gender

You may have heard that Caitlyn Jenner’s Vanity Fair cover broke the Internet. The feature publicly introduced Caitlyn’s name and correct gender pronouns, as well as gender presentation. Within hours of the cover photo’s debut, Jenner’s new Twitter account amassed over one million followers, setting the record for the fastest growing Twitter account (knocking previous record-holder President Obama down to second).

The general public has varying attitudes about trans*, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, both as the LGBT group and as distinct identities. Sexual orientation, beliefs about sexuality, adherence to a binary conception of gender, religiosity, and personal contact with sexual and gender minorities best predict attitudes towards lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans* individuals, but also vary based on the distinct group(s) being considered. For example, heterosexual females are more likely to hold positive opinions about gay men and trans* individuals, but are also more likely to hold negative opinions about lesbians.

• Meredith G.F. Worthen. 2012. “Understanding College Student Attitudes Toward LGBT Individuals.” Sociological Focus 45(4):285-305.
• Aaron T. Norton and Gregory M. Herek. 2013. “Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Transgender People: Findings from a National Probability Sample of U.S. Adults.” Sex Roles 68(11-12):738-753.

Though increasing visibility is promising, researchers argue that media representations and discourses of trans* people often still conform to a rigid gender binary that reinforces cultural norms of masculinity and femininity. Jenner’s style choices are already under the microscope, and media outlets are labeling her a “diva” for her Diane von Furstenburg-clad appearances in New York City.

• Kay Siebler. 2012. “Transgender Transitions: Sex/Gender Binaries in the Digital Age.” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health 16(1): 74-99.
• Linda Kalof. 1993. “Dilemmas of Femininity: Gender and the Social Construction of Sexual Imagery.” The Sociological Quarterly 34(4):639-651.
• Catherine Connell. 2010. “Doing, Undoing, or Redoing Gender? Learning from the Workplace Experiences of Trans People.” Gender and Society 24(1):31-55.

Limiting the hype about Caitlyn’s cover to her newly revealed gender identity overlooks other reasons why her photo shows up on so many Facebook and Twitter feeds. People already know Jenner as a celebrity, and celebrities arguably fall into a special category when it comes to class, status, and power. Fame can heavily influence individual opinions, but those effects depend on the celebrity in question and a person’s context within the larger population.

• Arnout Van de Rijt, Eran Shor, Charles Ward, and Steven Skiena. 2013. ”Only 15 minutes? The social stratification of fame in printed media,” American Sociological Review78(2):266-289.
• Charles Kurzman, Chelise Anderson, Clinton Key, Yuon Ok Lee, Mairead Moloney, Alexis Silver, and Maria W. Van Ryn. 2007. “Celebrity Status,” Sociological Theory 25(4):347-367.

Most of the buzz around Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina’s candidacies are about getting into the White House as the first woman president, but what will life be like if one actually makes it?

Just winning the election won’t make politics more female friendly. Studies show that when women enter male-dominated fields, they find it difficult to work in an arena designed by men for men. For example, some jobs involve networking in masculine spaces like bars and golf courses that traditional and symbolically exclude women. When they hit the glass ceiling or find themselves undervalued, many women attribute limited opportunities or personal difficulties at work to problems with individual sexists or difficult personalities rather than a gendered workplace structure. However, restructuring the work environment to center more on teamwork than individual success may help women by giving them more contact with others at work, thus weakening gender stereotypes, providing more networking opportunities, and leading to more promotions.

• Erin I. Demaiter and Tracy L. Adams. 2009. “I really didn’t have any problems with the male-female thing until…”: Successful Women’s Experiences in IT Organizations.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology 34(1): 31-54.
• Alexandra Kalev. 2009. “Cracking the Glass Cage? Restructuring and Ascriptive Inequality at Work.” American Journal of Sociology 114(6): 1591-1643.

With Hillary Clinton’s official announcement of her presidential candidacy—and now Carly Fiorina’s GOP candidacy—we have seen the immediate and constant sexism that will undoubtedly plague the campaign coverage until election day. Time Magazine, for example, ran a piece focusing on Clinton’s presumed post-menopausal estrogen levels as an asset to her presidential leadership skills (we have yet to spot an article on the testosterone levels of Jeb Bush or Bernie Sanders).

Media outlets often pay a disproportionately higher rate of attention to female candidate’s wardrobe, appearance, and age than to that of male candidates, treating women as novelties rather than serious contenders. The focus on appearance objectifies and sexualizes, delegitimizing their authority.

• Caroline Heldman and Lisa Wade. 2011. “Sexualizing Sarah Palin: The Social and Political Context of the Sexual Objectification of Female Candidates.” Sex Roles 65: 156-164.
• Caroline Heldman, Susan J. Carroll, and Stephanie Olson. 2005. “She Brought Only a Skirt: Print Media Coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s Bid For the Republican Nomination.” Political Communication 22: 315-335.

People evaluate “appropriate” roles for women in public office based on gender stereotypes about policy and issue competency more than on personality traits. Public opinion survey respondents indicate that they find female candidates more capable of handling “feminine” topics like education and healthcare, while male candidates are more qualified to deal with “masculine” issues like terrorism and the economy.

• Kathleen Dolan. 2010. “The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluation on Support for Women Candidates.” Political Behavior 32(1): 69-88.

Contrary to expectations, neither higher numbers of educated women nor the type of political system translates to more women in national office. In fact, female congressional candidates win at similar rates to men in general elections. Instead, ideologies about women’s roles and positions in societies influence women’s abilities to enter politics as candidates and survive the primary process.

• Jennifer L. Lawless and Kathryn Pearson. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women’s Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” The Journal of Politics 70(1):67-82
• Sheri Kunovich and Pamela Paxton. 2005. “Pathways to Power: The Role of Political Parties in Women’s National Political Representation.” American Journal of Sociology 111(2): 505-552.

For more on this topic, check out Scholars Strategy Network and Sociological Images

A recent scholarly article in the Journal of Marriage and Family by Melissa Milkie, Kei Nomaguchi, and Kathleen Denny (first covered in the Washington Post) has sparked a plethora of commentary in the news media, including several critiques by Justin Wolfers of The Upshot, and a convincing response by the authors in the Washington Post. Using high-quality time use data from a national panel study, Milkie, Nomaguchi, and Denny found that the overall amount of time mothers spend with either adolescents or younger children does not matter for their children’s behaviors, emotions, or academics. What do sociologists know about the impact of parenting time on children’s wellbeing?

First, the kind of parenting time matters. Time mothers spend engaging with children makes more of a difference than the time mothers are available to or are supervising their children. So being long on love but short on time isn’t a bad thing. Engaged maternal time is related to fewer delinquent behaviors among adolescents, and engaged time with both parents was related to better outcomes for adolescents. Other studies show too much “unstructured” parental time, such as watching TV together, may actually be worse for some children under age 6, and that the quality of parent-child relationships factors in. Family dinners contribute to fewer depressive symptoms and less delinquency among adolescents, but only when parent-child relationships are strong.

• Melissa A. Milkie, Kei M. Nomaguchi, and Kathleen E. Denny. 2015. “Does the Amount of Time Mothers Spend With Children or Adolescents Matter?” Journal of Marriage and Family 77(2):355–72.
• Amy Hsin and Christina Felfe. 2014. “When Does Time Matter? Maternal Employment, Children’s Time With Parents, and Child Development,” Demography 51(5):1867–94.
• Ann Meier and Kelly Musick. 2014. “Variation in Associations Between Family Dinners and Adolescent Well-Being,” Journal of Marriage and Family 76(1):13–23.

Why did this finding spark such a media response? In part, it’s because society believes ideal mothering means spending lots of time with children. Many parents strive to attain this ideal, but many working mothers who cannot attain it must redefine their definition of a “good mother” to fit with work responsibilities. Still, working mothers today spend more time with their children than employed mothers in the past.

• Sharon Hays. 1998. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Annette Lareau. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Karen Christopher. 2012. “Extensive Mothering: Employed Mothers’ Constructions of the Good Mother,” Gender & Society 26(1):73–96.
• Liana Fox, Wen-Jui Han, Christopher Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel. 2013. “Time for Children: Trends in the Employment Patterns of Parents, 1967–2009,” Demography 50(1):25–49.

For more on the original article and the critiques, see Sociological Images.

During his April 1 on-air radio show, Rush Limbaugh cited a recent SocImages post titled, “Are Economics Majors Anti-Social?” In debating the content of the post, Limbaugh frequently referred to author and editor Lisa Wade as “professorette.” In making up this word, he intentionally gendered the gender-neutral title “professor.” Given the cultural devaluation of femininity, the unnecessary gendering of Wade’s profession signals a discounting of her position and expertise. While Wade is, notably, the author (with Myra Marx-Ferree) of the new book, Gender, women of all professions face challenges to their legitimacy.

Education, prestige, and capital do not exempt women from sexist stereotypes about incompetency. Female researchers and professors are often viewed as less competent than their male colleagues, and male-dominated academic disciplines are perceived to draw more innately brilliant and talented practitioners than female-dominated disciplines.

• Rhea E. Steinpreis, Katie A. Anders, Dawn Ritzke. 1999. “The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study.” Sex Roles 41(7-8): 509-528.
• Lillian MacNell, Adam Driscoll, and Andrea N. Hunt. 2014. “What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching.” Innovative Higher Education 1–13.
• Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. 2012. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(41):16474–79.
• Sarah-Jane Leslie, Andrei Cimpian, Meredith Meyer, and Edward Freeland. 2015. “Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines.” Science 347: 262-265.

Even when women occupy high status positions of expertise they are more likely to be interrupted than men. Furthermore, men are more likely to interrupt women even when women occupy a higher professional prestige, suggesting that the gender hierarchy can be more influential to power dynamics than professional status.

• Adrienne B. Hancock and Benjamin A. Rubin. 2015. “Influence of Communication Partner’s Gender on Language.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34(1):46–64.
• Candace West. 1984. “When the Doctor is a ‘Lady’: Power, Status, and Gender in Physician-Patient Encounters.” Symbolic Interaction 7(1): 87-106.

Women are also limited in the range of emotions and behaviors they can exhibit in the workplace without being judged negatively. Emotional displays of anger, for example, are interpreted differently if exhibited by men or women, to the likely disadvantage of women. Additionally, displays of dominance by agentic (that is, self-organizing and proactive) female leaders are subject to dominance penalties, backlash, and prejudice.

• Victoria L. Brescoll and Eric Luis Uhlmann. 2008. “Can an Angry Woman Get Ahead? Status Conferral, Gender, and Expression of Emotion in the Workplace.” Psychological Science 19(3):268–75.
• Laurie Rudman, Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, Julie E. Phelan, and Sanne Nauts. 2012. “Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48: 165-179.

Curious what our friends in sociolinguistics have to say about gendered titles? Consider listening to Lexicon Valley’s exploration of feminine word endings here.

The Canadian Senate recently passed an amendment that excludes transgender people from using public restrooms of their choice. Transgender rights are facing similar challenges domestically, as Florida, Texas, Kentucky, and Minnesota consider bills that would limit or restrict the use of restrooms based on one’s sex assigned at birth. Additionally, Missouri State Rep. Jeff Pogue is pushing to ban gender-neutral bathrooms. As trans activists take to Twitter, sharing powerful photographs of themselves in bathrooms that do not fit their gender identity, some may be wondering: when did the loo become so political?

Gender policing is by no means new; in fact, regulating and upholding the gender binary has long been key to social and legal organization. Upon meeting someone new, it is common to make assumptions about their gender based on their body and presentation.

• Suzanne Kessler and Wendy McKenna. 1978. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Assumptions about gender vary based on context. Whereas gender identity and presentation may be used as criteria for gender-integrated social spaces, biological sex and genital appearance is emphasized in sexualized situations (e.g. dating) and gender-segregated spaces (e.g. bathrooms). Culturally held beliefs that men are dangerous and women are vulnerable exacerbate the policing of women’s only spaces like restrooms, while gender nonconformity may create ‘gender panics’ for nontransgender people.

• Laurel Westbrook and Kristen Schilt. 2014. “Doing Gender, Determining Gender: Transgender People, Gender Panics, and the Maintenance of the Sex/Gender/Sexuality System.” Gender & Society 28(1): 32-57.
• Laurel Westbrook and Kristen Schilt. 2009. “Doing Gender, Doing Heteronormativity: ‘Gender Normals,’ Transgender People, and the Social Maintenance of Heterosexuality.” Gender & Society 23: 440-464.

The policing of gendered bathrooms can include anything from strange looks and verbal challenges to interpersonal violence and arrest. As a result, transgender and gender nonconforming people may avoid public restrooms or alter their presentation substantially to avoid harassment and conflicts.

• Betsy Lucal. 1999. “What is Means to be Gendered Me: Life on the Boundaries of a Dichotomous Gender System.” Gender & Society 13: 781-797.
• Sheila Cavanagh. 2010. Queering Bathrooms: Gender, Sexuality, and the Hygienic Imagination. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Legislation that seeks to regulate bathroom use must first venture down the slippery slope of legally defining sex. This is no small task. In the absence of any federal definition of sex, dozens of judicial gender determination cases demonstrate the variety of factors courts use to determine gender, including personal identity, physical presentation, medical history, and genital appearance and function.

• Tey Meadow. 2010. “‘A Rose is a Rose’: On Producing Legal Gender Classifications.” Gender & Society 24: 814-837.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Young v. United Parcel Service. The outcome will affect many American women’s ability to financially support their families and even have children.

Pregnancy discrimination, while widely illegal, happens when some employers illegally terminate their female workers. They are not explicitly fired for being pregnant, but instead branded “bad workers” by managers. The organizations then use run-of-the-mill meritocratic policies to fire the women.

Reginald A. Byron and Vincent J. Roscigno. 2014. “Relational Power, Legitimation, and Pregnancy Discrimination,” Gender & Society 28(3):435–62.

Pregnancy is a particularly vulnerable time for women; it holds health, legal, and employment risks. A systematic examination of arrests of and forced interventions in the lives of pregnant women in the U.S. shows a variety of concerns about their health, dignity, and autonomy.

Lynn M. Paltrow and Jeanne Flavin. 2013. “Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973–2005: Implications for Women’s Legal Status and Public Health,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law.

A variety of laws and their sometimes-selective enforcement affect women’s ability to be healthy and valued members of society.

Jeanne Flavin. 2009. Our Bodies, Our Crimes: The Policing of Women’s Reproduction in America. New York: NYU Press.

Beyond pregnancy discrimination, mothers are paid less than childless women. A portion of this motherhood wage penalty is due to discrimination.

Stephen Benard and Shelley J. Correll. 2010. “Normative Discrimination and the Motherhood Penalty,” Gender & Society 24(5):616–46.

With more troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, this Veterans Day sees a unique push for public awareness about the challenges that accompany a return to civilian life. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has a new book and A&E a new reality show, and the social science shows why we want to pay attention to veterans after they return from service. We have a few previous TROT posts on issues within the military, but unique problems arise in a civilian world which can often be less hospitable than the regiment.

Military service provides a number of social benefits upon returning home. The positive image of having served can even overcome negative stereotypes in civilian life and help advance veterans who have a history of delinquency.

• Alair MacLean and Meredith Kleykamp. 2014. “Coming Home: Attitudes Toward Veterans Returning from Iraq.” Social Problems 61(1):131-54
• Robert J. Sampson and John H. Laub. 1996. “Socioeconomic Achievement in the Life Course of Disadvantaged Men: Military Service as a Turning Point, Circa 1940-1965.” American Sociological Review 61(3): 347-367

After service, however, institutional problems in civilian life mean veterans don’t all face the same challenges when they return home. For example, the G.I. Bill offered a wide range of education and housing benefits, but historic racial inequality in civilian institutions often made it harder for vets of color to collect those benefits. Today, female vets are more likely to face unemployment than males. However, those with only a high school degree often do earn more than non-vets with only a high school degree, and they are more likely to be enrolled in college.

• Meredith Kleykamp. 2013. “Unemployment, Earnings and Enrollment among Post 9/11Veterans.” Social Science Research 42(3):836-51.
• Ira Katznelson. 2006. When Affirmative Action was White: The Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth Century America. New York: W.W. Norton 2nd ed.

We can still do a lot of work to improve the military, particularly in leadership and adjudication, but it also has a history of positive institutional changes to address issues like racial inequality and reduce the risks of service for certain minority groups.

• James Burk and Evelyn Espinoza. 2012. “Race Relations Within the US Military.” Annual Review of Sociology 38: 401-422

A new survey from the Pew forum sheds light on widespread online harassment. Young adults in the study reported experiencing more bullying overall, and women were more likely to have been stalked or sexually harassed. These are serious crimes, but routine harassment also isn’t harmless. A new viral video and recent piece from The Daily Show capture women’s everyday experiences with street harassment and catcalling in public. These accounts bring bullying back to light, and social science research shows how and why harassment emerges. 

Bullying isn’t just meaningless cruelty; it is one way groups enforce social norms (especially around gender and race). Challenging harassment often means criticizing society’s deeply held beliefs.

• C.J. Pascoe. 2011. Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• C.J. Pascoe. 2013. “Notes on a Sociology of Bullying: Young Men’s Homophobia as Gender Socialization” QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking Inaugural Issue: 87-103
• Joe R. Feagin. 1991. “The Continuing Significance of Race: Antiblack Discrimination in Public Places.” American Sociological Review 56(1): 101-116

Bullying and harassment are also advanced through social organization. Bullying can emerge when an organization is in chaos and can’t moderate unequal relationships around race and gender, and our legal protection of free speech often makes anti-harassment efforts hard to enforce.

• Randy Hodson, Vincent J. Roscigno and Steven H. Lopez. 2006. “Chaos and the Abuse of Power Workplace Bullying in Organizational and Interactional Context.” Work and Occupations 33(4): 382-416
• Laura Beth Nelson. 2000. “Situating Legal Consciousness: Experiences and Attitudes of Ordinary Citizens about Law and Street Harassment” Law & Society Review 34(4): 1055-1090

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has been harshly criticized for his remarks that women should trust in the system to give them the right raises as they go along, rather than asking for raises they feel they deserve.  While he later “clarified” his statement on Twitter saying that he meant to say that the tech industry must close the gender pay gap so asking for a raise is not needed, research shows why sociologists are skeptical of his arguments.

The gender pay gap is well documented, and it exists even when controlling for a variety of factors related to wages, such as occupation, work hours, and educational attainment.

• Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn. 2006. “The U.S. Gender Pay Gap in the 1990s: Slowing Convergence.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 60(1):45–66.
• Youngjoo Cha and Kim A. Weeden. 2014. “Overwork and the Slow Convergence in the Gender Gap in Wages.” American Sociological Review 79(3):457–84.

Occupations with lots of female employees also tend to be paid less favorably than those requiring similar skills but largely done by men.

• Hadas Mandel. 2013. “Up the Down Staircase: Women’s Upward Mobility and the Wage Penalty for Occupational Feminization, 1970-2007.” Social Forces 91(4):1183–1207.

Mothers tend to be particularly disadvantaged in terms of salary compared to childless women or to men.

• Michelle J. Budig and Paula England. 2001. “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood.” American Sociological Review 66(2):204–25.

Women can also face penalties for asking for a raise, even if they deserve it, if they don’t frame their request in a way that still conforms to gender norms.

• Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever. 2003. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
• Carol T. Kulik and Mara Olekalns. 2012. “Negotiating the Gender Divide Lessons From the Negotiation and Organizational Behavior Literatures.” Journal of Management 38(4):1387–1415.

For more on women in the workforce, check out these previous TROT posts and briefs from SSN.