutions effectively structuring the
world we inhabit and appearing ‘normal’ (a process called reification).

The stereotype of the emotional women and the rational man was created and maintained in response
to the industrial revolution which produced segregation in the workplace. Prior to the industrial
revolution, as discussed in earlier chapters, women were relegated to housework and family obligations
as a result of reproduction needs for the culture to multiply and survive. After the industrial revolution,
women largely remained in those domestic roles, as the roles had become a cultural norm. As will
become more evident as we proceed, this change had made reverberations with how we date, fall in
love, and structure our families. Notably, the norm of the breadwinner husband and the stay-at-home
housewife that took root around this time and was born out of capitalism’s need for a reliable
workforce.

Today, the rationale for the “emotional woman” helps maintain sex segregation in the work force. It has
been argued women could be too emotional for some occupations like police officers, fire fighters,
legislatures, or even the President of the United States. In fact, in the most recent presidential race,
some (including women) argued women shouldn’t be president because her hormones “could start a
war in a second.”85 (And this is when I reflect on how many wars have actually been started by women
and how many have been started by men.)

85 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4Zdx97A63s

50 | P a g e
So, what are the differences in emotions between sexes? Well, none, really. But research indicates a
difference in emotions between genders (most research focuses on the emotional experience between
the binary feminine and masculine as gender categories). In Western culture, women and men differ
more in emotional expression than in emotional experience.86 Meaning, emotions are a human
capability, not a feminine or female one. Therefore, men and women experience emotions similarly, but
women and men express them differently. Why?

As part of our socialization process, we learn how to express our emotions socially appropriately.
Women are taught it is more acceptable (or even encouraged) for them to show their emotions than it is
for men. Furthermore, women are more encouraged to demonstrate prosocial emotions like empathy,
compromise, and nurturance. And women are also more likely than men to demonstrate emotions that
imply powerlessness, like fear or shame.87 Again, these emotions are all human capabilities, but women
have been more socially permitted to demonstrate these human potentials than men. However, the
latter emotions are seen as a contradiction to Western construction of masculinity, and thus have been
named as feminine emotions and typically more permissible for women. So engrained in fact are these
gendered performances and displays of emotions that they become the very identifiers of one’s gender
(e.g. cried like a girl when a boy does it and simply cried if done by a girl).

According to dominant Western culture, masculine emotions include, but are not limited to, powerful
emotions like anger, pride, and competition.88 These emotions are more in line with the Western
masculine ideal because they are seen as being more these types of emotions tend to enhance or
confirm one’s social or contextual power. So while women are more likely to express prosocial and
emotions that imply powerlessness, and men are more likely to demonstrate powerful emotions, men
and women do not experience those emotions differently based on sex, rather their expression of those
emotion are heavily dictated by social norms and constructions.

Culture adheres to collective rather than individualistic belief systems and behavioral norms. Therefore,
the stereotype that women are more emotional than men has maintained through cultural constructs
found in every realm of culture. It is especially important to understand the stereotypes of gendered
emotions because they shape how we view and value (or devalue) others and ourselves.

Sex, Gender, and Friendship

Friendships take many forms: close, family-like, acquaintance, or based on task or leisure activities or
even on social media like Facebook. How many people have you heard describe someone as being a
“Facebook friend?” Homogenous friends tend to be similar in sex, ethnicity, intelligence, economic
status, and sexual orientation. However, homogeneous friends are not more “successful” friendships,
nor is there any scientific data supporting the idea that homogeneous friends outlast heterogamous
friends.

Children as young as 3 or 4 years old develop and demonstrate preferences for particular playmates. As
children grow and continue into their primary socialization, their concepts of friendship become
increasingly complex and focus on themes of satisfying interaction. Most children prefer same-sex

86 Fischer, Agneta. Gender and Emotion: Social Psychological Perspectives.” 200. Cambridge University Press.
87 Ibid
88 Ibid

51 | P a g e
friendships because of their similar interest in activities. Often, boys show preference for larger groups
and describe their friendships in terms of loyalty, helping, shared activities, and awareness of each
others’ needs, but without overt affection. Girls tend to emphasize themes of closeness, verbal sharing,
acceptance, and emotional sharing. As children age, the differences in friendships between the sexes
becomes more distinct, with girls sharing information and communication with friends and boys sharing
activities with friends.89 In many ways, boys tend to view friendship as something that is instrumental
and girls view friendship as something emotional.

Boys’ same-sex friendships also tend to be less intimate than that of girls same-sex relationships.
“Research of high school boys has shown that there are several characteristics of upholding masculinity
during adolescence that have implications for male friendship.” Vicki Helgesen explains three reasons
for this90:

1. Boys’ interactions are often fashioned through and characterized by mocking, teasing,
and taunting. Boys are excited to tease each other and stand up to the teasing, as well.

2. Boys’ identities are largely defined by heterosexism. They are expected to be

heterosexual and masculine, totally unfeminine.

3. Boys are expected to be “tough” by hiding their emotions. Often other boys will cut
off another boy’s attempt to share emotion in order to maintain their demonstrated
masculinity.

One thing sexes have in common in friendship trends is the rate of homosocial relationships.
Homosocial relationships are relationships between people of the same sex within society. This term
essentially describes the social bonds between people of the same sex within a society. Of course, there
are a variety of social bonds experienced by people in society, but we continue to observe the majority
of lasting friendships being homosocial friendships. Think about it: Homosocial relationships can include
teammates in a sex-segregated sport, a bachelorette party, or a “guys’ night out.” Think back to your
adolescent friendships. How many of them were homosocial rather than heterosocial?

In adult friendships, we see some of those trends resume. Some researchers tend to emphasize the idea
than men prefer to have “side-by side” friendships while women tend to prefer “face-to-face”
friendships.91 Women’s friendships tend to emphasize reciprocity, whereas men’s friendships tend to
be associative rather than reciprocal. However, men often self-disclose in their friendships and women
often pursue specific activities with specific friends. So, men’s and women’s friendships may have more
overlapping themes than they do differences.

The intimacy level of men’s long-term friendships tend to resemble those of women’s. While most
research on adult long-term friendships has focused primarily on women’s friendships, even fewer
studies have been conducted on minority men’s long-term friendships. So the intersectional approach to
studying men’s long-term friendships is relatively uncharted territory.

89
McNelles, L & Connolly, J. (1999). Intimacy between adolescent friends: Age and gender differences in intimate
affect and intimate behaviors. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9(2), 143-159
90
Helgeson, V. 2012. Psychology of Gender. Fourth Edition, Carnegie Mellon University: Pearson.
91 Wright, P. 1998. Toward an Expanded Orientation to the Study of Sex Differences in Friendship. Sex Roles.

52 | P a g e
Recent research by sociologist Tristan Bridges into so-called “man caves” demonstrates that in addition
to being respites from the “feminine domain” of the rest of the house and specifically marked as a
“man’s domain,” it is also a place where men plan to hang out with their male friends. While they
understand this to be a place where “men can be men,” watch sports, curse, and talk openly with one
another, it is also a place understood to be primarily used for homosocial bonding.92 Sadly, most of the
men Bridges spoke to didn’t actually use their man caves for anything, as they had no time with work
and family responsibilities!

More research has emerged in the past decade on cross-sex adult friendships as more egalitarian
relationships and sex roles have become more accepted and practiced. For women, benefits of being
friends with men tend include knowing how men think and access to men’s greater resources and
status. For men, some benefits of cross-sex friendships tend to include relief from rivalry within male
friendships and enjoying more nurturing and emotional support.93 Cross-sex friendships are often more
emotionally satisfying for men than for women.94

Sex, Gender, and Dating

Ahhh, dating. What is dating? Filtering through the eligible pool of partners for the purpose of mate
selection, right? Maybe. But here are far more reasons to date than to merely select a mate. Some
people date for excitement, revenge, attention, access to resources, recreation, sexual activity, or
status. Prior to dating, courting was common in the United States. Courting, which involved strong rules
and customs and was often supervised by parents, evolved into dating due to wide-spread use of the
automobile after the Industrial Revolution. Automobiles enabled young people to have more freedom
(including new found opportunities to explore intimacy without their parents’ watchful eyes). 


In the United States there are millions of people between the ages of 18-24 (18-24 is considered prime
dating and mate selection ages). The U.S. Statistical Abstracts estimates that 9.5% of the U.S. population
or about 15,675,000 males and 15,037,000 females are in this age group.95

Today, men are much more likely to date and have multiple dating partners than are women. Yep,
there’s that double-standard rearing its ugly head again. However, for both men and women,
homogamy remains the overriding principle for selecting dating partners. When we see people we filter
them as either being in or out of our pool of eligibles (the people we could theoretically meet and have
relationships with). Filtering is the process of identifying those we interact with as either being in or out
of our pool of people we might consider to be a date or mate. There are many filters we use. One is
physical appearance. We might include some because of tattoos and piercing or exclude some of the

92 https://melmagazine.com/this-guy-studies-man-caves-for-a-living-heres-what-he-s-learned-
3a6b6e652dcc#.h8fso6gic
93 McWillaims, S. & Howard, J. (1993). Solidarity and hierarchy in cross-sex friendships, Journal of Social

Issues, 49(3), 191-202.

94 Werking, K. (1997). We’re just good friends: Women and men in nonromantic relationships. New York:

Guilford.
95United States Census Bureau. Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2012
https://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2012comp.html
53 | P a g e
exact same physical traits.

There are a lot of gendered rituals assigned to dating. Like our sexual scripts, blueprints and guidelines
for what we define as our role in sexual expression, sexual orientation, sexual behaviors, sexual desires,
and the sexual component of our self-definition, we having dating scripts. These scripts are filled with
those gendered rituals. We are not just born with sexual or gendered scripts in place; they are learned.
Dating and gender trends are learned via culture and socialization (think about movies aimed at young
adults). There are as many unique dating scripts as there are people, yet some of these scripts have
common themes and can be viewed as a collective pattern or trend in the larger social level. For
example, while there are exceptions, who do we typically expect to “make the first move” in
heterosexual dating experiences? Most of would agree: men. (Sigh).

Teens often have mutually self-serving motivations in dating that often make their experiences (often
love) feel real and powerful at the time (see Table 1). For many teens who form heterosexual romantic
relationships, the girls are often seeking social status and maturity by having a complex relationship with
a boy and by demonstrating to her female friends her social capabilities. Typically teen girls seek love,
closeness, intimacy, and the status of being a girlfriend, steady, or even engaged. That works
conveniently for boys who are often seeking physical affection and social status.96

Table 1. Adolescent Intimacy-Sex and Love Matrix97

This pattern in Table 1 has not been found to apply

Plays at Really wants
to adults and has not been found to apply to all
teen romances. Adults tend to report more sexual
Boys Love Sex and relational satisfaction when intimacy and
friendship are part of the overall relationship. Men
typically have more power in initial dating
Girls Sex Love
situations, and women often see their actions as
being dependent on men’s. Most research on
dating trends have been conducted within heterosexual dating patterns, and so far, this has been a very
heterocentric perspective of dating, but we will explore same-sex dating trends and the problems with
heterosexual focus in a moment.

In general, people engaging in heterosexual dating practices typically identify potential partners
exhibiting traditional feminine and masculine traits as being the most attractive as potential partners. In
other words, we tend to filter our dating prospects through gendered lenses. That is, how well does the
person conform to or violate genders norms. However, and this is when it gets really exciting, marital
relationships between such people tend to have lower satisfaction rates, particularly for women. Think
about that! While traditional gender roles might be attractive in dating prospects, they often do not
sustain or maintain interpersonal satisfaction in a marriage. Calling Freidan! Remember that little book a
lady named Betty wrote back in the 1960s called The Feminine Mystique we discussed in the opening
chapter? Well, over fifty years ago Freidan revealed the restlessness, loneliness, and dissatisfaction

96 Hammon and Cheney. Intimate Relationship and Family. “Love and Intimacy.” 2012. Creative Commons
License.
97 Ibid

54 | P a g e
experienced by so many suburban wives living out the outlined gendered scripts in the privacy of their
middle- and upper-class homes. Turns out, that trend persists. Androgynous individuals and people in
egalitarian partnerships and marriages report higher levels in interpersonal satisfaction.

Speaking of changing dating patterns, the single largest method for spouses to meet now is online.
Between 2005-2012, more than one-third of couples who got married in the US met through an online
dating site. In the past it was said that people would only look as far as they needed to to find a partner.
In fact, in 1932, one third of couples who got married had lived within a five-block radius of each other
before they got married! As far as they need to go but no further!98 This method of mate selection
worked insofar as it allowed you to meet an eligible as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Since
marriage was understood to be the marker of adulthood it was an urgent matter to find a partner swiftly
(to say nothing of the social pressure and ever present fear of becoming a ‘spinster’ or an ‘old maid’!).
Potential spouses were filtered primarily through gender roles; could this man be a provider to a wife
and children? Could this woman bear and raise children and keep a home? Today, the explicit gender
role filtration may have lessened, but it still dominates in our profile pictures. One study even found 90%
of your dating success depends on it!99 The most effective profile pictures encapsulated crucial
gendered themes; for men, avoiding looking at the camera, not smiling, and doing something interesting
were most effective. For women, a flirtatious and coy straightforward selfie shot with visible cleavage
would do the trick.

Most of us tend to think of personal or psychological characteristics when explaining our dating and
spousal choices. As we have seen throughout this chapter however, that is a simplified and incomplete
explanation. Instead, we must look to sociology to explain the rest. When asked why we choose our
partner we might reply with ‘chemistry’ or something similar. But, as we’ve seen before society is often
stacking the odds. Isn’t it uncanny how many of our own parents married heterogamously on most
attributes (e.g. race/ethnicity, class, age, religion and even level of attractiveness)? Well, it turns out,
society organized our lives to make this outcome likely for most. We tend to live in neighborhoods
grouped by race and class. When we meet people in the real world it is often at work or school. The
people we run into in either location are also likely to have similar backgrounds to us. In other words,
the field of availables is stratified into class and racial groups before we meet anyone! By the way, have
you ever noticed how much you have in common with people of similar backgrounds to your own? You
have similar socialization experiences, similar cultural understandings and lo and behold, you click! You
hit it off with that person, becoming fast friends or dating partners. Sounds a lot like that mysterious
‘chemistry’ we spoke of earlier, doesn’t it?

Much has been made of the ‘hook up’ in recent years, particularly among college students. While its
meaning isn’t always clear (does kissing count? Any sexual contact?), it is understood to be occurring
more frequently. This is facilitated technologically as well as face to face. Not just dating apps however,
sociologist Lisa Wade has documented that young people today use many apps, like social media ones,
to facilitate hookups. Additionally, Wade has found that hookups resulting in sex are less enjoyable for
women than they are for men and this has everything to do with social forces that privilege men’s

98 Ansari, Aziz. Modern Romance. Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-627-6.

99 Christian Rudder, Dataclysm, 2014

55 | P a g e
pleasure at women’s expense.100

Same-sex Dating Trends

To what extent do marriage and family therapy journals address gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues such as
dating, marriage, divorce, and adoption? Wanda Clark and Julianne Serovich conducted one of the
largest studies of its kind to answer these questions. Of the 13,217 articles examined in 17 journals, only
77 (.006%) focused on gay, lesbian, and/or bisexual issues or used sexual orientation as a variable.101
Their findings support the claim that LGBTQ+ family issues are largely ignored by marriage and family
therapy researchers and most scholars. This poses a bit of a problem for people seeking information on
the subjects.

However, we do know many gender normative behaviors in heterosexual relationships are the same for
homosexual relationships. For example, people engaging in homosexual dating practices typically
identify potential partners exhibiting traditional feminine and masculine traits as being the most
attractive as potential partners.

One distinction within homosexual dating relationships are the increased risk youth are for dating
violence. Media attention and the literature on LGTBQ+ youth overwhelmingly focus on violence
involving hate crimes and bullying (when acknowledged at all). This makes it more difficult to bring to
light the increased risk these young people face for dating violence. One study found:

“A total of 5,647 youth (51 % female, 74 % White) from 10 schools participated in a

cross-sectional anonymous survey, of which 3,745 reported currently being in a dating
relationship or having been in one during the prior year. Results indicated that lesbian,
gay, and bisexual youth are at higher risk for all types of dating violence victimization
(and nearly all types of dating violence perpetration), compared to heterosexual
youth.”102

Dating and relationships for people in the LGBTQQI community can be more socially difficult due to
oppressive factors within dominant Western culture. This may be particularly true given that lesbians
and gay men are stigmatized both on an individual level and a couple level. The effects of oppression
and internalized homophobia may create a strain on those dating relationships that are formed, factors
that many heterosexual couples do not have to endure. Higher levels of internalized homophobia and
discrimination were associated with less positive perceptions of relationship quality among their gay and
lesbian participants.103

100 http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/orgasm-gap-real-reason-women-get-less-often-men-and-how-fix-it
101 Calrk and Serovich. Twenty years Later and Still in the Dark?. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. Volume 23, Issue
3. July, 1997. Pages 239–253
102 Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J.M. et al. J Youth Adolescence (2014) 43: 846. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9975-8
103 Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress and relationship quality in same-sex couples.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 81-99.

56 | P a g e
Cohabitation
Cohabiting is living together without marriage. While the legality of cohabiting and married couples
differ, the gender variables affecting satisfaction do not differ greatly. However, compared to married
couples, a more egalitarian sharing of the household seems to be even more desirable. And there is
really very little difference in the level of desire for egalitarian household between homosexual and
heterosexual couples. However, among lesbian couples, living together is more likely to have a marital
meaning than among gay men.

Some researchers have suggested divorce is more likely among couples who cohabit prior to marriage.
However, researchers have found it is not cohabitation that likely enhances divorce rates. What leads to
divorce is when people cohabit before they have the maturity and experience to choose compatible
partners and to sustain a long-term relationship. Early entry into marriage or cohabitation, especially
prior to age 23, is the critical risk factor for divorce. Sometimes people who cohabit get married due to
social pressure or out of a feeling of needing to “take the next step” (marriage) and without said
pressure may not have otherwise married when they weren’t ready to or their partner wasn’t a long
term fit. However getting married out of necessity or pressure are also huge risk factors for divorce.

Sociology of the Family

A family is a social group where the adults cooperate for the well-being of the group; it can include those
related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and also those who live together in an intimate relationship.
The family structures that were very common a century ago are not nearly as common today. A family
of orientation is the family into which an individual is born. Most people grow up and start their own
families. The family of procreation is the family an individual forms by marriage and or having children.
In the U.S. around the year 1900, most families had three generations living in one home (e.g., children,
parents, and uncles, aunts, or grandparents) and most participated in the manual labor that maintained
the household. Today, many families fall into one of two types: the first is a nuclear family or a family
group consisting of a mother and or a father, or both, and their children; the second most common
family form is the blended family, or the family created by a marriage of two adults where one or both
of them has one or more children from a prior relationship. The rest are many variations of family types
including single parent households (somewhere around 41% of births are to ‘single parents’ [though,
this includes cohabiting partners]). Very few families are multiple generational beyond parents and their
children. All the family relations past the nuclear or blended family we call extended family (e.g.,
cousins, aunts and uncles, and grand and great-grandparents).104

Family households predominated in 1970, when they made up 81 percent of all households. This
proportion dropped to around 66 percent by 2012. The most noticeable trend is the decline of married-
couple households with their own children, from 40 percent of households in 1970 to 20 percent in
2012. Indeed, the number of married couples without children has grown in recent years, from 28
percent of households in 2005 to 29 percent in 2012. This change is likely related to the aging of
householders and delays in childbearing.

104 Hammond, R & Cheney, P. (2011). Introduction to Sociology.

57 | P a g e
Figure 1. Households by Type, 1970-2012

Researchers in the sociology of family today often point out the path to marriage and family is varied
and nonlinear for many. While many of us learn the song as children about “so-and-so and so-and-so
sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g” as a children’s song (and socialization technique into the appropriate path
towards marriage and children) not all of us will take that path (at least not in that order). Today’s family
landscape is multifaceted and filled with options (especially notable in that this now includes women).
Several trends have been identified enabling these options: with the change in the economy toward an
information based service economy, young people of all genders require more schooling. This pushes
back marriage into the late twenties. Since it is now far more acceptable and easier for young people to
engage in premarital sex and there is less rush to have children, we’re doing so later and later. With the
aid of reproductive technologies childbearing can be pushed back as well. While it used to be that
women needed to be married to effectively begin adulthood, now women can choose other routes to
adulthood.105

In studying the family, Functional Theorists have identified some common and nearly universal family
functions. That means almost all families in all countries around the world have at least some of these
functions in common. Table 2 shows many of the global functions of the family.

105 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.html?pagewanted=all

58 | P a g e
Table 2. Functions of the Family.

Function What it provides

Economic support food, clothing, shelter

Emotional support intimacy, companionship, belonging

Socialization of
raising children, parenting
children

Control of sexuality defines and controls when and with whom (e.g., marriage)

Control of
the types of relationships where children should be born
reproduction

Ascribed status contexts of race, socioeconomic status, religion, kinship

By far, economic support is the most common function of today’s families. When your parents let you
raid their pantry, wash clothes in their laundry, or pay for health insurance, that’s economic support.

Emotional relationships are also very common, but there is a tremendous amount of cultural diversity in
how intimacy is experienced in various families around the world. Intimacy is the social, emotional,
spiritual, intellectual, and physical
trust that is mutually shared between family
members. Family
members share confidences,
advice, trust, secrets, and ongoing mutual
concern. Many family scientists
believe that intimacy in family relationships functions as a strong buffer to the ongoing stresses
experienced by family members outside of the home.

Socialization of children is important so that they grow up to be fully functioning members of society.
Children are born with the potential to be raised as humans. They will realize this potential if older
family members or friends take the time to protect and nurture them into their cultural and societal
roles. Today the family is the core of primary socialization, but many other societal institutions
contribute to the socialization process as well.

Controlling sexuality and reproduction has traditionally been sanctioned within the context of a family.
In some cultures, the father and mother selected the spouse of their children in many countries
although it has never been that common in the U.S. Older family members tend to encourage pregnancy
and childbirth within marriage or long-term relationships.

The instrumental family roles include leadership and decision-making responsibilities. The expressive
family role sees to it that the emotional needs of the family are met. In traditional families among
societies throughout the world the husband is more likely to provide material support and primary
leadership authority within the family and the wife is more likely to provide affection and moral support.
Although this general role pattern has been historically true, these roles are undergoing some degree of

59 | P a g e
change today, particularly as more women enter the labor force and as family types are changing.

Sex, Gender, and Marital Trends

It’s an exciting time for us in the United States! Why? Because we have hit an all-time high for adults
who have never been married. One in five adults aged 25 and older have never been married. Men are
more likely than women to have never been married (23% vs. 17% in 2012). “And this gender gap has
widened since 1960, when 10% of men ages 25 and older and 8% of women of the same age had never
married.”106

The median age at the time of the first marriage is

now 27 for women and 29 for men. This is up from
20 for women and 23 for men in 1960, and about a
quarter (24%) of never-married young adults ages 25
to 34 are living with a partner.107 This trend cuts
across all major racial groups but has been more
pronounced among African Americans, wherein
African Americans went from 9% to 36% and Whites
went from 8% to about 16%.

Married people (43% very happy) are a good bit

happier than unmarrieds (24%). This trend has been
consistent in research over several decades. In fact,
marriage is one of the biggest indicators for self-
satisfaction and happiness in adults’ lives. It holds up
for men as well as for women, for homosexual and
heterosexual, and for the old as well as the young.
So, marriage is more than “just a piece of paper” and
not all marriages are created (or interpreted) as
equal. For example, if you were a visitor from
Graph of “Rising Share of Never-Married Adults, Growing another planet and attempted to explain marriage to
Gender Gap” beings where you were from originally by looking at
popular culture, you’d probably have to conclude
that marriage is almost exclusively sold, bought, and desired by women. What do I mean by that?
Wedding magazines are aimed almost exclusively at brides, not grooms. Reality TV shows highlight
Bridezillas, not Groomzillas and “Saying yes to the Dress” instead of the tuxedo. “If you like it, then you
should have put a ring on it.”—Queen B. Meanwhile, men are often depicted as being commitment-
phobic, uninterested (or uninvited) in planning a wedding, or as though they are making the “ultimate
sacrifice” (their singlehood) for someone. Marriage is depicted as being natural for women, but stifling
for men.

These images in popular culture are not completely fiction, as our interpretations of our gender roles

106 Pew Research Report. 2014. Record Share of Americans Have Never Married.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/
107 U.S. Census Bureau table MS-2. (http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/marital.html).

60 | P a g e
are largely shaped by popular culture. For example, research shows women tend to find marriage more
appealing than do men. Nearly two-thirds of married same-sex couples are lesbians, and only about a
third are gay men.108 Women tend to be more marriage-focused, be they homosexual or heterosexual.

But while women tend to be more wedding-focused, what about some of those benefits of marriage
mentioned earlier? Do women and men enjoy those equally? In fact, the answer is no. Research has
shown the “marriage benefits”—the increases in health, wealth, and happiness—are disproportionately
enjoyed by men. Married men are better off than single men in these categories. Married women, on
the other hand, are not better off than unmarried women. In fact, in the one area where men were
traditionally the beneficiaries in different-sex marriages (wealth) men are actually benefitting
economically more from marriage today than are women. “In the past, relatively few wives worked, so
marriage enhanced the economic status of women more than that of men. In recent decades, however,
the economic gains associated with marriage have been greater for men than for women.”109 Since
folks with higher incomes are more than those with lower incomes to marry instead of cohabit, and we
tend to marry endogamously
(so upper class people with
upper class people) people
higher up the class ladder tend
to retain privileges or even
increase them through
marriage. Households where
there are two high income
earners are also more likely to
be in the upper middle class,
cementing further the class
divide and the accompanying
resources.

The Rise of Wives, 1970 to 2007

Disruption in
Marriage
About 1% of the total number of currently-married or registered same-sex couples get divorced each
year, in comparison to about 2% of the total number of married straight couples. Note that the
percentage of couples that get divorced eventually is close to 50%, but only 1% or 2% of them get
divorced in any particular year. Finally, divorce is less likely for those who marry the first time after the
age of 25.

108 Badgett, M.V., Herman, J. 2011. Patterns of Relationship Recognition by

Same-Sex Couples in the United States. The Williams Institute.
Richard Fry and D’Vera Cohn. 2010. “Women, Men and the New Economics of Marriage”. Pew Research
109

Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/11/new-economics-of-marriage.pdf

61 | P a g e
Many people believe cheating to be the leading cause of divorce, however communication problems are
the number one reason marriages fail in America today. Another strong factor influencing divorce is
getting married for reasons other than love and commitment, such as marrying out of obligation,
pregnancy, or for money. And speaking of money, finances (or being on different financial pages) can
cause a huge strain on a marriage. “Opposites can attract but when two people are opposites in the
financial department, divorce often ensues.”110

A survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet
there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in
non-marriage relationships.111 Some argue women initiate most divorces because they might be more
sensitive to relationship difficulties. However if this were true, women would initiate the breakup of
both marriages and non-marital relationships at equal rates. Instead, “married women reported lower
levels of relationship quality than married men. In contrast, women and men in non-marital
relationships reported equal levels of relationship quality.”112

Some social scientists argue this might be true because marriage comes with the historical baggage of
patriarchal ideology, whereas non-marriage relationships are often free from (or least less affected by)
the ideas that within heterosexual marriages women are still expected to take on the bulk of the
housework and childcare responsibilities. Heck, women are still expected to take the man’s surname! So
while society and culture are moving toward more egalitarian relationship goals, the traditional
institution of marriage just hasn’t caught up, making non-marital relationships more adaptable to
contemporary expectations and ideals.

An Indiana University study shows that men and women cheat at the same rate.113 Surprised? Most of
us probably would be, especially since the images we often see of the “wondering spouse” is a man on a
business trip or a man who is unhappy in his marriage, picking up a woman in a bar or a club. While men
and women cheat at about the same rate, the motives between the sexes are often different. Women
are more likely to cheat for emotional satisfaction. Often times, when women cheat, there is no physical
contact, but becoming emotionally invested in another person means one has likely checked out of their
marriage. For men, cheating often takes the form of physical connection. Therefore social scientists
often recognize men’s cheating habits being less about having an emotional connection with someone
and more about experiencing a physical pleasure. In fact, most men who cheat on their wives claim they
are still in love with them and that their infidelities were “hurtful mistakes” rather than an attempt to
leave or find someone new.114

Whether or not marriages are disrupted by separation or divorce is explained by a number of factors,
such as gender roles adopted by women and men within the family unit. For example, men who are

110 The Huffington Post. “The 10 Most Common Reasons People Get Divorced.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango/10-most-common-reasons-people-divorce_b_8086312.html
111 American Sociological Association. (2015, August 22). Women more likely than men to initiate divorces, but not non-

marital breakups. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 29, 2017 from

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150822154900.htm
112 Ibid
113 Kristen P. Mark, Erick Janssen, Robin R. Milhausen. Infidelity in Heterosexual Couples: Demographic, Interpersonal,

and Personality-Related Predictors of Extradyadic Sex. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011.
114 Ibid

62 | P a g e
more flexible in their gender roles and identities are more likely to be able to sustain a marriage than
are men who are stricter in traditional gender roles.115

When people do end a heterosexual marriage arrangement, women are far more likely to retain custody
of children than men. About 83% of custodial parents are women.116 However, aside form the financial
strain of being a single parent, numerous court visits to receive payments can also be a costly venture.
Mothers who are custodial parents are also less likely to retain full-time employment than are fathers
who are custodial parents. This can, in turn, cause women to be more financially dependent on child
support and/or public assistance. Close to 31.2% of custodial mothers live below the official poverty line,
whereas 17.2% of custodial fathers are living below the poverty line. 45.6% of women who are owed
child support are paid the full amount, 28% receive partial the amount due, and about 20% receive no
payment at all.117

115 Sherman, Jennifer. 2009. “Bend to Avoid Breaking: Job Loss, Gender Norms, and Family Stability in rural
America.” Social Problems 56 (November): 599-620.
116
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Statistical Abstract of the United Sates. 2013. Washington D.C.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/P60-255.pdf
117
Ibid

63 | P a g e
Gender, Sex, and Sexuality
Learning Objectives
At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Define the double standard.

2. Describe the double bind.

3. Describe the binary model for sexuality and its shortcomings.

The Social Construction of Sexuality

Excerpt from: Coleman, K. Alienation through Social Construction:

A Call for the Re-humanization of Sexuality. Journal of Positive Sexuality, Vol. 1, June 2015, page 25-30.

Sexuality is a topic that comes with a great deal of controversy. The debate over whether sexuality is
ascribed or achieved is an old and a loaded one. Often the same people (newscasters, elected officials,
religious leaders, etc.) generating discussion on the topic misuse the proper terminology surrounding
the subject, resulting in misleading and fallacious constructs being deployed and socially reinforced.
While sexual orientation is ascribed,118 sexuality is a social representation of sexual orientation. So to
argue whether one is born “gay” or “straight” is a loaded debate without the possibility of a solution
because: People cannot be “gay” or “straight”; rather, only behaviors can be categorized in these binary
constructs. However, sexual behaviors, social definitions, and interpretations of “gay” and “straight” as
descriptors of human sexuality are constantly evolving. Thus, “gay” or “straight” can only be applied as
descriptors to individual sexual actions rather than to people as a categorical approach to identity.

The American Sociological Association (ASA), American Medical Association (AMA), American
Psychological Association, and American Pediatric Association all recognize sexuality as being
experienced by the actor on a continuum and based on a personal sense of identity reflective of sexual
attractions. The ASA, AMA, and American Psychological Association recognize that while there is no
absolute consensus as to what determines one’s sexual orientation, most people experience little or no
sense of choice pertaining to their orientations, leading researchers to conclude, historically, that sexual
orientation is biologically determined. “Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings,
psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily
changed.”119

In addition, actors often portray sexual orientation through behaviors socially interpreted as indicative
of that predetermined characteristic; however, sexual behavior may or may not reflect sexual
orientation. In other words, the social actor has a choice whether to exercise behaviors indicative of
current social definition of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality. The sexual

American Psychological Association. (2011). Sexual orientation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from:
118

www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx
119 Ibid

64 | P a g e
behavior in which an individual engages does not necessarily reflect sexual orientation or desire; rather,
sexual behavior is often indicative of the social construction of reality possessed by the social actor and
of the motivations for specific sexual activity.120

Despite behaviors exercised by the social actor, sexual orientation remains the same. So, while a social
actor might have strong sexual urges for someone of the same sex category, they may never act on it.
Conversely, someone having sexual attraction for others of the different sex may exercise behaviors
indicative of current cultural definitions descriptive of homosexuality. Thus, behaviors often (mistakenly)
become the catalyst for identifying others’ sexual orientation. In addition, social actors’ sexual behaviors
are a product of socialization, not biology. For example, we learn (explicitly from parents, teachers,
politicians, religious leaders, and other significant figures in our lives, or implicitly from images, themes,
or messages in popular culture) how to have sex, with whom to have sex, with what motivations to have
sex. We learn there are certain rules, social regulations, and even legislation controlling our
interpretations of valuing our own and others’ sexual behaviors. Sexual behaviors—focusing only on
behaviors that are products of consensus from both (or all) parties—are behaviors (like all others) that
are learned through socialization. They develop and progress as we develop and progress.
Consequently, sexual behaviors are not always in response to sexual desire because of two central
explanations: (1) Motivations for sexual behavior vary; and (2) The current social construction of
normative sexual behavior is reflective of ultra-conservative (prudish) ideals and saturated with religious
underpinnings—or at least the most current culturally valued behaviors are. Nevertheless sexual
orientation remains inherent in individuals and, thus, unchanging.

Common terms pertaining to sexuality (sexual orientation, desire, and behavior) are constantly
presented in the media as being interchangeable. However, they are not. Subsequently, much of the
population is left uneducated (or inaccurately educated) due mainly to this misrepresentation in popular
culture and media and to the lack of passable education in the public school system on this topic.
Currently, there is no curriculum mandate for teaching human sexuality (vastly different from “sex ed”).
This is in combination with the content of sex education most often resulting in the over-emphasis given
to abstinence-only education.121 Such restriction on students’ access to fair and adequate education on
human sexuality only adds to the distortion of sexuality commonly presented as “normative” in popular
culture.

The inconsistency surrounding the use of the mentioned terminology (sexual orientation, sexual desire,
and sexual behavior), the lack of education in our public schools, and limited interpretations of sexuality
presented in the media have contributed to a poorly informed public. The incapacity to recognize the
differences between these terms outside of the individual only enhances the risk of not being able to
identify them correctly within the individual’s experiences and the inability for one to fully understand
their own complex sexuality. At risk is our ability to understand sexuality as one part of the human
experience, instead of focusing on categories created in an attempt to indicate one’s full social identity.
The ability to separately define behaviors from orientation will allow actors to recognize sexuality as a

120 Katz, J. (2007). The invention of heterosexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
121Landry, D. J., Darroch, J., E., Singh, S., Higgins, J., & Donovan, P. (2003). Factors associated with the content of sex
education in U.S. public secondary schools. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 35, 261-269.

65 | P a g e
continuum within the human experience with room for biological variation. After all, biology loves
variation; it is we humans who tend to struggle with it.

Binaries? More Like BYE-naries

Contemporary society defines sex as either male or female, as discussed in earlier chapters. However,
we know intersexed people challenge this widely-held and reinforced sex myth. Sexuality, though, is also
largely defined in binary terms. The word heterosexuality didn’t appear until 1890s, and it was only in
response to the rise of nonprocreative sex. At the time, sex for pleasure was seen as abnormal and even
perverted. The word heterosexuality was actually created in response to people engaging in sexual acts
with people of the same sex, and these came to known as homosexual behaviors.122 In other words, the
word heterosexual didn’t exist until there was a need to differentiate people based on their sexual
behaviors, depending on whether they were engaging sexually with people of the same sex or a
different sex. However these words were created to set the standard for “normal” sexuality
(heterosexuality) and “deviant” sexuality (homosexuality). This is an old tune with new lyrics, much like
Whiteness, wealth, youth, and masculinity have been set as the standards and much les scrutinized than
other variations in those categories, now heterosexuality has been granted the same social beneficiary
status pertaining to sexuality. In other words, when sexuality is viewed from a binary perspective,
homosexuality is overwhelmingly underappreciated and underrepresented in popular culture and in our
collective conscious.

While sociologists have challenged the legitimacy of the binary construction of sexuality, so too have
they challenged the idea of heterosexuality being the “normal” of the two. In addition to this social
injustice, the binary viewpoint does even more harm. It allows for the dismissal of people who don’t
identify as being either hetero- or homosexual. Bisexuals are often described as being a combination of
the two mutually exclusive categories for sexuality. Nope. Bisexuality is its own sexual category as
recognized by the AMA, APA, and ASA, among others.

In addition, the idea that sexuality is binary assumes that homosexual or heterosexual desires exclude
one another. Sexuality is, in fact, more fluid than a binary exploration would allow. Asexuality, not
having sexual attracted to either male or female, does not align with either the heterosexual or
homosexual definitions, and yet there is nearly 1% of the world’s population identifying as asexual.123
So the binary exploration of sexuality doesn’t make sense socially, biologically, or politically.

LGTBQ+ Identities
Give me an L! L! you got your L, you got your L! Give me a G! G! you got your G, you got your G! Okay,
that’s enough, because if we really finished that little cheer, we’d have to spell out LGBTQQIAA. Yep,
we’d be here a while. However, these are also the sexual identities we’re going to explore in this
chapter, as we just discussed why the binary approach to sexuality is no longer social or scientifically
valid.

122 Katz, J. (2007). The invention of heterosexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
123Anthony F. Bogaert. 2004. Asexuality: prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample. Journal of Sex
Research, August, 2004.

66 | P a g e
L=Lesbian
A lesbian is a owmen is is attracted to other women The word “attracted” doesn’t necessarily imply a
sexual attraction. Rather, this can include sexual attraction, sexual activity, sexual fantasies, emotional
preference for females, or lesbian identification.

G=Gay
The G represents gay males. While the word gay is an umbrella term that can describe homosexual men
and women, typically the word gay is used to represent homosexual males, thus making it necessary to
allow a separate identity for homosexual females (lesbians).

B=Bisexual
Bisexual people have sexual desires or behaviors for both men and women, and those desires or
behaviors are more than just incidental or occasional. This definition would exclude heterosexual people
who “experimented” with homosexual behavior but engaged in only heterosexual behaviors for the rest
of their lives, and it would exclude homosexual people who experimented with heterosexual behaviors
but exercised homosexual behaviors for the rest of their lives. Bisexuality is NOT a combination of
heterosexuality and homosexuality, as previously thought in the sciences only a couple of decades ago.

T=Transgender
Transgender is an umbrella term, encompassing most identities for people who do not conform to
traditional gender norms based on their assigned sex category. Some people also refer to being
transgender as being gender nonconforming or gender variant. These are all acceptable descriptors for
people who “cross gender barriers” but do not change their sex. So women who wear men’s clothes or
men who wear women’s clothes might identify as being transgender. The word transgender is becoming
more accepted than the word transvestite, because the word transvestite has an association with the
medical community and sometimes has a derogatory meaning.

Transexuality refers to those who have undergone sex reassignment hormone therapy and/or surgery
(gender affirming surgery). People who identify as being transsexual experience gender identity
inconsistent with the culturally constructed gender assumptions based on their assigned sex category.
While some people who are transsexual reject the label of transgender, transsexual is not an umbrella
term like transgender.

Q=Queer
The word queer actually means “strange” or “odd.” However, in recent decades the word was used to
denigrate people who identified as homosexual. The University of Michigan describes the word as such:

Queer: 1) An umbrella term sometimes used by LGBTQA people to refer to the entire
LGBT community. 2) An alternative that some people use to "queer" the idea of the
labels and categories such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc. Similar to the concept of
genderqueer. It is important to note that the word queer is an in-group term, and a
word that can be considered offensive to some people, depending on their generation,
geographic location, and relationship with the word.124

124
https://internationalspectrum.umich.edu/life/definitions

67 | P a g e
Queer theory challenges either/or, essentialist notions sexuality within the mainstream dialogue, and
instead suggests an understanding of sexuality that emphasizes blurring boundaries and cultural
constructions that change depending on historical and cultural context.

Q=Questioning
The second Q stands for questioning. This second Q represents people who may not feel like they fit
nicely and neatly into one of these constructed boxes. While we are seeing some shift toward progress
of understanding sexuality as a spectrum, we continue to create labels and identities that ultimately
constrict people’s identities, behaviors, relationships, and social interpretations of sexuality. So we are
seeing progress with more terms and categories than the traditional homosexual or heterosexual binary,
but some people (even with the additional contemporary categories) don’t identify as strictly one of
those. Often people who identify as “questioning” are exploring their identification.

I=Intersex
People who are intersexed have characteristics that are different than the prevalent notions of female
and male. Sometimes the I is omitted form the LGBTQQIAA because they argue being intersexed is not
part of or affect sexuality or sexual identity, and this does not belong in this string of letters. In other
words, intersexuality is not about sexuality, it’s about sex category. Others argue intersexuality falls
under the transgender umbrella and, therefore, belongs in this string of letters. What most sociologists
agree on is that expanding our understanding of sexuality, sex, and gender is imperative for the health
of our culture and the individuals within. Yes, our understanding is still imperfect and limited, but we are
moving in a more enlightened direction.

A=Asexual
Asexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by a persistent lack of sexual attraction toward any
gender or sex.125 At least 1% of people are believed to be asexual. People who are asexual are not
genderless people or people with hormone imbalance or people who have a fear or phobia of sexual
relationships. Instead, someone who is asexual simply does not experience sexual attraction for others.
However, it is important to note, people engage in sexual behaviors for motives other than sexual
attraction all the time. So, people who are asexual often date, have sex, masturbate, fall in love, get
married, or have children.

A=Ally
Simply put, ally refers to people who are not LGBTQQIA but who support the rights of people who are
LGBTQQIA. Empathy, understanding, and respecting the diverse human experience of sexuality will help
lower health risks, hate crimes, discrimination, substance abuse, homelessness, and suicide and will
improve social solidarity and the overall health of society.

Problems with Heterosexual Focus

Sexism is discrimination based on sex. Heterosexism is the discrimination or prejudice based on not
being heterosexual. In other words, heterosexism described the predominant thinking that there is an
inherent superiority in being heterosexual, thereby limiting social acceptance, tolerance, and empathy
for people who do not identify as being heterosexual. Sometimes this can come in the form of overt
bigotry, but sometimes heterosexism can be harder to identify. For example, as a woman, I cannot tell

125
http://www.whatisasexuality.com/intro/

68 | P a g e
you how many times I’ve been asked if I have a boyfriend or husband. However, I can’t recall an instance
where someone used more inclusive language to gain perspective into my relationship status.
Something like, “Do you have a partner?” And I don’t think I’ve ever been asked if I have a girlfriend or
wife. Now, this is not to say that all those people are bigots or mean or intending to be exclusive, but we
can see how heterosexism has become the normative presumption while other sexual identities have
taken a backseat.

Heterocentrism is the belief that heterosexuality is central and normal in contrast to other sexual
orientations. This leads to other sexual orientations being viewed as inferior, abnormal, or even
unacknowledged. Heterocentrism can be a fueling force behind homophobia, both at individual and
societal levels. Homophobia is ideology that disadvantages sexual minority groups. Homophobia can
take many forms: violence perpetrated against sexual minorities, failure to allow same-sex marriage,
criminalizing homosexual behaviors (it wasn’t until 2003 the Supreme Court reversed the decision with
Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating sodomy laws the criminalization of numerous sexual acts between
people of the same sex), or discrimination in the workplace. However, homophobia is often overlooked
(except in the occasional headline—events such as the brutal murders of Matthew Shepard, Brandon
Teena, and Gwen Araujo). 92% of LGBTQ+ students report hearing homophobic slurs in school regularly,
84% of LGBTQ+ student report being threatened because of their sexual orientation, 39% of gay,
lesbian, and bisexual students and 55% of transgender students reported having been shoved or
pushed, and 64% percent of GLBTQ students reported feeling unsafe at school.126

Where does much of the homophobia come from? Heterocentrism can lead to heterosexism, and of left
unchecked, heterosexism will allow homophobia to flourish. Researcher, author, and professor of
psychology at the University of Rochester explained:

“Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction
to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind
them of similar tendencies within themselves. In many cases these are people who are
at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward. Sometimes
people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own
impulses, in a sense they ‘doth protest too much.’ In addition, it appears that sometimes
those who would oppress others have been oppressed themselves, and we can have
some compassion for them too, they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot
be accepting of themselves.”127

Reinforcing the focus on heterosexuality as being the normative or standard sexuality enhances anti-
LBGT+ attitudes. Although those attitudes are declining in the United States, the minority still expressing
these negative attitudes has a significant impact on LGBTQ+ people, their supporters, and society as a
whole. Homonegativity and homophobia differ depending on the perpetrator or provocateur and the
person on the receiving end of the negativity.

126
Advocates for Youth. 2016. How the Homophobic Climate in the United States Affects GLBTQ Youth.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/604-how-the-homophobic-climate-in-the-united-states-affects-
glbtq-youth
127
Homophobia is More Pronounced in Individuals Who Have Internal Conflict Regarding Their Own Sexual
Identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. April, 2012.

69 | P a g e
Gender and Sexuality
The body is the place where ascribed sex, achieved gender, and constructed sexuality come together.
Sexual behaviors and attitude vary from culture to culture. While examining sex as a social fact, whether
or not we are actually born with a sexual nature, sociologists acknowledge it’s social factors organizing
our thoughts, behaviors, values, and acts pertaining to sex. Sexuality has become such a significant part
of our social lives that it has actually come to be interpreted as identity. Today, many people take for
granted that sexuality is, like gender, an identity. Individuals don’t just identify ourselves, but we identify
others in terms of sexuality as well. And it doesn’t stop there! We have become preoccupied with our
own and others’ identities because many of us view our own sexuality as a core of our identity. And
we’re still not done! We often associate and even interchange our gender identities with our sexual
identities, making it even more confusing for those trying to understand the human potential in
categorical terms rather than in fluid terms.

Sexuality, like gender, is fluid. To try to categorize a human potential like sexuality is like trying to
categorize human potentials like happiness. Could you imagine if we grouped people and their
potentials by color of their skin? Oh, wait! We do that too! We create the categories because we’re
comfortable with the categories, but it’s the categories themselves that allow for stratification and
inequality between the categories.

Our sexuality will take on different forms and degrees of significance over the life course. Furthermore,
men and women do not experience sexuality or even sexual behaviors the same way. Women are often
challenged with two major themes pertaining to sexuality: 1) the double standard, and 2) the double-
bind.

Double Standard
American contemporary society still dictates that females and males are held to different (and unequal)
standards pertaining to sexual practice. According to the sexual double standard, “boys and men are
rewarded and praised for heterosexual sexual contacts, whereas girls and women are derogated and
stigmatized for similar behaviors.”128

Try something for a moment. Take out a piece of paper and draw a line down the center of the page,
creating two columns. Label the first column “men” and the second column “women.” Then in 20
seconds write down every word, label, or slang term used to describe males with multiple sexual
partners in the “men’s” column. Then go to the women’s column, and give yourself 20 seconds to do the
same. What do you see? Nearly every person who tries this exercise will have several more terms in
women’s column, and not in a positive way. He’s a stud, but she’s a slut, right? And this is not to imply
you think this way, after all you didn’t create those terms. But it shows our ability to mimic, translate, or
at least identify the interpretations of the larger collective.

The relevance of this double standard for sexual development and gender inequality has prompted
substantial research on the topic along with the publication of several popular books with titles such as
Slut!129 and Fast Girls130. Aside from the sociological implications of the sexual double standard, the

128 Derek A. Kreager, Jeremy Staff. June 2009. Social Pychology Quarterly. Volume: 72 issue: 2, page(s): 143-164
129 Tanenbaum Leora. Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation. New York: Seven Stories Press; 1999.
130 White Emily. Fast Girls: Teenage Tribes and the Myth of the Slut. New York: Scribner; 2002.

70 | P a g e
slut/stud problem has always been my favorite because I can’t understand how so many people have
bought into this. And for so long! Why is a woman “a slut” or "dirty," because she has sex? Does a penis
have some bizarre dirty-making power that I'm unaware of? Every time a woman has sex with a man,
has his penis dirtied her more? And what is a slut? I mean, literally, what is a slut? I know what the
dictionary says (yes, it’s in Webster’s Dictionary):

Slut:

1. a slovenly woman
2. 2a : a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute
2b : a saucy girl : minx

But, really, what s a slut? Do we have a quantifiable amount of people with whom the harlot must have
intercourse? No. Do we have a comprehensive list of sexual behaviors a woman must engage in before
being labeled a slut? No. Does a woman even need to have sex before becoming vulnerable to being
labeled a slut? No. But we use this word constantly to degrade and shame women about their sexual
behaviors and their selves. And let’s be clear on a few other points: 1) this is not a “man-on-woman”
crime, overwhelmingly women are more likely to use the word slut than men when referring to a
female; 2) the word slut is typically reserved for heterosexual behaviors, (and this ideology still evades
my comprehension) females engaging in sexual behaviors with other females are less likely to be labeled
a slut. Maybe lesbian sex isn’t “real”? Or maybe because there was no dirty penis to dirty her up? I
mean, think about it, if women engaging in homosexual behaviors are somehow less dirty than women
engaging heterosexual behaviors, then that leaves the penis as the variable causing the dirtiness. Who
knows, the point is we need to start questioning these labels and acknowledge the harm they cause, not
only to the recipients, but to our collective understanding of gender and sexuality.

And the word slut isn’t just harmful to our reputations or interpretations of others’ reputations. How
many times has a woman’s claim of having been raped been dismissed because she’s a slut? How often
are women or girls afraid to obtain birth control for fear of being called a slut? How often are women
who are victims of domestic violence called a slut or whore by their partner? How often are women
expected to recount their sexual history in rape, assault, or harassment cases?

Like activists such as Jean Kilbourne and Jackson Katz have proclaimed, it’s okay to stand up for women,
whether you are male, female, both, or neither. And it’s okay to speak out against the double-standard
imposed on women.

Double Bind
A double bind is a situation in which a person is confronted with two irreconcilable demands or a choice
between two undesirable courses of action. “Women have long since been categorized as either virgins
or whores, but for the first time we are expected to embody both at the same time.”131 Turn on the TV
or open a magazine, and you’ll see endless images of women using their sexuality to sell something.
Sandwiches, drinks, cars, clothes, whatever. There has been a standard set for how women should
present themselves as being sexually desirable and mature. However, with this whole double-standard
thing still looming, women are still expected to be sexually reserved in order to maintain purity. So,

131 Kilbourne, J. 2012. Killing Us Softly 4.

71 | P a g e
women are then faced with the challenge of being sexually available and experienced while maintaining
purity. Sound impossible? Because it is. But, it is a reality for women today.

The contradictory narratives of the double bind make an impossible situation for females in the United
States. If having sex is bad and not having sex is bad, then women are in a lose-lose position. And men,
of course, are not exempt from this inequity. Men are often shamed for not having sex (or enough of it)
while others may shame the women they are having intercourse with—at least for those engaging in
heterosexual activities.

If we can undo our thinking of intercourse as the social jackpot (as often shown in popular culture) and
start considering other methods of expressing sexuality, we could see a healthy attitudinal shift toward
sex pervading the culture: one that doesn't hurt both men and women in its antiquated rigidity.

Autonomous Sexuality
In the 1960s and 1970s, the United States saw its “sexual revolution.” This “revolution” was in part due
to the introduction and mass availability of contraception. A woman “on the pill” could be sexually
active with a man without the same fears of unplanned pregnancy as in the past. Many feminists argue
the “sexual revolution” was less a victory for women because it was still on men’s terms.132 133 However,
today we are seeing a bit of a progressive shift. There has been an increasing discussion on women’s
sexual preferences, desires, and needs. One example in popular culture is women’s magazines that have
allowed for a very public forum for celebrities like Beyoncé and Britney Spears to reveal their sexuality in
public. And if you were an adult in 2008, then you probably remember just how much of her sexuality
Spears shared with her audience.

So what is sexually empowering for women? To answer this question, women would need to experience
sexuality in a world where they don’t feel shamed or dirtied by sexual behaviors, where they are not
worried about how they look, and where they can be sexually active without fear of unplanned
pregnancy or transmitted STDs. Women would need information and education of what “safe” sex really
is, accessible contraception, open and honest communication with sexual partners, stronger policies
regarding sexual offenses, and the ability to critique and even reject the feminine ideal represented in
popular culture.

For many young people, sex has become a “rite of passage,” thrusting them from adolescence to
adulthood and into a role ready for a “mature relationship.” However, many young people (many people
in general, really) don’t define sex the same way. For example, many teens don’t consider oral sex to be
“sex.” Further, we have systematically deprived our young people of comprehensive education about
sex and sexuality. For schools to qualify for federal funding, a program must teach “abstinence from
sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases,
and other associated health problems” and that a “mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the
context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.”134 About 35% of U.S. sex

132 Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. 2005. Our bodies ourselves: A new edition a new era. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
133 Rose, T. 2003. Longing to tell: Black women talk about sexuality and intimacy. New York: Farrar, Straus, &

Giroux.
134 Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, “Guidance Regarding

Curriculum Content (Required for CBAE grantees as of FY 2006.),” January 2006.

72 | P a g e
education programs teach abstinence only, about 51% teach abstinence as the preferred option, and
about 14% teach abstinence as one option in broader curriculum for sex education.135

So, we are essentially creating the perfect storm for high rates of unplanned pregnancy, high rates of
STD transmission, and anxiety about sexuality. We are provided—not just providing but saturating—our
youth with images of sexuality: how good it looks, how desirable it will make us, how enjoyable and
exciting it is, and how we should look when we’re experiencing a sexual act. However, we’re
simultaneously depriving our young people of access to adequate education on the topic of sexuality.
This relates to sexual agency: With little formal education and popular culture dictating what sexuality
should be, can sexuality be empowering for women?

Most sociologists agree that, yes, sexuality can be empowering for women, but there are some
requisites that need to be met. First, women would need to be able to dismantle their thinking that their
worth is based on the ability to abide by the constructed double standard or double bind. For now, men
(at least heterosexual men) are the social beneficiaries of the double standard, wherein men are not
judged so harshly for sexual activity, rather they are often celebrated and encouraged to engage in
sexual activity. Second, women (and men) can challenge the Western ideal for marriage being a
prerequisite for “the right way” to be sexually active. Third, being in an egalitarian relationship, wherein
partners are intentionally and regularly maintaining equity in a relationship, is empowering for both
partners. Egalitarian relationships tend to be better at providing romance and respect between partners
over longer periods of time.

Much like the majority of socially normative behaviors, our sexual behaviors are constantly under
scrutiny. As social actors, we are subject to a range of potential sanctions, both positive and negative, in
response to our sexual behaviors. These sanctions, or the fear of such sanctions, are what stand in the
way of real social change. Our social construction of sexuality and the inequalities bred from such
construction, will not change without some serious social education and confrontation of current
ignorant ideas surrounding sexual creed.

Perhaps the most effective approach to begin to reach these goals should target our educational
institutions in an attempt to change sexually exclusive culture narratives. Allowing inclusive sex
education in public schools (including curriculum focusing on the difference between sexual drive,
desire, behaviors, and including positive role models for diversity in sexuality) will help “normalize”
currently stigmatized sexual behaviors and people practicing those behaviors. Comprehensive sex
education should include physical, psychological, and social aspects of sexuality, not simply focusing on
disease and pregnancy prevention.

By implementing improved sex education in our schools, we will likely discover that the social and
personal benefits of acceptable sex education outweigh the costs of lack of education. In American
culture, we also generally agree that stigmatization and inflicting harm to others is unacceptable. A
serious lack of formal sex education only allows these problems to flourish in our culture narrative.

Sex education does not necessarily require teaching certain values relating to particular sexual behaviors
or current constructions of them. However, sex education should move beyond teaching anatomy,

135Alan Guttmacher Institute. 2004. Sex education: Needs, programs and policies. New York and Washington
D.C.: Alan Guttmacher Insitution.

73 | P a g e
reproduction, and disease or pregnancy prevention136 and also include discussions pertaining to gender
role socialization, interpersonal behavior, stigmatization, and acceptance.

By not creating such a shift, we risk the permission to accept and value ourselves, as a collective people,
for our diverse human experiences in contrast to an ability to mimic antiquated methods of
discrimination through heteronormativity and patriarchal ideals that are creating a degrading effect.

Reproductive Freedom
Contraception and Abortion
Many cultures around the world still teach that the responsibilities of birth control lies with women.
Even in contemporary Western ideology, women are still assigned the burden of birth control efforts. In
the United States, this thinking led to social movements being led primarily by women for access to
resources such as Planned Parenthood, contraception, and abortion services. (Not to say these fights are
over, as a lot of attention was given to these issues during our last election).

Abortion (and certain forms of contraception) remained illegal in the United States until the 1970s when
the Supreme Court issued a series of rulings that made the decision to bear a child part of an individual’s
constitutionally protected right to privacy. The most significant (and popular) of these rulings was Roe
vs. Wade, which stated women have a constitutional right to choose abortion and that the state cannot
unduly interfere with or prohibit that right. During the first trimester, the decision to abort is strictly
private in all 50 states. Then states have varying legislation on the right to abortion in the second and
third trimester. In the second trimester, states may impose some restrictions, but only to safeguard
women’s health. And in the third trimester, states may prohibit abortions because of the viability of the
fetus (the ability of the fetus to live outside the female’s body).

The War on Women

However, there have been recent efforts by some politicians to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal
women’s rights to choose abortion. Some refer to this phenomenon as the War on Women. War on
Women is a political catchphrase in United States politics used to describe certain policies and
legislation as a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights, especially reproductive rights.

Some republican legislators have tried to define contraception not as a health but as a religious issue,
claiming that the availability of contraception is a violation of their religious beliefs. Arizona passed the
“Tell Your Boss Why You’re on the Pill” bill. House Bill 2625 “would permit employers to ask their
employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes,
such as hormone control or acne treatment.”137 Alabama, Nebraska, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, and Texas went to court over the Obama administration’s birth control mandate and
asked a federal judge to block it, telling the U.S. District Court of Nebraska that the rule violates the First
Amendment Rights of those who, for religious reasons, object to the use of contraceptives. Nebraska
attorney general Jon Bruning argued, “We will not stand idly by while our constitutionally guaranteed

136Haffner, D.W. (1992). Foreword: Sexuality education in policy and practice. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Sexuality and the
curriculum: The politics and practices of sexuality education (pp. vi-viii). New York: Teachers College Press.
137 http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/bills/hb2625c.pdf

74 | P a g e
liberties are discarded by an administration that has sworn to uphold them.”138 Apparently, their right to
oppose contraceptive use outweighs others’ right to use it.

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives also attacked the Department of Health and
Human Services’ guidelines that require insurance companies to cover contraceptive services free of
charge. Committee Chairman Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) claims the new rules do not protect religious groups
who object to contraception. What was that whole “separation of church and state” thing we learned in
elementary school? Ah, probably doesn’t matter.

Legislators (mainly Republican) have introduced a wide array of laws designed to either outlaw abortion
outright or to discourage it by making ridiculous and sometimes humiliating requirements of women
who might consider having a pregnancy
terminated. State legislatures enacted 135
pieces of legislation affecting women's
reproductive rights, and between 2000 and
2011, the number of states adverse to
abortion rights have increased
dramatically.139

Some states have gone as far as mandating

ultrasounds for women seeking abortions.
Since many women's pregnancies are not far
enough along to get an image via a
traditional ultrasound (a little jelly on the
belly with a camera on the stomach),
transvaginal ultrasounds, which involve the
physician inserting a probe into the woman's Graph of “Enacted Abortion Restrictions by Year”
vagina, may be required. Critics have
questioned the value of having a medically unnecessary procedure, and characterized it as similar to
some states' legal definition of rape. Several states have ultrasound laws on the books—in spite of the
fact that routine ultrasounds are not medically necessary before first-trimester abortions. The idea is
that if a woman sees the fetus, she might think twice about going through with her abortion.

138
USA Today. “7 States Sue Over Obama Administration’s Birth Control Rule.” 2/23/2012
Maxwell, Zerlina (April 10, 2012). "Reproductive Health Laws Prove GOP 'War on Women' Is No Fiction". U.S. News &
139

World Report.

75 | P a g e
 Ultrasound Requirements Before Abortions

When a woman finds out she is pregnant, there are currently three (legal) options: maintain the
pregnancy and then raise the baby, terminate the pregnancy, or adoption. No matter what, any one of
these three options is life changing. A woman has a right to make decisions regarding her own body.
Support for this right is found in a number of human rights instruments, which contain provisions that
ensure freedom in decision-making about private matters. The rights to sex equality and gender equality
are fundamental principles of human rights law. Freedom from discrimination in the enjoyment of

76 | P a g e
protected human rights is ensured in every major human rights instrument. Denying women access to
abortion is a form of sex discrimination.

While slightly more people are pro-choice than pro-life in the U.S., this doesn’t have to be such an “us
and them” argument. For example, one can be anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time. Pro-
choice ≠ pro-abortion. Abortion is an important element of women’s rights because women are more
affected by the abortion debate than men (sorry, that’s biology!), both individually (if they are
considering an abortion) and as a sex.

For more information on the War on Women, visit:

American Civil Liberties Union

https://www.aclu.org/issues/reproductive-freedom/abortion?redirect=blog/tag/war-women

National Organization for Women (NOW)

http://now.org/?s=war+on+women

U.S. News and World Report

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-there-a-republican-war-on-women/reproductive-health-laws-
prove-gop-war-on-women-is-no-fiction

Guttmacher Institute
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2012/01/states-enact-record-number-abortion-restrictions-2011

77 | P a g e
Gender and Education
Learning Objectives
At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Define gender roles.

2. Compare and contrast traditional and contemporary gender roles.

3. Examine some effects of traditional and contemporary gender roles.

A Brief History of Education in the United States

By 1830, three public schools had opened for White girls and boys, and all three were in Massachusetts.
In 1819 Congress passed the Indian Civilization Act, which authorizes up to $10,000 a year to support
the efforts of religious groups and interested individuals willing to live among and teach Indians. By
1850, all 50 states had established government-funded schools in which White children (of any social
class) could attend. Black children were formally excluded from public education opportunities until
after the Civil War; and even after the Civil War, schools remained segregated. In 1886 Army Captain
Richard Henry Pratt, opened the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania. However, his
educational goal for American Indians was to “civilize them” through total cultural assimilation. As he
put it in an 1892 speech: “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.”

The government funded schools available to white children had to two major outcomes: 1) White
female literacy raised to meet the rate of White male literacy; and 2) The increase in elementary schools
across the country allowed for more career opportunities for women as school teachers. Because of the
proliferation of schools in the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s, teaching became a full-time job,
and largely dominated by women. However, this job paid far too little to support a family, so as a result,
school administrators employed women in large numbers as cheap and efficient means to implement
mass education.

In 1896, the Supreme Court decision of Plessy vs.

Ferguson established separate public schools for black
and white students. The decision also deprived African
American children of equivalent educational
advantages. Schools for Black children had to make do
with scant financial support and negligible resources.
There were typically far too few teachers, too many
students, and students of all ages (from toddler to
teen) in one schoolhouse (which is really one school
Photo Source: John N. Choate
room). Often times, schools for Black children were so
Boys and girls pose outdoors at the Carlisle Indian underfunded (or not funded at all!) that building these
Industrial School, in Carlisle, Pa., after their arrival centers for learning were privately founded by Black
at the boarding school from Fort Marion, Fla.
women. Teaching was an attractive career for Black

78 | P a g e
women for economic reasons, but also because it was an alternative to working in a White family’s
house in a domestic role.

It was not until 1832 that women were allowed to attend college with men. Oberlin College in Ohio was
the first co-ed college in the U.S., and it was also the first White college to admit Black students.
Progressive? Maybe. But are you ready for this?! Female students were expected to remain silent in
lecture halls ad during public assembly. AND they were required to care for themselves as well as do the
laundry for male students, clean the male students’ rooms, and serve male students their meals. Can
you imagine?! Think about some of the students in your class. If you are a female, imagine having to do
the laundry of some of your male classmates to be able to learn at the same university. And if you’re
male, imagine expecting your female classmates having to do your laundry and serve you meals.
Hopefully (and maybe I am being too hopeful here)
we can all agree the inequality was apparent and
disturbing (to say the least).

In addition to having to accomplish domestic roles

to serve male students, female students were often
channeled into areas of study including home
economics, elementary education, and nursing;
whereas male students were often encouraged to
enter areas of study such as engineering, physical
and natural sciences, business, law, and medicine.
We will discuss how some of these trends persist
today later in the chapter.

The Progressive Era (1890s-1930s) was notable

Photo Source: John N. Choate
for a dramatic expansion in the number of
schools and students served, especially in the The same Indian students (from the previous image)
fast-growing metropolitan cities. After 1910, are shown four months after arriving at the Carlisle
smaller cities also began building high schools. Indian Industrial School.
By 1940, 50% of young adults had earned a
high school diploma. The Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s and 1960s helped publicize
the inequities of segregation. In 1954, the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education
unanimously declared that separate facilities were inherently unequal and unconstitutional.

By the 1970s segregated districts had practically vanished in the South. Although required by
court order, integrating the first black students in the South met with intense opposition. In
1972 Title IX was passed, making discrimination against any person based on their sex in any
federally funded educational program(s) in America illegal. By 1980, women were enrolled in
American colleges at the same rate as men, and by 1982 women actually earned more
bachelor’s degrees than men. It wasn’t until 1987 that women began earning more Master’s
degrees than men. Were you alive in 2005? Because it wasn’t until that year that women
earned the majority of doctoral degrees in the United States.

79 | P a g e
Although full equality and equity in education has still to be achieved, technical equality in
education had been achieved by the early 1970s.

Elementary School
Male and female students typically have very different experiences in elementary schools. One notable
example is the interactions between teachers and their students. Male students tend to interact with
their teachers more often, and males receive more instructional attention from their teachers. This is
more likely a result of male students being more demanding of attention from their teachers than
female students rather than teachers intentionally investing more time into their male students’
education. For example, male students are more likely to call out answers in class, resulting in either
punishment or reinforcement (both interactive) from the teacher.

There are other trends worth mentioning, as well. Teachers tend to spend more time problem solving
with boys and pose more academic challenges to them. Boys are praised more often for the intellectual
quality of their work, whereas girls are more often praised for being neat and polite. Sound unfair? I
hope so! But boys are not always the beneficiaries of sex inequalities in elementary school. Boys are
more likely to incur formal and informal punishments from the teacher, and their punishments are
usually harsher and publicly handed out, whereas girls are awarded more “warnings” and more often
afforded privacy in disciplinary actions.

During the elementary school years, girls often show lower self-esteem rates and earlier than their male
peers. Some of this is attributed to the interactions between the teacher and pupil, but another major
factor is women (and minorities) are widely underrepresented (and sometimes totally overlooked) in
textbooks. Textbooks are powerful and authoritative because teachers, administrators, government,
and other authorities approve them. As a result, elementary school children are likely to consider the
way women and men are portrayed in textbooks as unquestionable and truthful. When women (or any
group of people) are portrayed as unimportant or incapable by leaving them out, this sends powerful
messages to kids about men and women and their roles in contemporary society.

A common practice in elementary school is separating groups or participants by sex category, I.E.: boys
in one line, girls in the other. Or how many times were you separated by your sex category to play a
sport in school? Or maybe for the purpose of jobs in the classrooms? Boys lift the chairs on the desks
and girls dust or water plants? Sex separation can reinforce gender stereotypes, particularly when it
involved a division of labor in the classroom. In addition, separating children by sex prevents girls and
boys from working together, cooperatively. This denies children the opportunity to learn about and
sample one another’s interests or abilities.

Children also receive messages about sex and gender in the way adult jobs are distributed in their
schools. About 97% of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female, and about 81% of elementary
and middle school teachers are female.140 Women remain underrepresented in administrative and
upper management positions in these schools and their districts. While in 2011-2012, 64 percent of
elementary school principals were women, in public middle schools only 42 percent were women, and
in public high schools only 30 percent were women. This shows that while women are the majority in

140 Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015.

80 | P a g e
principal positions in elementary schools, they are still largely concentrated or relegated to elementary
schools, because as the schools progress in age and curriculum, men then dominate the principal
positions.

Secondary Schools
Let’s start with prestige and popularity in high school. I mean, what is more important than being
popular in high school? Hopefully your answer is, “Everything!” But, as most who attended high schools
can attest, often popularity outweighs most other priorities for students. So, what most often earns girls
in high school popularity? You got it! Phyical attractiveness. (Sigh). I know, old song, old lyrics, but let’s
explore futher what that actually means for girls.

Girls are often sent the messsage in high school that to be athletic is to be unfeminine. And school
officials reinforce this by underfundnig or totally ignoring girls’ sports. I’ve had some students say, “Well,
football makes money for the school!” Sometimes this is true. But why is football only for boys? And
think about what the baseball field looked like compared to the softball field (another example of sex
segregation). Was there a softball field? What did the baseball uniforms versus the softball uniforms
look like? You might even be unable to answer this question, because maybe you never went to a
softball game? Or maybe you didn’t go to either because who wants to watch two or three hours of
people playing catch in tight pants? (This is a joke, as I am an AVID baseball fan and played softball,
myself—since girls were not allowed to play baseball). How often did school officials or administrators
attend girls’ sports events?

According to a new state-by-state ranking by the National Women's Law Center, 28% of co-ed public
high schools with interscholastic sports programs have what are considered to be “large” gender
disparities in access to team sports. Nearly 4,500 public high schools across the United States have large
gender inequality in sports and could be in violation of Title IX. These campuses account for well over a
fourth—28 percent—of the country’s public high schools.

The problem of underfunding girls’ sports does not exist only within the confines of the school itself.
Rather it seeps into communities, as well. Take for instance outside sponsorships for high school teams.
Sponsorships affects funding for teams greatly. Teams can sell sponsorship spots during big games or
receive goods from various sponsors. In a video on YouTube, Coach John Olive explains how the majority
of funding for the boys’ team at Torrey Pines High School comes from corporate sponsors and one
fundraiser.141 In fact, they’re able to raise about 2/3 of their annual budget in only a few days in their
Holiday Classic tournament and they have a major sponsorship from Under Armor. Olive goes on to
explain the girls’ basketball team has had to rely heavily on contributions from players’ parents. This
trend is not uncommon across high school sports.

141 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPdxnHItAcA

81 | P a g e
 Teenage girls are also expected to walk
The problem does not only lie in school sports; there
a fine line by demonstrating sexual
is a huge gap remaining in professional women’s and
knowledge but remaining sexually
men’s sports as well. This serves as an example for
inexperienced (the double bind
young people that women’s sports are less important
than men’s sports. Recently, in a segment on “Late discussed in the “Sex, Gender, and
Night with Seth Meyers,” Seth Meyers and Amy Sexuality” chapter). Unlike boys, girls
Poehler took a Sports Illustrated NFL writer to task are not supposed to be sexually
after he tweeted that women's sports are “not worth aggressive. An important scripture in the
watching.” “Really?!” the comic duo repeatedly said, teenage girl’s sexual script is to remain
bringing up the power of tennis champ Serena passive and the object of boys’ desires
Williams and winning goals in the women's World and advances.
Cup. Poehler ridiculed Sports Illustrated for how its
Research indicates girls tend to feel
annual swimsuit edition is "dedicated entirely to
embarrassed or uneasy about academic
women who are not in sports. "Unless you think it's a
success. And some girls avoid subjects
sport to cover both boobs with one arm," she joked.
considered to be “masculine” because
they fear rejection from their peers. For
example, females tend to take fewer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmEoKXgBvSI
advanced mathematical and scientific
courses.142 Girl’s low participation in
these domains has been explained by in
terms of discriminatory barriers that
block girls’ paths and facilitate boys’
success. There is biased advisement in
course selection in high school, and
some teachers still reinforce gender
stereotypes in the classroom by lending
their style to “boys can, and girls can
sometimes” pedagogy.143
Image from Video

College and Graduate Schools

College enrollment has been steadily rising in the past few decades, but recently females have outpaced
males in enrollment. According to a PEW research report, in 2012 the share of females enrolled in
college immediately after high school had increased to 71% from 63% in 1994. Males who enrolled
immediately after high school was at 61% in 1994, and in 2012 it remained at 61%.

142 Pearson, Jennifer. “Gender, Education and.” Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Ritzer, George (ed).
Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Blackwell Reference Online. 31 March 200
143 Kahle, Parjer, Rennie, & Riley. 1993.

82 | P a g e
The graph below demonstrates differences in enrollment by sex and race. In 1994 nearly half of Hispanic
males and females who graduated high school enrolled in
college. Nearly two decades later, college enrollments for
both groups improved, but females outpaced males.
However there is a different trend among Black high school
graduates. In 1994, Black men outpaced Black women in
college enrollment just after graduating from high school.
But by 2012 the share of young Black men enrolled in college
remained about the same, while the share of young black
women enrolled in college increased to 69%, creating a 12%
gap from males.

Among Asian Americans, the share of high school graduates

going to college immediately after graduation also grew
during this time period for both young men and young
women, but the gap is much smaller than that among other
groups.

The top four female-dominated majors of today in the U.S.

are:

1. Health Professions (85% women): nursing assistant,

veterinary assistant, dental assistant, etc.
Diagram of “Women Outpace Men In College
2. Public Administration (82%): social work, public
Enrollment”
policy, etc.
3. Education (79%): pre-K, K-12, higher education, etc.
4. Psychology (77%): cognitive psychology, clinical psychology, etc.

40-45% of the degrees in Math, Statistics, and the Physical Sciences were conferred to women in 2012,
and a majority of Biology degrees in 2012 (58%) were earned by women. The largest gender gap in
majors in U.S. college remains in Computer Sciences and Engineering. Computer Science and
Engineering majors have stagnated at less than 10% of all degrees conferred in the U.S (with less than
20% of all of those will being awarded to women) for the past decade, while positions with
programming or engineering skills remain unfilled each year.

83 | P a g e
 Graph of “Percentage of Bachelor’s degrees conferred to women in the U.S.A., by major (1970-2012)”

Reviewing the graph above, you can see dramatic increases in Psychology, Physical Sciences, Journalism,
and Communication Studies since the 1970. Perhaps the most dramatic increase is in Agriculture. With
only 4% of degrees conferred to women in Agriculture in 1970 and grew to an even 50% by 2012.

In addition to the gender gap in some majors, there remains a significant gap among college faculty.
While women held nearly half (48.4%) of all tenure-track positions in 2013, they held just 37.5% of
tenured positions,144 and women were more likely to be found in lower-ranking academic positions.145

144 PEDS, “Full-Time Instructional Staff, by Faculty and Tenure Status, Academic Rank, Race/Ethnicity, and
Gender (Degree-granting institutions): Fall 2013,” Fall Staff 2013 Survey (2013).
145 American Association of University Professors, “Table 11: Percent of Faculty in Tenure-Track

Appointments and Percent of Faculty with Tenure, by Affiliation, Academic Rank, and Gender, 2013–14,”
2013-14 Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession (2014).

84 | P a g e
Also in 2013:

32.5% of women faculty were in non-tenure track positions compared to 19.6% of men
faculty.146
Women held 56.8% of all instructor positions, among the lowest ranking positions in
academia.147
Raising a family more negatively impacts women’s academic career than men’s.148
o Among tenured faculty, only 44% of women were married with children,
compared to 70% of men.149
An analysis of 106 tenure-track positions at the University of Southern California revealed a
promotion gap.150
o Between 1998 and 2012, 92% of white male faculty were awarded tenure,
while the same was true of only 55% of women and minority faculty.151

Women of color are even more underrepresented in higher academia. Asian women held 4.8%
of tenure-track positions and 2.6% of tenured positions, while Black women held 3.7%, and
Hispanic women held just 2.5%. 152

Women have made great progress in academic leadership (even though there is still a lot of work to do
to achieve equality). From 1986 to 2011 the number of women college and university presidents jumped
from 10% to 26%.153 Women are more likely to lead two-year institutions than four-year institutions
with about 33% of community college presidents being women compared to 23% of four-year
institutions.154 During the academic year 2013-2014, 42% of new deans were women.155

Education remains a critical domain in which sex and gender inequities can be dismantled or modified.
From the early year in k-12, teachers, curriculum, textbook, and administrators can adopt more inclusive
pedagogical approaches. This would allow students to feel acknowledged, important, and capable. It
may also leave students without the internalization of varying jobs or talents being reserved for specific
sex categories. Equity in the classroom can be defined as giving students what they need or meeting
students where are and taking them where they need to be. When respect in the classroom is mutual

146 Ibid
147 PEDS, “Full-Time Instructional Staff, by Faculty and Tenure Status, Academic Rank, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender
(Degree-granting institutions): Fall 2013,” Fall Staff 2013 Survey (2013).
148 Mary Ann Mason, “What You Need to Know If You’re an Academic and Want to be a Mom,” The New York Times, July 16,

2013.
149 Ibid
150 Jane Junn, “Analysis of Data on Tenure at USC Dornsife” (October 19, 2012).
151 Ibid
152 IPEDS, “Full-Time Instructional Staff, by Faculty and Tenure Status, Academic Rank, Race/Ethnicity, and Gender

(Degree-granting institutions): Fall 2013,” Fall Staff 2013 Survey (2013).

153 Bryan J. Cook, “The American College President Study: Key Findings and Takeaways,” American Council on Education,

Spring Supplement 2012.

154 Audrey Williams June, “Despite Progress, Only 1 in 4 College Presidents Are Women,” The Chronicle of Higher

Education, March 16, 2015.

155 “Almanac of Higher Education 2014: Background of Newly Appointed Provosts, 2013-14,” Chronicle of Higher

Education, August 18, 2014; “Almanac of Higher Education 2014: Background of Newly Appointed Deans, 2013-14,”
Chronicle of Higher Education, August 18, 2014.

85 | P a g e
between teacher and student (despite sex, gender, sexuality, race, or learning level), a productive
classroom can be formed.

The socialization of gender within our schools assures that students are made aware that girls are
unequal to boys. Every time students are seated or lined up by sex category, teachers are affirming that
girls and boys should be treated differently. When an administrator ignores an act of sexual harassment,
he or she is allowing the degradation of that pupil. When different behaviors are tolerated for boys than
for girls because “boys will be boys,” schools are perpetuating the oppression of females and reinforcing
unwanted behavior in male students. We need to ensure girls and boys are not socialized in ways that
work against gender equity.

Educators, parents, administrators, government officials, legislatures, and publishers need to be made
aware of the bias they are reinforcing in their students through socialization messages, sexist texts and
materials, and unbalanced time and types of attention spent on boys and girls in the classroom. “Until
educational sexism is eradicated, more than half our children will be shortchanged and their gifts lost to
society.”156

156Sadker, D., Sadker, M. (1994) Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. Toronto, ON: Simon &
Schuster Inc.

86 | P a g e
Women and Work
Learning Objectives
At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Define “productive” and “unproductive” work.

2. Identify discriminatory practices women often face in the workforce.

3. Define sexual harassment.

4. Describe inequalities between women and men in the workforce.

Work
Essentially all women work. Some are artists, politicians, assistants, farmers, soldiers, teachers, mothers,
wives, architects, or dishwashers. Some find their work enjoyable, and some are working out of
necessity. Economists today separate paid and unpaid work with the terms “productive” and
“unproductive” work. This distinction is essential when we’re exploring many women’s everyday
struggle to balance their daily lives. With this definition, anyone who spends their days making meals,
doing dishes, folding laundry, ironing, carpooling, feeding the dogs, cleaning the catbox, helping with
homework, setting up play dates, getting kids to soccer practice, and grocery shopping is not involved in
“productive work.” A United Nations study released in 1985 revealed women do 75% of the world’s
work, earn 10% of the world’s wages, and own 1% of the world’s property. This study came at the end of
the International Decade on Women (1975-1985). It also revealed most of women’s work is
“unproductive,” unpaid, and often unappreciated.

In recent decades, women have entered the workforce and obtained jobs that were once reserved for
men. However, most paid jobs in the United States are still divided by gender lines. Women are still
overrepresented in low-paying jobs, but in 2010 the largest percentage of employed women (40.6
percent) worked in management, professional, and related occupations; 32.0 percent worked in sales
and office occupations; 21.3 percent in service occupations; 5.2 percent in production, transportation,
and material moving occupations; and 0.9 percent in natural resources, construction, and maintenance
occupations.157

Women continue to dominate in positions in supportive or service areas. These types of jobs would
include being secretaries, assistants, health aids, servers, day-care workers, elderly caregivers, and in
other people’s homes. In these types of positions, women are often treated as expendable and
replaceable in their positions. In her book Doméstica, Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo shares the voices,
experiences, and views of Mexican and Central American women who care for other people's children
and homes. Paid domestic work has largely become the domain of disenfranchised immigrant women of

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January, 2010 Annual
157

Averages, Web site http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/empearn201101.pdf

87 | P a g e
color. Many of these workers were not earning a living wage, and some employers even exercise great
pains not to flaunt their affluence. In one telling moment, Hondagneu-Sotelo writes:

Some employers try to snip off the price tags on new clothing and home furnishings
before the Latina domestic workers read them because they fear the women will
compare the prices of those items with their wages - which they invariably do. While
some employers often feel guilty about 'having so much' around someone who 'has so
little,' the women who do the work resent not their affluence but the job arrangements,
which generally afford the workers little in the way of respect and living wages.158

Women in professional jobs tend to dominate occupations like teaching, social work, and nursing. There
is a definite emphasis on care-giving or serving others in women’s professions. But here is another
difference between women’s and men’s work, and that comes in the form of their wages. “You don’t
have to look to Venus or Mars to find the difference in men and women. Just look at their paychecks.”159

Women’s Work and Wages in the U.S.

Corporations are constantly trying to find new ways to cut the costs of their production—no matter the
product being produced—and maximize their production and profits. One way to achieve this goal is to
hire low-wage workers or replace them entirely! Think about it, why do we have salad bars, ATM
machines, online bill pay, or self-check-out at the grocery store? With salad bars, we don’t need a
server, and with ATMs and online bill pay we don’t need bankers, and with self-check-out at the grocery
stores we don’t need checkers.

One result of the idea of minimizing cost of production has been the income inequality between people
with college degrees and high school education and people in professional and technical positions. We
are able to economically justify why one’s labor power is worth more than others’. And with
globalization allowing
for more and more
outsourcing of goods
being produced out of
the country, it has
become increasingly
difficult for families to
economically thrive.
This has made it
imperative for more and
more women to
become “productive
workers.”

158 Hondagneu-Sotelo, P. (2007). Doméstica: Immigrant Workers Cleaning and Caring in the Shadows of
Affluence. University of California Press. Pg 11-12.
159 Tucker, Cynthia. 1996. Women’s practical vote for Clinton. Chicago Tribune. Page 3

88 | P a g e
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau (2015) 57% of women participated in the
labor force and 70% of women with kids under 18 are in the workforce. Today, women make up nearly
half of our workforce, and many women are the primary breadwinners for their families. In fact, more
than 75 percent of single mothers are the sole provider for their family.

Women’s notable progress over the years is reflected in their increased educational attainment, higher
earnings, and a larger presence in leadership positions and entrepreneurial fields. So our work is done,
right? Not quite.

Millions of women in the United States are more likely to live in poverty than men and still face
significant barriers to economic security and stability, including: occupational segregation;
barriers to moving into higher-level positions; low wages and unequal pay; inadequate
workplace flexibility; and pregnancy and sex discrimination.

Pie Chart of “Employed Persons by Sex (1920-2012)”

Women continue to
Source Bureau of Labor Statics, Current Population Survey
earn less than men,
and almost twice as
many women as men earn minimum wage or less each year. In 2012, women earned about 81
cents for every dollar a man earned. The wage gap results in significant lost wages that
continue to add up over a woman’s lifetime. This number has narrowed in the last few decades,
because women’s wages have risen, but also because men’s wages have fallen. The median
weekly earnings of women who were full-time wage and salary workers in 2010 were $669, or
81 percent of men’s $824. However when comparing the median weekly earnings of persons
aged 16 to 24, young women earned 95 percent of what young men earned ($422 and $443,
respectively).160

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January, 2010 Annual
160

Averages, Web site http://www.bls.gov/opub/ee/empearn201101.pdf

89 | P a g e
 Chart of “Median annual earnings by sex, 1960-2014”

In 2010 the 20 occupations with the highest median weekly earnings among women who were full-time
wage and salary workers were:161

1. Physicians and surgeons, $1,618

2. Pharmacists, $1,605
3. Chief executives, $1,598
4. Lawyers, $1,461
5. Computer software engineers, $1,445
6. Computer and information systems managers, $1,415
7. Physical therapists, $1,208
8. Speech-language pathologists, $1,184
9. Computer programmers, $1,177

161 Ibid

90 | P a g e
 10. Human resources managers, $1,170
11. Management analysts, $1,164
12. Medical and health services managers, $1,163
13. Education administrators, $1,137
14. Physician assistants, $1,129
15. Occupational therapists, $1,094
16. Purchasing managers, $1,050
17. Managers, all other, $1,045
18. Psychologists, $1,041
19. Registered nurses, $1,039
20. Public relations specialists, $1,034

Education and Work

The higher a person’s educational attainment, the more likely they will be a labor force participant
(working or looking for work) and the less likely they will be unemployed.162 For women age 25 and over
with less than a high school diploma, 33.5 percent were labor force participants; high school diploma, no
college, 52.4 percent; some college, but no degree, 62.3 percent; associate degree, 70.6 percent; and
bachelor’s degree or higher, 72.4 percent. So, education pays off! Not only is there a positive correlation
with people’s educational attainment and likelihood of being part of the labor force, but higher
educational attainment
also predicts a higher
income. People with
doctoral degrees have less
than a 2% unemployment
rate and make over one
thousand more per week
than those who have less
than a high school
diploma.
Chart of “Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment, and Sex, 2010 (In Percent)”

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, January, 2011 Annual
162

Averages

91 | P a g e
 Graph of “Earnings and unemployment rates by educational attainment, 2015”

Sex, Race, and Work

While 70% of mothers are in the paid workforce, mothers of color represent the largest portion with
Black mothers being more likely to be in the aid workforce than White or Latina mothers. There is also a
disproportionate number of mothers of color as sole providers for their families with 47% of Black
families, 24% of Latino families, and 14% of White families being maintained solely by women.

Asian women made the most money (excluding men) in 2014 with median annual earning of $46,334,
white women ranked second in median annual earnings with $41,822, Black women earned about
$34,647, and Hispanic women earned about $30,293. The American Indian minority has been less
studied than other minority groups in the United States. In 1990, the median family income for
American Indians was $21,750, approximately 62 percent of the $35,225 median family income for all
families.163 By 2010, the median household income for Native Americans was $38,806, compared to
$51,914 for the total population, making them the second poorest race on average after African-
Americans ($35,341). It should be noted that those numbers are reflective of family income rather than
women’s income.164

Some of this can be explained by educational attainment and fair access to adequate education. Asian
women also have the highest high school completion rate, with White women being second, Black
women being third, and Hispanic women with the highest high school drop-out rate between these four
groups. But some of this can also be explained with experiences of discrimination.

163U.S. Census Bureau. "Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012". Retrieved 10 Dec 2016.
164Waters, Mary C.; Eschbach, Karl (1995). "Immigration and Ethnic and Racial Inequality in the United States". Annual
Review of Sociology. 21 (1): 419–46.

92 | P a g e
As of 2009, the median weekly wage for African American and Hispanic workers was about 65 percent
and 61 percent that of White workers, respectively. Asian workers' median wage was about 101 percent
that of white workers. Overall, minority women's wages in comparison to those of white women are
better than minority men's wages when compared to those of white men, not because minority
women’s wages are higher than minority men’s, but because White women’s wages are lower than
White men’s.165

Graph of “Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, 2007”

Graph of “Median annual earnings by sex, race and Hispanic ethnicity (March 1960-2014)”

"Table 701. Median Income of People in Constant (2009) Dollars by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1990 to
165

2009". Retrieved 8 Dec 2016.

93 | P a g e
Discrimination Against Working Women
Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment is a serious problem disproportionately affecting women in the workplace. It is
defined by the federal Equal Opportunity Commission guidelines as:

It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that

person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of
a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include
offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a
woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

However, sexual harassment varies widely, and there are often misconceptions of what actually does
constitute as being harassment. In 1986 the first case concerning sexual harassment reached the
Supreme Court (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson). The Court established that sexual harassment includes
the creation of an abusive or hostile work environment and the victim identifying the harassments as
“unwelcome advances.”

Age Discrimination
The wage gap between men and women actually increases with age. One effect of corporate downsizing
is the increased number of older, more experienced workers being laid off. Often times, this group is
seen as too young to retire but too old or too experienced (expensive) to hire. For women over 40, age
can complicate securing a job. Women over 40 typically earn even less than the average of the wage
disparity between men and women, and if they are returning to the workforce after an absence, they
often return to lower paying or part time jobs.

Discrimination Against Differently Abled Women

Women with disabilities are often labeled as being too dependent, passive, incapable, or incompetent.
Work disabilities are more common among older women than young women. At the same time, many
women who are unable to participate in the workforce continue to do their own cooking, cleaning, and
home maintenance (“unproductive work”). Women with disabilities, in general, have lower educational
attainment than do women who do not report having disabilities, which often times can exclude them
from applying for higher paying jobs. There is a lengthy lust of reasons why women with disabilities have
lower educational attainment: being too ill to complete school, missing a lot of school, not having fair
access to adequate educational programs, etc.

Added to these challenges is discrimination from the prejudices of employers. Women with disabilities
often have to make special (and costly) arrangements to be able to participate in the workforce, having
sometimes to arrange transportation, or extra support in the home or with childcare.

94 | P a g e
Sex Segregation in the Workplace
Occupational sex segregation refers to the degree in which men and women are concentrated in
occupations in which workers of one sex predominate. For example, earlier in the chapter we discussed
women continuing to dominate nursing and elementary school teaching.

Gender stereotypes have been sued as justifications for hiring women for secretarial, domestic, clerical,
and health services professions. For example, it was argued women’s natural dexterity and compliant
personalities made the ideal for office work. No, really. That was real.

Industry sex segregation occurs when women and men hold the same job title in a particular field or
industry, but actually perform different jobs. More often than not, women are placed in the lower paying
and less prestigious occupations. For example, women being hired in the mining industry are usually
concentrated in the laboring jobs, which is the lowest level of mining, typically involving mine
maintenance.

Establishment sex segregation occurs when women and men hold the same job title at an individual
establishment or company, but actually do different jobs. Women’s jobs are usually lower paid and less
prestigious. For example, it is not uncommon for women at a law firm to be concentrated in the family
law division while men dominate more lucrative corporate and commercial law department.

Fifty years after the second wave of feminism, we have seen huge strides toward gender
equality. Women are working in nearly all occupations that once were exclusively the reserved
for men, and many are in prominent leadership roles in business and government. Yet sex
segregation in the workplace remains a problem as social norms continue to restrict
occupational choices by women and men.

Despite the early gains of women in professional and service jobs that require a college
education, many such occupations remain disproportionately male, particularly at the highest
levels. Furthermore, most technical and manual blue-collar jobs have undergone little to no
integration since the 1970s.

Traditional economic theory explained occupational segregation by gender as an inevitable

consequence of “natural differences” in skills between women and men, but contemporary
economists have refocused the blame on gender discrimination by employers, coworkers, and
other actors. Despite a decline in explicit sexism, gender discrimination today, whether in the
form of stereotypes or social pressures, is perpetuated by a new, “egalitarian” form of gender
essentialism—the belief that women and men’s social, economic, and familial roles are and
should be fundamentally different. While most people now support women’s access to all
economic opportunities, they simultaneously expect men and women to pursue traditionally
“male” and “female” jobs and regard parenting as the primary responsibility of mothers.

95 | P a g e
Graph of “The enduring U.S. divide between men and women at work”

U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau

The Women’s Bureau has outlined three major strategies to create more equity between sexes in the
workforce:

Improve Workplace Practices and Supports:

The Women’s Bureau identifies, fosters, and promotes policies and efforts that enable
women to succeed in their work and personal lives. Today’s labor force comprises an
increasing number of working mothers and women who care for disabled or elderly
family members. Many low-paying occupations that tend to employ large shares of
women lack adequate flexibility, benefits, and supports.

96 | P a g e
 Promote Greater Access to and Preparation for Better Jobs for Women:
The Women’s Bureau aims to help women prepare for, participate and advance in, and
retain non-traditional, high-growth, and higher-paying jobs. Female-dominated
occupations have been found to pay less than male-dominated occupations with the
same skill levels, and women have relatively low shares of employment in high-paying
jobs such as those in transportation, construction, and science, technology, engineering,
and math (STEM) fields.

Promote Fair Compensation and Equal Pay:

The Women’s Bureau seeks to educate workers on their rights and employers on their
legal obligations to ensure fair compensation. Although women earn less than men for
reasons such as the lower-paying jobs they traditionally perform, around 40% of the
difference in wages remains unexplained. The Bureau conducts research to identify
additional factors that contribute to the wage gap and how to overcome them, as well as
look for ways to improve compensation for lower-wage jobs that employ large numbers
of women.166

Balancing Work and Home

The U.S. workforce is still largely structured on the presumption that men are the breadwinners in a
family unit, despite the rising number of single-parent families and women entering the workforce in
higher numbers than ever before. Trying to balance (or more appropriately “juggle”) home and work
life, can be a huge challenge for women especially. While the workforce is still largely structured and
fashioned through a patriarchal design, home maintenance and care is still often thought to be a
woman’s responsibility.

And the inequality is more significant for mothers. Often, women who leave the workforce for maternity
leave are looked over for promotional opportunities, affecting retirement, hours, income, and pensions.
Some mothers look for jobs compatible with children’s school hours, as the rising cost of childcare has
affected the cost of parents working outside of the home. Childcare is the fourth highest cost for a
family after housing, food, and taxes. That means for some women who want to work the cost of
childcare can be prohibitive, as childcare is still seen predominantly as women’s responsibilities and men
earn higher wages than do women. Law Professor and legal scholar Joan Williams argues that
professional women can anticipate being marginalized in their careers. She argues we need to
“deconstruct the ideal worker norm” and rethink the divide between unpaid work and work in the
workplace.167

166 U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. Updated 2016. https://www.dol.gov/wb/overview_14.htm.

Retrieved 10 October 2016.
167
Williams, J. 2000. Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford
Press.

97 | P a g e
Women and Crime
Learning Objectives
At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following:

1. Define deviance and crime.

2. Describe various theories pertaining to criminal behavior.
3. Describe women’s experiences with crime in the U.S.

Deviance and Crime

In sum, deviance is a violation of a norm. Simply not behaving in expected ways given the social
circumstances, one is seen as a deviant. But what is the difference in conformity, crime, deviance, and
both deviance and crime combined? In Table 1 Robert Merton’s matrix combining group norms and
legal code behaviors illustrates how deviant and criminal behaviors differ.

Table 1. Robert Merton’s Deviant and Criminal Behaviors.

Actor complies with legal code Actor violates legal code

Actor complies with group norms Conforming behaviors Criminal behaviors

Actor violates group Deviant behaviors Deviant and criminal behaviors

When an actor complies with group norms and the law it’s called conformity, or an adherence to the
normative and legal standards of a group in society. An example might be the clothes you wore to class
or work today are legal and normal. When an actor violates group norms but complies with the law, it is
deviance. An example might be if you wore your Halloween costume to class in July. If an actor complies
with group norms yet breaks the law, it’s called crime. Crime is behavior which violates laws and to
which governments can apply negative sanctions. An example of this might be when one drives 10 miles
over the speed limit on the freeway. In this case, while speeding is a criminal behavior, if everybody is
speeding and you do too, it’s normal crime. Over–reporting deductions and under-reporting income on
your income tax return is also normal crime.

Biological Theories of Criminality

Lombroso’s Model
In the 1800s, an Italian criminologist, Cesare Lombroso, thought that criminals were atavistic beings, or
people who were less developed as humans. While examining the skulls of criminals, he noticed a series
of features that were common. For example, Lombroso found that they had large jaws and ears, small
chins, and asymmetrical faces. Lombroso referred to criminals as “evolutionary throwbacks” whose
behaviors were more apelike than human. In addition, Lombroso argued these lesser beings weren’t
responsible for their deviant behavior since they were born this way. Lombroso’s criminal anthropology

98 | P a g e
presumed you could identify a member of the criminal race by certain visual signs or stigmas. Much
research has been done on this idea as well as on body type as a determinant of criminal behavior with
mixed results. Today, the majority of the sociological world has discounted Lombroso’s findings, as
Lombroso’s imputed inferiority of the criminal permits treating him or her without moral or ethical
considerations. Remember, sociologists do not assign value to social statuses such as “criminals”, rather
we report, explain, or predict current social trends and phenomena. In sum, Lombroso’s biological
theory of criminality was full of biased ideology and has since been largely dismissed by most of the
scientific community.168

XYY “Supermale” Syndrome

Another biological theory attempting to explain sex and gender differentials in criminal behavior was
known as the XYY Syndrome theory. XYY syndrome is a genetic condition in which a human male has an
extra male (Y) chromosome, giving a total of 47 chromosomes instead of the more usual 46. This
produces a 47,XYY karyotype, which occurs every 1 in 1,000 male births. The presence of the extra Y
chromosome in XYY males does not in and of itself produce aggressive behavior in those affected;
dealing with aspects of the condition during adolescence is a more likely explanation for any
delinquency or criminal behavior exercised by XYY males.

As early as 1974, prominent geneticists Jon Beckwith and Jonathan King called the notion of a dangerous
XYY “Supermale” Syndrome a dangerous myth. This idea was primarily based on assumptions about the
tendency of males to be more aggressive than females and early studies of XYY males in prisons.169
However, while males with an extra Y chromosome are still widely believed to show more signs of
aggression, not all aggression is dangerous or violent. Meaning, aggression can be demonstrated on the
soccer field or in the classroom or boardroom. Thus the theory of the extra Y chromosome creating a
predisposition for violent or criminal behavior has fallen short.

Sociological Theories of Criminality

Cultural Deviance Theory
In the early 20th century Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay investigated the migration of southern African
Americans and eastern European Americans to Chicago and other cities. Most of these immigrants were
poorly educated and many did not speak English. Then cities expanded to accommodate this influx of
people and many of the more affluent citizens moved out to the suburbs. The poor citizens were left in
the run down cities. Shaw and McKay thought that social conditions in neighborhoods caused
delinquency (Cultural Deviance Theory). They found that in Chicago crime was at its worst in the center
of the city and the area immediately surrounding it. It decreased as they looked further away from the
city center. Thirty years later, the same findings occurred even though most of the residents from 30
years ago had moved, but the poverty stayed.

Based on their findings, Shaw and McKay made four assumptions: 1) Run down areas create social
disorganization. The diversity of cultures and languages fosters frictions based on these differences; 2)

th
168Regoli, R. M., Hewitt, J. D., & Delisi, M. (2010). Delinquency in society (8 ed.), Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

169Gotz, M. J., et al. "Criminality and AntisocialBehavior in Unselected Men with Sex Chromosome Abnormalities."
Psychological Medicine 29 (July 1999): 953-62.

99 | P a g e
Social disorganization fosters cultural conflict. Rapid social change creates normative ambiguity
(anomie); 3) Cultural conflict allows delinquency to flourish; children observe both conventional and
criminal values. Criminals who are successful pass their knowledge on to their children, who then pass it
along to others; 4) Allowed to flourish, delinquency becomes a career.170

Differential Association Theory

Differential Association Theory looks at the process of learning deviance from others with whom they
have close relationships, who provide role models of and opportunities for deviance. Edwin Sutherland
conducted his work during the 1930s to the 1970s. His assumptions are: 1) Delinquent behavior is
learned, and biology has no role in this behavior; 2) Delinquent behavior is learned through verbal and
non-verbal communication (watching your dad steal a TV, your peers congratulating you on stealing a
bicycle); 3) Children learn these behaviors in small groups (primary social groups); 4) Learning involves
techniques to commit crime, as well as attitudes about crime; 5) Learning also involves attitudes about
the targets of crime; 6) If definitions that favor criminal behavior outnumber definitions that favor
conforming to laws, children will learn to be deviant; 7) The frequency, duration, and intensity of the
learning experiences determines the learning. Children who are exposed frequently, at a young age, and
by someone they respect, are more likely to learn delinquent behavior; 8) Learning criminal behavior
occurs in the same way as learning other behaviors; 9) The goals of criminals and non-criminals are the
same; the means to achieving those goals are what is different.171

Feminist Theory
Feminist theories maintain that gender is a central organizing component of social life, including criminal
offending, victimization, and criminal justice processing. This theoretical framework holds that because
of patriarchal sexism women and girls have been systematically excluded or marginalized in criminology,
both as professionals and as subjects of study. 172

Feminist theories, though, do not treat women or men as homogenous groups but rather recognize that
gender privilege varies across different groups of women and men. Therefore, a fundamental principle
of feminist theory is to examine criminal offending, victimization, and criminal justice processing in the
context of multiple intersecting social factors, including gender, race, and ethnicity, social class, age,
ability, and sexual orientation.

Liberal feminists contend that women are discriminated against on the basis of their sex, so that they
are denied access to the same political, financial, career and personal opportunities as men. This can be
eliminated by removing all obstacles to women’s access to education, paid employment and political
activity, by enabling women to participate equally with men in the public sphere and by enacting legal
change. There is a strong relationship between women’s emancipation and the increase in female crime
rates. As women become more liberated and gain more experiences outside of the home, they have
more opportunities to engage in criminal behaviors. See? Give us the chance and we’ll always catch up!

170Scarpitti, F. R., Nielsen, A. L., & Miller, J. M. (2009). A Sociological Theory of Criminal Behavior. Crime and
Criminals Contemporary and Classic Readings in Criminology (2 ed., p 211). New York: Oxford University Press.
171 Ibid
172Ibid

100 | P a g e
Graph of Women Arrested vs. Women in the labor force

Marxist theory argues that a society’s economic structure is the primary determinant of other social
relations, such as gender. Marxist feminism emerged in the late 1960’s in response to the masculine bias
in the Marxist social theory. Marxist feminism agreed with liberal feminism that women are dominated
by men and are prevented from full participation in all aspects of society. The gender division of labor is
viewed as the product of the class division of labor. Because women are seen as being primarily
dominated by capital and secondarily by men, the main strategy for change is the transformation from a
capitalist to a democratic socialist society.

Radical Feminism has dominated feminist perspectives on woman abuse. Radical feminists see male
power and privilege as the root cause of all social relations, inequality and crime. The main causes of
gender inequality are 1) the needs of men to control women’s sexuality and reproductive potential; and
2) patriarchy. Their work has focused on female victims/survivors of male violence. Radical feminist
theory contends that men physically, sexually, and psychologically victimize women mainly because they
need to desire to control them.

Socialist feminism views class and gender relations as equally important. To understand class we must
recognize how it is structured by gender, conversely to understand gender requires an examination of
how it is structured by class. In sum, socialist feminists argue that we are influenced by both gender and
class relations. Crime is mainly seen as the product of patriarchal capitalism.

Sex Role Theory

Sex role theory (this is an early sociological theory which attempts to explain gender differences in crime
– it’s not a feminist theory) argues that because boys and girls are socialized differently boys are more
likely to become criminal than girls. Sutherland identifies how girls are socialized in a manner, which is

101 | P a g e
far more supervisory and controlled; this limits the number of opportunities to be deviant.173 In contrast
boys are socialized to be rougher, tougher and aggressive which makes deviance more likely. And if
deviance is permitted to flourish, criminal behavior will be a likely result.

Talcott Parsons argued that because females carry out the “expressive role” in the family which involved
them caring for their children and looking after the emotional needs of their husbands, that girls grew
up to internalize such values as caring and empathy, both of which reduce the likelihood of someone
committing crime simply because a caring and empathetic attitude towards others means you are less
likely to harm others.

Women and Crime

Female criminal behavior has been commonly perceived as a less serious problem than male criminal
behavior. This is largely due to crime itself being characterized as a masculine behavior, making it more
likely to be perpetrated by a male. Historically, women have been more likely to commit minor offenses
while men are more likely to commit serious or violent offenses. Although women remain a relatively
small number of the United States inmate population, they have become the fastest growing population
in our jails and prisons. Since 1990 the number of female defendants convicted of felonies in State
courts has grown at more than two times the rate of increase in male defendants. While men still
commit more felonies and violent crimes than women, women’s rates are rising faster than men’s.

Female offenders remain different from male offenders in the types of crime they commit. The
percentage of women in prison for drug and property crimes is considerably higher than for male
inmates. A recent study in Massachusetts, for instance, found that only 22 percent of the women
imprisoned there were incarcerated for violent offenses, compared with 48 percent of the men behind
bars.

Even now women primarily commit petty property crimes, such as shoplifting, bad checks, and welfare
fraud, which are offenses caused by an increasing feminization of poverty. Women’s crimes tend to

Graph of Women arrested (%) for Violent crimes vs. Property crimes

173Levesque R.J.R. (2011) Sex Roles and Gender Roles. In: Levesque R.J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Adolescence.
Springer, New York, NY.

102 | P a g e
follow their traditional roles as shoppers, consumers, and health care providers within the family.

About 1 out of 7 violent offenders described by victims was a female.

Women accounted for 1 in 50 offenders committing a violent sex offense including rape and sexual
assault, 1 in14 robbers, 1 in 9 offenders committing aggravated assault, and more than 1 in 6 offenders
described as having committed a simple assault.

More than half of female violent offenders were white, and just over a third were black. About 1 in 10
were described as belonging to another race (Asian, Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian, American Indian,
Aleut, or Eskimo). Black and white offenders accounted for nearly equal proportions of women
committing robbery and aggravated assault; however, simple assault offenders were more likely to be
white.

Violent crimes committed by femals and males

United States Prison Landscape174

The United States is home to about five percent of the world’s total population and twenty-five percent
of the world’s prison population (Beiser 2001). An increasing use of prisons to control crime and a vast
rate of prison growth has occurred in the past thirty years. During this time, the U.S. population rose 40
percent while the U.S. prison population rose 400 percent. This issue is urgent to study since more than
two million people are currently incarcerated in over 5,000 facilities in the U.S.; these facilities include
prisons, jails, youth centers, and immigrant detention centers.

The typical U.S. prisoner today is young, poor, urban, of color, and male.
99% of prisoners are poor (financial ghosts).
Between 72 and 75% of prisoners did not complete high school.
2/3 of people in prison are of color
Close to 80% of people in prison are convicted of nonviolent crimes.
51.8% of prisoners are incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses, ie: holding, selling, using,

174U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved August 3, 2008.

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf)

103 | P a g e
 intent to sell.
Women are now representing the largest growth rate in prison.
40% of women in prison earn less than $600/month prior to incarceration.
The number of women in state and Federal prisons increased from 12,331 to 43,845 from 1980 to 1990,
according to the Justice Department. That is an increase of 256 percent, compared with a 140 percent
rise in the male prison population. What on Earth could have happened in only 10 years that we’d see
256 percent increase in women in prison? Maybe more women started committing more crimes? Not
enough to explain a 256 percent increase. Maybe the divorce rate increase caused more women to
commit crimes? Nope. Maybe a bunch more crazy broads went out while they were PMSing and had
finally had enough? No way (and the PMS defense doesn’t make sense, so don’t use it). The main
contributing factor to the increase in female inmates is the war on drugs. Even the second wave of
feminism (which fizzles out in the early 70s) couldn’t explain that kind of inmate increase. Drug laws in
the 80s (which were simultaneously passed when the market became saturated with crack cocaine)
made it easier masses to be incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. However, women still constitute
less than 7 percent of the U.S. prison population.

Federal Bureau of Prisons: Inmate Gender175

And while the growing

number of women who work
helps to explain why they
are committing more forgery
and embezzlement, the
great majority of women in
prison are poor and
unemployed and not models
of newly empowered,
liberated women. While the
fact that people released
from prison have difficulties
finding employment is well-
documented, there is much
less information on the role
that poverty and
opportunity play in who
ends up behind bars in the
first place. However this
Pie Chart of numbers and percentages of inmates by gender.
table from the United States
Justice Bureau shows the inequality between men and women’s earnings as well as the lower income
incarcerated people were earning prior to their incarceration.

175
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp

104 | P a g e
Table of Incarcerated vs. Non-incarcerated people

Women in Prison
Prisons are not fun. People do not want to be in prison (despite what some few and far between news
stories might claim). The free meals, health care, and rooms are not luxurious; in fact, in most
institutions human rights are violated with spoiled food, lack of yard time, deprivation of family
visitations or phone calls, lack of safety or privacy, medical experimentation, deprivation of
rehabilitative services, and outright abuse and sexual assault. One example of deprivation of protection
within prison can be seen in the habitual occurrence of rape—including prison staff as well as inmates—
within the confines of prison. Prison staff includes security staff, teachers and counselors, medical
workers, contractors and even religious volunteers. Struckman-Johnson conducted the most
comprehensive research to date on prisoner rape.176 After surveying 1,800 inmates in Midwestern
prisons, Struckman-Johnson found that one in five male prisoners have been coerced or pressured into
sex, and one in ten has been raped. In one women's prison, more than a quarter of the inmates said
they had been pressured into sex by guards.

Angela Davis argues that while men constitute the vast majority of prisoners in the world, important
aspects of the state punishment system are missed if it is assumed that women are marginal and thus
undeserving of attention.177 Further, according to Davis, because women make up a relatively small
proportion of the whole prison population, the inattention given to female prisoners is frequently
justified. Due to the late twentieth-century reforms which relied on a “separate but equal” model,
demands for more repressive conditions in order to render women’s facilities “equal” to men’s resulted
in harsher punishments and disciplinary actions in women’s prisons than were previously implemented.
Women of color in particular are subject to regimes of punishment that differ significantly from those
experiences by white women, including assigned chores, manual labor, and frequent unnecessary strip

176 Struckman-Johnson, Cindy. 2006. National Prison Rape Elimination. University Press. South Dakota.
177 Davis, Angela Y. 2003. Are Prisons Obsolete? Page 77. New York: Seven Stories Press.

105 | P a g e
searches. “Sexual abuse, especially among women of color, has become an institutionalized component
of punishment behind prison walls.”178

Conditions of improper touching by persons of authority, sanctioned sexual harassment, and

unnecessary strip searches exist in numerous women’s prisons across the country. In addition,
psychological coercion and/or threats of sexual assault by persons in authority create a constant,
unending and intense pressure on many incarcerated women. Human rights organizations, including
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as formerly incarcerated, have documented
these abuses.179 For example, as part of a 2004 civil rights case brought against the Illinois Department
of Corrections (IDOC) alleging a guard’s rape of a female inmate, two Chicago attorneys sent surveys
about sexual assault and harassment to women incarcerated in Illinois.180 Almost 15% of the survey’s
respondents said that IDOC staff had forced sexual activities on them—that is, they were raped or
sexually assaulted. Two noted that IDOC staff had sexually assaulted them more than ten times. About
23% of the respondents stated that IDOC staff had offered money, food or privileges in exchange for
sexual favors, and almost 10% noted that staff had done this to them on more than three occasions.
About one in seven reported that IDOC staff had threatened loss of privileges, physical attack, or
placement in isolation if the woman refused sex with the staff.

The violent sexualization of prison life within women’s institutions exposes ideologies of sexuality—and
the intersection of race and sexuality—which have had a profound effect on the representations of and
treatment received by women of color both within and upon release from prison.181 Men of color
experience a perilous continuity in the way they are treated in prison, where they are more likely to
experience harsher forms of punishment such as solitary confinement whereas women of color are
more likely than white women to experience sexual abuse within prison.182

The state itself is directly implicated in the routinization of sexual abuse in women’s prisons and other
forms of physical and mental abuse such as solitary confinement in men’s prisons, both in permitting
such conditions that render individuals (especially those of color) vulnerable to explicit abuse carried out
by guards and other prison staff and by incorporating into routine policy such practices as the strip
search and solitary confinement. Being victimized will likely result in further social-psychological
damage for the inhabitants experiencing the institutionalized racism and sexism. This results in their
adjustment to society upon release being even further hindered, with one likely consequence being a
return to crime and recidivating back into the prison structure.183 184 185

178Davis, Angela Y. 2003. Are Prisons Obsolete? Page 77. New York: Seven Stories Press.
179Human Rights Watch Report. 2001. “No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons.” Retrieved October 2, 2008
(http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/prison/)
180 Mills, Alan, Margaret Byrne. 2004. Rape Crisis in Women's Prison. Chicago Press: Chicago.
181Davis, Angela Y. 2003. Are Prisons Obsolete? New York: Seven Stories Press.
182Poole, Eric and Robert Regoli. 1980. “Race, Institutional Rule Breaking, and Disciplinary Response.” Law and Society
Review, 14:4, 931-946.
183 Bonta, J., P. Gendreau. 1990. “Reexaming the Cruel and Unusal Punishment of Prison Life.” Law and Human Behavior,
347-366.
184 Cohen, S., L. Taylor. 1972. Psychological Survival. Hammondsworth: Penguin
185 Day, Susie. 2001. “Cruel But Not Unusual: The Punishment of Women in U.S. Prisons.” Monthly Review. Retrieved April

29, 2006 (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0701day.htm)

106 | P a g e
Suggestions for Positive Social Change
Economic, social, and cultural factors likely contribute to this crime gap. Women have been shown to
participate less in the crime market than men because they face different benefits and costs from
committing crimes. For example, they face different incentives: overall, women are found to be less able
to commit crimes than men are and to be more risk-averse.

Policymakers should take into account the possibility that positive changes that narrow gender gaps in
the labor market and positive changes in social roles might have induced more women to participate in
crime. Policies that help reduce wage disparity across skilled and unskilled female workers, such as
incentivizing female education, might deter disadvantaged women from engaging in criminal activities.

107 | P a g e
 College of the Canyons

Sociology 200
Introduction to Women’s Studies

108 | P a g e