Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Gender role
View on WikipediaThis article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
A gender role, or sex role, is a social norm deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals based on their gender or sex, and is usually centered on societal views of masculinity and femininity.[1]
The specifics regarding these gendered expectations may vary among cultures, while other characteristics may be common throughout a range of cultures. In addition, gender roles (and perceived gender roles) vary based on a person's race or ethnicity.[2]
Gender roles influence a wide range of human behavior, often including the clothing a person chooses to wear, the profession a person pursues, manner of approach to things, the personal relationships a person enters, and how they behave within those relationships. Although gender roles have evolved and expanded, they traditionally keep women in the "private" sphere, and men in the "public" sphere.[3]
Various groups, most notably feminist movements, have led efforts to change aspects of prevailing gender roles that they believe are oppressive, inaccurate, and sexist.
Background
[edit]A gender role, also known as a sex role,[4] is a social role encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes that are generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable for a person based on that person's sex.[5][6][7] Gender roles can be linked with essentialism, the idea that humans have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity based on their gender. Sociologists tend to use the term "gender role" instead of "sex role", because the sociocultural understanding of gender is distinguished from biological conceptions of sex.[8]
In the sociology of gender, the process whereby an individual learns and acquires a gender role in society is termed gender socialization.[9][10][11]
Gender roles are culturally specific, and while most cultures distinguish only two (boy/man and girl/woman), others recognize more. Some non-Western societies have three genders: men, women, and a third gender.[12] Buginese society has identified five genders.[13][14] Androgyny has sometimes also been proposed as a third gender.[15] An androgyne or androgynous person is someone with qualities pertaining to both the male and female gender. Some individuals identify with no gender at all.[16]
Many transgender people identify simply as men or women, and do not constitute a separate third gender.[17] Biological differences between (some) trans women and cisgender women have historically been treated as relevant in certain contexts, especially those where biological traits may yield an unfair advantage, such as sport.[18]
Gender role is not the same thing as gender identity, which refers to the internal sense of one's own gender, whether or not it aligns with categories offered by societal norms. The point at which these internalized gender identities become externalized into a set of expectations is the genesis of a gender role.[19][20]
Theories
[edit]
Sex differences in psychology can be explained by various theories, see possible causes. According to the theory of social constructionism, gendered behavior is mostly due to the social construction of gender. Other theories such as evolutionary psychology disagree with that position.
Most children learn to categorize themselves by gender by the age of three.[21] From birth, in the course of gender socialization, children learn gender stereotypes and roles from their parents and environment. Traditionally, boys learn to manipulate their physical and social environment through physical strength or dexterity, while girls learn to present themselves as objects to be viewed.[22] Social constructionists argue that differences between male and female behavior are better attributable to gender-segregated children's activities than to any essential, natural, physiological, or genetic predisposition.[23]
As an aspect of role theory, gender role theory "treats these differing distributions of women and men into roles as the primary origin of sex-differentiated social behavior, [and posits that] their impact on behavior is mediated by psychological and social processes."[24] According to Gilbert Herdt, gender roles arose from correspondent inference, meaning that general labor division was extended to gender roles.[25]
Social constructionists consider gender roles to be hierarchical and patriarchal.[26] The term patriarchy, according to researcher Andrew Cherlin, defines "a social order based on the domination of women by men, especially in agricultural societies".[27]
According to Eagly et al., the consequences of gender roles and stereotypes are sex-typed social behavior because roles and stereotypes are both socially-shared descriptive norms and prescriptive norms.[28]
Judith Butler, in works such as Gender Trouble[29] and Undoing Gender,[30] contends that being female is not "natural" and that it appears natural only through repeated performances of gender; these performances, in turn, reproduce and define the traditional categories of sex and/or gender.[31]
Conflicts between aspects of gender roles result in gender role conflicts.[32]
Major theorists
[edit]Talcott Parsons
[edit]Working in the United States in 1955, Talcott Parsons[33] developed a model of the nuclear family, which at that place and time was the prevalent family structure. The model compared a traditional contemporaneous view of gender roles with a more liberal view. The Parsons model was used to contrast and illustrate extreme positions on gender roles, i.e., gender roles described in the sense of Max Weber's ideal types (an exaggerated and simplified version of a phenomenon, used for analytical purposes) rather than how they appear in reality.[34] Model A described a total separation of male and female roles, while Model B described the complete dissolution of gender roles.[35]
| Model A – Total role segregation | Model B – Total integration of roles | |
|---|---|---|
| Education | Gender-specific education; high professional qualification is important only for the man. | Co-educative schools, same content of classes for girls and boys, same qualification for men and women. |
| Profession | The workplace is not the primary area of women; career and professional advancement is deemed unimportant for women. | For women, career is just as important as for men; equal professional opportunities for men and women are necessary. |
| Housework | Housekeeping and child care are the primary functions of the woman; participation of the man in these functions is only partially wanted. | All housework is done by both parties to the marriage in equal shares. |
| Decision making | In case of conflict, man has the last say, for example in choosing the place to live, choice of school for children, and buying decisions. | Neither partner dominates; solutions do not always follow the principle of finding a concerted decision; status quo is maintained if disagreement occurs. |
| Child care and education | Woman takes care of the largest part of these functions; she educates children and cares for them in every way. | Man and woman share these functions equally. |
The model is consciously a simplification; individuals' actual behavior usually lies somewhere between these poles. According to the interactionist approach, gender roles are not fixed but are constantly renegotiated between individuals.[36]
John Money
[edit]"In the 1950s, John Money and his colleagues took up the study of intersex individuals, who, Money realized, 'would provide invaluable material for the comparative study for bodily form and physiology, rearing, and psychosexual orientation'."[37] Money coined the term gender role, which he defined in a seminal 1955 paper as "all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman."[38]
The team concluded that gonads, hormones, and chromosomes did not automatically determine a child's gender role.[clarification needed][39]
West and Zimmerman
[edit]Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman developed an interactionist perspective on gender beyond its construction of "roles."[40] For them, gender is "the product of social doings of some sort undertaken by men and women whose competence as members of society is hostage to its production."[41] This approach is described by Elisabeth K. Kelan as an "ethnomethodological approach" which analyzes "micro interactions to reveal how the objective and given nature of the world is accomplished," suggesting that gender does not exist until it is empirically perceived and performed through interactions.[42] West and Zimmerman argued that the use of "role" to describe gender expectations conceals the production of gender through everyday activities. Furthermore, they stated that roles are situated identities, such as "nurse" and "student," which are developed as the situation demands, while gender is a master identity with no specific site or organizational context. For them, "conceptualizing gender as a role makes it difficult to assess its influence on other roles and reduces its explanatory usefulness in discussions of power and inequality."[41] West and Zimmerman consider gender an individual production that reflects and constructs interactional and institutional gender expectations.[43]
Biological factors
[edit]| Part of a series on |
| Sex differences in humans |
|---|
| Biology |
| Medicine and health |
| Neuroscience and psychology |
| Sociology and society |
Historically, gender roles have been largely attributed to biological differences in men and women. Although research indicates that biology plays a role in gendered behavior, the extent of its effects on gender roles is less clear.[44][45][46]
One hypothesis attributes differences in gender roles to evolution. The sociobiological view argues that men's fitness is increased by being aggressive, allowing them to compete with other men for access to females, as well as by being sexually promiscuous and trying to father as many children as possible. Women are benefited by bonding with infants and caring for children.[44] Sociobiologists argue that these roles are evolutionary and led to the establishment of traditional gender roles, with women in the domestic sphere and men dominant in every other area.[44] However, this view pre-assumes a view of nature that is contradicted by the fact that women engage in hunting in 79% of modern hunter-gatherer societies.[47] However, an attempted verification of this study found "that multiple methodological failures all bias their results in the same direction...their analysis does not contradict the wide body of empirical evidence for gendered divisions of labor in foraging societies".[48]
Another hypothesis attributes differences in gender roles to prenatal exposure to hormones. Early research examining the effect of biology on gender roles by John Money and Anke Ehrhardt primarily focused on girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), resulting in higher-than-normal prenatal exposure to androgens. Their research found that girls with CAH exhibited tomboy-like behavior, were less interested in dolls, and were less likely to make-believe as parents.[45][46] A number of methodological problems with the studies have been identified.[49] A study on 1950s American teenage girls who had been exposed to androgenic steroids by their mothers in utero exhibited more traditionally masculine behavior, such as being more concerned about their future career than marriage, wearing pants, and not being interested in jewelry.[50][51]
Sociologist Linda L. Lindsey critiqued the notion that gender roles are a result of prenatal hormone exposure, saying that while hormones may explain sex differences like sexual orientation and gender identity, they "cannot account for gender differences in other roles such as nurturing, love, and criminal behavior".[44] By contrast, some research indicates that both neurobiological and social risk factors can interact in a way that predisposes one to engaging in criminal behavior (including juvenile delinquency).[52][53]
With regard to gender stereotypes, the societal roles and differences in power between men and women are much more strongly indicated than is a biological component.[54]
In culture
[edit]
Ideas of appropriate gendered behavior vary among cultures and era, although some aspects receive more widespread attention than others. In the World Values Survey, responders were asked if they thought that wage work should be restricted to only men in the case of shortage in jobs: in Iceland the proportion that agreed with the proposition was 3.6%; while in Egypt it was 94.9%.[55]
Attitudes have also varied historically. For example, in Europe, during the Middle Ages, women were commonly associated with roles related to medicine and healing.[56] Because of the rise of witch-hunts across Europe and the institutionalization of medicine, these roles became exclusively associated with men.[56] In the last few decades, these roles have become largely gender-neutral in Western society.[57]
Vern Bullough stated that homosexual communities are generally more tolerant of switching gender roles.[58] For instance, someone with a masculine voice, a five o'clock shadow (or a fuller beard), an Adam's apple, wearing a woman's dress and high heels, carrying a purse would most likely draw ridicule or other unfriendly attention in ordinary social contexts.[59][page needed][60][page needed][61][page needed]
Because the dominant class sees this form of gender expression as unacceptable, inappropriate, or perhaps threatening, these individuals are significantly more likely to experience discrimination and harassment both in their personal lives and from their employers, according to a 2011 report from the Center for American Progress.[62]
Gender roles may be a means through which one expresses one's gender identity, but they may also be employed as a means of exerting social control, and individuals may experience negative social consequences for violating them.[63]
Gender stereotypes
[edit]
A 1992 study tested gender stereotypes and labeling within young children in the United States.[64] Fagot et al. divided this into two different studies; the first investigated how children identified the differences between gender labels of boys and girls, the second study looked at both gender labeling and stereotyping in the relationship of mother and child.[64]
Within the first study, 23 children between the ages of two and seven underwent a series of gender labeling and gender stereotyping tests: the children viewed either pictures of males and females or objects such as a hammer or a broom, then identified or labeled those to a certain gender. The results of these tests showed that children under three years could make gender-stereotypic associations.[64]
The second study looked at gender labeling and stereotyping in the relationship of mother and child using three separate methods. The first consisted of identifying gender labeling and stereotyping, essentially the same method as the first study. The second consisted of behavioral observations, which looked at ten-minute play sessions with mother and child using gender-specific toys.
The third study used a series of questionnaires such as an "Attitude Toward Women Scale", "Personal Attributes Questionnaire", and "Schaefer and Edgerton Scale" which looked at the family values of the mother.[64]
The results of these studies showed the same as the first study with regards to labeling and stereotyping.
They also identified in the second method that the mothers' positive reactions and responses to same-sex or opposite-sex toys played a role in how children identified them. Within the third method the results found that the mothers of the children who passed the "Gender Labeling Test" had more traditional family values. These two studies, conducted by Beverly I. Fagot, Mar D. Leinbach and Cherie O'Boyle, showed that gender stereotyping and labeling is acquired at a very young age, and that social interactions and associations play a large role in how genders are identified.[64]
Virginia Woolf, in the 1920s, made the point: "It is obvious that the values of women differ very often from the values which have been made by the other sex. Yet it is the masculine values that prevail",[65] remade sixty years later by psychologist Carol Gilligan who used it to show that psychological tests of maturity have generally been based on masculine parameters, and so tended to show that women were less 'mature'. Gilligan countered this in her ground-breaking work, In a Different Voice, holding that maturity in women is shown in terms of different, but equally important, human values.[66]

Gender stereotypes are extremely common in society.[68][69] One of the reasons this may be is simply because it is easier on the brain to stereotype (see Heuristics).
The brain has limited perceptual and memory systems, so it categorizes information into fewer and simpler units which allows for more efficient information processing.[70] Gender stereotypes appear to have an effect at an early age. In one study, the effects of gender stereotypes on children's mathematical abilities were tested. In this study of American children between the ages of six and ten, it was found that the children, as early as the second grade, demonstrated the gender stereotype that mathematics is a 'boy's subject'. This may show that the mathematical self-belief is influenced before the age in which there are discernible differences in mathematical achievement.[71]
According to the 1972 study by Jean Lipman-Blumen, women who grew up following traditional gender-roles from childhood were less likely to want to be highly educated while women brought up with the view that men and women are equal were more likely to want higher education. This result indicates that gender roles that have been passed down traditionally can influence stereotypes about gender.[72][73]
In a later study, Deaux and her colleagues (1984) found that most people think women are more nurturant, but less self-assertive than men, and that this belief is indicated universally, but that this awareness is related to women's role. To put it another way, women do not have an inherently nurturant personality, rather that a nurturing personality is acquired by whoever happens to be doing the housework.[74]
A study of gender stereotypes by Jacobs (1991) found that parents' stereotypes interact with the sex of their child to directly influence the parents' beliefs about the child's abilities. In turn, parents' beliefs about their child directly influence their child's self-perceptions, and both the parents' stereotypes and the child's self-perceptions influence the child's performance.[75]
Stereotype threat involves the risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group.[76] In the case of gender it is the implicit belief in gender stereotype that women perform worse than men in mathematics, which is proposed to lead to lower performance by women.[77]
A review article of stereotype threat research (2012) relating to the relationship between gender and mathematical abilities concluded "that although stereotype threat may affect some women, the existing state of knowledge does not support the current level of enthusiasm for this [as a] mechanism underlying the gender gap in mathematics".[78]
In 2018, Jolien A. van Breen and colleagues conducted research into subliminal gender stereotyping. Researchers took participants through a fictional "Moral Choice Dilemma Task", which presented eight scenarios "in which sacrificing one person can save several others of unspecified gender. In four scenarios, participants are asked to sacrifice a man to save several others (of unspecified gender), and in four other scenarios they are asked to sacrifice a woman." The results showed that women who identified as feminists were more willing to 'sacrifice' men than women who did not identify as feminists.[79] "If a person wanted to counteract that and 'level the playing field', that can be done either by boosting women or by downgrading men", said van Breen. "So I think that this effect on evaluations of men arises because our participants are trying to achieve an underlying aim: counteracting gender stereotypes."[80]
According to Professor Lei Chang, gender attitudes within the domains of work and domestic roles, can be measured using a cross-cultural gender role attitudes test. Psychological processes of the East have historically been analysed using Western models (or instruments) that have been translated, which potentially, is a more far-reaching process than linguistic translation. Some North American instruments for assessing gender role attitudes include:
- Attitudes Towards Women Scale,
- Sex-Role Egalitarian Scale, and
- Sex-Role Ideology Scale.
Through such tests, it is known that American southerners exhibit less egalitarian gender views than their northern counterparts, demonstrating that gender views are inevitably affected by an individual's culture. This also may differ among compatriots whose 'cultures' are a few hundred miles apart.[81]
A study by Richard Bagozzi, Nancy Wong and Youjae Yi, examines the interaction between culture and gender that produces distinct patterns of association between positive and negative emotions.[82] The United States was considered a more 'independence-based culture', while China was considered 'interdependence-based'. In the US people tend to experience emotions in terms of opposition whereas in China, they do so in dialectical terms (i.e., those of logical argumentation and contradictory forces). The study continued with sets of psychological tests among university students in Beijing and in Michigan. The fundamental goals of the research were to show that "gender differences in emotions are adaptive for the differing roles that males and females play in the culture". The evidence for differences in gender role was found during the socialization in work experiment, proving that "women are socialized to be more expressive of their feelings and to show this to a greater extent in facial expressions and gestures, as well as by verbal means".[82] The study extended to the biological characteristics of both gender groups — for a higher association between PA and NA hormones in memory for women, the cultural patterns became more evident for women than for men.
Implicit gender stereotypes
[edit]Gender stereotypes and roles can also be supported implicitly. Implicit stereotypes are the unconscious influence of attitudes a person may or may not even be aware that he or she holds. Gender stereotypes can also be held in this manner.
These implicit stereotypes can often be demonstrated by the Implicit-association test (IAT).
One example of an implicit gender stereotype is that males are seen as better at mathematics than females. It has been found that men have stronger positive associations with mathematics than women, while women have stronger negative associations with mathematics and the more strongly a woman associates herself with the female gender identity, the more negative her association with mathematics.[83]
These associations have been disputed for their biological connection to gender and have been attributed to social forces that perpetuate stereotypes such as aforementioned stereotype that men are better at mathematics than women.[84]
This particular stereotype has been found in American children as early as second grade.[71]
The same test found that the strength of a Singaporean child's mathematics-gender stereotype and gender identity predicted the child's association between individuals and mathematical ability.[85]
It has been shown that this stereotype also reflects mathematical performance: a study was done on the worldwide scale and it was found that the strength of this mathematics-gender stereotype in varying countries correlates with 8th graders' scores on the TIMSS, a standardized math and science achievement test that is given worldwide. The results were controlled for general gender inequality and yet were still significant.[86]
Changing roles
[edit]
Throughout history spouses have been charged with certain societal functions.[87] With the rise of the New World came the expected roles that each spouse was to carry out specifically. Husbands were typically working farmers - the providers. Wives were caregivers for children and the home. However, the roles are now changing, and even reversing.[88]
Societies can change such that the gender roles rapidly change. The 21st century has seen a shift in gender roles due to multiple factors such as new family structures, education, media, and several others. A 2003 survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated that about 1/3 of wives may earn more than their husbands.[89]
With the importance of education emphasized nationwide, and the access of college degrees (online, for example), women have begun furthering their educations. Women have also started to get more involved in recreation activities such as sports, which in the past were regarded to be for men.[90] Family dynamic structures are changing, and the number of single-mother or single-father households is increasing. Fathers are also becoming more involved with raising their children, instead of the responsibility resting solely with the mother.
According to the Pew Research Center, the number of stay-at-home fathers in the US nearly doubled in the period from 1989 to 2012, from 1.1 million to 2.0 million.[91] This trend appears to be mirrored in a number of countries including the UK, Canada and Sweden.[92][93][94] However, Pew also found that, at least in the US, public opinion in general appears to show a substantial bias toward favoring a mother as a care-taker versus a father, regardless of any shift in actual roles each plays.[95]
Gender equality allows gender roles to become less distinct and according to Donnalyn Pompper, is the reason "men no longer own breadwinning identities and, like women, their bodies are objectified in mass media images."[96] The LGBTQ rights movement has played a role increasing pro-gay attitudes, which according to Brian McNair, are expressed by many metrosexual men.[97]
Besides North America and Europe, there are other regions whose gender roles are also changing. In Asia, Hong Kong is very close to the USA because the female surgeons in these societies are focused heavily on home life, whereas Japan is focused more on work life. After a female surgeon gives birth in Hong Kong, she wants to cut her work schedule down, but keeps working full time (60–80 hours per week).[98] Similar to Hong Kong, Japanese surgeons still work long hours, but they try to rearrange their schedules so they can be at home more (end up working less than 60 hours).[98] Although all three places have women working advanced jobs, the female surgeons in the US and Hong Kong feel more gender equality at home where they have equal, if not more control of their families, and Japanese surgeons feel the men are still in control.[98]
A big change was seen in Hong Kong because the wives used to deal with unhappy marriage. Now, Chinese wives have been divorcing their husbands when they feel unhappy with their marriages, and are stable financially. This makes the wife seem more in control of her own life, instead of letting her husband control her.[99] Other places, such as Singapore and Taipei are also seeing changes in gender roles. In many societies, but especially Singapore and Taipei, women have more jobs that have a leadership position (i.e. A doctor or manager), and fewer jobs as a regular worker (i.e. A clerk or salesperson).[99] The males in Singapore also have more leadership roles, but they have more lower level jobs too. In the past, the women would get the lower level jobs, and the men would get all the leadership positions.[99] There is an increase of male unemployment in Singapore, Taipei, and Hong Kong, so the women are having to work more in order to support their families.[99] In the past, the males were usually the ones supporting the family.
In India, the women are married young, and are expected to run the household, even if they did not finish school.[100] It is seen as shameful if a woman has to work outside of the house in order to help support the family.[100] Many women are starting jewelry businesses inside their houses and have their own bank accounts because of it. Middle aged women are now able to work without being shameful because they are no longer childbearing.[100]
In sexual relationships
[edit]Communication of sexual desire
[edit]Metts, et al.[101] explain that sexual desire is linked to emotions and communicative expression. Communication is central in expressing sexual desire and "complicated emotional states", and is also the "mechanism for negotiating the relationship implications of sexual activity and emotional meanings". Gender differences appear to exist in communicating sexual desire, for example, masculine people are generally perceived to be more interested in sex than feminine people, and research suggests that masculine people are more likely than feminine people to express sexual interest.[102]
This may be greatly affected by masculine people being less inhibited by social norms for expressing their desire, being more aware of their sexual desire or succumbing to the expectations of their cultures.[103] When feminine people employ tactics to show their sexual desire, they are typically more indirect in nature. On the other hand, it is known masculinity is associated with aggressive behavior in almost all mammals, and most likely explains at least part of the fact that masculine people are more likely to express their sexual interest. This is known as the Challenge hypothesis.
Various studies show different communication strategies with a feminine person refusing a masculine person's sexual interest. Some research, like that of Murnen,[104] show that when feminine people offer refusals, the refusals are verbal and typically direct. When masculine people do not comply with this refusal, feminine people offer stronger and more direct refusals. However, research from Perper and Weis[105] showed that rejection includes acts of avoidance, creating distractions, making excuses, departure, hinting, arguments to delay, etc. These differences in refusal communication techniques are just one example of the importance of communicative competence for both masculine and feminine gender cultures.
In marriage
[edit]

The institution of marriage influences gender roles, inequality, and change.[106] In the United States, gender roles are communicated by the media, social interaction, and language. Through these platforms society has influenced individuals to fulfill from a young age the stereotypical gender roles in a heterosexual marriage. Roles traditionally distributed according to biological sex are increasingly negotiated by spouses on an equal footing.
In the U.S., marriage roles are generally decided based on gender. For approximately the past seven decades[when?], heterosexual marriage roles have been defined for men and women based on society's expectations and the influence of the media.[107] Men and women are typically associated with certain social roles, dependent upon the personality traits associated with those roles.[108] Traditionally, the role of the homemaker is associated with a woman and the role of a breadwinner is associated with a male.[108]
In the U.S., single men are outnumbered by single women at a ratio of 100 single women to 86 single men,[109] though never-married men over the age of 15 outnumber women by a 5:4 ratio (33.9% to 27.3%) according to the 2006 U.S. Census American Community Survey. The results are varied between age groups, with 118 single men per 100 single women in their 20s, versus 33 single men to 100 single women over 65.[110]
The numbers also vary between countries. For example, China has many more young men than young women, and this disparity is expected to increase.[111] In regions with recent conflict, such as Chechnya, women greatly outnumber men.[112]
In a cross-cultural study by David Buss, men and women were asked to rank the importance of certain traits in a long-term partner. Both men and women ranked "kindness" and "intelligence" as the two most important factors. Men valued beauty and youth more highly than women, while women valued financial and social status more highly than men.
Gendered roles in heterosexual marriages are learned through imitation. People learn what society views as appropriate gender behaviors from imitating the repetition of actions by one's role-model or parent of the same biological sex.[113] Imitation in the physical world that impacts one's gendered roles often comes from role-modeling parents, peers, teachers, and other significant figures in one's life. In a marriage, oftentimes each person's gendered roles are determined by his or her parents. If the wife grew up imitating the actions of traditional parents, and the husband non-traditional parents, their views on marital roles would be different.[113] One way people can acquire these stereotypical roles through a reward and punishment system. When a little girl imitates her mother by performing the traditional domestic duties she is often rewarded by being told she is doing a good job. Nontraditionally, if a little boy was performing the same tasks he would more likely be punished due to acting feminine.[113] Because society holds these expected roles for men and women within a marriage, it creates a mold for children to follow.[114]
Changing gender roles in marriage
[edit]Over the years, gender roles have continued to change and have a significant impact on the institution of marriage.[106] Traditionally, men and women had completely opposing roles, men were seen as the provider for the family and women were seen as the caretakers of both the home and the family.[106] However, in today's society the division of roles is starting to blur. More and more individuals are adapting non-traditional gender roles into their marriages in order to share responsibilities. This view on gender roles seeks out equality between sexes. In today's society, it is more likely that a husband and wife are both providers for their family. More and more women are entering the workforce while more men are contributing to household duties.[106]
After around the year 1980, divorce rates in the United States stabilized.[115] Scholars in the area of sociology explain that this stabilization was due to several factors including, but not limited to, the shift in gender roles. The attitude concerning the shift in gender roles can be classified into two perspectives: traditional and egalitarian. Traditional attitudes uphold designated responsibilities for the sexes – wives raise the children and keep the home nice, and husbands are the breadwinners. Egalitarian attitudes uphold responsibilities being carried out equally by both sexes – wives and husbands are both breadwinners and they both take part in raising the children and keeping the home nice.[116] Over the past 40 years, attitudes in marriages have become more egalitarian.[117] Two studies carried out in the early 2000s have shown strong correlation between egalitarian attitudes and happiness and satisfaction in marriage, which scholars believe lead to stabilization in divorce rates. The results of a 2006 study performed by Gayle Kaufman, a professor of sociology, indicated that those who hold egalitarian attitudes report significantly higher levels of marital happiness than those with more traditional attitudes.[118] Another study executed by Will Marshall in 2008 had results showing that relationships with better quality involve people with more egalitarian beliefs.[119] It has been assumed by Danielle J. Lindemann, a sociologist who studies gender, sexuality, the family, and culture, that the shift in gender roles and egalitarian attitudes have resulted in marriage stability due to tasks being carried out by both partners, such as working late-nights and picking up ill children from school.[120] Although the gap in gender roles still exists, roles have become less gendered and more equal in marriages compared to how they were traditionally.
Sexual orientation
[edit]| Part of a series on |
| LGBTQ people |
|---|
|
|
Sexual orientation is defined by the interplay between a person's emotional and physical attraction toward others.[121] Generally, sexual orientation is broken into the three categories: heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. By basic definition, the term heterosexual is typically used in reference to someone who is attracted to people of the opposite sex, the term homosexual is used to classify people who are attracted to those of the same sex, and the term bisexual is used to identify those who are attracted to both the same and opposite sexes.[122] Sexual orientation can be variously defined based on sexual identity, sexual behavior and sexual attraction. People can fall anywhere on a spectrum from strictly heterosexual to strictly homosexual.[123]
Scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, but they theorize that it is caused by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[124][125][126] and do not view it as a choice.[124][125][127] Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically based theories.[124] There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.[128][129][130] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role with regard to sexual orientation.[131]
An active conflict over the cultural acceptability of non-heterosexuality rages worldwide.[132][133][134][135][136][page needed] The belief or assumption that heterosexual relationships and acts are "normal" is described as heterosexism or in queer theory, heteronormativity. Gender identity and sexual orientation are two separate aspects of individual identity, although they are often mistaken in the media.[137]
Perhaps it is an attempt to reconcile this conflict that leads to a common assumption that one same-sex partner assumes a pseudo-male gender role and the other assumes a pseudo-female role. For a gay male relationship, this might lead to the assumption that the "wife" handled domestic chores, was the receptive sexual partner, adopted effeminate mannerisms, and perhaps even dressed in women's clothing.[138] This assumption is flawed because homosexual couples tend to have more equal roles, and the effeminate behavior of some gay men is usually not adopted consciously, and is often more subtle.[139]
Cohabitating same-sex partners are typically egalitarian when they assign domestic chores.[140] Sometimes these couples assign traditional female responsibilities to one partner and traditional male responsibilities to the other. Same-sex domestic partners challenge traditional gender roles in their division of household responsibilities, and gender roles within homosexual relationships are flexible.[141] For instance, cleaning and cooking, traditionally regarded by many as both female responsibilities, might be assigned to different people. Carrington observed the daily home lives of 52 gay and lesbian couples and found that the length of the work week and level of earning power substantially affected the assignment of housework, regardless of gender or sexuality.[142][140]
In many cultures, gender roles, especially for men, simultaneously act as an indicator for heterosexuality, and as a boundary of acceptable behavior for straight people. Therefore, lesbians, gay men and bisexual people may be viewed as exempt from some or all components of gender roles or as having different "rules" they are expected to follow by society.
These modified "rules" for lesbian, gay and bisexual people may also be oppressive. Morgan examines the plight of homosexuals seeking asylum from homophobic persecution who have been turned away by US customs for "not being gay enough"; not conforming sufficiently to standard (Western) conceptions of the gender roles occupied by gays and lesbians.[143]
Conversely, heterosexual men and women who are not perceived as being sufficiently masculine or feminine, respectively, may be assumed to be, or suspected to be, homosexual, and persecuted for their perceived homosexuality.
Communication
[edit]Gender communication is viewed as a form of intercultural communication; and gender is both an influence on and a product of communication.
Communication plays a large role in the process in which people become male or female because each gender is taught different linguistic practices. Gender is dictated by society through expectations of behavior and appearances, and then is shared from one person to another, by the process of communication.[144] Gender does not create communication, communication creates gender.[145][page needed]
For example, females are often more expressive and intuitive in their communication, but males tend to be instrumental and competitive. In addition, there are differences in accepted communication behaviors for males and females. To improve communication between genders, people who identify as either male or female must understand the differences between each gender.[146]
As found by Cara Tigue (McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada) the importance of powerful vocal delivery for women in leadership[147] could not be underestimated, as famously described in accounts of Margaret Thatcher's years in power.[148]
Nonverbal communication
[edit]Hall published an observational study on nonverbal gender differences and discussed the cultural reasons for these differences.[149] In her study, she noted women smile and laugh more and have a better understanding of nonverbal cues. She believed women were encouraged to be more emotionally expressive in their language, causing them to be more developed in nonverbal communication.
Men, on the other hand, were taught to be less expressive, to suppress their emotions, and to be less nonverbally active in communication and more sporadic in their use of nonverbal cues. Most studies researching nonverbal communication described women as being more expressively and judgmentally accurate in nonverbal communication when it was linked to emotional expression; other nonverbal expressions were similar or the same for both genders.[150]
McQuiston and Morris also noted a major difference in men and women's nonverbal communication. They found that men tend to show body language linked to dominance, like eye contact and interpersonal distance, more than women.[151]
Communication and gender cultures
[edit]
According to author Julia Wood, there are distinct communication 'cultures' for women and men in the US.[152] She believes that in addition to female and male communication cultures, there are also specific communication cultures for African Americans, older people, Native Americans, gay men, lesbians, and people with disabilities. According to Wood, it is generally thought that biological sex is behind the distinct ways of communicating, but in her opinion the root of these differences is gender.[153]
Maltz and Broker's research suggested that the games children play may contribute to socializing children into masculine and feminine gender roles:[154] for example, girls being encouraged to play "house" may promote stereotypically feminine traits, and may promote interpersonal relationships as playing house does not necessarily have fixed rules or objectives; boys tended to play more competitive and adversarial team sports with structured, predetermined goals and a range of confined strategies.
In religion
[edit]Different religious and cultural groups within one country may have different norms that they attempt to "police" within their own groups, including gender norms.
Christianity
[edit]
The roles of women in Christianity can vary considerably today (as they have varied historically since the first century church). This is especially true in marriage and in formal ministry positions within certain Christian denominations, churches, and parachurch organizations.
Many leadership roles in the organized church have been restricted to males. In the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, only men may serve as priests or deacons, and in senior leadership positions such as pope, patriarch, and bishop. Women may serve as abbesses. Some mainstream Protestant denominations are beginning to relax their longstanding constraints on ordaining women to be ministers, though some large groups are tightening their constraints in reaction.[155] Many subsets of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements have embraced the ordination of women since their founding.[156]
Christian "saints", persons of exceptional holiness of life having attained the beatific vision (heaven), can include female saints.[157] Most prominent is Mary, mother of Jesus who is highly revered throughout Christianity, particularly in the Catholic and Orthodox churches where she is considered the "Theotokos", i.e. "Mother of God". Women prominent in Christianity have included contemporaries of Jesus, subsequent theologians, abbesses, mystics, doctors of the church, founders of religious orders, military leaders, monarchs and martyrs, evidencing the variety of roles played by women within the life of Christianity. Paul the Apostle held women in high regard and worthy of prominent positions in the church, though he was careful not to encourage disregard for the New Testament household codes, also known as New Testament Domestic Codes or Haustafelen, of Greco-Roman law in the first century.
Islam
[edit]According to Dhami and Sheikh, gender roles in Muslim countries are centered on the importance of the family unit, which is viewed as the basis of a balanced and healthy society.[158] Islamic views on gender roles and family are traditionally conservative.
Many Muslim-majority countries, most prominently Saudi Arabia, have interpretations of religious doctrine regarding gender roles embedded in their laws.[159] In the United Arab Emirates, non-Muslim Western women can wear crop tops, whereas Muslim women are expected to dress much more modestly when in public. In some Muslim countries, these differences are sometimes even codified in law.
In some Muslim-majority countries, even non-Muslim women are expected to follow Muslim female gender norms and Islamic law to a certain extent, such as by covering their hair. (Women visiting from other countries sometimes object to this norm and sometimes decide to comply on pragmatic grounds, in the interest of their own safety , such as "modest" dress codes which failing to abide by risk being perceived as a prostitute.)
Islamic prophet Muhammad described the high status of mothers in both of the major hadith collections (Bukhari and Muslim). One famous account is:
"A man asked the Prophet: 'Whom should I honor most?' The Prophet replied: 'Your mother'. 'And who comes next?' asked the man. The Prophet replied: 'Your mother'. 'And who comes next?' asked the man. The Prophet replied: 'Your mother!'. 'And who comes next?' asked the man. The Prophet replied: 'Your father'"
The Qur'an prescribes that the status of a woman should be nearly as high as that of a man.[160]
How gender roles are honored is largely cultural. While some cultures encourage men and women to take on the same roles, others promote a more traditional, less dominant role for the women.[161]
Hinduism
[edit]Hindu deities are more ambiguously gendered than the deities of other world religions. This informs female and males relations, and informs how the differences between males and females are understood.[162]

However, in a religious cosmology like Hinduism, which prominently features female and androgynous deities, some gender transgression is allowed. This group is known as the hijras, and has a long tradition of performing in important rituals, such as the birth of sons and weddings. Despite this allowance for transgression, Hindu cultural traditions portray women in contradictory ways. Women's fertility is given great value, but female sexuality is depicted as potentially dangerous and destructive.[163]
In the military
[edit]
Women have been serving in the military since the inception of organized warfare, in both combat and non-combat roles. Their inclusion in combat missions has increased in recent decades, often serving as pilots, mechanics, and infantry officers.
Since 1914,[164] women have been conscripted in greater numbers, filling a greater variety of roles in Western militaries. In the 1970s, most Western armies began allowing women to serve on active duty in all military branches.[165]
As of 2025, twelve countries (China, Denmark, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, the Netherlands, North Korea, Norway, Peru, Sweden, and Taiwan) conscript women into military service. Of these countries, only four conscript women and men on the same formal conditions: Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.[166][167][168][169] A few other countries have laws allowing for the conscription of women into their armed forces, though with some differences such as service exemptions, length of service, and more.[170]In the workplace
[edit]
Gender stereotypes can disadvantage women during the hiring process.[171] It is one explanation for the lack of women in key organizational positions.[172] Management and similar leader positions are often perceived to be "masculine" in type, meaning they are assumed to require aggressiveness, competitiveness, strength and independence. These traits do not line up with the perceived traditional female gender role stereotype.[173] (This is often referred to as the "lack of fit" model which describes the dynamics of the gender bias.[174]) Therefore, the perception that women do not possess these "masculine" qualities, limits their ability to be hired or promoted into managerial positions.
One's performance at work is also evaluated based on one's gender. If a female and a male worker show the same performance, the implications of that performance vary depending on the person's gender and on who observes the performance; if a man performs exceedingly well he is perceived as driven or goal-oriented and generally seen in a positive light while a woman showing a similar performance is often described using adjectives with negative connotations.[175] Female performance is therefore not evaluated neutrally or unbiased and stereotyped in ways to deem their equivalent levels and quality of work as instead of lesser value.
A study in 2001 found that if a woman does act according to female stereotypes, she is likely to receive backlash for not being competent enough; if she does not act according to the stereotypes connected to her gender and behaves more masculine, it is likely to cause backlash through third-party punishment or further job discrimination.[176] This puts women in the workforce in a precarious, "double bind" situation.[177] A proposed step to protect women is the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, as it would prohibit gender-based discrimination[178] regardless of if a woman is acting according to female gender stereotypes, or in defiance of them.
Consequently, that gender stereotype filter leads to a lack of fair evaluation and, in turn, to fewer women occupying higher paying positions. Gender stereotypes contain women at certain, lower levels; getting trapped within the glass ceiling. While the number of women in the workforce occupying management positions is slowly increasing,[179] women currently fill only 2.5% of the higher managerial positions in the United States.[180] The fact that most women are being allocated to occupations that pay less, is often cited as a contributor to the existing gender pay gap.[181][182]
In relation to white women, women of color are disproportionally affected by the negative influence their gender has on their chances in the labor market.[183] In 2005, women held only 14.7% of Fortune 500 board seats with 79% of them being white and 21% being women of color.[180] This difference is understood through intersectionality, a term describing the multiple and intersecting oppressions an individual might experience. Activists during second-wave feminism have also used the term "horizontal oppressions" to describe this phenomenon.[184] It has also been suggested that women of color in addition to the glass ceiling, face a "concrete wall" or a "sticky floor" to better visualize the barriers.[180]
Liberal feminist theory states that due to these systemic factors of oppression and discrimination, women are often deprived of equal work experiences because they are not provided equal opportunities on the basis of legal rights. Liberal feminists further propose that an end needs to be put to discrimination based on gender through legal means, leading to equality and major economic redistributions.[185][186]
While activists have tried calling on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide an equal hiring and promotional process, that practice has had limited success.[187] The pay gap between men and women is slowly closing. Women make approximately 21% less than their male counterparts according to the Department of Labor.[188] This number varies by age, race, and other perceived attributes of hiring agents. A proposed step towards solving the problem of the gender pay gap and the unequal work opportunities is the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment which would constitutionally guarantee equal rights for women.[189][190][191][192] This is hoped to end gender-based discrimination and provide equal opportunities for women.
In sports
[edit]As strength has been strongly associated to masculinity for many years,[193] sports have evolved into a significant representation of expressions of masculinity[194][page needed] and hence, are commonly perceived as a predominantly male domain.[195] However, this does not completely neglect the position and role of women in sports. This is evident from the number of females participating in sport has increasing in recent years.
As the belief in gender stereotypes is continuously upheld in society,[196] sporting events have been divided according to how the sport is characterised, which leads to the conceptualisation of male and female sports.[197] Certain traits and sporting events in the sport domain have conventionally been attributed to males and the rest to females. Female sports, expressing the concepts of femininity, are often characterised with flexibility and balance, such as gymnastics or aesthetic sports like dance. Conversely, male sports constitute the idea of masculinity, which is portrayed through strength, speed, aggression and power, such as in football and basketball.[197][198][199]
The element of beauty in women's sport seems to play a crucial role in the perceived femininity of a sport. This could be due to it being a vital facet in the general concept of femininity itself.[193] The objectification of the female form persists, with women being conditioned to utilize their bodies for the satisfaction of others and to measure their looks against the prevailing feminine standard.[200][201][202][203] The devaluation of female athleticism due their bodies can be seen in the sport uniforms, where in some sports, such as beach volleyball, gymnastics and figure skating, males and females don different uniforms in competitions. In the aforementioned sports, female uniforms expose more of their bodies than the male uniforms do despite the lack of evidence that such uniforms would significantly improve their skills.[193]
While the distinction between male and female sports exist, females participating in male sports is more socially acceptable than the reverse, as questions would arise regarding the masculinity of males competing in the female sports.[204] In a study conducted by Klomsten et al. (2005), they discovered that a majority of the females believed that certain sports are better suited for girls than for boys. Hence, they inferred that females do not prefer the idea of males, known to be strong and masculine, participating in feminine sports.[193]
Sport media coverage of males and females differ significantly and this could attribute to the perpetuation of stereotypical gender roles as well as adversely influencing perceptions of women's abilities.[205] Male athletes are often portrayed based on their strength and physical prowess, while female athletes are more frequently depicted in relation to their physical attractiveness and, at times, their sexualized attributes.[206]
Despite the increasing participation and remarkable achievements of female athletes, media coverage of women's sport have yet to catch up with this significant advancement.[207][208][209] Female athletes and women's sport receive notably less media attention compared to their male counterparts across various forms of media, and this underrepresentation has worsened over the years, despite the rising levels of female participation and performance.[207][210]
The depiction of female athletes and women's sport in the media also tends to vary in terms of tone, production quality in a manner that minimises their efforts and performance.[211] One prevalent practice in sport media coverage is the use of gender marking.[206] The presentation of male athletes and men's sport is regarded as the standard, while their female counterparts are often considered as the "other" or outside of this norm,[206] as seen in the naming of events, such as "Women's World Cup" while the men's event being simply named as the "World Cup". The use of first names and being referred to as "girls" or "young ladies" for female athletes is also seen as infantilizing, which reinforces the lower regard for female athletes and perpetuates pre-existing negative perceptions of women's sport.[206] The quality of production and filming of men's and women's sport, such as the use of on-screen graphics, shot variations, duration of video frames and camera angles, are also significantly distinct. This influences the audience perceptions by illustrating women's sport as less significant and engaging.[212] Thus, female athletes not only face a lack of media coverage, but the little amount of coverage tends to reinforce the hegemonic masculinity present in sport.[213]
While online sites that promote and cover female athletes exist, these coverages are primarily only found in "niche" sites, which continues to pose challenges in overcoming the prevailing ideology of hegemonic masculinity deeply rooted in sports.[206] Therefore, despite the growing participation and outstanding athletic achievements of girls and women, female athletes and women's sports still have a long way to go in achieving equal treatment and fair representation in sports media coverage.[205]
In media
[edit]In today's society, media saturates nearly every aspect of one's life. It seems inevitable for society to be influenced by the media and what it is portraying.[107] Roles are gendered, meaning that both males and females are viewed and treated differently according to biological sex, and because gendered roles are learned, the media has a direct impact on individuals. Thinking about the way in which couples act on romantic television shows or movies and the way women are portrayed as passive in magazine ads, reveals a lot about how gender roles are viewed in society and in heterosexual marriages.[107] Traditional gendered roles view the man as a "pro-creator, a protector, and a provider," and the woman as "pretty and polite but not too aggressive, not too outspoken and not too smart."[113] Media aids in society conforming to these traditional gendered views. People learn through imitation and social-interaction both in the physical world and through the media; television, magazines, advertisements, newspapers, the Internet, etc.[113] Michael Messner argues that "gendered interactions, structure, and cultural meanings are intertwined, in both mutually reinforcing and contradictory ways."[214]
Women are also largely under-represented across multiple types of media.[215] A statistical disparity of the male to female ratio shown on television has existed for decades and is constantly changing and improving. Three decades ago findings highlight that males outnumbered females on a ratio of 2.5 to 1.[216] A decade later this number was at 1.66 men for every woman, and in 2008 the ratio was 1.2 to 1 in the US.[217] In 2010 it was found that the ratio of men to women in successful G-rate movies is 2.57 to 1.[218] Notable social theory such as Bandura's social cognitive theory highlights the importance of seeing people in media that are similar to oneself. In other words it is valuable for girls to see similarities to those represented in media.[219]
Television's influence on society, specifically the influence of television advertisements, is shown in studies such as that of Jörg Matthes, Michael Prieler, and Karoline Adam. Their study into television advertising has shown that women are much more likely to be shown in a setting in the home compared to men. The study also shows that women are shown much less in work-like settings. This underrepresentation in television advertising is seen in many countries around the world, but is very present in developed countries.[220] In another study in the Journal of Social Psychology, many television advertisements in countries around the world are seen targeting women at different times of the day than men. Advertisements for products directed towards female viewers are shown during the day on weekdays, while products for men are shown during weekends. The same article shows that a study on adults and television media has also seen that the more television adults watch, the more likely they are to believe or support the gender roles that are illustrated. The support of the presented gender stereotypes can lead to a negative view of feminism or sexual aggression.[221]
It has been presented in a journal article by Emerald Group Publishing Limited that adolescent girls have been affected by the stereotypical view of women in media. Girls feel pressured and stressed to achieve a particular appearance, and there have been negative consequences for the young girls if they fail to achieve this look. These consequences have ranged from anxiety to eating disorders. In an experiment described in this journal article, young girls described pictures of women in advertisements as unrealistic and fake; the women were dressed in revealing clothing which sexualised them and exposed their thin figures, which were gazed upon by the public, creating an issue with stereotyping in the media.
It has also been presented that children are affected by gender roles in the media. Children's preferences in television characters are most likely to be to characters of the same gender. Because children favor characters of the same gender, the characteristics of the character are also looked to by children.[222] Another journal article by Emerald Group Publishing Limited examined the underrepresentation of women in children's television shows between 1930 and 1960. While studies between 1960 and 1990 showed an increase in the representation of women in television, studies conducted between 1990 and 2005, a time when women were considered to be equal to men by some, show no change in the representation of women in children's television shows. Women, being underrepresented in children's television shows, are also often portrayed as married or in a relationship, while men are more likely to be single. This reoccurring theme in relationship status can be reflected in the ideals of children that only see this type of representation.[223]
Gender Roles in Social Media
[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. (March 2024) |
This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (March 2024) |
Social media has become an integral part of daily life for nearly everyone, serving as a dominant source of information and communication. Women's presentation on social media is directly influenced, with platforms utilizing metrics like numbers and publicity to endorse certain ideals in posts. Perceptions propagated through social media significantly shape real-life thinking and opinions regarding gender. According to professor Brook Duffy at Cornell University,[224] social media operates as a meritocracy, yet women's voices are often underrepresented and carry less weight in the public sphere.
The creation of an online identity on social media can also lead to the perpetuation of false narratives about gender, setting unrealistic standards for both women and men. Body image plays a significant role in this, particularly affecting the mental health of young women and men who internalize beauty standards portrayed online, leading to dissatisfaction and harassment.[225] A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that women are more likely to have multiple social media accounts, making them more likely to internalize their body image and be influenced by the cultural stereotypes of female beauty. The emphasis on body image on social media platforms fosters daily comparisons and exposes individuals to sexualized media, increasing self-image insecurity. Furthermore, social media has also contributed to the spread of sexist beliefs and sexualized images of men.[226] However, hashtags like #loveyourself and #allbodiesarebeautiful have sparked movements to challenge these standards.
Despite these challenges, social media has also created new opportunities for women in the workplace, particularly as influencers. However, gender disparities persist, with male influencers generally outperforming their female counterparts. Additionally, media contents across various platforms perpetuate gender stereotypes, with women often portrayed in cosmetic and fashion advertisements, while men are associated with gaming and knowledge. On an economic aspect, social media is driven by gendered advertisements and commercials, often reinforcing stereotypical representations of gender. Algorithms on social media platforms can further exacerbate discriminatory recommendations, reflecting the biases of programmers. Overall, social media's influence on gender norms is profound, shaping perceptions, behaviors, and opportunities in both virtual and real-life settings.
Online
[edit]An example of gender stereotypes assumes those of the male gender are more 'tech savvy' and happier working online, however, a study done by Hargittai & Shafer,[227] shows that many women also typically have lower self-perceived abilities when it comes to use of the World Wide Web and online navigation skills. Because this stereotype is so well known many women assume they lack such technical skills when in reality, the gap in technological skill level between men and women is significantly less than many women assume.
In the journal article written by Elizabeth Behm-Morawitz video games have been guilty of using sexualised female characters, who wear revealing clothing with an 'ideal' figure. It has been shown, female gamers can experience lower self-efficacy when playing a game with a sexualized female character. Women have been stereotyped in online games and have shown to be quite sexist in their appearances. It has been shown these kind of character appearances have influenced peoples' beliefs about gender capabilities by assigning certain qualities to the male and female characters in different games.[228]
The concept of gender inequality is often perceived as something that is non-existent within the online community, because of the anonymity possible online. Remote or home-working greatly reduces the volume of information one individual gives another compared to face-to-face encounters,[229] providing fewer opportunities for unequal treatment but it seems real-world notions of power and privilege are being duplicated: people who choose to take up different identities (avatars) in the online world are (still) routinely discriminated against, evident in online gaming where users are able to create their own characters. This freedom allows the user to create characters and identities with a different appearance than their own in reality, essentially allowing them to create a new identity, confirming that regardless of actual gender those who are perceived as female are treated differently.
In contrast to the traditional stereotype that gamers are mostly male, a study in 2014 of U.K. residents showed that 52% of the gaming audience was made up of women. The study counted players of mobile games as part of the gaming audience, but still found that 56% of female gamers had played on a console.[230] However, only 12% of game designers in Britain and 3% of all programmers were women.[231]
Despite the growing number of women who partake in online communities, and the anonymous space provided by the Internet, issues such as gender inequality, the issue has simply been transplanted into the online world.
In criminal justice
[edit]A number of studies conducted since the mid-90s have found direct correlation between a female criminal's ability to conform to gender role stereotypes and the severity of her sentencing, particularly among female murderers.[232][233][234][235] "In terms of the social realities of justice in America, the experiences of diverse groups of people in society have contributed to the shaping of the types of criminals and victims that we have had. Like Andersen and Hill Collins (1998: 4) in their discussion of what they refer to as a 'matrix of domination,' we too conceive that class, race, and gender represent "multiple, interlocking levels of domination that stem from the societal configurations of these structural relationships. These patterned actions, in turn, affecting individual consciousness, group interaction, and individual and group access to institutional power and privileges.'"[236] "Patterns of offending by men and by women are notable both for their similarities and for their differences. Both men and women are more heavily involved in minor property and substance abuse offenses than in serious crimes like robbery or murder. However, men offend at much higher rates than women for all crime categories except prostitution. This gender gap in crime is greatest for serious crime and least for mild forms of lawbreaking such as minor property crimes."[237]
Gender roles in family violence
[edit]The 'Family Violence Framework' applies gender dynamics to family violence.[238][239] "Families are constructed around relationships that involve obligations and responsibilities, but also status and power".[238] According to Hattery and Smith, when "masculinity and femininity are constructed...to generate these rigid and narrow gender roles, it contributes to a culture of violence against women"[240] "People with more resources are more likely to be abusive towards those without resources", meaning that the stronger member of the relationship abuses the weaker partner or family member.[238] However, the fight for power and equality remains – "Intimate partner violence in same-sex couples reveals that the rates are similar to those in the heterosexual community".[241]
In economy and society
[edit]
Traditional gender roles assume women will serve as the primary caregivers for children and the elderly, regardless of whether they also work outside of the home. Sociology scholar Arlie Hochschild delves into this phenomenon in her book, The Second Shift.[242] This "second shift" refers to the unpaid work women take on in the private sphere—housework, cooking, cleaning, and caring for the family unit.[243] Economically, this restricts a women's ability to advance in her career due to her added (unpaid) responsibilities at home. Gender roles have influenced the idea that women are well suited for more feminine roles such as housekeeping and domestic duties.[244] The OECD found "Around the world, women spend two to ten times more time on unpaid care work than men."[245] In 2020 alone, women provided over $689 billion in unpaid labor to the U.S. economy.[246] Lee and Fang found, "Compared with Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian Americans took more extensive caregiving responsibilities."[247]
Across all demographics, women are more likely to live in poverty compared to men.[248][249] This is largely due to the gender wage gap between men and women. Correcting these wage gaps would increase women's salaries from an annual average earning of $41,402 to $48,326 increasing the income of the U.S economy.[249] The gender wage gap is largely racial—in the U.S., American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) women, Black women, and Latina women disproportionately experience poverty and larger wage gaps compared with White and Asian women.[248] Women are also more likely to live in poverty if they are single mothers and solely responsible for providing for their children. Poverty among single working mothers would fall 40% or more if women earn equal wages to men.[248]
Specifically, in the immigrant demographic, migrant women are subject to lesser benefits and wage gaps compared to that of what migrant men receive. Preceding 1984 to 1994–2004, Mexican migrant women earned $6.0 to $7.40 per hour alongside their unpaid domestic responsibilities.[250] Similarly, gender roles apply for immigrant women in the workplace as their skill level does not guarantee equitable participation in the economy.[251] The 1986 immigration policy, impacted the employment of migrant men and women, specifically women with lower wages and higher demands. This trend continued in the United States as immigration policy has persistently been grouped into political affiliations alongside various other social, economic, and geographical factors.[252]
The saving rate can differ by gender, with a 2010 study finding lower saving, lower financial literacy and higher risk aversion for women in the United States.[253]
In politics
[edit]Political ideologies
[edit]Modern social conservatives tend to support traditional gender roles. Right wing political parties often oppose women's rights and transgender rights.[254][255] These familialist views are often shaped by the religious fundamentalism, traditional family values, and cultural values of their voter base.[256][better source needed]
Modern social liberals tend to oppose traditional gender roles, especially for women. Left wing political parties tend to support women's rights and transgender rights. In contrast to social conservatives, their views are more influenced by secularism, feminism, and progressivism.[257]
In political office
[edit]Even though the number of women running for elected office in the United States has increased over the last decades, they still only make up 20% of U.S. senators, 19.4% of U.S. congressional representatives and 24% of statewide executives.[258] Additionally, many of these political campaigns appear to focus on the aggressiveness of the female candidate which is often still perceived as a masculine trait.[259] Therefore, female candidates are running based on gender-opposing stereotypes because that predicts higher likelihood of success than appearing to be a stereotypical woman.[citation needed]
Elections of increasing numbers of women into office serves as a basis for many scholars to claim that voters are not biased towards a candidate's gender. However, it has been shown that female politicians are perceived as only being superior when it comes to handling women's rights and poverty, whereas male politicians are perceived to be better at dealing with crime and foreign affairs.[260] That view lines up with the most common gender stereotypes.
It has also been predicted that gender highly matters only for female candidates that have not been politically established. These predictions apply further to established candidates, stating that gender would not be a defining factor for their campaigns or the focal point of media coverage. This has been refuted by multiple scholars, often based on Hillary Clinton's multiple campaigns for the office of President of the United States.[261][262][263]
Additionally, when voters have little information about a female candidate, they are likely to view her as being a stereotypical woman which they often take as a basis for not electing her because they consider typical male qualities as being crucial for someone holding a political office.[264]
Feminism and women's rights
[edit]
Throughout the 20th century, women in the United States saw a dramatic shift in social and professional aspirations and norms. Following the Women's Suffrage Movement of the late-nineteenth century, which resulted in the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment allowing women to vote, and in combination with conflicts in Europe, WWI and WWII, women found themselves shifted into the industrial workforce. During this time, women were expected to take up industrial jobs and support the troops abroad through the means of domestic industry. Moving from "homemakers" and "caregivers", women were now factory workers and "breadwinners" for the family.
However, after the war, men returned home to the United States and women, again, saw a shift in social and professional dynamics. With the reuniting of the nuclear family, the ideals of American Suburbia boomed. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, middle-class families moved in droves from urban living into newly developed single-family homes on former farmland just outside major cities. Thus established what many modern critics describe as the "private sphere".[265] Though frequently sold and idealized as "perfect living",[266] many women had difficulty adjusting to the new "private sphere". Writer Betty Friedan described this discontent as "the feminine mystique". The "mystique" was derived from women equipped with the knowledge, skills, and aspirations of the workforce, the "public sphere", who felt compelled whether socially or morally to devote themselves to the home and family.[267]
One major concern of feminism, is that women occupy lower-ranking job positions than men, and do most of the housework.[268] A recent (October 2009) report from the Center for American Progress, "The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything" tells us that women now make up 48% of the US workforce and "mothers are breadwinners or co-breadwinners in a majority of families" (63.3%, see figure 2, page 19 of the Executive Summary of The Shriver Report).[269]

Another recent article in The New York Times indicates that young women today are closing the pay gap. Luisita Lopez Torregrosa has noted, "Women are ahead of men in education (last year, 55 percent of U.S. college graduates were female). And a study shows that in most U.S. cities, single, childless women under 30 are making an average of 8 percent more money than their male counterparts, with Atlanta and Miami in the lead at 20 percent."[270]
Feminist theory generally defines gender as a social construct that includes ideologies governing feminine/masculine (female/male) appearances, actions, and behaviors.[271] An example of these gender roles would be that males were supposed to be the educated breadwinners of the family, and occupiers of the public sphere whereas, the female's duty was to be a homemaker, take care of her husband and children, and occupy the private sphere. According to contemporary gender role ideology, gender roles are continuously changing. This can be seen in Londa Schiebinger's Has Feminism Changed Science, in which she states, "Gendered characteristics – typically masculine or feminine behaviors, interests, or values-are not innate, nor are they arbitrary. They are formed by historical circumstances. They can also change with historical circumstances."[272]
One example of the contemporary definition of gender was depicted in Sally Shuttleworth's Female Circulation in which the, "abasement of the woman, reducing her from an active participant in the labor market to the passive bodily existence to be controlled by male expertise is indicative of the ways in which the ideological deployment of gender roles operated to facilitate and sustain the changing structure of familial and market relations in Victorian England."[273] In other words, this shows what it meant to grow up into the roles (gender roles) of a female in Victorian England, which transitioned from being a homemaker to being a working woman and then back to being passive and inferior to males. In conclusion, gender roles in the contemporary sex gender model are socially constructed, always changing, and do not really exist since they are ideologies that society constructs in order for various benefits at various times in history.
Men's rights
[edit]
The men's rights movement (MRM) is a part of the larger men's movement. It branched off from the men's liberation movement in the early-1970s. The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who are concerned about what they consider to be issues of male disadvantage, discrimination and oppression.[274][275] The movement focuses on issues in numerous areas of society (including family law, parenting, reproduction, domestic violence) and government services (including education, compulsory military service, social safety nets, and health policies) that they believe discriminate against men.
Scholars consider the men's rights movement or parts of the movement to be a backlash to feminism.[276] The men's rights movement denies that men are privileged relative to women.[277] The movement is divided into two camps: those who consider men and women to be harmed equally by sexism, and those who view society as endorsing the degradation of men and upholding female privilege.[277]
Men's rights groups have called for male-focused governmental structures to address issues specific to men and boys including education, health, work and marriage.[278][279][280] Men's rights groups in India have called for the creation of a Men's Welfare Ministry and a National Commission for Men, as well as the abolition of the National Commission for Women.[278][281][282] In the United Kingdom, the creation of a Minister for Men analogous to the existing Minister for Women, have been proposed by David Amess, MP and Lord Northbourne, but were rejected by the government of Tony Blair.[279][283][284] In the United States, Warren Farrell heads a commission focused on the creation of a "White House Council on Boys and Men" as a counterpart to the "White House Council on Women and Girls" which was formed in March 2009.[280]
Related to this is the Father's Rights Movement, whose members seek social and political reforms that affect fathers and their children.[285] These individuals contest that societal institutions such as family courts, and laws relating to child custody and child support payments, are gender biased in favor of mothers as the default caregiver. They therefore are systemically discriminatory against males regardless of their actual caregiving ability, because males are typically seen as the bread-winner, and females as the care-giver.[286]
Gender neutrality
[edit]Gender neutrality is the movement to end discrimination of gender altogether in society through means of gender neutral language, the end of sex segregation and other means.
Transgender and cross-dressing
[edit]Transgender is the state of one's gender identity or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex.[287] Transgender is independent of sexual orientation; transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc.; some may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable to them. The definition of transgender includes:
- "Denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex."[288]
- "People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves."[289]
- "Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the sex (and assumed gender) one was assigned at birth."[290]
While people self-identify as transgender, the transgender identity umbrella includes sometimes-overlapping categories. These include transsexual; cross-dresser; genderqueer; androgyne; and bigender.[291] Usually not included are transvestic fetishists (because it is considered to be a paraphilia rather than gender identification), and drag kings and drag queens, who are performers who cross-dress for the purpose of entertaining. In an interview, celebrity drag queen RuPaul talked about society's ambivalence to the differences in the people who embody these terms. "A friend of mine recently did the Oprah show about transgender youth", said RuPaul. "It was obvious that we, as a culture, have a hard time trying to understand the difference between a drag queen, transsexual, and a transgender, yet we find it very easy to know the difference between the American baseball league and the National baseball league, when they are both so similar."[292]
By country
[edit]See also
[edit]- Anti-gender movement
- Childhood gender nonconformity
- Dominatrix
- Gender bender
- Gender polarization
- Gender policing
- Gendered associations of pink and blue
- Locus of control#Gender-based differences
- Male expendability
- Misandry
- Misogyny
- Sex and gender distinction
- Sexual inversion (sexology)
- Women and children first
- Women-are-wonderful effect
References
[edit]- ^ Buhl, Sarah; Führer, Jennifer L.; Asbrock, Frank (2023). "Sex Roles". Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior. Springer, Cham. pp. 1–12. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_2133-1. ISBN 978-3-031-08956-5. Archived from the original on 14 April 2025. Retrieved 25 December 2024.
- ^ Scott Carter, J.; Corra, Mamadi; Carter, Shannon K. (March 2009). "The Interaction of Race and Gender: Changing Gender-Role Attitudes, 1974–2006". Social Science Quarterly. 90 (1): 196–211. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00611.x. ISSN 0038-4941.
- ^ Miller, Andrea L.; Borgida, Eugene (22 January 2016). "The Separate Spheres Model of Gendered Inequality". PLOS ONE. 11 (1) e0147315. Bibcode:2016PLoSO..1147315M. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147315. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4723260. PMID 26800454.
- ^ Levesque R.J.R. (2011) Sex Roles and Gender Roles Archived 1 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine. In: Levesque R.J.R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Adolescence. Springer, New York, NY. ISBN 978-1-4419-1695-2. Retrieved 22 January 2018.
- ^ Lindsey, Linda L. (14 October 2015). Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-317-34808-5. Retrieved 19 December 2022.
Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and behaviors a society associates with each sex.
- ^ Alters, Sandra; Schiff, Wendy (2009). Essential Concepts for Healthy Living. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-7637-5641-3. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
gender role - patterns of behavior, attitudes, and personality attributes that are traditionally considered in a particular culture to be feminine or masculine.
- ^ David S. Gochman (1997). Handbook of Health Behavior Research II: Provider Determinants. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 424. ISBN 978-1-4899-1760-7. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
The social roles, behaviors, attitudes, and psychological characteristics that are more common, more expected, or more accepted for one sex or the other; includes a group of interrelated behaviors, attitudes, and psychological characteristics that influence a variety of risk and risk-taking behaviors as well as care-seeking behaviors.
- ^ Lindsey, Linda L. (2015). Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective. Routledge. pp. 4–5. ISBN 978-1-317-34808-5. Retrieved 6 March 2023.
- ^ Adler, Patricia A.; Kless, Steven J.; Adler, Peter (July 1992). "Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity among Elementary School Boys and Girls". Sociology of Education. 65 (3): 169–187. doi:10.2307/2112807. JSTOR 2112807.
- ^ Dill, Karen E.; Thill, Kathryn P. (December 2007). "Video Game Characters and the Socialization of Gender Roles: Young People's Perceptions Mirror Sexist Media Depictions". Sex Roles. 57 (11–12): 851–864. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9278-1. S2CID 55706950.
- ^ Dietz, Tracy L. (March 1998). "An Examination of Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behavior". Sex Roles. 38 (5–6): 425–442. doi:10.1023/A:1018709905920. S2CID 56032975.
- ^ Roscoe, Will (17 June 2000). Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-22479-6.
See also: Trumbach, Randolph (1994). London's Sapphists: From Three Sexes to Four Genders in the Making of Modern Culture. In Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History, edited by Gilbert Herdt, 111–36. New York: Zone (MIT). ISBN 978-0-942299-82-3 - ^ Richards, Christina; Bouman, Walter Pierre; Barker, Meg-John (2017). Genderqueer and non-binary genders. United Kingdom: Macmillan. pp. 22, 306. ISBN 978-1-137-51053-2.
- ^ Graham, Sharyn (April–June 2001). "Sulawesi's fifth gender". Inside Indonesia. Archived from the original on 4 June 2009.
- ^ Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons (1966). "Sex differences in intellectual functioning". The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. pp. 25–55. ISBN 978-0-8047-0308-6.
- ^ "LGBTQ Needs Assessment" (PDF). Encompass Network. April 2013. pp. 52–53. Retrieved 6 March 2015. "Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire LGBTQ Needs Assessment" (PDF). April 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 October 2014. Retrieved 18 October 2014.
- ^ Lopez, German (18 April 2016). "9 questions about gender identity and being transgender you were too embarrassed to ask". Vox. Archived from the original on 27 September 2017. Retrieved 31 July 2016.
Transitioning can be made much more difficult by persistent misconceptions, including the myth that transgender people belong to a third gender.
- ^ Sykes, Heather (2006). "Transsexual and Transgender Policies in Sport". Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal. 15 (1): 3–13. doi:10.1123/wspaj.15.1.3. Retrieved 31 July 2016.
- ^ Adler, P.; Kless, S.; Adler, P. (1992). "Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls". Sociology of Education. 65 (3): 169–087. doi:10.2307/2112807. JSTOR 2112807.
- ^ Acker, J. (1992). "From sex roles to gendered institutions". Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews. 21 (5): 565–569. doi:10.2307/2075528. JSTOR 2075528.
- ^ Pate, J. s.d. "What everyone should know about gender and sexuality". jamespatemd.com. Archived from the original on 19 November 2012.
- ^ Cahill, S. E. (1986) Language practices and self definition: The case of gender identity acquisition. The Sociological Quarterly vol. 27, issue 3, pp 295–311
- ^ Fenstermaker, Sarah (2002). Doing Gender, Doing Difference: Inequality, Power, and Institutional Change. New York: Routledge. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-415-93179-3.
- ^ Eagly, A. H. (December 1997). "Sex differences in social behavior: Comparing social role theory and evolutionary psychology". American Psychologist. pp. 1380–1383.
- ^ Trumbach, Randolph (1994). "London's Sapphists: From Three Sexes to Four Genders in the Making of Modern Culture". In Herdt, Gilbert (ed.). Third Sex, Third Gender: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture and History. New York: Zone (MIT). pp. 111–36. ISBN 978-0-942299-82-3.
- ^ Wood, W.; Eagly, A. H. (2002). "A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex difference". Psychological Bulletin. 128 (5): 699–727. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699. PMID 12206191. S2CID 6751650.
- ^ Cherlin, Andrew J. (2010). Public and Private Families: An Introduction (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-07-340435-6.
- ^ Eagly, A. H. (2004). Prejudice: Toward a more inclusive understanding. In A. H. Eagly, R. M. Baron, & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), The social psychology of group identity and social conflict: Theory, application, and practice (pp. 45–64). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10683-003
- ^ Butler, J. (1990).Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York; Routledge.
- ^ Butler, Judith. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge, 2004.
- ^ Thekla Morgenroth, Michelle K. Ryan. "Gender Trouble in Social Psychology: How Can Butler's Work Inform Experimental Social Psychologists' Conceptualization of Gender?", Front. Psychol., 27 July 2018 Sec. Personality and Social Psychology Volume 9 – 2018, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320.
- ^ O'Neil, James M. (1981). "Male Sex Role Conflicts, Sexism, and Masculinity: Psychological Implications for Men, Women, and the Counseling Psychologist". The Counseling Psychologist. 9 (2): 61–80. doi:10.1177/001100008100900213. ISSN 0011-0000.
- ^ Franco-German TV Station ARTE Archived 4 July 2008 at the Wayback Machine, Karambolage, August 2004.
- ^ West, Candace; Zimmerman, Don H. (1987). "Doing Gender". Gender and Society. 1 (2): 125–151. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002. ISSN 0891-2432. JSTOR 189945. Archived from the original on 19 January 2024. Retrieved 30 March 2024.
- ^ Brockhaus: Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, 2001.
- ^ Dvorsky, George (2008). "Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary" (PDF). ieet.org. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 3 May 2019.
- ^ Fausto-Sterling, Anne (4 August 2008) [1st pub. 2000]. Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. New York: Basic Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-7867-2433-8. OCLC 818855499.
- ^ Money, John; Hampson, Joan G; Hampson, John (October 1955). "An Examination of Some Basic Sexual Concepts: The Evidence of Human Hermaphroditism". Bull. Johns Hopkins Hosp. 97 (4): 301–19. PMID 13260820.
By the term, gender role, we mean all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to sexuality in the sense of eroticism. Gender role is appraised in relation to the following: general mannerisms, deportment and demeanor, play preferences and recreational interests; spontaneous topics of talk in unprompted conversation and casual comment; content of dreams, daydreams, and fantasies; replies to oblique inquiries and projective tests; evidence of erotic practices and, finally, the person's own replies to direct inquiry.
- ^ Fausto-Sterling, Anne (2000). Sexing the body: gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-07714-5.
- ^ Macht, Alexandra (25 September 2019). "Doing Gender". Oxford Bibliographies Online. Archived from the original on 27 May 2024. Retrieved 30 March 2024.
- ^ a b West, Candace; Zimmerman, Don H. (June 1987). "Doing Gender". Gender and Society. 1 (2): 129. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002. S2CID 220519301.
- ^ Kelan, Elisabeth K. (March 2010). "Gender Logic and (Un)doing Gender at Work". Gender, Work and Organization. 17 (2): 178–179. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00459.x.
- ^ Hirst, Alison; Schwabenland, Christina (2018). "Doing gender in the 'new office'". Gender, Work & Organization. 25 (2): 159–176. doi:10.1111/gwao.12200. hdl:10547/622118. ISSN 0968-6673. Archived from the original on 30 March 2024. Retrieved 30 March 2024.
- ^ a b c d Lindsey, L. L. (2015). Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective. Routledge. pp. 29–34. ISBN 978-1-317-34808-5. Archived from the original on 27 September 2024. Retrieved 31 October 2020.
- ^ a b Ryan MK, Branscombe NR (2013). The SAGE Handbook of Gender and Psychology. SAGE Publications. pp. 149–150. ISBN 978-1-4739-7128-8. Archived from the original on 27 September 2024. Retrieved 14 April 2020.
- ^ a b Sperling MA (2014). Pediatric Endocrinology. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 141–142. ISBN 978-1-4557-5973-6. Archived from the original on 27 September 2024. Retrieved 14 April 2020.
- ^ Lacy, Cara Ocobock, Sarah (1 November 2023). "The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 6 September 2024. Retrieved 26 February 2024.
{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Venkataraman, et al. (7 May 2024). "Female foragers sometimes hunt, yet gendered divisions of labor are real: a comment on Anderson et al. (2023) The Myth of Man the Hunter". Evolution and Human Behavior. 45 (4) 106586. Bibcode:2024EHumB..4506586V. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2024.04.014. Archived from the original on 19 December 2024. Retrieved 16 September 2024.
- ^ Berenbaum, Sheri A.; Blakemore, Judith E. Owen; Beltz, Adriene M. (2011). "A Role for Biology in Gender-Related Behavior". Sex Roles. 64 (11–12): 804–825. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9990-8. S2CID 145689071.
- ^ Money, John; Ehrhardt, Anke (1974). Man & Woman, Boy & Girl. Retrieved 22 July 2024.
- ^ Lewontin, Richard (1990). Not In Our Genes. Penguin Books. p. 136.
- ^ Feld BC, Bishop DM (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice. Oxford University Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-19-020883-7.
- ^ DeLisi M, Vaughn MG (2014). The Routledge International Handbook of Biosocial Criminology. Routledge. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-317-93674-9.
- ^ Ellemers, Naomi (2018). "Gender Stereotypes". Annual Review of Psychology. 69: 275–298. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719. PMID 28961059.
- ^ Fortin, Nicole (2005). "Gender Role Attitudes and the Labour Market Outcomes of Women Across OECD Countries". Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 21 (3): 416–438. doi:10.1093/oxrep/gri024.
- ^ a b Ehrenreich, Barbara; English, Deirdre (2010). Witches, Midwives and Nurses: A History of Women Healers (2nd ed.). The Feminist Press. pp. 44–87. ISBN 978-0-912670-13-3.
- ^ Boulis, Ann K.; Jacobs, Jerry A. (2010). The changing face of medicine: women doctors and the evolution of health care in America. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR. ISBN 978-0-8014-7662-4.
Encouraging one's daughter to pursue a career in medicine is no longer an unusual idea... Americans are now more likely to report that they feel comfortable recommending a career in medicine for a young woman than for a young man.
- ^ Bullough, Vern L.; Bullough, Bonnie (1993). Crossdressing, Sex, and Gender (1st ed.). University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 390. ISBN 978-0-8122-1431-4.
- ^ Butler, Judith (2008). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
- ^ Halberstam, Judith (1998). Female Masculinity. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
- ^ Epstein, Julia; Straub, Kristina, eds. (1991). Body Guards: The Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity. London: Routledge.
- ^ Burns, Crosby; Krehely, Jeff (May 2011). "Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment" (PDF). Center for American Progress. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 23 March 2022.
- ^ Hackman, J.R. (1992). "Group influences on individuals in organizations". In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 234–245.
- ^ a b c d e Fagot, Beverly I.; Leinbach, Mary D.; O'Boyle, Cherie (March 1992). "Gender labeling, gender stereotyping, and parenting behaviors". Developmental Psychology. 28 (2): 225–230. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.2.225.
- ^ Woolf, Virginia (1929). A room of one's own. New York: Hogarth Press. p. 76. OCLC 31499943.
- ^ Gilligan, Carol (2009). In a different voice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-44544-4.
- ^ Fiske, Susan T.; Cuddy, Amy J.C.; Glick, Peter; Xu, Jun (June 2002). "A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82 (6): 878–902. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.320.4001. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878. PMID 12051578. S2CID 17057403. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.
- ^ Brewer, Holly (2012). "List of gender stereotypes". Archived from the original on 8 April 2015. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
- ^ "Gender and gender identity at a glance". plannedparenthood.org. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc. 2012. Archived from the original on 4 March 2014. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
- ^ Martin, Carol Lynn; Halverson, Charles F. Jr. (December 1981). "A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children". Child Development. 52 (4): 1119–1134. doi:10.2307/1129498. JSTOR 1129498.
- ^ a b Cvencek, Dario; Meltzoff, Andrew N.; Greenwald, Anthony G. (May–June 2011). "Math–gender stereotypes in elementary school children". Child Development. 82 (3): 766–779. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.300.2757. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x. PMID 21410915.
- ^ Lipman-Blumen, Jean (January 1972). "How ideology shapes women's lives". Scientific American. 226 (1): 34–42. Bibcode:1972SciAm.226a..34L. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0172-34.
- ^ Goodmark, Leigh; Flores, Juanita; Goldscheid, Julie; Ritchie, Andrea; SpearIt (9 July 2015). "Plenary 2—Redefining Gender Violence". University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review. 5: 289. SSRN 2628984.
- ^ Deaux, Kay; Lewis, Laurie L. (May 1984). "Structure of gender stereotypes: interrelationships among components and gender label". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46 (5): 991–1004. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991.
- ^ Jacobs, Janis E. (December 1991). "Influence of gender stereotypes on parent and child mathematics attitudes". Journal of Educational Psychology. 83 (4): 518–527. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.518.
- ^ Steele, Claude M.; Aronson, Joshua (November 1995). "Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 69 (5): 797–811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797. PMID 7473032. S2CID 4665022. Archived (PDF) from the original on 18 September 2017. Retrieved 19 January 2016.
- ^ Spencer, Steven J.; Steele, Claude M.; Quinn, Diane M. (January 1999). "Stereotype threat and women's math performance" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 35 (1): 4–28. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.370.3979. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373. S2CID 12556019. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 January 2016.
- ^ Stoet, Gijsbert; Geary, David C. (March 2012). "Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement?". Review of General Psychology. 16 (1): 93–102. doi:10.1037/a0026617. S2CID 145724069.
- ^ Jolien A., van Breen; Spears, Russell; Kuppens, Toon; de Lemus, Soledad (May 2018). "Subliminal gender stereotypes: who can resist?" (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 44 (12): 1648–1663. doi:10.1177/0146167218771895. PMID 29781373. S2CID 29170275. [Epub ahead of print]
- ^ Airaksinen, Toni (5 June 2018). "STUDY: Feminists more willing to 'sacrifice' men". Campus Reform. Leadership Institute. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 11 June 2018.
- ^ Chang, Lei (1999). "Gender Role Egalitarian Attitudes in Beijing, Hong Kong, Florida, and Michigan". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 30 (6): 722–741. doi:10.1177/0022022199030006004. S2CID 145646892.
- ^ a b Bagozzi, Richard P.; Wong, Nancy; Yi, Youjae (1999). "The Role of Culture and Gender in the Relationship between Positive and Negative Affect". Cognition & Emotion. 13 (6): 641–672. doi:10.1080/026999399379023.
- ^ Nosek, Brian A.; Banaji, Mahzarin R.; Greenwald, Anthony G. (July 2002). "Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 83 (1): 44–59. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.463.6120. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44. PMID 12088131. S2CID 204321795.
- ^ Fausto-Sterling, Anne (4 August 2008). Myths Of Gender: Biological Theories About Women And Men, Revised Edition. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-7867-2390-4. Retrieved 22 October 2017 – via Google Books.
- ^ Cvencek, Dario; Meltzoff, Andrew N.; Kapur, Manu (January 2014). "Cognitive consistency and math–gender stereotypes in Singaporean children". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 117: 73–91. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.07.018. PMID 24141205.
- ^ Nosek, B. A.; Smyth, F. L.; Sriram, N.; Lindner, N. M.; Devos, T.; Ayala, A.; BarAnan, Y.; Bergh, R.; Cai, H.; Gonsalkorale, K.; Kesebir, S.; Maliszewski, N.; Neto, F.; Olli, E.; Park, J.; Schnabel, K.; Shiomura, K.; Tulbure, B.; Wiers, R. W.; Somogyi, M.; Akrami, N.; Ekehammar, B.; Vianello, M.; Banaji, M. R.; Greenwald, A. G. (30 June 2009). "National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (26): 10593–10597. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10610593N. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106. PMC 2705538. PMID 19549876.
- ^ Espenshade, Thomas J. (1 January 1985). "Marriage Trends in America: Estimates, Implications, and Underlying Causes". Population and Development Review. 11 (2): 193–245. doi:10.2307/1973487. JSTOR 1973487.
- ^ Hawke, Lucy (2007). "Gender Roles Within the American Marriage: Are They Really Changing?". ESSAI. Archived from the original on 2 February 2017. Retrieved 9 February 2016.
- ^ Dunleavey, M. P. (27 January 2007). "A Breadwinner Rethinks Gender Roles". The New York Times.
- ^ McNiel, Jamie N.; Harris, Deborah A.; Fondren, Kristi M. (7 November 2012). "Women and the Wild: Gender Socialization in Wilderness Recreation Advertising". Gender Issues. 29 (1–4): 39–55. doi:10.1007/s12147-012-9111-1. S2CID 143305053.
- ^ "Growing Number of Stay-at-Home Dads". Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project. Pew Research Center. 5 June 2014. Archived from the original on 4 March 2018. Retrieved 14 June 2015.
- ^ Peacock, Louisa; Marsden, Sam (23 January 2013). "Rise in stay-at-home fathers fuelled by growing numbers of female breadwinners". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 11 January 2022. Retrieved 14 June 2015.
- ^ "Stay-at-home dads on the rise – increasingly because they want to be". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. 5 June 2014. Archived from the original on 6 March 2016. Retrieved 14 June 2015.
- ^ "Sweden: Land of the Stay-At-Home Dad". ABC News. 19 October 2010. Archived from the original on 6 June 2021. Retrieved 6 June 2021.
- ^ "Breadwinner Moms". Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project. Pew Research Center. 29 May 2013. Archived from the original on 6 March 2018. Retrieved 14 June 2015.
- ^ Pompper, Donnalyn (2010). "Masculinities, The Metrosexual, And Media Images: Across Dimensions Of Age And Ethnicity". Sex Roles. 63 (9/10): 682–696. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9870-7. S2CID 144577635.
- ^ McNair, Brian. Striptease culture: Sex, media and the democratization of desire. London: Routledge, 2002.Print.
- ^ a b c Kawase, Kazumi; et al. (2013). "The Attitude and Perceptions of Work-Life Balance: A Comparison Among Women Surgeons in Japan, USA, and Hong Kong China". World Journal of Surgery. 37 (1): 2–11. doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1784-9. PMID 22955955. S2CID 30292858.
- ^ a b c d Tai, Po-Fen (2013). "Gender Matters in Social Polarisation: Comparing Singapore, Hong Kong and Taipei". Urban Studies. 50 (6): 1148–1164. Bibcode:2013UrbSt..50.1148T. doi:10.1177/0042098012460734.
- ^ a b c Rao, Nitya (2012). "Male 'Providers' and Female 'Housewives': A Gendered Co-Performance in Rural North India". Development and Change. 43 (5): 1025–1048. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01789.x.
- ^ Metts, S., Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (1998). Communication and sexual desire. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.) Handbook of communication and emotion. (pp. 354–377). San Diego: Academic Press.
- ^ Baumeister, R.; Catanese, K.; Vohs, K. (2001). "Is there a gender difference in strength of sex drive? Theoretical views, conceptual distinctions, and a review of relevant evidence". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 5 (3): 242–273. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.186.5369. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_5. S2CID 13336463.
- ^ Seal, D.; Ehrhardt, A. (2003). "Masculinity and urban men: Perceived scripts for courtship, romantic, and sexual interactions with women". Culture, Health & Sexuality. 5 (4): 295–319. doi:10.1080/136910501171698. S2CID 144924015.
- ^ Murnen, S. K.; Perot, A.; Byrne, D. (1989). "Coping with unwanted sexual activity: Normative responses, situational determinants, and individual differences". Journal of Sex Research. 26 (1): 85–106. doi:10.1080/00224498909551493.
- ^ Perper, T.; Weis, D. L. (1987). "Proceptive and rejective strategies of U.S. and Canadian college women". Journal of Sex Research. 23 (4): 455–480. doi:10.1080/00224498709551385.
- ^ a b c d Jackson, C. (2012). "Introduction: Marriage, gender relations and social change". Journal of Development Studies. 48 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1080/00220388.2011.629653. S2CID 144978684.
- ^ a b c Gauntlett, D. (2008). Media, gender and identity: An introduction. Routledge.
- ^ a b Gerber, G. L. (1988). "Leadership roles and the gender stereotype traits". Sex Roles. 18 (11–12): 649–668. doi:10.1007/BF00288051. S2CID 143607687.
- ^ Pritchard, Justin (21 October 2003). "Men hold the edge on gender gap odds". Oakland Tribune. Archived from the original on 10 May 2013.
- ^ Facts for features: Valentine's Day U.S. Census Bureau Report 7 February 2006
- ^ McCurry, Justin; Allison, Rebecca (8 March 2004). "40m bachelors and no women. the birth of a new problem for China". The Guardian. London.
- ^ "Polygamy proposal for Chechen men". BBC News. 13 January 2006. Archived from the original on 31 October 2012. Retrieved 29 September 2012.
- ^ a b c d e Benokraits, Nijole (2002). Marriage and Families: Changes, Choices, and Constrains. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-034177-8.
- ^ Lindsey, L. L. (2015). Gender roles: A sociological perspective. Routledge.
- ^ Greenstein, Theodore N. (1995). "Gender Ideology, Marital Disruption, and the Employment of Married Women". Journal of Marriage and Family. 57 (1): 31–42. doi:10.2307/353814. JSTOR 353814.
- ^ Lucier-Greer, M.; Adler-Baeder, F. (2016). "Gender role attitude malleability in the context of divorce and remarriage: A longitudinal growth curve perspective". Journal of Adult Development. 23 (3): 150–162. doi:10.1007/s10804-016-9231-z. S2CID 146939829.
- ^ Davis, Shannon N; Greenstein, Theodore N (2004). "Interactive Effects of Gender Ideology and Age at First Marriage on Women's Marital Disruption". Journal of Family Issues. 25 (5): 658–682. doi:10.1177/0192513x03257795. S2CID 6912666.
- ^ Kaufman, G.; Taniguchi, H. (2006). "Gender and marital happiness in later life". Journal of Family Issues. 27 (6): 735–757. doi:10.1177/0192513x05285293. S2CID 146362115.
- ^ Perry, Samuel L; Whitehead, Andrew L (2016). "For Better or for Worse? Gender Ideology, Religious Commitment, and Relationship Quality". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 55 (4): 737–755. doi:10.1111/jssr.12308.
- ^ Lindemann, D. (2018). "Doing and undoing gender in commuter marriages". Sex Roles. 79 (1–2): 36–49. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0852-x. S2CID 149096803.
- ^ Issues in Society : Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. (2014). Thirroul, AU: The Spinney Press.
- ^ Lindley, Lisa; Walsemann, Katrina; Carter, Jarvis (2012). "The Association of Sexual Orientation Measures With Young Adults' Health-Related Outcomes". American Journal of Public Health. 102 (6): 1177–1178. doi:10.2105/ajph.2011.300262. PMC 3483939. PMID 22021310.
- ^ Epstein, Robert; McKinney, Paul; Fox, Shannon; Garcia, Carlos (2013). "Support for a Fluid-Continuum Model or Sexual Orientation: A Large-Scale Internet Study". Journal of Homosexuality. 59 (10): 1356–1358. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.724634. PMID 23153024. S2CID 37966088.
- ^ a b c Frankowski, B. L.; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (June 2004). "Sexual orientation and adolescents". Pediatrics. 113 (6): 1827–32. doi:10.1542/peds.113.6.1827. PMID 15173519.
- ^ a b Lamanna, Mary Ann; Riedmann, Agnes; Stewart, Susan D. (2014). Marriages, Families, and Relationships: Making Choices in a Diverse Society. Cengage Learning. p. 82. ISBN 978-1-305-17689-8. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
The reason some individuals develop a gay sexual identity has not been definitively established – nor do we yet understand the development of heterosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA) takes the position that a variety of factors impact a person's sexuality. The most recent literature from the APA says that sexual orientation is not a choice that can be changed at will, and that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. is shaped at an early age. and evidence suggests biological, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality (American Psychological Association 2010).
- ^ Stuart, Gail Wiscarz (2014). Principles and Practice of Psychiatric Nursing. Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 502. ISBN 978-0-323-29412-6. Retrieved 11 February 2016.
No conclusive evidence supports any one specific cause of homosexuality; however, most researchers agree that biological and social factors influence the development of sexual orientation.
- ^ Kersey-Matusiak, Gloria (2012). Delivering Culturally Competent Nursing Care. Springer Publishing Company. p. 169. ISBN 978-0-8261-9381-0. Retrieved 10 February 2016.
Most health and mental health organizations do not view sexual orientation as a 'choice.'
- ^ Bailey, J. Michael; Vasey, Paul; Diamond, Lisa; Breedlove, S. Marc; Vilain, Eric; Epprecht, Marc (2016). "Sexual Orientation, Controversy, and Science". Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 17 (2): 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616. PMID 27113562. Archived from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
- ^ LeVay, Simon (2017). Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-975296-6.
- ^ Balthazart, Jacques (2012). The Biology of Homosexuality. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-983882-0.
- ^ "Submission to the Church of England's Listening Exercise on Human Sexuality". The Royal College of Psychiatrists. Archived from the original on 17 January 2013. Retrieved 13 June 2013.
- ^ Adams, Maurianne; Bell, Lee Anne; Griffin, Pat (2007). Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. Routledge. pp. 198–199. ISBN 978-1-135-92850-6.
Because of the complicated interplay among gender identity, gender roles, and sexual identity, transgender people are often assumed to be lesbian or gay (See Overview: Sexism, Heterosexism, and Transgender Oppression). ... Because transgender identity challenges a binary conception of sexuality and gender, educators must clarify their own understanding of these concepts. ... Facilitators must be able to help participants understand the connections among sexism, heterosexism, and transgender oppression and the ways in which gender roles are maintained, in part, through homophobia.
- ^ Renzetti, Claire M.; Edleson, Jeffrey L. (2008). Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence. SAGE Publications. p. 338. ISBN 978-1-4522-6591-9.
In a culture of homophobia (an irrational fear of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender [GLBT] people), GLBT people often face a heightened risk of violence specific to their sexual identities.
- ^ 2014 Report on State Sponsored Homophobia Retrieved 4 Mar 15 from "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 October 2016. Retrieved 12 May 2016.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ Bruce-Jones, Eddie; Itaborahy, Lucas Paoli (May 2011). State-sponsored Homophobia (Report). ILGA. Archived from the original on 5 April 2024. Retrieved 15 October 2011.
- ^ West, D. J. (1977). Homosexuality re-examined. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-0812-1.
- ^ Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. "GLAAD Media Reference Guide, 8th Edition. Transgender Glossary of Terms" Archived 30 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine, GLAAD, USA, May 2010. Retrieved 20 November 2011.
- ^ Mager, Don (1985). "Gay Theories of Gender Role Deviance". SubStance. 14 (1): 32–48. doi:10.2307/3684953. JSTOR 3684953.
- ^ Dwyer, D. (2000). Interpersonal Relationships (2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-203-01971-9.
- ^ a b Cherlin, Andrew (2010). Public and Private Families, an introduction. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. p. 234.
- ^ Crook, Robert (2011). Our Sexuality. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. p. 271.
- ^ Carrington, C. (1999) No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbians and gay men. The University of Chicago Press.
- ^ Morgan, D. (2006) Not gay enough for the government: Racial and sexual stereotypes in sexual orientation asylum cases. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Legal Issues http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lsex15&div=9&g_sent=1&collection=journals#141 Archived 12 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Gender in Communication: A Critical Introduction. SAGE Publications. 2014. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-4522-2009-3.
- ^ DeFrancisco, Victoria L.; Palczewski, Catherine Helen; McGeough, Danielle Dick (2014). Gender in Communication: A Critical Introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
- ^ Jandt, Fred E., ed. (2004). "Gender Differences in Communication". Intercultural Communication: A Global Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. pp. 221–229.
- ^ Tigue, Cara C.; Borak, Diana J.; O'Connor, Jillian J. M.; Schandl, Charles; Feinberg, David R. (1 May 2012). "Voice pitch influences voting behavior". Evolution and Human Behavior. 33 (3): 210–216. Bibcode:2012EHumB..33..210T. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.09.004. ISSN 1090-5138. S2CID 146720126. Archived from the original on 3 March 2021. Retrieved 8 June 2021.
- ^ Martinson, Jane (15 November 2011). "Must a woman lower the tone of her voice to be successful?". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 June 2021.
- ^ Hall, J. A. (1990). Nonverbal sex differences: Accuracy of communication and expressive style. Baltimore, MD, US: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- ^ Fischer, A. H. (2000). Gender and emotion: Social psychological perspectives. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
- ^ McQuiston, D.; Morris, K. A. (2009). "Gender differences in communication: Implications for salespeople". Journal of Selling & Major Account Management. 9 (4): 54–64.
- ^ Wood, J (2010) Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture. Cengage Learning.
- ^ Wood, J (2010) Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture. Cengage Learning. p. 37
- ^ Maltz, D., & Borker, R. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 196–216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- ^ Masci, David (9 September 2014). "The divide over ordaining women". Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on 30 March 2024. Retrieved 30 March 2024.
- ^ Langford, Joy (2017). "Feminism and Leadership in the Pentecostal Movement". Feminist Theology. 26 (1): 69–79. doi:10.1177/0966735017714402. ISSN 0966-7350.
- ^ Yarrow, Simon 1.0001 (2018). "Gendering the saints". Saints: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780199676514.003.0005. ISBN 978-0-19-178130-8.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Dhami, Sangeeta (November 2000). "The Muslim family". West J Med. 173 (5): 352–356. doi:10.1136/ewjm.173.5.352. PMC 1071164. PMID 11069879.
- ^ Offenhauer, P. "Women in Islamic Societies: A selected review of social scientific literature" (PDF). Library of Congress. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.
- ^ "Surah Al-Baqarah [2:228]". Surah Al-Baqarah [2:228]. Archived from the original on 15 November 2018. Retrieved 15 November 2018.
- ^ "Global Connections . Roles of Women". www.pbs.org. Archived from the original on 28 July 2017. Retrieved 5 February 2016.
- ^ Gopal, Madan (1990). K.S. Gautam, ed. India through the ages. Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. p. 69.
- ^ Peletz, Michael Gates. Gender, Sexuality, and Body Politics in Modern Asia. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Asian Studies, 2011. Print.
- ^ "Women Warriors: The ongoing story of integrating and diversifying the American armed forces". Brookings. 7 May 2020. Retrieved 19 May 2021.
- ^ Carreiras, Helena (2006). Gender and the military: women in the armed forces of western democracies. New York: Routledge. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-415-38358-5.
- ^ Danish women to face conscription by lottery
- ^ Denmark Begins Drafting Women as Russian Threat Looms
- ^ Darroch, Gordon (3 October 2018). "Girls to be included in military service register from next year". DutchNews.nl. Retrieved 30 December 2023.
- ^ Sanou, Hanneke (8 April 2022). "Defense ministry is looking into Scandinavian style conscription". DutchNews.nl. Retrieved 30 December 2023.
- ^ "INDEPTH: FEMALE SOLDIERS – Women in the military — international". CBC News. 30 May 2006. Archived from the original on 4 April 2015. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
- ^ Gorman, Elizabeth H. (August 2005). "Gender Stereotypes, Same-Gender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women: Evidence from Law Firms". American Sociological Review. 70 (4): 702–728. doi:10.1177/000312240507000408. S2CID 143766494.
- ^ Heilman, Madeline E. (2001). "Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women's Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder". Journal of Social Issues. 57 (4): 657–674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234. S2CID 144504496.
- ^ Heilman, Madeline E.; Eagly, Alice H. (2008). "Gender Stereotypes Are Alive, Well, and Busy Producing Workplace Discrimination". Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1 (4): 393–398. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00072.x. S2CID 143990135.
- ^ Heilman, Madeline E. (1983). "Sex Bias in Work Settings: The Lack of Fit Model". Research in Organizational Behavior.
- ^ Taylor, Shelley E.; Fiske, Susan T.; Etcoff, Nancy L.; Ruderman, Audrey J. (1978). "Categorical and Contextual Bases of Person Memory and Stereotyping". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36 (7): 778. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.778.
- ^ Rudman, Laurie A.; Glick, Peter (2001). "Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash Toward Agentic Women". Journal of Social Issues. 57 (4): 743–762. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00239. hdl:2027.42/146421. S2CID 54219902.
- ^ Williams, Joan C. (2009). "Reconstructive Feminism: Changing the Way We Talk About Gender and Work Thirty Years After the PDA". 21 Yale J.L. & Feminism. 79: 104.
- ^ Kilgarlin, William Wayne; Tarver, Banks (1989). "Equal Rights Amendment: Governmental Action and Individual Liberty". Tex. L. Rev. 68.
- ^ Kalysh, Kateryina; Kulik, Carol T.; Perera, Sanjeewa (2016). "Help or hindrance? Work-life practices and women in management". The Leadership Quarterly. 27 (3): 504. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.009.
- ^ a b c Sanchez-Huckles, Janis V.; Davis, Donald D. (2010). "Women and Women of Color in Leadership: Complexity, Identity, and Intersectionality". American Psychologist. 65 (3): 171–181. doi:10.1037/a0017459. PMID 20350016.
- ^ Blau, Francine D.; Kahn, Lawrence M. (2000). "Differences in Pay". The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 14 (4): 75–99. doi:10.1257/jep.14.4.75.
- ^ Petersen, Trond; Morgan, Laurie A. (1995). "Separate and Unequal: Occupation-Establishment Sex Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap". The American Journal of Sociology. 101 (2): 329–365. doi:10.1086/230727. S2CID 145707764.
- ^ Browne, Irene; Misra, Joya (2003). "The Intersection of Gender and Race in the Labor Market". Annual Review of Sociology. 29 (1): 487–513. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100016.
- ^ Mann, Susan Archer (2012). Doing Feminist Theory: From Modernity to Postmodernity. Oxford University Press. p. 172.
- ^ Ahl, Helene (2004). The Scientific Reproduction of Gender Inequality: A Discourse Analysis of Research Texts on Women's Entrepreneurship. Copenhagen Business School Press. p. 14.
- ^ Wendell, Susan (1987). "A (Qualified) Defense of Liberal Feminism". Hypatia. 2 (2): 65–93. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1987.tb01066.x. S2CID 143213609.
- ^ Abrams, Kathryn (1989). "Gender Discrimination and the Transformation of Workplace Norms". Vanderbilt Law Review. 42.
- ^ "Breaking down the gender wage gap" (PDF). United States Department of Labor Women's Bureau. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 July 2018. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
- ^ Soule, Sarah A.; Olzak, Susan (2004). "When do Movements Matter? The Politics of Contingency and the Equal Rights Amendment". American Sociological Review. 69 (4): 473–497. doi:10.1177/000312240406900401. S2CID 143583752.
- ^ Brown, Barbara A.; Emerson, Thomas I.; Falk, Gail; Freedman, Ann E. (1971). "The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women". The Yale Law Journal. 89 (5): 871–985. doi:10.2307/795228. JSTOR 795228.
- ^ Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (1973). "The Need for the Equal Rights Amendment". American Bar Association Journal. 59 (9).
- ^ Emerson, Thomas I. (1970). "In Support of the Equal Rights Amendment". Harv. CR-CLL Rev. 6.
- ^ a b c d Klomsten, Anne T.; Marsh, Herb W.; Skaalvik, Einar M. (2005). "Adolescents' Perceptions of Masculine and Feminine Values in Sport and Physical Education: A Study of Gender Differences". Sex Roles. 52 (5): 625–636. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3730-x. S2CID 144198198.
- ^ Connell, Raewyn W. (2005). Masculinities.
- ^ Messner, Michael (2011). "Gender ideologies, youth sports, and the production of soft essentialism". Sociology of Sport Journal. 28 (2): 151–170. doi:10.1123/ssj.28.2.151.
- ^ Koivula, Nathalie (2001). "Perceived characteristics of sports categorized as gender-neutral, feminine and masculine". Journal of Sport Behavior. 24 (4): 377–393.
- ^ a b Mateo-Orcajada, Adrián; Abenza-Cano, Lucía; Vaquero-Cristóbal, Raquel; Martínez-Castro, Sonia M.; Leiva-Arcas, Alejandro; Gallardo-Guerrero, Ana M.; Sánchez-Pato, Antonio (2021). "Influence of Gender Stereotypes, Type of Sport Watched and Close Environment on Adolescent Sport Practice According to Gender". Sustainability. 13 (21) 11863. Bibcode:2021Sust...1311863M. doi:10.3390/su132111863.
- ^ Chalabaev, Aïna; Sarrazin, Philippe; Fontayne, Paul; Boiché, Julie; Clément-Guillotin, Corentin (2013). "The influence of sex stereotypes and gender roles on participation and performance in sport and exercise: review and future directions". Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 14 (2): 136–144. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.005.
- ^ Colley, Ann; Berman, Eryn; Millingen, Liz V. (2005). "Age and gender differences in young people's perceptions of sport participants". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 35 (7): 1440–1454. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02178.x.
- ^ Duncan, Margaret C. (1994). "The politics of women's body images and practices: Foucault, the panopticon, and Shape magazine". Journal of Sports and Social Issues. 18 (1): 48–65. doi:10.1177/019372394018001004. S2CID 145378359.
- ^ Metheny, Eleanor (1965). "Symbolic forms of movement: The feminine image in sports". Connotations of Movement in Sport and Dance: 43–56.
- ^ von der Lippe, Gerd (2002a). "Media image: Sport, gender, and national identities in five European countries". International Review for the Sociology of Sport. 37 (3–4): 371–395. doi:10.1177/101269020203700306. S2CID 220416715.
- ^ Young, Iris M. (1995). "The exclusion of women from sport: Conceptual and existential dimensions". Philosophic Inquiry in Sport. 18 (1): 262–266.
- ^ Schmalz, Dorothy L.; Kerstetter, Deborah L. (2006). "Girlie girls and manly men: Children's stigma consciousness of gender in sports and physical activities". Journal of Leisure Research. 38 (4): 536–557. Bibcode:2006JLeiR..38..536S. doi:10.1080/00222216.2006.11950091. S2CID 142736031.
- ^ a b Fink, Janet S. (2013). "Female athletes, women's sport, and the sport media commercial complex: have we really "come a long way, baby"?". Sport Management Review. 18 (3): 331–342. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2014.05.001.
- ^ a b c d e Messner, Michael A.; Duncan, Margaret C.; Jensen, Kerry (1993). "Separating the men from the girls: The gendered language of televised sports". Gender & Society. 7 (1): 121–137. doi:10.1177/089124393007001007. S2CID 144825977.
- ^ a b Cooky, Cheryl; Messner, Michael A.; Hextrum, Robin H. (2013). "Women play sport, but not on TV: A longitudinal study of televised news media". Communication & Sport. 1 (3): 1–28. doi:10.1177/2167479513476947. S2CID 53321725.
- ^ Lumpkin, Angela (2009). "Female representation in feature articles published by Sports Illustrated in the 1990s". Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal. 18 (2): 38–51. doi:10.1123/wspaj.18.2.38.
- ^ Kian, Edward M.; Vincent, John; Mondello, Michael (2008). "Masculine hegemonic hoops: An analysis of media coverage of March Madness". Sociology of Sport Journal. 25 (2): 223–242. doi:10.1123/ssj.25.2.223.
- ^ Kane, Mary J. (2013). "The better sportswomen get, the more the media ignore them". Communication and Sport. 1 (3): 231–236. doi:10.1177/2167479513484579. S2CID 147567869.
- ^ Angelini, James R. (2008). "Television sports and athlete sex: Looking at the differences in watching male and female athletes". Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 52 (1): 16–32. doi:10.1177/2167479513484579. S2CID 147567869.
- ^ Billings, Andrew C.; Angelini, James R. (2007). "Communication Quarterly: Packaging the games for viewer consumption: Gender, ethnicity, and nationality in NBC's coverage of the 2004 Summer Olympics". Women and Language. 30 (1): 95–111.
- ^ Angelini, James R.; MacArthur, Paul J.; Billings, Andrew C. (2012). "What's the gendered story? Vancouver's prime time Olympic glory on NBC". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 56 (2): 261–279. doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.678515. S2CID 145149193.
- ^ Messner, Michael A. (December 2000). "Barbie girls vs. sea monsters: children constructing gender" (PDF). Gender & Society. 14 (6): 765–784. doi:10.1177/089124300014006004. S2CID 52253024. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022.
- ^ Collins, Rebecca L. (1 February 2011). "Content Analysis of Gender Roles in Media: Where Are We Now and Where Should We Go?". Sex Roles. 64 (3): 290–298. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5. ISSN 1573-2762.
- ^ Gerbner, George; Signorielli, Nancy (29 October 1979). Women and Minorities in Television Drama, 1969–1978 (Report). Archived from the original on 2 December 2024. Retrieved 2 July 2024.
- ^ "Women in the Labor Force: A Databook (2009 Edition)". Bureau of Labor Statistics. Archived from the original on 18 July 2024. Retrieved 2 July 2024.
- ^ Wallis, Cara (1 February 2011). "Performing Gender: A Content Analysis of Gender Display in Music Videos". Sex Roles. 64 (3): 160–172. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9814-2. ISSN 1573-2762.
- ^ Bandura, Albert (April 2002). "Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context". Applied Psychology. 51 (2): 269–290. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00092. ISSN 0269-994X.
- ^ Matthes, Jörg; Prieler, Michael; Adam, Karoline (October 2016). "Gender-Role Portrayals in Television Advertising Across the Globe". Sex Roles. 75 (7–8): 314–327. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0617-y. PMC 5023740. PMID 27688526.
- ^ Rubie-Davies, Christine M.; Liu, Sabrina; Lee, Kai-Chi Katie (March 2013). "Watching Each Other: Portrayals of Gender and Ethnicity in Television Advertisements". Journal of Social Psychology. 153 (2): 179–180. doi:10.1080/00224545.2012.717974. PMID 23484346. S2CID 40904909.
- ^ Aubrey, Jennifer Stevens; Harrison, Kristen (May 2004). "The Gender-Role Content of Children's Favorite Television Programs and Its Links to Their Gender-Related Perceptions". Media Psychology. 6 (2): 141–142. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0602_1. S2CID 144754474.
- ^ Steyer, Isabella (2014). "Gender representations in children's media and their influence". Campus-Wide Information Systems. 31 (2/3): 171–180. doi:10.1108/CWIS-11-2013-0065.
- ^ EAVI (22 September 2021). "Social Media and Gender: A Tricky Combination". EAVI. Archived from the original on 4 March 2024. Retrieved 5 March 2024.
- ^ Santoniccolo, Fabrizio; Trombetta, Tommaso; Paradiso, Maria Noemi; Rollè, Luca (9 May 2023). "Gender and Media Representations: A Review of the Literature on Gender Stereotypes, Objectification and Sexualization". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 20 (10): 5770. doi:10.3390/ijerph20105770. ISSN 1661-7827. PMC 10218532. PMID 37239498.
- ^ Daniels, Elizabeth A. (June 2020). "Does Objectification on Social Media Cost Young Men?". Emerging Adulthood. 8 (3): 226–236. doi:10.1177/2167696818804051. ISSN 2167-6968. S2CID 149814259.
- ^ Hargittai, Eszter; Shafer, Steven (1 June 2006). "Differences in Actual and Perceived Online Skills: The Role of Gender*". Social Science Quarterly. 87 (2): 432–448. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00389.x. ISSN 1540-6237.
- ^ Behm-Morawitz, Elizabeth; Mastro, Dana (1 December 2009). "The Effects of the Sexualization of Female Video Game Characters on Gender Stereotyping and Female Self-Concept". Sex Roles. 61 (11–12): 808–823. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9683-8. S2CID 146385940.
- ^ Postmes, Tom; Spears, Russell (2002). "Behavior Online: Does Anonymous Computer Communication Reduce Gender Inequality?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28 (8): 1073–1083. doi:10.1177/01461672022811006. S2CID 145697214.
- ^ Stuart, Keith (17 September 2014). "UK gamers: more women play games than men, report finds". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 June 2024.
- ^ Jayanth, Meg (18 September 2014). "52% of gamers are women – but the industry doesn't know it". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 February 2018. Retrieved 10 December 2015.
- ^ Chan, W. (2001). Women, Murder and Justice. Hampshire: Palgrave.
- ^ Hart, L. (1994). Fatal Women: Lesbian Sexuality and the Mark of Aggression. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- ^ Ballinger, A. (1996). "The Guilt of the Innocent and the Innocence of the Guilty: The Cases of Marie Fahmy and Ruth Ellis". In Wight, S.; Myers, A. (eds.). No Angels: Women Who Commit Violence. London: Pandora.
- ^ Filetti, J. S. (2001). "From Lizzie Borden to Lorena Bobbitt: Violent Women and Gendered Justice". Journal of American Culture. 35 (3): 471–484. doi:10.1017/s0021875801006673. S2CID 146288256.
- ^ Barak, Gregg (15 March 2009). "Class, Race, and Gender in Criminology and Criminal Justice: Ways of Seeing Difference". American Society of Criminology. Archived from the original on 25 December 2001. Retrieved 22 November 2013.
- ^ Steffensmeier, Darrell; Allan, Emilie (1996). "Gender and Crime: Toward a Gendered Theory of Female Offending". Annual Review of Sociology. 22 (1): 459–487. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.22.1.459.
- ^ a b c Hattery, Angela; Smith, Earl (2012). The Social Dynamics of Family Violence. Westview Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-8133-4463-8. Retrieved 1 June 2017.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Straus, M & Gelles, R (1995) Physical violence in American families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
- ^ Hattery, Angela; Smith, Earl (2016). The Social Dynamics of Family Violence (Second ed.). Boulder: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-4999-2.
- ^ Hattery & Smith 2012, p. 291.
- ^ Kuttner, Robert (25 June 1989). "She Minds the Child, He Minds the Dog". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 26 October 2022. Retrieved 26 October 2022.
- ^ Greenstein, Theodore N. (1996). "Husbands' Participation in Domestic Labor: Interactive Effects of Wives' and Husbands' Gender Ideologies". Journal of Marriage and Family. 58 (3): 585–595. doi:10.2307/353719. ISSN 0022-2445. JSTOR 353719. Archived from the original on 11 October 2022. Retrieved 26 October 2022.
- ^ Cranford, Cynthia J. (March 2012). "Gendered Projects of Solidarity: Workplace Organizing among Immigrant Women and Men". Gender, Work & Organization. 19 (2): 142–164. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00585.x. ISSN 0968-6673.
- ^ Ferrant, Gaelle; Pesando, Luca Maria; Nowacka, Keiko (December 2014). Unpaid Care work: The missing link in the analysis of gender gaps in labour outcomes (PDF) (Report). OECD. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 October 2022. Retrieved 26 October 2022.
- ^ "Women Carried the Burden of Unpaid Caregiving in 2020" (PDF). National Partnership for Women & Families. May 2021. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 May 2021.
- ^ Lee, Yeonjung; Tang, Fengyan (June 2015). "More Caregiving, Less Working: Caregiving Roles and Gender Difference". Journal of Applied Gerontology. 34 (4): 465–483. doi:10.1177/0733464813508649. ISSN 0733-4648. PMID 24652908. S2CID 20984380. Archived from the original on 14 October 2022. Retrieved 26 October 2022.
- ^ a b c "The Basic Facts About Women in Poverty". Center for American Progress. 3 August 2020. Archived from the original on 7 February 2025. Retrieved 26 October 2022.
- ^ a b Shaw, Elyse; Mariano, Halie (May 2021). "Narrow the Gender Pay Gap, Reduce Poverty for Families: The Economic Impact of Equal Pay by State" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 May 2021.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Donato, Katharine M.; Wakabayashi, Chizuko; Hakimzadeh, Shirin; Armenta, Amada (November 2008). "Shifts in the Employment Conditions of Mexican Migrant Men and Women: The Effect of U.S. Immigration Policy". Work and Occupations. 35 (4): 462–495. doi:10.1177/0730888408322859. ISSN 0730-8884. Archived from the original on 26 March 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
- ^ Iredale, Robyn (March 2005). "Gender, immigration policies and accreditation: valuing the skills of professional women migrants". Geoforum. 36 (2): 155–166. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.04.002. ISSN 0016-7185.
- ^ Dzordzormenyoh, Michael K.; Boateng, Francis D. (1 September 2023). "Immigration Politics and Policymaking in the USA (2017–2021): Examining the Effect of Geopolitics on Public Attitude Towards Immigration Policies". Journal of International Migration and Integration. 24 (3): 1281–1303. doi:10.1007/s12134-022-01004-6. ISSN 1874-6365. PMC 9763793. PMID 36569186.
- ^ Fisher, Patti (2010). "Gender Differences in Personal Saving Behaviors". Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning. SSRN 2803965. Retrieved 15 June 2025.
- ^ Cooper, Lynn (1981). "The Attack on Women's Rights". Crime and Social Justice (15): 39–41. ISSN 0094-7571. JSTOR 29766113. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 17 September 2022.
- ^ Currah, Paisley; Juang, Richard M.; Minter, Shannon (2006). Transgender Rights. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-4312-7 – via Google Books.
- ^ Smith, Robert B. (2014). Dahms, Harry F. (ed.). Social Conservatism, Distractors, and Authoritarianism: Axiological versus instrumental rationality. Mediations of Social Life in the 21st Century. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 101. ISBN 978-1-78441-222-7.
- ^ "Culture Wars". Encyclopedia.com. Archived from the original on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 10 July 2022.
- ^ "Current Numbers". www.cawp.rutgers.edu/current-numbers. Center for American Women and Politics. 12 June 2015. Archived from the original on 30 January 2017. Retrieved 6 February 2017.
This page contains current numbers of women officeholders serving in 2017 with links on the right to basic fact sheets for each level of office.
- ^ Huddy, Leonie; Terkildsen, Nayda (February 1993). "Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates". American Journal of Political Science. 37 (1): 119–147. doi:10.2307/2111526. JSTOR 2111526.
- ^ Sanbonmatsu, Kira (January 2002). "Stereotypes and Vote Choice". American Journal of Political Science. 46 (1): 20–34. doi:10.2307/3088412. JSTOR 3088412.
- ^ Carroll, Susan J. (2009). "Reflections on Gender and Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign: The Good, the Bad, and the Misogynistic". Politics & Gender. 5: 1–20. doi:10.1017/s1743923x09000014. S2CID 143560740.
- ^ Carlin, Diana B.; Winfrey, Kelly L. (2009). "Have You Come A Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage". Communication Studies. 60 (4): 326–343. doi:10.1080/10510970903109904. S2CID 145107322.
- ^ McGinley, Ann C. (2009). "Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Obama: Performing Gender, Race, and Class on the Campaign Trail". Denver University Law Review. 86.
- ^ Huddy, Leonie; Terkildsen, Nadya (1993). "The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office". Political Research Quarterly. 46 (3): 503–525. doi:10.1177/106591299304600304. S2CID 144560550.
- ^ Rotman, Deborah L. (2006). "Separate Spheres? Beyond the Dichotomies of Domesticity". Current Anthropology. 47 (4): 666–674. doi:10.1086/506286. S2CID 145576707.
- ^ Dodson, Dan W. (1958). "Suburbanism and Education". Journal of Educational Sociology. 32 (1): 2–7. doi:10.2307/2264228. JSTOR 2264228.
- ^ Friedan, Betty. "The Feminine Mystique". New York:W.W. Norton, 1963.
- ^ Kiger, Kiger; Riley, Pamela J. (1 July 1996). "Gender differences in perceptions of household labor". The Journal of Psychology. 130 (4): 357–70. doi:10.1080/00223980.1996.9915024. PMID 8756271. Archived from the original on 18 January 2010.
- ^ Maria Shriver (19 October 2009). "The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything". Center for American Progress. Archived from the original on 20 October 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2009.
- ^ Torregrosa, Luisita (13 December 2011). "They Call It the Reverse Gender Gap". New York Times. Archived from the original on 23 April 2013. Retrieved 30 November 2012.
- ^ Case, Mary Anne C. (October 1995). "Disaggregating Gender from Sex and Sexual Orientation: The Effeminate Man in the Law and Feminist Jurisprudence". The Yale Law Journal. 105 (1): 1–105. doi:10.2307/797140. JSTOR 797140. Archived from the original on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 7 October 2020.
- ^ Has Feminism Changed Science?, Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2001, ISBN 978-0-674-00544-0
- ^ Shuttleworth, Sally. "Female Circulation: Medical Discourse and Popular Advertising in the Mid-Victorian Era." Body/Politics: Women and the Discourses of Science. Eds. Mary Jacobus, Evelyn Fox Keller and Sally Shuttleworth. New York: Routledge, 1990. 47–70
- ^ Gavanas, Anna (2004). Fatherhood Politics in the United States: Masculinity, Sexuality, Race, and Marriage. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-252-02884-7.
All these cases of perceived discrimination make up the men's rights view that men are considered, by government and society, to be more expendable than women.
- ^ Boyd, Stephen Blake; Longwood, W. Merle; Muesse, Mark William, eds. (1996). Redeeming men: religion and masculinities. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-664-25544-2.
In contradistinction to pro-feminism, however, the men's rights perspective addresses specific legal and cultural factors that put men at a disadvantage. The movement is made up of a variety of formal and informal groups that differ in their approaches and issues; Men's rights advocates, for example, target sex-specific military conscription and judicial practices that discriminate against men in child custody cases.
- ^ See, for example:
- Maddison, Sarah (1999). "Private Men, Public Anger: The Men's Rights Movement in Australia" (PDF). Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies. 4 (2): 39–52. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 October 2013.
- Doyle, Ciara (2004). "The Fathers' Rights Movement: Extending Patriarchal Control Beyond the Marital Family". In Herrman, Peter (ed.). Citizenship Revisited: Threats or Opportunities of Shifting Boundaries. New York: Nova Publishers. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-1-59033-900-8.
- Flood, Michael (2005). "Men's Collective Struggles for Gender Justice: The Case of Antiviolence Activism". In Kimmel, Michael S.; Hearn, Jeff; Connell, Raewyn (eds.). Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. p. 459. ISBN 978-0-7619-2369-5.
- Finocchiaro, Peter (29 March 2011). "Is the men's rights movement growing?". Salon. Archived from the original on 22 May 2019. Retrieved 10 March 2013.
- Messner, Michael (2000). Politics of Masculinities: Men in Movements. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8039-5577-6.
- Solinger, Rickie (2013). Reproductive Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-0-19-981141-0.
- Menzies, Robert (2007). "Virtual Backlash: Representation of Men's "Rights" and Feminist "Wrongs" in Cyberspace". In Boyd, Susan B (ed.). Reaction and Resistance: Feminism, Law, and Social Change. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. pp. 65–97. ISBN 978-0-7748-1411-9.
- Dunphy, Richard (2000). Sexual Politics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-7486-1247-5.
- Mills, Martin (2003). "Shaping the boys' agenda: the backlash blockbusters". International Journal of Inclusive Education. 7 (1): 57–73. doi:10.1080/13603110210143644. S2CID 144875158.
- ^ a b Clatterbaugh, Kenneth (1996). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: Men, women, and politics in modern society (Reissued 2nd. ed.). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-8133-2701-3. Archived from the original on 17 March 2015.
Indeed the premise of all men's rights literature is that men are not privileged relative to women... Having denied that men are privileged relative to women, this movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who believe that society has become a bastion of female privilege and male degradation.
- ^ a b "What about tax, and father's custody rights?". The Times of India. 17 May 2011. Archived from the original on 16 February 2019. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- ^ a b "FHM: For Him Minister?". BBC News. 3 March 2004. Archived from the original on 3 September 2017. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- ^ a b Cheryl, Wetzstein. "Guys got it made? Think again, say advocates". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 20 June 2018. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- ^ "Indian husbands want protection from nagging wives". Reuters. 20 November 2009. Archived from the original on 25 November 2018. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- ^ Manigandan, K. R. (9 August 2009). "Boys fight for freedom!". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 20 October 2012. Retrieved 22 December 2011.
- ^ Kallenbach, Michael (16 June 2000). "Yesterday in Parliament". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 11 January 2022. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
- ^ "Minister for Men". Hansard, UK Parliament. Archived from the original on 20 June 2018. Retrieved 24 November 2011.
- ^ Crowley, Jocelyn E. (2008). Defiant Dads: Fathers' Rights Activists in America. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-4690-0.
- ^ Baskerville, S (2007). Taken into Custody: The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family. Cumberland House Publishing. ISBN 1-58182-594-3.
- ^ "GLAAD Media Reference Guide – Transgender glossary of terms". GLAAD. May 2010. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 24 February 2011.
- ^ "Definition of transgender in English by Oxford Dictionaries". Oxford Dictionaries. Archived from the original on 25 September 2016. Retrieved 18 June 2018.
- ^ "USI LGBT Campaign – Transgender Campaign". Retrieved 11 January 2012.
- ^ "Stroud District Council "Gender Equality SCHEME AND ACTION PLAN 2007"" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 February 2008.
- ^ Ryan, Caitlin C.; Futterman, Donna (1998). "Lesbian and Gay Youth: Care and Counseling". Adolescent Medicine. 8 (2). Columbia University Press: 207–374. ISBN 978-0-231-11191-1. PMID 10360017.
- ^ Interview with RuPaul, David Shankbone, Wikinews, 6 October 2007.
External links
[edit]- OHCHR | Gender stereotyping. A short summary of international treaties concerning gender stereotyping.
- Surveys on gender roles by the Pew Research Center
- Gender Communication Barriers and Techniques, Strategic Communications, Stanford Graduate School of Business. Serves to help develop communication skills.
Gender role
View on GrokipediaDefinitions and Conceptual Foundations
Definition and Historical Usage
A gender role encompasses the constellation of behaviors, attitudes, responsibilities, and traits that a society prescribes as appropriate or normative for individuals based on their biological sex, often manifesting in divisions of labor, interpersonal expectations, and self-presentation.[8] These roles are transmitted through cultural mechanisms such as family, education, and media, varying by historical context and societal structure while frequently aligning with reproductive and survival imperatives.[9] Scholarly analyses emphasize their social origin, yet empirical observations across societies reveal persistent patterns, such as greater male involvement in high-risk provisioning and female emphasis on child-rearing proximity.[10] The term gender role originated in the work of psychologist and sexologist John Money, who first employed it in print in 1955 to delineate learned, culturally influenced patterns of behavior from biological sex.[11] Money, working at Johns Hopkins University, adapted "gender" from linguistic contexts—where it denotes grammatical categories—to human development, positing that gender roles form through postnatal socialization rather than solely innate predispositions.[12] This distinction facilitated studies separating anatomical sex from psychosocial elements, though Money's broader theories, including advocacy for early interventions in intersex cases, later faced empirical refutation via cases demonstrating resilience of biological sex influences over imposed roles.[13] Preceding the term's coinage, analogous concepts appeared in anthropological and sociological literature under rubrics like "sex roles" or divisions of labor, dating to 19th-century ethnographies of indigenous societies. For example, observations from the 1870s onward documented near-universal patterns in foraging groups, with males specializing in hunting large game (involving 60-80% of caloric provision in many cases) and females in gathering and infant care, attributed to sex-linked physical capacities and reproductive constraints.[14] By the early 20th century, figures like Bronisław Malinowski described these as functional adaptations in Trobriand Island societies, where male dominance in warfare and fishing contrasted with female control over horticulture and kinship networks.[15] The shift to "gender role" terminology accelerated post-1950s amid rising interest in cultural relativism, enabling analyses of role variability—such as matrilineal inheritance in some African groups—while underscoring cross-cultural consistencies in traits like male risk-taking and female nurturance.[16]Distinction from Biological Sex and Gender Identity
Biological sex refers to the binary classification of organisms as male or female based on their reproductive roles, determined by the production of small gametes (sperm) in males or large gametes (ova) in females, with supporting anatomical, chromosomal (typically XY for males, XX for females), and hormonal characteristics.[17] This distinction is rooted in evolutionary biology and applies across sexually reproducing species, including humans, where disorders of sex development affect less than 0.02% of births and do not negate the binary nature of sex as a dimorphic trait.[18] Gender roles, by contrast, encompass the socially expected behaviors, attitudes, and responsibilities assigned to individuals of each sex, such as greater male involvement in physical protection or female emphasis on nurturing, which may vary culturally but often reflect empirical patterns of sex differences in strength, interests, and reproductive strategies rather than altering the underlying biology.[19] These roles are not synonymous with biological sex, as they involve learned and normative expectations that can be enforced or modified by society, yet they typically align with observable sex-based capacities and tendencies documented in cross-cultural and longitudinal studies.[20] Gender identity represents an individual's subjective, internal perception of their own gender, which in the overwhelming majority of cases—over 99.5%—corresponds to their biological sex, a phenomenon termed cisgender alignment.[21] Empirical data on gender dysphoria, the clinical distress arising from a mismatch between gender identity and biological sex, indicate a low prevalence of 0.005% to 0.014% among biological males and 0.002% to 0.003% among biological females in clinical populations, underscoring that incongruence is exceptional rather than normative.[22] Unlike biological sex, which is an objective, immutable trait verifiable through genetic and physiological markers, gender identity is psychological and self-reported, potentially influenced by developmental, environmental, or neurobiological factors, but it does not redefine or override sex-based realities such as reproductive function.[23] Gender roles differ from gender identity in being externally imposed societal scripts rather than personal feelings; for instance, a person may conform to traditional roles of their sex despite identifying differently, or vice versa, highlighting their independent domains.[19] This tripartite distinction—biological sex as physiological fact, gender roles as cultural overlays on sex differences, and gender identity as subjective experience—avoids conflation that could obscure causal mechanisms, such as how innate sex-linked traits (e.g., testosterone-driven aggression) inform but do not equate to role expectations or identity formation.[24] Peer-reviewed analyses emphasize that while gender roles and identity can interact with sex (e.g., through socialization reinforcing identity alignment), treating them as fully detachable risks ignoring empirical evidence of sex as the foundational binary driver of human dimorphism.[18][19]Biological and Innate Foundations
Genetic, Hormonal, and Prenatal Influences
Twin studies demonstrate substantial genetic contributions to sex differences in personality traits and interests relevant to gender roles, such as greater female interest in people-oriented activities and male interest in things-oriented pursuits. Heritability estimates for Big Five personality traits range from 40-60%, with sex differences in mean levels showing partial genetic overlap rather than purely environmental origins; for example, genetic factors account for up to 50% of variance in traits like extraversion and neuroticism, where females score higher on average.[25] [26] A large-scale analysis of 2,335,920 twin pairs found no evidence for qualitative sex-specific genetic effects in most human traits, but quantitative differences arise from sex-linked genes on the X and Y chromosomes influencing brain and behavioral dimorphism.[27] [28] Prenatal hormonal influences, particularly androgens like testosterone, exert organizational effects on brain development, shaping later sex-typical behaviors and gender role preferences. Exposure to elevated prenatal testosterone masculinizes neural circuits, leading to increased male-typical play, spatial abilities, and aggression in both sexes; studies of amniotic fluid testosterone levels in fetuses correlate higher exposure with reduced female-typical toy preferences (e.g., dolls) and enhanced rough-and-tumble play by age 3-4.[29] [30] This effect persists into adulthood, with prenatal androgen markers like the 2D:4D digit ratio predicting vocational interests and social behaviors aligned with traditional male roles.[31] Evidence from congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), where genetic mutations cause excess prenatal androgen production in XX females, further supports these causal links. Girls with CAH display significantly more male-typical gender role behaviors, including preferences for boys' toys, outdoor activities, and careers in systemizing fields (e.g., engineering over nursing), with the degree of atypicality correlating to CYP21A2 genotype severity and prenatal androgen excess.[32] [33] Adult women with CAH report higher rates of non-heterosexual orientation and reduced interest in nurturing roles, independent of postnatal socialization, underscoring the enduring impact of atypical prenatal hormone levels.[34] These findings align with animal models and human proxy measures, indicating that prenatal hormones organize dimorphic brain regions like the hypothalamus and amygdala, which underpin sex differences in mating strategies and parental investment.[35] [36]Neurobiological and Brain Structure Evidence
Males exhibit larger total brain volumes than females by approximately 10-12%, even after adjusting for body size differences, as confirmed by multiple structural MRI studies and meta-analyses.[37] [38] This dimorphism emerges early, observable at birth, and persists across the lifespan, with males showing greater overall gray and white matter volumes.[39] Regional variations include larger male volumes in subcortical structures such as the amygdala (particularly the right amygdala, with Cohen's d ≈ 0.3) and hypothalamus, areas implicated in emotion processing, aggression, and reproductive behaviors that align with traditional male gender roles involving risk-taking and territoriality.[37] [40] The amygdala's sexual dimorphism correlates with sex-typical behavioral differences; for instance, larger male amygdalae are associated with heightened responsivity to threat and social dominance cues, supporting evolutionary adaptations for male competitive roles.[41] In the hypothalamus, sexually dimorphic nuclei like the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH-3) are smaller in females, paralleling differences in rodents where such structures regulate male-typical mounting behaviors and partner preferences, suggesting a neurobiological basis for divergent mating strategies that underpin gender role divisions in reproduction and parenting.[42] [40] Females, conversely, show relatively larger volumes in the hippocampus in some analyses, though findings vary by hemisphere and age, potentially linking to enhanced spatial memory for foraging and social bonding relevant to nurturing roles.[37] Cortical differences further delineate sex-typical profiles: females tend to have thicker cortices and greater interhemispheric connectivity via a proportionally larger corpus callosum (after volume correction), facilitating integration of verbal and emotional processing, whereas males display stronger intrahemispheric connections optimized for visuospatial tasks like navigation and tool use, which historically supported provider roles.[41] [39] These structural patterns, influenced by prenatal androgen exposure, exhibit moderate effect sizes (e.g., d = 0.2-0.5 for connectivity metrics) and substantial individual overlap, but population-level averages predict cognitive sex differences—such as male advantages in mental rotation (d ≈ 0.6) and female edges in episodic memory—that manifest in gender role preferences for technical versus relational occupations.[41] [43] While some reviews emphasize minimal overall variance explained by sex (<1% in certain mosaics), meta-analytic evidence prioritizes these replicable dimorphisms as causal contributors to behavioral divergence over socialization alone.[37] [41]Developmental and Twin Studies on Innate Differences
Sex differences in behavioral preferences manifest early in development, often before significant cultural socialization. Studies of newborns, aged less than 24 hours, reveal that male infants direct more visual attention toward mechanical objects like a mobile, whereas female infants prefer faces, with Cohen's d exceeding 1.0 for the female preference, indicating a large effect size.[44] These patterns persist and strengthen in toddlerhood; by 9 to 32 months, boys consistently favor vehicles and functional toys, while girls select dolls and domestic items, with effect sizes around d = 1.03 in meta-analytic syntheses spanning multiple countries, settings, and age groups from infancy through adolescence.[45] Prenatal hormonal exposure provides causal evidence for innate influences on these behaviors. Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), exposed to elevated androgens in utero due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency, exhibit masculinized play patterns, spending more time with male-typical toys like trucks compared to unaffected female relatives, with preferences correlating directly with the severity of prenatal androgen excess as measured by CYP21 genotype.[46][47] This effect holds after controlling for postnatal treatment and socialization, as CAH girls also prefer male playmates and rough-and-tumble activities, underscoring the role of organizational effects from early hormones on behavioral dimorphism.[48] Twin studies further illuminate the genetic architecture of sex-typed traits. In preschool-aged monozygotic and dizygotic twins, sex-typical behaviors show modest genetic heritability, but shared environmental factors—including twin-specific experiences like cohabitation—account for substantial variance, approximately 22% across both sexes, with nonshared environments dominating the remainder.[49][50] For related domains like vocational interests, which underpin adult gender roles, twin correlations indicate heritability estimates of 40-50%, with monozygotic twins reared apart showing greater similarity than dizygotic pairs, suggesting additive genetic effects contribute to the people-oriented (female-typical) versus things-oriented (male-typical) divide observed cross-culturally.[51] These findings align with broader behavioral genetic data where sex differences in personality facets—such as higher female agreeableness and neuroticism—exhibit nonadditive genetic components, though quantitative sex effects in heritability are minimal for most traits.[26][27]| Study Type | Key Finding | Heritability Estimate (if applicable) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newborn Visual Preferences | Males prefer mechanical objects; females faces (d > 1.0) | N/A | [44] |
| Toy Preference Meta-Analysis | Large, consistent sex differences (d ≈ 1.0-1.6) across ages/cultures | N/A | [45] |
| CAH Toy Play | Androgen-exposed girls prefer male toys, dose-dependent | N/A (hormonal causal) | [46] |
| Preschool Sex-Typed Behavior Twins | Shared env ~22%; genetics modest | h² ≈ 0.20-0.30 | [49] |
| Vocational Interests Twins | Genetic basis for people-things dimorphism | h² ≈ 0.40-0.50 | [51] |
Evolutionary and Adaptive Perspectives
Origins in Ancestral Environments
In ancestral environments spanning the Pleistocene epoch (approximately 2.58 million to 11,700 years ago), human gender roles are hypothesized to have originated from adaptive divisions of labor shaped by sex differences in physical capabilities, reproductive biology, and ecological pressures that favored survival and reproductive success. Males, exhibiting greater upper-body strength and sexual dimorphism—with average body mass 10-20% higher than females—were predisposed to high-risk activities such as hunting large game and defending against predators or rival groups, activities that demanded endurance, speed, and aggression to secure high-calorie but unpredictable resources.[52] [53] Females, constrained by the high costs of gestation (lasting about 9 months) and lactation (extending 2-4 years per offspring), prioritized activities compatible with offspring care, such as gathering plant foods, processing resources, and nurturing young, which provided more reliable nutrition and allowed for continuous maternal investment. This sexual division of labor is posited to have enhanced overall group fitness by leveraging complementary strengths, with males' contributions buffering against famine through sporadic big-game hauls and females ensuring steady caloric intake averaging 60-80% of diet in many foraging contexts.[1] Empirical support draws from ethnographic data on contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, which serve as proxies for ancestral patterns despite cultural variations; across 93 such groups, males predominantly engaged in big-game hunting (contributing disproportionately to meat procurement), while females focused on small-game trapping, foraging, and child-rearing, patterns linked to physiological constraints like reduced female mobility during pregnancy.[54] Archaeological evidence, including isotopic analysis of Neanderthal and early modern human remains, reveals sex-differentiated diets and tool use, with males showing signs of higher protein intake from meat and females from plant-based sources, consistent with specialized foraging roles.[55] However, recent findings indicate flexibility, as female burials with hunting weaponry (e.g., atlatls and spears) in 27 out of 63 analyzed sites suggest women participated in hunting in at least 79% of foraging societies, often targeting smaller or less dangerous prey, though comprising only about 33% of big-game hunters overall.[54] [56] These data challenge rigid stereotypes but affirm average sex differences driven by biology, as women's reproductive obligations limited participation in calorie-expensive, high-mortality pursuits like persistence hunting, which required traveling distances up to 50 km per expedition.[57] Evolutionary models, informed by parental investment theory, further explain these origins: females' greater obligatory investment in offspring (via internal fertilization and prolonged dependency) selected for risk-averse strategies emphasizing kin protection, while males' lower certainty of paternity and higher variance in reproductive success favored mate competition and provisioning through dangerous exploits, fostering traits like spatial navigation and object manipulation in males.[53] Cross-species comparisons with primates reinforce this, as male chimpanzees hunt colobus monkeys cooperatively while females forage and guard infants, mirroring human patterns scaled to greater encephalization and tool use.[58] Life-history frameworks integrate these dynamics, positing that in harsh ancestral settings with high extrinsic mortality, faster male life histories (earlier maturation, riskier behaviors) complemented slower female strategies (extended parental care), yielding persistent gender-differentiated behaviors despite environmental plasticity.[1] Critiques emphasizing social roles over innate dispositions, such as biosocial theories, acknowledge evolved predispositions but attribute role rigidity to cultural reinforcement; however, the ubiquity of these patterns across foraging groups—spanning continents and millennia—suggests deeper causal roots in selection pressures rather than purely contingent socialization.[59]Reproductive Fitness and Life History Strategies
In parental investment theory, females typically commit greater obligatory resources to reproduction, including gestation, lactation, and initial offspring care, which imposes higher costs and limits their reproductive rate compared to males.[60][61] This asymmetry favors female selectivity in mate choice to ensure paternal investment and genetic quality, while males benefit from pursuing multiple partners to maximize fertilizations, often through competition and status-seeking behaviors.[62] Such dynamics underpin evolved gender roles, with males adapting strategies emphasizing risk-taking and resource acquisition—evident in higher male variance in reproductive success across historical and ethnographic data, where a subset of high-status males sire disproportionately many offspring.[63] Females, conversely, prioritize long-term pair-bonding and offspring viability, aligning with roles centered on nurturing and alliance-building to secure biparental care.[64] Life history theory extends this by framing sex differences as optimizations between somatic maintenance, growth, and reproduction under resource constraints.[65] In humans, males often adopt faster life history tactics, allocating more effort to mating competition and less to extended parental investment, as seen in greater male propensity for short-term mating and risk-prone activities like status displays or physical contests, which correlate with elevated testosterone levels and ancestral payoffs in polygynous environments.[66][67] Empirical studies confirm males exhibit higher reproductive skew, with lifetime reproductive success ranging from zero for low-competitors to scores exceeding 100 offspring for elites in pre-modern societies, driving adaptations like intra-sexual rivalry that manifest in gender-typical divisions of labor.[68] Females, facing steeper costs from poor mate choices, evolve slower strategies favoring quality over quantity, including delayed reproduction and preference for providers, which traditional gender roles—such as male provisioning and female foraging/childrearing—functionally supported by enhancing overall fitness in resource-scarce settings.[6][69] Cross-species patterns reinforce these human patterns: In mammals, the sex with lower parental investment (usually males) shows greater mating effort and variance in fitness gains, paralleling human data where male risk-taking in hunting or warfare historically boosted access to mates despite elevated mortality.[70][71] While environmental variability can modulate strategies—e.g., monogamy in harsh conditions to ensure paternal aid—the core dimorphism persists, with deviations like female competition in high-resource scenarios remaining exceptions rather than norms.[72] This framework explains why gender roles, though culturally amplified, align with causal pressures from differential fitness incentives rather than arbitrary constructs.Cross-Species Comparisons
In mammalian species, sex differences in parental investment stem from anisogamy, where females produce larger gametes and bear the costs of gestation and lactation, leading to greater female commitment to offspring care compared to males, who often prioritize mating opportunities.[73] This pattern manifests in behavioral dimorphism, with females exhibiting more nurturing behaviors such as nursing and guarding young, while males engage in territorial defense or mate guarding to enhance reproductive success.[74] Empirical data from over 70 mammalian species show that male parental care increases with paternity certainty but remains secondary to female efforts in most cases, correlating with reduced sexual dimorphism in monogamous systems.[75] Among primates, our closest relatives, sexual dimorphism in body size and canine teeth reflects male intrasexual competition for access to females, influencing division of labor: males typically handle high-risk activities like predation defense and ranging, while females focus on foraging and infant care proximate to safe areas.[76] In chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), multimale groups feature pronounced male coalitions for hunting and border patrols, with females gathering plant foods and carrying dependent offspring, a pattern sustained by polygynous mating where males defend territories.[77] Conversely, bonobos (Pan paniscus) exhibit less dimorphism and more female-female alliances that mitigate male dominance, yet females still invest disproportionately in rearing, highlighting that while social structures vary, core reproductive asymmetries persist.[78] Cross-species data indicate that human gender roles—such as greater female involvement in child-rearing and male propensities for risk-taking—align with these primate trends, moderated by reduced dimorphism (e.g., human male-female body mass ratio of ~1.15 versus ~1.7 in gorillas), which correlates with increased paternal investment in pair-bonding species.[79] Exceptions exist, such as in role-reversed birds where females compete and males incubate, but these are rare and tied to reversed sex ratios or ornamentation, not representative of mammalian norms.[80] Overall, these comparisons underscore evolutionary pressures from differential reproductive costs, with female-biased care predominant across 72% of studied mammals.[74]Socialization and Cultural Theories
Processes of Gender Socialization
Gender socialization encompasses the mechanisms through which individuals acquire and conform to culturally prescribed gender roles, beginning in early childhood and extending across the lifespan. This process involves direct instruction, modeling, reinforcement, and punishment by social agents, shaping behaviors, attitudes, and self-concepts aligned with perceived masculine or feminine norms. Empirical studies indicate that these processes amplify existing behavioral tendencies but do not fully account for observed sex differences, as evidenced by persistent patterns in controlled environments.[81] Within the family, parents serve as the primary agents, often exhibiting differential treatment from infancy. Fathers, in particular, respond more contingently to sons' emotional expressions of distress while encouraging daughters' sadness, fostering gender-typed emotional regulation. Mothers and fathers alike provide gender-stereotyped toys—vehicles and tools for boys, dolls for girls—and encourage rough-and-tumble play more with boys, which correlates with later activity preferences. A meta-analysis of 172 studies confirms systematic parental differentiation in encouragement of achievement, independence, and socioemotional behaviors, with effect sizes indicating moderate influences on children's self-perceptions. However, longitudinal data reveal limited differences in overall parental control, with parents exerting slightly more restrictiveness on boys (d = 0.08).[82][83][84] Peer groups emerge as influential during preschool and school years, enforcing conformity through same-sex segregation and norm policing. Boys typically engage in larger, hierarchical groups with competitive, physical play, while girls form smaller, intimate dyads emphasizing relational aggression and prosocial behaviors; deviations invite ridicule or exclusion. Observational studies document children as young as 2–3 years actively sanction cross-gender play, reinforcing spatial and activity preferences that align with innate propensities. Meta-analytic reviews highlight medium effect sizes for girls' greater prosociality in peer contexts (d ≈ 0.40), suggesting peers amplify rather than originate these patterns.[85][86] Educational settings contribute via teacher expectations, curriculum content, and implicit biases. Teachers often call on boys more for complex tasks and provide girls with nurturance-oriented feedback, perpetuating achievement gaps in STEM for girls and verbal domains for boys. School playgrounds facilitate gender-segregated activities, with textbooks historically depicting males in active roles and females in passive ones, though recent analyses show declining but persistent stereotypes. Cross-national research underscores schools' role in transmitting societal norms, with teacher training interventions yielding small reductions in bias (effect sizes < 0.20).[87] Mass media, including television and advertising, reinforces stereotypes through repeated portrayals: men as dominant providers, women as relational caregivers. A meta-analysis of 50 years of television studies (k=485 effects) finds consistent, small-to-moderate influences on viewers' gender role attitudes, with heavier exposure correlating to traditional views (r ≈ 0.10–0.15). Experimental evidence links sexualizing media to heightened self-objectification in girls, though effects vary by age and content type. Despite diversification in recent media, core stereotypes persist, influencing adolescents' identity formation amid daily exposure averaging 7–9 hours.[88][89][90]Key Theorists and Social Construct Models
Margaret Mead's anthropological work in Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) proposed that observed differences in male and female temperament across cultures, such as among the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli peoples of New Guinea, resulted from socialization rather than biological imperatives.[91] Mead documented cases where both sexes displayed traits conventionally associated with gentleness or aggression in Western contexts, arguing that gender roles emerge from cultural conditioning that shapes personality independently of sex.[92] Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex (1949) advanced an existentialist model framing gender as a historical and social construct imposed on biological sex, with the dictum "One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman" encapsulating her view that femininity arises through societal processes that position women as the "Other" relative to male norms.[93] De Beauvoir contended that gender roles perpetuate women's subordination via institutions like marriage and labor divisions, which are not innate but learned through repetitive social expectations that constrain authentic self-definition.[94] Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity, outlined in Gender Trouble (1990) and elaborated in essays like "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution" (1988), posits gender as neither a stable identity nor biological fact but a "doing" sustained through iterative, citational acts regulated by heteronormative discourse.[95] Butler argued that these stylized repetitions—such as bodily gestures, speech patterns, and dress—fabricate the appearance of a coherent gendered self, rendering gender roles precarious and subject to subversion when performances deviate from compulsory norms.[96] These models collectively emphasize gender roles as emergent from interactional, discursive, and institutional forces, often minimizing fixed biological substrates in favor of malleable social processes, as synthesized in constructivist frameworks distinguishing gender from sex as an organizing principle of inequality.[97] Empirical applications, such as Candace West and Don Zimmerman's "doing gender" concept (1987), extend this by viewing gender as an achieved status in everyday interactions, where individuals reflexively enact roles to align with accountability structures.[98]Empirical Critiques of Pure Social Constructivism
Empirical studies on children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a condition causing elevated prenatal androgen exposure in genetic females, demonstrate masculinized play behaviors that persist despite typical female socialization. Girls with CAH exhibit increased preferences for male-typical toys, rough-and-tumble play, and male playmates compared to unaffected girls, with these patterns correlating with androgen levels rather than parental encouragement.[99][48] Such findings indicate that prenatal hormones influence sex-typical behaviors independently of postnatal social influences, challenging claims that gender roles emerge solely from cultural conditioning.[100] Twin studies further reveal substantial heritability in gender-typical behaviors and interests, suggesting genetic factors contribute beyond environmental socialization. Monozygotic twins show higher concordance for gendered play preferences and nonconformity than dizygotic twins, with heritability estimates for gender-related traits ranging from moderate to high, often exceeding 50% after accounting for shared environments.[101][102] These genetic influences manifest early, prior to extensive cultural exposure, implying that pure constructivism overlooks innate predispositions shaping role adoption.[103] Meta-analyses of vocational interests document large, consistent sex differences, with males preferring "things-oriented" activities (e.g., mechanical, scientific) and females favoring "people-oriented" ones (e.g., social, artistic), yielding effect sizes around d=0.93.[104] These disparities hold across diverse samples and resist equalization through socialization efforts, as evidenced by their stability in longitudinal data.[105] Similarly, personality traits like agreeableness and neuroticism show sex differences of moderate magnitude (d=0.40-0.50), with males scoring higher on systemizing and females on empathizing, patterns not fully attributable to societal roles.[106] Cross-cultural research contradicts pure constructivism by revealing that sex differences in personality and interests often amplify in more gender-egalitarian nations, a phenomenon termed the "gender equality paradox." In prosperous, low-restriction societies like those in Scandinavia, gaps in Big Five traits (e.g., women higher in neuroticism and agreeableness) and occupational preferences widen compared to less egalitarian contexts, suggesting reduced social pressures allow biological inclinations to express more freely.[107][108] This pattern, observed across 55+ cultures, implies that constructivist models overemphasize malleability while underestimating evolved, endogenous drivers of gender roles.[109]Historical Development
Prehistoric and Ancient Societies
In prehistoric societies, particularly among Paleolithic hunter-gatherers spanning approximately 3.3 million to 10,000 years ago, archaeological and ethnographic evidence points to a predominant sexual division of labor shaped by physiological differences and reproductive imperatives. Men typically specialized in hunting large game, which required greater upper-body strength, risk tolerance, and mobility unencumbered by pregnancy or nursing, while women focused on gathering plant resources, small game procurement, and child-rearing, activities compatible with intermittent childcare demands.[54][110] This pattern is corroborated by studies of contemporary hunter-gatherer groups, such as the Hadza and !Kung, where men contribute 60-80% of calories via hunting in many cases, though women's gathering provides reliable staples and overall nutritional parity or surplus.[111] Exceptions exist, including rare female burials with big-game hunting tools, such as a 9,000-year-old Peruvian site containing a woman interred with projectile points and trauma consistent with hunting activity, suggesting occasional female participation but not overturning the aggregate trend.[110] Upper Paleolithic artifacts, including over 200 Venus figurines from sites across Europe dated 35,000-10,000 BCE, predominantly depict exaggerated female forms emphasizing breasts, hips, and genitalia, interpreted as symbols of fertility and reproductive capacity rather than egalitarian roles. These steatopygous figures, often portable and associated with female-crafted items like textiles or basketry in some contexts, underscore women's central biological role in lineage continuity amid high infant mortality and subsistence pressures, without evidence of symmetric male depictions.[112][113] Transitioning to ancient civilizations around 3500 BCE, gender roles in Mesopotamia reflected a patriarchal structure with differentiated spheres: men dominated public administration, warfare, and priesthood, while women managed households, engaged in textile production, brewing, and limited commerce, retaining rights to own property, initiate divorce, and inherit under codes like Hammurabi's (c. 1750 BCE), though paternal authority prevailed.[114] In Egypt (c. 3100-30 BCE), women enjoyed comparatively greater autonomy, with legal equality in contracts, property ownership, and divorce, exemplified by figures like Queen Hatshepsut (r. 1479-1458 BCE) who ruled as pharaoh; however, roles remained sex-typed, with men in military and scribal professions and women in domestic production and temple service, tied to ideals of fertility via deities like Isis.[115][116] In classical Greece (c. 800-323 BCE), societal norms enforced stricter seclusion for women, confined to the oikos (household) for weaving, child-rearing, and limited market roles, excluded from citizenship, politics, and public discourse under male guardianship (kyrios system), as articulated in Aristotelian texts viewing women as inherently subordinate due to deliberative deficiency.[117] Sparta offered partial exceptions, training women for physical fitness to bear strong offspring, but even there, authority rested with males. Roman society (c. 753 BCE-476 CE) codified paterfamilias authority, granting household heads absolute control over wives and children, with women legally restricted from public office yet active in family estates and, post-Republic, gaining incremental property rights via imperial reforms; elite women like Livia Drusilla influenced indirectly, but norms prioritized male dominance in law, military, and governance.[118][117] Across these societies, roles aligned with biological dimorphism—male strength for protection and expansion, female reproduction for population sustenance—tempered by cultural-legal variances, without erasing foundational asymmetries.[116]Medieval to Industrial Era Shifts
In medieval Europe, gender roles were predominantly structured around the family economy, where women's labor was integral to household production, including agriculture, textile work, and small-scale crafts such as brewing and dairying, often alongside men in familial units rather than in segregated spheres.[119][120] Legal and customary norms reinforced male authority in public domains like warfare and governance, while women managed domestic resources and could inherit property or participate in guilds, particularly after the Black Death in 1348, which created labor shortages leading to higher female wages—sometimes approaching 75-100% of male rates in agriculture—and greater bargaining power for remarriage or independence.[121][122] This era's division of labor reflected physical dimorphisms and reproductive demands, with men handling heavier field work and plowing, but women's contributions were economically vital, comprising up to 30-50% of agricultural output in peasant households.[123] Transitions in the early modern period (c. 1500-1750) began eroding some medieval flexibilities due to enclosure movements, population growth, and proto-industrialization, which pushed more women into waged labor in rural spinning or urban domestic service, yet reinforced patriarchal controls through emerging Protestant ideologies emphasizing women's subordination in marriage and exclusion from clerical roles.[124][125] Gendered occupational patterns fluctuated; for instance, women dominated brewing in the medieval era but were largely displaced by male-dominated guilds by the 16th century, reflecting guild monopolies rather than inherent incapacity.[120] Overall, women's workforce participation remained high in pre-industrial settings—estimated at 40-60% of adult females in England—but was undervalued and tied to family needs, with limited legal autonomy compared to widows or heiresses who could operate businesses independently.[126][127] The Industrial Revolution (c. 1760-1840) marked a profound shift, as mechanization in textiles and mining drew large numbers of women—particularly young and unmarried—into factories, where they comprised up to 50% of the workforce in British cotton mills by 1830, enduring 12-16 hour shifts for wages 50-75% below men's due to perceived physical frailty and family obligations.[128][129] This urbanization separated production from the home, intensifying a "cult of domesticity" for emerging middle-class women, who were idealized as moral guardians of the private sphere while working-class women balanced factory labor with childcare, leading to higher infant mortality and reliance on extended kin networks.[130][131] Economically, the era's capital-intensive technologies reduced demand for female agricultural labor, channeling women into low-skill industrial roles, yet empirical data show no net decline in overall female participation—around 40% in 19th-century Britain—but a reconfiguration toward urban wage work that exposed class-based divergences, with elite norms promoting male breadwinning.[128][132] These changes were driven by technological imperatives and market forces rather than deliberate egalitarianism, perpetuating a sexual division of labor adapted to machinery, where women's roles remained supplementary despite expanded opportunities.[133]20th-Century Transformations
The early 20th century marked initial shifts in gender roles through women's suffrage movements and wartime necessities. In the United States, the 19th Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, granted women the right to vote, culminating first-wave feminist efforts focused on legal equality. World War I accelerated women's entry into the workforce; in Britain, female employment rates rose from 23.6% of the working-age population in 1914 to between 37.7% and 46.7% by 1918, as men were conscripted and women filled roles in munitions factories and agriculture.[134] This mobilization not only demonstrated women's capabilities in non-domestic labor but also bolstered suffrage arguments by evidencing their contributions to national efforts, with studies linking wartime labor increases to greater support for women's political rights.[135] World War II further transformed gender roles by necessitating massive female workforce participation. In the US, women comprised 25% of the labor force in 1940, surging to over 36% by 1945 as 6 million women entered jobs vacated by men, including in defense industries like aircraft assembly.[136] [137] Post-war policies encouraged repatriation to traditional roles, with many women displaced to prioritize returning veterans, yet the experience laid groundwork for sustained increases in female employment.[136] [138] Analyses indicate that while WWII boosted participation temporarily, pre-existing trends and half of married women working in 1950 already employed in 1940 suggest the war amplified rather than originated broader shifts toward women's economic involvement.[138] Mid-to-late 20th-century developments, including second-wave feminism and technological advances like the contraceptive pill approved in 1960, further eroded rigid divisions. US women's labor force participation climbed from about 34% in 1950 to 51% by 1980, driven by expanded education, service-sector growth, and advocacy for workplace equality.[139] [140] Second-wave feminism, peaking in the 1960s-1980s, challenged domestic norms, contributing to no-fault divorce laws enacted in states like California in 1969, which correlated with US divorce rates doubling from 2.2 per 1,000 in 1960 to 5.2 by 1980, and fertility rates declining from 3.65 births per woman in 1960 to 1.84 by 1980.[141] [142] These changes facilitated delayed marriage and childbearing, reducing unplanned pregnancies and enabling greater female autonomy, though they also strained traditional family structures.[142] Despite these transformations, empirical evidence reveals persistence of innate sex differences influencing role adherence. Meta-analyses of vocational interests show consistent patterns—men preferring "things" (realistic/investigative fields) and women "people" (social/artistic)—with effect sizes around d=0.84 for interests, explaining ongoing occupational segregation even as opportunities equalized.[104] [143] Such differences, observed across cultures and stable over decades, suggest biological factors, including evolutionary adaptations, limit convergence toward identical roles, countering purely social constructivist interpretations prevalent in some academic narratives.[144] By century's end, while women's public roles expanded markedly, divisions in caregiving, risk-taking professions, and family priorities endured, reflecting causal interplay of biology and environment rather than socialization alone.[145][146]Cross-Cultural Evidence
Universal Patterns Across Societies
Across hundreds of societies documented in ethnographic databases, the division of labor by sex exhibits near-universal patterns, with women performing the majority of childcare and food preparation while men handle hunting of large game and warfare. In the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS) of 186 societies analyzed by Murdock and Provost, childcare is dominated by women in 96% of cases, cooking and fetching water in nearly all societies, whereas men exclusively or predominantly engage in metalworking, herding large animals, and combat activities.[147][148] These allocations persist across subsistence economies, from hunter-gatherer to industrial, with only 10-15% of tasks showing flexible or equal participation by both sexes, such as small-game hunting or pottery. Socialization practices reinforce these divisions consistently. Barry, Bacon, and Child's 1957 survey of 110 nonindustrial societies found that boys are trained for independence, achievement, and self-reliance in 75-90% of cultures, while girls receive emphasis on nurturance, obedience, and responsibility toward younger siblings in over 80% of cases.[149][150] Such differences emerge post-infancy and hold irrespective of societal complexity or matrilineal/patrilineal kinship, suggesting constraints beyond cultural variability. Men are also socialized toward risk-taking and spatial navigation, aligning with their overrepresentation in migratory or defensive roles. Mate selection and family roles display universality tied to sexual dimorphism. In cross-cultural studies, women prioritize resource provision and status in partners at higher rates than men, who emphasize physical attractiveness and fertility cues, a pattern observed in 37 cultures by Buss and confirmed in larger samples.[3] Marital stability correlates with adherence to these roles, with polygyny prevalent where men can support multiple wives, reflecting male variance in reproductive success. These patterns, evident in 90%+ of societies, stem from evolved sex differences in parental investment, where women's gestation and lactation limit mobility for high-risk foraging, favoring proximate childcare.[1] Exceptions, such as female warriors in Dahomey or rare female big-game hunting in specific forager groups, occur in under 5% of societies and often involve post-reproductive women or cultural anomalies, not overturning the aggregate trends.[54] Empirical data from the Human Relations Area Files (eHRAF) corroborate that deviations increase societal instability or are short-lived, underscoring the robustness of sex-based specialization for survival and reproduction.[151]Cultural Variations and Their Limits
Cultural variations in gender roles manifest in diverse family structures, division of labor, and social expectations across societies. For instance, matrilineal systems like those among the Mosuo in China emphasize female inheritance and household authority, contrasting with patrilineal norms dominant in many agrarian societies where males hold primary land rights and decision-making power. Similarly, some foraging societies, such as the Aka in Central Africa, exhibit more equitable sharing of childcare between sexes compared to the more specialized divisions in pastoralist groups like the Maasai, where men focus on herding and raiding while women manage domestic tasks. These differences arise from ecological pressures, resource availability, and historical adaptations, yet they do not eliminate underlying patterns tied to sex differences in physical capabilities and reproductive roles.[151] Empirical cross-cultural studies reveal limits to such variations, particularly in behavioral traits and occupational preferences that persist despite cultural interventions toward egalitarianism. Sex differences in personality traits, such as greater female agreeableness and neuroticism alongside male extraversion in assertiveness domains, are observed across 55 nations and tend to magnify in wealthier, gender-egalitarian societies like those in Scandinavia, contradicting social role theories that predict convergence under equality. This pattern suggests that reduced constraints allow innate predispositions to emerge more fully, as men's traits shift more variably across cultures than women's.[107][152] Vocational interests provide further evidence of bounded variation: females consistently prefer people-oriented fields (e.g., social work, nursing) over thing-oriented ones (e.g., engineering, mechanics) in surveys spanning multiple countries, with gaps often widening in nations scoring high on gender equality indices like Sweden and Norway. Even in cultures with policies promoting occupational parity, such as post-Soviet Eastern Europe, self-reported interests and choices maintain sex-typed patterns, indicating biological influences like prenatal hormone exposure over pure socialization.[106][153] Reproductive and risk-related roles impose additional constraints. Universally, women invest more time in direct childcare across 93 societies documented in ethnographic databases, averaging 2-3 times the hours of men, even in dual-income egalitarian contexts. Male dominance in high-risk activities, from hunting in hunter-gatherer groups to modern hazardous occupations, reflects consistent sex differences in physical strength and risk tolerance, with female participation in combat roles remaining exceptional and often linked to societal exigencies like wartime shortages rather than normative shifts. These limits underscore that while culture modulates expression, it operates within parameters set by evolved sex differences in strength, interests, and parental investment strategies.[151][154]Hunter-Gatherer and Traditional Societies
In hunter-gatherer societies, ethnographic records consistently document a sexual division of labor, with men specializing in high-risk, high-mobility activities such as hunting large game, trapping, and fishing, while women focus on gathering wild plants, collecting shellfish, processing food, and providing nearly all childcare, particularly for infants due to breastfeeding demands averaging two years.[151][155] This pattern appears in studies of groups like the Hadza, !Kung San, and Ache, where women's gathering often supplies 60-80% of caloric intake, but men's hunting provides essential protein, fats, and prestige items, with roles shaped by sex differences in upper-body strength, aerobic capacity for endurance pursuits, and women's constraints from pregnancy and nursing.[156] Although a 2023 analysis of 63 foraging societies reported female participation in hunting in 79% of cases—typically involving small game or fending—big-game hunting remains predominantly male, and such involvement does not overturn the broader empirical evidence for persistent gendered specialization compatible with reproductive biology and physical dimorphism.[54][157] Extending to traditional non-foraging societies, such as pastoralist and early agrarian groups, similar divisions prevail cross-culturally, with men handling livestock herding (especially large or dangerous animals), land clearing, plowing, and butchering, while women manage domestic production, including cooking, fuel gathering, small-animal care, weaving, and childrearing beyond infancy.[151][158] In pastoral societies, men typically own and trade herds, assuming risks from predation or raids, whereas women's roles center on milking, dairy processing, and household maintenance, allowing compatibility with ongoing childcare responsibilities.[151] Agrarian intensification, particularly with plow technology, further entrenches male dominance in field labor due to requirements for upper-body strength, while women's subsistence contributions decline relative to domestic tasks, a pattern observed in ethnographic samples spanning Africa, Eurasia, and the Americas.[159] These role allocations align with near-universal patterns in the Human Relations Area Files database of over 400 societies, where men perform over 99% of warfare and external raiding—activities incompatible with women's childcare burdens—and economic tasks are segregated by sex in ways reflecting average differences in risk tolerance, spatial navigation, and physical capabilities rather than arbitrary cultural invention.[151][156] Exceptions, such as matrilineal inheritance or female participation in low-risk subsistence in specific horticultural groups, do not negate the predominance of sex-based divisions, which ethnographic coding shows in subsistence activities across diverse ecologies, underscoring causal influences from human dimorphism and reproductive imperatives over purely social constructs.[160][155]Roles in Family and Reproduction
Division of Labor in Parenting
The division of labor in parenting exhibits consistent sex differences, with mothers typically allocating more time to direct childcare and household tasks related to child-rearing, while fathers emphasize provisioning, play, and disciplinary roles. Time-use surveys across Western societies, including the United States, indicate that women spend substantially more hours weekly on childcare; for instance, at age 35, mothers average five hours daily with children compared to three hours for fathers.[161] This disparity holds even in dual-earner households and persists despite policy efforts toward equality, as evidenced by multicountry data from over 30,000 respondents showing mothers dedicating more time to childcare necessities.[162] Biological imperatives underpin this pattern, as women's gestation, lactation, and hormonal responses—such as elevated oxytocin promoting bonding—position them as primary caregivers for infants, a role less feasible for fathers.[163] Fathers, influenced by higher vasopressin levels, contribute through protective and resource-securing behaviors, fostering independence and risk assessment in offspring.[164] Cross-cultural studies of non-industrial societies reveal probabilistic constraints favoring female specialization in nurturing tasks due to these physiological differences, with rare exceptions tied to extreme environmental factors rather than cultural norms alone.[165] In modern contexts like Norway, fathers' involvement has risen since 1980, narrowing some gaps through paternity leave policies, yet mothers retain primary responsibility for routine care, suggesting innate preferences and efficiencies limit full convergence.[166] European time-allocation analyses confirm women invest twice as much time in childcare as men, even when employed full-time, highlighting that egalitarian ideals do not erase sex-based divisions rooted in reproductive biology and evolved behaviors.[167] These patterns align with empirical observations that interchangeable parenting yields suboptimal outcomes, as complementary roles enhance child development through diverse inputs—nurturance from mothers and challenge from fathers.[168]Mate Selection and Sexual Dimorphism
In mate selection, empirical studies consistently reveal sex-differentiated preferences shaped by evolutionary pressures. Men, across diverse populations, prioritize physical attractiveness, youth, and bodily features signaling fertility and health, such as a low waist-to-hip ratio and facial symmetry, as these correlate with reproductive potential.[169][170] Women, by contrast, place greater emphasis on traits indicating resource acquisition capacity, financial prospects, ambition, and social dominance, reflecting the adaptive need to secure provisioning for offspring given higher female parental investment in gestation and nursing.[169][171] These patterns emerged prominently in David Buss's 1989 cross-cultural study of 10,047 participants from 37 societies spanning six continents, where men rated "good looks" approximately 1.5 times higher than women on a 0-3 importance scale for marital partners, while women rated "good financial prospects" nearly twice as highly as men.[169] The findings held universally, with cultural variations in magnitude but not direction, supporting causal mechanisms rooted in ancestral selection rather than socialization alone.[169] A 2020 replication across 45 countries and 14,399 participants reaffirmed these sex differences, with men showing stronger preferences for younger, attractive mates and women for older, resourceful ones, even amid modern economic shifts.[171] Meta-analyses of mate choice data further indicate that such preferences influence actual partnering outcomes, including age gaps (men typically 2-3 years older than partners) and assortative mating by status.[170] These preferences manifest in courtship behaviors, including sex differences in initiation. Men more frequently initiate romantic approaches, while women hesitate primarily due to fear of rejection rather than fear of physical violence, reflecting evolved mating strategies and differences in risk assessment.[172] Sexual dimorphism in humans—manifested in males' greater average height (about 8-10% taller globally), upper-body strength (up to 50-60% greater), and lower body fat—arises partly from sexual selection via mate choice and male-male competition.[77] Women's preferences for taller, more muscular men signal genetic quality, health, and competitive prowess, as these traits correlate with higher testosterone levels and ancestral fighting success, enhancing offspring viability.[173][174] Empirical evidence from speed-dating experiments and surveys shows women rejecting shorter men at rates 2-3 times higher than height mismatches in the opposite direction, while men's preferences for feminine dimorphism (e.g., neotenous faces, hourglass figures) align with fertility indicators like estrogen-mediated fat distribution.[173] Meta-analyses confirm modest but reliable links between male dimorphic traits and mating success, though effects are condition-dependent, stronger in resource-scarce environments where good genes provide fitness advantages.[175] These dimorphisms reflect intensified selection on males due to higher variance in reproductive success, with polygynous histories amplifying traits under female choice.[176]Marital Expectations and Stability
Spouses in traditional marriages often hold differentiated expectations aligned with gender roles, with husbands emphasizing provision and protection and wives focusing on homemaking, child-rearing, and emotional support. These expectations stem from empirical patterns in mate preferences, where women prioritize resource provision in partners—evident in cross-cultural studies showing consistent sex differences in desired traits—and men value fertility cues and nurturing behaviors. Such role clarity facilitates specialization, reducing household conflict and enhancing efficiency, as supported by economic models of comparative advantage in family labor division.[177][178] Marital stability is higher when partners exhibit congruence in gender role attitudes, regardless of whether they are traditional or egalitarian, according to analyses of over 34,000 reports from mixed-gender couples in the US and Germany; satisfaction increases notably when both endorse extreme traditional views or extreme egalitarian ones, but mismatches predict discord. However, longitudinal data reveal that traditional congruence correlates with lower divorce risks and sustained satisfaction, particularly in dual-earner contexts where wives' part-time work complements a husband's breadwinner role, yielding outcomes akin to full-time homemaking arrangements. For example, US couples with a primary male earner and shared but gendered domestic tasks report 20-30% lower dissolution rates than fully egalitarian pairs, per National Marriage Project findings.[179][180] Cross-nationally, societies enforcing traditional marital expectations—such as those limiting women's economic independence—exhibit lower divorce rates, with women's prestige and dependence inversely predicting dissolution; in 71 nations surveyed from 1995-1998, higher female labor dependence on males halved divorce probabilities compared to egalitarian settings. In contrast, rising egalitarianism in the West has coincided with divorce rates climbing to 40-50% for first marriages since the 1970s, often initiated by women (comprising 69% of filings) due to perceived role inequities or unmet relational ideals. Recent cohorts show convergence, but traditional structures persist in buffering economic shocks, as seen in stable Asian and Middle Eastern unions where crude divorce rates remain under 1 per 1,000 versus 3.2 in the US as of 2021.[181][182][183]Roles in Institutions and Economy
Religious Prescriptions and Practices
In Christianity, scriptural prescriptions delineate complementary gender roles emphasizing male headship and female submission within marriage and ecclesiastical structures. The Apostle Paul instructs in Ephesians 5:22-33 that wives submit to husbands as the church submits to Christ, while husbands are to love wives sacrificially, reflecting Christ's role as head.[184] Similarly, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 prohibits women from teaching or exercising authority over men in the assembly, reserving pastoral oversight for qualified males (1 Timothy 3:1-7), a pattern rooted in the creation order of Adam preceding Eve (1 Timothy 2:13). These directives, drawn from the New Testament, have informed practices in denominations like evangelical Protestantism, where male-only ordination persists, though liberal branches often reinterpret them as culturally contextual.[184][185] Islamic texts prescribe men as qawwamun (maintainers or protectors) over women, owing to men's financial obligations and physical strengths, granting them authority in family matters; Quran 4:34 permits admonition, separation in bed, and symbolic striking for nushuz (disobedience or rebellion) by wives, while urging reconciliation.[186] Women are directed to remain in homes, guard chastity, and obey righteous husbands (Quran 4:34, 33:33), with polygyny allowed for men up to four wives under conditions of equity (Quran 4:3). These prescriptions underpin practices in traditional Sunni and Shia communities, such as veiling for modesty (hijab) and male guardianship in inheritance—women receive half the share of men due to men's maintenance duties (Quran 4:11)—though modernist interpretations emphasize spiritual equality (Quran 33:35). Scholarly analyses note that classical fiqh codifies these roles rigidly, reflecting pre-modern societal norms rather than innate equality in function.[187][188] Judaism's Torah and halakhic traditions exempt women from time-bound positive commandments, such as daily prayer tefillin or Torah reading in minyan, prioritizing their roles in home-based mitzvot like candle-lighting, family purity (niddah laws prohibiting intercourse during menstruation), and child-rearing to foster spiritual nurture.[189] Men bear primary religious study and public ritual obligations, as in the morning blessing thanking God for not making them women, underscoring complementary duties rather than inferiority; women are seen as inherently closer to divine intuition, thus less needing formal study.[190] In Orthodox practice, these manifest in gender-separated worship and women's exclusion from rabbinic leadership, preserving domestic focus amid historical communal pressures, whereas Reform Judaism largely discards such distinctions for egalitarianism. Hindu scriptures like the Manusmriti prescribe women’s lifelong dependence—on father in youth, husband in marriage, sons in widowhood—casting pati (husband) as svami (lord) worthy of worship, with stridharma emphasizing chastity, household management, and devotion as pativrata ideals exemplified in epics like Ramayana's Sita.[191] Men undertake public dharma as providers and warriors per varna duties, while women sustain grihastha (householder) rites through service, though Vedas depict female sages like Gargi engaging intellectually. Practices vary by caste and region, with widow asceticism or sati historically tied to these roles, but texts affirm honoring women elevates prosperity (Manusmriti 3:56); contemporary observance blends with legal reforms post-1950s.[192] Buddhist traditions, per the Vinaya Pitaka, impose the Eight Garudhammas on bhikkhunis (nuns), mandating deference to bhikkhus (monks) even juniors, reflecting Buddha's initial reluctance to ordain women and prophecy of the sasana's shortened duration by 500 years due to their inclusion.[193] Lay prescriptions encourage women in domestic virtues and merit-making, with texts like the Anguttara Nikaya portraying women as prone to certain defilements yet capable of arahantship, though monastic lineages historically restricted full ordination for women in Theravada until recent revivals. Mahayana sutras elevate female buddhas symbolically, but practices often segregate genders in retreats and prioritize male lineage holders, aligning with empirical observations of sex differences in renunciation patterns rather than doctrinal inequality.[194]Military Service and Risk-Taking
Across societies, military service has overwhelmingly involved men in combat roles, with ethnographic data from over 100 cultures indicating that warfare is a male-specialized activity rooted in sex-based divisions of labor.[195] This pattern holds from hunter-gatherer groups to state-level armies, where men comprise the primary fighters due to physical demands of hand-to-hand combat and resource protection needs, while women focus on reproduction and support tasks.[196] Rare exceptions, such as the Dahomey Amazons in 18th-19th century West Africa, involved elite female units but represented a tiny fraction of forces and relied on male conscription elsewhere.[197] Biological differences contribute causally: men average greater upper-body strength (about 50-60% more than women), speed, and endurance for prolonged exertion, advantages selected evolutionarily for male competition and defense.[196] [198] Testosterone drives higher male propensity for aggression and risk in intergroup conflict, aligning with ancestral environments where males bore the costs of raiding and protection to secure mates and resources.[198] A meta-analysis of 150 studies confirms consistent male excess in risk-taking across physical, financial, and social domains, with effect sizes moderate but reliable (d ≈ 0.13-0.20), persisting after controlling for socialization.[199] In modern militaries, men still dominate: as of 2023, women constitute 17.5% of U.S. active-duty forces, up from 1% in 1970, but hold fewer than 10% of combat arms positions due to physiological standards.[200] [201] Globally, 90+ countries maintain male-only conscription, reflecting sustained sex differences in suitability for high-risk combat.[196] Casualty data underscores disparity: during armed conflicts, men account for the vast majority of direct battle deaths (over 90% in datasets from World War II to recent operations), as combatants face targeted risks women largely avoid.[202] This male skew in military risk extends to occupational patterns, with men overrepresented in hazardous roles like logging, mining, and policing (80-95% male), mirroring wartime burdens and linked to evolved sex differences in sensation-seeking and physical risk tolerance.[203] Studies show men report greater willingness to fight for country or kin, with evolutionary models attributing this to paternity certainty incentives absent in female reproductive strategies.[198] While integration efforts continue, empirical outcomes reveal persistent gaps in unit cohesion and performance when standards are equalized, prioritizing combat efficacy over equity.[204]Occupational Segregation and Productivity
Occupational segregation manifests as the disproportionate concentration of men and women in distinct professional fields, with women comprising approximately 88% of registered nurses and 75% of elementary school teachers in the United States as of 2021, while men dominate engineering (85%) and construction trades (97%). This pattern persists globally, with similar imbalances observed in Europe and Asia, where female representation in STEM fields averages below 30% despite equal or higher female educational attainment in many regions.[205] Empirical studies attribute this primarily to innate sex differences in vocational interests rather than discrimination alone, as evidenced by a meta-analysis of over 500,000 participants showing men exhibit stronger preferences for "things-oriented" occupations (e.g., mechanics, engineering; effect size d = 0.84) and women for "people-oriented" roles (e.g., caregiving, teaching; d = 0.68), differences that hold across cultures and emerge by adolescence.[104][144] These interest disparities, rooted in evolutionary adaptations for division of labor—such as greater male variability in spatial abilities and female emphasis on social coordination—drive self-selection into segregated fields, enhancing individual fit and reducing turnover.[143] Longitudinal data indicate that such alignment correlates with higher job satisfaction and performance, as mismatched placements lead to lower motivation; for instance, women in male-dominated fields report 20-30% higher dissatisfaction rates compared to those in female-dominated ones.[206] From a productivity standpoint, segregation facilitates specialization akin to comparative advantage, where aggregate output rises when workers pursue roles matching their predispositions, potentially offsetting wage gaps through efficiency gains—evidenced by stable segregation levels correlating with sustained GDP growth in labor markets allowing free choice, unlike interventions that disrupt preferences and yield minimal net productivity boosts.[207] Critics, often from policy-oriented institutions, contend segregation imposes economic costs by channeling women into lower-paying sectors, estimating it accounts for 12-37% of the gender wage gap and hampers growth via underutilized talent.[208] However, this overlooks non-wage factors like flexibility preferences, where women prioritize family-compatible roles, and empirical tests of desegregation programs show limited long-term shifts without sustained incentives, suggesting preferences dominate over barriers.[209] In high-segregation economies like Japan, productivity per worker remains competitive globally, implying that voluntary patterns reflect adaptive efficiency rather than inefficiency, particularly when accounting for total factor productivity metrics that reward specialization over forced integration.[205][207]Roles in Public Sphere
Political Leadership and Decision-Making
In historical contexts, political leadership was predominantly male, often linked to roles in warfare, governance, and public authority that aligned with physical strength and risk-taking associated with male gender roles. Societies structured decision-making hierarchies around male dominance in tribal councils, monarchies, and early republics, where women were excluded from formal power due to norms emphasizing domestic responsibilities and exclusion from military service.[210] Contemporary data indicate persistent underrepresentation of women in political leadership. As of 2024, women hold approximately 27% of seats in national parliaments worldwide, an increase from 15.6% in 2004 but still far from parity.[211] [212] In executive roles, only 32 women serve as heads of state or government across 29 countries as of September 2025, with just 31% of UN member states having ever had a female leader.[213] [214] Empirical studies reveal a gender gap in political ambition, with women less likely to express interest in running for office or pursuing leadership positions, a pattern persisting across demographics, party affiliations, and socioeconomic factors. This gap, documented consistently since the early 2000s, suggests factors beyond discrimination, including differences in self-perception of qualifications and family obligations.[215] [216] Women view political power more through lenses of community and conflict resolution rather than personal advancement, potentially reducing ambition for competitive roles.[217] Gender differences in decision-making styles influence political leadership, with men exhibiting higher risk-taking and women showing greater risk aversion, affecting policy choices in areas like finance and security.[218] [219] [220] Male leaders in experimental settings take more risks on behalf of groups, aligning with historical patterns of assertive governance.[221] Studies on elected officials find women politicians often more competent in reelection prospects but facing biases in masculine-defined roles.[222] Assessments of leadership effectiveness yield mixed results, with some analyses indicating women excel in collaborative and creative competencies, while others highlight stereotypes favoring men in crisis or hierarchical contexts.[223] [224] Despite quotas in some nations boosting representation, intrinsic differences in ambition and risk preferences contribute to slower progress toward parity, underscoring causal roles of biology and socialization over institutional barriers alone.[225][216]Educational Attainment and Fields
In the United States, women aged 25 and older hold bachelor's degrees or higher at a rate of 39.7%, compared to 36.9% for men, with women comprising 59% of bachelor's degree recipients in the 2021–22 academic year.[226][227] This gap has widened over time, as women achieve six-year college graduation rates of 67.9% versus 61.3% for men, and they represent 47% of bachelor's degrees among those aged 25–34 compared to 37% for men.[228][229] Internationally, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports that 52% of young women attain tertiary education compared to 39% of young men across member countries.[230] Despite women's overall lead in attainment, pronounced gender segregation persists in fields of study, with women concentrated in majors oriented toward people—such as education, nursing, psychology, and social work—and men in those oriented toward things, including engineering, computer science, and physical sciences.[231][232] For instance, women earn only 28.5% of master's degrees in engineering and engineering technology.[233] These patterns hold even in advanced degrees, where women remain underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines despite comprising the majority of overall tertiary graduates.[234] Empirical research attributes this segregation to robust sex differences in vocational interests, with men exhibiting stronger preferences for working with things (e.g., machines, tools) and women for working with people (e.g., helping, social interaction), yielding a large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.93) in meta-analyses spanning decades and cultures.[143] These differences manifest universally, including in adolescents' occupational aspirations across every country studied, and show biological correlates such as prenatal androgen exposure influencing females toward thing-oriented interests.[144][235] Such patterns endure despite policy efforts to promote gender parity in education, suggesting intrinsic factors over socialization or discrimination as primary drivers.[236][237]| Field Category | Female Share of Bachelor's Degrees (US, Recent Data) | Example Majors |
|---|---|---|
| People-Oriented | ~75–80% | Education, Psychology, Nursing[231][232] |
| Thing-Oriented (STEM) | ~20–30% | Engineering, Computer Science[233][238] |
Sports, Competition, and Physical Roles
Males exhibit superior performance in most athletic events requiring strength, speed, power, or endurance due to biological differences in anatomy and physiology driven by sex chromosomes and higher testosterone levels, which promote greater skeletal muscle mass, larger muscle fiber cross-sectional area, and enhanced cardiovascular capacity.[239][240] Circulating testosterone accounts for much of the sex difference in muscle strength and mass, with males typically possessing 10-30 times higher concentrations post-puberty, enabling absolute strength advantages of 50-60% in upper body tasks like bench press and 25-30% in lower body.[241][242] These disparities emerge primarily during puberty and persist across age groups, as evidenced by meta-analyses showing males outperforming females by 10-50% in metrics like grip strength, vertical jump, and sprint times, independent of training status.[243] In Olympic and elite-level sports, performance gaps reflect these physiological realities: for instance, the mean difference in world records between top male and female athletes in track events averages 10-12%, with larger margins (up to 30%) in strength-based disciplines like weightlifting or shot put.[244][245] In triathlon splits, males surpass females by 8-12% in swimming, cycling, and running across all age groups, underscoring consistent advantages in oxygen uptake and power output.[246] While ultra-endurance events occasionally show narrower gaps—due to factors like fat metabolism—males still hold records in nearly all distance running categories, with gaps of 5-17% persisting even after accounting for participation rates.[247][248] Such data, derived from longitudinal records and controlled studies, affirm that sex-based segregation in competitive sports maintains competitive equity, as integrated categories would result in females comprising the lower tail of male performance distributions.[239][249] Sex segregation in sports originated from empirical observations of these gaps, formalized in organizations like the International Olympic Committee since the early 20th century to prevent male dominance in female divisions, which could undermine participation and safety in contact or high-impact events.[250] Peer-reviewed analyses confirm that without segregation, biological males retain advantages post-puberty even after interventions like hormone suppression, as residual effects on bone density, lung capacity, and muscle memory endure.[251][252] In non-elite contexts, such as youth or recreational leagues, similar patterns hold, with boys outperforming girls by 20-40% in fundamental motor skills like throwing velocity by age 12, reinforcing the rationale for separate training and competition to foster skill development without disparity-induced discouragement.[253] This structure aligns with causal mechanisms of sexual dimorphism, where male-typical traits evolved for mate competition and risk-taking, manifesting in greater aggression and willingness to engage in physical confrontations during play or sports.[254]Media, Communication, and Technology
Portrayals in Traditional Media
In television advertising, portrayals of gender roles have consistently emphasized stereotypes, with men depicted in professional or authoritative positions more often than women, who are shown in domestic or relational contexts. A 2016 meta-analysis of over 100 studies across cultures confirmed that women appear in non-professional roles 2.5 times more frequently than men, while men dominate depictions of independence and competence. [255] Recent analyses of U.S. ads from 2019–2021 indicate persistence, with 25% featuring only men on screen compared to 5% only women, and women comprising 66% of those shown in domestic activities. [256] Film representations in Hollywood similarly reinforce traditional divisions, where male characters outnumber females in speaking roles and leadership positions. A 2023 network analysis of top-grossing films from 1928 to 2020 revealed that male archetypes cluster around agency and rationality, while female ones emphasize emotionality and support, though some diversification occurred post-1970s due to feminist influences. [257] In 2023 data from the top 100 domestic grossing films, women held 42% of protagonist roles but only 16% of director positions, with ensembles balancing the remainder; underrepresentation in creative control correlates with sustained objectification, as women characters face sexualization at rates 2–3 times higher than men. [258] [259] Television programming extends these patterns, particularly in family-oriented and prime-time content, where occupational segregation mirrors real-world disparities but amplifies them for narrative efficiency. A 2020 review of studies from 2000–2020 found that children's TV shows portray boys in adventurous, problem-solving roles 70% more often than girls, contributing to early stereotype formation without counterbalancing diverse models. [89] A 2018 content-analytic meta-analysis across screen media forms quantified that female characters receive less screen time (averaging 28% vs. men's 72%) and are ascribed passive traits, though post-2010 series show incremental shifts toward agency in genres like drama. [260] These depictions often reflect rather than challenge prevailing societal norms, as evidenced by correlations between media content and viewer reinforcement of roles in longitudinal surveys. [261]Online and Social Media Dynamics
Women exhibit higher overall engagement with social networking sites, often prioritizing relational and communal content such as sharing personal updates and emotional expressions, while men tend toward agentic behaviors like posting links, debates, or assertive self-promotion.[262] [263] A 2020 study of online technology communities found that female users contributed more to discussion threads focused on collaboration and support, whereas male users dominated technical problem-solving and leadership-oriented posts.[264] Communication styles online mirror offline gender patterns, with women employing more affiliative language—such as hedges, questions, and relational markers—to foster connections, and men using direct, assertive phrasing that emphasizes status and information exchange.[265] [266] In digital workplaces, men produce longer messages and claim more conversational space, leading to perceptions of women as less authoritative despite equivalent expertise.[267] These patterns persist across platforms like Twitter and Reddit, where analyses of pragmatic language reveal women favoring inclusive and empathetic tones, reinforcing traditional expectations of nurturance over dominance.[266] Social media content frequently reinforces gender roles through algorithmic amplification of stereotypical portrayals, such as women in domestic or appearance-focused narratives and men in competitive or provider roles, with empirical reviews confirming that exposure sustains objectification and norm adherence.[259] [268] However, platforms also enable challenges to norms, as seen in viral trends that occasionally disrupt stereotypes, though subtle sexist memes often counteract this by embedding patriarchal assumptions.[269] [270] Online harassment disproportionately targets women, with 58% of girls and young women reporting experiences of abuse like threats or doxxing, compared to lower rates among males, which discourages female participation in public discourse and entrenches roles of reticence.[271] [272] A 2025 survey indicated 25% of American women faced online abuse, often gendered in nature, amplifying risks for those in visible roles and prompting self-censorship that limits influence.[273] This dynamic, rooted in anonymity and scale, sustains asymmetries where men dominate contentious spaces, while women navigate relational networks with heightened vulnerability.[274]Nonverbal and Interpersonal Communication Styles
Women exhibit higher nonverbal expressivity than men, including greater use of smiling, nodding, gazing, and head tilting during interactions, as documented in multiple observational studies and meta-analyses of emotional expression.[275][276] These patterns align with women displaying more intense and widespread brain activation in response to emotional stimuli, suggesting underlying neurobiological differences in processing affective cues.[277] Men, conversely, tend toward more reserved nonverbal signals, such as expansive postures associated with dominance or status assertion, which emerge in competitive or hierarchical contexts.[278] In decoding nonverbal cues, women demonstrate superior accuracy in interpreting facial expressions, body language, and emotional intent across modalities like visual and auditory signals, with meta-analytic evidence confirming this edge holds across ages, cultures, and time periods, though effect sizes are moderate (d ≈ 0.3-0.5).[279][280] This proficiency may stem from evolutionary pressures favoring female attunement to social and relational dynamics, but perceptual mismatches persist; men often overattribute sexual intent to women's ambiguous nonverbal behaviors, such as smiling or proximity, leading to interpretive discrepancies in interpersonal encounters.[281] Touch behaviors reveal nuanced differences: observational data show no consistent pattern of men touching women more than vice versa in public settings, though women initiate more same-sex touch and report greater comfort with affiliative contact, while men respond more negatively to unwanted touch overall.[282][283] In flirtatious contexts, women employ brief touches and positive facial cues more frequently to signal interest, whereas men rely on approach-oriented body language prior to verbal initiation.[284][285] Interpersonally, women prioritize relational and affiliative speech patterns, such as hedging, politeness markers, and rapport-building questions, which meta-analyses link to higher interpersonal sensitivity—particularly to cold or aversive cues—fostering harmony in mixed-gender and same-sex groups.[286][287] Men favor direct, assertive styles emphasizing status, interruptions, and instrumental content, reflecting preferences for task-oriented exchanges over emotional disclosure, as evidenced in evaluations of communication efficacy where men rate instrumental skills higher.[288] These styles contribute to cross-sex misunderstandings, with women perceiving male directness as abrupt and men viewing female indirectness as evasive, though adaptive in their respective social roles.[289] Empirical reviews attribute such divergences partly to sex-based brain lateralization, where females show enhanced integration of verbal and nonverbal channels.[290]Contemporary Challenges and Movements
Feminist Reforms: Evidence of Benefits and Drawbacks
Feminist reforms, encompassing legal and policy changes such as women's suffrage, workplace equality mandates, no-fault divorce laws, and gender quotas, have aimed to dismantle traditional gender role constraints by promoting women's access to political, economic, and familial autonomy. These reforms have yielded measurable economic benefits, including expanded female labor force participation, which one analysis estimates could boost U.S. gross domestic product by 5% if aligned with male rates.[139] Suffrage extensions in the early 20th century correlated with increased public expenditures on education, sanitation, and hospitals, reflecting women's influence on policy priorities favoring social welfare and child health outcomes. No-fault divorce provisions, introduced widely from the 1970s, facilitated exits from abusive marriages, contributing to a long-term 20% decline in female suicide rates in adopting states.[291] However, empirical evidence highlights significant drawbacks, particularly in family structure and societal well-being. The introduction of no-fault divorce laws in the U.S. from the late 1960s onward coincided with a steep rise in divorce rates, with one study estimating a 10% increase attributable to these reforms, exacerbating family instability and reducing marriage formation.[292] [293] Rising female labor force participation has inversely correlated with fertility rates globally, with cross-national data from OECD countries supporting a role incompatibility hypothesis where workforce demands deter childbearing, contributing to below-replacement fertility in developed nations.[294] [295] Subjective well-being metrics reveal a "paradox of declining female happiness," documented in U.S. General Social Survey data from 1972 to 2006, where women's reported life satisfaction fell both absolutely and relative to men's, despite gains in rights and opportunities—a trend persisting across demographics and robust to various happiness measures.[296] [297] Gender quotas mandating female board representation, implemented in countries like Norway (2003) and France (2011), have increased women's presence but shown heterogeneous or negative impacts on firm performance; a systematic review of 16 studies found 11 reporting decreased financial outcomes, moderated by factors like quota stringency and pre-existing diversity.[298] These findings suggest that while reforms enhance individual agency, they may impose causal costs on relational stability, demographic sustainability, and organizational efficiency, with academic sources—often institutionally biased toward progressive narratives—underemphasizing such trade-offs in favor of equity-focused interpretations.[299]Men's Rights and Traditional Role Advocacy
![Save Indian Families protest in New Delhi, 2007][float-right] The men's rights movement emerged in the 1960s and gained momentum in the 1970s, primarily in response to perceived inequities in family law, including child custody and divorce settlements that favored women.[300] Activists contended that evolving no-fault divorce laws and presumptions of maternal custody exacerbated male disadvantages, leading to groups focused on reforming these systems.[301] By the 1980s, the movement expanded to critique broader institutional biases against men in areas such as criminal justice sentencing, where males receive longer sentences for similar offenses, and domestic violence policies that predominantly address female victims.[302] Central to men's rights advocacy are empirical disparities in family courts, where data indicate mothers are awarded primary physical custody in about 80% of contested cases in the United States, often attributed to lingering tender years doctrine influences despite formal gender neutrality.[303] Proponents argue this stems from systemic biases presuming women as primary caregivers, resulting in fathers receiving sole or joint custody in only 10-20% of decisions.[304] Complementary evidence includes higher male suicide rates, with global figures showing men dying by suicide at more than double the rate of women—12.3 versus 5.9 per 100,000 in 2021—linked by advocates to post-divorce isolation and loss of familial roles.[305] In the U.S., the male rate reached approximately four times the female rate in 2023.[306] Educational outcomes further underscore claimed male disadvantages, as boys globally comprise over half of out-of-school youth, with 139 million boys versus 133 million girls lacking access, and in higher-income contexts, boys lag in literacy proficiency and face suspension rates 2.5 times higher than girls.[307][308] Organizations such as the National Coalition for Men (NCFM), founded in 1977, litigate against discriminatory policies, including Selective Service requirements for males and underfunding of men's health initiatives, while promoting awareness of male victims in underreported areas like intimate partner violence.[302] Advocacy for traditional gender roles intersects with men's rights by positing that adherence to historical divisions—men as providers and protectors, women as nurturers—mitigates many disparities, with evidence from family structure studies showing children in intact, two-parent households experiencing lower rates of poverty and behavioral issues compared to single-mother homes.[309] Proponents, including conservative think tanks and figures critiquing rapid role shifts, cite longitudinal data indicating higher marital stability and child outcomes in unions maintaining complementary roles, countering narratives of inevitable progress through egalitarianism.[310] Such views challenge institutional emphases on fluidity, arguing biological sex differences in risk-taking and spatial abilities underpin role efficacy, though mainstream academic sources often frame traditionalism as constraining rather than protective.[311] These efforts face opposition from entities labeling them reactionary, yet persist through online forums and policy critiques emphasizing causal links between father absence and elevated youth crime rates.[312]Transgender Integration and Resulting Conflicts
Integration of transgender individuals into sex-segregated spaces traditionally reserved for biological females has generated conflicts centered on fairness, safety, and the persistence of physiological differences arising from male puberty. Empirical studies indicate that hormone therapy does not fully eliminate male-derived advantages in athletic performance, leading to debates over competitive equity in women's sports. For instance, a 2021 analysis of transgender women in the U.S. Air Force found that, after one year of testosterone suppression, they retained 9% greater strength in handgrip and maintained advantages in push-ups (31% more), sit-ups (15% more), and 1.5-mile run times (21% faster) compared to biological females.[313] Similarly, a 2024 study on transgender women athletes in running and swimming reported sustained performance edges post-transition, with strength retention of up to 48% after 12 months of hormone suppression.[314][315] These disparities have manifested in high-profile cases, exacerbating tensions. In 2022, Lia Thomas, a transgender woman who competed on the University of Pennsylvania women's swim team after transitioning, became the first to win an NCAA Division I national championship in the 500-yard freestyle, prompting backlash from female competitors over perceived unfairness; the university later modified her records in 2025 following federal scrutiny and apologized to affected athletes.[316] In mixed martial arts, Fallon Fox, a transgender woman fighter, fractured the orbital bone of female opponent Tamikka Brents during a 2014 bout, resulting in a concussion and requiring seven staples for Brents, highlighting risks of injury in contact sports where skeletal and muscular advantages persist.[317] A survey of 175 elite female athletes in 2024 revealed widespread opposition to transgender inclusion in women's categories, with many citing retained biological advantages as undermining fairness.[318] Safety concerns arise in correctional facilities and domestic violence shelters when biological males identifying as women are housed with females. While data emphasize victimization of transgender women in male prisons, integration into female facilities has led to documented assaults on biological female inmates, as male physiology correlates with higher perpetration rates of violence; for example, policies allowing such placements have been criticized for prioritizing identity over sex-based vulnerabilities, though comprehensive statistics on perpetrator incidents remain limited due to underreporting and definitional inconsistencies in official records.[319] In shelters, anecdotal reports and policy disputes indicate discomfort and fear among female residents, with some jurisdictions facing lawsuits over exclusions, reflecting broader tensions between transgender access claims and women's trauma-informed spaces designed to exclude male abusers.[320] Public opinion underscores these conflicts, with polls showing majority opposition to transgender women using female bathrooms and locker rooms in sex-segregated settings. A 2024 YouGov survey found Americans more likely to support restrictions on transgender participation in women's sports (55% oppose) and bathroom access aligned with gender identity rather than biological sex, particularly among women citing privacy and safety.[321] Support for bathroom restrictions rose to 47% by 2021, up 12% from 2016, amid high-profile incidents amplifying perceptions of risk.[322] Gender-critical feminists, emphasizing sex-based rights, have clashed with transgender advocacy, arguing that integration erodes protections rooted in immutable biological differences, a view substantiated by longitudinal data on unmitigated male advantages but contested in academic circles influenced by ideological priors.[323]Policy and Societal Impacts
Affirmative Action and Quota Effects
Affirmative action policies and gender quotas, implemented to elevate women into traditionally male-dominated positions such as corporate boards, political offices, and professional fields, have demonstrably increased female representation but yielded mixed empirical outcomes on organizational performance and broader societal metrics. In corporate settings, a systematic review of 40 studies on boardroom quotas found that such mandates primarily decreased company financial performance, with 11 analyses reporting negative effects and only 5 showing positive ones, attributing declines to factors like reduced merit-based selection and integration challenges. Norway's 2003 quota requiring 40% female directors by 2008, for instance, boosted qualified women on boards and narrowed gender pay gaps within firms but delivered no discernible benefits to overall firm profitability or spillover gains for female employees elsewhere in the organization.[324][325][298] In political arenas, gender quotas have similarly expanded women's legislative presence, often correlating with policy shifts toward issues like health, education, and family welfare, which align with observed female voter priorities. India's randomized village-level quotas for female leaders, introduced in the 1990s, elevated women's political engagement and influenced local spending toward public goods benefiting females, such as water access, without eliciting widespread backlash against female leadership. However, broader reviews indicate quotas prompt cues for gender-sensitive legislation but rarely alter core governance outcomes or economic policies, with substantive effects varying by quota design and enforcement; for example, Mexican quotas since 2014 increased female candidates but showed limited transformation in lawmaking beyond visibility gains.[326][327][328] Regarding occupational and educational domains, affirmative action has encouraged greater female entry into competitive fields, reducing gender segregation without clear evidence of performance detriment in many cases. A South African study of post-apartheid affirmative action found it diminished occupational gender divides by boosting women's access to skilled roles, though persistence of discrimination suggests incomplete role equalization. Mismatch concerns—where beneficiaries are placed in overly demanding environments leading to underperformance—appear less pronounced for gender than race in higher education, as women admitted via preferences often match or exceed peers in completion rates, per analyses of MBA programs. Yet, experimental evidence indicates affirmative action can heighten women's competition willingness while maintaining output parity with men, though perceptions of quota-driven appointments may perpetuate stereotypes of female incompetence, indirectly reinforcing traditional role binaries by framing advancements as concessions rather than capabilities.[329][330][331] These interventions challenge entrenched gender roles by normalizing female authority in public spheres, yet empirical data reveal trade-offs: heightened representation seldom translates to superior institutional outcomes and can foster resentment or tokenism, potentially entrenching divides rather than dissolving them. Longitudinal employment data from 1973–2003 in the U.S. showed affirmative action's cumulative impact mixed across genders, increasing minority female hires but with uneven quality effects, underscoring that while roles evolve toward parity in participation, causal links to enhanced societal welfare remain elusive amid confounding biases in source interpretations favoring equity over efficiency.[332][333]Family Policy Outcomes (e.g., Parental Leave)
Family policies, such as paid parental leave, aim to support work-family balance while promoting gender equality by enabling both parents to care for newborns, potentially reducing traditional divisions where mothers assume primary caregiving roles. In practice, however, uptake patterns often reflect persistent gender norms, with mothers utilizing the majority of leave even in systems designed for shared responsibility. For instance, in Nordic countries with generous entitlements—Sweden offers 480 days of paid leave at 80% salary, Norway 49 weeks at 100% or 59 at 80%, and Iceland similar durations—fathers typically claim only 20-30% of available days, despite incentives like non-transferable quotas.[334][335] This uneven distribution correlates with women dedicating more hours to childcare post-leave, perpetuating gaps in labor market participation and earnings.[336] Quasi-experimental evaluations of paternity leave expansions, such as Sweden's 1994 "daddy quota" reserving one month for fathers, show modest increases in fathers' leave-taking (from 7% to 25% of total days by 2000) and short-term boosts in paternal involvement, including higher rates of diaper-changing and playtime. Yet, long-term shifts in household division of labor remain limited; a 2024 analysis found no significant convergence in overall childcare time, with mothers retaining primary responsibility and facing career interruptions averaging 1-2 years. These policies can mitigate immediate post-birth disparities but often fail to alter entrenched norms, as evidenced by persistent gender gaps in part-time work (women 3-4 times more likely) and the motherhood penalty, where women's wages drop 4-7% per child due to reduced experience accumulation.[337][336][338] Regarding fertility and child outcomes, Nordic leave systems correlate with total fertility rates of 1.5-1.8 (above EU average of 1.5 as of 2023), potentially via reduced opportunity costs for women, though causal links are debated amid confounding factors like childcare subsidies. Iceland's 2020 reform, extending flexible leave amid COVID-19, coincided with a temporary fertility uptick from 1.71 to 1.90 in 2021, but sustained effects are unclear. Child development benefits emerge from moderate leave durations (up to 1 year), including lower infant mortality (Nordic rates ~2 per 1,000 vs. OECD 4) and improved maternal mental health, yet extensions beyond 12-18 months link to slight declines in cognitive scores if maternal employment substitutes for formal care. Women's career trajectories suffer disproportionately; meta-analyses indicate that each additional month of leave beyond 6 reduces lifetime earnings by 2-4% through skill depreciation and employer biases, exacerbating gender pay gaps (20-30% in Nordics vs. 15% EU average).[339][340][341]| Country | Total Paid Leave Days (2023) | % Taken by Fathers | Female LFPR Gap Post-Childbirth (%) | Fertility Rate (2022) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 480 | ~30 | 15-20 | 1.67 |
| Norway | 343 (49 weeks) | ~15-20 | 20-25 | 1.55 |
| Iceland | 360 | ~25 | 10-15 | 1.55 |
| US | 0 (federal, unpaid FMLA 12 weeks) | N/A | 25-30 | 1.67 |
Crime, Justice, and Gender Disparities
Males account for approximately 80-90% of arrests for violent crimes in the United States, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data from recent years.[345] This pattern holds globally, with meta-analyses confirming that males exhibit higher rates of criminal offending, particularly for serious and violent acts, driven by factors such as greater physical aggression and risk-taking behaviors associated with testosterone levels and socialization into competitive roles.[346] Female offending rates are substantially lower, comprising about 10-20% of violent crime arrests, often concentrated in non-violent or relational offenses like fraud or petty theft.[347] Incarceration rates reflect these offending disparities, with males comprising over 90% of the U.S. prison and jail population and facing imprisonment rates 14 times higher than females—343 per 100,000 males versus approximately 57 per 100,000 females as of midyear 2023.[348][349] Bureau of Justice Statistics data indicate that while female incarceration has risen since 2020 (up 9% in prisons), male rates remain disproportionately elevated due to higher conviction volumes for serious offenses.[350] These imbalances persist after controlling for crime type, suggesting that gender roles—such as male expectations of dominance or provision through illicit means—contribute causally to elevated male criminal involvement, beyond mere opportunity differences. Sentencing outcomes reveal further disparities favoring females. Peer-reviewed studies of federal cases find that women receive sentences 20-60% shorter than men for comparable offenses, with much of this gap unexplained by legal factors like criminal history or offense severity.[351][352] The largest leniency occurs at the incarceration decision, where women are 30% less likely to be imprisoned even after adjusting for observables, potentially reflecting judicial perceptions of female vulnerability or familial roles.[353][354] Such patterns raise questions about equity, as they may incentivize female offending or undermine deterrence, though proponents attribute them to lower recidivism risks among women. Victimization rates show mixed gender patterns under the National Crime Victimization Survey. Overall violent victimization rates have converged, with women now equally likely as men to experience violence (around 20-25 per 1,000 annually in recent data), but types differ markedly: men face higher risks of homicide, robbery, and stranger assaults, while women predominate in intimate partner violence and sexual assaults.[355][356] These disparities align with gender-specific vulnerabilities—male exposure through public roles and riskier behaviors versus female risks in domestic contexts—highlighting how traditional roles influence both perpetration and exposure without implying equivalence in overall harm.[357]| Metric | Males | Females | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violent Crime Arrest Share (US, recent) | ~80-90% | ~10-20% | FBI UCR[345] |
| Incarceration Rate per 100k (2023) | 343 | ~57 | BJS[348] |
| Sentence Length Gap (Federal, unexplained) | Baseline | 20-60% shorter | Peer-reviewed analyses[351] |
