Sociology 101: The Social Lens
Unit 8 Overview: Gender Stratification
As Gloria Steinem wrote:
Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life,
whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could
be in the White House. This country is way down the list of
countries electing women and, according to one study, it
polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy . . . .
Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of
any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have
ascended to positions of power, from the military to the
boardroom, before any women.
Why are so few men homemakers and so few women CEOs of major corporations? Why do
women have to “act like a man” to make it in the business world? Why are little boys told not to
“act like a girl” if they get hurt and cry? The quote by Gloria Steinem, a famous women’s rights
advocate, underscores the fact that stratification by sex and gender is prevalent in American
society nearly ninety years after women were granted the right to vote and twenty-five years
since the Equal Rights Amendment was made ratified. These situations may be explained by
understanding how society shapes our conception of sex and gender.
Sex and Gender
Typically, we think of the terms sex and gender as having only dichotomous possibilities:
male/female, and masculine/feminine. Yet, as seen through the Sociological lens, these
classifications do not capture the reality and diversity of individuals. They are each myths or
social constructs in their own way.
Sex
A person’s sex is clearly linked to biological characteristics: XY vs. XX chromosomes, genitalia and
other sex organs, hormonal levels, and secondary sex characteristics, such as muscularity, body
hair, and breast development. Your text provides a brief overview of the biology and explains
that “nature makes women and men different, but these differences do not add up to female
1
inferiority or male superiority” (Thio 2007; 267). Great variation and overlap does exist in the
biology of males and females. Recent understanding of the variety and diversity of combinations
of chromosomal, hormonal, and physiological body types has challenged the traditional
conception of male and female. Medical science now recognizes individuals whose
chromosomal makeup differs from their other sex characteristics; a condition known as
intersexuality. Only about 1% of the population may be said to have “non-standard” sexual
characteristics (http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency). While a small percentage, this may still
cause us to reconsider the biologically defined division between male and female. In fact, it may
be argued that sex itself is a social construct as society interprets biological differences and
assigns an individual to the categories of male or female.
Hegemonic
Masculine
Hegemonic
Feminine
Gender
In the United States, gender is often considered along a continuum of masculinity and
femininity. At the poles of the continuum would be the hegemonic male (tough, muscular,
rugged) and the hegemonic female (soft, demure, sexy) with a range of gender types in
between. However, many psychologists and sociologist agree that this bi-polar model is too
limiting to explain the array of gendered expression in society. In fact, Cornell University
psychologist Saundra Bem devised the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI)1 to test a person’s
masculinity and femininity as independent scales or axes, thus allowing for combinations such as
high masculinity and high femininity, and low masculinity and low femininity.
1
Take the BSRI at http://www.neiu.edu/~tschuepf/bsri.html
2
Femininity
Low M &
High F
High M &
High F
Masculinity
Low M &
Low F
High M &
Low F
Gender Socialization
While sex is linked to biological determinants, gender is clearly shaped by society through a
process of socialization. Your text explains, “however a society defines gender roles, its
socializing agents pass that definition from generation to generation” (Thio 2007; 268). These
agents of socialization (the family, school, peers, the media, the church, and other institutions)
begin shaping individuals as soon as they are born. Primary socialization, occurring between
infancy and adolescence, is instrumental in shaping our gender identities. The family plays a
central role during this period and has been found to reinforce gender stereotypes: “females
were socialized to be dependent, fragile, unaggressive, sensitive, nurturant, and hesitant to take
risks. Males were seen as being socialized in the home to be strong, confident, independent, and
daring” (Peters 1994).
3
Gender Roles
Socialization reinforces gender roles. These social roles
influence our life choices, from what toys a child plays with,
what a person may study, and even the jobs they may
consider. They also shape our thoughts, emotions, and
behaviors. Gender roles tell us what is the appropriately
gendered way to express anger or sadness, when to be
aggressive or passive, and when to speak or be quiet.
Inequalities: Education, Work and Politics
Just a few decades ago, it was expected that based on gender
roles, a woman would get married, remain at home to raise
her children, attend to the home, and take care of her
husband (see The Good Wife’s Guide). Few options were open
to women who wanted to pursue a career outside of
“acceptable” fields like teaching or nursing. Education for the
few women who completed a higher degree was limited
mostly to women’s colleges. Interestingly, while fewer men
today are enrolling in higher education, women are still found
in greater numbers in majors that lead to lower-paying
professions. By all measures, women earn less than 75% of
the pay of men (Institute for Women's Policy Research). More
importantly, Gettings et al. (2007) point out that though women work in almost equal numbers
to men, “only eight Fortune 500 companies have women CEOs or presidents, and 67 of those
500 companies don't have any women corporate officers.” This lack of women in corporate
leadership roles has been seen as evidence of a “glass ceiling” limiting women’s advancement
and parity with men.
Additionally, women have been almost entirely barred from political life. Until the 1920s women
could not vote. In recent years women have made only modest gains limited in part by what
Thio calls a “double bind.” He explains, “If a woman campaigned vigorously, she would likely be
regarded as a neglectful wife and mother. If she was an attentive wife and mother, she was apt
4
to be judged incapable of devoting energy to public office.” Disproportionality may clearly be
seen in the number of women elected to public office. Though 51% of the population is female
less than 2% of seats in the Senate have gone to women; there have only been 35 women
senators in 219 years. Things have only improved marginally; currently 16 women are seated in
the Senate.2 Gender has also become a central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign (see
Baird 2008, and Devney 2008).
Sociological Perspectives
According to Functionalists, the clear division of labor into men’s jobs and women’s jobs made it
easy for members of a society. As expectations were assigned by biological sex, it made it easily
known what one should do in a given situation. However, according to the Conflict Perspective,
there was an inherent power imbalance in the patriarchal system that favored men and has lead
to the inequalities we see today. Agents of socialization are slow to change and still reinforce
many of the characteristics of patriarchy. This socialization may be studied by Symbolic
Interaction, especially in the relations between men and women as they enact gendered roles.
2
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/chronlist.pdf
5