gender

In a confusing twist of legal back and forth, some of the strictest abortion regulations in the country have taken effect in Texas. The state’s proposed abortion restrictions, including limiting medication-induced abortions and requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to a nearby surgical center, were initially struck down by a district court because the restrictions would effectively deny women the right to abortions. A full appeal will be heard in January, but these restrictions have caused a third of the clinics in Texas to stop offering the service until then.

While this is a legal battle on the surface, the debate surrounding abortion stems from longstanding and deeply conflicted cultural norms regarding sexual behavior, the care of children, family structure, and gender roles in society.

• Kristen Luker. 1985. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. University of California Press.

Despite variations in state restrictions on abortions, legislative restrictions have very little impact on a state’s abortion rate.

• Marshall H. Medoff 2002. “The Determinants and Impact of State Abortion Restrictions.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology  61 (2): 481-493.

Last Thursday, the Senate voted to pass the Employment Non-discrimination Act. ENDA would make it illegal for the workplace to discriminate on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. Workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, nationality, religion, age and disability is already illegal. If passed by the House of Representatives, this will be a major civil rights act, as twenty-nine states do not have any laws protecting LGBT individuals in the workplace.

Kathleen Hull’s chapter in the Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research addresses how gay and lesbian workers experience discrimination, and how public attitudes clash over anti-discrimination laws.

• Kathy Hull. 2005. “Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: Dimensions of Difference.” in Handbook of Employment Discrimination Research: Rights and Realities, edited by Robert L. Nelson and Laura Beth Nielsen. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Organizational context such as sex composition and workplace culture affects the likelihood for sexual discrimination.

• Stainback, K., Ratliff, T. N., & Roscigno, V. J. 2011. “The Context of Workplace Sex Discrimination: Sex Composition, Workplace Culture and Relative Power.” Social Forces, 89(4), 1165-1188.

Gay employees were most likely to report discrimination in primarily heterosexual workplaces and organizations which lacked supportive policies and protective legislation.

• Ragins, Belle Rose, and John M. Cornwell. 2001. “Pink Triangles: Antecedents and Consequences of Perceived Workplace Discrimination against Gay and Lesbian Employees.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86(6), 1244-261.

Sixteen-year-old Malala Yousafzai, shot by the Taliban for protesting the exclusion of girls from school in Pakistan, recently met with Queen Elizabeth II and other international leaders to promote girls’ education. Her advocacy reminds us that gender inequality in education is not limited to developing countries, but one that affects women worldwide.

In industrialized countries, female students have gained in some aspects of schooling, but the gender divide limits women’s educational opportunities as well as their roles in the home, the workforce, politics, and religion.

• Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T., & McDaniel, A. (2008). Gender Inequalities in Education. Annual Review of Sociology. 34: 319-337.
• Fuchs Epstein, C. (2007). Great Divides: The Cultural, Cognitive, and Social Bases of the Global Subordination of Women. American Sociological Review. 72(1): 1-22.