Top Quotes: “The Sociology of Gender” — Amy Wharton
“While studies conducted in Western societies show that acts of physical aggression toward a partner are committed by both men and women, this pattern isn’t found in all nations. Cross-national research thus is important in helping us avoid the dangers of over-generalization, which occurs when one assumes that conclusions based on one group of people can be automatically extended to all people.”
“Torsheim et al’s (2006) study of adolescent subjective health provides an example of sex difference research that illustrates these issues in a cross-national context.
These authors analyzed surveys of adolescents in 29 countries and regions. The survey measured the frequency with which respondents experienced a range of health issues, such as headaches, irritability, sleeping difficulties, and nervousness. Respondents were also asked questions about their alcohol use, living conditions, and level of social support from teachers and classmates. This individual-level info was combined with info on the respondents’ countries, especially regarding the relative status of women and the country’s GDP.
For each health complaint and for all age groups in the study (ages 11, 13, and 15), girls reported more health complaints than boys. Sex differences were generally smaller at younger ages than among older adolescents. Girls in all countries reported more recurrent health complaints than boys; this difference was smaller for the youngest age group; and the magnitude of sexual differences varied by country. The researchers found that, generally speaking, countries in which women and men showed greater parity in areas such as education, income, and politics had smaller sex differences in adolescent health.”
“Have a conversation with a preschool age child about gender. See if you can learn how this child views the differences between girls and boys, and try to identify some of the meanings they associate with their gender. You’ll undoubtedly discover that gender — their own as well as others’ — is a meaningful concept to children. By age 3 or so, most can identify themselves as female or male and associate particular qualities or characteristics with each gender.”
“These societal expectations are both powerful and subtle, as Cahill (1986) observed during his 18 months doing fieldwork at a preschool. Cahill reported that both adults and children pejoratively referred to a child behaving in a socially immature way as a ‘baby.’ When children behaved in more mature ways, however, they were labeled as ‘boy’ or ‘girl.’ As Schrock and Schwalbe (2009) note, this doesn’t merely signal to children that males are boys and females are girls. It also creates an association between being ‘grown up’ and gaining others’ approval, and behaving as a ‘boy’ or a ‘girl.’”
“Another feature of gender schemas in American society, according to Bem (1993), is that they’re androcentric. Androcentrism refers to a belief that males and masculinity are superior to females and femininity, and that males and masculinity are the standard or the norm. Not only do children internalize gender schemas that define males or females as inherently different, but they also internalize a sense that maleness and masculinity are more desirable and highly valued. For example, children may learn to associate dolls with girls and trucks with boys, but they’ll also learn that boys who play with dolls should be ridiculed while girls who play with trucks should be admired. In Bem’s view, androcentrism damages both females and males. Regarding its effects on men, Bem says that androcentrism
so thoroughly devalues whatever thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are culturally defined as feminine that crossing the gender boundary has a more negative cultural meaning for men than it has for women — which means, in turn, that male gender-boundary crossers are much more culturally stigmatized than female gender-boundary crossers. At the same time, androcentrism provides such an unreachable definition of what a real man is supposed to be that only a few men can even begin to reach it.”
“Cross-national research on sex differences in math aptitude provides additional evidence for the insufficiency of biological explanations. Though sex differences in math aptitude are found in many countries, the magnitude and direction of these differences varies. Guiso, Monte, Sapienza, and Zingales (2008) examined the results of math and reading tests taken by almost 300k 15-year-olds in 40 countries. They found that girls’ math scores averaged 10.5 points lower than boys, while their reading scores averaged 33 points higher. This gap varies by country. Penner (2008) reports similar findings, arguing that differences in ‘country-specific socialization processes’ might account for this variation. Penner also raises the possibility that the contribution of biological factors to sex differences in math achievement may itself vary across societal contexts.
Social factors may also help explain sex differences in math aptitude. For example, Guiso et al (2008) found that country-level variations in sex differences in math performance (Figure 2.2) were correlated with a country’s level of gender equality. The more gender-equal a country, the smaller the gap in math performance. Within the US, performance on standardized math tests has increased significantly over time, a finding attributed to girls taking more high school math and science courses (Hyde and Mertz 2009). Together, these findings suggest that sex differences in math aptitude result in part from more traditional gender attitudes, especially those related to girls’ pursuit of education and enrollment in math and science.”
“They found that while women were less satisfied when they were in orchestras dominated by men (90%+ male) than in those that were more balanced (40–60% female), they were especially dissatisfied in orchestras that constituted between 10–40% women. Male orchestra members also were less satisfied when women were greater than 10% but less than 40% of members. These findings held true in all 4 countries, underscoring the power of group composition.
Allmendinger and Heckman suggest that once women became a significant minority (i.e. greater than 10%), they gain power and cannot be easily overlooked by their male counterparts. In their words, ‘Together, these processes result in tightened identity group boundaries for both genders, increased cross-group stereotyping and conflict, less social support across gender boundaries, and heightened personal tension for everyone.’”
“The term ‘stereotype threat’ has been used to describe a situation where a negative stereotype about one’s social category becomes relevant to interpreting oneself or one’s behavior in an ‘identified-with’ setting. An Asian American might experience stereotype threat if he considers himself a particularly eloquent speaker, contrary to the stereotype of Asians, and is placed in a situation where others are expecting him to be reticent and quiet. Another example is a black woman who considers herself very good at math being placed in a competitive situation with others who expect black people to perform poorly in math. In these types of situations, Steele (1997) and his colleagues have found that the stereotype-threatened perform less well than they do when they’re not in that kind of situation.”
Roth (2004) argues that the effects of tokenism can be explained by people’s preferences for homophily. She also draws on status characteristics theory in her study of women’s experiences in the traditionally male world of Wall Street financial firms. Roth found that women working in the most male-dominated specializations, such as trading, were excluded from the social networks of her co-workers:
Me and this other woman were total outcasts. They went so far as, they were, on our immediate desk, there were 6 of us. The rest of the group would play golf every weekend. They’d go out to dinners and what not. We were never invited once. It was pathetic. To tell you in truth, because of that we had absolutely no desire to be anything social with them, but they were like a boys’ club and we were just like the 2 chicks who didn’t fit in. It was fun. They certainly didn’t sit and talk to us on the desk and they ignored us at work, but socially they completely ignored us and it was obviously a little harder to fit in when somebody spends the whole weekend with the other 3 of them, playing golf and going on vacations together. Going to strip clubs together and stuff like that. (Roth 2004)
Exclusion could be costly in this setting because it limited women’s access to mentors and restricted their ability to form the kind of informal connections that would lead to good assignments and clients.”
“Roth also found that status expectations were operating in these workplaces. Women’s competence was suspect and clearly scrutinized:
When I started work, the person who ended up being my mentor came to me and said, ‘Can you amortize a loan?’ Which is the most insulting question in my business. Can I amortize a loan? I should’ve been able to amortize a loan when I came out of high school. So he did this little test. I went and I amortized my little loan for him and everything and then he was fine. I thought that was insulting that they would have done that. I had interactions with people..I was once at a dinner when we were all in our training program and I was talking to someone and it was so insulting because this guy was in corporate finance so he was going to be some general relationship manager and I said, ‘I’m in asset banks.’ And he said to me, ‘Oh, are you comfortable with numbers?’
In addition to understanding women’s experiences, Roth was interested in learning about the strategies successful women used to overcome the interactional dynamics of tokenism. Some used individual strategies, such as finding powerful mentors, developing experience in a critical area, or simply having a thick skin. Others sought out positions where their performance was most likely to be objectively evaluated.
Compare these experiences to those of the male tokens Williams (1992, 1995) studied. In her interviews with male nurses, elementary school teachers, librarians, and social workers, she found that many view their token status as an advantage. For example, when asked whether he found it difficult to be a male nurse in pediatrics, one of Williams’ interviewees responded, ‘No, no, none…I’ve heard this from managers and supervisory-type people with men in pediatrics: ‘It’s so nice to have a man because it’s such a female-dominated profession.’ These men also reported having mostly positive working relationships with co-workers and supervisors, which included being invited to informal social gatherings.
While women in token roles may have their competence questioned, men in predominantly female jobs experience another types of pressure — the glass escalator. As Williams (1995) explains: ‘Like being on invisible ‘up’ escalator, men struggle to remain in the lower (i.e. ‘feminine’ levels of their profession.’ These pressures help explain why other studies of men in traditionally female jobs find that men’s pay and promotion chances are often greater in these fields than those of their female co-workers (Budig 2002).
Despite these advantages, male tokens remain — in the language of the ‘doing gender’ perspective — ‘accountable’ as men. For example, in their study of male clerical temporaries, Henson and Rogers (2001) ask: How do men ‘do masculinity’ in a predominantly female job? The vast majority of clerical workers are women, and that is also true among those in temporary jobs. Henson and Rogers (2001) note that, prior to the 1960s, most temporary employers of clerical workers didn’t even accept male applicants. Not surprisingly, then, men who became clerical temps are likely to face questions, surprise, and disapproval from their peers. One man interviewed by Henson and Rogers (2001) commented: ‘People are looking at me like, ‘What are you doing here?’ Like they’re thinking, ‘Gee, what’s the deal? Shouldn’t you be, I don’t know, doing something else?’ I mean it’s sort of fine if you’re just out of school. They kind of expect well, you’re just doing this until you get a regular job.’
In response, male clerical temps reasserted their masculinity using several strategies designed to set them apart from and superior to women. For example, they reframed the work, replacing the term ‘secretary’ with more masculine or gender-neutral descriptions, such as bookkeeper or word processor (Henson and Rogers 2001). They used ‘cover stories’ to create an alternative occupational identity, such as actor or writer, and minimized the signifiance of their temp job. The male clerical temps also asserted their masculinity by refusing to perform the deference typically required of subordinates — especially women (Pierce 1995).”
“Youth sports were organized in ways that tended to reinforce gender distinctions and inequalities.
Sport contributes to ideas about male and female bodies and their physical capabilities or limitations. Female athletes in many sports face pressures to avoid being perceived as too powerful or aggressive. Women who cross this line may be assumed to be lesbians, a label that might prevent some straight women from participating in sport and lead lesbians in sport to hide their identity. Sports journalist Joan Ryan argues that the popularity of sports such as women’s gymnastics and figure skating stems in part from their highly feminized presentation. Elite female gymnasts are typically young and petite, and image and appearance figure highly in women’s figure skating. As Ryan explains, ‘Skaters don’t show their muscles or sweat. They wear makeup and sequins and even have a beauty consultant backstage at competitions. Skating offers the wholesomeness of sports without the aggression, the beauty of female athleticism without the hazy overtones of lesbianism. The athletes are starlets in blades, with agents and fans fluttering about them.’
Their gender creates a different set of pressures for male figure skaters. Their challenge is to distinguish themselves from women — lest they be perceived as gay — and to present themselves as masculine. Male skaters use costume, music, and movement to achieve this. What counts as masculine differs by nationality, however. For example, male skaters from the former Soviet states are more likely than those from the West to draw on classical ballet and opera. Whereas these forms of cultural expression connote femininity in the West, they’re expressions of national pride for skaters from former Soviet states.
Sports media play a role in perpetuating gendered beliefs. While coverage of female athletes and women’s sports has increased, sports involving women are treated very differently than those involving men. For example, Stone and Home (2008) found gender differences in the media coverage of the UK’s Olympic skiing and snowboarding teams. Though receiving about the same amount of coverage, descriptions of male and female athletes diverged among traditional gender lines. Male athletes were described as active and aggressive: ‘Ben attacked with venom completing trick after trick,’ while female athletes were described in terms of their demeanor and appearance, using phrases such as ‘alpine angel’ and ‘22-year-old model from Twickenham.’ Sports advertising and coverage related to so-called ‘alternative’ or ‘extreme’ sports relies on gendered depictions of athletes.”
“Women were more likely to be gatherers and men to be hunters. While each set of tasks contributed to the group’s survival by providing food that supplied necessary calories, women’s labor provided most of the food supply.
Over time, societies in many parts of the world adopted systems of agriculture based on the blow. Plow-based agriculture required greater physical strength than less intensive forms of food production such as gathering or early horticulture, and thus was an activity performed most often by men. Hence, in these societies, men provided more of the necessary calories than women. More generally, evidence suggests that when women’s labor is less vital to family survival than men’s, their relative social status also declines. Historical and geographical variations in female infanticide and resulting sex ratios thus can be correlated with the relative value of female labor.
These arguments suggest that the sexual division of labor whereby women and men specialize in different activities is also linked to the relative status of each sex. In particular, the relative contributions of women’s and men’s labor to survival influence the degree to which each sex is socially valued and hence the degree of sex inequality. Women and men are more equal in societies where the value of their labor is more similar.
Not everyone accepts this argument, however, and its relevance for understanding the sexual division of labor in today’s society is quite limited. An alternative explanation for the sexual division of labor views it less as a response to women’s and men’s differing childcare responsibilities than as a cultural practice that justifies the devaluation of women. In this view, the sexual division of labor is rooted in gender, not sex. Moreover, these analysts question the relevance of attempts to explain the ‘origins’ of the sexual division of labor, preferring instead to focus on how the sexual division of labor is reproduced in contemporary societies.”
“During the latter part of the 19th century, the economies of the West were primarily based on agriculture. Work and family were closely intertwined and the distinction between home and workplace was nonexistent. The word ‘housework’ wasn’t introduced into written English until 1841, suggesting that the distinction between work performed at home and work performed elsewhere didn’t exist in previous eras. Pre-industrial family life in the US and Europe has received much attention from historians and historical sociologists. These accounts describe the functioning of family economies within which wives, husbands, and children contributed their labor to the household and produced goods for sale in the market. Although tasks were divided on the basis of gender and age, neither women nor men experienced a separation between the worlds of family and work.
The 20th century was a time of dramatic change in work and family life across most industrialized nations. The forces of industrialization were at full swing at the beginning of the century, but by the end, we were in the midst of what some call ‘the second industrial revolution’ and the rise of the ‘global economy.’ The changes occurring during the last half of the 20th century are especially important for understanding the institutions of work and family today.
Industrialization profoundly altered the nature of work and family life. With the creation of factories, goods production moved out of the home, and families began sending 1 or more of their members to work in these industrial settings — including in parts of Asia and Latin America. Studies of the US show that in some New England villages entire families went to work in the local textile mills. This ‘family employment system,’ which often involved fathers paying wives, children, and other relatives out of their own wages, represented one way that work organizations in the early industrial era preserved familial influences.
The New England ‘mill girls’ offer another example. They were young women from rural backgrounds sent by their families to work in factories for a few years before their marriage. These women, whose labor was viewed as less necessary to the family farm than the family’s sons, contributed to their family’s economic well-being by sending their wages home. Gradually, the ‘mill girls’ were replaced by newly-arriving European immigrants, who could be more cheaply employed. Immigrants were often recruited as families in a manner similar to the ‘family employment system.’”
“Approximately 60% of women and just over 70% of men were in the labor force in 2008. Paid employment in the US is typical for women and men of all ethnic groups. Roughly 3/4 of black and white women and 2/3 of Latina and Asian Asian American, and Native American women worked for pay in 2005, as did majorities of men in each group.”
“Divorce rates in the US have been much higher than in Europe and most Western countries, reaching their highest levels around 1980, after which they stabilized and declined somewhat.”
“Births to unmarried women in 2007 were lowest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (17% of births) and whites (28% of births) and more common among Latinas (51% of briths), Native Americans (65% of births), and black women (72% of births).”
“Studies suggest that most boys with gender variance early in childhood grow up to be gay, and about a quarter straight. Only a small fraction grow up to be transgender.
Girls with gender-variant behavior, who have been studied less, voice extreme unhappiness about being a girl and talk about wanting to have male anatomy. But research has thus far suggesting that most wind up as straight women.
Although many children role-play involving gender, ‘the key question is how intense and persistent the behavior is,’ especially if they show extreme distress.”
“The LA Unified School District requires that students be addressed with ‘a name and pronoun that corresponds to the gender identity.’ It also asks schools to provide a locker room or changing area that corresponds to a student’s chosen gender.”
“Research indicates that mothers spend about the same amount of time with their daughters as with their sons. Fathers’ time is more gender-differentiated, however. For example, among married fathers, the presence of sons in a family increases the amount of time they spend in family leisure activities, and both daughters and sons receive more attention from married dads when there are sons in the family. In families containing only boys, fathers spend more time interacting individually with their sons and do a larger care of childcare. Stepfathers’ behavior toward their male and female stepchildren is even more gender-differentiated, and unmarried and divorced fathers remain more connected to sons over time than to daughters.”
“When wives are the same age as their husbands, they do less housework and husbands do more than when wives are 2+ years younger than their spouse. Regarding the overall gender gap in women’s and men’s household work, this perspective would expect that, as women’s relative earnings increase, this gap would shrink.
To illustrate how time constraints and relative resources may operate simultaneously, consider white and black husbands’ involvement in household work. Historically, financial need often compelled black wives and moms to work for pay in the US. These women faced less disapproval for working from friends and families than white women, and were often encouraged to work by their husbands. This legacy of labor participation and supportive families among black Americans has been used to account for African-American husbands’ greater involvement than white husbands in household work.”
“When wives earn substantially more than husbands, some studies find that men’s contributions to housework decrease and women’s rise. If work and home responsibilities provide opportunities for women and men to ‘do gender,’ a reversal of women’s and men’s typical economic roles represents a form of ‘gender deviance.’ Men (and women) neutralize this deviance by adopting a more traditional household division of labor.”
“There are far fewer examples of occupations that have shifted from mostly female to mostly male. For example, while Reskin and Roos (1990) identified 33 occupations that feminized in the 1970s, they could find only three (cooks, food-prep kitchen workers, and maids and housemen) where the percentage of men significantly increased. The processes that create and maintain a sex-segregated occupational structure are ongoing, and the sexual division of labor is maintained even as particular occupations experience changes in their sex composition.”
“One way in which jobs and occupations become gendered is as a result of their sex composition. In other words, job take on the characteristics of those who typically perform them. Nursing in the US is an example of that process. As it came to be filled disproportionately by women, it was viewed as an occupation that demanded ‘feminine’ qualities, such as empathy. This assumption, in turn, helped perpetuate the traditional sex composition of nursing since it implied that women as a group are inherently better suited than men for this occupation. Hence, a job’s sex composition will shape its gender type and its gender type will perpetuate its sex composition.
That jobs dominated by a particular sex come to be seen as most appropriate for that sex may seem unproblematic and inevitable, but this association is produced through a complex process of social construction. Virtually any occupation can be understood as being more appropriate for one sex or another ‘because most jobs contain both stereotypical male and stereotypical female elements.’ Hence, the creation of a link between an occupation’s sex composition and its gender type necessarily involves processes of selection and deselection. Certain aspects of occupations may be emphasized as particularly important or essential, while others may be downplayed. Nursing, for example, requires workers to be skilled in the use of complex medical tech. Emphasizing the caring aspects of this occupation, however, allows it to be cast as an occupation particularly appropriate for women.”
“The gender wage gap varies with race and ethnicity. Men earn more than women in all groups. In 2009, however, the gender wage gap was greatest among whites (79%) and Asians (82%). In contrast, Latinas earned 90% as much as Latinos, while black women’s earnings were 94% as high as black men’s.”
