Girl online and hitch get acquainted



Girl online and hitch get acquainted



Girl online and hitch get acquainted




Empirically derived consequences of abortion

Description – Scope, Organization, and Access:

The scope of the topics and materials.  The advance of our knowledge about gender inequality over the past half century has been remarkable. Research on every conceivable aspect of gender relationships and gender status has been unending, across many academic fields, pursued from the widest possible range of theoretical frameworks and methodological strategies. Still, we face many as yet unanswered questions and find it difficult to reach consensus about the meaning and implications of much that we have discovered. The accumulation of contentious knowledge has made mastery of this field challenging, with the unfortunate result that many people today rely on arguments and explanations as flawed and simplistic as they were a half century ago.

The topics below address key analytical questions facing any serious effort to understand and explain gender inequality. What do we mean by gender inequality, why did it arise across the globe, what roles do sexuality and violence play, how is gender inequality related to economic and political organization, how is gender inequality experienced and sustained in ordinary interactions, and so on. The core materials focus on the most important works and ideas offering analytical insight into these questions. They have been selected because they have been highly influential or provide critical insight.

The class organization and goals.  In this class, each week's activities will be organized around an analytical task, as well as a set of readings.  Each weekly analytical task addresses a problem about gender inequality related to topic that week, building on the materials we read (in brief papers of 2-3 pages).  While mastering the existing research and theory is obviously a prerequisite to doing good work, the approach in this class stresses doing and discussing actual analyses of how and why gender inequality works. We will also discuss the works in which authors present their ideas, but we will stress learning the worth and weight of ideas by using them as analytic tools.  So, all class meetings are organized as discussions.  Part of our class discussions will be on the common readings and part on students' efforts to explore the analytical tasks each week.  We will adjust the time devoted to these two goals according to our experiences over the class.

The course readings stress the foundational sociological literature on gender inequality.  Each week we will all look at some common readings.  The course guide will also point toward a range of other recommended and related readings for further study for each topic - students are not expected to read these optional materials as part of the course.  The recommended and related readings represent what someone seeking to specialize in this area would read. Students in the class are encouraged to scan these optional lists each week and to look at any pieces that seem particularly valuable or interesting. 

Readings & Books for the Class:  The readings below (the recommended and related readings as well as the common readings that are the core of the course) are almost all available online – simply click the links to get to the articles.  Any student lacking a background in gender studies, particularly sociological, is likely to benefit from reading through a standard textbook in the area--I recommend Michael Kimmel's Gendered Society (which I use in undergraduate classes).

A note on the "hidden" materials below:  As mentioned, each section of this guide includes – beside the common readings – three subsections, one for an analytical task, one for recommended readings, and one for related readings.  To simplify navigating, only the headings for these subsections are initially visible when you scroll through this page.  The content of the subsections are hidden (so that the beginning appearance of the page is similar to a standard syllabus) until the viewer clicks on a subsection heading, then its contents will appear.  While this organization is helpful for negotiating the page most of the time, it can be an obstacle to searching the page (for example, for a particular article) as searches on a web page will ignore any hidden material.  To overcome this. it is possible to reveal all the hidden sections at once by clicking the § symbol at the top, right corner of this page.  (Simply reload the page to collapse all the "hidden" sections to their usual look).  The table of contents near the top of the page will work to aid speedy navigation to any section.  Clicking the Table of Contents button always available in the lower right corner will jump to the table of contents from anyplace.

The Topics

I. Introduction.  What do we mean by gender inequality?

To analyze the causes of gender inequality, we need to know what we mean by gender inequality. How can we conceive of and talk about gender inequality in ways that are general enough to apply across the range of relevant phenomena, consistent enough to minimize conceptual ambiguities, and precise enough to be analytically effective?  Gender inequality has been extraordinarily diverse and wide spread.  Women and men are unequal in every conceivable way in endless circumstances, both immediate and enduring, by both objective criteria and subjective experience.  So, what counts as gender inequality? Can we characterize it in ways that let us confidently and impartially assess when there is more or less of it?  Can we systematically and consistently capture the ways that systems or instances of gender inequality differ in content or character?  We need tools, both theoretical and empirical, to qualify and quantify gender inequality if we hope to understand and explain it.

  • Analytical Task
    • How can we make gender inequality both conceptually meaningful and empirically well specified?
    • Conceptual problem:
      • Make a list of every way that women and men can be socially unequal as a consequence of their membership in a gender category. 
      • Consider opportunities, resources, experiences, culture, and ideology among other things. 
      • Once the list is made, try to explain how we might meaningfully conceive (not measure) overall gender inequality as a composite of all these facets.  Can we give theoretical substance to the idea of gender inequality as something that has a meaning greater than being the supposed empirical sum of many more specific inequalities?
    • Empirical problem:
      • For each aspect of gender inequality listed as a conceptual component, try to provide some method by which we can measure it.  This may be precise as in a gini coefficient for occupational segregation or it may be an effort at cruder but important distinctions between low, medium, and high inequality for forms of inequality that elude clear, numerical assessment.
      • Once the varied possible measures have been suggested, consider how one might meaningfully combine them to achieve a means of assessing the relative amount of gender inequality in a society.
  • Common Readings
    • Janet Saltzman Chafetz "Feminist Theory and Sociology: Underutilized Contributions for Mainstream Theory"  Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23, (1997), pp. 97-120 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.97]; 
    • Down So Long:  Why Is It So Hard to Explain Gender Inequality?
    • Carol R. Underwood, Anna M. Leddy and Miranda Morgan.  " Gender-equity or Gender-equality Scales and Indices for Potential Use in Aquatic Agricultural Systems."  2014.  [Brief presentations of varied efforts to measure gender inequality, with notes on strengths and limitations.]
    • Muñoz Boudet, Ana María; Petesch, Patti; Turk, Carolyn; Thumala, Angélica. (World Bank).  On Norms and Agency: Conversations about Gender Equality with Women and Men in 20 Countries. "Introduction: The Norms Of Power And The Power Of Norms" (pp. 12-31) 2013.
  • Recommended Readings
    • Destined for Equality: Egalitarian Impulse
    • Irene van Staveren.  " To Measure is to Know? A Comparative Analysis of Gender Indices." Review of Social Economy, 71:3, pp. 339-372, [DOI: 10.1080/00346764.2012.707398]
    • Janet Saltzman Chafetz "The Varieties of Gender Theory in Sociology"  Handbook of the Sociology of Gender, 1999, p3-23, 21 [doi: 10.1007/0-387-36218-5_1]
    • Rachel A. Rosenfeld. "What Do We Learn about Difference from the Scholarship on Gender?" Social Forces, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Sep., 2002), pp. 1-24  [jstor: 3086525]
    • World Economic Forum.  "The Global Gender Gap Report 2014." [See discussion of the "Global Gender Gap Index" in Part I.]
    • United Nations Economic Commission for Europe & World Bank Institute.  " Developing Gender Statistics: A Practical Tool." 2010.
    • Muñoz Boudet, Ana María; Petesch, Patti; Turk, Carolyn; Thumala, Angélica. (World Bank).  " On Norms and Agency: Conversations about Gender Equality with Women and Men in 20 Countries." 2013.
    • Beneria, L. and Permanyer, I.  "The Measurement of Socio-economic Gender Inequality Revisited." Development and Change, 2010, 41: 375–399.  [doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01648.x/pdf]
    •  Iñaki Permanyer. "The Measurement of Multidimensional Gender Inequality: Continuing the Debate." Social Indicators Research, 2010, 95: 2, 181 - 198.  [doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9463-4]
    • ...
  • Related Readings
    • World Bank.  " World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development." 2011.
    • Klugman, Jeni; Hanmer, Lucia; Twigg, Sarah; Hasan, Tazeen; McCleary-Sills, Jennifer; Santamaria, Julieth (World Bank).  " Voice and Agency: Empowering Women and Girls for Shared Prosperity." 2012.
    • Klasen, Stephan and Schüler, Dana. "Reforming the Gender-Related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure: Implementing Some Specific Proposals." Feminist Economics, 2011, 17:1, 1-30 [doi: 10.1080/13545701.2010.541860]
    • Dijkstra, A. G. "Revisiting UNDP's GDI and GEM: Towards an alternative." Social Indicators Research, 2002, 57, 301–338. [doi: 10.1023/A:1014726207604]
    • Dijkstra, A. Geske and Hanmer, Lucia C.  "Measuring Socio-Economic GENDER Inequality: Toward an Alternative to the UNDP Gender-Related Development Index." Feminist Economics, 2000, 6:2, 41-75. [doi: 10.1080/13545700050076106]
    • Francisco Javier Blancas Peral, Mónica Domínguez Serrano, and Flor Ma Guerrero Casas. "An alternative approach to measuring gender inequality." Journal of Gender Studies, 2008, 17:4, 369-374. [doi: 10.1080/09589230802420102]

II. How is gender inequality symbolized and reproduced in everyday life?

Gender inequality is expressed and reinforced (or challenged) in every interaction between women and men (and in many interactions among those of the same sex).  This pattern is true for all forms of social inequality and social distinction, but is more striking to gender theorists because kinship and sexuality make male-female interactions so frequent.  We want to consider how people experience and act out gender in their day-to-day lives.  We want to think about the most basic questions.  Why and when do women and men act differently?  Why and when do people respond differently to women than men?  How do all these private individual actions when taken together over time influence the understanding of gender in a culture and gender inequality?

  • Analytical Task
    • The general analytical problem.  Using typical settings where women and men meet, assess how Ridgeway's framing approach helps explain the role of gender in these interactions and where it might fall short.
      • For this task, choose two familiar (to you) settings or types of interactions where women and men typically engage each other.  For example, these could be a workplace, a bar, interactions between buyers and sellers, or parties.  We use these as our source of empirical data and focus our argument on explaining gender interactions there. Selecting two divergent examples will help separate the impact of gender from the influences of context.
      • After reading and distilling Ridgeway's argument, try to apply it to the chosen settings.  The aim is to assess how much people's actions appear to fit the expectations we can derive from Ridgeway's argument and when they might not.  As we work on our analyses, we are evaluating Ridgeway's approach as a tool. The right tool allows us to construct a better edifice with less effort; the wrong tool does not.
      • To be systematic, initially analyze each of the two examples separately. Then compare the two analyses to decide which of Ridgeway's ideas apply across the examples and which do not.
    • Thinking tools. The remaining notes for this analytical task look at some analytical steps that allow us to think through this problem effectively.
      • Research Design.  This task relies on a simplistic but logical research design. We are comparing the characteristics of interactions in two examples to find the similarities and differences. And we examine how well these follow the expectations of a theoretical argument.
      • Systematic steps in the analysis.  Doing this kind of thought experiment, we want our thinking to be as systematic as possible.  For all systematic causal analyses, we want first to consider how the phenomenon being examined varies in regular or predictable ways across conditions, settings, types of people, places, or the like. We explain differences, so we must first identify differences. Then, we ask what conditions or events typically precede or occur along with the outcomes that could plausibly influence those outcomes. 
        • For example, first, we might simply consider possible differences between men's and women's actions. 
        • Then we could consider how their actions might differ between opposite-sex and same-sex encounters. 
        • We can broaden the range of the examples we use to think about these differences by considering other characteristics that might affect interactions, such as the age or race of the people, whether the interaction is cordial or unfriendly, how well the people know each other, and so on. 
        • We want to ask ourselves if the gender aspect of the interaction will be influenced by these other circumstances that seem relevant to interactions. For example, does gender influence cordial interactions differently from the ways it influences confrontations in our setting? If we believe the answer is yes, then we consider how and why. 
        • Analogously, we want to think about the ways that people's goals in gendered interactions vary in these kinds of circumstances, and how these goals influence their actions.  For example, in the same setting, a person seeking sex will commonly act differently than someone trying to curry favor or sell a product.
        • When we apply a systematic logic to the analysis, we usually do not want to write about all the possibilities we think about.  Instead, we use the ones that we find telling.  But we will not identify those telling possibilities unless we systematically work through all the relevant possible influences.
      • Gender context. We can also take the analysis of interactions another step by considering how the influence of gender on these interactions is potentially affected by contextual conditions like:
        • the presence or absence of onlookers (i.e., the relative privacy of the interaction) or
        • the gender distribution of other people present (i.e., mostly male, mostly female, or mixed)
      • Conformity.  Whenever we try to explain patterns like this, we want to consider the exceptions.  When will people violate the implications of gender expectations and what follows when they do?  Are there circumstances that make it more likely people will depart from conventional behavior?  Violations of norms or common expectations are valuable for causal analyses because cracks in the veneer of social order can reveal its structure and dynamics.
    • Bring it together.  By working through the steps above, we are trying to assess when Ridgeway's approach does a good job explaining how gender influences behavior in our chosen settings, and when her approach seems to fall short.   Do we see ways that her approach neglects or misunderstands important causes influencing the gender character of behavior in the context we examine?  Our central goal here is to explain how and why gender organizes interactions in our chosen example. We are not attempting a general evaluation of Ridgeway's ideas, but a focused assessment of their effectiveness in the settings we have selected to try them out.
  • Common Readings:
    • Cecilia L. Ridgeway, Framed by Gender (2011), Chs. 1-2 {I recommend buying Ridgeway's book, but it is also available on line through the library via the link here}
    • Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman " Doing Gender" Gender & Society 1987 1: 125-151. [doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002]
    • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592. [doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581]
    • George Yancey and Michael O. Emerson. "Does Height Matter? An Examination of Height Preferences in Romantic Coupling." Journal of Family Issues.  2014 [doi: 10.1177/0192513X13519256]
    • Rosabeth Moss Kanter.  "Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women"   American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, No. 5 (Mar., 1977), pp. 965-990 [jstor: 2777808]
  • Recommended Readings
    • Erving Goffman, "The Arrangement between the Sexes" Theory and Society, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 301-331  [jstor: 656722]
    • Cecilia L. Ridgeway, "Framed Before We Know It: How Gender Shapes Social Relations".  Gender & Society 2009 23:145-160   [doi: 10.1177/0891243208330313] {This article was a preview of the arguments developed in Ridgeway's subsequent book. Use it to help fill in the gaps.}
    • Deniz Kandiyoti, "Bargaining with Patriarchy." Gender and Society," Vol. 2, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 274-290 [jstor: 190357]
  • Related Readings
    • Cecilia Ridgeway.  Framed by Gender.  Oxford: 2011. [doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755776.001.0001]
    • ...

III. How can gender inequality be nearly universal but biological differences not decisive?

Although scholars disagree if women have ever been fully equal or had higher status in any society, all agree that men have been dominant in most societies, although the degree of dominance varies greatly.  This strong pattern raises difficult questions concerning how we explain the prevalence of male dominance, questions for which no answers have yet gained a consensus.  The "origins" problem asks how we can explain the apparently independent rise of gender inequality in societies all over the world.  The universality problem asks why have women apparently occupied a subordinate position in all societies.  Together, these inescapably lead to asking how biological differences influence gender inequality, particularly how they have an influence under some conditions and not under others.  They also force us to ask how explaining the "origins" of gender inequality relates to explaining the "persistence" of gender inequality.  How theories handle these issues is decisive for their form and effectiveness.  Theories sometimes try to sidestep these questions, but avoidance is an unrealistic strategy because sooner or later efforts to apply the theories or contend with challenges bring these issues to the surface.

  • Analytical Task
    • The general analytical problem.  Using real world empirical observations, juxtapose the evidence available to you for and against the proposition "women's reproductive biology is an unavoidable barrier to gender inequality."  Try to produce a causal argument that can account for, and disentangle, the evidence on both sides.
    • For evidence, consider what you have seen, directly and indirectly, in the world.  Consider the ways you have seen women and men cope with their reproductive differences - in anticipation (as when young), in the circumstances of having children, while children are growing up, in their perceptions and expectations of others, and so forth.  Consider what you know about people's understanding and responses to reproductive differences in culture, in history, and so forth.  Feel free to search for any data or material you like, but recognize that you already have a storehouse of relevant empirical knowledge from the experiences and observations of normal life.
    • Consider all the ways you have seen others link reproductive differences to larger gender differences either in arguments they offer or in the way they conducted their lives.  Try to synthesize this range into a workable set of propositions relating reproductive capacity to the differential outcomes for women and men or to the social organization of gender differences.
    • Similarly, consider analogous evidence from people's arguments and experiences that discount the impact of reproductive biology on gender inequality. 
    • Try to adjudicate between the opposing arguments.  The goal is not to judge the relative merits (although you may do that).  Instead, the goal is provide an account that makes sense of the relationships between the biological reality of reproductive differences, the conditions of gender inequality, and the reasons that some people believe reproductive differences lead to that inequality and others do not. 
  • Common Readings
    • Joan N. Huber. "Reproductive Biology, Technology, and Gender Inequality: An Autobiographical Essay"  Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 34 (2008) : 1-13 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134654]
    • Randall Collins, Janet Saltzman Chafetz, Rae Lesser Blumberg, Scott Coltrane, Jonathan H. Turner  Toward an Integrated Theory of Gender Stratification Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 185-216 [jstor: 1389242]
    • Down So Long:  Analyzing the Persistence of Gender Inequality: How to Think about the Origins
    • Sharon Smith. "Engels and the Origin of Women's Oppression"  International Socialist Review Issue 2, Fall 1997
    • Murdock, George P., and Caterina Provost. "Factors in the Division of Labor by Sex: A Cross-Cultural Analysis." Ethnology 12, no. 2 (1973): 203. [doi:10.2307/3773347]
    • Eagly, Alice H., and Wendy Wood. "Feminism and the Evolution of Sex Differences and Similarities." Sex Roles 64, no. 9-10 (2011): 758-67. [doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9949-9]
    • Chudek, Maciej, Michael Muthukrishna, and Joe Henrich. "Cultural Evolution." Chap. 30 In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by David M. Buss, 749-69. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2015. [doi:10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych230]
  • Recommended Readings
    • Evolutionary Psychology and similar approaches:  The debates over evolutionary psychology - in general and as applied to gender inequality - are very important but often difficult to follow and assess.  Here are some starting points for learning the basics.  Buller's supplies a sophisticated overview and critique of the most influential paradigm in evolutionary psychology (while supportive of the more general venture), Downes and Walter present guided views of the field, and other pieces provide further commentaries and some studies that explore key issues facing this approach.
      • Downes, Stephen M., "Evolutionary Psychology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition)
      • Sven Walter, "Evolutionary Psychology," The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2009
      • Bolger, Diane. "Introduction." In A Companion to Gender Prehistory, edited by Diane Bolger, 1-19. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2012. [doi:10.1002/9781118294291.ch0]
      • Buller, David J. "Evolutionary Psychology: A Critique." In Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, edited by Elliott Sober. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, 2006. [also, compare David Buller. "A Guided Tour of Evolutionary Psychology" (In A Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind. Eds. Marco Nani and Massimo Marraffa. "An official electronic publication of the Department of Philosophy of University of Rome" 2000.) Also by Buller see: "Evolutionary Psychology: The Emperor's New Paradigm," Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (2005): 277-283 and for a full treatment his book Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books, 2005.]
      • Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "Beyond Difference: A Biologist's Perspective." Journal of Social Issues 53, no. 2 (2010): 233-58. [doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02442.x]
      • Goodman, Madeleine J., P. Bion Griffin, Agnes A. Estioko-Griffin, and John S. Grove. "The Compatibility of Hunting and Mothering among the Agta Hunter-Gatherers of the Philippines." Sex Roles 12, no. 11-12 (1985): 1199-209. [doi:10.1007/bf00287829]
      • Rigby, Nichole, and Rob J. Kulathinal. "Genetic Architecture of Sexual Dimorphism in Humans." Journal of Cellular Physiology 230, no. 10 (Oct 2015): 2304-10. [doi:10.1002/jcp.24979]
      • Stulp, Gert, and Louise Barrett. "Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Height Variation." Biological Reviews 91, no. 1 (Feb 2016): 206-34. [doi:10.1111/brv.12165]
      • Joseph Henrich. "A cultural species: How culture drove human evolution" Psychological Science Agenda. Science Brief. 2009
      • Rosemary L. Hopcroft. "Gender Inequality in Interaction – An Evolutionary Account." Social Forces  87.4 (2009): 1845-1871.
    • Randall Collins. "A Conflict Theory of Sexual Stratification." Social Problems, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Summer, 1971), pp. 3-21 [jstor: 799936]
    • Rae Blumberg. "A General Theory of Gender Stratification." Sociological Theory  2  (1984): 23-101  [jstor: 223343]
    • Matthew H. McIntyre, Carolyn Pope Edwards.  The Early Development of Gender Differences  Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 38 (2009): 83-97 [doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164338]
    • Sapolsky, Robert.  "Testosterone rules" Discover. Chicago: Mar 1997. Vol. 18, Iss. 3; p. 44 
    • Laurie Wermuth and Miriam Ma'at-Ka-Re Monges. "Gender Stratification: A Structural Model for Examining Case Examples of Women in Less-Developed Countries." Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 23.1 (2002) 1-22
  • Related Readings
    • Rae Blumberg. "Extending Lenski's Schema to Hold Up Both Halves of the Sky—A Theory-Guided Way of Conceptualizing Agrarian Societies that Illuminates a Puzzle about Gender Stratification" Sociological Theory 22:2 (June 2004):278-291  [jstor: 3648948]
    • Janet Saltzman Chafetz "Gendered Power and Privilege: Taking Lenski One Step Further"  Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 2, Religion, Stratification, and Evolution in Human Societies: Essays in Honor of Gerhard E. Lenski (Jun., 2004), pp. 269-277 [jstor: 3648947]
    • Joan N. Huber. "Comparative Gender Stratification." Handbook of the Sociology of Gender, 1999, p65-80 [doi: 10.1007/0-387-36218-5_4]
    • Maurice Godelier, "The Origins of Male Domination" New Left Review, May-June 1981, pp. 3-17
    • William Tulio Divale, Marvin Harris. "Population, Warfare, and the Male Supremacist Complex." American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep., 1976), pp. 521-538  [jstor: 674415];  See also: William Divale, Marvin Harris, Donald T. Williams. "On the Misuse of Statistics: A Reply to Hirschfeld et al."  American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 379-386 [jstor: 676868]; William Divale, Marvin Harris.  "The Male Supremacist Complex: Discovery of a Cultural Invention" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 668-671  [jstor: 677029]
    • C C Mukhopadhyay, and P J Higgins. "Anthropological Studies of Women's Status Revisited: 1977-1987". Annual Review of Anthropology Vol. 17 (1988): 461-495 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.17.100188.002333]
    • Naomi Quinn. "Anthropological Studies on Women's Status".  Annual Review of Anthropology Vol. 6 (1977): 181-225 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.06.100177.001145]
    • Chris Hann. "Reproduction and Inheritance: Goody Revisited." Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 37 (2008): 145-158 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085222]

IV.   What determines men's and women's roles and positions within families?

Family and kinship institutions are everywhere crucial to the status of women and men and to their cultural identities. Women and men have strong and lasting relationships as spouses, as parents and children, and as brothers and sisters.  Kinship rules define relationships at birth while marriage creates bonds between adults (and often kinship groups).  Family structures vary considerably, but commonly involve living together, pooling of resources, and interests bonded through a shared fate.  That such links between women and men can coexist with severe gender inequality is analytically challenging.  Not surprisingly, a lot of theoretical and empirical work has sought to disentangle and explain these relationships.  Probably the two general issues in the modern world that have received the most attention concern the ways that women and men are unequal within families and the interdependence between inequality within families and the gender inequality that exists outside families, particularly within economic and political processes. 

  • Analytical Task 1
    • The analytical problem.  A issue surrounding analyses of gender and families concerns a distinction between two kinds of causes.  The first kind are the limitations of the larger social environment, in terms of the opportunities, responsibilities, and obstructions facing women and men.  The second are the ways that women and men make choices.  We want to consider how these two kinds of causes might interact.
    • One way to think through the implications of such potentially complex causal interactions is to to examine the possibilities using very simple models.  To do this, we will focus on critical moving parts and limit the possible variation in them.  In this case, we can identify three primary social characteristics.
    • A simplified model for analysis.  So, for our simplified model, let us consider some basic assumptions:
      • The actors and conditions
        • We focus the model on married couples, with unmarried women and men appearing mainly as pools of potential spouses or the results of missing, avoiding, or leaving marriages (and possibly as competitors for jobs).
        • Assume that all men have opportunities for decent jobs and wish to have them.  We are leaving out variations in men's relationship to the economy by holding it constant.
        • Assume there are two possible conditions concerning the economic opportunities for women: either decent jobs are available for one-third of women or for two-thirds.
        • Assume that the distribution of women's preferences could be at either of two levels: either two-thirds prefer to hold a decent, full time job (the other third preferring to remain at home) or one-third prefer a decent full time job (the other two-thirds preferring to remain at home).
        • Assume that the preferences of men regarding the employment of their wives are distributed at one of two levels: either two-thirds prefer wives who work full time (the other third preferring stay-at-home wives) or one-third prefer wives who work full time (and two-thirds prefer wives staying at home).
        • Finally, assume that both women's and men's preferences about women (wives in particular) working influence both what kind of people they try to marry and how they individually and jointly respond to the economic opportunities available to women after marrying.  
        • To summarize: we have three characteristics that vary between two states of low and high in our model: the job openings available for women, the proportion of women preferring jobs over a housewife's lot, and the proportion of men preferring their wives hold jobs.  Note that these are characteristics of the population in the model, not of individuals.  Taken together, these define eight possible combinations of the three characteristics (some of which are empirically unlikely). 
      • Now, consider the actions possible within the simplified model.  
        • People can marry or divorce, with most presumably being married, and with employment preferences and experience influencing mate choice.
        • Women can take or leave jobs, with those actions influenced by all three varying conditions (job availability, women's employment preferences, men's preferences about women's employment).
        • People can have children, although the model makes no assumptions about fertility.
        • Men's are employed at decent jobs by default, so the model does not include changes in male employment as actions, although one could add this.
      • Finally, consider some of the consequences we might examine or anticipate:
        • varying proportion of marriages involving working wives,
        • varying proportions of couples who are well matched with each other and their economic environment, producing happy or unhappy marriages (and possibly divorces),
        • varying pressures to sustain or change the existing conditions, with resulting effects on the expected pattern of change.
      • In short, we now have a simple model with clearly defined types of people, three varying conditions of the social environment, a limited set of actions people may take that are influenced by their predispositions and circumstances, and a limited set of consequences.
    • Using the model for analysis.  Given the possibilities for different starting points in the model, consider what the social outcomes might be under the varied possibilities defined by the distribution of women's opportunities, the distribution of women's preferences, and the distribution of men's preferences. 
      • The idea is to think through the various plausible combinations of the starting conditions to see where we think they might lead. 
      • We want to consider what would be the expected distribution of actions under each set of conditions, what immediate consequences that might have, and then were might it lead over time.
      • Some of the consequences to consider would be: what are the types of marriages that can result, what proportion of families will be of each type, what proportion will have a working wife, what proportion will have two people content with their circumstances, and so forth?
    • To extend the analysis, we can add other possible variations.  As think through the possibilities using the simple model, we must expect to find ourselves asking things such as: what about education, won't it differ for the poor compared with the affluent, or how does culture come into play.  Thus, we might decide we need to elaborate the model to include variations in the distribution of men's work preferences, to consider the cross-cutting influence of class, to question a widening of the range of possible conditions (e.g. what if no women or all women wanted to hold jobs), or the like. 
  • Analytical Task 2
    • The general analytical problem.  We want to provide an integrated analytical overview of the principal causal arguments about gender inequality and family organization that appear in the common readings.
    • Each of the readings has various causal arguments about family organization, some directly about gender inequality, some relevant to gender inequality but not directly exploring it.  Some of the causal questions may receive different causal analyses by these authors.  Sometimes two or more authors may use a similar causal approach to explain different causal problems.  Our goal is to sort this out. 
    • Our overviews should be organized around the causal arguments, not a series of summaries of what each author wrote (see Thinking Tools).
    • Thinking tools.
      • We want to use one of the following two possible ways to organize the causal assessment (unless one of us has a better way).  The first organizes around what is to be explained, the second around the causes.
        • First approach.  We start by identifying the principal causal problems addressed by the group of papers.  That is, we figure out what they suggest needs to be explained.  Then, we organize these causal problems in a sensible order (including consideration of some problems potentially being secondary or sub-problems of others).  Under each causal problem, we summarize and assess all the relevant explanations found in the readings.
        • Second approach.  We start by identifying the principal causal frameworks used in the papers.  That is, we figure out what they suggest are the conditions or processes that have the most important influence over the outcomes.  Then, we organize these causal frameworks in a sensible order, taking into account which are entirely different and which might be variations of a similar theme, and which are competing versus complementary.  For each of these, after summarizing the causal logic of the framework, we show how it has been used by these authors, describing the range of outcomes the framework is supposed to determine and how it has such effects.
        • Note that regardless which way we organize our analysis of competing causal arguments, it can be valuable to think about not only what is considered by the authors being examine, but also which theoretical questions and which causal frameworks seem relevant but absent.
      • Please reread the "Basics of Causal Descriptions" on the starting point for describing a causal analysis.
    • Bringing it together.  In short, our aim is to produce a critical overview of the principal causal arguments concerning the family and gender inequality, starting with the ideas present in the common readings for this week.  To do this effectively, we need to identify all the relevant causal arguments, deduce the logical structure of each causal argument and determine how to present that clearly (even if the original source is inconsistent or ambiguous), detect how the causal arguments (from different sources) relate to each other and present them in a way that makes those relations clear, and, where possible, summarize the important analytical strengths and weaknesses of each argument (or facet to an argument).

      (We should start with the understanding that this kind of analytical overview is rather easy to do poorly and very demanding to do well and thoroughly.  At this stage we are not aspiring to a professional job but hoping to achieve a reasonable, if basic, analysis.)

  • Common Readings
    • Andrew J. Cherlin,  American Marriage in the Early Twenty-First Century The Future of Children Volume 15, Number 2, Fall 2005
    • Destined for Equality: Institutional Individualism: "Individualistic Family" 157-169
    • Stephanie Coontz. "The Historical Transformation of Marriage," Journal of Marriage and Family,  Volume 66, Issue 4 (p 974-979) November 2004. [doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00067.x]
    • Down So Long:  Intimate Combat: The Responsibility for Child Rearing
    • Coltrane, Scott. 1989. "Household Labor and the Routine Production of Gender." Social Problems 36: 473-490. [jstor: 3096813]
    • Brines, Julie. 1994. "Economic Dependency, Gender, and the Division of Labor at Home."  American Journal of Sociology 100(3): 652-689.  [jstor: 2782401]
    • Kathleen Gerson. "Changing Lives, Resistant Institutions: A New Generation Negotiates Gender, Work, and Family Change"  Sociological Forum, Vol. 24, No. 4, December 2009 [doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01134.x]
  • Recommended Readings
    • Beth Anne Shelton, Daphne John.  "The Division of Household Labor." Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22, (1996), pp. 299-322 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.299]
    • Kathleen Gerson.  "Moral Dilemmas, Moral Strategies, and the Transformation of Gender: Lessons from Two Generations of Work and Family Change" Gender & Society. Vol. 16 No. 1, February 2002 8-28 [doi: 10.1177/0891243202016001002]
    • Andrew J. Cherlin, "The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage"  Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 66, Issue 4 (p 848-861)   November 2004. [doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x]
    • William J. Goode. "The Theoretical Importance of Love"  American Sociological Review, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Feb., 1959), pp. 38-47  [jstor: 2089581]
    • Sara B. Raley, Marybeth J. Mattingly, Suzanne M. Bianchi. "How Dual Are Dual-Income Couples? Documenting Change From 1970 to 2001. Journal of Marriage and Family 68:1 (2006), 11-28 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00230.x]
    • Veronica Tichenor. "Maintaining Men's Dominance: Negotiating Identity and Power When She Earns More." Sex Roles 53:3-4, (2005): 191-205 [doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-5678-2]
  • Related Readings
    • Davis, S. N., T. Greenstein and J. G. Marks, "Effects of Union Type and Division of Household Labor," Journal of Family Issues 28 (2007):1247–72. [doi: 10.1177/0192513X07300968]
    • Scott Coltrane. Father-Child Relationships and the Status of Women: A Cross-Cultural Study. American Journal of Sociology, 93 (1988): 1060-1095. [jstor: 2780365]
    • Joann Vanek. "Time Spent in Housework." Scientific American 231 (Nov 1974):116-120.  [doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1174-116]
    • Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer. "The Sociology of Women's Economic Role in the Family." American Sociological Review, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Jun., 1977), pp. 387-406  [jstor: 2094746]
    • Kathleen Gerson.  (2004) 'Understanding work and family through a gender lens', Community, Work & Family, 7: 2, 163 — 178 [doi: 10.1080/1366880042000245452]
    • Rodrigo R. Soares, Bruno L. S. Falcão. "The Demographic Transition and the Sexual Division of Labor." The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 116, No. 6 (Dec., 2008), pp. 1058-1104  [doi: pdf/10.1086/596102]
    • Pennington, Suzanne(2009) 'Bisexuals "Doing Gender" in Romantic Relationships', Journal of Bisexuality, 9:1, 33-69 [doi: 10.1080/15299710802660029]
    • Becker, G. S., "Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor," Journal of Labor Economics 3(1) (1985):33–58.  [jstor: 2534997]

V. What is the role of sex differences in the functioning and perpetuation of gender inequality?

Attempts to explain gender inequality at all levels are haunted by essentialism.  Even as they expressly reject the possibility of consequential inherent differences between women and men, theoretical analyses of gender inequality habitually build on gender differences.  For some, essentialism always means a difference based in biology or genetics; for others it includes cultural differences that are embodied in women and men.

  • Analytical Task
    • The general analytical problem.   To investigate how essentialist arguments work, we will examine how different kinds of essentialist arguments might be applied to explain some aspect of gender inequality, in contrast to a non-essentialist argument.  We aim to see both the attraction of essentialist arguments and the possibilities for alternatives.
      • Select two forms or facets of gender inequality that you will try to explain for this task.  These instances or aspects of gender inequality should be sufficiently important, widespread, and enduring or recurring to merit thoughtful theory and explanation.  They should also be narrow or specific enough that the goal of explaining them is plausible.  For example, a facet might be that wives commonly defer to husbands. 
      • For the selected types or aspects of gender inequality, you will suggest five alternative explanations, each one representing a different approach to explaining such social phenomena.  The explanations should be succinct but clear.  They should also be plausible to the extent that a reasonable person might make such an argument. Plausible does not mean true, of course.  Rather, we are trying to imagine an argument that would seem plausible to people who are advocates for each of the perspectives.
    • The five types of explanation.   Attempt to devise the best explanations you can for the relevant facet of inequality from each of the following perspectives.  Explanations may be categorized in many ways.  The five perspectives defined here are meant to engage different responses to the problem of essentialism. (Note, in this task we are aiming to produce explanations that those advocating each of the above types of explanation would think are reasonable.  It is often hardest to conceive good explanations from the points of view we find unconvincing or unappealing, but the capacity to do this is a valuable skill.)
      • Direct biological - Devise an explanation claiming that some biological difference between the sexes produces the relevant aspect of inequality by making women and men act differently.  For example, an argument might be that men are stronger than women so men dominate women as a simple result of superior strength.  (More complex biological explanations might be derived from evolutionary psychology.)  This type of explanation is usually purely essentialist.  Note that this type of explanation can be divided further into those relying on real biological differences and those imputing fictional biological differences.  Let us stress biological differences that are at least potentially real here, leaving the fictitious ones for below.
      • Indirect biological - Formulate an explanation claiming some biological difference does not directly produce the inequality, but the biological difference has important effects or implications of some sort, and those effects that make likely or unavoidable the emergence or persistence of the selected aspect of gender inequality.  For example, someone might argue that women's child bearing makes them anxious about the welfare of their children, and that anxiety makes them feel weak and in want of a protector, leading them to defer to husbands.  Or, others might suggest that women's biologically induced child rearing orientation encourages both women and men to make men responsible for warfare, and that men's resulting skill at combat, their possession of weapons, and men's organization around mutual defense leaves wives typically in their husbands' control.  The key for this type of explanation is that the relevant biological differences do not directly cause the gender inequality being explained, but have effects on social behavior and social organization that lead to gender inequality.  These types of explanations have essentialist origins in a biological difference, but the explanation as a whole may invoke mediating causal influences that reduce the essentialist quality, sometimes greatly.
      •  Non-biological sex difference - Suggest how some socially constructed difference between women and men – one that is neither biological nor a direct result of biological differences – initiates or preserves the aspect of gender inequality being explained.  This will usually be an enduring individual characteristic (a difference that people carry with them, not a difference in their circumstances).  For example, one might claim that women are fearful and dependent because of socialization processes (that have no biological basis), and this psychological condition induces wives to defer to their husbands.  Or, one might argue that childhood sports available only to boys result in a higher competitive drive that accounts for adult men's greater success in business.  This type of explanation claims a real difference exists between women and men (in the society or social context where the inequality being explained occurs; the relevant sex difference need not exist in all or any other society or social context), but this difference is a social construction.  This type of explanation often becomes redundantly circular: each aspect of inequality exists as a result of inequality, and that overall inequality is constituted by the various aspects.
      • Fictitious sex difference - An imputed sex difference that does not really exist is claimed to play a significant role in producing the selected facet of gender inequality.  For example, someone might suggest that although women have no better capacity for child rearing, people commonly assume they do because women bear children, and that this false expectation produces a division of labor and power favoring men.  This type of explanation focuses on the consequences of beliefs, relying on the observation that beliefs can organize behavior even if they are false beliefs.  While such fictitious differences are commonly assumed to be biological, they need not be.
      • Causes independent of sex differentiation - A causal process that does not involve any difference between the sexes is argued to produce the inequality being considered.  For example, some might argue that for families to fulfill their social functions effectively, they need one spouse/parent to perform the critical emotional actions needed and the other spouse/parent to perform the practical and leadership actions (this is essentially a well-know idea of Talcott Parsons).  This role differentiation can then result in spouse inequality, as an indirect and unintended consequence.  This category includes highly diverse explanations, the one critical similarity among them being that they do not rely on a sex difference in their central causal argument.  It may be worth noting that one reason explanations based on sex differences (including all the preceding perspectives) are more common is that formulating a plausible analysis that forgoes the mechanism of sex differences is often a hard task.
    • Bringing it together. 
      • Try to formulate how research could provide decisive evidence about which of the suggested forms of explanation is most valid or important.  Thus, after defining the five possible explanations, seriously consider how we could try to show which one(s) is better.  Better not in the sense that we would prefer it to be true, but rather that evidence and theoretical assessment show it better regardless how we feel about it.
      • The point of this exercise is to examine how it is possible to devise a range of alternative causal explanations of gender inequality stressing some mechanism of sex differences, while developing alternative theories that do not rely on sex differences is rather hard.  The difference arguments run the full range from being directly and fully biological to relying on non-biological or fictitious differences in indirect ways.  The arguments that exclude not only biology but all dependence on sex differences commonly derive from another theoretical approach, such as functionalism or conflict theories.  The challenge with these approaches is not only to make the immediate causal process eschew differences, but to avoid relying on sex differences one or two steps earlier in the causal chain. 
  • Common Readings
    • Carol Gilligan. "Hearing the Difference: Theorizing Connection."  Hypatia, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), pp. 120-127 [jstor: 3810283]
    • Carol Gilligan. "Reply by Carol Gilligan." Signs, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Winter, 1986), pp. 324-333 [jstor: 3174055]
    • Jaffee, Sara; Hyde, Janet Shibley. "Gender Differences In Moral Orientation: A Meta-Analysis." Psychological Bulletin. Vol 126(5), Sep 2000, 703-726. [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.703]
    • Valian, Virginia. 1998a. "Sex, Schemas, and Success: What's Keeping Women Back?" Academe 84(5): 50-55. (Compare Ridgeway in Section II above.)  (See Valian in Optional Readings for fuller account.)  [jstor: 40251338]
    • Uri Gneezy, Kenneth L. Leonard, And John A. List. "Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society." Econometrica, Vol. 77, No. 5 (September, 2009), 1637–1664 [doi: 10.3982/ECTA6690]
    • Review: Section II Common Readings above and the DeLamater and Hyde piece from Section VI.
  • Recommended Readings
    • Douglas Schrock, Michael Schwalbe. "Men, Masculinity, and Manhood Acts."  Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 35: 277-295 (August 2009). [doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115933]
    • Janis S. Bohan. "Regarding gender: Essentialism, Constructionism, and Feminist Psychology." Psychology of Women Quarterly, Mar 93, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p5-22  [doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1993.tb00673.x]
    • Rosemary L. Hopcroft. "Gender Inequality in Interaction – An Evolutionary Account." Social Forces, Volume 87, Number 4, June 2009, pp. 1845-1871 [doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0185]
    • Matthew H. McIntyre, Carolyn Pope Edwards. "The Early Development of Gender Differences."  Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 38: 83-97 (October 2009) [doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164338]
    • Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A Cross-Cultural Analysis Of The Behavior Of Women And Men: Implications For The Origins Of Sex Differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699 [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699]
    • Nancy Chodorow. "Oedipal Asymmetries and Heterosexual Knots." Social Problems, Vol. 23, No. 4, Feminist Perspectives: The Sociological Challenge (Apr., 1976), pp. 454-468 [jstor: 799855]
  • Related Readings
    • Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The Origins Of Sex Differences In Human Behavior: Evolved Dispositions Versus Social Roles. American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.  [doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408]
    • Valian, V. (1999). The Cognitive Bases Of Gender Bias. Brooklyn Law Review, 65, 1037-1061.
    • Clopton, Nancy A.; Sorell, Gwendolyn T.  "Gender differences in moral reasoning." . Psychology of Women Quarterly, Mar93, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p85 [doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1993.tb00678.x]
    • Pamela L. Geller. "Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology."   Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 38: 65-81 (October 2009) [doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164414]
    • Barbara J. Risman, "Intimate Relationships from a Microstructural Perspective: Mothering Men." Gender and Society 1:1 (March 1987).  [jstor: 190084]
    • Nancy Chodorow. "Mothering, Object-Relations, and the Female Oedipal Configuration." Feminist Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1978), pp. 137-158 [jstor: 3177630]
    • Timothy J. Biblarz & Judith Stacey. "How Does the Gender of Parents Matter?" Journal of Marriage and Family 72:1 (2010):3-22  [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x]
    • Adrienne Rich. 1980. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5 (4): 631-660 [jstor: 3173834]
    • Judith Butler. "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory." Theatre Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 1988), pp. 519-531.  [jstor: 3207893]
    • Nussbaum, M. C. The Professor Of Parody [J. Butler]. The New Republic v. 220 no. 8 (February 22 1999) p. 37-45.  {Also, Nussbaum, M. C. Martha C. Nussbaum And Her Critics: An Exchange [discussion of February 22, 1999 article, The Professor Of Parody]. The New Republic v. 220 no. 16 (April 19 1999) p. 43-5}
    • Timothy V. Kaufman-Osborn. "Fashionable Subjects: On Judith Butler and the Causal Idioms of Postmodern Feminist Theory."  Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 649-674
    • Veronica Vasterling. "Butler's Sophisticated Constructivism: A Critical Assessment."  Hypatia, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), pp. 17-38
    • Barbara F. Reskin. "Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality." American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Feb., 2003), pp. 1-21 [jstor: 3088900]

VI.  What is the role of sexuality?

Sexuality has been evoked in multiple ways in the study of gender inequality.  It may be considered as a possible motivating cause for inequality, examined for the ways it reflects or is effected by gender inequality, or incorporated as a peculiar tension between women and men that mediates both the causes and effects of gender inequality.  Essentially everyone recognizes sexuality as critically important to gender inequality, but it eludes comprehensive analysis.

  • Analytical Task
    • Select two distinctive social contexts in which gender inequality has a consequential presence (e.g., American Appalachian families, bowling leagues, investment banks); try to use one context that is relatively formal and another that is relative informal
    • For each social context, try to describe how female and male participants express and experience sexuality differently,
    • for each context, consider any ways that sexual rules and standards appear to differ by gender
    • Try to identify the principle causes that would appear to explain the sexual rules and standards of conduct in each setting.  Consider why there are any rules or standards about sexuality.  Consider why how the rules and practices might reflect gender inequality and how they might reinforce it.
  • Common Readings
    • John D. DeLamater and Janet Shibley Hyde. "Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism in the Study of Human Sexuality." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality (1998), pp. 10-18  [jstor: 3813161]
    • Bem, D. J. (2000). Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 531-548.
    • Baumeister, R. F., and K. D. Vohs. "Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchange in Heterosexual Interactions." Personality and Social Psychology Review 8, no. 4 (2004): 339-63. [doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_2]
    • Blumberg, Eric S. "The Lives and Voices of Highly Sexual Women." Journal of Sex Research 40, no. 2 (May 2003): 146-57. [doi:10.1080/00224490309552176]
    • Levi Martin, John, and Matt George. "Theories of Sexual Stratification: Toward an Analytics of the Sexual Field and a Theory of Sexual Capital." Sociological Theory 24, no. 2 (2006): 107-32. [doi:10.1111/j.0735-2751.2006.00284.x]
    • Down So Long:  Intimate Combat: Sexuality and Gender Inequality
    • For the works below, take a quick look at the introductions and conclusions to get the major argument, read further as desired:
      • Carpenter, Christopher Scott. "The Prevalence of Gay Men and Lesbians." In International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality, edited by K. Amanda Baumle, 217-28. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2013. [doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5512-3_11]
      • Diamond, Lisa M. "Emerging Perspectives on Distinctions between Romantic Love and Sexual Desire." Current Directions in Psychological Science 13, no. 3 (2004): 116-19. [doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00287.x]
      • Impett, Emily A., and Letitia Anne Peplau. "Sexual Compliance: Gender, Motivational, and Relationship Perspectives." The Journal of Sex Research 40, no. 1 (Feb 2003): 87-100. [doi:10.1080/00224490309552169]
      • Lammers, Joris, Janka I. Stoker, Jennifer Jordan, Monique Pollmann, and Diederik A. Stapel. "Power Increases Infidelity among Men and Women." Psychological Science 22, no. 9 (September 1, 2011 2011): 1191-97. [doi:10.1177/0956797611416252]
      • Peplau, Letitia Anne. "Human Sexuality: How Do Men and Women Differ?." Current Directions in Psychological Science 12, no. 2 (2003): 37-40. [doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01221]
      • Petersen, Jennifer L., and Janet Shibley Hyde. "A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on Gender Differences in Sexuality, 1993–2007." Psychological Bulletin 136, no. 1 (2010): 21-38. [doi:10.1037/a0017504]
      • Smuts, Barbara. "The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy." Human Nature 6, no. 1 (Mar 1995): 1-32. [doi:10.1007/BF02734133]
      • Wiederman, Michael W. "The Truth Must Be in Here Somewhere: Examining the Gender Discrepancy in Self.Reported Lifetime Number of Sex Partners." Journal of Sex Research 34, no. 4 (1997): 375-86. [doi:10.1080/00224499709551905]
      • Bivona, Jenny M., Joseph W. Critelli, and Michael J. Clark. "Women's Rape Fantasies: An Empirical Evaluation of the Major Explanations." Archives Of Sexual Behavior 41, no. 5 (2012): 1107-19. [doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9934-6]
      • Zaylía, Jessica Leigh. "Toward a Newer Theory of Sexuality: Terms, Titles, and the Bitter Taste of Bisexuality." Journal of Bisexuality 9, no. 2 (2009): 109-23. [doi:10.1080/15299710902881467]
  • Recommended Readings
    • Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). "'His' And 'Her' Relationships: A Review Of The Empirical Evidence."  In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp. 884-904). New York: Cambridge University Press
    • Joan Acker. "Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations"  Gender & Society 1990 4: 139-158. [doi: 10.1177/089124390004002002]
    • Catharine A. MacKinnon.  ""Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory." Signs, Vol. 7, No. 3, Feminist Theory (Spring, 1982), pp. 515-544  [jstor: 3173853]
    • Letitia Anne Peplau. "Human Sexuality: How Do Men and Women Differ?"  Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr., 2003), pp. 37-40 [doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01221]
    • David L. Weis. "The Use of Theory in Sexuality Research". The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Use of Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality (1998), pp. 1-9 [jstor: 3813160]
    • Crawford, M., et. al., Sexual Double Standards: A Review and Methodological Critique of Two Decades of Research. The Journal of Sex Research v. 40 no. 1 (February 2003) p. 13-26 [jstor: 3813767]
    • Carl N. Degler. "What Ought To Be and What Was: Women's Sexuality in the Nineteenth Century." The American Historical Review, Vol. 79, No. 5 (Dec., 1974), pp. 1467-1490  [jstor: 1851777]
    • Dennis D. Waskul, Phillip Vannini, Desiree Wiesen.  "Women and Their Clitoris: Personal Discovery, Signification, and Use."   Symbolic Interaction May 2007, Vol. 30, No. 2: 151–174 [doi: pdfplus/10.1525/si.2007.30.2.151]
    • Breanne Fahs.  "Compulsory Bisexuality?: The Challenges of Modern Sexual Fluidity."    Journal of Bisexuality, Volume 9, Issue 3 & 4 July 2009 , pages 431-449 [doi: 10.1080/15299710903316661]
    • John A. Miller, Joan Acker, Kate Barry, Miriam M. Johnson and Lois A. West. "Comments on MacKinnon's 'Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State'." Signs, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 168-184; [jstor: 3174252; and Catharine A. MacKinnon, "Reply to Miller, Acker and Barry, Johnson, West, and Gardiner." Signs, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 184-188 [jstor: 3174253]
    •  Steven Epstein. "An Incitement to Discourse: Sociology and the History of Sexuality."  Sociological Forum, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 485-502 [jstor: 3648894]
  • Related Readings
    • Zaylía, Jessica Leigh(2009) 'Toward a Newer Theory of Sexuality: Terms, Titles, and the Bitter Taste of Bisexuality', Journal of Bisexuality, 9: 2, 109 - 123 [doi: 10.1080/15299710902881467]
    • Nicole Constable. "The Commodification of Intimacy: Marriage, Sex, and Reproductive Labor."  Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 38: 49-64 (2009) [doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.37.081407.085133]
    • Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003). Sexual Compliance: Gender, Motivational, And Relationship Perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 87-100 [doi: 10.1080/00224490309552169]
    • Ronald Weitzer. "Sociology of Sex Work."  Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 35: 213-234 (2009) [doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120025]
    • Pennington, Suzanne(2009) 'Bisexuals "Doing Gender" in Romantic Relationships', Journal of Bisexuality, 9: 1, 33-69 [doi: 10.1080/15299710802660029]
    • Lisa Duggan "From Instincts to Politics: Writing the History of Sexuality in the U.S."  The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 27, No. 1, Feminist Perspectives on Sexuality. Part 1 (Feb., 1990), pp. 95-109  [jstor: 3812885]
    • Michael W. Wiederman. "The Truth Must Be in Here Somewhere: Examining the Gender Discrepancy in Self-Reported Lifetime Number of Sex Partners." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1997), pp. 375-386 [jstor: 3813479]
    • Norman R. Brown, Robert C. Sinclair. "Estimating Number of Lifetime Sexual Partners: Men and Women Do It Differently." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Aug., 1999), pp. 292-297 [jstor: 3813440]
    • John Levi Martin, Matt George. "Theories of Sexual Stratification: Toward an Analytics of the Sexual Field and a Theory of Sexual Capital." Sociological Theory, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Jun., 2006), pp. 107-132 [jstor: 25046714]
    • Judith Treas, Deirdre Giesen. "Sexual Infidelity among Married and Cohabiting Americans." Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Feb., 2000), pp. 48-60 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x]
    • Blow, Adrian J.; Hartnett, Kelley. "Infidelity In Committed Relationships II: A Substantive Review ." Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Volume 31, Issue 2, (2005): 217-33. [doi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01556.x]
    • Lever, J., Frederick, D., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Does Size Matter? Men's And Women's Views On Penis Size Across The Life Span. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7(3), 129-143 [doi: 10.1037/1524-9220.7.3.129]

VII. What is the role of violence and intimidation in the relationships between men and women? 

Most theoretical approaches to gender inequality suggest that violence between women and men plays a role in sustaining inequality; some also point toward violence as an initial cause.  A recurring issue concerns the degree to which violence is an expression or result of gender inequality or, alternatively, is a cause of inequality.  The separate roles of rape, harassment, and domestic violence, and their relationships to each other are another critical question.  Much research and argument has also been focused on the question of women's aggressive impulses and actions. 

  • Analytical Task
    • Analytical Task: Try to develop a reasonable explanation for why women do not engage in sexual harassment or sexual violence at rates similar to those of men.  Here, our strategy is to reverse the usual way people approach the problem of gender violence, aiming to explain the (suppressed) rates for women rather than the (elevated) rates for men.
    • Thinking Tools:
      • To pursue this task, we need to consider what we mean by violence or aggression.  When people refer to the patterns of violence between women and men (in modern societies), they are usually referring to several kinds of aggressive behavior, particularly: (1) sexual violence (especially rape), (2) sexual harassment, and (3) intimate partner violence (which includes wife battering).  
      • These three categories implicitly distinguish patterns of aggression based on several criteria: (1) the degree to which the aggressive acts involve sexuality, (2) the severity of the aggressive acts, and (3) the existing relationship between the relevant men and women. 
      • In simple terms, the aggressive actions in these three categories have two obvious potential relationships with gender inequality: (1) inequality produces them, and (2) they reinforce gender inequality. 
        • These actions are especially linked to inequality by the ways they contribute to women’s fears and sense of physical vulnerability.  That fear is crucial.  For it is the prospect of possible violence that induces women to restrict their behavior, to seek male protectors, and to heed men’s wishes.  The fear of violence is commonly a more prevalent and effective mechanism of control than the experience of violence.
        • Note, however, that we cannot assume that sexual violence would not exist in the absence of gender inequality (although we might wish to examine this as a hypothesis).  We know, for example, that partner violence occurs in gay male and lesbian couples at rates comparable to those of heterosexual couples.  To put it differently, we have good evidence for inferring that gender inequality is a contributory cause for sexual violence, but not for the claim that it is a necessary cause.  Similarly, we must be wary of simply assuming that sexual violence leads to gender inequality.
      • To simplify our task, we will set aside the question of intimate partner violence and focus on the other two kinds mentioned above, sexual violence and sexual harassment.  So, our goal is to explain why women, seemingly, indulge less often in sexual violence and harassment toward men than the reverse.
      • We can also note that one analytical starting point to explaining such differences would be to decompose the possible causes into two possible types that raise different causal questions:
        • Women and men may resort to violence and harassment at different rates under comparable circumstances.  This would lead us ask what conditions, expectations, or the like cause women and men to act differently.
        • Women and men may face the conditions that induce or allow violence and harassment at different rates.  This would lead us to ask how and why women and men find themselves at different rates in circumstances that promote aggression toward the other sex.
      • [Both men and women vary greatly, so we must decide if we will abstract away all that variation (and thus talk of "men" or "women" in the most generic or abstract possible manner) or if we feel that some variations (e.g. wealth or age) require consideration for the analysis.  Remember that you can restrict the scope of your analysis.]
      • Try to approach the problem of defining potential causes as systematically as you can.  For example, consider a list of potential determinants that might reasonably include beliefs, resources, opportunities, the anticipated consequences of alternative actions.  Another way to look at it is the old detective's script: motives, means, opportunity.  The key here is to avoid randomly attaching yourself to one or two possible causes, just because they happen to be what you first think about.  You want to think seriously about what you might have neglected.
      • It is often useful to start this kind of analytic reasoning concretely, concentrating on circumstances we know best.  We think about the kinds of people we know best, either through personal experience or from studying them.  We ask ourselves why the women in these circumstances or groups do not engage in sexual harassment or sexual violence toward men as much as do men toward women.  If we can gain an explanatory foothold in these familiar circumstances, we have a starting point for developing a more general explanation.
    • So, taking into account the ideas above, and the ideas in the materials we have read up to this point, you want to develop a reasonable explanation why women do not engage in harassment or violence toward men at the rates that men do toward women.
  • Common Readings
    • Claudia Garcia-Moreno, Lori Heise, Henrica A. F. M. Jansen, Mary Ellsberg and Charlotte Watts. "Violence against Women."  Science, New Series, Vol. 310, No. 5752 (Nov. 25, 2005), pp. 1282-1283  [data brief] [doi: 10.1126/science.1121400]
    • David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, Elizabeth M. Ridder. "Partner Violence and Mental Health Outcomes in a New Zealand Birth Cohort." Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 67, Issue 5 (p 1103-1119)  [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00202.x]
      • the above article was published with the following two commentaries and rejoinder by the authors--these clarify the points of disagreement
      • Michael P. Johnson. "Domestic Violence: It's Not about Gender: Or Is It?." Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 67, No. 5 (Dec., 2005), pp. 1126-1130 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00204.x]
      • Amy Holtzworth-Munroe. "Male Versus Female Intimate Partner Violence: Putting Controversial Findings Into Context." Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 67, Issue 5 (p 1120-1125)  [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00203.x]
      • David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, Elizabeth M. Ridder. "Rejoinder." Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 67, Issue 5 (p 1131-1136)  [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00205.x]
    • Down So Long:  Intimate Combat: Violence and Intimidation
    • Richardson, Deborah South. " The Myth of Female Passivity: Thirty Years of Revelations About Female Aggression." Psychology of Women Quarterly 29 (2005): 238-47. [doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00218.x]
    • Thompson, Carleen M., Susan M. Dennison, and Anna Stewart. " Are Female Stalkers More Violent Than Male Stalkers? Understanding Gender Differences in Stalking Violence Using Contemporary Sociocultural Beliefs." Sex Roles 66, no. 5 (2012): 351-65. [doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9911-2]
  • Recommended Readings
    • Jocelyn A. Hollander. "Vulnerability and Dangerousness: The Construction of Gender through Conversation about Violence."  Gender & Society 15(1) (2001): 83-109 [doi: 10.1177/089124301015001005]
    • Archer, J. (2002). Sex Differences In Physically Aggressive Acts Between Heterosexual Partners: A Metaanalytic Review. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 7(4), 313–351. [doi: 10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00061-1]
    • Saguy, Abigail C. "Employment Discrimination or Sexual Violence?: Defining Sexual Harassment in American and French Law." Law & Society Review. 34:4 (2000):1091-1128. also see Saguy, Abigail C. "What is Sexual Harassment? From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne," Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 27:45, (2005):45-56.  [jstor: 3115132]
    • Manuel Eisner.  "Long-Term Historical Trends in Violent Crime. " Crime and Justice, Vol. 30, (2003), pp. 83-142 [jstor: 1147697]
    • Malcolm M. Feeley, Deborah L. Little.  "The Vanishing Female: The Decline of Women in the Criminal Process, 1687-1912."  Law & Society Review, Vol. 25, No. 4 (1991), pp. 719-758  [jstor: 3053868]
    • Quinn, Beth A. "Sexual Harassment and Masculinity: The Power and Meaning of 'Girl Watching.'"  Gender & Society, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 386-402, June 2002  [doi: 10.1177/0891243202016003007]
    • Rachel Bridges Whaley, "The Paradoxical Relationship between Gender Inequality and Rape: Toward a Refined Theory." Gender & Society, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 531-555, Aug 2001  [doi: 10.1177/089124301015004003]
    • Review Robert Sapolsky,  "Testosterone Rules" from section III above.
    • Murray A. Straus.  2008. "Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations." Children and Youth Services Review 30(3):252-275. [doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.004]
    •  Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. [note: also recommended for previous section]  [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699]
    • Sarah K. Murnen, Carrie Wright, and Gretchen Kaluzny.  "If 'Boys Will Be Boys,' Then Girls Will Be Victims? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Research That Relates Masculine Ideology to Sexual Aggression."  Sex Roles Volume 46, Numbers 11-12 / June, 2002 [doi: 10.1023/A:1020488928736]
    • Peggy Reeves Sanday. "Rape-Prone Versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures." Violence Against Women, Vol. 2, No. 2, 191-208 (1996)   [doi: 10.1177/1077801296002002006]
  • Related Readings
    • Linda Gordon. "Family Violence, Feminism, and Social Control." Feminist Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 453-478 [jstor: 3177907]
    • Christopher Uggen & Amy Blackstone. "Sexual Harrasment as a Gendered Expression of Power."  American Sociological Review, Volume 69, Number 1, (February 2004): 64-92 [doi: 10.1177/000312240406900105]
    • Sandy Welsh. "Gender And Sexual Harassment." Annual Review of Sociology  25 (1999): 169-190 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.169]
    • Lee Ellis and Charles Beattie. "The Feminist Explanation for Rape: An Empirical Test." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp. 74-93  [jstor: 3812420]
    • Kimberly Martin, Lynne M. Vieraitis and Sarah Britto. "Gender Equality and Women's Absolute Status: A Test of the Feminist Models of Rape."  Violence Against Women. 12 (4) 2006: 321-339 [doi: 10.1177/1077801206286311]
    • Gwen Hunnicutt. "Varieties of Patriarchy and Violence Against Women Resurrecting "Patriarchy" as a Theoretical Tool."  Violence Against Women. 15 (5) 2009: 553 - 573   [doi: 10.1177/1077801208331246]
    • Tom W. Smith. "The Polls: Gender and Attitudes Toward Violence." The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 384-396 [jstor: 2748632]
    • Richard C. Eichenberg. "Gender Differences In Public Attitudes Toward The Use Of Force By The United States, 1990-2003." International Security 28.1 (2003) 110-141
    • Jon Hurwitz and Shannon Smithey, "Gender Differences on Crime and Punishment." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 89-115 [jstor: 448831]
    • Joan B. Kelly & Michael P. Johnson. "Differentiation Among Types Of Intimate Partner Violence: Research Update And Implications For Interventions." Family Court Review, Volume 46, Issue 3, 2008 (p 476-499)   [doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x]
    • Richard B. Felson, Alison C. Cares. "Gender and the Seriousness of Assaults on Intimate Partners and Other Victims." Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 67, Issue 5 (2005):1182-1195 [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00209.x]
    • Murray A. Straus and Ignacio Luis Ramirez. 2007. "Gender Symmetry In Prevalence, Severity, And Chronicity Of Physical Aggression Against Dating Partners By University Students In Mexico And USA." Aggressive Behavior 33:281-290.  [doi: 10.1002/ab.20199]
    • Russell P. Dobash and R. Emerson Dobash. "Women's Violence to Men in Intimate Relationships." The British Journal of Criminology 44 (2004): 324-349   [doi: 10.1093/bjc/azh026]

VIII. How has the economy influenced men and women's positions in society?

Essentially all analyses of gender inequality give great importance to the economy.  Gender inequality appears everywhere embedded in economic inequality, in the sense that a critical aspect of gender inequality involves unequal access to economic resources and positions.  Sometimes this is understood as an expression of gender inequality, sometimes a cause of gender inequality, sometimes a result. Many analyses consider it all three.

  • Analytical Task
    • Describe two examples of atypical (but not rare oddities) circumstances in which women may have higher economic status or economy-related status than men (e.g., wives who earn more than their husbands).  
      • Pure economic inequality between women and men would require that every man has an economic status and economic opportunities greater than every woman.  Realistically, such pure economic inequality by gender does not appear in any society. 
      • While our interest lies in what causes or sustains the economic facets of gender inequality, in this task we approach the contested terrain indirectly, by first considering exceptions, conditions where some women have a better economic location then some men. 
    • For each example (of the two you choose), try to explain briefly both (1) what conditions or processes ensure that it is atypical and (2) similarly explain what conditions or processes allow the atypical examples to arise.
      • in developing your explanations, consider the actions of both women and men, as well as differences in the opportunities and constraints they typically face
      • consider also how other kinds of relevant people respond to such atypical arrangements
      • try to take into account the orientation and actions of both people with power and ordinary people who lack it
  • Common Readings
    • Barbara F. Reskin. "Bringing the Men Back in: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of Women's Work." Gender and Society, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Mar., 1988), pp. 58-81 [jstor: 190469]
    • Destined for Equality: Employment: Gaining Equality from the Economy
    • Christine L. Williams. "The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the "Female" Professions," Social Problems, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Aug., 1992), pp. 253-267 [jstor: 3096961]
    • Eagly, Alice H., and Linda L. Carli. "Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership." Harvard Business Review 85, no. 9 (September 2007): 63-71.
    • Claudia Goldin, Cecilia Rouse. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians." The American Economic Review, Vol. 90, No. 4 (Sep., 2000), pp. 715-741 [jstor: 117305]
    • England, Paula. "Gender Inequality in Labor Markets: The Role of Motherhood and Segregation." Social Politics 12(2) (2005):264-288. [doi: 10.1093/sp/jxi014]
  • Recommended Readings
    • Francine D. Blau. "Trends in the Well-Being of American Women, 1970-1995." Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 112-165  [jstor: 2564953]
    • Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn. "The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone as Far as They Can?" Academy of Management Perspectives 21 (February 2007): 7-23.  [Reduced version of chapter in Declining Significance of Gender] [doi: 10.5465/AMP.2007.24286161]
    • Barbara F. Reskin, "Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality: 2002 Presidential Address", American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Feb., 2003), pp. 1-21 [jstor: 3088900]
    • Michelle J Budig. "Male Advantage And The Gender Composition Of Jobs: Who Rides The Glass Escalator?" Social Problems. May 2002. Vol. 49, Iss. 2; p. 258  [jstor: 3097230]
    • Elizabeth H. Gorman and Julie A. Kmec. "Hierarchical Rank and Women's Organizational Mobility: Glass Ceilings in Corporate Law Firms." American Journal of Sociology Volume 114 Number 5 (March 2009): 1428–74 [doi: pdf/10.1086/595950]
    • Christine E. Bose, Philip L. Bereano and Mary Malloy. "Household Technology and the Social Construction of Housework." Technology and Culture, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 53-82  [jstor: 3104669]
    • Maria Charles. "Deciphering Sex Segregation: Vertical and Horizontal Inequalities in Ten National Labor Markets." Acta Sociologica, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 267-287  [jstor: 4194993]
    • Shelley J. Correll, Stephen Benard, In Paik. "Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?" American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 112, No. 5 (Mar., 2007), pp. 1297-1338  [doi: pdf/10.1086/511799]
    • Louise Marie Roth. Women on Wall Street: Despite Diversity Measures, Wall Street Remains Vulnerable to Sex Discrimination Charges. Academy of Management Perspectives, Feb 2007, Vol. 21  [doi: 10.5465/AMP.2007.24286162]
    • Judge, Timothy A.; Livingston, Beth A. "Is The Gap More Than Gender? A Longitudinal Analysis Of Gender, Gender Role Orientation, And Earnings."  Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 93(5), Sep 2008, 994-1012.  [doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.994]
    • Claudia Goldin. "The Changing Economic Role of Women: A Quantitative Approach." Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 13, No. 4, The Measure of American History (Spring, 1983), pp. 707-733  [jstor: 203887]
    • Claudia Goldin. "The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment, Education, and Family." The American Economic Review, Vol. 96, No. 2 (May, 2006), pp. 1-21 [jstor: 30034606]
    • Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer. "Demographic Influence on Female Employment and the Status of Women."  American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 4, Changing Women in a Changing Society (Jan., 1973), pp. 946-961; see also Valerie K. Oppenheimer. "The Interaction of Demand and Supply and its Effect on the Female Labour Force in the United States." Population Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Nov., 1967), pp. 239-259  [jstor: 2776613]
    • England, Paula, Paul Allison, and Yuxiao Wu. "Does Feminization Lower Wages, Do Declines in Wages Cause Feminization, and How Can We Tell From Longitudinal Data?" Social Science Research 36(3) (2007): 1237-56. [doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.08.003]
    • Trond Petersen, Vemund Snartland, Eva M. Meyersson Milgrom.  "Are female workers less productive than male workers?"  Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 25(1) (2007): 13-37.  [doi: 10.1016/j.rssm.2006.05.002]
  • Related Readings
    • Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, Ilyana Kuziemko. "The Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the College Gender Gap." The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Fall, 2006), pp. 133-156 [jstor: 30033687]
    • Jerry A. Jacobs. "Gender Inequality and Higher Education."  Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22 (1996): 153-185 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.153]
    • Claudia Buchmann, Thomas A. DiPrete, Anne McDaniel.  "Gender Inequalities in Education."  Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 34 (2008): 319-337 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134719]
    • England, Paula and Su Li. "Desegregation Stalled: The Changing Gender Composition of College Majors, 1971-2002." Gender & Society 20(5) (2006):657-677. [doi: 10.1177/0891243206290753]
    • M. Evertsson, P. England, I. Mooi-Reci, J. Hermsen, J. de Bruijn, D. Cotter. "Is Gender Inequality Greater at Lower or Higher Educational Levels? Common Patterns in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States." Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 16(2):210-241 (2009) [doi: 10.1093/sp/jxp008]
    • Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591. [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569]
    • Eckel, Catherine; de Oliveira, Angela C. M.; Grossman, Philip J.  "Gender and Negotiation in the Small: Are Women (Perceived to Be) More Cooperative than Men?" Negotiation Journal, Volume 24, Issue 4, 2008: 429 [doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00196.x]; Kolb, Deborah M.  "Too Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation Research over the Past Twenty-Five Years." Negotiation Journal, Volume 25, Issue 4, 2009: 515 [doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00242.x]; Bowles, Hannah Riley; McGinn, Kathleen L.  "Gender in Job Negotiations: A Two-Level Game."  Negotiation Journal, Volume 24, Issue 4, 2008: 393 [doi: 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00194.x]
    • Sue Bowden, Avner Offer. "Household Appliances and the Use of Time: The United States and Britain Since the 1920s." The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Nov., 1994), pp. 725-748  [jstor: 2597714]
    • Graciela Chichilnisky.  "The Gender Gap." Review of Development Economics, Volume 12, Issue 4 (p 828-844) [gender gap as a Nash equilibrium--not for the economically faint of heart]  [doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9361.2008.00456.x]
    • Justin Wolfers. "Diagnosing Discrimination: Stock Returns and Ceo Gender"  Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 4, No. 2/3, Papers and Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Congress of the European Economic Association (Apr. - May, 2006), pp. 531-541  [jstor: 40005119]
    • Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn. "The Gender Pay Gap," The Economists' Voice (June 2007). [doi: 10.2202/1553-3832.1190]
    • Claudia Goldin. "The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family." The Annals Of The American Academy Of Political And Social Science. 2004 596 (2004): 20-35.  [doi: 10.1177/0002716204267959]
    • Claudia D. Goldin. "The Role of World War II in the Rise of Women's Employment." The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 4 (Sep., 1991), pp. 741-756  [jstor: 2006640]
    • Michael Bittman, Paula England, Liana Sayer, Nancy Folbre, and George Matheson. "When Does Gender Trump Money?: Bargaining and Time in Household Work." American Journal of Sociology 109 (2003):186-214.  [doi: pdf/10.1086/378341]

IX. What role does ideology play in determining the relations between men and women?

Ideology is near the center of almost all efforts to explain gender inequalities.  Gender ideology includes people's understandings of masculinity and femininity, ideas about when it is fair to treat women and men differently, divergent expectations about women's and men's abilities, internalized schema that evoke different judgments of women's and men's actions, and rules about proper male and female behavior applied to children.  All these and more facets of gender ideology induce us to feel differently about women and men and to treat them differently.  Gender ideology is crucial to the organization and persistence of gender inequality.  Conversely, every belief that symbolizes, legitimates, invokes, guides, induces, or helps sustain gender inequality is itself in part a product of gender inequality.  However, while the form of gender inequality may shape gender ideology over time, we are generally more interested in gender ideology's role in shaping and preserving gender inequality.

  • Analytical Task
    • The general analytical problem. This week's task explores the relationship between beliefs – ideology – and some aspect of gender inequality.  We want to look at ideas used to explain, justify, and challenge gender inequality.  What decides which ideas become salient and influential? How do beliefs about gender help sustain or destabilize gender inequality? 
    • To begin, choose one aspect or component of gender inequality.  This may involve the direct relationships between women and men or a difference in the opportunities or status available to women and men.  Examples might be the way that women select less prestigious fields of study than men in college, that higher education used to turn away women, that women are objects of sex trafficking, that male professional sports have much higher status, or the different kinds of restaurants that use male vs. female waiters.  You might try to be a bit creative. It can be helpful to focus your discussion using a concrete instance of that type of inequality with which you are familiar. 
    • Contents of the analysis.  Use the following schematic outline as a starting point. (Click on each numbered item below to see [or hide] the details.)
      1. Finally, after completing the steps in the analysis above, try to give an overall assessment about the significance of ideology to the facet of gender inequality you are considering. 
    • Additional Notes 
      • Throughout, be careful to distinguish between empirical claims and moral claims.  Both kinds of beliefs are important.  And they may be confused or overlapping rather than neatly distinguished in real life.  Still, they are crucially different.  Similarly, distinguish between the explanation of beliefs and the justification of beliefs.
      • Do try to introduce appropriate connections between the argument(s) you present and the readings.  Consider not only the common readings from this week, but also past readings and optional ones from this week that seem particularly relevant. 
  • Common Readings
    • Cecilia L. Ridgeway & Shelley J. Correll.. "Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations." Gender & Society, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 510-531, Aug 2004  [doi: 10.1177/0891243204265269]
    • Judith Lorber. "Believing is Seeing: Biology as Ideology." Gender and Society, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 568-581 [jstor: 189514]
    • Down So Long:  Disputed Ideals: Ideologies of Domesticity and Feminist Rebellion
    • Destined for Equality: Institutional Individualism
    • Faye Ginsburg. "Procreation Stories: Reproduction, Nurturance, and Procreation in Life Narratives of Abortion Activists." American Ethnologist, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Nov., 1987), pp. 623-636 [jstor: 645317]
    • Kristin Luker. "Contraceptive Risk Taking and Abortion: Results and Implications of a San Francisco Bay Area Study." Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 8, No. 8 (Aug., 1977), pp. 190-196; and "The War Between the Women." Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Mar. - Apr., 1984), pp. 105-110 [jstor: 1965513]
    • Nancy Burns and Katherine Gallagher.  "Public Opinion on Gender Issues: The Politics of Equity and Roles." Annual Review of Political Science, 2010, Vol. 13: 425-443  [doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.040507.142213]
    • Clem Brooks and Catherine Bolzendahl. "The Transformation of US Gender Role Attitudes: Cohort Replacement, Social-Structural Change, and Ideological Learning."  Social Science Research Volume:  33  Issue:  1  (2004 Mar):  106 - 133 [doi: 10.1016/S0049-089X(03)00041-3]
  • Recommended Readings
    • Shannon N. Davis, Theodore N. Greenstein. "Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences." Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 35 (2009): 87-105 [doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920]
    • Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox. "The Gender Gap in Ideology." Political Behavior (2008) 30:503–523.   DOI 10.1007/s11109-008-9061-1 [doi: 10.1007/s11109-008-9061-1]
    • Carl N. Degler. "Revolution without Ideology: The Changing Place of Women in America."  Daedalus, Vol. 93, No. 2, The Woman in America (Spring, 1964), pp. 653-670  [jstor: 20026849]
    • Bem, S. L. (1981) Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account Of Sex Typing. Psychological Review, Vol 88(4), Jul 1981, 354-364. [doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354]
    • Review readings by Ridgeway in Section II and Valian in Section VII
    •  Mary Blair-Loy. 2001. "Cultural Constructions of Family Schemas: The Case of Women Executives." Gender & Society 15(5) (2001): 687-709. [doi: 10.1177/089124301015005004]
    • S. M. C. Kelley, C. G. E. Kelley, M. D. R. Evans and Jonathan Kelley. "Support for Mothers' Employment at Home: Conflict between Work and Family." International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 98-110, Spring 2009  [doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edp004]
  • Related Readings
    • Catherine I Bolzendahl, Daniel J Myers.. "Feminist Attitudes and Support for Gender Equality: Opinion Change in Women and Men, 1974-1998." Social Forces, vol. 83, no. 2 (Dec 2004): 759-789
    • Thornton, Arland; Young-DeMarco, Linda, "Four Decades of Trends in Attitudes toward Family Issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s." Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1009-1037, Nov 2001  [doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.01009.x]
    • Emily W. Kane, Mimi Schippers. "Men's and Women's Beliefs about Gender and Sexuality." Gender and Society, Vol. 10, No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 650-665 [jstor: 189887]
    • Eric D. Widmer, Judith Treas, Robert Newcomb. "Attitudes toward Nonmarital Sex in 24 Countries." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 349-358... [jstor: 3813111]
    • Bem, S, L, (1994) Defending The Lenses of Gender. Psychological Inquiry, 5, 97-101. [jstor: 1449094]
    • Frable, D. E., & Bem, S. L. (1985). If You Are Gender Schematic, All Members Of The Opposite Sex Look Alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 459-468. [doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.459]

X.  How have men resisted and furthered change?  How have women furthered and resisted change?

Both women and men have acted in every possible way towards gender inequality.  What we want to understand are the circumstances in which they predictably act in ways that either reinforce or erode inequality.  People's actions complex results of interests, ideology, circumstance, opportunity, and constraint. 

  • Analytical Task
    • General Problem: In any simple model of gender inequality, men and women are principal actors.  For the analysis of gender inequality, their relevant actions may be categorized into those that reinforce inequality and those that challenge it.  Inequality is sustained when the cumulative effects of actions reinforcing inequality outweigh the effects of actions that challenge it.  Here we will try to develop a simplified model of men's and women's actions that decide the depth and persistence of some aspect of gender inequality.
    • First, select and specify one kind or aspect of gender inequality.  The more specific the choice, the easier it is to model.  Clearly state how the chosen example is an inequality, specifying
      • what kinds of women and men are unequal,
      • how this inequality manifests itself (i.e., in what way and in what circumstances does this inequality occur), and
      • how things look different when the degree of this inequality is great compared to when it is small.
    • Second, identify relevant actions by reinforce or repel gender inequality for both women and men. With respect to this type of inequality, offer two or more examples of each of the following:
      • common actions by men that help sustain the inequality,
      • common actions by men that contribute to eroding the inequality,
      • common actions by women that help sustain the inequality and
      • common actions by women that contribute to eroding the inequality.
    • Third, try to specify the range of circumstances under which each of these four types of action are likely to occur.  
      • It is useful to distinguish between regularly repeating or "normal" actions and occasional responsive actions that occur only when something unexpected happens, promising threat or opportunity.
      • Try to consider possible distinctions amongst kinds of people that divide them into ones more likely or less likely to act in the way being discussed.
      • Consider how the likelihood of these four kinds of actions might vary depending on whether the overall level of gender inequality is low versus high, and on whether gender inequality is stable or changing.   Note here that it is plausible both that the relative rates of these influences the severity and stability of gender inequality and that the severity and stability of inequality influences the rates of these types of actions.
    • Fourth, can you distill  your observations into  a couple generalizations?  When you consider the implications of the "model" you have devised, how would you summarize it?
  • Common Readings
    • Destined for Equality: Surrendering the Heritage of Male Dominance
    • Destined for Equality: Women's Rejection of Subordination
    • Susan E. Marshall. "Ladies against Women: Mobilization Dilemmas of Antifeminist Movements." Social Problems, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Apr., 1985), pp. 348-362  [jstor: 800757]
    • Laura L. Miller. "Not Just Weapons of the Weak: Gender Harassment as a Form of Protest for Army Men." Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 32-51 [jstor: 2787010]
    • ...
  • Recommended Readings
    • Noah P. Mark, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Cecilia L. Ridgeway. "Why Do Nominal Characteristics Acquire Status Value? A Minimal Explanation for Status Construction." AJS Volume 115 Number 3 (November 2009): 832–62 .... [doi: pdf/10.1086/606142]
    • Kirsten Dellinger. "Masculinities in "Safe" and "Embattled" Organizations: Accounting for Pornographic and Feminist Magazines." Gender & Society, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 545-566, Oct 2004... [doi: 10.1177/0891243204267401]
    • Carl N. Degler. "Charlotte Perkins Gilman on the Theory and Practice of Feminism." American Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring, 1956), pp. 21-39   [jstor: 2710295]
    • Jo Freeman. "Political Organization in the Feminist Movement." Acta Sociologica, Vol. 18, No. 2/3 (1975), pp. 222-244  [jstor: 4194062]
    • Emily Stoper, Roberta Ann Johnson. "The Weaker Sex & the Better Half: The Idea of Women's Moral Superiority in the American Feminist Movement." Polity, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Winter, 1977), pp. 192-217  [jstor: 3234258]
    •  Ann-Dorte Christensen and Jørgen Elm Larsen. "Gender, Class, and Family: Men and Gender Equality in a Danish Context. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 2008 15(1):53-78  [doi: 10.1093/sp/jxn004]
    • ...
  • Related Readings
    • ...
    • Holly J. McCammon, Courtney Sanders Muse, Harmony D. Newman, and Teresa M. Terrell. "Movement Framing and Discursive Opportunity Structures: The Political Successes of the U.S. Women's Jury Movements." American Sociological Review 2007 72(5): 725-749.   [doi: 10.1177/000312240707200504]
    • Elsie Clews Parsons. "Feminism and Conventionality." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 56, Women in Public Life (Nov., 1914), pp. 47-53  [jstor: 1011977]
    • Catherine Hakim. "Five Feminist Myths about Women's Employment." The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp. 429-455 [jstor: 591850]
    • Linda Thompson, Alexis J. Walker. "Gender in Families: Women and Men in Marriage, Work, and Parenthood." Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Nov., 1989), pp. 845-871  [jstor: 353201]
    • See also from Section II above, Deniz Kandiyoti, "Bargaining with Patriarchy"." [jstor: 190357]
    • ...

XI.  How have political processes and structures sustained men's and women's relative status?

As structure and as actor, the state has been unavoidably central to ongoing practice of gender inequality, to its persistence, and to changes in the form and amount of gender inequality.

States or governments have power. Through the military and police, a state can enforce conformity to its rules, repel and punish challenges from the scale of individual acts to collective rebellions, and by threat, implicit or explicit, deter rebellions from appearing. Through the law, regulations, and bureaucratic policies, a state can define what constitutes acceptable or legitimate behavior at all levels of social organization. Through economic policies of taxation, expenditures, and redistributions (such as welfare policies or agricultural supports), a state influences the relative economic status of different groups.

By acting differently toward groups with regard to any of these aspects of government power, a state can create, reinforce, or exacerbate social inequalities. Analogously, a state can, in theory, obstruct, destabilize, or diminish social inequality by using its power in ways that are inconsistent with social inequalities. States determine, influence, legitimize, and sanction rights and opportunities; they may do so in more or less egalitarian ways.

When significant, enduring, social inequality exists, those privileged by that form of inequality will normally have more influence over the state than do those disadvantaged by the inequality, and the overall effect of state policies will reinforce the exercise and persistence of the inequality. A fundamental problem for all state theories is who or what decides state policies and actions. To some degree, those "in" the state (elected, appointed, hired, or appropriated) make decisions based on their interests and outlooks as members of the state apparatus. To some degree, state actors respond to the influence of power brokers outside the state, such as the economically powerful. In either case, when making policy or strategic planning decisions, those influencing state actions are in part responding to what they perceive will be the responses of all actors in the nation affected by those decisions.  States, or the political actors who comprise the government, also have their own interests, most notably preserving their power, and these interests are not automatically consistent with the interests of dominant social groups.

Any political policy, agenda, body, or process may support and enforce gender inequality, passively permit it, or oppose gender inequality (as is true with any form of social inequality).  A political process or policy may have different implications for different aspects of gender inequality (for example, labor protections laws for women that guard them from some possibilities of employer exploitation while simultaneously limiting their competitive access to some kinds of jobs).  In general, to protect and use their advantages, socially dominant groups seek to sustain influence over political processes.  Conforming with this expectation, the long monopoly of men over political power has consistently both demonstrated and sustained gender inequality.  Yet, over the past two centuries government actions have also contributed to the decline of gender inequality.  Thus, with respect to political power we face a series of critical questions: how did political power become and remain a male domain?, how has political power and governance reflected and contributed to gender inequality?, and how and why did some aspects of political power and government act in ways more consistent with improving women's status than preserving gender inequality?

  • Analytical Task
    • Analytical Task: You will propose a government strategy for  reducing gender inequality and analyze its plausibility in a causal analysis of gender inequality and its possible effects.
    • Motivation:  While we commonly focus on differences over the desirability of government policies due to contending political agendas, policy making efforts commonly founder on the basic inability to find a solution that works for any agenda.  All government policies rely on theories (explicit or implicit) concerning the causes of the social phenomena they aim to influence and the effects of the social mechanisms they hope will produce desired outcomes.  Without sufficient and accurate theories about the relevant causal processes, government policies become trial and error efforts, as likely to make things worse as they are to make them better.
    • Task Scenario:  You have been hired by a newly elected President of the United States (or the analogous top political position in another country that you prefer to examine).  One of the new President’s main goals for her years in office is to use government power to improve gender inequality and the status of women.  Your job is to recommend toward what specific goals she should focus her efforts.
    • Alternative Strategies: You may recommend new legislation (or the removal of old), new administrative strategies such as who gets appointed, new executive policies (for example, rules for the military) that are within the President’s power without legislation, concerted efforts to influence public opinion or state level governance.  In short, you can consider the entire range of actions available to a President.
    • First, you should propose at least three distinct initiatives that you believe could serve this purpose.
    • Second, from those three, chose the one strategy you believe holds the most promise. 
    • Third, for this selected strategy, you must provide an analytical justification. Your justification should consider the following:
      • At what aspects of gender inequality is the policy aimed? 
      • Include a brief analysis of this inequality that explains what is unequal, how great is the inequality, who does it effect, how widely is it recognized, how it has (or has not) changed over time, and what seem to be the principal causes.
      • Describe how have government actions (or inaction) influenced this inequality in the past.
      • Show why we should expect that it will be easy or hard to carry out the proposed policy strategy and how the possible difficulties reflect the influence or effects of gender inequality.
      • Explain how the proposed strategy can be expected to alleviate gender inequality.  This explanation should connect directly to the causal explanation of the inequality being diminished.
    • In short, you should propose several strategies by which a government could promote greater gender equality, then provide an analytic appraisal of the strategy you deem best.  This appraisal should stress the causes of relevant facets of gender inequality, how the proposed strategy will affect that causal process, and how gender inequality has a causal influence on government policy that must be countered to implement the policy.  Do not forget to provide a historical context.
    • Alternative Analytical Task
      • Our goal in this task is to attempt a basic analysis of political or power inequality based on empirical examples.  As a practical matter, in the time available, we cannot sensibly attempt a sophisticated analysis in terms either of the data or ideas.  We can, however, try to think our way through a simple analysis, using the ideas in this and previous weeks' readings.  We can think of this being like the starting steps a scholar interested in these questions would take to set up the theoretical and research possibilities.
      • To begin, select one kind or aspect of political or power inequality that exists some places between women and men, for example married women's and men's legal rights over property.  Clearly state how this is an inequality, specifying
        • what kinds of women and men are unequal,
        • how this inequality manifests itself in the unequal treatment of women and men or unequal outcomes for them, and
        • how things look different when the inequality is great compared to when it is small. 
        • In short, we want to clearly identify and describe the inequality, and we what to show how we can distinguish varying levels of that inequality.
      • Next, put together a simple analysis of what might generate or moderate this type of inequality.
        • First, specify two instances where this type of inequality is large and two where it is small. This is our selection of cases that form the basis of our analysis.  Having two large and two small is a minimal research design for identifying the implications of difference in degree of inequality separate from the specifics of our cases.
        • Comparing the cases having greater inequality with those that have less, what effects on other aspects or kinds of gender inequality do the selected instances of political or power inequality seem to have? 
        • Focusing on the key causal issue, what circumstances or processes seem to explain why the aspect of gender inequality being examined is large in two cases and small in the other two?
        • Finally, from the analysis of the cases you have selected, can you make any generalizations beyond those cases about the circumstances or processes you have just used to explain the differences?
  • Common Readings
    • Destined for Equality: Citizenship: Gaining Equality from the State
    • Joyce Gelb, Marian Lief Palley. "Women and Interest Group Politics: A Comparative Analysis of Federal Decision-Making." The Journal of Politics, Vol. 41, No. 2 (May, 1979), pp. 362-392. [jstor: 2129770]
    • Pamela Paxton, Sheri Kunovich, Melanie M. Hughes. "Gender in Politics." Annual Review of Sociology 2007 33, 263-284 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131651]
    • Krook, Mona Lena, and Diana Z. O’Brien. " All the President’s Men? The Appointment of Female Cabinet Ministers Worldwide." The Journal of Politics 74, no. 3 (2012): 840-55. [doi:10.1017/S0022381612000382]
    • Down So Long:  The Reproduction of Economic and Political Power
  • Recommended Readings
    • Ann Shola Orloff. "Gendering the Comparative Analysis of Welfare States: An Unfinished Agenda." Sociological Theory 27(3):317-343 (2009) [doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01350.x]
    • Lynne Haney. "Homeboys, Babies, Men in Suits: The State and the Reproduction of Male Dominance." American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 759-778 [jstor: 2096452]
    • Karen Beckwith. "Women's Movements At Century's End: Excavation and Advances in Political Science." Annual Review of Political Science 2001 4, 371-390 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.371]
    • Torben Iversen, Frances Rosenbluth. "The Political Economy of Gender: Explaining Cross-National Variation in the Gender Division of Labor and the Gender Voting Gap."  American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 1 (Jan., 2006), pp. 1-19 [doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00166.x]
    •  Pamela Johnston Conover. "Feminists and the Gender Gap." The Journal of Politics, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Nov., 1988), pp. 985-1010  [jstor: 2131388]
  • Related Readings
    • Karen Beckwith. "The Comparative Politics of Women's Movements." Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Sep., 2005), pp. 583-596  [jstor: 3689038]
    • Vicky Randall. "Legislative Gender Quotas and Indian Exceptionalism: The Travails of the Women's Reservation Bill." Comparative Politics, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Oct., 2006), pp. 63-82 [jstor: 20434021]
    • Guillaume R. Fréchette, Francois Maniquet, Massimo Morelli. "Incumbents' Interests and Gender Quotas." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Oct., 2008), pp. 891-909 [jstor: 25193856]
    • Lynne A. Haney. "Feminist State Theory: Applications to Jurisprudence, Criminology, and the Welfare State." Annual Review of Sociology 26:641-666 (2000) [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.641]
    • Richard L. Fox, Jennifer L. Lawless. "Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Apr., 2004), pp. 264-280 [jstor: 1519882]
    • Kira Sanbonmatsu. "Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 20-34. [jstor: 3088412]
    • Marvin Harris. "Caste, Class, and Minority." Social Forces, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Mar., 1959), pp. 248-254 [jstor: 2572971]
    • Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr.  "History and Current Status of Divorce in the United States." The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Children and Divorce (Spring, 1994), pp. 29-43.. [jstor: 1602476]

XII.  What does the future hold? 

Where do we go from here?  Will gender inquality continue to decline, and greater gender equality spread throughout the world?  Are some aspects of gender inquality particularly resistant to reduction, and if so why?  Could change stagnate?  Behind such concerns are two principal questions.  What has caused the long-term pattern of declining gender inequality?  And what has preserved aspects of gender inequality in the face of these accumulating changes?  Combining the answers to these two questions with an effort to project the relevant influences into the future, is the basis for trying to understand the possibilities for the future.  Behind this also lies another analytical question with moral overtones: what does gender equality really mean?

  • Analytical Task
    • Select two types of inequality, both important, one that you believe to be moving toward greater equality at a relatively high rate, the other that you believe is moving toward equality at a relatively slow rate (or is stalled or is moving backwards)
      • for each of these two types, describe what is the inequality (how are women and men unequal, which women and men experience it, how do things differ when this inequality is high from when it is low)
      • describe the evidence and logic that suggests one type is declining relatively quickly and the other relatively slowly
    • Try to explain why the two different rates of movement toward equality
      • For each, consider what processes, conditions, interests, and the like propel the movement toward greater equality
      • For each, consider what circumstances, activities, and the like obstruct the movement toward greater equality
      • Try to explain how and why the balance between the causes propelling greater equality and the causes sustaining existing inequality differ between the two types of gender inequality
  • Common Readings
    • Paula England.  "Toward Gender Equality: Progress and Bottlenecks," in Declining Significance of Gender?, (ed. Francine Blau, Mary Brinton, David Grusky), 2007; also Paula England. "The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled." Gender & Society 2010 24: 149-166.  [doi: 10.1177/0891243210361475]
    • Cecilia L. Ridgeway.  "Gender as an Organizing Force in Social Relations: Implications for the Future of Inequality," in Declining Significance of Gender?, (ed. Francine Blau, Mary Brinton, David Grusky), 2007
    • Robert Max Jackson.  "Opposing Forces: How, Why, and When Will Gender Inequality Disappear?," in Declining Significance of Gender?, (ed. Francine Blau, Mary Brinton, David Grusky), 2007
  • Recommended Readings
  • Related Readings
    • ...
    • ...

To search for material on this page, first click the § symbol above to reveal all the hidden text. (Refresh page to rehide)



Related news

Cross modal transfer definition education
Mairie garrevaques 81700 diaphragm
Que faire en martinique aujourd hui
Art plastique facile a faire soi
Hexapro proteina para que sirve
Chimie analytique en anglais intermediaire
Imagens do mosqueteiro do corinthians
Usaha tanpa modal yg sukses mlm