DISCUSSION Assignment Unit 4

Why do sociologists find it important to differentiate between sex and gender? What can be
done to lessen the effects of gender stratification in the workplace? How does gender
stratification harm both men and women?

Answer

Why do sociologists find it important to differentiate between sex and gender?

In the western world, we look at gender as men and women, while there are three genders in
some cultures. According to Little et al. (2014), gender stereotype considers attitudes, traits,
and behavior patterns of both men and women and is a form of sexism. When
differentiating between sex and gender, sociology looks at three theories, Structural
Functionalism Theory, Symbolic Interactionism Theory, and Social Conflict Theory. (Lumen
Learning, n.d.). Structural functionalism theory understands human behavior, helping to
keep the society organized and functional (Lumen Learning, n.d.). From this perspective,
gender organizes community into distinct roles that complement each other. Since men are
physically stronger and do not have to worry about childbearing, it is easier for them to take
on more physical roles, which has become the norm

The structural functionalism theory posits that the two genders should play complementary
roles (Lumen Learning, n.d.). Boys and girls are socialized differently, which defines their
roles and make it easy for them to complement each other and achieve stable families.
Boyslearn self-confidence and competitiveness, which helps to prepare them for the
workforce. At the same time, girls are taught to express themselves and learn empathy,
preparing them to care for their families. With the Symbolic interaction approach, the focus
is on how gender forms part of everyday life. Gender is something a person does rather
than something imposed by interaction (Lumen Learning, n.d.). The way you dress, your
hairstyle, and your make-up tell others your gender. If a man wears a dress, he rejects his
gender role, while if a woman wears pants, it would seem normal. Our body language may
determine how our gender is perceived.

The social conflict theory posits that gender is a structural system that distributes power to
some, and others are disadvantaged (Lumen Learning, n.d.). It is patriarchal, where men
arethe dominant force, and they get higher education and more rights than women and
assumeleadership positions.What can be done to lessen the effects of gender stratification in
the workplace? Gender stratification is based on social ranking, where men are seen as the
dominant of the sexes and inhabit higher positions. In the workplace, men, on average,
receive more pay than women and enjoy more social freedom. According to Lumen
Learning (n.d.), when women are marginalized, the opportunity to reduce poverty decreases.
To lessen the effects of gender stratification in the workplace, we would have to take a
gender transformative approach and bridge the gaps to access to resources between men
and women in a lasting manner. For change to happen, both men and women must
beinvolved. There need to be programs that promote gender equality, productivity, and
balancing incomes in the workplace. Therefore, policies that will increase women's access to
services and resources are needed. When women's success is celebrated and brought to the
fore, we will have a chance to experience gender equality.

How does gender stratification harm both men and women?

Gender refers to personal and social characteristics, not biological traits. Gender
stratification is the unequal distribution of wealth and power, including the right to vote.

Before 1918, Canada did not permit women to vote (Little et al., 2014), and it was not until
2015 that women in Saudi Arabia were allowed to vote. This kind of disenfranchisement is
more dominant in a patriarchal society.

The anticipation is that men will be the breadwinners, while women are expected to take care
of the home and children. Women also do more housework while men are more likely to
have leisure time. Owing to gender stratification, women may not consider advancing in
their careers. It also affects men and their behaviors, which leads to higher rates of suicide,
which are linked to financial problems or divorce and are more likely to be incarcerated and
engage in criminal activities.

References

Little, W. & McGivern, R. (2014). Introduction to sociology. 1st Canadian Edition. Houston.

OpenStax College, Rice University, & B.C. Open Textbook Project.

https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter12-gender-sex-and-

sexuality/#section12.1.

Lumen Learning (n.d.). Sociology. Lumen Learning.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/alamo-sociology/chapter/reading-gender-inequality/.

Answer

It is important to distinguish between sex and gender sociologically because people are becoming
less defined by stereotypical gender roles.

Gender stratification can be lessened by making gender equality part of training and education and
also by Making flexibility and work-life balance a part of the wider company culture.

Gender stratification can harm both men and women by causing violence, privilege, injustice and
impunity are intimately linked.
 Sex refers to physical or physiological differences between males and females, including both
primary sex characteristics (the reproductive system) and secondary characteristics such as height
and muscularity.

11.1 Understanding Sex and Gender

Learning Objectives

1. Define sex and gender and femininity and masculinity.

2. Critically assess the evidence on biology, culture and socialization, and gender.
3. Discuss agents of gender socialization.

Although the terms sex and gender are sometimes used interchangeably and do in fact

complement each other, they nonetheless refer to different aspects of what it means to be a
woman or man in any society.

Sex refers to the anatomical and other biological differences between females and males that
are determined at the moment of conception and develop in the womb and throughout
childhood and adolescence. Females, of course, have two X chromosomes, while males have
one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. From this basic genetic difference spring other
biological differences. The first to appear are the different genitals that boys and girls develop
in the womb and that the doctor (or midwife) and parents look for when a baby is born
(assuming the baby’s sex is not already known from ultrasound or other techniques) so that
the momentous announcement, “It’s a boy!” or “It’s a girl!” can be made. The genitalia are
called primary sex characteristics, while the other differences that develop during puberty are
called secondary sex characteristics and stem from hormonal differences between the two
sexes. In this difficult period of adolescents’ lives, boys generally acquire deeper voices,
more body hair, and more muscles from their flowing testosterone. Girls develop breasts and
wider hips and begin menstruating as nature prepares them for possible pregnancy and
childbirth. For better or worse, these basic biological differences between the sexes affect
many people’s perceptions of what it means to be female or male, as we shall soon discuss.

Gender as a Social Construction

If sex is a biological concept, then gender is a social concept. It refers to the
social and cultural differences a society assigns to people based on their
(biological) sex. A related concept, gender roles, refers to a society’s
expectations of people’s behavior and attitudes based on whether they are
females or males. Understood in this way, gender, like race as discussed
in Chapter 7 “Deviance, Crime, and Social Control”, is a social construction.
How we think and behave as females and males is not etched in stone by our
biology but rather is a result of how society expects us to think and behave
based on what sex we are. As we grow up, we learn these expectations as we
develop our gender identity, or our beliefs about ourselves as females or males.

These expectations are called femininity and masculinity. Femininity refers to

the cultural expectations we have of girls and women, while masculinity refers
to the expectations we have of boys and men. A familiar nursery rhyme nicely
summarizes these two sets of traits:

What are little boys made of?

Snips and snails,

And puppy dog tails,

That’s what little boys are made of.

What are little girls made of?

Sugar and spice,

And everything nice,

That’s what little girls are made of.

As this nursery rhyme suggests, our traditional notions of femininity and

masculinity indicate that we think females and males are fundamentally
different from each other. In effect, we think of them as two sides of the same
coin of being human. What we traditionally mean by femininity is captured in
the adjectives, both positive and negative, we traditionally ascribe to women:
gentle, sensitive, nurturing, delicate, graceful, cooperative, decorative,
dependent, emotional, passive, and weak. Thus when we say that a girl or
woman is very feminine, we have some combination of these traits, usually the
positive ones, in mind: she is soft, dainty, pretty, even a bit flighty. What we
traditionally mean by masculinity is captured in the adjectives, again both
positive and negative, our society traditionally ascribes to men: strong,
assertive, brave, active, independent, intelligent, competitive, insensitive,
unemotional, and aggressive. When we say that a boy or man is very masculine,
we have some combination of these traits in mind: he is tough, strong, and
assertive.
 Infant girls traditionally wear pink, while infant boys wear blue. This color difference reflects the different cultural
expectations we have for babies based on their (biological) sex.
Abby Bischoff – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

These traits might sound like stereotypes of females and males in today’s
society, and to some extent they are, but differences between men and women
in attitudes and behavior do in fact exist (Aulette, Wittner, & Blakeley, 2009).
For example, women cry more often than men do. Men are more physically
violent than women. Women take care of children more than men do. Women
smile more often than men. Men curse more often than women. When women
talk with each other, they are more likely to talk about their personal lives than
men are when they talk with each other (Tannen, 2001). The two sexes even
differ when they hold a cigarette (not that anyone should smoke). When a
woman holds a cigarette, she usually has the palm of her cigarette-holding hand
facing upward. When a man holds a cigarette, he usually has his palm facing
downward.

Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation refers to a person’s preference for sexual relationships with
individuals of the other sex (heterosexuality), one’s own sex (homosexuality), or
both sexes (bisexuality). The term also increasingly refers
to transgendered individuals, those whose behavior, appearance, and/or gender
identity fails to conform to conventional norms. Transgendered individuals
include transvestites (those who dress in the clothing of the opposite sex)
and transsexuals (those whose gender identity differs from the physiological sex
and who sometimes undergo a sex change).

It is difficult to know precisely how many people are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or
transgendered. One problem is conceptual. For example, what does it mean to
be gay or lesbian? Does one need to actually have sexual relations with a same-
sex partner to be considered gay? What if someone is attracted to same-sex
partners but does not actually engage in sex with such persons? What if
someone identifies as heterosexual but engages in homosexual sex for money
(as in certain forms of prostitution) or for power and influence (as in much
prison sex)? These conceptual problems make it difficult to determine the extent
of homosexuality.

A second problem is empirical. Even if we can settle on a definition of

homosexuality, how do we then determine how many people fit this definition?
For better or worse, our best evidence of the number of gays and lesbians in the
United States comes from surveys of national samples of Americans in which
they are asked various questions about their sexuality. Although these are
anonymous surveys, obviously at least some individuals may be reluctant to
disclose their sexual activity and thoughts to an interviewer. Still, scholars think
the estimates from these surveys are fairly accurate but that they probably
underestimate by at least a small amount the number of gays and lesbians.

A widely cited survey carried out by researchers at the University of Chicago

found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as
gay/lesbian or bisexual, with greater percentages reporting having had sexual
relations with same-sex partners or being attracted to same-sex persons
(see Table 11.1 “Prevalence of Homosexuality in the United States”). In the
2008 General Social Survey, 2.2% of men and 3.5% of women identified
themselves as gay/lesbian or bisexual. Among individuals having had any
sexual partners since turning 18, 2.2% of men reported having had at least some
male partners, while 4.6% of women reported having had at least some female
partners. Although precise numbers must remain unknown, it seems fair to say
that between about 2% and 5% of Americans are gay/lesbian or bisexual.

Table 11.1 Prevalence of Homosexuality in the United States

 Men Women
Activity, attraction, or identity
(%) (%)

Find same-sex sexual relations appealing 4.5 5.6

Attracted to people of same sex 6.2 4.4

Identify as gay or bisexual 2.8 1.4

At least one sex partner of same sex during past year among those sexually
2.7 1.3
active

At least one sex partner of same sex since turning 18 4.9 4.1

Source: Data from Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social
organization of sexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

If it is difficult to determine the number of people who are gay/lesbian or

bisexual, it is even more difficult to determine why some people have this
sexual orientation while most do not have it. Scholars disagree on the “causes”
of sexual orientation (Engle, McFalls, Gallagher, & Curtis, 2006; Sheldon,
Pfeffer, Jayaratne, Feldbaum, & Petty, 2007). Some scholars attribute it to
unknown biological factor(s) over which individuals have no control, just as
individuals do not decide whether they are left-handed or right-handed.
Supporting this view, many gays say they realized they were gay during
adolescence, just as straights would say they realized they were straight during
their own adolescence. Other scholars say that sexual orientation is at least
partly influenced by cultural norms, so that individuals are more likely to
identify as gay or straight depending on the cultural views of sexual orientation
into which they are socialized as they grow up. At best, perhaps all we can say
is that sexual orientation stems from a complex mix of biological and cultural
factors that remain to be determined.
The Development of Gender Differences
What accounts for differences in female and male behavior and attitudes? Do
the biological differences between the sexes account for other differences? Or
do these latter differences stem, as most sociologists think, from cultural
expectations and from differences in the ways in which the sexes are socialized?
These are critical questions, for they ask whether the differences between boys
and girls and women and men stem more from biology or from society.
As Chapter 2 “Eye on Society: Doing Sociological Research” pointed out,
biological explanations for human behavior implicitly support the status quo. If
we think behavioral and other differences between the sexes are due primarily
to their respective biological makeups, we are saying that these differences are
inevitable or nearly so and that any attempt to change them goes against biology
and will likely fail.

As an example, consider the obvious biological fact that women bear and nurse
children and men do not. Couple this with the common view that women are
also more gentle and nurturing than men, and we end up with a “biological
recipe” for women to be the primary caretakers of children. Many people think
this means women are therefore much better suited than men to take care of
children once they are born, and that the family might be harmed if mothers
work outside the home or if fathers are the primary caretakers. Figure 11.1
“Belief That Women Should Stay at Home” shows that more than one-third of
the public agrees that “it is much better for everyone involved if the man is the
achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”
To the extent this belief exists, women may not want to work outside the home
or, if they choose to do so, they face difficulties from employers, family, and
friends. Conversely, men may not even think about wanting to stay at home and
may themselves face difficulties from employees, family, and friends if they
want to do so. A belief in a strong biological basis for differences between
women and men implies, then, that there is little we can or should do to change
these differences. It implies that “anatomy is destiny,” and destiny is, of course,
by definition inevitable.

Figure 11.1 Belief That Women Should Stay at Home

Agreement or disagreement with statement that “it is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the
home and the woman takes care of the home and family.”
Source: Data from General Social Survey, 2008.

This implication makes it essential to understand the extent to which gender

differences do, in fact, stem from biological differences between the sexes or,
instead, stem from cultural and social influences. If biology is paramount, then
gender differences are perhaps inevitable and the status quo will remain. If
culture and social influences matter much more than biology, then gender
differences can change and the status quo may give way. With this backdrop in
mind, let’s turn to the biological evidence for behavioral and other differences
between the sexes and then examine the evidence for their social and cultural
roots.

Biology and Gender

Several biological explanations for gender roles exist, and we discuss two of the
most important ones here. One explanation is from the related fields of
sociobiology (see Chapter 2 “Eye on Society: Doing Sociological Research”)
and evolutionary psychology (Workman & Reader, 2009) and argues an
evolutionary basis for traditional gender roles.

Scholars advocating this view reason as follows (Barash, 2007; Thornhill &
Palmer, 2000). In prehistoric societies, few social roles existed. A major role
centered on relieving hunger by hunting or gathering food. The other major role
centered on bearing and nursing children. Because only women could perform
this role, they were also the primary caretakers for children for several years
after birth. And because women were frequently pregnant, their roles as mothers
confined them to the home for most of their adulthood. Meanwhile, men were
better suited than women for hunting because they were stronger and quicker
than women. In prehistoric societies, then, biology was indeed destiny: for
biological reasons, men in effect worked outside the home (hunted), while
women stayed at home with their children.

Evolutionary reasons also explain why men are more violent than women. In
prehistoric times, men who were more willing to commit violence against and
even kill other men would “win out” in the competition for female mates. They
thus were more likely than less violent men to produce offspring, who would
then carry these males’ genetic violent tendencies. By the same token, men who
were prone to rape women were more likely to produce offspring, who would
then carry these males’ “rape genes.” This early process guaranteed that rape
tendencies would be biologically transmitted and thus provided a biological
basis for the amount of rape that occurs today.
If the human race evolved along these lines, sociobiologists and evolutionary
psychologists continue, natural selection favored those societies where men
were stronger, braver, and more aggressive and where women were more fertile
and nurturing. Such traits over the millennia became fairly instinctual, meaning
that men’s and women’s biological natures evolved differently. Men became, by
nature, more assertive, daring, and violent than women, and women are, by
nature, more gentle, nurturing, and maternal than men. To the extent this is true,
these scholars add, traditional gender roles for women and men make sense
from an evolutionary standpoint, and attempts to change them go against the
sexes’ biological natures. This in turn implies that existing gender inequality
must continue because it is rooted in biology. As the title of a book presenting
the evolutionary psychology argument summarizes this implication, “biology at
work: rethinking sexual equality” (Browne, 2002).

According to some sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists, today’s gender differences in strength and physical
aggression are ultimately rooted in certain evolutionary processes that spanned millennia.
Vladimir Pustovit – Couple – CC BY 2.0.

Critics challenge the evolutionary explanation on several grounds (Hurley,

2007; Buller, 2006; Begley, 2009). First, much greater gender variation in
behavior and attitudes existed in prehistoric times than the evolutionary
explanation assumes. Second, even if biological differences did influence
gender roles in prehistoric times, these differences are largely irrelevant in
today’s world, in which, for example, physical strength is not necessary for
survival. Third, human environments throughout the millennia have simply
been too diverse to permit the simple, straightforward biological development
that the evolutionary explanation assumes. Fourth, evolutionary arguments
implicitly justify existing gender inequality by implying the need to confine
women and men to their traditional roles.

Recent anthropological evidence also challenges the evolutionary argument that

men’s tendency to commit violence, including rape, was biologically
transmitted. This evidence instead finds that violent men have trouble finding
female mates who would want them and that the female mates they find and the
children they produce are often killed by rivals to the men. The recent evidence
also finds those rapists’ children are often abandoned and then die. As one
anthropologist summarizes the rape evidence, “The likelihood that rape is an
evolved adaptation [is] extremely low. It just wouldn’t have made sense for men
in the [prehistoric epoch] to use rape as a reproductive strategy, so the argument
that it’s preprogrammed into us doesn’t hold up” (Begley, 2009, p. 54).

A second biological explanation for traditional gender roles centers on

hormones and specifically on testosterone, the so-called male hormone. One of
the most important differences between boys and girls and men and women in
the United States and many other societies is their level of aggression. Simply
put, males are much more physically aggressive than females and in the United
States commit about 85%–90% of all violent crimes (see Chapter 7 “Deviance,
Crime, and Social Control”). Why is this so? As Chapter 7 “Deviance, Crime,
and Social Control” pointed out, this gender difference is often attributed to
males’ higher levels of testosterone (Mazur, 2009).

To see whether testosterone does indeed raise aggression, researchers typically

assess whether males with higher testosterone levels are more aggressive than
those with lower testosterone levels. Several studies find that this is indeed the
case. For example, a widely cited study of Vietnam-era male veterans found that
those with higher levels of testosterone had engaged in more violent behavior
(Booth & Osgood, 1993). However, this correlation does not necessarily mean
that their testosterone increased their violence: as has been found in various
animal species, it is also possible that their violence increased their testosterone.
Because studies of human males can’t for ethical and practical reasons
manipulate their testosterone levels, the exact meaning of the results from these
testosterone-aggression studies must remain unclear, according to a review
sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences (Miczek, Mirsky, Carey,
DeBold, & Raine, 1994).

Another line of research on the biological basis for sex differences in aggression
involves children, including some as young as ages 1 or 2, in various situations
(Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008). They might be playing with each
other, interacting with adults, or writing down solutions to hypothetical
scenarios given to them by a researcher. In most of these studies, boys are more
physically aggressive in thought or deed than girls, even at a very young age.
Other studies are more experimental in nature. In one type of study, a toddler
will be playing with a toy, only to have it removed by an adult. Boys typically
tend to look angry and try to grab the toy back, while girls tend to just sit there
and whimper. Because these gender differences in aggression are found at very
young ages, researchers often say they must have some biological basis.
However, critics of this line of research counter that even young children have
already been socialized along gender lines (Begley, 2009; Eliot, 2009), a point
to which we return later. To the extent this is true, gender differences in
children’s aggression may simply reflect socialization and not biology.

In sum, biological evidence for gender differences certainly exists, but its
interpretation remains very controversial. It must be weighed against the
evidence, to which we next turn, of cultural variations in the experience of
gender and of socialization differences by gender. One thing is clear: to the
extent we accept biological explanations for gender, we imply that existing
gender differences and gender inequality must continue to exist. This
implication prompts many social scientists to be quite critical of the biological
viewpoint. As Linda L. Lindsey (2011, p. 52) notes, “Biological arguments are
consistently drawn upon to justify gender inequality and the continued
oppression of women.” In contrast, cultural and social explanations of gender
differences and gender inequality promise some hope for change. Let’s examine
the evidence for these explanations.

Culture and Gender

Some of the most compelling evidence against a strong biological determination
of gender roles comes from anthropologists, whose work on preindustrial
societies demonstrates some striking gender variation from one culture to
another. This variation underscores the impact of culture on how females and
males think and behave.

Margaret Mead (1935) was one of the first anthropologists to study cultural
differences in gender. In New Guinea she found three tribes—the Arapesh, the
Mundugumor, and the Tchambuli—whose gender roles differed dramatically. In
the Arapesh both sexes were gentle and nurturing. Both women and men spent
much time with their children in a loving way and exhibited what we would
normally call maternal behavior. In the Arapesh, then, different gender roles did
not exist, and in fact, both sexes conformed to what Americans would normally
call the female gender role.
 Margaret Mead made important contributions to the anthropological study of gender. Her work suggested that culture
dramatically influences how females and males behave and that gender is rooted much more in culture than in biology.
U.S. Library of Congress – public domain.

The situation was the reverse among the Mundugumor. Here both men and
women were fierce, competitive, and violent. Both sexes seemed to almost
dislike children and often physically punished them. In the Mundugumor
society, then, different gender roles also did not exist, as both sexes conformed
to what we Americans would normally call the male gender role.

In the Tchambuli, Mead finally found a tribe where different gender roles did
exist. One sex was the dominant, efficient, assertive one and showed leadership
in tribal affairs, while the other sex liked to dress up in frilly clothes, wear
makeup, and even giggle a lot. Here, then, Mead found a society with gender
roles similar to those found in the United States, but with a surprising twist. In
the Tchambuli, women were the dominant, assertive sex that showed leadership
in tribal affairs, while men were the ones wearing frilly clothes and makeup.

Mead’s research caused a firestorm in scholarly circles, as it challenged the

biological view on gender that was still very popular when she went to New
Guinea. In recent years, Mead’s findings have been challenged by other
anthropologists. Among other things, they argue that she probably painted an
overly simplistic picture of gender roles in her three societies (Scheper-Hughes,
1987). Other anthropologists defend Mead’s work and note that much
subsequent research has found that gender-linked attitudes and behavior do
differ widely from one culture to another (Morgan, 1989). If so, they say, the
impact of culture on what it means to be a female or male cannot be ignored.

Extensive evidence of this impact comes from anthropologist George Murdock,

who created the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample of almost 200 preindustrial
societies studied by anthropologists. Murdock (1937) found that some tasks in
these societies, such as hunting and trapping, are almost always done by men,
while other tasks, such as cooking and fetching water, are almost always done
by women. These patterns provide evidence for the evolutionary argument
presented earlier, as they probably stem from the biological differences between
the sexes. Even so there were at least some societies in which women hunted
and in which men cooked and fetched water.

More importantly, Murdock found much greater gender variation in several of

the other tasks he studied, including planting crops, milking, and generating
fires. Men primarily performed these tasks in some societies, women primarily
performed them in other societies, and in still other societies both sexes
performed them equally. Figure 11.2 “Gender Responsibility for
Weaving” shows the gender responsibility for yet another task, weaving.
Women are the primary weavers in about 61% of the societies that do weaving,
men are the primary weavers in 32%, and both sexes do the weaving in 7% of
the societies. Murdock’s findings illustrate how gender roles differ from one
culture to another and imply they are not biologically determined.

Figure 11.2 Gender Responsibility for Weaving

 Source: Data from Standard Cross-Cultural Sample.

Anthropologists since Mead and Murdock have continued to investigate cultural

differences in gender. Some of their most interesting findings concern gender
and sexuality (Morgan, 1989; Brettell & Sargent, 2009). Although all societies
distinguish “femaleness” and “maleness,” additional gender categories exist in
some societies. The Native Americans known as the Mohave, for example,
recognize four genders: a woman, a woman who acts like a man, a man, and a
man who acts like a woman. In some societies, a third, intermediary gender
category is recognized. Anthropologists call this category the berdache, who is
usually a man who takes on a woman’s role. This intermediary category
combines aspects of both femininity and masculinity of the society in which it is
found and is thus considered an androgynous gender. Although some people in
this category are born as intersexed individuals (formerly known
as hermaphrodites), meaning they have genitalia of both sexes, many are born
biologically as one sex or the other but adopt an androgynous identity.

An example of this intermediary gender category may be found in India, where

the hirja role involves males who wear women’s clothing and identify as
women (Reddy, 2006). The hirja role is an important part of Hindu mythology,
in which androgynous figures play key roles both as humans and as gods. Today
people identified by themselves and others as hirjas continue to play an
important role in Hindu practices and in Indian cultural life in general. Serena
Nanda (1997, pp. 200–201) calls hirjas “human beings who are neither man nor
woman” and says they are thought of as “special, sacred beings” even though
they are sometimes ridiculed and abused.

Anthropologists have found another androgynous gender composed of women

warriors in 33 Native American groups in North America. Walter L. Williams
(1997) calls these women “amazons” and notes that they dress like men and
sometimes even marry women. In some tribes girls exhibit such “masculine”
characteristics from childhood, while in others they may be recruited into
“amazonhood.” In the Kaska Indians, for example, a married couple with too
many daughters would select one to “be like a man.” When she was about 5
years of age, her parents would begin to dress her like a boy and have her do
male tasks. Eventually she would grow up to become a hunter.

The androgynous genders found by anthropologists remind us that gender is a

social construction and not just a biological fact. If culture does affect gender
roles, socialization is the process through which culture has this effect. What we
experience as girls and boys strongly influences how we develop as women and
men in terms of behavior and attitudes. To illustrate this important dimension of
gender, let’s turn to the evidence on socialization.
Socialization and Gender
Chapter 3 “Culture” identified several agents of socialization, including the
family, peers, schools, the mass media, and religion. While that chapter’s
discussion focused on these agents’ impact on socialization in general, ample
evidence of their impact on gender-role socialization also exists. Such
socialization helps boys and girls develop their gender identity (Andersen &
Hysock, 2009).

The Family
Parents play with their daughters and sons differently. For example, fathers generally roughhouse more with their sons than
with their daughters.
Jagrap – Roughhousing – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Socialization into gender roles begins in infancy, as almost from the moment of
birth parents begin to socialize their children as boys or girls without even
knowing it (Begley, 2009; Eliot, 2009). Many studies document this process
(Lindsey, 2011). Parents commonly describe their infant daughters as pretty,
soft, and delicate and their infant sons as strong, active, and alert, even though
neutral observers find no such gender differences among infants when they do
not know the infants’ sex. From infancy on, parents play with and otherwise
interact with their daughters and sons differently. They play more roughly with
their sons—for example, by throwing them up in the air or by gently wrestling
with them—and more quietly with their daughters. When their infant or toddler
daughters cry, they warmly comfort them, but they tend to let their sons cry
longer and to comfort them less. They give their girls dolls to play with and
their boys “action figures” and toy guns. While these gender differences in
socialization are probably smaller now than a generation ago, they certainly
continue to exist. Go into a large toy store and you will see pink aisles of dolls
and cooking sets and blue aisles of action figures, toy guns, and related items.

Peers
Peer influences also encourage gender socialization. As they reach school age,
children begin to play different games based on their gender (see the “Sociology
Making a Difference” box). Boys tend to play sports and other competitive team
games governed by inflexible rules and relatively large numbers of roles, while
girls tend to play smaller, cooperative games such as hopscotch and jumping
rope with fewer and more flexible rules. Although girls are much more involved
in sports now than a generation ago, these gender differences in their play as
youngsters persist and continue to reinforce gender roles. For example, they
encourage competitiveness in boys and cooperation and trust among girls. Boys
who are not competitive risk being called “sissy” or other words by their peers.
The patterns we see in adult males and females thus have their roots in their
play as young children (King, Miles, & Kniska, 1991).

Sociology Making a Difference

Gender Differences in Children’s Play and Games

In considering the debate, discussed in the text, between biology and sociology over the
origins of gender roles, some widely cited studies by sociologists over gender differences
in children’s play and games provide important evidence for the importance of
socialization.
Janet Lever (1978) studied fifth-grade children in three different communities in
Connecticut. She watched them play and otherwise interact in school and also had the
children keep diaries of their play and games outside school. One of her central aims was
to determine how complex the two sexes’ play and games were in terms of such factors as
number of rules, specialization of roles, and size of the group playing. In all of these
respects, Lever found that boys’ play and games were typically more complex than girls’
play and games. She attributed these differences to socialization by parents, teachers, and
other adults and argued that the complexity of boys’ play and games helped them to be
better able than girls to learn important social skills such as dealing with rules and
coordinating actions to achieve goals.

Meanwhile, Barrie Thorne (1993) spent many months in two different working-class
communities in California and Michigan observing fourth and fifth graders sit in class
and lunchrooms and play on the school playgrounds. Most children were white, but
several were African American or Latino. As you might expect, the girls and boys she
observed usually played separately from each other, and the one-sex groups in which they
played were very important for the development of their gender identity, with boys
tending to play team sports and other competitive games and girls tending to play
cooperative games such as jump rope. These differences led Thorne to conclude that
gender-role socialization stems not only from practices by adults but also from the
children’s own activities without adult involvement. When boys and girls did interact, it
was often “girls against the boys” or vice versa in classroom spelling contests and in
games such as tag. Thorne concluded that these “us against them” contests helped the
children learn that boys and girls are two different and antagonistic sexes and that gender
itself is antagonistic, even if there were also moments when both sexes interacted on the
playground in more relaxed, noncompetitive situations. Boys also tended to disrupt girls’
games more than the reverse and in this manner both exerted and learned dominance over
females. In all of these ways, children were not just the passive recipients of gender-role
socialization from adults (their teachers), but they also played an active role in ensuring
that such socialization occurred.

The studies by Lever and Thorne were among the first to emphasize the importance of
children’s play and peer relationships for gender socialization. They also called attention
to the importance of the traits and values learned through such socialization for outcomes
later in life. The rise in team sports opportunities for girls in the years since Lever and
Thorne did their research is a welcome development that addresses the concerns
expressed in their studies, but young children continue to play in the ways that Lever and
Thorne found. To the extent children’s play has the consequences just listed, and to the
extent these consequences impede full gender inequality, these sociological studies
suggest the need for teachers, parents, and other adults to help organize children’s play
that is more egalitarian along the lines discussed by Lever, Thorne, and other scholars. In
this way, their sociological work has helped to make a difference and promises to
continue to do so.

Schools
School is yet another agent of gender socialization (Klein, 2007). First of all,
school playgrounds provide a location for the gender-linked play activities just
described to occur. Second, and perhaps more important, teachers at all levels
treat their female and male students differently in subtle ways of which they are
probably not aware. They tend to call on boys more often to answer questions in
class and to praise them more when they give the right answer. They also give
boys more feedback about their assignments and other school work (Sadker &
Sadker, 1994). At all grade levels, many textbooks and other books still portray
people in gender-stereotyped ways. It is true that the newer books do less of this
than older ones, but the newer books still contain some stereotypes, and the
older books are still used in many schools, especially those that cannot afford to
buy newer volumes.

Mass Media

Women’s magazines reinforce the view that women need to be slender and wear many cosmetics in order to be considered
beautiful.
Photo Editing Services Tucia.com – Glamour /Fashion Retouching by Tucia – CC BY 2.0.

Gender socialization also occurs through the mass media (Dow & Wood, 2006).
On children’s television shows, the major characters are male. On Nickelodeon,
for example, the very popular SpongeBob SquarePants is a male, as are his pet
snail, Gary; his best friend, Patrick Star; their neighbor, Squidward Tentacles;
and SpongeBob’s employer, Eugene Crabs. Of the major characters in Bikini
Bottom, only Sandy Cheeks is a female. For all its virtues, Sesame
Street features Bert, Ernie, Cookie Monster, and other male characters. Most of
the Muppets are males, and the main female character, Miss Piggy, depicted as
vain and jealous, is hardly an admirable female role model. As for adults’
prime-time television, more men than women continue to fill more major roles
in weekly shows, despite notable women’s roles in shows such as The Good
Wife and Grey’s Anatomy. Women are also often portrayed as unintelligent or
frivolous individuals who are there more for their looks than for anything else.
Television commercials reinforce this image (Yoder, Christopher, & Holmes,
2008). Cosmetics ads abound, suggesting not only that a major task for women
is to look good but also that their sense of self-worth stems from looking good.
Other commercials show women becoming ecstatic over achieving a clean floor
or sparkling laundry. Judging from the world of television commercials, then,
women’s chief goals in life are to look good and to have a clean house. At the
same time, men’s chief goals, judging from many commercials, are to drink
beer and drive cars.

Women’s and men’s magazines reinforce these gender images (Milillo, 2008).
Most of the magazines intended for teenaged girls and adult women are filled
with pictures of thin, beautiful models, advice on dieting, cosmetics ads, and
articles on how to win and please your man. Conversely, the magazines
intended for teenaged boys and men are filled with ads and articles on cars and
sports, advice on how to succeed in careers and other endeavors, and pictures of
thin, beautiful (and sometimes nude) women. These magazine images again
suggest that women’s chief goals are to look good and to please men and that
men’s chief goals are to succeed, win over women, and live life in the fast lane.

Religion
Another agent of socialization, religion, also contributes to traditional gender
stereotypes. Many traditional interpretations of the Bible yield the message that
women are subservient to men (Tanenbaum, 2009). This message begins in
Genesis, where the first human is Adam, and Eve was made from one of his
ribs. The major figures in the rest of the Bible are men, and women are for the
most part depicted as wives, mothers, temptresses, and prostitutes; they are
praised for their roles as wives and mothers and condemned for their other roles.
More generally, women are constantly depicted as the property of men. The Ten
Commandments includes a neighbor’s wife with his house, ox, and other
objects as things not to be coveted (Exodus 20:17), and many biblical passages
say explicitly that women belong to men, such as this one from the New
Testament:

Wives be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife
as Christ is the head of the Church. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be
subject in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22–24)
Several passages in the Old Testament justify the rape and murder of women
and girls. The Koran, the sacred book of Islam, also contains passages asserting
the subordinate role of women (Mayer, 2009).

This discussion suggests that religious people should believe in traditional

gender views more than less religious people, and research confirms this
relationship (Morgan, 1988). To illustrate this, Figure 11.3 “Frequency of
Prayer and Acceptance of Traditional Gender Roles in the Family” shows the
relationship in the General Social Survey between frequency of prayer and the
view (seen first in Figure 11.1 “Belief That Women Should Stay at Home”) that
“it is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the
home and the woman takes care of the home and family.” People who pray
more often are more likely to accept this traditional view of gender roles.

Figure 11.3 Frequency of Prayer and Acceptance of Traditional Gender Roles in the Family
Percentage agreeing that “it is much better for everyone involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman
takes care of the home and family.”
Source: Data from General Social Survey, 2008.

A Final Word on the Sources of Gender

Scholars in many fields continue to debate the relative importance of biology
and of culture and socialization for how we behave and think as girls and boys
and as women and men. The biological differences between females and males
lead many scholars and no doubt much of the public to assume that masculinity
and femininity are to a large degree biologically determined or at least
influenced. In contrast, anthropologists, sociologists, and other social scientists
tend to view gender as a social construction. Even if biology does matter for
gender, they say, the significance of culture and socialization should not be
underestimated. To the extent that gender is indeed shaped by society and
culture, it is possible to change gender and to help bring about a society where
both men and women have more opportunity to achieve their full potential.