1 September 2012
(rev. 12/9/12
)
Seminar: What Causes Gender
Inequality?
SOC-UA 937
Fall 2012
http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jackson/causes.of.gender.inequality
Robert Max Jackson
- a working syllabus -
Description:
In this course we will investigate what
causes gender inequality. This question is of great
theoretical and social importance. It is a very general
question that immediately implies a variety of more specific
questions. Why has gender inequality seemingly existed in
all known societies? Why did gender inequality arise
originally? Why did gender inequality persist even as
technological and cultural evolution overwhelmingly transformed
social, economic, and political organization? What is it
that people do that sustains gender inequality across
generations? What induces people to conform to the
expectations or requirements of gender inequality? Why is
gender inequality more severe in some circumstances than in
others? The closer and more critically we examine the
issues, the more questions about causation we confront.
In general, this course will concentrate on
explaining inequality between women and men: how does it arise,
why does it take different forms, why does it vary in degree
across societies, what are the components that add up to gender
inequality, how do various institutions and practices contribute
to it, and how does it change? The course will emphasize the
history of gender inequality in the United States.
While we focus on gender inequality, we will
also seek to understand social causation more generally. We
will explore the diverse ways social causation works and how we
can identify the causes behind important social
phenomena.
Readings & Books for the Class:
Most of our readings will be articles
available for download. The links will appear in the
on-line version of the course syllabus. Excerpts from Down
So Long ...: The Puzzling Persistence of Gender Inequality
(book manuscript by RMJ not yet published) will similarly be
available by download from the class web site. We will read
selections from Jackson's book Destined for Equality
(Harvard U Press) throughout the course, so it could be wise to buy
it or borrow it. Any student who does not have any background
in gender studies, particularly sociological, is likely to benefit
from reading through a standard textbook in the area--I recommend
Michael Kimmel's Gendered Society (which I use in my general
undergraduate class on gender).
Most sections of the syllabus include--beside
the common readings--several subsections that contain an
analytical task, recommended readings, and related
readings. The common readings are the readings we all do
and discuss. The analytical task is the writing assignment
for the week. In each of these papers--always
brief papers--students will try out causal ideas related to
the week's topic. Recommended and related readings are
optional materials useful for students who want to dig deeper into
a topic. To simplify navigating through the syllabus, the
items in these subsections are hidden until the viewer clicks on
the subsection heading, then they will appear.
Students should try to read each others' papers
before class each week. Students will prepare comments on two
other papers each week. Click here
for discussant assignments.
Course Outline and Readings
I. Introduction. What do we mean by gender
inequality?
How can we conceive of
and talk about gender inequality in ways that are general enough to
apply across the range of relevant phenomena, consistent enough to
minimize conceptual ambiguities, and precise enough to be
analytically effective? Gender inequality has been
extraordinarily diverse and wide spread. Women and men are
unequal in every conceivable way in endless circumstances, both
immediate and enduring, by both objective criteria and subjective
experience. So, what counts as gender inequality? Can we
characterize it in ways that let us confidently and impartially
assess when there is more or less of it?
-
Common Readings
-
-
Recommended
Readings
-
- Janet Saltzman Chafetz "Feminist
Theory and Sociology: Underutilized Contributions for
Mainstream Theory" Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol. 23, (1997), pp. 97-120; or Janet Saltzman Chafetz
"The
Varieties of Gender Theory in Sociology" Handbook
of the Sociology of Gender, 1999, p3-23, 21
- Rachel A. Rosenfeld. "What
Do We Learn about Difference from the Scholarship on
Gender?" Social Forces, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Sep., 2002),
pp. 1-24
-
Destined for Equality: Egalitarian Impulse
II. Causality - What are causes, mechanisms, and the
like?
We casually refer to causes and effects in
normal interactions all the time. We all conduct our
lives--choosing actions, making decisions, trying to influence
others--based on theories about why and how things happen in the
world. From early stages of child development we attribute
causes, building a vision of the social (and physical) world that
makes it understandable. Analytical and scientific reasoning
requires that we approach causation more systematically and
self-consciously.
-
Analytical Task
-
- In this and other societies, women and men commonly dress
differently. Prepare a causal analysis that seeks to
explain why women and men dress differently. To the
degree that you can, try to think of different kinds of causes
based on varied ways of framing the causal question.
Realistically, one could easily write a book about all the
possible ways of interpreting this causal question and
answering it. You are just trying to develop some
sensible insights in a couple pages.
- It is usually easier to analyze narrower causal questions.
So, when causal questions are very general, like this one, we
commonly want to break it down to more specific causal
questions. For example, with the gender distinctive
clothing question, some examples of more specific causal
questions are:
-
- What induces women and men to conform to the expectations
for dressing differently? Whenever we observe a
consistent pattern of social behavior, some common conditions
or processes must be inducing people to act in a similar
way. Figuring out what encourages conformity and
discourages deviance allows us to provide a causal
explanation.
- What circumstances could exist across societies that
consistently produce gender differences in modes of
dress? The clothing characteristic of each sex varies
greatly across societies (and time). But
seemingly everywhere men and women dress differently.
How can we explain this patter?
- Why are gender differences in dress greater in some
circumstances than in others? Our efforts to find
causes behind any phenomena are improved by looking at
variations. If male and female is just a little
different in some contexts but greatly different in others,
we can usefully focus on what might produce this variance in
gender differences.
- While considering how to explain the differences in the
ways women and men dress, it can also be helpful to think
through ways that this pattern could be considered an example
of a larger pattern. The explanation for the broader
pattern may be different or easier to develop. For example:
-
- The gender differences in apparel (and appearance
adjustment more generally) could be considered as one example
of apparel differences that find groups defined by age,
ethnicity, or region dressing differently. That is to
say, it is not only women and men who consistently dress
differently. Different ways of dressing also
distinguish other groups. If we think about those other
groups, does it give us insights into explaining the
difference between women's and men's clothing.
- The gender differences in dress could be considered as
one example of a wider range of behavioral differences
between women and men such as rules of proper decorum, speech
patterns, or displays of sexuality. That is, we can
point to other presentational differences between women and
men. If we think about the range of these
presentational differences, do they suggest ideas that might
help explain differences in apparel?
-
Common Readings:
-
-
Recommended
Readings
-
-
Related Readings
-
III. How is gender inequality symbolized and reproduced in
everyday life?
Let us begin with individuals, how they
experience and act out a system of gender inequality. Why and
when do people act differently because of their own gender; why and
when do people respond differently to others because of the others'
genders? How does the way that people act as individuals have
an aggregate effect on gender inequality?
-
Analytical Task
-
- Choose some setting or type of interaction familiar to you
where women and men typically engage each other. For
example, this could be a workplace, a bar, interactions between
buyers and sellers, or parties.
- First, read Ridgeway's argument carefully. Then try
to apply her argument to the setting you have chosen.
Assess how often you believe people's actions (in the context
you chose) fit the expectations you would derive from her
argument and when might they might not. The remaining
notes for this analytical task try to show you some of the
analytical steps that allow you to think through this problem
effectively.
- Doing this kind of thought experiment, you want to be as
systematic in your thinking as you can. For example,
first, simply consider possible differences between men's and
women's actions. Then consider how their actions might
differ between opposite sex and same sex encounters.
Broaden the range of the examples you use to think about these
differences by considering other characteristics that might
affect interactions, such as the age or race of the people,
whether the interaction is cordial or unfriendly, how well the
people know each other, and so on. Ask yourself if the
gender aspect of the interaction will be influenced by these
(for example, how gender influences cordial interactions
differently from confrontations in the setting you consider),
and if so, consider how and why. You do not usually want
to write about all the possibilities you think about, but use
the ones that you find telling.
- Take the analysis of interactions another step by
considering how the influence of gender on these interactions
is potentially affected by:
-
- the presence or absence of onlookers (i.e., the relative
privacy of the interaction)
- the gender distribution of other people present (i.e.,
mostly male, mostly female, or mixed)
- Whenever you are trying to explain patterns like this, you
want to consider the exceptions. When will people violate
the implications of gender expectations and what follows when
they do? Are there circumstances that make it more likely
people will depart from conventional behavior?
- Having done the above, try to assess when you think
Ridgeway's approach provides a good explanation of the ways
that gender influences behavior in your chosen setting, and
when it does not. Are there important causal processes
that matter to the gender character of behavior in this context
do you feel her approach neglects or misunderstands?
-
Common Readings:
-
- Cecilia L. Ridgeway,
Framed by Gender, Chs. 1-2 {I recommend buying
Ridgeway's book, but it is also available on line through the
library via this link}; If any of Ridgeway's presentation seems
unclear, try reading Ridgeway's article listed under the
recommended readings for this week.
- Hyde, J. S. (2005).
The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American
Psychologist, 60, 581-592 (doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581).
- Rosabeth Moss Kanter. "Some
Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and
Responses to Token Women" American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 82, No. 5 (Mar., 1977), pp. 965-990
-
Recommended
Readings
-
- Erving Goffman, "The
Arrangement between the Sexes" Theory and Society,
Vol. 4, No. 3 (Autumn, 1977), pp. 301-331
- Deniz Kandiyoti, "Bargaining
with Patriarchy." Gender and Society," Vol. 2, No. 3
(Sep., 1988), pp. 274-290
- Cecilia L. Ridgeway, "Framed
Before We Know It: How Gender Shapes Social
Relations". Gender & Society 2009
23:145-160
- Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman "Doing
Gender" Gender & Society 1987 1: 125-151.
-
-
Related
Readings
-
- Cecilia Ridgeway. Framed by Gender.
Oxford: 2011.
- ...
IV. Why have women
apparently occupied a subordinate position in all
societies?
-
Analytical Task
-
- Although scholars disagree if women have ever held a fully
equal or better status in any society, all agree that men have
been dominant in most societies although the degree of
dominance varies greatly. This raises the very tricky
question, how do we explain the prevalence of male
dominance? This exceedingly elusive question continues to
defy any answer that will evoke a consensus.
-
Isolate what you believe are the most important causal
arguments in the three common readings. Give a
critical assessment of their different approaches.
In doing this, try to pay attention to what it is that makes
you find the causal arguments more or less persuasive.
The recommended and related readings provide a range of
material that you can look at as you need to deepen and
sharpen your arguments.
-
-
Common Readings
-
-
Recommended
Readings
-
-
Related Readings
-
- Rae Blumberg. "Extending
Lenski's Schema to Hold Up Both Halves of the Sky—A
Theory‐Guided Way of Conceptualizing Agrarian Societies that
Illuminates a Puzzle about Gender Stratification"
Sociological Theory 22:2 (June 2004):278-291
- Matthew H. McIntyre, Carolyn Pope Edwards.
The Early Development of Gender Differences
Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 38 (2009):
83-97
- Sapolsky, Robert. "Testosterone
rules" Discover. Chicago: Mar 1997. Vol. 18, Iss. 3;
p. 44
- Laurie Wermuth and Miriam Ma'at-Ka-Re Monges. "Gender
Stratification: A Structural Model for Examining Case Examples
of Women in Less-Developed Countries." Frontiers: A
Journal of Women Studies 23.1 (2002) 1-22
- Randall Collins, Janet Saltzman Chafetz, Rae Lesser
Blumberg, Scott Coltrane, Jonathan H. Turner
Toward an Integrated Theory of Gender Stratification
Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Autumn,
1993), pp. 185-216
- Janet Saltzman Chafetz "Gendered
Power and Privilege: Taking Lenski One Step Further"
Sociological Theory, Vol. 22, No. 2, Religion, Stratification,
and Evolution in Human Societies: Essays in Honor of Gerhard E.
Lenski (Jun., 2004), pp. 269-277
- Joan N. Huber. "Comparative
Gender Stratification." Handbook of the Sociology of
Gender, 1999, p65-80
- Maurice Godelier, "The
Origins of Male Domination" New Left Review,
May-June 1981, pp. 3-17
- William Tulio Divale, Marvin Harris. "Population,
Warfare, and the Male Supremacist Complex." American
Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Sep., 1976),
pp. 521-538 [See also: William Divale, Marvin Harris, Donald T.
Williams. "On
the Misuse of Statistics: A Reply to Hirschfeld et
al." American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 80,
No. 2 (Jun., 1978), pp. 379-386; William Divale, Marvin
Harris. "The
Male Supremacist Complex: Discovery of a Cultural
Invention" American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 80,
No. 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 668-671]
- C C Mukhopadhyay, and P J Higgins. "Anthropological
Studies of Women's Status Revisited: 1977-1987". Annual
Review of Anthropology Vol. 17 (1988): 461-495
- Naomi Quinn. "Anthropological
Studies on Women's Status". Annual Review of
Anthropology Vol. 6 (1977): 181-225
- Chris Hann. "Reproduction
and Inheritance: Goody Revisited." Annual Review of
Anthropology, Vol. 37 (2008): 145-158
V. What determines men's and women's roles and positions
within families?
Family and kinship are potentially relevant
to gender inequality in varied ways and a lot of work had pursued
such issues. Probably the two most important general issues
involve the ways that women and men are unequal within families and
the ways that family organization both contributes to and is
influenced by gender inequality beyond the family
institution. We will just touch the surface of these issues
this week.
-
Analytical Task
-
- One of the key issues surrounding analyses of gender and
families concerns a distinction between two kinds of
causes. The first kind are the limitations of the larger
social environment, in terms of the opportunities,
responsibilities, and obstructions facing women and men.
The main causal logic here is that difference in what women and
men can and must do outside the family decides what happens in
the family. The second are the ways that women and men make
choices. The causal logic here emphasizes that cultural
expectations (or something else) seem to induce women and men
to prefer and choose arrangements that they could chose to
avoid.
- Select one principal causal argument about the relationship
between gender inequality and family organization from one of
the common readings. Write an analysis of that causal
argument.
- The analysis should:
-
- Provide a simple summary of the causal argument
- Assess the causal argument based on criteria from
materials in section II of our class, such as what kind of
causal argument it is, how well specified, what criteria it
might not meet well, and so on. You choose which
criteria seem important.
- Also assess the relationship between this causal argument
and the other related causal arguments in the other common
readings. Which are complementary, which are
overlapping, which are alternatives, which are
inconsistent?
- [Optional 1: Also assess the selected causal argument in
comparison to the alternatives offered in the common
readings. That is, how strong or weak, how well designed
or flawed, how valuable or not is this causal argument compared
to others about the same or related phenomena in our readings?]
- [Optional 2: While doing the above, where problems in the
casual analysis are found, try to suggest if you can see a
route to fixing them.]
-
-
Common Readings
-
- Andrew J. Cherlin,
American Marriage in the Early Twenty-First Century The
Future of Children Volume 15, Number 2, Fall 2005
-
Down So Long: Intimate Combat: The
Responsibility for Child Rearing
- Brines, Julie. 1994. “Economic
Dependency, Gender, and the Division of Labor at
Home.” American Journal of Sociology 100(3):
652-689.
- William J. Goode. "The
Theoretical Importance of Love" American
Sociological Review, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Feb., 1959), pp.
38-47
- Kathleen Gerson. "Changing
Lives, Resistant Institutions: A New Generation Negotiates
Gender, Work, and Family Change" Sociological
Forum, Vol. 24, No. 4, December 2009
-
Recommended
Readings
-
-
Destined for Equality: Institutional
Individualism: "Individualistic Family" 157-169
- Coltrane, Scott. 1989. “Household
Labor and the Routine Production of Gender.” Social
Problems 36: 473-490.
- Stephanie Coontz. “The
Historical Transformation of Marriage,” Journal of
Marriage and Family, Volume 66, Issue 4 (p 974-979)
November 2004.
- Beth Anne Shelton, Daphne John. "The
Division of Household Labor." Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 22, (1996), pp. 299-322
- Andrew J. Cherlin, "The
Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage"
Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 66, Issue 4 (p
848-861) November 2004.
-
Related Readings
-
- Kathleen Gerson. "Moral
Dilemmas, Moral Strategies, and the Transformation of Gender:
Lessons from Two Generations of Work and Family Change"
Gender & Society. Vol. 16 No. 1, February 2002
8-28
- Sara B. Raley, Marybeth J. Mattingly, Suzanne M. Bianchi.
"How
Dual Are Dual-Income Couples? Documenting Change From 1970 to
2001. Journal of Marriage and Family 68:1 (2006),
11-28
- Davis, S. N., T. Greenstein and J. G. Marks, “Effects
of Union Type and Division of Household Labor,” Journal
of Family Issues 28 (2007):1247–72.
- Scott Coltrane.
Father-Child Relationships and the Status of Women: A
Cross-Cultural Study. American Journal of Sociology, 93
(1988): 1060-1095.
- Joann Vanek. "Time Spent in Housework." Scientific
American 231 (Nov 1974):116-120.
- Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer. "The
Sociology of Women's Economic Role in the Family."
American Sociological Review, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Jun.,
1977), pp. 387-406
- Kathleen Gerson. (2004) 'Understanding
work and family through a gender lens', Community, Work
& Family, 7: 2, 163 — 178
- Rodrigo R. Soares, Bruno L. S. Falcão. "The
Demographic Transition and the Sexual Division of Labor."
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 116, No. 6 (Dec.,
2008), pp. 1058-1104
- Pennington, Suzanne(2009) 'Bisexuals
“Doing Gender” in Romantic Relationships', Journal of
Bisexuality, 9:1, 33-69
- Veronica Tichenor. "Maintaining
Men's Dominance: Negotiating Identity and Power When She Earns
More." Sex Roles 53:3-4, (2005): 191-205
- Becker, G. S., “Human
Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor,”
Journal of Labor Economics 3(1) (1985):33–58.
V. part 2. What determines men's and women's roles and
positions within families?
This week we will continue with the same
topic, but work on a different analytical task.
-
Analytical Task
-
- The goal this week will be to develop a basic causal
argument that takes into account the criteria discussed in
Gerring's article on causation (Section II).
- To begin, select some aspect of family organization related
to or expressing gender inequality that you want to try to
explain. That which is to be explained--the
explanandum--may be selected from those that appear in the
readings or may be some other factor you would like to
examine. Examples would include the relative control over
family decisions exercised by wives and husbands or changes in
the time men spend at child care activities. Remember
that modest goals are generally a better idea than grand ones
when doing causal analyses. Remember also that causal
explanations are commonly built on comparisons: between two
points in time, between distinctive groups, between different
circumstances, or the like.
- Offer an explanation for the issue chosen. This
explanation may use any mixture of ideas derived from the
readings, from other published work, or from your own
ideas. The goal here is to provide one, reasonable, brief
causal analysis. To say that it is reasonable means that
it is plausible, not that it is correct or complete. We
are also not asking for originality (although it is always a
pleasure when it occurs).
- Evaluate how well the explanation meets selected criteria
for causal arguments derived from Gerring. The summary tables of those criteria
are reproduced here. You should select a
small number of the criteria that you think most relevant to
the causal argument, and discuss how the proposed causal
analysis fulfills these criteria or why it cannot.
VI. What is the role of sexuality?
Sexuality has been evoked in multiple ways
in the study of gender inequality. It may be considered as a
possible motivating cause for inequality, examined for the ways it
reflects or is effected by gender inequality, or incorporated as a
peculiar tension between women and men that mediates both the
causes and effects of gender inequality. Essentially everyone
recognizes sexuality as critically important to gender inequality,
but it eludes comprehensive analysis.
-
Analytical Task
-
- The central task this week is to formulate a reasonable
causal argument about the relationship between one aspect of
sexuality and gender inequality.
- The selected facet of sexuality should:
-
- have a relationship to gender inequality that at least
some think is important. The role of the sexuality
characteristic relative to gender inequality may be cause,
effect, catalyst, or whatever else seems causally relevant.
- allow discussion of relevant ideas from at least three
scholarly works. These may be part of the common
readings, any of the other readings recommended here, or
another legitimate source.
- The task presentation should have the following three
parts:
-
- First, lay out the causal, explanatory problem. For
what is it that you are trying to provide a causal analysis?
And why is this important enough to merit attention? (The
latter part may seem self-evident, but still try to specify
why it is that we might all think the phenomenon is
important.)
- Second, provide the causal analysis. Try to be as
complete as possible within reasonable space limits. Be
clear. And try to make it as good as possible by the
criteria we have for evaluating causal theories, again while
staying within reasonable limits of time commitment.
(You do not need to address how well the argument meets such
criteria this week.)
- Third, consider at least two theories or perspectives
that would be likely to question the causal analysis you
offer. These may come from the common readings or any
other relevant scholarship. Be as specific as possible
about what criticism you would expect from each of these
"opponents" and how you would respond.
-
Common Readings
-
- Joan Acker. "Hierarchies,
Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations"
Gender & Society 1990 4 (2): 139-158 (stress pp.
151-4). (doi:10.1177/089124390004002002)
-
Down So Long: Intimate Combat: Sexuality
and Gender Inequality
- Zaylía, Jessica Leigh(2009) 'Toward
a Newer Theory of Sexuality: Terms, Titles, and the Bitter Taste
of Bisexuality', Journal of Bisexuality, 9 (2): 109 -
123. (DOI:10.1080/15299710902881467)
- Catharine A. MacKinnon. "Feminism,
Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory."
Signs, Vol. 7, No. 3, Feminist Theory (Spring, 1982), pp.
515-544
- John D. DeLamater and Janet Shibley Hyde. "Essentialism
vs. Social Constructionism in the Study of Human Sexuality."
The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Use of
Theory in Research and Scholarship on Sexuality (1998), pp.
10-18. (DOI:10.1080/00224499809551913)
- Bem, D. J. (2000).
Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the biological correlates
of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29,
531-548. (doi: 10.1023/A:1002050303320)
-
Recommended
Readings
-
- Letitia Anne Peplau. "Human
Sexuality: How Do Men and Women Differ?" Current
Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Apr.,
2003), pp. 37-40
- David L. Weis. "The
Use of Theory in Sexuality Research". The Journal of Sex
Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Use of Theory in Research and
Scholarship on Sexuality (1998), pp. 1-9
- Crawford, M., et. al.,
Sexual Double Standards: A Review and Methodological Critique
of Two Decades of Research. The Journal of Sex Research v.
40 no. 1 (February 2003) p. 13-26
- Carl N. Degler. "What
Ought To Be and What Was: Women's Sexuality in the Nineteenth
Century." The American Historical Review, Vol. 79,
No. 5 (Dec., 1974), pp. 1467-1490
- Dennis D. Waskul, Phillip Vannini, Desiree Wiesen.
"Women
and Their Clitoris: Personal Discovery, Signification, and
Use." Symbolic Interaction May 2007, Vol. 30, No. 2:
151–174
- Breanne Fahs. "Compulsory
Bisexuality?: The Challenges of Modern Sexual Fluidity."
Journal of Bisexuality, Volume 9, Issue 3
& 4 July 2009 , pages 431-449 (doi:
10.1080/15299710903316661)
- John A. Miller, Joan Acker, Kate Barry, Miriam M. Johnson
and Lois A. West. "Comments
on MacKinnon's 'Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the
State'."
Signs, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp.
168-184; and Catharine A. MacKinnon, "Reply
to Miller, Acker and Barry, Johnson, West, and
Gardiner."
Signs, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 184-188
- Steven Epstein. "An
Incitement to Discourse: Sociology and the History of
Sexuality." Sociological Forum, Vol. 18,
No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 485-502
-
Related Readings
-
- Nicole Constable. "The
Commodification of Intimacy: Marriage, Sex, and Reproductive
Labor." Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol.
38: 49-64 (2009)
- Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2003).
Sexual Compliance: Gender, Motivational, And Relationship
Perspectives. Journal of Sex Research, 40,
87-100
- Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). "'His'
And 'Her' Relationships: A Review Of The Empirical
Evidence." In A. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.),
The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (pp.
884-904). New York: Cambridge University Press
- Ronald Weitzer. "Sociology
of Sex Work." Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.
35: 213-234 (2009)
- Pennington, Suzanne(2009) 'Bisexuals
"Doing Gender" in Romantic Relationships', Journal of
Bisexuality, 9: 1, 33-69
- Lisa Duggan "From
Instincts to Politics: Writing the History of Sexuality in the
U.S." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 27,
No. 1, Feminist Perspectives on Sexuality. Part 1 (Feb., 1990),
pp. 95-109
- Michael W. Wiederman. "The
Truth Must Be in Here Somewhere: Examining the Gender
Discrepancy in Self-Reported Lifetime Number of Sex
Partners." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 34, No. 4
(1997), pp. 375-386
- Norman R. Brown, Robert C. Sinclair. "Estimating
Number of Lifetime Sexual Partners: Men and Women Do It
Differently." The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 36, No. 3
(Aug., 1999), pp. 292-297
- John Levi Martin, Matt George. "Theories
of Sexual Stratification: Toward an Analytics of the Sexual
Field and a Theory of Sexual Capital." Sociological Theory,
Vol. 24, No. 2 (Jun., 2006), pp. 107-132
- Judith Treas, Deirdre Giesen. "Sexual
Infidelity among Married and Cohabiting Americans." Journal
of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Feb., 2000), pp.
48-60
- Blow, Adrian J.; Hartnett, Kelley. "Infidelity
In Committed Relationships II: A Substantive Review ."
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, Volume 31, Issue 2,
2005, First Page 217
- Lever, J., Frederick, D., & Peplau, L. A. (2006).
Does Size Matter? Men's And Women's Views On Penis Size Across
The Life Span. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7(3),
129-143
VII. What is the role of
sex differences in the functioning and perpetuation of gender
inequality?
Attempts to explain gender inequality at all
levels are haunted by essentialism. Even as they
expressly reject the possibility of consequential inherent
differences between women and men, theoretical analyses of gender
inequality habitually build on gender differences. For some,
essentialism always means a difference based in biology or
genetics; for others it includes cultural differences that are
embodied in women and men.
-
Analytical Task
-
- Select one form or facet of gender inequality that is
sufficiently important, widespread, and enduring or recurring
to merit thoughtful theory and explanation. It should
also be For example, the facet might be that wives commonly
defer to husbands.
- For the selected type or aspect of gender inequality,
attempt to devise the best explanations you can from
each of the following perspectives. Thus, you
will suggest five alternative explanations for the relevant
facet of inequality, each one representing a different approach
to explaining such social phenomena. The explanations
should be succinct but clear. They should also be
plausible to the extent that a reasonable person might make
such an argument.
-
Direct biological - Devise an explanation claiming
that some biological difference between the sexes produces
the relevant aspect of inequality by making women and men
act differently. For example, an argument might be
that men are stronger than women so men dominate women as a
simple result of superior strength. (More complex
biological explanations might be derived from evolutionary
psychology.)
-
Indirect biological - Formulate an explanation
claiming some biological difference does not directly
produce the inequality, but the biological difference has
important effects or implications of some sort, and those
effects that make likely or unavoidable the emergence or
persistence of the selected aspect of gender
inequality. For example, someone might argue that
women's child bearing makes them anxious about the welfare
of their children, and that anxiety makes them feel weak and
in want of a protector, leading them to defer to
husbands. Or, others might suggest that women's child
rearing orientation encourages both women and men to make
men responsible for warfare, and that men's resulting skill
at combat, their possession of weapons, and men's
organization around mutual defense leaves wives typically in
their husbands' control. The key for this type of
explanation is that the relevant biological differences do
not directly cause the gender inequality being explained,
but have effects on social behavior and social organization
that lead to gender inequality.
-
Nonbiological sex difference - Suggest how some
difference between women and men that is neither biological
nor a direct result of biological differences initiates or
preserves the selected aspect of gender inequality.
For example, one might argue that wives' limited
opportunities for jobs makes them dependent on husbands, and
this dependency gives husbands power over their wives.
Or, one might claim that women are fearful and dependent
because of socialization processes (that have no biological
basis), and this psychological condition induces wives to
defer to their husbands. This type of explanation
claims a real difference exists between women and men (in
the society of social context where the inequality being
explained occurs; the relevant sex difference need not exist
in all or any other society or social context), but this
difference is entirely a social construction. This
type of explanation often becomes redundantly circular: each
aspect of inequality exists as a result of inequality, and
that overall inequality is constituted by the various
aspects.
-
Fictitious sex difference - An imputed sex difference
that does not really exist is claimed to play a significant
role in producing the selected facet of gender
inequality. For example, someone might suggest that
although women have no better capacity for child rearing,
people commonly assume they do because women bear children,
and that this false expectation produces a division of labor
and power favoring men. This type of explanation
focuses on the consequences of beliefs, relying on the
observation that beliefs can organize behavior even if they
are false beliefs.
-
Causes independent of sex differentiation - A causal
process that does not involve any difference between the
sexes is argued to produce the inequality being
considered. For example, some might argue that for
families to fulfill their social functions effectively, they
need one spouse/parent to perform the critical emotional
actions needed and the other spouse/parent to perform the
practical and leadership actions. This role
differentiation typically results in spouse inequality,
although that is an indirect and unintended
consequence. This category includes highly diverse
explanations, the one critical similarity among them being
that they do not rely on a sex difference in their central
causal argument.
- (Note, in this task we are aiming to produce explanations
that those advocating each of the above types of explanation
would think are reasonable. It is often hardest to
conceive good explanations from the points of view we find
unconvincing or unappealing, but the capacity to do this is a
valuable skill.)
- The point of this exercise is to examine how it is possible
to devise alternative causal explanations of gender inequality
that run the full range from being directly and fully
biological to excluding not only biology in any fashion but all
dependence on sex differences.
-
Common Readings
-
- Carol Gilligan. "Hearing
the Difference: Theorizing Connection."
Hypatia, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Spring, 1995), pp. 120-127
- Carol Gilligan. "Reply
by Carol Gilligan." Signs, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Winter,
1986), pp. 324-333
- Jaffee, Sara; Hyde, Janet Shibley. "Gender
Differences In Moral Orientation: A Meta-Analysis."
Psychological Bulletin. Vol 126(5), Sep 2000, 703-726. [doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.703]
- Valian, Virginia. 1998. "Sex,
Schemas, and Success: What's Keeping Women Back?" Academe
84(5): 50-55. (Compare Ridgeway in Section III above.)
(See Valian in Optional Readings for fuller account.)
-
Recommended
Readings
-
- Uri Gneezy, Kenneth L. Leonard, And John A. List.
"Gender
Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a
Patriarchal Society." Econometrica, Vol. 77, No. 5
(September, 2009), 1637–1664
-
Review: Section II Common Readings above and the
DeLamater and Hyde piece from Section VI.
- Douglas Schrock, Michael Schwalbe. "Men,
Masculinity, and Manhood Acts." Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 35: 277-295 (August 2009).
- Rosemary L. Hopcroft. "Gender
Inequality in Interaction – An Evolutionary Account."
Social Forces, Volume 87, Number 4, June 2009, pp.
1845-1871
- Matthew H. McIntyre, Carolyn Pope Edwards. "The
Early Development of Gender Differences." Annual
Review of Anthropology, Vol. 38: 83-97 (October 2009)
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002).
A Cross-Cultural Analysis Of The Behavior Of Women And Men:
Implications For The Origins Of Sex Differences.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.699
- Nancy Chodorow. "Oedipal
Asymmetries and Heterosexual Knots." Social
Problems, Vol. 23, No. 4, Feminist Perspectives: The
Sociological Challenge (Apr., 1976), pp. 454-468
-
Related Readings
-
- Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999).
The Origins Of Sex Differences In Human Behavior: Evolved
Dispositions Versus Social Roles. American Psychologist,
54, 408-423. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
- Valian, V. (1999).
The Cognitive Bases Of Gender Bias. Brooklyn Law Review,
65, 1037-1061.
- Clopton, Nancy A.; Sorell, Gwendolyn T. "Gender
differences in moral reasoning." . Psychology of Women
Quarterly, Mar93, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p85
- Pamela L. Geller. "Identity
and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology."
Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 38: 65-81 (October
2009)
- Barbara J. Risman, “Intimate
Relationships from a Microstructural Perspective: Mothering
Men.” Gender and Society 1:1 (March 1987).
- Nancy Chodorow. "Mothering,
Object-Relations, and the Female Oedipal Configuration."
Feminist Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1978), pp.
137-158
- Timothy J. Biblarz & Judith Stacey. "How
Does the Gender of Parents Matter?" Journal of Marriage and
Family 72:1 (2010):3-22
- Adrienne Rich. 1980. “Compulsory
Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Signs: Journal
of Women in Culture and Society 5 (4): 631-660
- Nussbaum, M. C.
The Professor Of Parody [J. Butler]. The New Republic v.
220 no. 8 (February 22 1999) p. 37-45. {Also, Nussbaum,
M. C.
Martha C. Nussbaum And Her Critics: An Exchange
[discussion of February 22, 1999 article, The Professor Of
Parody]. The New Republic v. 220 no. 16 (April 19 1999) p.
43-5}
- Timothy V. Kaufman-Osborn. "Fashionable
Subjects: On Judith Butler and the Causal Idioms of Postmodern
Feminist Theory." Political Research
Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 649-674
- Veronica Vasterling. "Butler's
Sophisticated Constructivism: A Critical Assessment."
Hypatia, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Summer, 1999), pp. 17-38
- Janis S. Bohan. "Regarding
gender: Essentialism, Constructionism, and Feminist
Psychology." Psychology of Women Quarterly, Mar 93,
Vol. 17 Issue 1, p5, 17p
- Barbara F. Reskin. "Including
Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality."
American Sociological Review, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Feb., 2003), pp.
1-21
VIII. What is the role of
violence and intimidation in the relationships between men and
women?
Most theoretical approaches to gender
inequality suggest that violence between women and men plays a role
in sustaining inequality; some also point toward violence as an
initial cause. A recurring issue concerns the degree
to which violence is an expression or result of gender inequality
or, alternatively, is a cause of inequality. The separate
roles of rape, harassment, and domestic violence, and their
relationships to each other are another critical question.
Much research and argument has also been focused on the question of
women's aggressive impulses and actions.
-
Analytical Task
-
- Try to develop a clear causal analysis of the role
played in gender inequality by a fear of violence.
- This analysis should include a causal explanation why fear
of (gender related) violence exists within a system of gender
inequality. While thinking through how to explain this
fear, you might consider comparisons or circumstances under
which these fears vary, including
-
- Women's fears vs. men's fears
- The circumstances under which women experience greater
fear and those where they feel safe
- Differences in the amount of fear typical amongst groups
or categories of women according to their age, affluence,
location, companions, or any other relevant social condition
- Differences in the distribution of fear across societies
distinguished by such conditions as forms of economic and
political organization, degree of development, prevailing
religious or cultural institutions and the like
- This analysis should also include a causal explanation of
the consequences for gender inequality of the distribution of
fears of violence. In what ways do fears of violence
influence the behavior of women or the relationships between
women and men? Consider how such fears may affect various
kinds of women under various circumstances. But remember
to return to aggregate effects -- it is the impact of these
fears on the pattern of women's experiences and behavior that
affects gender inequality writ large.
- Avoid the analytic temptation to argue as if equality might
imply an absence of discord and aggression.
Realistically, equality between two groups by itself only leads
us to expect that acts of aggression will occur with equal
frequency and effect between members of the two groups.
Removing inequality as a source of discord should reduce one
kind of frustrations that motivate aggression. Other
sources of discord still exist, however, and some forms of
aggression that would be suppressed by inequality might even
rise.
- Try to introduce appropriate connections between the
argument(s) you present and the readings. Consider not
only the common readings from this week, but also past readings
and optional ones from this week that seem particularly
relevant.
- The causal arguments should try to conform to the standards
for a good causal argument that we have read about and
discussed. Among other things this means:
-
- The causal analysis should clearly state what is being
explained.
- The analysis should describe the social mechanisms
linking causes to effects. It should show what happens
in the world that produces the outcomes, what kinds of people
or organizations behave in manner, what circumstances arise
that induce the relevant behavior, and so forth. This
may be abstract at the level of the causal model.
- The analysis should consider why the decisive
causes exist and take the form that they do. That is,
the causal analysis should push back at least one step past
the causes being invoked to ask what causes them.
- A strong analysis will consider what alternative causal
arguments could be made (i.e., how the causal processes could
be different from what you describe) and show what evidence
or logic favors the argument you have presented. A
thorough causal analysis will recognize that other causal
models might be considered plausable, and try to compare the
causal model being promoted to the alternatives.
- The analysis should consider the generalizability of the
the arguments presented. It should consider to what
periods, places, types of societies, parts of society, kinds
of social relationships or interactions do the arguments
apply?
- Most will find it difficult to do all of the above
effectively, so consider it suggestions about what would be
ideal, then apply your judgment about allocating your time
and effort.
-
Common Readings
-
- Claudia Garcia-Moreno, Lori Heise, Henrica A. F. M. Jansen,
Mary Ellsberg and Charlotte Watts. "Violence
against Women." Science, New Series, Vol. 310, No.
5752 (Nov. 25, 2005), pp. 1282-1283 [data brief] [doi: 10.1126/science.1121400]
- David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, Elizabeth M. Ridder.
"Partner
Violence and Mental Health Outcomes in a New Zealand Birth
Cohort." Journal of Marriage and Family, 2005, Volume 67, Issue 5
(p 1103-1119) [DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00202.x]
-
- the above article was published with the following two
commentaries and rejoinder by the authors--these clarify the
points of disagreement
- Michael P. Johnson. "Domestic
Violence: It's Not about Gender: Or Is It?." Journal of
Marriage and Family, Vol. 67, No. 5 (Dec., 2005), pp.
1126-1130 [DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00204.x]]
- Amy Holtzworth-Munroe. "Male
Versus Female Intimate Partner Violence: Putting Controversial
Findings Into Context." Journal of Marriage and Family,
Volume 67, Issue 5 (p 1120-1125) [DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00203.x]
- David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, Elizabeth M. Ridder.
"Rejoinder."
Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 67, Issue 5 (p
1131-1136) [DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00205.x]
-
Down So Long: Intimate Combat: Violence
and Intimidation
- Quinn, Beth A. "Sexual
Harassment and Masculinity: The Power and Meaning of 'Girl
Watching.'" Gender & Society, vol. 16, no.
3, pp. 386-402, June 2002 [doi:10.1177/0891243202016003007]
-
-
Recommended
Readings
-
- Archer, J. (2002).
Sex Differences In Physically Aggressive Acts Between
Heterosexual Partners: A Metaanalytic Review. Aggression
& Violent Behavior, 7, 313–351.
- Jocelyn A. Hollander. "Vulnerability
and Dangerousness: The Construction of Gender through
Conversation about Violence." Gender & Society
2001; 15; 83
- Sarah K. Murnen, Carrie Wright, and Gretchen Kaluzny.
"If
'Boys Will Be Boys,' Then Girls Will Be Victims? A
Meta-Analytic Review of the Research That Relates Masculine
Ideology to Sexual Aggression." Sex Roles
Volume 46, Numbers 11-12 / June, 2002
- Saguy, Abigail C. “Employment
Discrimination or Sexual Violence?: Defining
Sexual Harassment in American and French Law.” Law &
Society Review. 34:4 (2000):1091-1128. also see Saguy,
Abigail C. “What
is Sexual Harassment? From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne,”
Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 27:45,
(2005):45-56.
- Rachel Bridges Whaley, "The
Paradoxical Relationship between Gender Inequality and Rape:
Toward a Refined Theory." Gender & Society, vol.
15, no. 4, pp. 531-555, Aug 2001
- Review Robert Sapolsky, "Testosterone
Rules" from section III above.
- Murray A. Straus. 2007. "Dominance
and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university
students in 32 nations." Children and Youth Services Review
30:252-275.
- Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002).
A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men:
Implications for the origins of sex differences.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699-727. [note: also recommended
for previous section]
- Peggy Reeves Sanday. "Rape-Prone
Versus Rape-Free Campus Cultures." Violence Against Women,
Vol. 2, No. 2, 191-208 (1996)
-
Related Readings
-
- Linda Gordon. "Family
Violence, Feminism, and Social Control." Feminist Studies,
Vol. 12, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 453-478
- Christopher Uggen & Amy Blackstone. "Sexual
Harrasment as a Gendered Expression of Power."
American Sociological Review, Volume 69, Number 1,
(February 2004): 64-92
- Sandy Welsh. "Gender
And Sexual Harassment." Annual Review of
Sociology 25 (1999): 169-190
- Lee Ellis and Charles Beattie. "The
Feminist Explanation for Rape: An Empirical Test." The
Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Feb., 1983), pp.
74-93
- Kimberly Martin, Lynne M. Vieraitis and Sarah Britto.
"Gender
Equality and Women’s Absolute Status: A Test of the Feminist
Models of Rape." Violence Against Women. 12
(4) 2006: 321-339
- Gwen Hunnicutt. "Varieties
of Patriarchy and Violence Against Women Resurrecting
"Patriarchy" as a Theoretical Tool." Violence
Against Women. 15 (5) 2009: 553 - 573
- Tom W. Smith. "The
Polls: Gender and Attitudes Toward Violence." The Public
Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 384-396
- Richard C. Eichenberg. "Gender
Differences In Public Attitudes Toward The Use Of Force By The
United States, 1990-2003." International Security 28.1
(2003) 110-141
- Jon Hurwitz and Shannon Smithey, "Gender
Differences on Crime and Punishment." Political Research
Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp. 89-115
- Joan B. Kelly & Michael P. Johnson. "Differentiation
Among Types Of Intimate Partner Violence: Research Update And
Implications For Interventions." Family Court Review,
Volume 46, Issue 3, 2008 (p 476-499)
- Richard B. Felson, Alison C. Cares. "Gender
and the Seriousness of Assaults on Intimate Partners and Other
Victims." Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 67, Issue
5 (2005):1182-1195
- Murray A. Straus and Ignacio Luis Ramirez. 2007. "Gender
Symmetry In Prevalence, Severity, And Chronicity Of Physical
Aggression Against Dating Partners By University Students In
Mexico And USA." Aggressive Behavior 33:281-290.
- Russell P. Dobash and R. Emerson Dobash. "Women's
Violence to Men in Intimate Relationships." The British
Journal of Criminology 44 (2004): 324-349
IX. What role does ideology play in determining the relations
between men and women?
Ideology is near the center of almost
all efforts to explain gender inequalities. People's
conceptions of masculinity and femininity, ideas concerning the
fairness of differential treatment or expectations of women
and men, internalized schema that evoke different judgments of
women's and men's actions, rules about proper male and female
behavior applied to children--all these and more concern the
influence of ideology on gender identities, differential treatment
of women and men, and the organization and persistence of gender
inequality. Conversely, each ideological belief that
symbolizes, legitimates, invokes, guides, induces, or helps sustain
gender inequality is itself a product of gender inequality.
To untangle these complex causal interdependencies, we must always
attend carefully to two kinds of distinctions. First, we must
consistently recognize differences in levels of social
organization, including, among others, societal structures and
culture, organizations, social networks, social processes, and
individual actors. While it is tempting to treat ideological
beliefs as diffuse entities unconnected to identifiable people,
organizations, or structures, the analytical results are
poor. Second, we must consistently distinguish between
contemporaneous causes (e.g., the ways that internalized schema can
influence interactions) and asynchronous or historical causes
(e.g., the ways that changes in domestic production induce
different ideas about women's place). Causal arguments about
ideology consider it as both an effect of gender inequality and a
cause of gender inequality, although it is ideology's potential
role as a contributing cause that stands out as more theoretically
important.
-
Analytical Task
-
- The
aim of this week's task is to explore the relationship between
beliefs--ideology--and some example of inequality. The goal is to
work through the various ways that ideas and expectations are involved
in the causal processes surrounding gender inequality using the chosen
example to do this at a more concrete level. The purpose of the
task specification that follows is to help you to be systematic about
this.
- Consider one important aspect or component of gender
inequality. This may involve the direct relationships
between women and men or a difference in the opportunities or
status available to women. Examples
might be the way that women overall select less prestigious fields of
study than men in college, that higher education used to be restricted
for women, that women are objects of sex trafficking, that male
professional sports have much higher status, or the different kinds of
restaurants that use male vs. female waiters. You might try to be
a big creative.
- State what aspect or component
you are using and describe clearly the principal patterns of
the inequality being considered (that is, describe what is
unequal, how this inequality is manifest in the world, how we
would recognize the differences between more or less of it, and
how it is currently distributed).
- For this example of inequality, describe the most important
beliefs or ideas that motivate the practice of this aspect of
gender inequality and those that legitimate it.
- This should consider the actions and ideas of both men
and women. Do they share the same perception or do they have some different points of view?
- Consider
also whether different beliefs motivate or legitimate this type of
inequality in different times, places, or circumstances. That
is, you want to decide what characteristics of the beliefs connected to
this inequality are fairly consistent across various concrete instances
of this type of inequality and what sort of beliefs are connected by
differ across instances.
- Consider the degree of concensus (or
dispute) over the important beliefs, when is the concensus high or low,
what causes it to be high or low, and what difference does the degree
of agreement make. In particular, do people dispute some aspects of the beliefs
relevant to this type of inequality, such that
the dispute affects the inequality or informs us about it?
- For this form of inequality, try to explain how such
beliefs or ideas might arise as a result of the presence
of the inequality that they legitimate and motivate. To
help think about this, consider:
- what if this aspect of gender inequality did not exist,
nor did the related beliefs--then at some point in time this
type of gender inequality came into existence...how would
ideas change as a result of the emergence of this facet of
gender inequality? Consider what issues might arise if
this type of inequality existed, but the beliefs did not, and
how might the response to such issues lead to new beliefs.
- how do circumstances where this type of inequality is
minimal (different cultures, different historical periods,
different parts of society) compare to those where it is
high?
- under what conditions, if any, would the beliefs
associated with this facet of inequality exist without the
presence of this facet of gender inequality?
- given the beliefs exist, how do people acquire them?
- what happens if some people question or reject the
beliefs?
- After
completing the foregoing, summarize the ways in which beliefs are
important for understanding and specifying the causes and consequences
of this aspect of inequality, taking into account variations in the
degree of the inequality. That is, after systematically exploring
different facets of the the relevant beliefs, try to pull together what
all this tells us.
- Throughout, be careful to distinguish between empirical
claims and moral
claims. Both kinds of beliefs are important. And they may
be confused or overlapping rather than neatly distinguished in real
life. Still, they are crucially different. Similarly,
distinguish between the explanation of beliefs and the justification of beliefs.
- Do try to introduce appropriate connections between the
argument(s) you present and the readings. Consider not
only the common readings from this week, but also past readings
and optional ones from this week that seem particularly
relevant.
- As always, he causal arguments should try to conform to the standards
for a good causal argument that we have read about and
discussed. Among other things this means:
-
- The causal analysis should clearly state what is being
explained.
- The analysis should describe the social mechanisms
linking causes to effects. It should show what happens
in the world that produces the outcomes, what kinds of people
or organizations behave in manner, what circumstances arise
that induce the relevant behavior, and so forth. This
may be abstract at the level of the causal model.
- The analysis should consider why the decisive
causes exist and take the form that they do. That is,
the causal analysis should push back at least one step past
the causes being invoked to ask what causes them.
- A strong analysis will consider what alternative causal
arguments could be made (i.e., how the causal processes could
be different from what you describe) and show what evidence
or logic favors the argument you have presented. A
thorough causal analysis will recognize that other causal
models might be considered plausable, and try to compare the
causal model being promoted to the alternatives.
- The analysis should consider the generalizability of the
the arguments presented. It should consider to what
periods, places, types of societies, parts of society, kinds
of social relationships or interactions do the arguments
apply?
-
Common Readings
-
-
Recommended
Readings
-
- Judith Lorber. "Believing
is Seeing: Biology as Ideology." Gender and Society,
Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1993), pp. 568-581
- Faye Ginsburg. "Procreation
Stories: Reproduction, Nurturance, and Procreation in Life
Narratives of Abortion Activists." American Ethnologist,
Vol. 14, No. 4 (Nov., 1987), pp. 623-636
- Kristin Luker. "Contraceptive
Risk Taking and Abortion: Results and Implications of a San
Francisco Bay Area Study." Studies in Family
Planning, Vol. 8, No. 8 (Aug., 1977), pp. 190-196;
and "The
War Between the Women." Family Planning
Perspectives, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Mar. - Apr., 1984), pp.
105-110
- Clem Brooks and Catherine Bolzendahl. "The
Transformation of US Gender Role Attitudes: Cohort Replacement,
Social-Structural Change, and Ideological Learning."
Volume: 33 Issue: 1 (2004 Mar):
106 - 133
- Shannon N. Davis, Theodore N. Greenstein. "Gender
Ideology: Components, Predictors, and Consequences."
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 35 (2009): 87-105
- Carl N. Degler. "Revolution
without Ideology: The Changing Place of Women in
America." Daedalus, Vol. 93, No. 2, The Woman
in America (Spring, 1964), pp. 653-670
- Bem, S. L. (1981)
Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account Of Sex Typing.
Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.
- Review readings by Ridgeway in Section II and Valian in
Section VII
- Mary Blair-Loy. 2001. “Cultural
Constructions of Family Schemas: The Case of Women
Executives.” Gender & Society 15 (2001) :
687-709.
- S. M. C. Kelley, C. G. E. Kelley, M. D. R. Evans and
Jonathan Kelley. "Support
for Mothers' Employment at Home: Conflict between Work and
Family." International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 98-110, Spring 2009
-
Related Readings
-
- Catherine I Bolzendahl, Daniel J Myers.. "Feminist
Attitudes and Support for Gender Equality: Opinion Change in
Women and Men, 1974-1998." Social Forces, vol. 83,
no. 2 (Dec 2004): 759-789
- Thornton, Arland; Young-DeMarco, Linda, "Four
Decades of Trends in Attitudes toward Family Issues in the
United States: The 1960s through the 1990s." Journal of
Marriage and the Family, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 1009-1037, Nov
2001
- Emily W. Kane, Mimi Schippers. "Men's
and Women's Beliefs about Gender and Sexuality." Gender and
Society, Vol. 10, No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 650-665
- Eric D. Widmer, Judith Treas, Robert Newcomb. "Attitudes
toward Nonmarital Sex in 24 Countries." The Journal of Sex
Research, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 349-358...
- Bem, S, L, (1994)
Defending The Lenses of Gender. Psychological Inquiry, 5,
97-101.
- Frable, D. E., & Bem, S. L. (1985).
If You Are Gender Schematic, All Members Of The Opposite Sex
Look Alike. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
49, 459-468.
X. How has the economy influenced men and women's
positions in society?
Analyses of gender inequality attribute
great importance to the economy. Gender inequality appears
everywhere embedded in economic inequality, in the sense that a
critical aspect of gender inequality involves unequal access to
economic resources and positions. This relationship becomes
clearer in more "advanced" societies where economic organization
has become institutionally differentiated from kinship and
political organization. Sometimes this unequal economic
access is understood as an expression of gender inequality,
sometimes a cause of gender inequality, sometimes a result. Many
analyses consider it all three.
-
Analytical Task
-
-
Identify three of the most important,
primary, explanatory problems that need solution
to understand the relationship between the economy and
gender inequality.
-
- Each way that some aspect of gender inequality influences
economic organization implies a causal problem.
Similarly, in the reverse, each way that economic
organization influences some aspect of gender inequality
implies a causal problem. For example, women used to
have no access to most high-status positions in the American
economy and are now still under represented in them. In
either direction we might consider the intensity or degree of
gender inequality, rather than some aspect of gender
inequality, as that which influences or is influenced by
economic organization. For each observation or claim
about economic inequality between women and men, we can ask
"why?" or "how?" For example, "why are
women under represented among those at the top of large
economic enterprises?" or "how does women's relative absence
from positions great economic power influence the persistence
of gender inequality?"
- Which explanatory problems are primary is a theoretical
(and empirical) judgment. A primary causal process
is one without which the relationship between the economy and
gender inequality would look and work
differently. Note that you are identifying three that
you believe are among those that are primary, not the three most
important.
-
For each of the three selected, primary, explanatory
problems, do the following: State clearly what is the explanatory problem and
why it is a primary or important one.
Think carefully about what makes some causal processes more
important than others when we are trying to understand a
social phenomenon (her the relationship between gender
inequality and economic organization).
- Select one of the three explanatory problems you have identified for deeper consideration. For that problem:
- Briefly describe what stand out as the possible
causal processes that could account for the relationship
or condition that is the focus of the explanatory
problem. For example, what might be the causal
processes that account for few women being in positions of
high economic power? These are the competing or
alternative explanations for the problem. These may
include the causes or explanations explicitly suggested in
the literature concerning the problem, or explanations
derived from applying a more general theoretical orientation
(e.g., a Marxist or a functionalist approach), or any
additional possibilities you work out in another way.
-
-
Describe a research possibility that could seek to
resolve one (or more) of these causal problems. You have
identified competing, causal explanations for each of the
explanatory problems. For one of these, consider how we
might hope to learn which causal explanation is more valid by
doing relevant research. To do this, we usually want to
think about the circumstances under which the competing
theories suggest that something in the world should look or
work differently.
- To summarize, the analytical task involves (1) identifying
three primary, explanatory problems relating gender inequality
and economic organization, providing a careful description
for each of those explanatory problems, stating why it is
important, (2) for one explanatory problem, exploring competing explanations that could
solve the problem, and describing a research design that could, hypothetically,
discover which explanation is better.
-
Common Readings
-
- Barbara F. Reskin. "Bringing
the Men Back in: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of
Women's Work." Gender and Society, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Mar.,
1988), pp. 58-81
-
Destined for Equality: Employment: Gaining
Equality from the Economy
- Christine L. Williams. "The
Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the "Female"
Professions," Social Problems, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Aug.,
1992), pp. 253-267
- Eagly, Alice H., and Linda L. Carli. "Women
and the Labyrinth of Leadership." Harvard Business Review
85, no. 9 (September 2007): 63-71.
- England, Paula. “Gender
Inequality in Labor Markets: The Role of Motherhood and
Segregation.” Social Politics 12 (2005):264-288.
-
Recommended Readings
-
- Francine D. Blau. "Trends
in the Well-Being of American Women, 1970-1995." Journal
of Economic Literature, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Mar., 1998), pp.
112-165
- Claudia Goldin, Cecilia Rouse. "Orchestrating
Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female
Musicians." The American Economic Review, Vol. 90,
No. 4 (Sep., 2000), pp. 715-741
- Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn. “The
Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone as Far as They Can?”
Academy of Management Perspectives 21 (February 2007):
7-23. [Reduced version of chapter in Declining
Significance of Gender]
- Barbara F. Reskin, "Including
Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality: 2002
Presidential Address", American Sociological Review,
Vol. 68, No. 1 (Feb., 2003), pp. 1-21
- Michelle J Budig. "Male
Advantage And The Gender Composition Of Jobs: Who Rides The
Glass Escalator?" Social Problems. May 2002. Vol.
49, Iss. 2; p. 258
- Elizabeth H. Gorman and Julie A. Kmec. "Hierarchical
Rank and Women’s Organizational Mobility: Glass Ceilings in
Corporate Law Firms." American Journal of Sociology
Volume 114 Number 5 (March 2009): 1428–74
- Christine E. Bose, Philip L. Bereano and Mary Malloy.
"Household
Technology and the Social Construction of Housework."
Technology and Culture, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp.
53-82
- Maria Charles. "Deciphering
Sex Segregation: Vertical and Horizontal Inequalities in Ten
National Labor Markets." Acta Sociologica, Vol. 46,
No. 4 (Dec., 2003), pp. 267-287
- Shelley J. Correll, Stephen Benard, In Paik. "Getting
a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?" American Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 112, No. 5 (Mar., 2007), pp.
1297-1338
- Louise Marie Roth.
Women on Wall Street: Despite Diversity Measures, Wall Street
Remains Vulnerable to Sex Discrimination Charges.
Academy of Management Perspectives, Feb 2007, Vol.
21
- Judge, Timothy A.; Livingston, Beth A. "Is
The Gap More Than Gender? A Longitudinal Analysis Of Gender,
Gender Role Orientation, And Earnings." Journal of
Applied Psychology. Vol 93(5), Sep 2008, 994-1012.
- Claudia Goldin. "The
Changing Economic Role of Women: A Quantitative Approach."
Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 13, No. 4,
The Measure of American History (Spring, 1983), pp. 707-733
- Claudia Goldin. "The
Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment,
Education, and Family." The American Economic
Review, Vol. 96, No. 2 (May, 2006), pp. 1-21
- Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer. "Demographic
Influence on Female Employment and the Status of
Women." American Journal of Sociology, Vol.
78, No. 4, Changing Women in a Changing Society (Jan., 1973),
pp. 946-961; see also Valerie K. Oppenheimer. "The
Interaction of Demand and Supply and its Effect on the Female
Labour Force in the United States." Population
Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Nov., 1967), pp. 239-259
- England, Paula, Paul Allison, and Yuxiao Wu. “Does
Feminization Lower Wages, Do Declines in Wages Cause
Feminization, and How Can We Tell From Longitudinal Data?”
Social Science Research 36(3) (2007): 1237-56.
- Trond Petersen, Vemund Snartland, Eva M. Meyersson
Milgrom. "Are
female workers less productive than male workers?"
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 25(1)
(2006): 13-37.
-
Related Readings
-
- Claudia Goldin, Lawrence F. Katz, Ilyana Kuziemko.
"The
Homecoming of American College Women: The Reversal of the
College Gender Gap." The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Fall, 2006), pp. 133-156
- Jerry A. Jacobs. "Gender
Inequality and Higher Education." Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 22 (1996): 153-185
- Claudia Buchmann, Thomas A. DiPrete, Anne McDaniel.
"Gender
Inequalities in Education." Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 34 (2008): 319-337
- England, Paula and Su Li. “Desegregation
Stalled: The Changing Gender Composition of College Majors,
1971-2002.” Gender & Society 20 (2006):657-677.
- M. Evertsson, P. England, I. Mooi-Reci, J. Hermsen, J. de
Bruijn, D. Cotter. "Is
Gender Inequality Greater at Lower or Higher Educational
Levels? Common Patterns in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the
United States." Social Politics: International Studies
in Gender, State & Society 16(2):210-241 (2009)
- Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen,
M. L. (2003).
Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership
styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569-591.
- Eckel, Catherine; de Oliveira, Angela C. M.; Grossman,
Philip J. "Gender
and Negotiation in the Small: Are Women (Perceived to Be) More
Cooperative than Men?" Negotiation Journal, Volume
24, Issue 4, 2008: 429 ; Kolb, Deborah M. "Too
Bad for the Women or Does It Have to Be? Gender and Negotiation
Research over the Past Twenty-Five Years." Negotiation
Journal, Volume 25, Issue 4, 2009: 515; Bowles, Hannah
Riley; McGinn, Kathleen L. "Gender
in Job Negotiations: A Two-Level Game."
Negotiation Journal, Volume 24, Issue 4, 2008: 393
- Sue Bowden, Avner Offer. "Household
Appliances and the Use of Time: The United States and Britain
Since the 1920s." The Economic History Review, New
Series, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Nov., 1994), pp. 725-748
- Graciela Chichilnisky. "The
Gender Gap." Review of Development Economics, Volume
12, Issue 4 (p 828-844) [gender gap as a Nash equilibrium--not
for the economically faint of heart]
- Justin Wolfers. "Diagnosing
Discrimination: Stock Returns and Ceo Gender"
Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 4,
No. 2/3, Papers and Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual
Congress of the European Economic Association (Apr. - May,
2006), pp. 531-541
- Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn. “The
Gender Pay Gap,” The Economists’ Voice (June 2007).
- Claudia Goldin. "The
Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family." The
Annals Of The American Academy Of Political And Social
Science. 2004 596 (2004): 20-35.
- Claudia D. Goldin. "The
Role of World War II in the Rise of Women's Employment."
The American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 4 (Sep.,
1991), pp. 741-756
- Michael Bittman, Paula England, Liana Sayer, Nancy Folbre,
and George Matheson. “When
Does Gender Trump Money?: Bargaining and Time in Household
Work.” American Journal of Sociology 109
(2003):186-214.
-
XI. How have women's and men's actions obstructed or
furthered change, taking into account the changing institutional
context?
Both women and men have acted in every
possible way towards gender inequality. What we want to
understand are the circumstances in which they predictably act in
ways that either reinforce or erode inequality. People's
actions are complex results of their interests, ideologies,
circumstances, opportunities, and constraints. While theories
of gender inequality invoke all kinds of abstract causal processes,
in real life inequality is sustained and changed by the actions of
women and men. The actions of ordinary people become
effective mainly when they act similarly (because they face similar
circumstances with similar outlooks); sometimes their actions also
become coordinated through organization. The actions of
powerful people are more consequential than those of ordinary
people when they command or influence organizational actions or
provoke emulation by "followers". Even unique political
actions may have great effect by altering laws, policies, or the
balance of power, although even in these cases the
institutionalization of changes generally depends on dispersed
acceptance; in the economic realm, even organizational actions
typically become effective only when multiple organizations pursue
parallel policies (governmental controls over an economy would be
an exception).
-
Analytical
Task
-
- The goal of this task is to examine why some of men's
actions worked against gender inequality while others sustained
it, and similarly why women's actions also included ones that
challenged gender inequality and others that reinforced
it. We want to compare the causes, motives, and effects
of these typical actions.
-
- "Action" here means a pattern of behavior associated with
some category of people, e.g. the tendency to take or not
take advantage of educational opportunities by women of some
type in some period. The relevant actions are those
that were one typical result either of being either in
certain enduring categories of women or men (for example,
single women with higher education) or in certain recurring
circumstances (for example, married women whose husbands lost
their jobs for long periods). The category could
include all women or all men.
- To say that actions reinforce gender inequality means
that they either bolster the stability of gender inequality
or help to make it more severe; alternatively, if those
actions became rare and were not replaced by
alternative actions with similar effects, then either the
degree of gender inequality experienced by some people would
decline or the persistence of gender inequality would become
more problematic. (by the identified group in the
identified conditions)
- Analogously, to say that actions challenge gender
inequality means that those actions, if taken by enough
people, result in reducing the amount of gender inequality or
they erode the stability of gender inequality making it more
vulnerable to future challenges.
- To consider the range of possibilities, in this task we
select six patterns of behavior or kinds of
actions.
-
- Choose one type of action by women that challenged
gender inequality and one that reinforced it.
- Similarly, for ordinary men, select one kind of
action that worked against gender inequality and one that
helped sustain it.
- Finally, do the same for men with power.
- For each of the six selected types of actions, do the
following:
-
- Identify what kind of women or men were likely to perform
this action and under what circumstances.
- Describe the action, including an assessment of its
effects on gender inequality. This may include
consideration of reasons why its effects might vary (e.g.,
the number acting might have to surpass a threshold before
there are widespread effects, the effects might be contingent
on other conditions, the effects might happen after a delay,
and so on).
- Try to specify the reasons why this type of action
occurred. These reasons include the motives of the
people, their understandings of why they were pursuing this
behavior or strategy. The reasons also include the
social and cultural conditions that induce the actions and
make them seem necessary, sensible, and just. The
reasons may also include triggering events.
- To summarize: Pick six kinds of behavior that have made a
difference to the persistence of gender inequality, one
reinforcing and one challenging for each of the three
categories: women, ordinary men, powerful men. Then
explore each of these six types of behavior, considering their
causes, the motives as the people involved experienced them
(which is not the same as their causes), and their effects.
-
Common Readings
-
-
Destined for Equality: Surrendering the Heritage
of Male Dominance
-
Destined for Equality: Women's Rejection of
Subordination
- Susan E. Marshall. "Ladies
against Women: Mobilization Dilemmas of Antifeminist
Movements." Social Problems, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Apr.,
1985), pp. 348-362
- Laura L. Miller. "Not
Just Weapons of the Weak: Gender Harassment as a Form of Protest
for Army Men." Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 60,
No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 32-51
-
Destined for Equality: Citizenship: Gaining
Equality from the State
- Joyce Gelb, Marian Lief Palley. "Women
and Interest Group Politics: A Comparative Analysis of Federal
Decision-Making." The Journal of Politics, Vol. 41,
No. 2 (May, 1979), pp. 362-392. [doi: 10.2307/2129770]
- Pamela Paxton, Sheri Kunovich, Melanie M. Hughes. "Gender
in Politics." Annual Review of Sociology 2007 33,
263-284 [doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131651]
-
Down So Long:
The Reproduction of Economic and Political Power
-
Declining Significance of Gender:
Toward Gender Equality: Progress and Bottlenecks, Paula
England; also Paula England. "The
Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled." Gender &
Society 2010 24: 149-166. [doi: 10.1177/0891243210361475]
-
Declining Significance of Gender:
Gender as an Organizing Force in Social Relations: Implications
for the Future of Inequality, Cecilia L. Ridgeway
-
Declining Significance of Gender:
Opposing Forces: How, Why, and When Will Gender Inequality
Disappear?, Robert Max Jackson
-
Recommended
Readings
-
- Nancy Burns and Katherine Gallagher. "Public
Opinion on Gender Issues: The Politics of Equity and
Roles." Annual Review of Political Science, 2010, Vol. 13:
425-443 DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.040507.142213
- Lynne Haney. "Homeboys,
Babies, Men in Suits: The State and the Reproduction of Male
Dominance." American Sociological Review, Vol. 61,
No. 5 (Oct., 1996), pp. 759-778
- Deniz Kandiyoti, "Bargaining
with Patriarchy." Gender and Society," Vol. 2, No. 3
(Sep., 1988), pp. 274-290
- Noah P. Mark, Lynn Smith‐Lovin, and Cecilia L. Ridgeway.
"Why
Do Nominal Characteristics Acquire Status Value? A Minimal
Explanation for Status Construction." AJS Volume 115
Number 3 (November 2009): 832–62 ....
- Kirsten Dellinger. "Masculinities
in "Safe" and "Embattled" Organizations: Accounting for
Pornographic and Feminist Magazines." Gender &
Society, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 545-566, Oct 2004...
- Carl N. Degler. "Charlotte
Perkins Gilman on the Theory and Practice of Feminism."
American Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Spring, 1956), pp.
21-39
- Jo Freeman. "Political
Organization in the Feminist Movement." Acta
Sociologica, Vol. 18, No. 2/3 (1975), pp. 222-244
- Emily Stoper, Roberta Ann Johnson. "The
Weaker Sex & the Better Half: The Idea of Women's Moral
Superiority in the American Feminist Movement."
Polity, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Winter, 1977), pp. 192-217
- Ann-Dorte Christensen and Jørgen Elm Larsen.
"Gender,
Class, and Family: Men and Gender Equality in a Danish
Context. Social Politics: International Studies in
Gender, State & Society 2008 15:53-78
- ...
-
Related Readings
-
- ...
- Holly J. McCammon, Courtney Sanders Muse, Harmony D.
Newman, and Teresa M. Terrell. "Movement
Framing and Discursive Opportunity Structures: The Political
Successes of the U.S. Women's Jury Movements." American
Sociological Review 2007 72: 725-749.
- Elsie Clews Parsons. "Feminism
and Conventionality." Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Vol. 56, Women in Public Life
(Nov., 1914), pp. 47-53
- Catherine Hakim. "Five
Feminist Myths about Women's Employment." The British
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1995), pp.
429-455
- Linda Thompson, Alexis J. Walker. "Gender
in Families: Women and Men in Marriage, Work, and
Parenthood." Journal of Marriage and the Family,
Vol. 51, No. 4 (Nov., 1989), pp. 845-871
-
Possible additional sections ...
XII. How have political processes
and structures sustained men's and women's relative
status?
As structure and as
actor, the state has been unavoidably central to ongoing practice
of gender inequality, to its persistence, and to changes in the
form and amount of gender inequality.
States or governments have power. Through the
military and police, a state can enforce conformity to its rules,
repel and punish challenges from the scale of individual acts to
collective rebellions, and by threat, implicit or explicit, deter
rebellions from appearing. Through the law, regulations, and
bureaucratic policies, a state can define what constitutes
acceptable or legitimate behavior at all levels of social
organization. Through economic policies of taxation,
expenditures, and redistributions (such as welfare policies or
agricultural supports), a state influences the relative economic
status of different groups.
By acting differently toward groups with
regard to any of these aspects of government power, a state can
create, reinforce, or exacerbate social inequalities.
Analogously, a state can, in theory, obstruct, destabilize, or
diminish social inequality by using its power in ways that are
inconsistent with social inequalities. States determine,
influence, legitimize, and sanction rights and opportunities;
they may do so in more or less egalitarian ways.
When significant, enduring, social inequality
exists, those privileged by that form of inequality will normally
have more influence over the state than do those disadvantaged by
the inequality, and the overall effect of state policies will
reinforce the exercise and persistence of the inequality. A
fundamental problem for all state theories is who or what decides
state policies and actions. To some degree, those “in” the state
(elected, appointed, hired, or appropriated) make decisions based
on their interests and outlooks as members of the state
apparatus. To some degree, state actors respond to the influence
of power brokers outside the state, such as the economically
powerful. In either case, when making policy or strategic
planning decisions, those influencing state actions are in part
responding to what they perceive will be the responses of all
actors in the nation affected by those decisions.
-
Analytical
Task
-
-
Task summary: Assess the most important
ways the American state (or some other) has influenced and
been influenced by gender inequality over the past two
hundred years. Try to keep in mind that this always
concerns the accumulation and exercise of social
power.
-
What are the crucial ways that
government reflected gender inequality?
-
-
Consider how and why the state
treated women and men differently
-
Consider ways that the state helped
gender inequality operate smoothly
-
Consider how the state helped gender
inequality to persist
-
How and why has the state promoted
gender equality by reducing the differences in its treatment
of women? How has the state How and why has the state
made it difficult (and irrational) for many to continue
practices that disadvantage women?
-
How and why have the relevant
government actions changed over time?
-
While developing the analysis for this
task, it can be helpful to examine how the relationship
between the state and gender inequality resembled or
differed from the state's relationships to other kinds of
inequality.
-
Recommended
Readings
-
-
Related
Readings
-
-
Karen Beckwith. "The
Comparative Politics of Women's Movements."
Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 3, No. 3 (Sep., 2005),
pp. 583-596
-
Vicky Randall. "Legislative
Gender Quotas and Indian Exceptionalism: The Travails of the
Women's Reservation Bill." Comparative Politics,
Vol. 39, No. 1 (Oct., 2006), pp. 63-82
-
Guillaume R. Fréchette, Francois
Maniquet, Massimo Morelli. "Incumbents'
Interests and Gender Quotas." American Journal of
Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Oct., 2008), pp.
891-909
-
Lynne A. Haney. "Feminist
State Theory: Applications to Jurisprudence, Criminology,
and the Welfare State." Annual Review of Sociology
26:641-666 (2000)
-
Richard L. Fox, Jennifer L. Lawless.
"Entering
the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office."
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 48, No. 2
(Apr., 2004), pp. 264-280
-
Kira Sanbonmatsu. "Gender
Stereotypes and Vote Choice." American Journal of
Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp.
20-34.
-
Marvin Harris. "Caste,
Class, and Minority." Social Forces, Vol. 37, No.
3 (Mar., 1959), pp. 248-254
-
Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr.
"History
and Current Status of Divorce in the United States." The
Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Children and Divorce
(Spring, 1994), pp. 29-43..
XIII. What does the future
hold?
-
Analytical
Task
-
-
Isolate what you believe are the most
important causal arguments in the common readings.
Give a critical assessment of the different
approaches.
-
Alternative task: Write a focused
critique of the chapter from Down So Long (invoking
material from other readings as you feel valuable).