Events during the first decade of the millinnium have profoundly affected gender roles.
The study of gender emerged as one of the most important trends in the discipline
of sociology in the twentieth century. The research and theory associated with
studying gender issues propelled the sociology of gender from the margins to
become a central feature of the discipline. To understand the powerful social
effects of the Millennium Recession (MR) and patterns of globalization, for example,
sociological analysis must account for gender. This text documents how sociologists
have aided our understanding of the influence of gender in shaping our lives, our
attitudes, and our behavior. This understanding is enhanced by investigating the
links between sociology and other disciplines and by integrating key concepts such
as race, social class, and sexuality to clarify gender relations. Sociology is interested
in how human behavior is shaped by group life. Although all group life is ordered
in a variety of ways, gender is a key component of the ordering. An explosion of
C H A P T E R 1
THE SOCIOLOGY
OF GENDER
Theoretical Perspectives
and Feminist Frameworks
BASIC SOCIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS
Key Concepts for the Sociology of Gender
Distinguishing Sex and Gender
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
ON GENDER ROLES
Functionalism
Conflict Theory
Symbolic Interaction
Feminist Sociological Theory
FEMINISM AND ITS BRANCHES
Liberal Feminism
Socialist Feminism
Radical Feminism
Multicultural and Global Feminism
Ecofeminism
FEMINISM AND THE MEDIA
Portrayals of Feminism
Feminism and Election 2008
Challenging the Backlash to Feminism
All causes, social and natural, combine to
make it unlikely that women should be
collectively rebellious to the power of
men. They are so far in a position
different from all other subject classes,
that their masters require something
more from them than actual service.
Men do not want solely the obedience
of women, they want their sentiments.
—John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of
Women (1869)
1
2 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
research on gender issues now suggests that all social interactions, and the institutions
in which the interactions occur, are gendered in some manner. Accounting
for this gendering has reshaped the theoretical and empirical foundations of sociology.
On the theoretical side, gender awareness has modified existing sociological
theory and led to the creation of a new feminist paradigm. On the empirical side,
gender awareness has led to innovative research strategies and opened up new
topics for sociological inquiry. We open with an examination of basic concepts and
theories that lay the groundwork for our sociological journey into gender roles.
BASIC SOCIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS
All societies are structured around relatively stable patterns that establish how
social interaction will be carried out. One of the most important social structures
that organizes social interaction is status—a category or position a person
occupies that is a significant determinant of how she or he will be defined and
treated. We acquire statuses by achievement, through our own efforts, or by
ascription, being born into them or attaining them involuntarily at some other
point in the life cycle. We occupy a number of statuses simultaneously, referred
to as a status set, such as mother, daughter, attorney, patient, employee, and
passenger. Compared to achieved statuses occurring later in life, ascribed
statuses are those immediately impacting virtually every aspect of our lives. The
most important ascribed statuses are gender, race, and social class. Since a status
is simply a position within a social system, it should not be confused with rank or
prestige. There are high-prestige statuses as well as low-prestige statuses. In the
United States, for example, a physician occupies a status ranked higher in
prestige than a secretary. All societies categorize members by status and
then rank these statuses in some fashion, thereby creating a system of social stratification.
People whose status sets are comprised of low-ranked ascribed statuses
more than high-ranked achieved statuses are near the bottom of the social stratification
system and vulnerable to social stigma, prejudice, and discrimination. To
date, there is no known society in which the status of female is consistently
ranked higher than that of male.
A role is the expected behavior associated with a status. Roles are
performed according to social norms, shared rules that guide people’s behavior
in specific situations. Social norms determine the privileges and responsibilities
a status possesses. Females and males, mothers and fathers, and daughters and
sons are all statuses with different normative role requirements attached to
them. The status of mother calls for expected roles involving love, nurturing,
self-sacrifice, home-making, and availability. The status of father calls for
expected roles of breadwinner, disciplinarian, home technology expert, and ultimate
decision maker in the household. Society allows for a degree of flexibility
in acting out roles, but in times of rapid social change, acceptable role limits are
often in a state of flux, producing uncertainty about what appropriate role
behavior should be. People may experience anomie—normlessness—because
traditional norms have changed but new ones have yet to be developed. For
example, the most important twentieth-century trend impacting gender roles in
the United Sates is the massive increase of women in the labor force. Although
women from all demographic categories contributed to these numbers, mothers
with preschool children led the trek from unpaid home-based roles to full-time
paid employment roles. In acting out the roles of mother and employee, women
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 3
are expected to be available at given times to satisfy the needs of family and workplace.
Because workplaces and other social institutions have not been modified
in meaningful ways to account for the new statuses women occupy, their range
of acceptable role behavior is severely restricted. As a result, family and workplace
roles inevitably collide and compete with one another for the mother–employee’s
time and attention.
Key Concepts for the Sociology of Gender
As key components of social structure, statuses and roles allow us to organize
our lives in consistent, predictable ways. In combination with established norms,
they prescribe our behavior and ease interaction with people who occupy different
social statuses, whether we know these people or not. There is an insidious side to
this kind of predictable world. When normative role behavior becomes too rigidly
defined, our freedom of action is often compromised. These rigid definitions are
associated with the development of stereotypes—oversimplified conceptions that
people who occupy the same status group share certain traits in common. Although
stereotypes can include positive traits, they most often consist of negative ones that
are then used to justify discrimination against members of a given group. The
statuses of male and female are often stereotyped according to the traits they are
assumed to possess by virtue of their biological makeup. Women are stereotyped as
flighty and unreliable because they possess uncontrollable raging hormones that
fuel unpredictable emotional outbursts. The assignment of negative stereotypes can
result in sexism, the belief that the status of female is inferior to the status of male.
Males are not immune to the negative consequences of sexism, but females are more
likely to experience it because the status sets they occupy are more stigmatized than
those occupied by males. Compared to males, for example, females are more likely
to occupy statuses inside and outside their homes that are associated with less power,
less prestige, and less pay or no pay. Beliefs about inferiority due to biology are reinforced
and then used to justify discrimination directed toward females.
Sexism is perpetuated by systems of patriarchy, male-dominated social structures
leading to the oppression of women. Patriarchy, by definition, exhibits
androcentrism—male-centered norms operating throughout all social institutions
that become the standard to which all persons adhere. Sexism is reinforced
when patriarchy and androcentrism combine to perpetuate beliefs that gender
roles are biologically determined and therefore unalterable. For example,
throughout the developing world beliefs about a woman’s biological unsuitability
for other than domestic roles have restricted opportunities for education and
achieving literacy. These restrictions have made men the guardians of what has
been written, disseminated, and interpreted regarding gender and the placement
of men and women in society. Until recently, history has been recorded from an
androcentric perspective that ignored the other half of humanity (Chapter 5).
This perspective has perpetuated the belief that patriarchy is an inevitable,
inescapable fact of history, so struggles for gender equality are doomed to failure.
Women’s gain in education is associated with the power to engage in the research
and scholarship offering alternatives to prevailing androcentric views. We will see
that such scholarship suggests that patriarchal systems may be universal, but they
are not inevitable, and that gender egalitarianism was a historical fact of life in
some cultures and is a contemporary fact of life in others.
4 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
Distinguishing Sex and Gender
As gender issues have become more mainstreamed in scientific research and
media reports, confusion associated with the terms sex and gender has decreased. In
sociology, these terms are now fairly standardized to refer to different content
areas. Sex refers to the biological characteristics distinguishing male and female.
This definition emphasizes male and female differences in chromosomes, anatomy,
hormones, reproductive systems, and other physiological components. Gender
refers to those social, cultural, and psychological traits linked to males and females
through particular social contexts. Sex makes us male or female; gender makes us
masculine or feminine. Sex is an ascribed status because a person is born with it, but
gender is an achieved status because it must be learned.
This relatively simple distinction masks a number of problems associated with
its usage. It implies that all people can be conveniently placed into unambiguous
“either–or” categories. Certainly the ascribed status of sex is less likely to be altered
than the achieved status of gender. Some people believe, however, that they were
born with the “wrong” body and are willing to undergo major surgery to make their
gender identity consistent with their biological sex. Sexual orientation, the
preference for sexual partners of one gender (sex) or the other, also varies. People
who experience sexual pleasure with members of their own sex are likely to
consider themselves masculine or feminine according to gender norms. Others are
born with ambiguous sex characteristics and may be assigned one sex at birth but
develop a different identity related to gender. Some cultures allow people to move
freely between genders, regardless of their biological sex.
These issues will be addressed fully in Chapters 2 and 3, but are mentioned
here to highlight the problems of terminology. From a sociological perspective, this
text is concerned with gender and how it is learned, how it changes over time, and
how it varies between and within cultures. Gender can be viewed on a continuum of
characteristics demonstrated by a person regardless of the person’s biological sex.
Adding the concept of role to either sex or gender may increase confusion in
terminology. When the sociological concept of role is combined with the biological
concept of sex, there is often misunderstanding about what content areas are
subsumed under the resultant sex role label. Usage is becoming rapidly standardized,
however, and most sociologists now prefer to employ the term gender role rather
than sex role in their writing. Gender roles, therefore, are the expected attitudes and
behaviors a society associates with each sex. This definition places gender squarely
in the sociocultural context.
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON GENDER ROLES
Sociologists explain gender roles according to several theoretical perspectives,
general ways of understanding social reality that guide the research process and
provide a means for interpreting the data. In essence, a theory is an explanation.
Formal theories consist of logically interrelated propositions that explain empirical
events. For instance, data indicate that compared to men, women are more likely to
be segregated in lower-paying jobs offering fewer opportunities for professional
growth and advancement. Data also indicate that both in the United States and
cross-culturally the domestic work of women performed in or near their homes is
valued less than the work of men performed outside their homes. Because the issue
of gender crosses many disciplines, explanations for these facts can be offered
according to the theoretical perspectives of those disciplines. Biology, psychology,
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 5
and anthropology all offer explanations for gender-related attitudes and behavior.
Not only do these explanations differ between disciplines, but scientists within the
same discipline also frequently offer competing explanations for the same data, and
sociology is no exception. The best explanations are those that account for the
volume and complexities of the data. As research on gender issues accelerates and
more sophisticated research tools are developed, it is becoming clearer that the
best explanations are also those that are both interdisciplinary and incorporate
concepts related to diversity. Sociological theory will dominate this text’s discussion,
but we will also account for relevant interdisciplinary work and its attention to
diversity issues.
Sociological perspectives on gender also vary according to the level of analysis at
which they operate. Macrosociological perspectives on gender roles direct attention to
data collected on large-scale social phenomena, such as labor force, educational, and
political trends that are differentiated according to gender roles. Microsociological
perspectives on gender roles direct attention to data collected in small groups and
the details of gender interaction occurring, for example, between couples and in
families and peer groups. Microsociological perspectives overlap a great deal with the
discipline of social psychology (Chapter 3). We will see that theoretical perspectives
may be differentiated according to macro- and microlevel of analysis, and perspectives
from each level may be more or less compatible. When theoretical perspectives
can be successfully combined, they offer excellent ways to better understand gender
issues from a sociological perspective.
Early sociological perspectives related to gender roles evolved from scholarship
on the sociology of the family. These explanations centered on why men and
women hold different roles in the family that in turn impact the roles they perform
outside the family. To a large extent, this early work on the family has continued to
inform current sociological thinking on gender roles. The next sections will
overview the major sociological perspectives and highlight their explanations
regarding the gender–family connection.
Functionalism
Functionalism, also known as “structural functionalism,” is a macrosociological
perspective that is based on the premise that society is made up of interdependent
parts, each of which contributes to the functioning of the whole society.
Functionalists seek to identify the basic elements or parts of society and determine
the functions these parts play in meeting basic social needs in predictable ways.
Functionalists ask how any given element of social structure contributes to overall
social stability, balance, and equilibrium. They assert that in the face of disruptive
social change, society can be restored to equilibrium as long as built-in mechanisms
of social control operate effectively and efficiently. Social control and stability are
enhanced when people share beliefs and values in common. Functionalist emphasis
on this value consensus is a major ingredient in virtually all their interpretations
related to social change. Values surrounding gender roles, marriage, and the family
are central to functionalist assertions regarding social equilibrium.
Preindustrial Society. Functionalists suggest that in preindustrial societies
social equilibrium was maintained by assigning different tasks to men and women.
Given the hunting and gathering and subsistence farming activities of most
preindustrial societies, role specialization according to gender was considered
a functional necessity. In their assigned hunting roles, men were frequently away
6 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
from home for long periods and centered their lives around the responsibility of
bringing food to the family. It was functional for women—more limited by
pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing—to be assigned domestic roles near the home
as gatherers and subsistence farmers and as caretakers of children and
households. Children were needed to help with agricultural and domestic
activities. Girls would continue these activities when boys reached the age when
they were allowed to hunt with the older males. Once established, this functional
division of labor was reproduced in societies throughout the globe. Women may
have been farmers and food gatherers in their own right, but they were dependent
on men for food and for protection. Women’s dependence on men in turn
produced a pattern in which male activities and roles came to be more valued than
female activities and roles.
Contemporary Society. Similar principles apply to families in contemporary
societies. Disruption is minimized, harmony is maximized, and families benefit
when spouses assume complementary, specialized, nonoverlapping roles (Parsons
and Bales, 1955; Parsons, 1966). When the husband–father takes the instrumental
role, he is expected to maintain the physical integrity of the family by providing
food and shelter and linking the family to the world outside the home. When the
wife–mother takes the expressive role, she is expected to cement relationships and
provide emotional support and nurturing activities that ensure the household runs
smoothly. If too much deviation from these roles occurs, or when there is too much
overlap, the family system is propelled into a state of imbalance that can threaten
the survival of the family unit. Advocates of functionalist assumptions argue, for
instance, that gender role ambiguity regarding instrumental and expressive roles is
a major factor in divorce (Hacker, 2003).
Critique. It should be apparent that functionalism’s emphasis on social
equilibrium contributes to its image as an inherently conservative theoretical
perspective. This image is reinforced by its difficulty in accounting for a variety of
existing family systems and in not keeping pace with rapid social change moving
families toward more egalitarian attitudes regarding gender roles.
Often to the dismay of the scientists who developed them, scientific theories
and the research on which they are based are routinely employed to support
a range of ideologies. Functionalism has been used as a justification for male
dominance and gender stratification. In the United States, functional analyses were
popularized in the 1950s when, weary of war, the nation latched onto a traditional
and idealized version of family life and attempted to establish not just a prewar, but
a pre-Depression, existence. Functionalism tends to support a white middle-class
family model emphasizing the economic activities of the male household head and
domestic activities of his female subordinate. Women function outside the home
only as a reserve labor force, such as when their labor is needed in wartime. This
model does not apply to poor women and single parents who by necessity must
work outside the home to maintain the household. It may not apply to African
American women, who are less likely by choice to separate family and employment
and who derive high levels of satisfaction from both these roles.
Research also shows that specialization of household tasks by gender in
contemporary families is more dysfunctional than functional. Women relegated
to family roles that they see as restrictive, for example, are unhappier in their
marriages and more likely to opt out of them. Despite tension associated with
multiple roles and role overlap, couples report high levels of gratification, self
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 7
esteem, status security, and personally enriched lives (Chapter 8). Contemporary
families simply do not fit functionalist models.
To its credit, functionalism offers a reasonably sound explanation for the
origin of gender roles and demonstrates the functional utility of assigning tasks on
the basis of gender in subsistence economies or in regions in which large families
are functional and children are needed for agricultural work. Contemporary
functionalists also acknowledge that strain occurs when there is too sharp a divide
between the public and the private sphere (work and family), particularly for
women. They recognize that such a divide is artificial and dysfunctional when
families need to cope with the growing interdependence called for in a global
economy. The “superwoman” who “does it all” in career achievement and family
nurturance will be valued (Diekman and Goodfriend, 2006). Finally, neofunctionalism
accounts for the multiple levels where gender relations are operative—
biological, psychological, social, and cultural. A functionalist examination of their
interdependence allows us to understand how female subordination and male
superiority became reproduced throughout the globe.
Conflict Theory
With its assumptions about social order and social change, the macrosociological
perspective of conflict theory, also referred to as social conflict theory, is in
many ways a mirror image of functionalism. Unlike functionalists, who believe
that social order is maintained through value consensus, conflict theorists assert
that it is preserved involuntarily through the exercise of power one social class
holds over another.
Marx, Engels, and Social Class. Originating from the writings of Karl Marx
(1818–1883), conflict theory is based on the assumption that society is a stage on
which struggles for power and dominance are acted out. The struggles are largely
between social classes competing for scarce resources, such as control over the means
of production (land, factories, natural resources), and for a better distribution of all
resources (money, food, material goods). Capitalism thrives on a class-based system
that consolidates power in the hands of a few men of the ruling class (bourgeoisie), who
own the farms and factories that workers (proletariat) depend on for their survival.
The interest of the dominant class is to maintain its position of power over the
subordinate class by extracting as much profit as possible from their work. Only when
the workers recognize their common oppression and form a class consciousness can
they unite and amass the resources necessary to seriously challenge the inequitable
system in which they find themselves (Marx and Engels, 1964; Marx, 1967). Marxian
beliefs were acted out historically in the revolution that enveloped Russia, Eastern
Europe, and much of Eurasia, propelling the Soviets to power for a half a century of
control over these regions.
Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), Marx’s collaborator, applied these assumptions
to the family and, by extension, to gender roles. He suggested that the master–slave
or exploiter–exploited relationships occurring in broader society between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat are translated into the household. Primitive
societies were highly egalitarian because there were no surplus goods, hence no
private property. People consumed what they produced. With the emergence of
private property and the dawn of capitalistic institutions, Engels argued that
a woman’s domestic labor is “no longer counted beside the acquisition of the
necessities of life by the man; the latter was everything, the former an unimportant
8 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
extra.” The household is an autocracy, and the supremacy of the husband is
unquestioned. “The emancipation of woman will only be possible when women can
take part in production on a large social scale, and domestic work no longer claims
but an insignificant amount of her time” (Engels, 1942:41–43).
Contemporary Conflict Theory. Later conflict theorists refined original
Marxian assertions to reflect contemporary patterns and make conflict theory more
palatable to people who desire social change that moves in the direction of
egalitarianism but not through the revolutionary means outlined by classical
Marxism (Dahrendorf, 1959; Collins, 1975, 1979). Today conflict theory largely
asserts that social structure is based on the dominance of some groups over others
and that groups in society share common interests, whether its members are aware
of it or not. Conflict is not simply based on class struggle and the tensions between
owner and worker or employer and employee; it occurs on a much wider level and
among almost all other groups. These include parents and children, husbands and
wives, young and the old, sick and healthy, people of color and whites, heterosexual
and gay, females and males, and any other groups that can be differentiated as
minority or majority according to the level of resources they possess. The list is
infinite.
Gender and the Family. Conflict theory focuses on the social placement
function of the family that deposits people at birth into families who possess
varying degrees of economic resources. People fortunate enough to be deposited
into wealthier families will work to preserve existing inequality and the power
relations in the broader society because they clearly benefit from the overall
power imbalance. Social class endogamy (marrying within the same class) and
inheritance patterns ensure that property and wealth are kept in the hands of
a few powerful families. Beliefs about inequality and the power imbalance
become institutionalized—they are accepted and persist over time as legitimate
by both the privileged and the oppressed—so the notion that family wealth is
deserved and that those born into poor families remain poor because they lack
talent and a work ethic is perpetuated. The structural conditions that sustain
poverty are ignored. When social placement operates through patriarchal and
patrilineal systems, wealth is further concentrated in the hands of males and
further promotes female subservience, neglect, and poverty. Contemporary
conflict theorists agree with Engels by suggesting that when women gain
economic strength by also being wage earners, their power inside the home is
strengthened and can lead to more egalitarian arrangements.
The conflict perspective is evident in research demonstrating that household
responsibilities have an effect on occupational location, work experience, and
number of hours worked per week, all of which are linked to the gender gap in earnings
(Chapter 10). Undesirable work will be performed disproportionately by those
lacking resources to demand sharing the burden or purchasing substitutes. Because
household labor is unpaid and associated with lack of power, the homemaker (wife)
takes on virtually all domestic chores (Lindsey, 1996a; Riley and Kiger, 1999). The
more powerful spouse performs the least amount of household work.
Critique. Conflict theory has been criticized for its overemphasis on the
economic basis of inequality and its assumption that there is inevitable competition
between family members. It tends to dismiss the consensus among wives and
husbands regarding task allocation. In addition, paid employment is not the
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 9
panacea envisioned by Engels in overcoming male dominance. The gendered
division of household labor does not translate to significant wage reductions for
employed women outside the home or reduced in-home responsibilities (Tichenor,
2005; Lincoln, 2008). In the former Soviet Union women had the highest levels of
paid employment in the world, but retained more household responsibilities than
comparable women in other countries, and earned two-thirds of the average male
income. In post–Communist Russia, there is no change in women’s domestic work,
but women now earn less than half of men’s average earnings (Chapter 6).
Research unanimously concludes that even in those cultures where gender equity
in the workplace is increasing, employed women globally take on a “second shift” of
domestic work after returning home (Chapter 8).
A conspiratorial element emerges when conflict theory becomes associated
with the idea that men as a group are consciously organized to keep women in
subordinate positions. A number of social forces, many of them unorganized or
unintended, come into play when explaining gender stratification. Functionalism’s
bias against social change might be matched with conflict theory’s bias for social
change. Compared to functionalism, however, this bias is less of a problem for
conflict theory once it is stripped of some Marxian baggage. Contemporary conflict
theory has made strong inroads in using social class to further clarify the
gender–race–class link, suggesting that the class advantages for people of color may
override the race disadvantages (Gimenez, 2001; Lareau, 2002; Misra, 2002). Most
people are uncomfortable with sexism and patterns of gender stratification that
harm both women and men. Women are denied opportunities to expand instrumental
roles offering economic parity with men outside the home; men are denied
opportunities for expanding expressive and nurturing roles inside the home. At the
ideological level, sociological conflict theory has been used to support activities
designed to reduce racism, economic-based disparity (classism), and sexism.
Symbolic Interaction
Symbolic interaction, also called “the interactionist perspective,” is at the
heart of the sociological view of social interaction at the microlevel. With attention
to people’s behavior in face-to-face social settings, symbolic interactionists explain
social interaction as a dynamic process in which people continually modify their
behavior as a result of the interaction itself. Herbert Blumer (1900–1987), who
originated the term symbolic interaction, asserted that people do not respond
directly to the world around them, but to the meaning they bring to it. Society, its
institutions, and its social structure exist—that is, social reality is bestowed—
only through human interaction (Blumer, 1969). Reality is what members agree to
be reality.
People interact according to how they perceive a situation, how they understand
the social encounter, and the meanings they bring to it. Another important
step in the interaction process involves how they think other people who are part of
the interaction also understand the encounter. Each person’s definition of the
situation influences others’ definitions. To illustrate symbolic interaction’s emphasis
on the fluidity of behavior, I developed the concept of the end point fallacy,
asserting that the negotiation of social reality is an ongoing process in which new
definitions produce new behavior in a never-ending cycle. The end point fallacy is an
excellent way to explain the inconsistencies between people’s behavior as they move
from setting to setting.
10 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
Social Construction of Reality. Symbolic interaction is a microlevel perspective,
but it does take into account that social interaction is a process governed by norms that
are largely determined by culture. Cultural norms offer general guidelines for role
behavior, but symbolic interactionists assert that we have latitude in the way we
act out our roles. The context of the interaction is usually a key determinant of
role performance. What is appropriate role performance in one context may be
inappropriate in another. Cultural norms are modified whenever social interaction
occurs because people bring their own definitions about appropriate behavior to the
interaction. These definitions shape the way people see and experience the world.
Symbolic interactionists refer to this shaping process as the social construction of
reality—the shaping of perception of reality by the subjective meanings brought to any
experience or social interaction. Consistent with Herbert Blumer’s view, every time
social interaction occurs, people creatively construct their own understanding of it—
whether “real” or not—and behave accordingly.
Doing Gender. Symbolic interactionists contend that concepts used to
collectively categorize people—such as race, ethnicty, and gender—do not exist
objectively but emerge through a socially constructed process. People called “females”
or “males” are endowed with certain traits defined as feminine or masculine. Concepts
such as gender, therefore, must be found in the meanings people bring to them
(Denzin, 1993; Deutscher and Lindsey, 2005:5). Gender emerges not as an individual
attribute but something that is “accomplished” in interaction with others. People,
therefore, are doing gender (Fenstermaker and West, 2002). In “doing” gender,
symbolic interaction takes its lead from Erving Goffman (1922–1982), who developed
a dramaturgy approach to social interaction. Goffman maintained that the best way to
understand social interaction is to consider it as an enactment in a theatrical
performance. Like actors on a stage, we use strategies of impression management,
providing information and cues to others that present us in a favorable light
(Goffman, 1959, 1963, 1971).
Think about the heterosexual bar scene where men usually sit at the counter
and operate from a script where they are expected to make the first move. If
a woman is with friends, she must disengage herself if she is “selected” by the man.
It is probable that the women drove separately. Data from television also illustrate
these concepts. Prime time television commonly depict traditionally scripted sexual
encounters according to gender and beliefs about heterosexuality that sustain
power differences between men and women and between heterosexual and
homosexual men (Kim et al., 2007). Although there are many cultural variations,
gender-scripted rules are laid out, negotiated, and acted upon in bars and meeting
places for singles and witnessed by TV viewers across the globe.
Gender roles are structured by one set of scripts designed for males and
another designed for females. Although each script permits a range of behavior
options, the typical result is that gender labels promote a pattern of between-sex
competition, rejection, and emotional segregation. This pattern is reinforced when
we routinely refer to those of the other sex (gender) as the opposite sex. Men and
women label each other as opposite to who they are, then behave according to that
label. The behavior serves to separate rather than connect the genders.
Doing Difference. Research on men and women in various social networks—
formed at school, work, and in volunteer activities—further illustrates this process.
From early childhood these groups are usually gender segregated. Gendered
subcultures emerge that strengthen the perceptions of gender differences and
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 11
erode the common ground on which intimate, status-equal friendships between the
genders are formed (Rouse, 2002). Differences rather than similarities are much
more likely to be noticed, defined, and acted on. When cross-gender social
interaction occurs, such as in the workplace, it is unlikely that men and women hold
statuses with similar levels of power and prestige. Once the genders are socially
constructed as different, it is easier for those with more power (men) to justify
inequality toward those with less power (women). Social difference is constructed
into social privilege (Fenstermaker and West, 2002).
Critique. Symbolic interaction’s approach to understanding gender role
behavior is criticized for its overall lack of attention to macrolevel processes that
often limits choice of action and prompts people to engage in gendered behavior
that counters what they would prefer to do. Cultural norms may be in flux at the
microlevel of social interaction, but they remain a significant structural force on
behavior. In some cultures, for example, women and men are dictated by both law
and custom to engage in certain occupations, enter into marriages with people they
would not choose on their own, and be restricted from attending school. Larger
social structures also operate at the family level to explain family dynamics. Men
and women interact not only as individual family members but also according to
other roles they play in society and the prestige associated with those roles. For
example, a wealthy white man who holds a powerful position in a corporation does
not dissolve those roles when he walks into his home. They shape his life at home,
in the workplace, and in the other social institutions in which he takes part. Race,
class, and gender offer a range of privileges bestowed by the broader society that
also create a power base in his home. Power and privilege can result in a patriarchal
family regardless of the couple’s desire for a more egalitarian arrangement.
Others argue that symbolic interaction’s emphasis on doing gender undermines
its fluidity to recast gender norms in ways that benefit both men and women.
Divorce allows for the “redoing” of gender—housework, parenting, and breadwinning
roles are repudiated (Walzer, 2008). Traditional gender accountability may no
longer apply in the post-divorce lives of former spouses and children.
Research on social dancing and its highly sexualized “grinding” form
demonstrates the ways females challenge scripts and may be redoing gender on
the dance floor. In hip-hop clubs, young women of color set the dance stage for
negotiating sexual and emotional encounters (Munoz-Laboy et al., 2007). These
women challenge “hypermasculine” privilege by determining the form of dance,
by taking the lead, by dancing with women, and by rejecting (or accepting) sexual
groping by male partners. Other data suggest that young women of all races use
social dance as escapism, fantasy, and compensatory sexuality, especially when
dancing with acquaintances rather than friends (Hutt, 2008).
Taking a step further, some argue that symbolic interaction’s doing gender
approach needs to be abandoned. If gender accountability assumes that inequality
is inevitable, research on ways of “undoing gender” should be the focus of sociological
analysis. (Deutsch, 2007; Risman, 2009:81). Are the young women on the dance
floor “redoing” or “undoing gender”? Gendered scripts invade their dance space
even as they transgress its boundaries.
You buy into this scenario that. . . . we’re all willing to pretend in this one
place . . . that we’re allowed to do things with each other that maybe you
would think about doing off of first glance anyway. . . . it’s kind of like a. . . .
simulated closeness with people. (Hutt, 2008:12)
12 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
Sociological analysis of sexuality is beginning to explore the body not merely
as a passive surface to be acted upon, but in its relationship to human agency
(Bryant, 2007). More research is needed to determine if in the micro-worlds of
post-divorce homes or in dance clubs traditional scripts can be modified enough to
say that gender is “undone.”
Feminist Sociological Theory
By calling attention to the powerful impact of gender in the social ordering of
our relationships (microlevel analysis) and our institutions (macrolevel analysis), the
feminist theoretical perspective in sociology emerged as a major model that has
significantly reshaped the discipline. By the research it spawned, feminist sociological
theory is not only bridging the micro–macro gap, it has also illuminated the
androcentric bias in sociology and in broader society. Disagreement remains on all
elements that need to be included in feminist theory, but at a minimum, the
consensus is that a theory is feminist if it can be used to challenge a status quo that is
disadvantageous to women (Chafetz, 1988; Smith, 2003).
The feminist perspective provides productive avenues of collaboration with
sociologists who adopt other theoretical views, especially conflict theory and
symbolic interaction. The feminist perspective is compatible with conflict theory in
its assertions that structured social inequality is maintained by ideologies that are
frequently accepted by both the privileged and the oppressed. These ideologies are
challenged only when oppressed groups gain the resources necessary to do so.
Unlike conflict theory’s focus on social class and the economic elements necessary
to challenge the prevailing system, feminists focus on women and their ability to
amass resources from a variety of sources—in their individual lives (microlevel) and
through social and political means (macrolevel). Feminists work through a number
of avenues to increase women’s empowerment—the ability for women to exert
control over their own destinies.
Symbolic interaction and feminist theory come together in research focusing
on the unequal power relations between men and women from the point of view
(definition of the situation) of women who are “ruled” by men in many settings. For
example, corporate women who want to be promoted need to practice impression
management based on acceptable gender role behavior of their corporate setting,
but at the same time they need to maintain a sense of personal integrity. The feminist
perspective accounts for ways to empower these corporate women by clarifying the
relationship between the label of “feminine” (symbolic interaction) and how these
women are judged by peers and by themselves.
Linking Gender, Race, and Class. One of the most important contributions
of the feminist perspective to sociology is its attention to the multiple oppressions
faced by people whose status sets are disadvantaged due to distinctive combinations
based on their gender, race, and social class. The gender–race–class linkage in
analyzing social behavior originated with African American feminists in the 1960s,
who recognized that an understanding of the link between these multiple
oppressions is necessary to determine how women are alike and how they are
different. For example, when the issue of poverty becomes “feminized,” the issue is
defined primarily by gender—women are at a higher risk of being poor than men.
A focus on the feminization of poverty ignores the link among race, social class, and
marital status that puts certain categories of women—such as single parents,
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 13
women of color, and elderly women living alone—at higher risk than others. To
explain poverty, racial and class oppression must be considered along with gender.
When white, middle-class feminists focus on oppression of women, they may not
recognize the privileges that come with their own race and class.
The attention to sociocultural diversity that originated with the gender–
race–class link has reverberated throughout sociology and other disciplines,
generating a great deal of interdisciplinary research. It has opened new
academic programs in Women’s Studies, Men’s Studies, and Gender Studies and
has increased dialogue between men and women. Feminist scholarship provides
opportunities for men to view themselves as gendered beings and to make visible
their concerns (Brod, 2003; Kimmel, 2008). With the gender–race–class link as
a foundation, feminist researchers are identifying other sites of oppression that
put people at risk both inside and outside their families, such as religion, sexual
orientation, age, or disability.
Feminist Perspectives on the Family. Feminist scholars in the 1960s and 1970s
viewed the traditional patriarchal family as a major site for the oppression of
women. They asserted that when the patriarchal family is regarded as beneficial to
social stability, it hampers the movement into egalitarian roles desired by both men
and women. Feminist sociologists recognize that gendered family relations do not
occur in a vacuum and that lives are helped or hurt by the resources outside the
family that shape what is happening inside the family. In addition to gender, for
example, single-parent African-American, Latino, and Native American women are
disadvantaged by race when they seek employment necessary to support their
families. Lesbians must deal with a system that represses same-sex relationships
when they fight for custody of their children. The growing consensus of feminists in
all disciplines is that women may be doubly or triply disadvantaged by their race,
class, or sexuality, but they are not helpless victims. To some degree they possess
agency—the power to adapt and sometimes to thrive in difficult situations.
Critique. With a view of gender, marriage, and the family focusing on
oppression of women, the feminist perspective tends to minimize the practical
benefits of marriages. This contention is that a marriage may be patriarchal, but it
also includes important economic resources and social support that women in
these marriages may view as more important in their daily lives than their feelings
about subordination. Feminist scholars also find it difficult to reconcile research
suggesting that women in traditional marriages are as satisfied with their choices as
women in egalitarian marriages. Finally, emphasis on human agency may minimize
situations in which women’s victimization is condoned by custom and ignored by
law (Chapters 6, 8, 9, and 14).
A key strength of the feminist perspective is its ability to provide bridges
between sociological theories and account for social diversity in all its forms.
With its challenge to the patriarchal status quo and the androcentric bias inherent
in much sociological research and theory, it has created dissent that may
limit its acceptance by some sociologists. On the other hand, the feminist
perspective may plant the seeds for building a truly integrative theory to draw
together “conceptual pieces into a web of ideas that transcend patriarchal theory
building” (Ollenburger and Moore, 1992:36). Feminist theory offers a powerful
new perspective in sociology. Sociology will benefit from the intellectual ferment
it has already created.
14 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
FEMINISM AND ITS BRANCHES
Feminist theory and its attention to diversity offer a sound framework for organizations
working to change women’s inferior social position and the social, political,
and economic discrimination that perpetuates it. Many of these organizations come
together in networks under the umbrella of feminism, an inclusive worldwide
movement to end sexism and sexist oppression by empowering women. Thirty years
ago the women’s movement faltered because it did not realistically account for how
intersecting categories of oppression can divide women (Breines, 2006). Through
efforts of feminist networks across the globe and under the leadership of the
United Nations and the women’s conferences they organized, many of these divides
have been bridged (Chapter 6).
Global social change presents new and ongoing challenges for women, so
a feminist agenda addressing the needs of all women is never in a finalized form.
Feminists accept the goal of ending sexism by empowering women, but there is
a great deal of disagreement about how that goal is to be accomplished. Because
the feminist movement is inclusive, it is unlikely there will ever be full agreement on
identifying problems and determining strategies to address the problems. The very
inclusiveness and diversity of the movement makes unity on some issues virtually
impossible. Indeed, absence of complete unity is appropriate because it fuels those
worldwide debates that often result in the most creative, realistic, and innovative
strategies for women’s empowerment. Reflecting the difficulty of adopting one
agenda, the movement has tended to partition itself into several different branches
according to general philosophical differences. Women and men identify with
organizations and principles that may fall under more than one branch. In addition,
the branches are fluid; they continue to recreate themselves as different waves
of feminism flow through society (Chapter 5). Feminist branches, therefore, are
neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. Feminists as individuals or in the formal
groups to which they belong, however, generally subscribe to the principles of one
or another of the following branches.
Liberal Feminism
Liberal feminism, also called “egalitarian or mainstream feminism,” is
considered the most moderate branch. It is based on the simple proposition that
all people are created equal and should not be denied equality of opportunity
because of gender. Because both genders benefit by the elimination of sexism,
men are integrated into its ranks. Liberal feminism is based on Enlightenment
beliefs of rationality, education, and the natural rights that extend to all men and
women. This is articulated in John Stuart Mill’s (1869/2002) The Subjection of
Women, with his statement that “what is now called the nature of women is an
eminently artificial thing—the result of forced oppression in some directions,
unnatural stimulation in others.” Women can work together within a pluralistic
system and mobilize their constituents to effect positive and productive social
change. Demands will be met if mobilization is effective and pressure is
efficiently wielded (Deckard, 1983:463).
Liberal feminists believe society does not have to be completely restructured
to achieve empowerment for women and to incorporate women into meaningful
and equitable roles. This view tends to be adopted by professional, middle-class
women who place a high value on education and achievement. These women are
likely to have the economic resources to better compete with men for desirable
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 15
social positions and employment opportunities. Liberal feminism thus appeals to
“mainstream” women who have no disagreement with the overall structure of the
present social system, only that it should be nonsexist. The National Organization
for Women is the formal group representing this branch, with a statement of
purpose calling for an end to restrictive gender roles that serve to diminish opportunities
for both women and men (Chapter 14).
Cultural Feminism. Liberal feminists may also embrace “cultural feminism”
with its focus on empowering women by emphasizing the positive qualities that
are associated with women’s roles such as nurturing, caring, cooperation, and
connectedness to others (Worell, 1996:360). The issue of how much women are
alike and how much they are different is highlighted in this emphasis. Although it
does not constitute a separate branch of feminism per se, the debate around the
“degree of gender difference or similarity” has allowed cultural feminism to become
incorporated in all the feminist branches at some level. Liberal feminists, however,
are more likely to subscribe to these principles than women in other branches.
Socialist Feminism
Also referred to as “Marxist feminism,” socialist feminism generally adopts the
Marx–Engels model described earlier that links the inferior position of women to
class-based capitalism and its alignment with the patriarchal family in capitalistic
societies. Socialist feminism argues that sexism and capitalism are mutually supportive.
The unpaid labor of women in the home and their paid labor in a reserve
labor force simultaneously serve patriarchy capitalism. Many socialist feminists—
both men and women—also believe that economic and emotional dependence go
hand in hand. Fearful of the loss of economic security, a husband’s power over his
wife is absolute. Capitalism needs to be eliminated and socialist principles adopted
to both home and workplace. Sexism and economic oppression are mutually
reinforcing, so a socialist revolutionary agenda is needed to change both.
Socialist feminism appeals to working-class women and those who feel
disenfranchised from the presumed economic opportunities in capitalism. It has
made a great deal of headway in Latin America and has served as a powerful rallying
point for women in other developing nations. It is ironic that its most vivid expression
occurred in the former Soviet Union, where women continued to carry the heavy
burden of unpaid household labor while also functioning in the paid labor force.
Although socialist feminism is explicitly tied to Marxist theory, there are key
differences between the two. Whereas Marxist theory focuses on property and
economic conditions to build an ideology, socialist feminism focuses on sexuality and
gender. Men and women retain interest in their own gender group, so it is unclear if
the socialism being struggled for is the same for both men and women (Hartmann,
1993). A humane socialist approach to feminism requires consensus on what the new
society should be and would require men to renounce their privileges as men.
Radical Feminism
Radical feminism is said to have emerged when women who were working
with men in the civil rights and anti–Vietnam War movements were not allowed to
present their positions on the causes they were engaged in. These women became
aware of their own oppression by the treatment they received from their male
cohorts, who insulted and ridiculed them for their views. The second wave of
16 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
feminism leading to the rebirth of the women’s movement in the United States in
the twentieth century may be traced to the women who found themselves derided
and ignored by the people they believed to be their allies. History repeated itself.
The roots of American feminism in the nineteenth century are traced to the
women who were denied expression of their views by the men they worked with in
the antislavery movement. The patronizing attitudes of the men of that era
provided the catalyst for women to recognize gender-based oppression and then
organize to challenge it (Chapter 5). A century later it happened again.
Contemporary radical feminists believe that sexism is at the core of patriarchal
society and that all social institutions reflect that sexism. Whereas liberal
feminists focus on the workplace and legal changes, radical feminists focus on
the patriarchal family as the key site of domination and oppression (Shelton and
Agger, 1993). They believe that because all social institutions are so intertwined,
it is virtually impossible to attack sexism in any meaningful way. Women’s
oppression stems from male domination, so if men are the problem, neither
capitalism, nor socialism, nor any other male-dominated system will solve the
problem. Therefore, women must create separate institutions that are women
centered—those that rely on women rather than men. Radical feminists would
agree with cultural feminism in that the alternative path for women is to be
different than men. A society will emerge where the female virtues of nurturance,
sharing, and intuition will dominate in a woman-identified world.
Acknowledging the impossibility of removing sexism from all institutions,
radical feminists work at local levels and in their neighborhoods to develop profit
and not-for-profit institutions that are operated solely by women to serve other
women, such as small businesses, day care facilities, counseling centers, and safe
houses for women escaping domestic violence.
Reflecting more overall diversity than any of the other branches in its ranks,
especially related to race and sexual orientation, these institutions vary considerably
in structure, philosophy, and strategies to attain their goals. The blueprint for
the women-identified society they envision is stamped on their activities that
are much more individualized in other feminist branches. The conviction that
male supremacy and oppression of women is the defining characteristic of a society
is what unifies the disparate elements of radical feminism.
Multicultural and Global Feminism
The attention to diversity issues at the macrolevel is evident among feminists
who organize around multicultural and global issues. This feminist branch focuses
on the intersection of gender with race, class, and issues related to the colonization
and exploitation of women in the developing world. Global feminism is a
movement of people working for change across national boundaries. The world is
interdependent and becoming more so. Global feminism contends that no woman
is free until the conditions that oppress women worldwide are eliminated (Bunch,
1993:249). Multicultural feminism focuses on the specific cultural elements and
historical conditions that serve to maintain women’s oppression. In Latin America,
for instance, military regimes have devised specific patterns of punishment and
sexual enslavement for women who oppose their regimes (Bunster-Bunalto, 1993).
Global feminism works to empower South Asian and Middle Eastern women who
are restricted from schooling, health care, and paid employment simply because
they are women.
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 17
In efforts to empower women, they do not support the idea of cultural relativism
when it violates a woman’s human rights, such as restricting a girl’s access to education
on religious grounds (Chapter 6). The women who came together for the United
Nations Conferences on Women are representative of this view.
Ecofeminism
Some women are drawn into feminism by environmental activism. These women
are the catalysts of ecofeminism, a newer branch of feminism. Ecofeminism connects
the degradation and oppression of women with the degradation of the ecosystem.
Drawing on earth-based spiritual imagery, ecofeminism suggests that the world’s
religions have an ethical responsilbilty to challenge a patriarchal system of corporate
globalization that is deepening the impoverishment of the earth and its people (Low
and Tremayne, 2001; Ruether, 2005). The planet can be healed and ecological
harmony restored through political action emphasizing the principle of equality of all
species (Bowerbank, 2001). With its holistic viewpoint and emphasis on interdependence
in all its forms, ecofeminism is particularly compatible with global feminism.
All branches of feminism deal with the linkages of gender with other relevant
social categories. Members of each branch and the groups they work with negotiate
how gender is constructed according to their own needs and priorities. Different
feminisms result from these constructions.
FEMINISM AND THE MEDIA
Why is feminism is considered the “f-word.” Feminism is a movement to end the
oppression of women. It uses women’s perceptions and experiences to devise
strategies for overcoming oppression. It embraces political goals that offer gender
equality. We will see throughout this text that public support for feminist goals and
women’s empowerment is widespread. A large majority of American women agree
that feminism has altered their lives for the better. Many women, however, refuse to
identify themselves as feminists.
Through empowerment passivity has been replaced by open and critical
debate between feminists and between those who agree or disagree with feminism.
This debate is stimulating, is necessary, and fuels further empowerment. As
noted earlier, inclusiveness feeds disagreement. Like the branches of feminism,
feminists have different priorities and goals and they can agree to disagree.
There are many feminisms and many themes of feminist thought. Feminists
understand and accept the distinctions but they are presented to the public in
highly distorted ways.
Portrayals of Feminsim
Media have a formidable influence in reinforcing gender role stereotypes,
and the feminist stereotype is no exception. Both feminist agreement and the
feminist value of disagreement are ignored or ridiculed not only in conservative
media, but also throughout mainstream, cable news, and entertainment media.
These portrayals also illustrate key features of misogyny, the contempt and disdain
of women that propels their oppression. Media messages implicitly supporting
misogyny propel stereotypes about feminism.
Media latch onto disagreements among feminists and present sound bytes
giving the impressions that feminism has split into irreconcilable warring factions.
18 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
This negative media attention is reinforced with news format entertainment shows
suggesting that women have already achieved political parity and legal parity with
men, and because feminists have nothing else to fight for, they fight among
themselves. Young women appear to be receptive to these messages because selfidentification
for feminism decreases significantly with age (Schnittker et al., 2002;
Hogeland, 2007).
In addition to highlighting disagreement among feminists, media depict
feminists as puritanical, man-hating, lesbain or butch, taking unfair advantage of
men in the workplace, and controlling men in their homes. College students who
identify themselves as “nonfeminists” believe many of these sterotypes (Blackwell
et al., 2003; Houvouras and Scott, 2008). The credibility of a respected veteran
female reporter was called into question by characterizing her as a “man-hating
feminist” for daring to expose drug cheating in professional baseball (Burwell,
2009:B1). Prime time television series portray feminists in negative and highly
stereotyped ways. Jokes deriding feminists about their appearance, sexuality and
love life, and how they control their children and husbands are common. Boys who
support assertive girls fear homophobic labels casting doubts about their masculinty
(Chapter 9). Assertive girls are silenced when they are “accused” of being
feminists. Young women and teens are often the targets of sexist jokes. Sexism is
reinforced by the contemptuous statements about feminists routinely made by the
popular and attractive characters in the shows (Chapter 13). Given the power of the
media to construct gender roles, it is difficult for young women and men who may
identify with feminism in principle to do so in public.
Racist comments are unacceptable in entertainment and news media.
Sexist comments are acceptable. Consider the infamous response by John McCain
to a female supporter (referring to Hillary Clinton) when he was asked “how do
we beat the bitch?” Although momentarily taken aback by her comment, amid the
laughter, he smiled and responded: “but that’s an excellent question” (Kantor,
2008). Consider his probable response if his supporter had used a racist slur
rather than a sexist one? The Obama campaign remained silent about sexist commentary
or intrusion into the personal lives of opposing candidates until after the
primary election.
Feminism and Election 2008
As if waiting in the wings to be re-ignited, feminist bashing made a “gutwrenching”
comeback during the 2008 election (Merkin, 2008). For the first time
in U.S. history, women were very viable contenders for the highest offices: New York
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as potential Democrat nominee for President and
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as Republican nominee for Vice President. With
feminism taking center stage, a storm of gender-based commentary was unleashed
during the run-up to the election. Public perception of these (and other) candidates
was skewed via media rendering of gender and of feminism (Mandziuk, 2008;
Sotirovic, 2008). Both Clinton and Palin self-identified as feminists. However, they
were portrayed as very different feminists according to the media.
Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s feminist label was intermittently
applauded in a few news media, suspiciously viewed throughout mainstream media,
and scorned and ridiculed in right-wing media. Although Clinton ran a campaign
that included, but did not focus on, women’s issues, her feminism and—by
extension—her personality were associated with divisiveness, “unlikability,” and
media-constructed views of radicalism. Feminism was further diminished when
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 19
Clinton was couched as an opportunist interested in personal ambition rather than
public service and unsure of her beliefs about how far she was willing to go in
support of women (Reimer, 2008; Stansell, 2008). Virtually no mainstream media
source countered these stereotyped, inaccurate images of feminism associated with
Clinton’s campaign. Media instead spotlighted women, feminist or not, who
endorsed Barack Obama’s candidacy. The public heard messages that women are
their own enemies, that feminism is unraveling, and that the sisterhood is split
(Wiener, 2007; Valenti, 2008). Feminists who agree to disagree or those engaged in
critical debate with one another were absent in media discourse. Feminism as
applied to Clinton in the media represented a threat to politics as usual.
Sarah Palin. Although Sarah Palin and the social conservatives who supported
her would largely disagree with a feminist political agenda (Chapter 14), she did
identify herself as a feminist in the now famous interview when Katie Couric asked if
Palin considered herself a feminist. Palin’s response: “I do. A feminist who believes in
equal rights, and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that
a man has to succeed, and to try to do it all, anyway” (Couric, 2008). Sarah Palin’s
feminist label was generally applauded, regardless of the political persuasion of the
media source. The McCain–Palin ticket ran a campaign that put Palin in charge of
policy statements reinforcing traditional views of women that resonated with social
conservatives. As applied to Palin, feminism was benignly to positively portrayed by
her status as an elected official, as a mother with small children, and with a supportive
husband in a marriage that did not demean his role. Feminists largely disagreed with
the policy agenda (or lack of one) to meaningfully bolster women in such roles.
However, they supported Palin’s quest for public office, especially in her role model
status for young women and for working mothers (Baird et al., 2008; Montagne,
2008). In utterly false and astonishing media messages, however, feminists were cast as
detractors of women’s “right” to have a career and a family (Young, 2008). Regardless
of the feminist label, the McCain–Palin ticket embraced an antifeminist agenda.
Feminism, as applied to Palin, did not represent a threat to politics as usual.
Critique. Feminism is light years advanced with two centuries of messages
supporting employed mothers, equal opportunity for men and women, and equal
pay for equal work. The majority of the American public accepts and approves of
these feminist messages. Even while clinging to traditional views about gender
roles, evangelical women now generally agree that women may have careers; some
of these women may also be mothers (Riley, 2008). Are these and other socially
conservative women, therefore, feminists? Symbolic interactionists argue that the
authenticity of any label is only determined by self-definition and the ability of the
actor to convince others to accept this definition. First Lady Michelle Obama’s
popularity is linked to ensuring that her children ride the wave of their White
House residency as smoothly as possible. She is judged by her ability to maintain
family normalcy amid the ever-present spotlight on her children, especially by
conservative media (Harris-Lacewell, 2009). As she is a strong supporter of feminist
goals, media attention to her “warmer side” buffers stereotypes about feminists
being too strident (Stanley, 2008). Contrary to media assertions, her support by
feminists will likely remain strong regardless of her willingness to engage in a prowoman
agenda outside her family roles; whereas her support by social conservatives
for this type of engagement would likely erode. To maintain a broad base of support
from all ranks of women she walks a narrow and difficult line.
Portrayals of Clinton and Palin for their feminist views cannot be separated
from the sexism that mired both their candidacies, particularly related to their
20 The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks
appearance and demeanor: Clinton, because she was too masculine; Palin, because
she was too feminine. Journalists were suspicious of Clinton’s feminist image, but
she was taken seriously as a viable candidate. For Palin, media sexism was evident
for failure to seriously engage her on the difficult issues related to the economic
and international challenges facing the United States. Regardless of her feminist
assertion, media focus on personal matters rather than on political matters served
to undermine Palin’s credibility as a serious candidate (Gibbons, 2008). However,
the McCain–Palin ticket in turn lost credibility by claiming that the media was sexist
when asking the vice presidential nominee unfair questions about her experience,
and by pressing John McCain on his abysmal record of advocacy for women. The
public agreed that the media focus on Palin’s family life was sexist; they also
believed that claims of sexism when media questioned candidates on their policies
about women were hypocrisy (Quindlen, 2008).
Challenging the Backlash to Feminism
How can feminist strength and productive messages to women be projected
positively when feminists dare to disagree with one another in public? Several reasons
support the contention that feminism may be reframed in a more favorable light by
the media. First, young women lulled into believing that sexism was in its death throes
were jolted into an awareness during the campaign that feminist goals continue to be
illusive. Sexism in the election served a latent function by raising consciousness that
obstacles remain for women seeking success, whether in the media or in the political
and business worlds (Fuller, 2008:4). Second, Hillary Clinton’s vocal support for
feminist goals and Sarah Palin’s admission that she, too, is a feminist will be difficult
to dislodge from the vernacular of media. Conservative female candidates may have
difficulty recanting feminism after Palin’s admission. Third, the public sees a variety
of feminisms at work; at a basic level at least, feminist goals are being embraced.
Antifeminist and racist attacks were unleashed in fury by right-wing extremists when
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Latina and a Catholic, was nominated to the Supreme
Court (Baker and Zeleny, 2009; Media Matters, 2009). Hillary Clinton lost her presidential
bid, but she is now the third female Secretary of State. The severe backlash
against feminism, ironically, is a sign that barriers may be eroding.
The theories and concepts presented in this chapter and the visions of society
that they suggest are offered as tools to be used in approaching the following
chapters and the array of issues related to gender roles you will be confronting. Each
theoretical perspective has its own insight and explanation for any given issue. Issues
are further refined when theories are used in combination with one another. As
these issues are addressed, consider which perspective you believe to be the most
appropriate and realistic. It is hoped that at the conclusion of this book you will have
developed a perspective on gender roles that is most meaningful to you.
Summary
1. As one of the most important trends in sociology in the twentieth century, the study of
gender has led to a new feminist paradigm and opened up new topics for research,
especially the connection between gender, race, and social class.
2. All social interaction is gendered. Gendered social interaction is guided by status,
positions people occupy, and roles, the behavior associated with a status. Sexism and
discrimination result when the status and role of female and male become stereotyped.
The Sociology of Gender: Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks 21
3. Sex is the biological component of male and female, gender is the social and psychological
component, and sexual orientation is the way people experience sexual pleasure.
These terms are often confused.
4. Sociological explanations for gender roles are guided by four theoretical perspectives:
functionalism focuses on how gender role contributes to social order or equilibrium;
conflict theory focuses on the level of power associated with gender; symbolic interaction
focuses on gender as socially constructed and how people “do” gender in everyday
life; and the feminist perspective focuses on women’s empowerment and draws attention
to multiple oppressions due to race, class, and gender.
5. Feminism is a worldwide movement to end sexism by empowering women. Branches of
feminism include liberal feminism, its most mainstream and inclusive branch focusing on
working within the system to end sexism; cultural feminism, focusing on positive qualities
of women’s roles; socialist feminism, focusing on ending sexism by eliminating capitalism
and adopting socialist principles; radical feminism, calling for women to create separate,
women-centered social institutions; multicultural or global feminism, working for change
across national boundaries; and ecofeminism, focusing on environmental action.
6. A severe backlash to feminism and media reinforcement of gender and feminist
sterotypes occurred during the 2008 election and influenced perception of Hillary
Clinton and Sarah Palin as viable candidates. Feminism can be recast in the media, so
positive feminist messages are heard.
Key Terms
androcentrism 3
agency 13
doing gender 10
dramaturgy 10
empowerment 12
end point fallacy 9
expressive role 6
feminism 14
gender 4
gender roles 4
instrumental role 6
misogyny 17
norms 2
patriarchy 3
role 2
sex 4
sexism 3
sexual orientation 4
social construction
of reality 10
social stratification 2
status 2
status set 2
stereotypes 3
theory 4
Critical Thinking Questions
1. How would a functionalist, conflict theorist, symbolic interactionist, and feminist
answer the following question: Why do men hold the most powerful economic and
political positions across the globe? What social policies would theorists from each of
these groups offer as mechanisms to make this situation more gender equitable?
2. Considering the intersection of gender, race, and class and the distinctions between
the various branches of feminism, provide realistic alternatives for ways women can
“celebrate” both their diversity and their unity at the same time.
3. The backlash to feminism (the “f-word”) is often media based. Which sociological
theory do you think best explains this backlash? Suggest strategies consistent with the
theory you select to alter this perception.