Gender psychology is a completely new direction in the system of social and human sciences; it is just beginning its first steps and is declaring itself as an independent science in the field of psychological cognition. Gender psychology is responsible for the behavior of people depending on whether they are male or female. She studies phenomena such as self-esteem, socialization, prejudice, discrimination, self-perception and the emergence of various social norms and roles. The basis of gender psychology is the psychosocial development of personality and the psychology of gender; it is these aspects that determine the structure of the teaching.
Gender sociology deals primarily with the sexual development of girls and boys, and the adequacy of their performance of gender roles. The bulk of scientific work on gender psychology does not study the sexes, the nature of sex differences, or the assessment of psychological diversity between the sexes.
Initially, the concept of “sex” was intended to denote the physiological characteristics of a person (male or female); a person’s gender was considered fundamental and prevailed in determining the social and psychological differences between men and women.
As a rule, men are characterized by increased ambition, rationality and independence, while women are considered more sensual, gentle, emotional and sociable. Such ideas about women and men are very common in our culture. Gender psychology, based on the latest scientific research, claims that there are many more similarities between women and men than differences. The only clear distinction between the sexes is their role in reproduction. Today, physical differences between the sexes are very vague, since muscularity and endurance are no longer a priority for the male population of the planet. For example, men from Southeast Asia are much shorter than European women.
In addition to physiological divisions between people, there is a division of their forms of activity, social roles, differences in behavior and temperament. Very often, biological sex does not quite correspond to emotional characteristics, and sometimes it is the complete opposite. This is where the concept of “gender psychology” arises - that is, a science that studies the set of cultural and social norms that are considered the privilege of one gender or another. Ultimately, it is not the biological sex of an individual that determines his type of activity and behavior pattern, but sociocultural norms that influence the psychological characteristics of men and women. To be a woman or a man in society does not mean to have certain anatomical features of the structure of the body, it means to scrupulously fulfill the gender roles prescribed by society.
Unlike psychology, psychology does not simply study men and women. The focus of her attention is primarily on the results caused by the phenomena of sexual stratification and differentiation. Gender psychology primarily focuses on the hierarchy of statuses, roles, positions of women and men, while the problem of discrimination and gender inequality is actively discussed. Gender psychology, like gender linguistics, in contrast to the psychology of gender, is characterized by different theoretical and methodological foundations. For example, for gender psychology the basis is the social constructivist paradigm, while for the psychology of gender the biodeterminist paradigm is considered the basis.
T. V. Bendas
GENDER
psychology
Publishing program
300 best textbooks for higher education in honor of the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg
carried out with the support of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
Moscow St. Petersburg ■ Nizhny Novgorod ■ Voronezh
Rostov-on-Don Ekaterinburg ■ Samara Novosibirsk
Kyiv Kharkov Minsk
BBK 8 8 373ya7 UDC 159 922.1(075) B46
Reviewers :
IN . A . Averin , professor, doctor of psychological sciences, head. Department of General and Clinical Psychology, Faculty of Clinical Psychology, St. Petersburg State Pediatric Medical Academy;
L.N. Ozhigova , candidate of psychological sciences, associate professor of the department of personality psychology and general psychology of Kuban State University (head of the department - 3. I. Ryabikina, professor, doctor of psychological sciences).
Bendas T . IN .
B46 Gender psychology: Textbook. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006. - 431 p.: ill. - (Series “Tutorial”).
ISBN 5-94723-369-X
The textbook introduces a new branch of psychological science - gender psychology. Girls and boys, women and men are compared based on various mental manifestations and behavior. Materials from numerous domestic and foreign studies are used (including those not translated into Russian). The training assignments are varied: preparing a report and abstract, conducting pilot studies, training exercises, topics for group discussions, creative assignments. The Appendix contains methods used to compare men and women in various positions. Some of them are presented as learning tasks. Their use will allow students and graduate students to acquire skills in working with these techniques. The textbook is intended for undergraduate and graduate students studying in the specialty “Psychology”. It may also be useful to teachers who teach a course in gender psychology, and specialists whose professional interests are related to the problems of differentiation between men and women.
BBK 88.373ya7 UDC 159.922.1(075)
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the copyright holders.
ISBN 5-94723-369-Х © JSC Publishing House "Piter", 2006
Preface........................................................ ........................................................ ............... 6
Chapter 1. Introduction to gender psychology............................................................. ............... 9
Brief history of the formation of gender psychology.................................... 9
Stratification of sexes in different cultures.................................................... ....... 33
Subject, tasks and methods of gender psychology....................................................... 38
Theories and concepts.......................... ................. ................................................... 42
Conclusions................................................. ........................................................ ...................... 55
Self-test questions................................................................... .................................... 58
Study assignments......................................................... ........................................................ ...... 58
Chapter 2. Individual characteristics.................................................. ........................... 60
Height................................................. ........................................................ ........................... 60
Weight................................................. ........................................................ ........................... 65
Metabolism and orientation towards saving and wasting energy.................................. 66
Nutrition and attitude towards food................................................................... ........................................ 69
Body type................................................. ........................................................ .......... 71
Some physiological indicators........................................................ .......... 80
Conclusions..................... "........................... ........................................................ .................... 82
Self-test questions................................................................... ................................ 83
Study assignments......................................................... ........................................................ ...... 84
Chapter 3. Gender demography.................................................... .................................... 85
Health and illness................................................................... ........................................................ .. 85
Proportion of genders in society................................................... ................................... 89
Life expectancy and mortality......................................................... ............. 97
Conclusions................................................. ........................................................ .................... 102
Self-test questions................................................................... ............................... 102
Study assignments......................................................... ........................................................ .103
Chapter 4. Psychomotor .................................................... ............................................... 104
Motor skills in childhood.............................................................................. 104
Motor skills in adults: tremor, strength, muscle differentiation
tension, volitional effort................................................... ................................... 107
Speed, accuracy and psychomotor training.................................................... 114
Complex movements and motor skills in non-standard situations.................................... 17
Lifting and causes of sex differences in motor skills.................................................... 122
Conclusions................................................. ........................................................ .................... 124
Self-test questions................................................................... ................................ 125
Study assignments......................................................... ........................................................ .126
Chapter 5. Sensations and perception.................................................... ................................... 127
Visual modality................................................... ....................................... 127
Visual-spatial abilities.................................................................... ...... 139
Auditory modality................................................... ........................................... 152
Tactile modality......................................................... .................................... 156
Other modalities........................................................ ............................................... 159
Social perception......................................................... ........................................... 165
Conclusions................................................. ........................................................ .................... 169
Self-test questions................................................................... ........................... 172
Study assignments......................................................... ........................................................ .173
Chapter 6. Intellectual, speech and emotional characteristics 174
Attention and memory........................................................ ........................................................ 174
General intelligence, speech and math abilities.................................... 182
Emotional states........................................................ ................................... 192
Conclusions................................................. ............... .................................... ........................... 197
Self-test questions................................................................... ........................... 198
Study assignments......................................................... ........................................................ .. 199
Chapter 7. Personal characteristics................................................................. ....................... 200
Motivation for achievement and affiliation.................................................... ............ 213
Power motivation and dominance............................................................. ................... 221
Other personality characteristics......................................................... .................... 229
Conclusions................................................. ............. . . .................................................... 238
Self-test questions................................................................... ..... ,........................ 240
Study assignments......................................................... ........................................................ ... 241
Chapter 8. Social behavior.................................................... ................................ 243
Behavior style................................................... ........................................................ .243
Success of activity................................................... .................................... 252
Interaction with partners of the same and opposite sex........ 263
Conclusions................................................. ........................................................ .................... 272
Self-test questions................................................................... .................................... 274
Study assignments......................................................... ........................................................ ... 274
Chapter 9. Gender relations.................................................... ................................... 276
Gender segregation in children's groups.................................................... ......... 279
Men and women in the business world................................................... ............... 293
Friendly and sexual gender relations.................................................... 299
Marital relations................................................... ..................................... 309
Relationships between parents and children in the family.................................................... .. 318
Deviant relationships........................................................ ........................................... 325
Conclusions................................................. ........................................................ .................... 333
Self-test questions................................................................... ........................... 335
Study assignments......................................................... ........................................................ .336
Glossary................................................. ........................................................ .................... 337
Literature................................................. ........................................................ ................... 346
Appendix to Chapter 1 .................................................... ........................................................ 371
Experimental tasks for studying the intelligence of men and women 371 Research on gender stereotypes in the questionnaires of G. Heymans (1911) .... 372
Appendix to Chapter 2 ....................................................................... ". ...................... 393
Luscher technique......................................................... ........................................................ 393
Appendix to Chapter 3 ................................................................................................ 394
Methodology of self-assessment S. Ya. Rubinshtein.................................................... ............... 394
Methodology of E. Lahelma and colleagues (modification of T. V. Bendas) .................................... 394
Chapter Appendix 4................................................................................................ 395
Mira-i-Lopez myokinetic diagnostic technique.................................... 395
Methodology for studying the accuracy of hand movements in conditions changing
body position of K. X. Kekcheev and G. P. Pozdnova.................................... 396
Methodology for measuring the accuracy of throwing a ball at a goal K. A. Keberlin
Bern Sean Megan
Gender psychology. (Secrets of Psychology)
SPb.: prime-EVROZNAK, 2001. – 320 p.
This book is devoted to research into the psychology of sex (gender). A psychologist, sociologist, teacher, and social scientist will find in this book unique research material about the sources of gender socialization, the formation of gender norms, social and gender roles, and will become familiar with such concepts as normative and information pressure, aggression, conformity, gender stereotypes, norm of success, norm of anti-femininity, etc.
A reader interested in modern scientific psychology will receive answers to the following questions: “Why should the distribution of family responsibilities change?”, “Who is more capable of what: women or men?”, “What are the limitations imposed by the traditional roles of women and men?”, “ Why do women usually get paid less? etc.
This book has no analogues in the domestic literature on psychology, opening up to the reader a field of research on man and society that is relevant for all mankind.
CONTENT
ABOUT THE AUTHOR................................... 10
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................ 11
PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION........ 12
EDITOR'S FOREWORD...... 14
Preface......................................... 18
INTRODUCTION........................21
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER.......... 21
PROBLEMS OF MONODINARY.................................. 23
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ABOUT GENDER..... 25
SEX VERSUS GENDER........................ 26
HOW THIS BOOK IS ORGANIZED.................... 27
Chapter 1
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND SOCIALIZATION.................................... 29
SOCIAL NORMS AND GENDER DIFFERENCES.................................................. 31
The role of normative pressure......... 32
Homosexuality as a disorder
The role of information pressure........ 38
Conformity – economy of thought...... 40
Submission to gender norms: compliance, approval or identification? .......... 40
DIFFERENTIAL SOCIALIZATION........ 45
Differential Gain and Differential Imitation.............................. 47
Extra-family sources of gender-role socialization.................................... 52
A television......................................
Faceism........................................
Language........................................
Toys.........................................
ANDROGYNY...................................................
Benefit.....................................
Sandra Bem's gender-role questionnaire..................
Controversy over the Sandra Bem Questionnaire and the concept of androgyny..................................................
CONCLUDING REMARKS......................
SUMMARY...........................................
Chapter 2
RESEARCH ON GENDER DIFFERENCES.................................. 83
META-ANALYSIS................................................... 86
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL ABILITIES.................................... 90
Findings of researchers................................... 90
Why does the performance of men and women begin to differ in higher education.................................... 94
EMPATHY AND EXPRESSIVENESS.................................. 100
Empathy........................................ 102
Social Role Theory......................................... 104
Emotionality................................... 106
STUDIES ON SOME OTHER GENDER DIFFERENCES... 109
Aggression........................................ 109
Conformity and susceptibility to influence................ 112"
Altruism........................................ 115
CONCLUDING REMARKS................................... 116
SUMMARY................................................. .120
Chapter 3
LIMITATIONS OF THE TRADITIONAL WOMEN'S ROLE
HOMEMAKER..............
WORKING WOMAN........................
Housework and the working woman.........
Differences in pay between men and women........
Explanations of wage differences......................
Equity Theory and Women's Responses to Wage Inequality.................................... 138
LOW STATUS OF WOMEN IN ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR LACK OF POWER
The influence of women in organizations: the “glass ceiling” ..... 142
Explanations of the phenomenon " glass ceiling" ............... 143
CONCLUDING REMARKS................................... 157
SUMMARY................................................. .160
Chapter 4
LIMITATIONS OF THE TRADITIONAL MALE ROLE
WHY IT IS NECESSARY TO STUDY THE MALE ROLE
MALE GENDER ROLE AND ITS NORMS
Success/status rate
Hardness standard
Standard of physical hardness
Norm of mental toughness
Norm of emotional firmness
The norm of anti-femininity
TENSION, STRESS AND CONFLICT OF THE MALE GENDER ROLE
CONCLUDING REMARKS
SUMMARY
Chapter 5
GENDER AS A SOCIAL CATEGORY
SOCIAL COGNITION
SOCIAL COGNITION OF GENDER
Gender stereotypes as schemes that control information processing
Origins of gender schemas
Memorability of information consistent with gender schema
How tender schemes contribute to the emergence of illusory correlation
Gender stereotypes and self-fulfilling prophecies... .216
GENDER CATEGORIZATION: PARTIAL ATTITUDE TO YOUR OWN AND OTHER GROUPS................................................... 219
Sources of bias towards one’s own gender group.................................................220
Normal categorization processes......... 221
Gender segregation...................................................222
The need for self-esteem ........................... 224
Social Identity Theory........................225
THE PARADOX OF SOCIAL IDENTITY..................................228
CONCLUDING REMARKS...................................232
SUMMARY................................................. .236
Chapter 6
GENDER IN DIFFERENT CULTURES........................ 238
PAN-CULTURAL GENDER SIMILARITIES..................................240
Division of labor determined by gender...................................241
Gender stereotyping......................................243
Differential gender socialization..............249
Lower status and less power of women........... .253
CROSS-CULTURAL GENDER-ROLE IDEOLOGIES........257
CONCLUDING REMARKS....................................258
SUMMARY................................................. .265
Chapter 7
CHANGING GENDER ROLES.................................... 267
CHANGING SETTINGS....................................................268
CHANGES IN PRODUCTION....................................269
Increasing compatibility between work and family....................................269
Family support production policy .............270
Increasing gender diversity in organizations...... .272
CHANGES IN THE HOUSE.....................................280
Why the distribution of household responsibilities should change" .................................... 280
Household responsibilities as a case of discrepancies between attitudes and behavior
Fairness and differentiation of household responsibilities. . 287
CHANGING THE BEHAVIOR OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS......... .290
CHANGING MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GENDER.........293
Misconceptions about Gender....................................294
Misconception I: Gender differences are huge.........294
Misconception 2: Gender differences are caused by fundamental biological differences between the sexes... 295
Misconception 3: Biological gender differences cause men and women to be better able to adapt to different social roles...................................................296
False position 4: genders are separate but equal.298
Misconception 5: Traditional gender roles serve the purpose of best meeting the needs of society......298
How can these misconceptions be changed? ..... ..... .301
CONCLUDING REMARKS...................................302
SUMMARY................................................. .303
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................... 306
ABOUT THE AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sean Megan Byrne is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Cal Poly, where she teaches social psychology, psychology environment, research methodology and group dynamics. She was awarded a doctorate in social psychology in 1988 by the Clermont Graduate School. She is a specialist in the field of applied social psychology, dealing with issues of socio-psychological principles for resolving social problems, particular environmental problems, and intergroup conflicts. Her current research focuses on the factors that contribute to the persistence of traditional gender norms, as well as the dynamics of social identification in the struggle for equality and the negative reactions that this struggle often causes in society.
The publishing house "Prime-EVROZNAK" thanks E.P. Korablin, the scientific editor of this book, who, despite the acute shortage of time, oversaw the translation. The publishing house also expresses gratitude to the editor Dmitry Gippius, who, despite the abundance of difficulties in the translation process, showed great responsibility, patience and talent and made the text worthy of the attention of the discerning reader.
The employees of Prime EUROZNAK express great gratitude to the artist Alexander Zudin (http://www.cartoon.ru), whose drawings not only defuse the atmosphere of scientific presentation of the material, but also, like sandpaper, remove the patina of bias, the “rust” of linear thinking and one-sidedness. The editors deliberately omitted some very bold cartoons by this artist in support of the idea, because in science (especially in psychology) there is always room for doubt, alternative opinions and further search.
As always, the editors express special gratitude to you, dear reader, for choosing this book to understand the secrets and mysteries of human behavior!
We are convinced that the series of books “Secrets of Psychology” will become a source of modern and useful psychological information for you.
PREFACE TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION
Sean Burn's book Social Psychology of Gender is the first to be translated into Russian and touches on very topical issues related to gender socialization. The fact is that, as research in various scientific fields and directions shows, understanding the life of human society is impossible without recognizing the existence of stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, reflecting differences in the purpose and psyche of men and women. In psychology, when studying problems of development and personality formation, the factor of sexual dimorphism, according to B.G. Ananyev, should be attributed to the constant characteristics of human ontogenetic evolution. Gender approach in social psychology, it focuses on the study of precisely the social (rather than biological) aspects of gender and role differentiation by gender that takes place in various sociocultural social systems.
Currently, gender research is being carried out quite widely throughout the world, including (in the last ten years) in Russia. In a certain sense, attention to issues of gender socialization is the product of feminist ideas that are intensively spreading throughout the world. The results of research in the field of gender socialization clearly lead to the conclusion that the characteristics of male and female gender-role identification are specifically reflected in a person’s position in society, his personal and professional destiny. In this sense, they are very important in reflecting the processes taking place in the modern world, the main direction of development of which is increasing humanization and increasing the relevance of the spiritual formation of the individual.
The book by Sean Burn is devoted to the consideration of gender from the perspective of social psychology and is of undoubted interest precisely because of the relevance of the issues under consideration, especially since in our country the study of this problem is just beginning.
The book is interesting because it contains a significant amount of factual data obtained from research conducted in the USA.
Some of the author’s conclusions are controversial, but despite this, Russian specialists will certainly find this work useful for a comparative and broader analysis of gender characteristics in connection with cultural and social differences.
I would like to believe that the science and practice of our lives, thanks to the mutual exchange of such experience, will be significantly enriched and will serve to integrate our efforts to improve the world in which we live and achieve prosperity and well-being.
The book may be of interest not only to specialists, but to all those who are interested in improving the quality of their own and public life.
The book is written in accessible language, interestingly designed and illustrated, and therefore can serve as a popular guide for a wide range of readers interested in the problems of gender psychology.
E.P. Korablina, manager Department of Psychological Assistance, Faculty of Psychology and Education, Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A.I. Herzen
EDITOR'S FOREWORD
Very often a person creates images of other people based not on what they actually are and what they do, but on assumptions about what these people should be and what they should do, or on their own desires to see this person as such. how you want to see him. Recently, in social psychology there has been a significant increase in interest in the dangers of this kind of stereotyping. Society has realized that such a social stereotype is extremely conventional and reveals its inferiority. Therefore, ignoring the existence of the phenomenon of gender differences is at least illogical, and research on this issue should be considered justified and extremely necessary.
Some of my students are developing tools for creating a holistic, multifaceted image of a person, as opposed to widespread methods that try to see only individual individual traits and characteristics in a person.
But are we really able to free ourselves from generally accepted rules and cultural programs instilled in us by the social environment in which we live? And in particular, how free or dependent are we on whether we are a woman or a man, and therefore on the psychology of gender, on those socio-psychological characteristics of our gender that dominate it?
As one possible answer, I will offer you the results of an experiment I recently conducted. It was attended by students studying psychology, distinguished by fairly high intelligence and balance in judgment.
The experiment consisted of the following. The subjects were asked to imagine themselves as the parents of a child they were “holding” in their arms. Half of the students were asked to choose a child's name from a list containing three female names, and the other half were asked to choose a name from three male ones. (The students in each group were unaware of what choice was offered to their comrades in the other group.) Suddenly, a bearded stranger appeared in the audience where the subjects were sitting with a very bright and beautiful music box containing inside a funny clown, who suddenly jumped out of it. . The child in the students’ arms carefully “watched” how his uncle wound up the toy and “listened” to its soothing melody. But then the moment came when the music suddenly stopped and the clown jumped out of the box.
After the incident, each “parent” was asked the following question: “What was your child’s reaction to what was happening?”
From a list of response options they were given, most chose “shocked,” regardless of their child's gender. But the most interesting thing happened when these “student parents” indicated the subsequent reaction of their baby. An order of magnitude greater number of girls compared to boys noted their child’s reaction as “fear,” while more boys than girls saw “curiosity” in their baby’s eyes!
What is the psychological and behavioral meaning of these different emotional reactions? Fear leads to suffering, denial, attachment to safe objects, flight, and non-confrontation. What about curiosity? It manifests itself in excitement, a desire for something new and unknown, and is often accompanied by an involuntary movement forward.
Since in fact the reaction, both of them, were invented, we can conclude that some of the personal ideas of the subjects, which guided them during the experiment, are classified on the basis of their sex (gender) differences, which, in turn, certainly affects the whole their life in general. Thus, the newly-minted “parents”, having defined the emotional reactions of their “children” in different ways, thereby proved that they share the fundamental prejudices of that same gender stereotyping, which was discussed just above and which still constitutes the essence of gender, be it female or male.
Stereotypes that have evolved over centuries are reinforced by literary works from the “Help yourself” genre. Consider in this sense the recent bestseller “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus,” which has gained popularity among tens of millions of readers (its circulation is measured in millions) and proclaims that men and women are creatures from different planets speaking different languages! And all we need to do to live in peace and harmony is to realize and accept this “fact” and master the system of relationships proposed by the book!
Television also mercilessly exploits the topic of differences between men and women, producing many television shows on this topic. The authors of this kind of programs prefer to deliberately ignore the huge number of facts confirmed by scientific research that tell us that men and women still have more similarities than differences. Apparently, society and the media are interested in perpetuating the myth of the existence in the world of creatures that are dissimilar in appearance and have essential differences. Thus, more and more new arguments arise and are supported for political, economic, religious and social divisions, in which the man acts as a ruler and patron, and the woman is forced to take the position of a patient martyr.
A systematic, objective study is needed to clarify this issue. Shawn Byrne wrote just such a book, which significantly enriched the understanding of the role and significance of the socio-psychological differences between men and women. The book is written in extremely accessible, fascinating language. Based in his research on indisputable facts, the author of the book with great professionalism focuses the reader’s attention on the power of social norms and cultural traditions that exert their constant pressure on a person’s consciousness and shape his views, opinions, behavior, and sometimes lifestyle.
Sean Byrne is trying to find a way that will help a person get rid of the restrictions that the traditional stereotype of thinking imposes on the behavior and psychology of men and women and which are essentially just a conditional membership in one gender or another. Freedom from such prejudices will give a person the opportunity to gain mental and physical health and the ability to enjoy life to the fullest.
Finally, let me dwell on one more point regarding the characteristics of the psychology of men and women. General psychology for a long time ignored gender as a basic aspect of human nature, not only without exploring it, but without even mentioning it as a controversial issue. Social psychology, in turn, for a long time refused to recognize gender as an integral part of one of the most powerful dialectical contradictions that determine the interactions of people in society.
Sean Byrne takes on the difficult task of making up for the lack of serious social psychological analysis in modern science. Her book can undoubtedly be classified among a number of other outstanding studies in social psychology.
At the time of writing the preface on February 14, 1995, it occurred to me that this was Valentine's Day, Valentine's Day.
And maybe this is really a real test for “All-conquering Love”, because true Love, whether it is directed at a child, or at a person of the opposite sex, or at one’s parents, does not know any restrictions and conventions inherent in human consciousness “out there” , in that world of society, which is far from the True One, living according to the laws of the Heart and Love. Why shouldn’t a person free himself forever from all prejudices and become undead, guided only by these good and wise laws?
Phil Zimbardo, science editor
PREFACE
The study of the psychology of men and women and their differences from each other has a direct bearing not only on the individual as such, but also on society as a whole.
How much should a woman earn and how much should a man earn? Who should babysit the children and who should move up the career ladder? How should household responsibilities be divided? And isn’t raising such questions evidence of the intractability of these problems, primarily for those people who are concerned about them?
Issues related to the characteristics of human gender and its psychological differences have recently been among the most actively discussed in society. After all, you must agree that the role of men and women in the public environment today is undergoing significant changes. But how global should these changes be?
This problem worries the minds of many modern social psychologists, who foresee a reassessment of “gender” values. Disputes, controversies, and polemics flare up among scientists in various areas of gender psychology.
How significant, natural and justified are the differences in opinions, judgments, and actions of “male” and “female” groups at the socio-psychological level? Are these differences mostly a consequence of the fundamental biological difference between men and women, or are they determined to a greater extent by the culture that dominates a society, determining its views and dictating its laws and rules accordingly?
In this book I will try to answer such questions based on a detailed study of experimental data.
We will talk about the existence of political, economic, religious and social divisions between men and women, based on the traditional antithesis: man is the master, woman is the patient martyr. In addition, we will consider the question of what role social norms play in creating and validating all kinds of justifications for the existence of these gender differences.
The authors of numerous popular publications present us with their views on the problem of differences in the psychology of men and women, but the vast majority of these books are based mainly only on the personal impressions of the author and nothing more. This book is based on a thorough analysis of numerous scientific studies. Moreover, it can be seen as a guide to the complex and confusing terrain of numerous gender experiments, hypotheses and theories. This book may well become a good source of topics for research or serve as a bibliographic reference for university teaching staff.
I would also like to note that this book is also addressed to students of professional social psychology. It examines in detail many issues of modern social psychology concerning the characteristics of the male and female sexes in the context of gender issues.
Despite the fact that the book contains a fairly large amount of research material, I tried to create an accessible text for the reader that would promote self-analysis and develop critical thinking. Therefore, I hope that an ordinary person who is simply interested in the problem of the difference between male and female psychology will read this book with pleasure.
The support that my son Kane gave me was invaluable in writing this book. In addition, I am grateful for conversations with my friends Carol Stanton, Tel Stoltz, Alison Conrad, Lois Scriven, Norma Fitgon, Bobbett Biller, David Carr, and students at California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, who helped me discover some research materials. Thanks also to my mother, Jane Byrne.
I would like to give special thanks to Kimberly Veitch, Justina Proberg, Janet Boyton, Katie O'Neill, Akilah Mikeson, Roger Biltz and Brian Nosek.
I am also grateful to all the researchers whose names appear on the pages of this publication - their outstanding works made my path in working on the book less difficult.
I owe much of my spirit to editors Mykol Hamilton, David Myers, Ann Weber, and Philip Zimbardo.
I don’t want to hide the fact that I received some interesting ideas from anonymous editors.
Finally, I would like to thank McGraw-Hill's Andrew Poy, who innocently asked me one day if I had ever thought about writing a book.
INTRODUCTION
Social psychology of gender. Problems of monotony. Critical reflections on gender. Gave versus gender. How is this book organized?
Gender
In psychology, a socio-biological characteristic with the help of which people define the concepts of “man” and “woman”. Because sex is a biological category, social psychologists often refer to those gender differences that are biologically based as “sex.”
One day, artist Nicole Hollander drew this little comic: two characters with ears red from the frost standing outside on the coldest day of the year. One says: “Why do I need a hat, I don’t care about the cold.” Second: “I don’t wear a hat, it ruins my whole hairstyle.” Which one is a boy and which one is a girl? I don’t think that you, the reader, will find it difficult to answer. After all, each of the above phrases reflects a generally accepted gender stereotype. This book explores the socio-psychological nature of gender roles and stereotypes. But our self-esteem, the perception of others, our choice of profession, and ultimately our entire behavior depend on them.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER
Social psychology is the science that studies how society influences an individual's thoughts, feelings, and behavior. And its subsection - the social psychology of gender - deals with the study of social norms that determine how an individual, group or entire cultural community reacts to gender differences. Perhaps in no other area of social psychology are there such striking examples of the paralyzing power of conformity, the inability to move away from the roles imposed by society and the principles of information processing inherent in the human consciousness.
Conformity
The tendency to change one's behavior or beliefs as a result of real or perceived group pressure.
Prejudice
An unjustifiably negative attitude towards a certain group and its individual members.
Discrimination
Unjustifiably negative behavior towards a particular group and its individual members.
Self-esteem
A person's comprehensive assessment of himself, or self-esteem.
Gender role
A set of expected behavior patterns (norms) for men and women.
Stereotype
An opinion about the personal qualities of a group of people. Stereotypes can be overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information.
Social psychology of gender is the broadest field for studying attitudes, prejudices, discrimination, social perception and self-perception, self-esteem, the emergence of social roles and norms.
Today the situation is such that almost any socio-psychological study of gender is very politicized; the role of science here is rather not to study the world, but to promote the principle of equality of the sexes. However, this is natural, because the social psychology of gender largely coincides with the goals of the feminist movement , although the latter is more concerned with the political, economic and social equality of men and women (Hyde, 1991).
Lott noted that social psychology in any case overlaps with gender studies, since “to study the conditions that shape and maintain social behavior is to study how culture constructs gender” (Lott, 1991, p. 506).
However, while studying stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination, social psychology until the end of the 60-70s practically ignored gender relations and did not even consider women as a discriminated against social group.
Gender studies only got off the ground when a new generation came into the field—a whole galaxy of women inspired by the feminist movement who worked in graduate social psychology research programs. They experienced first-hand what it means to be a minority: even just getting the opportunity to participate in these programs took a lot of work - after all, they were not men.
There are several approaches to describing the social psychology of gender. In this book, I used concepts from both social psychology and other areas of science, such as developmental psychology, to create a coherent social-psychological picture of gender.
PROBLEMS OF MONODINARY
Experimental method
A research strategy in which the experimenter manipulates one or more independent variables under close control and observes how these manipulations affect another (dependent) variable.
Independent variable
An experimental factor that is manipulated by the researcher.
Dependent variable
A variable that gets its name from the fact that it can be affected by manipulations of the independent variable.
Until the 1970s Most of the experiments conducted by social psychologists were united by the fact that the subjects were only undergraduate students, white men. Of course, they predominated numerically in colleges and, accordingly, were more accessible to research. In addition, it was important to study the behavior of white men, since it was from them that the social elite was formed. White men also made up the majority of social psychologists at the time, and they may have simply selected people for their studies who they felt most comfortable with, people like themselves.
In the experimental method used by social psychologists, experimental control played an extremely important role: all factors except the one of interest in this study (the independent variable) had to have a constant value.
When groups that differed from each other only on the independent variable showed a difference in some type of social behavior (the dependent variable), the experimenter concluded that this was due to a change in the independent variable. Gender and ethnicity were treated as nuisance or nuisance variables. To prevent their influence from biasing the results, all experimental groups used only white men (McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986). Today, this type of control is still used quite widely, but both men and women are used as subjects, and gender is usually analyzed as an additional independent variable.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the subjects continue to be students and college students, who differ little from each other in age, culture, social status, and ethnicity.
This limitation of the field of research remains an unresolved problem for social psychology, and in particular for the social psychology of gender.
Although a number of works have been published by psychologists in the last few years on the topic of cultural intersections, none of them, as far as I remember, contain a section devoted to cross-cultural gender psychology. I devoted one chapter to cross-cultural aspects of gender, and also included in the book a small study on the psychology of gender in various American subcultures.
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ABOUT GENDER
The data of social psychology are always more reliable than the philistine ideas about human society, which are based only on common sense and are often distorted by our expectations and existing beliefs. The statements you will find in this book are based on extensive research into human behavior, and the vast majority of the factual material has been previously published in the literature. Full details of sources are given in the bibliography. I strongly recommend that you read in detail those of them that say things that contradict your ideas about men and women.
Experience has shown that we tend to misinterpret statistical data (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). We must remember: although most “rules” regarding human behavior have exceptions, in general these rules remain true. When psychologists say that, according to research, women do almost all the housework, even if they are employed full time, we must be aware that there are exceptions. But even if you know something that contradicts the conclusion made in the study, this does not mean that the conclusion as a whole is wrong. It is also important to understand that when psychologists talk about groups that are significantly different, they use statistical methods to determine this, and do not simply come to this conclusion by carefully looking at each group.
Ten years ago, when my acquaintance with the psychology of gender was just beginning, I did not think too much about these issues. Since then, I have studied hundreds of gender research reports. Now, based on all this, I am convinced that gender differences are created within society, traditional gender roles limit both men and women, and because of our inherent information processing strategies, we perceive gender differences to be much larger than they really are. in fact. But beware of taking my word for it, as well as immediately rejecting my words if you think I’m wrong. Read this book and seriously consider your own position before dismissing my arguments. Try to present your objections in the form of clear arguments, and best of all, find good experimental evidence of your opinion. Even if you don't agree with me by the end of the book, I sincerely hope that it will force you to think critically about tender issues.
SEX VERSUS GENDER
As you read this book, you will, of course, notice that I constantly use the word “gender” instead of the word “sex.” Psychologists prefer to use the term “gender” to emphasize that many differences between men and women are culturally constructed, whereas the word “sex” implies that all differences are a direct consequence of biological sex (Gentile, 1993; Unger & Crawford, 1993). In addition, the word "gender" allows for greater clarity in some cases; for example, if I called this book “The Social Psychology of Sex,” the reader might get the wrong idea about its contents. However, there are times when the word “sex” is more appropriate.
Before (Deaux, 1985,1993) indicated that the word “sex” should be used to describe demographic categories (for example, “What is your gender?” is acceptable on a questionnaire). However, when making inferences about the nature of masculinity or femininity, she recommends using the word “gender.”
Unger (1988) noted that sex typically includes traits directly related to biological sex, while gender refers to those aspects of masculinity and femininity for which the causes are not yet known. The problem, she says, is that cause and effect is not always obvious and can be caused by both biological and social factors. The issue of terminology has not yet been resolved by scientists, so it is customary for authors to define their choice from the very beginning. In this book, I follow Do's recommendations and use the concept of "sex" only as a demographic category based on biological sex. In other cases, I used the term “gender,” which reflects the socially determined nature of masculinity and femininity.
If we include chromosome makeup, hormones, and genital structure in the concept of biological sex, then there are actually more than two sexes (Unger, 1988).
HOW THIS BOOK IS ORGANIZED
The first chapter talks about how many gender differences that we tend to think of as biological are actually caused by social norms. It also discusses the processes by which we learn “correct” gender-role behavior and the motivations that lead us to adhere to this behavior.
The second chapter will discuss the study of gender differences in the manifestation of mathematical abilities, emotions, etc. These differences, traditionally studied by social psychologists, are not nearly as pervasive as public opinion would have us believe, and continue to shrink year after year. And if we examine in detail social norms and socializing actions, then a significant part of the remaining differences will become clear.
The third chapter examines the limitations placed on women by traditional gender roles, and the fourth examines the limitations placed on men. I have found that thinking about these limitations and the nature of gender roles encourages people to pay attention to how gender roles affect their own lives and try to change them for the better.
Chapter five describes gender as a social category. Some psychological mechanisms that are the basis for the creation of gender stereotypes and how they prevent society from changing will be examined.
The sixth chapter is devoted to the perception of gender in different cultures. The vast majority of research on gender has been conducted by psychologists on Euro-Americans from the United States, while cross-cultural analysis makes it possible to study the role of culture in creating gender differences.
The seventh and final chapter discusses changes in gender roles, areas where such changes have already occurred, barriers to change, and ways in which the necessary changes can be brought about.
Culture
Concepts, attitudes, customs and behavior patterns that are common to a large group of people and are passed on from generation to generation.
Chapter 1
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND SOCIALIZATION
Why women are not born to shop and men are not biologically wired to believe in the laundry fairy.
Social norms and gender differences. The role of normative pressure. Homosexuality as a violation of gender norms. The role of information pressure. Conformity is an economy of thought. Submission to gender norms: compliance, approval or identification? Differential socialization. Differential amplification and differential imitation. Extra-family sources of gender role socialization. Androgyny. Benefit. Sandra Bem's gender role questionnaire. Controversy over the Sandra Bem Questionnaire and the concept of androgyny. Concluding remarks. Summary
Humorous variety monologues are often based on the differences between men and women. For example, Elaine Boozler once said, “I know how to get women on the offensive. Just let them know that the guys on the other side say they look fat in their uniforms.” Another comedian, Dave Barry, noted: “The modern man knows that he must be a sensitive and caring partner for a woman, so he radically changes his lifestyle. For example, he remembers to take dirty handkerchiefs out of his pockets before leaving his trousers on the floor for the laundry fairy” (Valu, 1991). If we consider changing the gender of the characters in these jokes, they will lose their meaning altogether: the jokes work because they reflect our culture's generally accepted ideas about the differences between men and women.
Most people believe that gender differences in behavior and social roles are caused by biological differences between the sexes. To the average person, gender differences appear to be the result of natural forces rather than nurture. Social psychologists accept the existence of a number of biological differences between men and women, but are confident that they cannot explain gender differences, and that biological differences between the sexes have a rather weak effect on behavior. The purpose of this chapter is to argue that many of the differences in gender are due to culture and socialization rather than to innate differences between men and women.”
Let's start with my son Ken. He has short bangs and a long ponytail at the back that reaches the boy's middle back. Ken is adamant about his hairstyle and sometimes says: “Without my ponytail, I wouldn’t look like myself.” Meanwhile, Ken's tail created a whole bunch of social problems for him. Throughout his time in kindergarten, then first and second grade (at the time of writing this, he is already in second), Ken would occasionally return home upset and report: “So-and-so says that I looks like a girl." In addition, Ken plays with tomboyish girls, and many boys criticize him for being "too nice to girls." From the way these things were said, it became clear to him that both his hairstyle and behavior towards girls were unacceptable to most other children. This social disapproval is often enough to cause a child to change his behavior to meet social expectations for his gender.
When Ken first encountered this in kindergarten, he asked me why boys and girls had to wear different clothes and play different games. Imagine Ken asking you this. Perhaps you will answer: “Well, that’s the way it is, and if you don’t want to be laughed at or thought of as strange, then you’ll probably have to do like everyone else.” In other words, you will tell Ken that there are indeed different norms for women and men, and in order to gain social approval, it is better for a person to follow them.
SOCIAL NORMS AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
Social norms are the basic rules that determine human behavior in society. According to social psychologists, the explanation for many gender differences should be sought not in hormones and chromosomes, but in social norms that attribute to us different types of behavior, attitudes and interests in accordance with our biological sex. Sets of norms containing generalized information about the qualities characteristic of each sex are called sex or gender roles. Some of these social norms are ingrained into consciousness through television and popular literature, while others are received directly, for example by experiencing social disapproval when we deviate from expected gender role behavior.
The idea that much of our behavior is directly influenced by social norms and social context has long been accepted by science. I even think that this is the greatest achievement of social psychology.
Eagly (1987) suggested that gender stereotypes are essentially social norms. This means that we all have ideas that men and women are characterized by certain sets of specific qualities and behaviors, that the vast majority of people adhere to the same point of view, and that we are usually aware of what kind of behavior is considered correct for representatives of that or another gender. Social psychologists believe that the two main reasons we try to conform to gender expectations are normative and informational pressure [These terms were coined by Deutsch and Gerald in 1955].
ROLE OF NORMATIVE PRESSURE
The term “normative pressure” describes the mechanism by which a person is forced to adapt to social or group expectations (social norms) so that society does not reject him. Normative pressure is very important in our adherence to gender roles.
A number of studies have shown that gender role nonconforming behavior is particularly detrimental to popularity among boys (Bemdt & Heller, 1986; Huston, 1983; Martin, 1990) and that parents react negatively to their children's opposite-sex play (Fagot, 1978; Langlois & Downs, 1980).
Unfortunately, the role of normative pressure in the desire to conform to gender roles has so far been little studied in adults. One study (O'Leary & Donoghue, 1978) found that college students found it acceptable for a person to act like a member of the opposite sex, but two other studies found that gender role nonconforming behavior led to decreased popularity (Bemdt & Heller , 1986; Tilby & Kalin, 1980).
When I think about the role of normative pressure in people's efforts to conform to gender roles, I always think of an acquaintance of mine named Cliff. While in college, I worked part-time as a waitress, and Cliff and I ended up sharing the same shift. At that time, he was immersed in studying gender roles and decided to break one or two gender norms as an experiment. He started wearing pink nail polish and lipstick, and later sometimes served clients while wearing a skirt. We tracked how his appearance affected his tips. Whenever Cliff violated gender norms regarding clothing, he immediately received a smaller tip as punishment. At times, the administration even intervened, demanding that he wear trousers and use less makeup.
Do you believe that you will face social punishment for deviating from your gender role? Have you ever had difficulty breaking your gender role? Many women fear that they might be considered too aggressive (and called a "bitch"), and men are afraid that if they are too attentive to their partner, their friends will begin to consider them a "slut." Think about how many derogatory words there are that are used in relation to one of the genders and reflect the difference in norms for men and women.
Punishment for failure to follow gender roles can be severe. Ayatollah Khomeini, ruler of Iran from 1979 to the mid-1980s, repealed all laws giving women any rights and sentenced to death a total of 20,000 women who did not follow strict rules governing their dress and behavior. (French, 1992). Under ultra-Orthodox Judaism (which most Jews do not practice), women who withhold sex from their husbands or neglect to do housework can be divorced without their consent and deprived of all rights to their children. Hasidic men attacked a group of pilgrims, led by a female rabbi carrying a Torah, who wanted to worship at the Western Wall in Jerusalem - Hasidim believe that women are not allowed to wear shawls intended for religious ceremonies or even touch the Torah. More than 20 million women worldwide have had their genitals mutilated as a result of clitoridectomies and other surgeries designed to preserve their virginity or permanently eliminate the possibility of orgasm.
Clitoridectomy
A surgical operation consisting of removing the clitoris and labia minora. To prevent defloration, the labia minora are sometimes sewn together in the patient during childhood, and cut out immediately before the wedding ceremony.
Despite the terrible pain and long-term physiological problems that accompany such manipulations, this practice continues to exist because a man will not marry a girl who is not mutilated, and the girl must marry in order to survive (French, 1992). If a woman wants to receive support in her society, she must undergo this disfiguring rite. In religious communities across the United States such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Latter-day Saints, women are forced to conform to traditional gender roles under threat of excommunication. And in some Protestant communities, women who question the need for blind submission to men are visited by an adamant pastor who dissuades them by showing passages in the Bible confirming the subordination of women.
HOMOSEXUALITY AS A VIOLATION OF GENDER NORMS
The importance of gender norms in modern American society and the consequences of disobeying them are well illustrated by the common reaction of many people to manifestations of homosexuality. For example, the organizers of the traditional parade in honor of St. Patrick's Day in Boston in 1994, they chose to cancel the parade altogether rather than comply with a court decision that allowed gays to take part in it. From a very early age, society teaches us that we must marry a member of the opposite sex, have children with him, and learn a special kind of role relationship related to the other gender. People who do not have children or marry, as well as those who have romantic and/or sexual relationships with someone of the same gender, are often viewed as gender role violators and subject to severe social coercion.
For many, homosexuality is seen as the ultimate possible violation of gender norms. Kite & Deaux (1987) and Taylor (1983) found that heterosexuals' stereotypes of homosexuals reflect “sexual inversion theory,” which assumes that homosexuals are similar to heterosexuals of the opposite sex.
Inversion theory of sexuality
The assumption that a homosexual is similar to a heterosexual of the opposite sex. The tendency to behave in a way that corresponds to the opposite gender role is considered within this theory as a sign of homosexuality.
However, research shows that such views are far from reality (Peplau & Gordon, 1983; Taylor, 1983; Viss & Bum, 1992). For example, one of the generally accepted stereotypes regarding homosexual relationships is that one partner plays the traditional male role, and the other - the female one. But research indicates that in most gay and lesbian couples, both partners both earn money and share household chores equally (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 1993; Peplau & Gordon, 1983). People with traditional sex-role attitudes tend to have worse attitudes toward homosexuals (Black & Stevenson, 1984; Dew, 1985; Herek, 1984; Holtzen & Agresti, 1990; Krulevitz & Nash, 1980). Presumably, those who value traditional gender roles have negative attitudes toward homosexuals because they see them as deviating from roles appropriate to their biological sex (Taylor, 1983).
There is a heavy price to pay for violating social norms. For homosexuals, this can take the form of physical violence, discrimination in employment, the breakdown of personal relationships, derogatory nicknames and ridicule. Throughout most of US history, homosexual behavior has been punishable by law, and there is still no equal rights under the law between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Thus, in Bauer v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court held that the fundamental right to privacy does not extend to the area of privacy such as consensual homosexual behavior. Leonard (1991) describes many trials in which homosexuality was treated as a crime.
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders only in 1974. Psychologists now believe that when homosexuals experience mental health problems, it is often due to the secretive existence they are forced to lead due to social disapproval (Cain, 1991). (This does not mean that homosexuals have worse mental health outcomes than the rest of the population; the research does not support such a conclusion; we're talking about only about the assertion that some of the problems facing homosexuals are rooted in social disapproval.)
Researchers have noted that when a self-identified gay person realizes the conflict he finds himself in with the ideals of society, this leads to serious frustration (Hellwege et al., 1988; Thompson, 1992). Knowing that homosexuality is unacceptable puts such a person in front of a very difficult choice: to admit to people his otherness or to hide it. Confession can lead to stress, tension in relationships with loved ones, a break with them, loss of work (Cain, 1991), and separation from children.
Concealing one's own homosexuality involves no less effort and stress. Secrecy makes one feel dishonest, and hiding an important part of one's identity makes it difficult to form trusting personal relationships with people (Cain, 1991).
The potential danger of public bullying is the most important condition for whether a gay person will “come out” to other people or live a secret life. Several studies have found that concerns about possible social rejection are a major factor in hiding (Franke & Leary, 1991). Being homosexual in a radically heterosexual society is so difficult that, in response to the claim that homosexuality is a choice, some gays argue that they would never become homosexual if they really had the opportunity to choose: it is too difficult in a society that does not support them (Fairchild & Hayward, 1989).
Deviations from gender roles are often seen by people as evidence of homosexuality. Boys in the United States, however, use terms like “faggot” and “fag” as early as the fourth grade to insult low-status peers (Thome & Luna, 1986). A number of studies (Deaux & Lewis, 1984; Storms et al., 1981) have found that people are more likely to perceive those with opposite-gender traits as homosexual. The desire to avoid this stigmatization partly explains passive conformity to gender roles.
Researchers have shown that the strong association between gender defiance and homosexuality has become a major barrier to any change in society's attitudes toward gender roles (Phelan, 1993; Silber, 1990). Heterosexual men may be especially negative towards gay men because they have become more deeply imbued with traditional roles and for them deviating from the masculine role is more likely to be associated with homosexuality than deviating from the feminine role (Morin & Garfinkle, 1978; Whitely, 1990).
Of course, gays should “come out of the closet” simply to reduce the number of stereotypes about homosexuals in society (Viss & Bum, 1992). But there is no doubt that such people should carefully choose whether to admit their homosexuality at all and, if so, to whom. Our society is still rife with significant anti-homosexual prejudice, and gay men very often experience the negative social consequences of deviating from their gender roles.
ROLE OF INFORMATION PRESSURE
Informational pressure is caused by the fact that, expanding our knowledge about ourselves and the world, trying to understand what position we should take on certain social issues, we rely largely not on own experience, but on information provided by others (Smith, 1982). In other words, sometimes we conform not simply because we are afraid of society's judgment, but because without the guiding influence of others, we truly don't know what to think, feel, or do. At the same time, we turn to others for hints and follow their example. We live in a civilization that was created by people and is incomprehensible without them. Based on this, it can be said that relying on others to expand our knowledge of social issues and the world in which we exist is generally conducive to adaptation. Cialdini (1993) noted that to determine what is right, we try to find out what others think is right, and we consider our behavior right only as long as we observe it in others (he called this social verification). .
Social proof
A person evaluates his behavior as correct as long as he observes the same behavior in members of the reference group.
The same mechanisms apply to gender roles: when we look around and see men and women doing different things, and hear people around us and the media highlight how big the gap is between men and women, we come to the conclusion , that this is actually the case, and we meet these expectations. The idea that genders should and do have a lot of differences is so pervasive in our culture that it's not surprising if we think it's true. Later in this chapter we will discuss the many channels through which this information comes.
Information pressure, combined with normative coercion, partly explains the power of gender norms to influence our behavior.
Aronson (1992) suggested that compliance with normative pressure is caused by our desire to be liked by others, and submission to information pressure is caused by our desire to be right.
CONFORMITY - ECONOMY OF THOUGHT
It is natural for the human psyche to save time and energy. Likewise, the tendency to conform to social norms actually economizes thinking: all that is required of us in a certain social situation is to mindlessly demonstrate socially expected behavior. Robert Cialdini, in his book Influence (Robert Cialdini, 1993), makes a fascinating case for the role of social norms in simplifying our lives and reducing the amount of necessary mental operations. This tendency, he noted, usually works in our favor. Perhaps At an early age, we discover how much easier it is to live by social norms and learn to do so with little or no thought.This is often the case with gender norms.Most people accept them unconsciously, without even questioning them.
OBEYING GENDER NORS: COMPLIANCE, APPROVAL OR IDENTIFICATION?
Although in the vast majority of cases our reaction will be to almost automatically conform to social norms, there are undoubtedly situations where we do not want this. Social psychologists recognize that just because people comply does not necessarily mean they agree with the social contract. Sometimes we change our behavior to conform to social norms, even if we actually do not accept them. This type of submission is called compliance (the desire to avoid social punishment and win social approval), and it is based on normative pressure.
Compliance
A type of submission to social norms when a person does not accept them, but brings his behavior into conformity with them in order to avoid punishment and gain social approval.
Approval, internalization (Acceptance)
A type of submission to social norms when a person completely agrees with them.
Identification
A type of conformity to social norms in which a person repeats the actions of a role model.
When Diana visits her grandmother, she encounters some inconveniences. For example, in this house it is customary for women to serve men dishes during dinner, take away their dirty dishes, and do the cleaning. Diana doesn’t think this is right, but she does it at her grandmother’s house, because if she refuses, she will offend her relatives. At the table, Diana serves her husband, who plays along with her accordingly. Diana's husband usually doesn't wait for women to serve him, but at grandma's house he conforms to the norm by remaining seated instead of helping. This example illustrates an important sign of compliance: if there is no threat of punishment for non-compliance, then behavior becomes different.
It often happens that internally we completely agree with the norms to which we obey. This type of compliance is called approval or internalization. When I was just a child, my mother almost completely served my father and followed all his orders, saying that this was how it should be, because “men are more important than women.” At the same time, she not only outwardly obeyed this norm, but also internally accepted it. Often it is the influence of information that we owe to the fact that we accept social norms and patterns of behavior that cannot be transformed due to the fact that a person unconditionally believes in them. However, when the situation of the social context changes (for example, if a woman starts earning money), then the person can also change. My mother also changed and since then no longer believes that “men are more important than women” and that women should do all the housework.
The third type of conformity, called identification, occurs when we repeat the actions of role models simply because we want to be like them. An example is a boy who admires his traditionally masculine father and gradually absorbs much of his views. One of my students described how, as a child, she identified with the character of the television series “Little House on the Prairie,” whose name was Mary: Before I started watching “Little House on the Prairie,” I was, without a doubt, what could be called a tomboy. Things changed as soon as I started watching Little House. I began to change everything just to be like Mary. I never saw Mary in shorts or pants, she always wore a clean dress. Then I also started wearing dresses and tried to be neat so as not to get dirty. Mary studied diligently at school, the teacher loved her, and, looking at her, I began to study diligently too. I began to be more interested in doing housework. I saw how Mary helped her mother, and under Mary’s influence I also began to cook and set the table, even when I was not asked to do so. I helped my mother sort the laundry and got into the habit of making the bed because I noticed that Mary's bed was always neatly made.
As Aronson (1992) noted, beliefs associated with identification may change if a new identification replaces a previous one (for example, you may begin to identify more with your peer group than with your father). By the way, the girl who in childhood was so identified with the character of “Little House on the Prairie”, some time later began to identify with her mother, a businesswoman.
Scientists do not yet know which process more often causes people to conform to gender roles: compliance, approval or identification. Unfortunately, little research has been done on this topic, but several studies have shown that both men and women are more likely to express their adherence to gender stereotypes in public than among others (Eagly & Crawley, 1986; Eagly et al., 1981; Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). This indicates compliance rather than approval or identification. Male role research, which finds little acceptance and support for traditional masculinity (Bum & Laver, 1994; Thompson & Pleck, 1986), also points to the critical role of compliance in gender role conformity.
Regulatory and information pressures are by no means mutually exclusive. As Pleck et al. (1993b) argue, it is those who endorse and accept traditional gender roles (often as a result of information pressure) who are more likely to be socially blamed for violating them (normative pressure). And, conversely, information bombarding a person from all sides about how to conform well to a gender role can lead to this submission even in the absence of approval. First of all, a person wants to be accepted by society.
People adhere to traditional gender roles to varying degrees. Kagan (1964) and Kohlberg (1966) noted that some people are sex-typed (e.g., extremely feminine women and extremely masculine men). They have a particularly strong motivation to keep all their behavior within the framework of gender role standards. They suppress any behavior that may be regarded by others as inappropriate for their gender. Frable (1989) found that such people were more willing to accept the gender rules that dictate appropriate behavior for men and women in a given culture. Different subgroups within a society, as well as individuals, may differ in their level of adherence to traditional gender roles. In some religious communities, conformity to traditional gender roles is generously encouraged, while in others more freedom is allowed. Jones and McNamara (1991) found that devout believers (as opposed to those for whom religion was primarily a source of comfort) had more traditional values regarding women. Personality differences and different abilities have no less influence on adherence to traditional gender roles. Thus, a mathematically gifted woman can continue her studies in the field of exact sciences, although this is not welcomed by society, and a small, fine-boned man is unlikely to engage in such a typically male sport as football.
Finally, some people have been in situations where their deviation from gender roles caused severe stress– either because the punishment that followed was truly severe, or because it seemed so because it occurred during a period of personal discomfort. People with such critical gender socialization experiences may want to conform to traditional gender roles because the negative experiences are particularly vivid in their memory. (For now, this is nothing more than a hypothesis; I have not seen a single study that would test it.) For example, one of my students said that her father was given the name Michel at birth, and her uncle was named Nicole. As they grew up, it became a funny situation. According to her, these are the two biggest macho men she has ever seen in her life (by the way, they changed their names to “Michael” and “Nick”). It is possible that this adherence to the traditional male role was partly a reaction to the ridicule to which they were subjected as children. Some of my students have described how, after cutting their hair short, they would, after a while, make every effort to conform to the feminine role. Here is the story of one of them: I was eight years old. There was a carnival at school, I both really wanted to go and was worried, and my mother said that she would only let me go if I did my hair. My father spared no expense and took me to his own hairdresser to get a fashionable haircut. But when I came to the carnival and met my mother there, she burst into tears and terribly shouted at my father for “letting the hairdresser cut off the child.” And for another four weeks I was mistaken for a boy on the street at least once a day. It was then that I decided that I would never look like a boy again, so I grew my hair long and started wearing only dresses. I was shocked when my senior year everyone agreed that I would “probably have ten kids.”
DIFFERENTIAL SOCIALIZATION
From a social psychology perspective, gender is heavily influenced by both cultural norms about what men should do and what women should do, and social messages telling people how different there is between men and women. Normative and informational pressure theory partly explains how we learn these norms and what motivates us to adhere to them. This chapter will discuss gender role socialization, the process by which we learn what is socially acceptable for men and women. Despite the fact that many of the ideas presented here are inherent in developmental psychology rather than social psychology, they have rightfully taken their place in the social psychology of gender.
Developmental psychologists refer to the term differential socialization as the process by which we teach men and women that there are things that are common to some and not to others, depending on the gender of the person being taught.
Socialization
The process by which a person learns appropriate social behaviors, values, etc.
From the standpoint of Kohlberg's (1966) cognitive-developmental theory of gender, all information related to gender behavior is reflected in our minds in the form of gender schemas. They contain everything a given person knows about gender. By focusing our attention on certain things, gender schemes influence the processing of information and, in addition, have an impact on memory, since it is easier to remember information that fits into the framework of existing ideas. Developmental psychology examines gender schemas in children, while social psychologists are interested in gender schemas and their role in creating gender stereotypes in adults. The cognitive aspects of gender will be discussed quite extensively in Chapter 5. In Chapter 6 we learn that differential socialization is a pancultural phenomenon: girls and boys are socialized differently in all cultures.
The beginnings of differential socialization can be seen even before the child is born. Why do you think future parents want to know whether they are having a boy or a girl? Why do others want to be in the know too? (Why does everyone constantly ask a pregnant woman who she will have and who she wants - a boy or a girl?) These inquisitive minds are interested in the gender of the child only because, depending on gender, they imagine children differently. Parents want to know the gender of the child, since this will determine what they will name him, what clothes, toys and jewelry they will buy, and what they will do with him. A study (Shakin et al., 1985) conducted in suburban department stores found that 90% of children's clothing was typical of their gender in style or color. In Mexico, parents pierce their ears and put earrings on their little daughters so that others will not be mistaken about the gender of the child. In American culture these days, elastic bands with bows are very popular for newborn girls. As will become clear as you read this book, gender is an extremely important social variable. And parents really don’t want others to make a mistake about the gender of their children.
DIFFERENTIAL GAIN AND DIFFERENTIAL IMITATION
The two main mechanisms that mediate differential socialization are differential reinforcement and differential imitation (Mischel, 1970). We talk about differential reinforcement when acceptable gender-role behavior is rewarded and unacceptable gender-role behavior is punished, provided that whether a person is rewarded or punished for certain behavior patterns, interests, etc. depends on his biological sex.
Reward often comes in the form of social approval. Conversely, any deviation from a pattern of behavior that is considered in our culture to be consistent with a gender role is, in most cases, punished by social disapproval. For example, a number of studies have shown that boys who, contrary to norms, play not only with children of the same sex, are more subject to ridicule from peers and are less popular among them than those who obey gender role stereotypes (Bemdt & Heller, 1986; Steriker & Kurdek, 1982). Perry and his colleagues (Repu et al., 1989), observing schoolchildren from 4th to 7th grade, found that boys expected less reprimand from parents for aggressive behavior than girls. Lytton and Romney (1991) used statistical methods to compare the results of studies of parental differential socialization conducted from 1966 to 1986 and concluded that parents encourage gender-typical activities in their children.
Differential reinforcement
The process of socialization during which socially acceptable behavior is rewarded and unacceptable behavior is punished with social disapproval.
As early as 3 years old, children confidently identify themselves as male or female (this is called gender identification). During this time, children begin to notice that men and women try to look different, engage in different activities, and be interested in different things. Often, adults inadvertently encourage gender identification by regularly mentioning the child's gender (“what a good boy/girl”) or by telling children, “a boy/girl shouldn't do that.” By age 7, and often even by age 3-4, children achieve gender constancy—the understanding that gender is permanent and cannot be changed (Bern, 1989; Emmerich et al., 1977; Martin & Halverson, 1983b) . Even before they enter primary school, children exhibit considerable knowledge of gender differences in toys, clothing, activities, objects and activities (Serbin et al., 1993).
Once gender identification is completed and the child begins to notice the differences between men and women, he usually develops an increased attention to role models of the same gender as himself, driven by the desire to be the best boy or girl. During this process, which Kohlberg termed self-socialization in 1966, boys tend to imitate the behavior of men, and girls tend to imitate the behavior of women. This phenomenon is called differential imitation, and it is consistent with social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), which posits that we can learn different types of behavior by observing people and whether they are punished or rewarded. actions. Most boys between the ages of two and three try to put on their mother's shoes, play with her cosmetics, and paint their nails with nail polish. However, when the process of gender identification is completed and boys achieve constancy, they understand that all these activities are intended for girls and begin to imitate the behavior of men.
Differential imitation explains why women tend to enjoy shopping and preparing for the holidays, while men avoid it. As the child grows, he sees that it is the woman who does such things, and if the child is a girl, then she will be much more interested in this than if there were a boy in her place. The same applies to other housework, such as laundry. Using differential imitation, we can also explain the fact that men watch sports programs on TV more often than women.
Differential modeling
The process of socialization during which a person chooses role models in a group that corresponds to him in terms of generally accepted norms and begins to imitate their behavior.
According to Smetana & Letoumeau (1984), there is good reason to believe that gender constancy encourages children to seek out social contacts to learn about behavior consistent with their gender. Bussey & Bandura (1992) found that young children's sex-role behavior is controlled externally by social pressure, but the child then develops his own set of behavioral standards. After this has happened, the child begins to control behavior using sanctions that he applies to himself. This pattern of behavior is described by the social cognitive theory of gender self-regulation.
Although children receive information from both genders (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), research has shown that they tend to engage in behavioral patterns consistent with their gender (Martin & Halverson, 1981, 1983a). Perry and Bussey (1979) found that children observe how often certain activities occur in the behavior of men and women, and then use this knowledge to shape their own behavior. It has been found that a child is more likely to imitate the behavior of an adult if he believes that this model accurately reflects correct gender role behavior. This is why children of those who exhibit behavior that goes beyond gender role stereotypes may still adopt patterns of behavior typical of their gender roles; Observing other adults, they conclude that their parents' behavior is unusual, so they do not imitate it.
Many people have told me about people who dreamed of raising their child free from gender stereotypes, but ended up with the complete opposite. Apparently, the point was, they concluded, that biological gender differences were stronger than attempts at parental socialization. However, it must be remembered that parents are not the only socializing figures for the child and not his only role models. We must not forget that gender role socialization is a process that continues throughout human life; it reflects changing circumstances and new experiences. Throughout life, the material for constructing gender is the entire system of what is associated in a given culture with masculinity and femininity (Lott & Maluso, 1993).
In a myriad of ways, our culture conveys to every person the message that men and women are different creatures and should remain so. But without the help of social information, it is extremely difficult to disconnect from the confusing world around us and exist in it. Sometimes the information mentioned comes to us directly from others, but in culture there is also information for this purpose. special means.
Ideas about the psychological type of men and women are absorbed into myths and religion, tales and written literature. Heroes and heroines, real or fictional, carry a range of stereotypes that make them potential providers of masculine or feminine characteristics (Williams & Best, 1990a, p. 240).
NON-FAMILY SOURCES OF GENDER-ROLE SOCIALIZATION
Children's literature
Teachers, other children, other children's parents, books, relatives, toys and television - from all of these sources the child learns about behavior that is regarded by society as appropriate for one or another gender. Most studies of sexism in children's literature have focused on content analysis and have not addressed its impact on behavior. However, experiments show that reading books containing gender stereotyping leads to an increase in the proportion of gender-typical behavior in children's play (Ashton, 1983).
Sexism
Individual biased attitudes and discriminatory behavior towards representatives of one gender or another; an institutional practice (even if not motivated by prejudice) that imposes a subordinate position on members of one sex or another.
Although recent research (see, for example, Purcell & Stewart, 1990) has shown that descriptions of gender in books published after 1980 have changed considerably, libraries are still full of books written before that period. And they usually feature a predominance of male characters and depict women exclusively in the role of homemakers, while men are given all opportunities (McDonald, 1989). These stories can teach children that the world, with the exception of raising children, belongs to men and women play a subordinate role in it.
Crabb and Bielawski (1994) analyzed illustrations in the Caldecott Medal and honors series of children's books published between 1937 and 1989 to identify changes in the gender labeling of items. These publications are found in large numbers on the shelves of bookstores and in libraries, so the authors felt that they fairly fully reflected the literature that American children are currently reading. The gender marking of an object gives us an idea of who uses it more often - men or women. The importance of gender labeling occurs because children observe the frequency with which certain actions are performed by men and women, and are more likely to imitate the behavior that they perceive as characteristic of people of the same gender.
According to the results of the study, among female characters, a significant quantitative advantage was on the side of those who were depicted with objects. Related to the household (kitchen utensils, brooms, etc.), and this ratio has not changed for 53 years. Men were more likely to choose to paint with tools (i.e. objects used for work outside the home). And at the same time, the proportion of men drawn with household items in their hands has increased noticeably. The results of this study make it clear that, with the exception of an increased number of boys depicted holding household utensils, there has been minimal change in the depiction of various types of work associated with one gender or another in children's books.
A television
Gerbner and Gross (1976) credited television with a unique ability to change fundamental assumptions about the nature of social reality. It has this gift because it not only reflects the status quo, but also greatly exaggerates existing trends, television images seem real, and people have access to widespread television use and choice. Albert Bandura (1969) suggested that television could rival parents and teachers as a source of role models. Research has shown that the media are very important in gender role socialization, and an analysis of the information that comes to us through television channels has demonstrated that television creates stereotypical, traditional images of men and women. One of my students wrote about the impact of The Brady Bunch on her gender role socialization. The series first aired on ABC from 1969 to 1974 and has been repeated on other networks from time to time.
When I was a child, my favorite thing to do was watch reruns of the soap opera Brady over and over again. At that time, I knew for sure that my goal in life was to become a perfect wife like Carol Brady, have six or seven children and let my husband take care of me. When I started college, this was still my goal. Actually, only last year did I seriously think about my career and changed my major from home economics to psychology.
Signorelli (1989) analyzed weekly samples of television programs that took up airtime. best time between 1969 and 1985, and found that 71% of people appearing on screen and 69% of main characters were men. Trend analysis revealed only minor changes in these proportions over the 16-year period. Women on television were on average younger than men; had a more attractive appearance and a gentle character; they were shown in the context of romantic interests, home, family; they more often found themselves in the role of the victim. Of the 10 married heroines, only three had any work outside the home (more than half of married women work in real life), and even if women worked, they were usually relegated to traditional female occupations. Men not only appeared on screen much more often, but also had a socially respected profession (lawyer, doctor) or worked in a specifically male field of activity, for example, as police officers. Atkin and his colleagues exhaustively analyzed and profiled 555 television characters. Regarding women's roles, their report states: "The vast majority reflect male fantasies of a scantily clad fool who needs to be rescued" (Atkinet aL, 1991, p. 679).
VandeBerg & Streckfuss (1992) analyzed 116 television programs that aired during prime time on one of the three major American television networks over a two-week period. According to their calculations, in none of these programs did the ratio of male to female roles exceed 2:1 (i.e., 65% men and 35% women). At the same time, they try to portray working women much less often as decision makers, approving the market policy of the corporation, and performing socially and economically productive work. Moreover, the researchers noted that television heroines who hold high-level leadership positions tend to inherit them from their husbands or relatives. Despite the fact that men appear much more often on television and are shown to have stronger personalities compared to women, the images of men also leave much to be desired. Vandebergh and Streckfuss noted that men are often portrayed as tough, self-centered, aggressive, and competitive. Finally, they prefer to make men the negative characters, while they tend to show women as sensitive and kind-hearted.
Davis (1991) analyzed all television programs aired in the spring of 1987. He found significantly more male characters than female characters (65% versus 35%). In addition, he found that adult women in general are significantly younger than adult men (by 10 years), that a woman is four times more likely to be blond than a man is blond, and finally, women are four times more likely to be provocatively dressed than male characters.
According to Tavris (1992), an analysis of television shows conducted by Brett Silverstein in the late 1980s found that 69% of women on television were thin, compared with only 17.5% of men. Davis (1991) suggested that all of this paints a picture of a young, sexually attractive woman who, in many programs, is more of a decoration than a character. Davis concludes that such television images convey to us that women are valued while they are young and satisfy culturally accepted notions of beauty and femininity. Ask women you know what they think about this.
It's also worth looking at how sports programs portray men and women. Analyzing the results of research on the image of men in sports programs, Sabo and Jansen (1992) concluded that in sports men are shown as dominant, masculine, and important, while women are shown as controlled, feminine, and devalued. In particular, they report that sports media often reduce women to the level of sex objects (the infamous Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue being a prime example) and that 85 to 95% of the time the media spends on sports is about men's sports. Of the sports in which women participate, those that are more feminine, such as figure skating, receive more media coverage. If we analyze the content of the reports, the results are very revealing. While reporting on men's sports is dominated by descriptions of physical strength and dominance, when it comes to women's sports, the description often revolves around appearance, attractiveness, grace, and strength is barely mentioned (Sabo & Jansen, 1992).
Content analysis
A method of systematic fixation and quantification of units of content in the material under study, in particular, identifying random and non-random elements (Burlachuk L.F., Morozov S.M. Dictionary-reference book on psychodiagnostics. St. Petersburg: Peter, 1999).
Content analysis of television commercials has shown that their creators, when portraying men and women, also widely use gender stereotypes. Similar studies (Bretl & Cantor, 1988; Lovdal, 1989) have found that the dominant voice in advertising is always male, the vast majority of commercials featuring women advertise household products, and the range of occupations for men in commercials is three times wider. than for women. Brettle and Kantor estimate that the average American watches about 714 commercials per week. Strate (1992), in a comprehensive analysis of beer advertising, concluded that such commercials exploit traditional images of masculinity by indicating what exactly one must do (including drink beer) to become a real man.
What does research say about the changes in gender portrayals on television? Atkin and his colleagues (Atkin et al., 1991) found that during the 1980s. The number of women among television presenters has increased. Moreover, they pointed to the fact that most of the programs that featured women who deviated from stereotypes were also produced by women. Moore (1992) conducted an analysis of how the family was portrayed in the programs that occupied the best time on the airwaves. According to his data, in 1950, of all the families shown, only 3% were working mothers; by 1980 this figure had risen to 30%. In an analysis of family television shows from 1950 to 1990, Moore concluded that real changes in the male role were greatly exaggerated by television, which overrepresented single fathers and men putting family responsibilities above work.
Does television really influence people? Considering the volumes in which Americans consume it, this is undoubtedly to be expected. Per household, the amount of time spent watching television each day reaches more than 7 hours, and students spend more time watching television than in lectures by the time their studies are completed (Davis, 1991).
According to Kimball (1986), children who watch television exhibit significantly more attitudes typical of gender norms than their peers who do not watch television. A number of other studies (see, for example, Cobb et al., 1982; McGhee & Frueh, 1980; Steeves, 1987) have found a positive correlation between a person's exposure to media saturated with gender stereotypes and the emergence of stereotypical perceptions, attitudes and behavior patterns. Naturally, we are talking only about the existence of a relationship between two phenomena, and it is possible that the consequence in in this case is the cause [researchers call this the directionality problem]. In other words, people with stereotypical attitudes may prefer programs that promote the same gender stereotypes. It is possible, however, that children whose parents allow them to watch such programs are more influenced by gender stereotypes than those whose parents do not allow them to watch them, not because of the influence of television, but because of the attitudes of their parents (researchers call this the third variable problem).
Attitude
A specific course of action that a person implements or wants to implement in a specific situation. Attitude includes stimulus or situation, interest (intense desire), response and object.
Experimental studies (where third variables and directional issues were controlled) have shown that television models can influence children's perceptions of gender. In an experiment by Ruble et al. (1981), a child played less with a neutral toy after watching a television clip of a child of the opposite sex playing with it. Similar research conducted by Cobb and others will be discussed later in this chapter.
In experiments by Geis et al. (1984), Jennings et al. (Jennings et al., 1980) found that viewing advertisements with strong gender stereotypes had a definite impact on participants' desire for career advancement, their attitude toward the existing order of things, and self-confidence. Specifically, Jennings and his colleagues began their experiment by randomly selecting two groups of women. The independent variable was viewing four videotaped television commercials. The first group saw these videos in the original form in which they were shown on television, i.e. depicting women in relation to men in traditional roles (housewife or sex object). For example, one of the commercials shown in the experiment was an advertisement for Hungry Man frozen dinners, where a multiply shrunk woman serves an equally huge dish to her giant husband. In another group, the same commercials were shown, only all the roles in them were played by actors of the opposite sex.
As an initial hypothesis, the researchers hypothesized that women who watched the traditional videos would show less independent judgment and less self-confidence (dependent variables) than women who watched the role-reversal videos. To measure the level of independent judgment, the researchers asked half of the subjects to take part in a fictitious experiment that purportedly examined which cartoons people found funny. Participants had to rate the “fun” of 16 cartoons. While explaining the conditions, the experimenter simultaneously pointed to a large board with a table drawn on it, which supposedly reflected the ratings of previous subjects, and told each participant that her answers would also be entered in the appropriate column. Women who watched traditional videos were much more influenced by these false ratings.
The other half of the subjects took part in a media opinion study (also fictitious, of course) designed to measure the impact of watching commercials on their level of self-confidence. Participants were asked to deliver a 4-minute extemporaneous speech; speech on one of two topics (optional): “dangerous and misleading television advertising” or “demonstration of violence in television programs.” The experimenter, without knowing anything about what videos the subject was watching, determined the speaker’s level of confidence by assessing seven nonverbal indicators of behavior (eye movements, nervousness, etc.). Those women who watched traditional videos were significantly less confident than other participants in the experiment.
Faceism
A body of research shows that men and women are portrayed in different social roles and activities, but there are even more subtle ways in which culture reinforces differences in gender perceptions. Archer and his colleagues (Archer et al., 1983) found that the face was emphasized to different degrees in images of men and women, and called this phenomenon face-ism. In particular, they pointed to the fact that photographs in the press emphasize a man's face and a woman's body, since men are usually depicted from the neck up, and women are depicted at full length. In all twenty countries where the study was conducted, the matter is printed publications this was exactly the case. Nigro and his colleagues (Nigro et al., 1988) also estimated that in the 70-80s. in Time, Newsweek, Good Housekeeping and Ms magazines, the face was emphasized more in men than in women.
Face-ism
The tendency to emphasize the face and body to varying degrees in images of men and women. Photographs in the press usually emphasize the man's face and the woman's body, since men are usually depicted taller and taller, and women are depicted at full height.
At first glance it may seem that this fact is not of great importance. However, as Archer rightly notes, the head and face are “the center of mental life - where intelligence, personality, identity and character are located” (Archer et al., 1983, p. 726), and thus it becomes clear that the media information associate these concepts more with men than with women. Moreover, experiments have shown that emphasizing an individual's face leads to the fact that subjects rate his intelligence, ambitions and appearance more highly.
Language
The language we speak can also contribute to stereotypical perceptions of men and women. Henley (1989) points out that the English language has a wide range of tools that allow us to describe men and women differently, and more specifically, to portray women as small, ordinary, or completely ignored. Why, for example, for married woman There is a special title (Mrs.), but there is no similar title for a married man? What does this mean? Is it really about the fact that a woman’s marital status, unlike a man’s, influences how we should perceive her and how to communicate with her? Henley also mentions a study showing that there are 6-10 times more words to describe women in a bad way than there are words to say bad things about a man (think of how many ways there are to say a woman is slutty). . These words contain information about the gender-appropriate behavior that is accepted in our culture.
Toys
There is every reason to believe that children's toys play a very important role in the process of differential socialization. Studies have shown that toys and games help girls practice activities that prepare them for motherhood and housekeeping, and develop communication and collaboration skills. The situation is completely different for boys: toys and games encourage them to invent, transform the world around them, help develop skills that will later form the basis of spatial and mathematical abilities, encourage independent, competitive and leadership behavior (Block, 1979; Connor et al., 1978; Emmot, 1985; Miller, 1987; Peretti & Sydney, 1985; Pitcher & Schultz, 1983).
Go to a store and see what toys they sell. You will immediately see that most of them are specifically aimed at either boys or girls. Toys for girls are immediately visible. Their packaging is usually made in pink or pastel colors, there is an image of a girl on the box, and in meaning they are associated either with personal care (for example, toy cosmetics), or with caring for a child (baby dolls), or with household chores (toy vacuum cleaners, small stoves, dishes, etc.). Toys for boys are in brightly colored boxes with a picture of a boy playing; they are often associated with construction (various construction sets, blocks) or active activities (sports equipment, weapons, etc.). Miller (1987) showed that children's toys are still segregated by gender: of the 50 toys used in her study, 41 were identified by participants as being exclusively for boys or for girls. Toys that subjects stereotyped as girly were those that were related to the home, such as tea sets, dolls, and stuffed animals. At the same time, the subjects included vehicles, balls, weapons and construction games among boys' toys.
The gender identity of a toy is often indicated by its name or packaging. Suffice it to recall the pocket electronic game that gained popularity under the name Game-Boy (One of the semantic parts of the name is the word “boy”, which can be translated as “Game for boys”). When my son was five years old, he became interested in the title: “Girls can play this, right?” “Of course,” I answered. “Well, then we should have called it Game-Child (The explorer’s son replaced the word “boy” with the word “child” in the name of the game) so that the girls knew that they could play too,” he said. The problem is not only that children internalize traditional sex roles through play with gender-appropriate toys, but also how this affects the skills that girls and boys acquire (Eccles, 1990). For example, according to Sprafkin et al. (1983), toys such as blocks and puzzles, which are traditionally preferred by boys, are good for developing children's visual-spatial skills. Etaugh and Liss (1992) found that children given a masculine toy were reluctant to engage in traditionally feminine activities, and those given a feminine toy were reluctant to engage in masculine activities. McClurg & Chaille (1987) found that boys and girls in fifth, seventh, and ninth grades showed significant gains in spatial skills after playing computer games spatial type. Besides. Linn (1985) finds that boys are more willing than girls to play computer games.
Statistically, adults buy young children more toys that are typical for the child's gender (Pomerieau et al., 1990; Thompson et al., 1988). For example, Bradbard (1985) found that among children aged 9–16 months, a higher proportion of boys received cars and spatial games as Christmas gifts, while more girls received household items. It would be completely natural for you to assume that this is a consequence of the fact that boys and girls prefer different toys and therefore ask for them as a gift. Indeed, a study by Etow and Lise showed that girls want and ask for “feminine” toys, and boys for “masculine” ones. For example, my son Ken admits that he really doesn’t like Barbie dolls, but his girlfriend Samantha simply adores them. Ken has never asked to buy him a Barbie, while Samantha begs for a Barbie or accessories for her at every opportunity. In other words, boys and girls do seem to prefer different toys. But is this preference “natural” or created by the social environment?
A number of studies (Bell & Carver, 1980; Culp et al., 1983; Seavey et al., 1975; Sidorovicz & Lunney, 1980) have shown that children's toy preferences begin to be shaped by adults. For example, in a study by Sidorovich and Lunney (1980), subjects interacted with a 10-month-old child. Participants were randomly divided into three groups. One group was told that the child was a girl, another group was told that it was a boy, and the third were told nothing at all about the child's gender. When communicating with the child, the adult had three toys at his disposal: a rubber ball, a doll, and a chewing ring. If we gave boys and girls different toys based on differences in their behavior, we would expect subjects to choose toys based on the infant's actual preferences rather than on the gender label they were given. However, this did not happen. As a result, the real gender of the child had virtually no effect on the choice of the subjects, which cannot be said about the gender label. Of the group that thought it was a boy, 50% of men and 80% of women chose a soccer ball (20% of all who thought so chose a chewing ring for the “boy”). In the group in which the child was presented as a girl, 72% of women and 89% of men chose the doll. Only 28% of women from this group offered the “girl” a ball, and none of the men did this.
Have you ever experienced negative reactions from your parents when you played games that were considered gender specific? When I was little, my friend's brother once decided to play with us and suggested that we dress up in different costumes. His parents' reaction was as if we had committed a serious crime. Indeed, researchers have found that parents tend to respond more positively when their children, especially boys, play with gender-appropriate toys (Fagot, 1978; Fagot & Leinbach, 1989; Langlois & Downs, 1980; Martin, 1990). Even in the preschool years, children who do not play with gender-appropriate toys are more likely to be ignored or criticized by other children (Carter & McCloskey, 1984; Fagot, 1978). Etow and Lise (1992) found that girls and boys generally received the gender-traditional toys they wanted as gifts, but if they asked for a gender-nontraditional toy, they did not receive it. Research by Japanese psychologists has also shown that parents select toys based on the child's gender, and that the choice the child makes can be influenced by manipulating the gender label of the toy (for a detailed description of the study, see Shirakawa et al., 1992).
Even if parents and relatives do not deliberately offer boys and girls various toys, children’s preferences can be formed in the process of socialization of the self without their participation. Watch children's programs on television one evening or Sunday morning and you will find that almost all toys are advertised as toys for boys or toys for girls (the average American child watches 4 hours of television a day). Do not forget that as soon as a child finally identifies himself as male or female and notices that men and women prefer different things and activities, he begins to imitate models of the same gender. My son noticed early on that boys didn't play with dolls, although we didn't consciously tell him that. One day, while watching TV, he even told me: “I would like such a toy, but since only girls play with it in advertising, it means it’s only for girls.” He immediately realized that no one could stop him from buying it, but said that he would be “uneasy” since the toy was considered only for girls.
A very clever study (Cobb et al., 1982) provided evidence to support the hypothesis that television models may influence young children's preferences for particular toys. It involved children from 4 to 6 years old, each of whom was shown one of three videos, where the characters were puppets from the animated series “Sesame Street”, chosen at random. All three films began with a fragment showing a set of toys that both boys and girls played with on the television screen. Further in the story, the boy doll and the girl doll discussed which gender these toys were best suited to. In the first version of the film, the dolls argued that these toys were “for boys,” in the second version, the dolls agreed that the toys were more suitable for girls, and in the third, that they could belong to boys and girls equally. After watching a 20-minute film, the child was left in a room with two sets of toys: one that appeared in the film, the other less popular with children than the first, and rated in another study as gender neutral. Both boys and girls spent most of their time playing with the test toys rather than the test toys if they were identified in the film as corresponding to their gender. Conversely, if the test toys were presented in the film as corresponding to the other gender, children spent most of their time playing with the test toys, even though they were, as we recall, less popular. In a nutshell, the findings suggest that gender-based toy preferences may be shaped by television models that indicate a toy's gender identity. Since the researchers used only sets of toys that had been experimentally proven to be gender neutral, and used the same toys in all three conditions, we have reason to believe that the preferences that emerged after watching the video were entirely due to the television models.
Toy manufacturers are becoming increasingly aware of this issue. Mattel's Talking Barbie says, "Computers are fun," and she used to say, "Math class is hard," but the American Association of University Women convinced Mattel that girls were being taught the wrong lessons. installation. There are toys considered suitable for both boys and girls, with images of a boy and a girl on the packaging. Just recently I saw an advertisement in which a boy and a girl were enthusiastically playing with a toy washing machine and a dryer. There are even special blocks for girls - distinguished by the fact that they are pink or lavender, and the box shows little girls building living rooms and kitchens.
Scarr and McCartney (1983) suggested that boys and girls initially have different innate predispositions, due to which they begin to prefer different toys over time, and that the actions of adults, which we attribute to differential socialization, are nothing more than a reaction to these “natural” differences. They called this thesis the evocative genotype environment effect. There are several studies whose results at first glance confirm this hypothesis. Thus, Snow and his colleagues (Snow et al., 1983) found that fathers are less willing to give dolls to their one-year-old sons than to daughters of the same age, but even if a boy receives a doll from his father, he plays with it less than girls. . In another study, children showed greater interest in playing with gender-typical toys, although there were no overt attempts on the part of parents to introduce them to such play (Caldera et al., 1989). Unfortunately, we cannot rule out the possibility that some degree of differential socialization had already occurred earlier and that its results influenced the child's preferences. A number of studies indicate that the process of differential socialization begins in early childhood (BeU & Carver, 1980; Culp et al., 1983; Shaking al., 1975; Sidorowicz & Lunney, 1980). Another, no less plausible hypothesis; is that physiology creates individual differences in preferences, and if the latter correspond to the child’s gender role, then they receive support, and if they do not correspond, then they do not receive support (this is especially true for boys). For example, one study found that boys who were temperamentally predisposed to play less typical of their gender were more likely to be punished and judged (Bemdt & Heller, 1986; Fagot, 1978; Fagot & Leinbach, 1989; Langlois & Downs , 1980; Martin, 1990 Steriker & Kurdek, 1982).
The large percentage of tomboys among girls of our time also casts doubt on whether differences in game preferences between boys and girls are natural. A tomboy in this context is a girl with a boyish streak who prefers to engage in traditionally masculine activities and play with traditionally “masculine” toys, although this does not prevent some of them from also playing with girls and taking part in traditionally feminine games. In one study, 63% of 9th grade female students reported that they were tomboys, and in an adult sample, 51% of women reported that they were tomboys (Hyde et al., 1977). In a more recent study, over 50% of girls in grades 4, 6, 8, and 10 identified themselves as tomboys (Plumb & Cowan, 1984). Similarly, 50% of 193 women studied by Byrne (Bum et al., 1994) at universities and community colleges said they had been tomboys as children. Another interesting finding found in several studies (Bum et al., 1994; Plumb & Cowan, 1984) is that gender nonconforming behavior in girls decreases significantly during puberty. Hyde (1991) suggests that this phenomenon is based on the fact that the intensity of gender role pressure increases during adolescence. In their study, Byrne and her colleagues asked women who said they were tomboys as children, “Why did you stop being a tomboy?” Most of the responses received fell into the following four categories: social pressure from peers or older students, social pressure from parents or other adults, the desire to be attractive to boys, and physical development. Perhaps the onset of menstruation and bodily development make a tomboy girl's “femininity” more visible, which encourages her and those around her to increasingly apply feminine gender norms to her behavior.
ANDROGYNY
Benefit
In this chapter we looked at the process by which a person acquires gender. Differential socialization can lead to men and women developing different psychological traits. For example, toys differentiated according to their suitability for one gender or another can cultivate a caring attitude towards others in girls, and perseverance and a spirit of competition in boys. However, in real life, social norms and socialization do not create extremely masculine men and extremely feminine women. Psychologist Sandra Bern (1974) pointed out that masculinity and femininity are not opposed to each other, and a person can have both masculine and feminine traits. Moreover, Bem believes that it is even desirable to be androgynous, that is, to incorporate the best of both sex roles.
Up until the 70s. manifestations of “masculine” traits in women and “feminine” traits in men have been a source of concern for psychologists. And among people far from psychology, this understanding is still widespread, and it is because of it that people find themselves confused when their children display interests and behavior characteristic of the opposite sex. However, research does not support the position that deviation from sex-role standards entails psychological inconsistency (O'Heron & Oriofsky, 1987,1990). Indeed, according to Bem (1974), mental health should not have a gender, and androgyny is positive affects a person's psychological state.Androgyny has been found to be associated with situational flexibility (i.e., the ability to be assertive or focused on the interests of others depending on the situation) (Bern, 1975; Vonk & Ashmore, 1993); high self-esteem (Mullis & McKinley, 1989 ; Oriofsky, 1977; Spence et al., 1975); achievement motivation (Spence & Helmrich, 1978); good parenting (Baumrind, 1982); subjective well-being (Lubinski et al., 1981). In addition to these data Let us mention that Zammichieli and his colleagues (Zammichieli et al., 1988) found that families in which both spouses were androgynous had higher levels of marital satisfaction than in families in which one or both partners were polytyped. In Ickes (1993), we find a discussion of a number of studies that indicate that relationships in which at least one partner is androgynous are more satisfying for both. However, a recent study has shown that the degree of marital satisfaction depends, in particular, on the feminine qualities of one of the spouses - man or woman. This is explained by the fact that caring, guardianship, and sensuality are identified with the feminine figure, and at the same time, they determine the quality of relationships (Ickes, 1993).
Sandra Bem's Sex Role Questionnaire
The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) is the most widely used instrument for measuring how adults view themselves in terms of gender (Hargreaves, 1987). The questionnaire includes 60 adjectives, each of which the subject rates on a 7-point scale based on how accurately it characterizes him. Twenty adjectives from this list make up the masculinity scale: courageous, analytical, ambitious, aggressive, dominant, etc.; another twenty make up the femininity scale: feminine, warm, loving children, attentive to the needs of others, etc.; and the remaining twenty are neutral: envious, reliable, serious, with great self-esteem, tactful. The adjectives were selected based on what characteristics were considered gender-appropriate at the time the scale was created. This was done to locate gender in a cultural context rather than in an individual's personality (Bem, 1993). A person who scores high on both the masculinity and femininity scales is considered androgynous; someone who scores high on the femininity scale but low on the masculinity scale is considered feminine; the one whose score on the masculinity scale is much higher than the results on the femininity scale is considered masculine. The term “undifferentiated” in this questionnaire refers to those who scored equally low on both the masculinity and femininity scales. We call a gender-typed person someone whose self-identification and behavior matches what is considered gender-appropriate in his society.
There are a number of scientific papers that have examined the results of administering the BSRI to non-European American groups. Interestingly, they often contradict generally accepted stereotypes. According to De Leon (1993), African Americans and Puerto Ricans, both men and women, are more androgynous than Euro-Americans. Two other studies also found that African-American women scored higher on androgyny than Euro-American women (Binion, 1990; Dugger, 1988). This can be explained by historically high unemployment rates among black men and low pay for their work, which has resulted in black women gaining stronger positions in the labor force than white women. African American women's historical experiences have led to their concept of femininity to include self-confidence, physical strength, resourcefulness, and independence (Dugger, 1988). In a 1983 study by Pu and Vazquez-Nuttall of college women, black students scored highest on a scale of masculinity, followed by Hispanic women, and then white women (for a report on the study, see Vazquez-Nuttall et al. , 1987). The same results were obtained by De Leon (1993).
Kranau et al (1982) found that Mexican women were the most feminine among immigrants who had assimilated American culture, although their behavior became less and less feminine. But Puerto Rican women living on the island, according to one recent study, were not at all more feminine than Puerto Rican women living in the United States (DeLeon, 1993). A comparison of BSRI results among African-American, Puerto Rican, and Euro-American men showed that the highest percentage of feminine-type men and the lowest percentage of masculine-type men were found among Puerto Ricans. Puerto Rican men, on average, scored significantly higher on the femininity scale than men in the African American and Euro-American subgroups. De Leon believes the reason is that Puerto Rican culture encourages displays of affection for family, concern for others, and concern for children—traits that describe the feminine type in the BSRI. The listed studies indicate to us the role of culture in the creation of gender types, as well as a clear lack of scientific work in this area. In Chapter Six we will continue our discussion of the connections between gender and culture.
Controversy over the Sandra Bem Questionnaire and the concept of androgyny
The BSRI has been the subject of much scientific controversy, much of it involving complex methodological issues (Baldwin et al., 1986; Bern, 1979; Hargreaves et al., 1981; Kottke, 1988; Locksley & Colten, 1979; Lubinski et al., 1981; Marsh & Byme, 1991; Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979; Spens & Helmrich, 1981; Taylor & Hall, 1982). Other existing instruments for measuring androgyny are the Personality Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) (Spens, Helmrich, & Stapp, 1974); Sex-Rep Instrument (Baldwin et. al., 1986); ANDRO scale (Berzins et al., 1978); Sex Role Behavior Scale (Oriofsky et al., 1982).
Even the concept of androgyny itself came under attack (Ashmore, 1990; Sedney, 1989). Boehm herself (Bern, 1981, 1993) lamented that the concept of androgyny implies that some of the endorsed qualities are “masculine” and some are “feminine,” which is fundamentally contrary to our intention to reduce gender polarization. Many psychologists suggest abandoning the terms “masculinity” and “femininity” altogether, which only reinforce gender differences and stereotypes (Betz, 1993). Spens & Helmrich (1981) suggested using the following terms instead: instrumentality, which reflects assertiveness and competence (key aspects of traditional masculinity), and expressiveness, which represents qualities traditionally associated with femininity, such as caring, caring others, emotional expressiveness and sensitivity (Betz, 1993).
In his book (1993), Bem admits that the concept of androgyny is far from the real state of affairs: based on it, changes must occur at the personal level, while in reality, the elimination of gender inequality will inevitably require changes in the structure of social institutions. Another intractable problem lies in the possible loss of positive social identity, which will entail a flattening of the male-female dichotomy. In Chapter 5 we will see how strong identification with one's own gender and emphasizing its differences from the opposite sex can benefit our self-esteem. Nevertheless, a world made up of people who are both instrumental and expressive seems tempting to me. I agree with Bem that androgyny, despite the problems hidden in it, makes it possible to build a picture of a utopia, where a person does not need to give up those qualities and behaviors that his society considers inappropriate for gender. The importance of this concept is also that it makes us aware of the equal attractiveness of qualities that are traditionally considered feminine and qualities that we are accustomed to consider masculine. This is especially important in light of the fact that masculine qualities are still being portrayed as more normative and desirable (cf. Bern, 1993; Miller et al., 1991; Tavris, 1992).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter discussed a range of issues related to the role of culture in the creation of gender, the variety of ways in which gender-related cultural norms are transmitted, and the motivations that drive us to conform to culture's gender-role expectations. I realize that you may still be resisting a non-biological understanding of the nature of gender differences. You may, for example, share the view of sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson (1978).
According to sociobiologists, differences in the behavior of men and women have arisen naturally, or more precisely, such differences contributed to the survival of individuals, which led to an increase in their occurrence in the population. Indeed, the division of some types of labor by gender appears to have been important for survival at some point in history. As Williams and Best (1986) rightly noted, women's freedom of movement was limited because they were always required to care for babies. Thus, since the woman was “locked in a cave,” it made sense for her to take on the remaining concerns associated with caring for children and running the household. In contrast, hunting and war required mobility and strength, making them respectively male occupations.
For the group as a whole, it was also preferable for men to engage in such dangerous activities rather than women, since the loss of a large number of female offspring threatened the entire group with extinction.
Buss and Bames (1986) and Kenrick and his colleagues (Kenrick et al., 1990) believed that traits such as male dominance and female nurturance may have emerged through natural selection and evolution. Following their biosocial or evolutionary view, men were selected for traits associated with dominance and social status, and women for traits indicating high reproductive potential and the ability to care for offspring. Again, such traits are assumed to have a positive effect on the reproductive process and therefore become more common in the population. A number of studies on couple choice have shown, first, that women are more attracted to men who appear socially dominant, while men are attracted to attractive and younger women, and second, that these differences are observed in most cultures (Buss, 1989; Buss & Bames, 1986; Kenrick et al., 1990). The authors of these studies believed that these differences correspond to an evolutionary model in which males obtain food and protect offspring, while females produce and raise them.
Unfortunately, at this stage of development of scientific knowledge, we cannot provide direct evidence that such gender differences in partner preferences (as well as other differences in behavior and psychological qualities) are written in the genetic code or depend on hormonal levels. Indeed, the research conducted by sociobiologists, which they constantly cite as support for the theory of naturally occurring gender differences, contains errors and thus provides us with dubious support for the sociobiological explanation of the nature of gender (for criticism of this research, see Fausto-Steriing, 1985). Moreover, alternative explanations rely on fairly plausible considerations of the social sources of gender differences. For example, in Kenrick et al.'s (1990) study, women rated their partner's ability to earn money as more important than men. Obviously, this is based on the fact known to both men and women that a woman has less opportunity to earn money, and therefore a man is seen as the main breadwinner. The reason may also be social norms, which suggest that a man’s value is largely determined by his ability to earn money. Imagine how many little girls hear from their parents that they need to grow up quickly and find a rich groom. Is it possible that these norms developed because, before the advent of formula and birth control in the mid-20th century, child care left women dependent on men?
Let us assume that at one time the different behavior of men and women served the survival of the human individual. Does this mean that these differences are preserved in the genetic code? No, not at all necessary. Indeed, it is quite possible that the mechanism that served for the hereditary transmission of these differences was of a social nature. Based on the fact that sex differences in the behavior of animals are instinctive in nature, many conclude that the situation is exactly the same in humans. But we must not forget that our brain, unlike the weak brain of animals, leaves only a small part of behavior to instincts, and much more is associated with learning. This is why humans have successfully spread across the globe and exhibit astonishing diversity in behavior. The rapid (in a historical sense) changes that women's roles have undergone in the last century demonstrate the importance of culture in the creation and destruction of gender differences. These changes are more revolutionary than evolutionary in nature. For example, how can biology explain the fact that over the years the gap in the performance of men and women on mathematical and spatial tasks has become increasingly narrower? As Rosenthal and Rubin put it, these changes occur “faster than the gene moves” (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982, p. 711).
Myers (1990) pointed out another important counterargument regarding sociobiology and gender roles. We remember that for a sociobiologist, gender role differences exist insofar as they contribute to the survival of individuals of a given species. However, Myers noted that this position can be easily refuted: indeed, if gender roles were arranged differently, they would no less successfully contribute to the survival of individuals. For example, he wrote, strength and aggressiveness in women had every right to be preserved in the course of natural selection, since a strong and aggressive woman can better protect her children.
It should be noted that even if there was once a special meaning for a woman to focus on caring for children (first of all, she has mammary glands, and artificial feeding has only recently appeared) and a man to be aggressive, this is far from does not mean that such differences in behavior are still adaptive (that is, they contribute to the survival of individuals). Myers (1990) noted that the wisdom of evolution is the wisdom of the past; it tells us what behaviors were adaptive in the past, but cannot tell us whether these tendencies remain so today. Bem (Bern, 1993), objecting to sociobiologists, accused them of paying too little attention to the ability of humans to change their environment through cultural methods and, therefore, to change something in themselves. She cited many examples in which culture and technology freed man from what at first seemed to be significant biological limitations.
Modern society is information-oriented, and therefore physical strength and aggressiveness are not very important for achieving success in such a world (Kenrick, 1987). At the same time, the majority of modern women are employed in some kind of work besides domestic work in order to have food, maintain an average standard of living, or realize themselves. Thus, the role of the sole guardian for her offspring is no longer adaptive for a woman. Now adaptive behavior would be to try to involve fathers as actively as possible in raising children. Hoffman and Hurst (1990) rightly saw the sad irony that, although in most modern societies the original reasons for the division of labor have long ceased to be convincing and are not nearly as obvious as they once were, everything continues to remain in place.
Although Freud once said, “Anatomy is destiny,” we now know that a woman does not have to be the primary caregiver or even have children, and a man does not have to be aggressive at all costs. Of course, the fact that a woman has a uterus and mammary glands makes her more predisposed (compared to men) to giving birth and caring for babies. And the fact that a man is larger and stronger leads us to believe that it is he, and not the woman, who is predisposed to physical aggression. However, as Degler (1990) rightly noted, even if a biological or evolutionary basis for human behavior exists, this does not mean that people must necessarily be completely under its control. Sociobiologists, namely E. O. Wilson (1978) and Donald Symons (1985), expressed the idea that aggressive polygynous men, whose contribution to procreation ended in fertilization, were more resistant to the factors of natural selection. But men can be monogamous, non-aggressive and caring. According to Degler (1990), it is not evolution or natural selection that determines our own values in life.
We are in no way, of course, trying to deny the role of the evolutionary past. Indeed, the powerful influence that social context and culture have on our behavior may themselves have roots in evolutionary processes. For example, it is possible that the tendency of people to form social units and be influenced by social information was isolated through natural selection, since those people who existed in groups and paid sufficient attention to the behavior of others were more likely to survive. We are also far from denying the influence of physiology on human behavior. Indeed, there is compelling evidence that up to 50% of a person's personality traits are transmitted genetically and that many mental disorders rooted in physiology. However, biology is more successful at explaining interindividual than intergroup (for example, ethnic or gender) differences. In short, biology matters a lot, but there are things that play a much more important role in human behavior than biology. We will not make progress toward understanding gender or reducing gender inequality until we examine the sociocultural contexts in which people live and work.
SUMMARY
Gender stereotypes often act as social norms. Normative and informational pressure forces us to conform to gender norms. The effect of normative pressure is that we try to conform to gender roles in order to gain social approval and avoid social disapproval. We can talk about information pressure when we begin to consider gender norms correct because we are influenced by social information. We live in a culture where men tend to do some things and women do others, where gender differences are considered natural; therefore, we accept and follow gender norms.
Conformity to gender norms may be observed in behavior but not in a belief system (compliance), or in both behavior and a belief system (approval, internalization), or may be determined by the desire to be like a peer or role model (identification). People conform to traditional gender roles to varying degrees, with some being extremely gender-typed and highly subservient to gender roles. Those who have had a critical experience of gender socialization, when any deviation from the gender role inevitably entailed severe social consequences, are most likely to be gender-typed.
Through a process called differential socialization, we learn that a person will have different interests, behaviors, and psychological traits depending on their gender. Differential socialization uses two main mechanisms: differential reinforcement and differential imitation. Differential reinforcement is where men and women are rewarded or punished based on their behavior, interests, etc. We begin to talk about differential imitation when the child is finally determined regarding his gender and begins to observe with special attention the behavior of role models of the same sex and imitate them.
Parents are not the only ones involved in the process of differential socialization. Information about appropriate gender role behavior is conveyed through children's literature, television, and spoken language.
Research clearly indicates the large contribution of these sources to the stereotypical perception of men and women.
Children's toys also play a certain role in the development of gender-typical skills and qualities. According to research, toys for boys are more likely to develop spatial and math skills, while toys for girls encourage the development of housework and interpersonal skills. Among the toys that children ask for as gifts, most are typical for their gender, and researchers believe that these preferences are shaped by the social environment in early childhood.
Although there is a lot of scientific controversy surrounding how to measure androgyny, there is reason to believe that it is desirable for a modern person to have approximately equal numbers of masculine and feminine traits.
Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists believe that differences in the behavior of men and women emerged through natural selection because they contributed to survival. However, even if such differences once contributed to the survival of the species, this does not mean that they are preserved in the genetic code, are relevant in the modern world, and that we should allow biological differences to impose moral values on us.
Lecture 1. Introduction to gender psychology.
Plan
- history of the formation of gender psychology.
- factors influencing gender stratification,
- subject and tasks of gender psychology,
- basic concepts, methods used,
- theories and concepts.
A brief history of the formation of gender psychology
Gender psychology is a field of psychological science. And like other areas, it has a very long background and a very short history. But it would be inappropriate to consider this history only from the 70s. XX century It is also not entirely correct to consider it the brainchild of feminism alone, although its great merit is to draw attention to some modern psychological problems.
In the few articles devoted to the history of gender psychology, it is associated with completely different names and ideas that do not coincide among different authors (perhaps only 3. Freud is present in all reviews). Sometimes it seems that we are talking about different areas of knowledge (for example, they mean the psychology of sexual differences, the psychology of women, feminist psychology or the psychology of relationships between men and women, etc.). We will first of all turn to scientific research of the problem.
Although the term “gender” (social sex, sex as a product of culture) appeared relatively recently (in 1975), nevertheless, there were developments and ideas in science that we can attribute to this area of psychology.
In the history of gender psychology, 5 stages can be distinguished:
1) development of relevant ideas in line with philosophy (from ancient times to the end of the 19th century);
2) the formation of the subject and sections of gender psychology (late 19th - early 20th centuries);
3) the “Freudian period” associated with the name of Z. Freud and psychoanalysis (beginning of the 20th century - 1930s);
4) the beginning of extensive experimental research and the emergence of the first theories (1950-1980s);
5) rapid development of gender psychology: a surge in experimental research, theoretical understanding of empirical facts, adaptation of known methods and techniques for studying gender issues and the creation of specific gender techniques (from the 1990s to the present).
In domestic science, slightly different stages are distinguished (late 19th - early 20th centuries; 1920-1930s; 1960-1980s; since the 1990s), we will consider them in parallel with foreign ones.
When talking about the ancient period of gender studies, the names of Plato and Aristotle are usually mentioned. I will follow this tradition.
Plato of Athens (427-347 BC) in his works “Feast”, “State”. “Laws”, “Timaeus” and others introduced the concept of androgynes and expressed the idea of the complementarity of the sexes, examined family and marriage relations, and approached the idea of equality of the sexes (due to this he is called the first ancient “feminist”).
Plato used the myth of androgynes (from the Greek. andros- man and gyne or gynaikos- woman) - creatures that had the properties of both women and men. Zeus was angry with the people for their courage and disobedience and divided them into two halves. Thus, men and women are two halves of one person, and only by uniting (when they love each other) can they gain integrity. Plato proposed establishing norms of behavior in marriage - in in particular. limit birth rates: men should only have children between the ages of 30 and 55. If there is an overabundance of the population, part of it must be resettled in colonies.
Plato’s attitude towards women was contradictory: on the one hand, negative, since he considered her a lower being, a man’s love for a woman was forced and low compared to love-friendship for a man (he called the first “vulgar Aphrodite”, and the second - “heavenly Aphrodite”), and finally, he argued that if a man was a coward and a dishonest person, then after death his soul passes into a woman. On the other hand, this attitude was positive: in the ideal state that he described, a woman could participate in all matters on an equal basis with a man, Plato freed her from the need to run a household, and considered her professional abilities equal to men’s (women could even be philosophers and warriors) , and the upbringing of children was the responsibility of both sexes equally.
These ideas can later be found in the works of many specialists, including those in gender psychology.
Aristotle Stagirite (384-322 BC), unlike Plato, looks more like an “anti-feminist”.
We are interested in the following of his ideas: a) marriage laws; b) relations between husband and wife in the family; c) population limitation; d) ways to reduce excess population: e) the role of women and men in society; f) the division of labor between the sexes and g) in general, views on the essence of men and women, expressed in such works as “Politics”, “On the Origin of Animals”, etc.
Thus, Aristotle believed that harmonious relations in society are possible. only if the population is small enough. Therefore, it is necessary to regulate it: a) by prohibiting a man from having children under 37 years of age, and a woman from having children under 18 years of age (obviously, this meant maturity, but for a man it is social, and for a woman it is biological, and this also shows a different attitude to the floors); b) by killing sick children (and this should be legalized): c) by establishing for each family a norm of how many children it can have.
The relationship between wife and husband, according to Aristotle, should be that of slave and master. In sexual relationships, as in everything else. should adhere to the ethical principle of arete (“mean between two vices"): self-control is the mean between licentiousness and insensitive stupidity. The only meaning of the separation of the sexes is the birth of children, and the purpose of a woman is to bear offspring and run the household. In a family, husband and wife have different responsibilities and do not interfere in each other's affairs. The norms of behavior for men and women are different: what is a virtue for a woman (for example, silence) is not for a man, and vice versa.
Man and woman are not equal beings. A woman gives a child a body, a man a soul, the soul is better and more divine than the body. A man is the norm, a woman is a deviation from it. A man is higher, a woman is lower by nature.. A man rules, a woman submits.
Leaving aside the statement about the “natural naturalness” of inequality between men and women, we note that many of Aristotle’s thoughts are still repeated by people in XXI c., gender stereotypes are so tenacious. Usually, turning to Aristotle is considered good form: “Aristotle also said...”, but in this case it is hardly worth repeating thoughts expressed in a society where the norms of behavior were far from those that are considered civilized today.
In the Renaissance we are interested in utopias. Thomas More (1478-1535) described an ideal state in his Golden Book. In it, the occupations of men and women do not differ: these are science, art, social, as well as religious activities (as priests), military service (though only together with their husbands). Both men and women can occupy senior positions. Marriage is not based on love, but on the similarity of characters; married couples are selected by their parents.
This refers to the future gender issues: equality of abilities of men and women for various occupations and learning, as well as leadership abilities; The problem of gender relations is also raised.
Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639) in “City of the Sun” paints an ideal city. The education of men and women does not differ (they are also trained in the art of war), and their clothing does not differ. However, their occupations are somewhat different: men do more difficult physical work, and women give birth. But there is no family. True, there is a problem of selecting partners for having children. It is solved with the help of astrology, but the decision is made by a triumvirate of bosses who regulate the birth rate in society. Thus, in modern terms, Campanella expressed the idea of equality of abilities between the sexes, pointed out the influence of similarity in clothing on the similarity of personality characteristics and behavior, and strictly regulated gender roles.
Later, several interesting ideas regarding gender psychology were expressed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He analyzed the similarities and differences between the sexes, expressed ideas about different norms of behavior for men and women (what would later be called “gender stereotypes”), and also discussed the peculiarities of women’s education and men and about relationships in marriage.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) divided men and women, firstly, by the nature of participation in political life and, secondly, by characteristics of personality and behavior. Men are characterized by active citizenship (participation in political decision-making, independence of judgment), while women are characterized by passive citizenship (object of management). Some qualities of a woman are associated with the birth of children (she is fearful, weak), others are associated with her role in ennobling society (well-behaved, eloquent, judicious, with an expressive face). The gender stereotypes expressed by Kant turned out to be very tenacious: even today there is a widespread opinion that women are not capable of making political decisions, and that their properties are associated with biological and cultural destiny.
As you can see, very often thinkers of the past noted the differences between men and women, but the reason for these differences often seemed to them “natural”, “natural”. Gender stereotypes are also often built on this basis - it’s accepted because it happened that way. Modern science requires different evidence and arguments.
English writer Mary Wollstonecraft expressed the idea that the “natural” inclinations and characteristics of women and men are the result of education. Girls dress up and play with dolls, and boys play other games - noisy, active ones (today this is commonly called “gender socialization”).
The French thinker Francois Marie Charles Fourier expressed ideas about reflecting the status of women and men in society in language, about the leadership of men and women, about gender relationships (sexual and marital) and about birth control. He paid attention to the words used to designate men and women. If in a language a profession or belonging to a social group is called only by “masculine” words, this is a sign of gender inequality. He proposed creating a “neutral” language - with an equal number of masculine and feminine names. For example, this is the omniarch and omniarchine - the rulers of the Earth. Other pairs of words: Caesar and Caesarina, caliph and caliph, sultan and sultan, etc.
The idea of the German romantic Friedrich Schlegel about a holistic personality that combines the personal characteristics of both men and women is interesting. Unlike many predecessors, he did not emphasize the “natural” difference between the sexes in these characteristics, but, on the contrary, advised men to develop the feminine qualities they lacked (for example, emotionality), and women to develop the masculine ones (rationality).
This idea of each sex learning from the other and adopting from him what is weak and undeveloped sounds very modern (for example, managers are recommended to learn from members of the opposite sex) and helps to improve gender relations.
So, at the first stage, different scientists expressed individual ideas that were later useful in the development of gender psychology. But it has not yet emerged as an independent area. And, in essence, at this stage there were no works that were entirely devoted to the problems of interest to us.
The second stage (late 19th - early 20th centuries) is the period of formation of the subject and natural scientific foundations of gender psychology.
At this time, the situation in society changed in many Western countries. In France, England and the United States, the women's liberation movement gained momentum. It also happened in Russia. This movement, which, I repeat, we do not consider part of the history of gender psychology as a science, nevertheless had a stimulating influence on it, primarily in that it attracted the attention of scientists to the development of problems that were not previously considered the subject of psychology.
The concept of feminism (from lat. femina- woman) appeared in French language in the first half of the 19th century. (later than the phenomenon that it means). In 1830, another term appeared - “emancipated woman" (from lat.eman-cipatio- liberation). Participants in this social movements are both women and men. Direction struggle - providing women have equal rights with men: electoral, economic (participation in social production), education and sexual freedoms.
Feminism arose in France during the Great Revolution - at the end of the 18th century. During this period, Olympia de Gouges “came out with the “Declaration of the Rights of Women,” and this was the only protest against the existing contradiction in legislation: on the one hand, the Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed the equality of all people, on the other hand, according to the Napoleonic Code, women were given a place only in the family (i.e., lower social status than men). The Declaration of the Rights of Women demanded that women be given equal voting rights with men, the right to participate in all public events and the right to hold all positions. The Convention allowed women to participate in the discussion of political issues and speak in print. However, women were not given the right to vote. During the revolutionary events of 1848, the question of women's suffrage was raised again, and again it was denied.
In the middle of the 19th century. The suffragette movement is actively developing in England. suffrage - vote). They won the right to vote in municipal elections, but only for unmarried women paying state taxes. In 1867, the first international women's society was created in London. Its president was a man - the famous scientist and public figure John Stuart Mill.
In the 1860s. in England there was another direction - abolitionism, the struggle for equal rights in sexual life and, in particular, against police surveillance of female prostitution. And it was indeed abolished - at the end of the 19th century, although the abolitionists were accused of calling for debauchery.
Feminists achieved their greatest success in the United States: they were allowed to be school teachers, and by the end of the 19th century. Among public school teachers, two thirds were women. It took longer to achieve voting rights. It is important that the fight for women's rights went in parallel with the fight for the abolition of slavery.
In Russia, the “equal rights” movement set narrower goals—the right to education and labor activity. At the end of the 1880s. in Moscow, Odessa and St. Petersburg, higher women's courses were opened, which trained doctors and teachers (in St. Petersburg they were called Bestuzhevsky - after the name of the founder), a women's medical institute, female Pedagogical Institute. Although a number of women (according to property qualifications) were granted the right to vote, only men (husbands or relatives) could vote on their behalf. Public women's organizations were created that provided assistance to women in need (with housing, finding work, money).
Another factor that influenced the development of gender psychology was the joint education of representatives of both sexes in educational institutions (Bagrunov, 1981). This prompted researchers to compare these representatives with each other. In parallel, two branches of a new branch were formed: the psychology of women and the psychology of sexual differences.
In 1899, two books by the Russian author P. E. Astafiev were published - “The Concept of Mental Rhythm as a Scientific Basis for the Psychology of the Sexes” and “The Mental World of a Woman, Its Features, Advantages and Disadvantages.” He allocates time like important factor mental life (speed of change of mental acts and events). According to this factor, the mental types of men and women differ. Women are distinguished by a faster mental pace, men - by a slower one. A woman’s calling is not to create, but to be the hope of society - a feminine woman.
Accordingly, men are characterized by opposite characteristics: analytical thinking, the ability to concentrate, strong will, short speech, etc.
Men are also characterized by individuality in appearance and character, which is absent in women. These differences are explained by the structure of the body: in men it is angular, defined, sharply defined, while in women it is wavy and soft.
In later studies, many assumptions about gender differences were not confirmed (in particular, men were superior to women in the speed of almost all reactions), while others were confirmed (the nature of the speech behavior of men and women, the greater originality of men).
The work of the Austrian scientist Otto Weininger (1880-1903) “Sex and Character” caused a storm of controversy that has not subsided to this day. On the one hand, he expressed a lot of ideas that were striking in the accuracy of his observations of the behavior of both sexes. On the other hand, some of them are completely unacceptable, as they are permeated with the spirit of misogyny (hatred of women).
The story of the book's appearance was sensational. After releasing her, 23-year-old Weininger committed suicide. The thoughts expressed in it were new and violated generally accepted moral norms. But we are interested only in those that were productive for the further development of gender psychology.
These are ideas: a) about bisexuality and androgyny; b) about gender differences in the psyche; c) about gender sexual relationships.
According to Weininger, in addition to the two main sexes, there are “intermediate forms of sex.” Masculine and feminine are two poles ideal states(similar to physical states - ideal gas, for example). They form the two ends of a continuum, and between them are innumerable transitional stages. For example, these are men with feminine shapes (wide pelvis, large breasts, little body hair) and women with masculine shapes (narrow hips, flat chest, low voice and mustache). Moreover, this is not a deviation from the norm (hermaphroditism), but the norm itself. All individuals, to one degree or another, possess both male and female traits, that is, a person is bisexual by nature.
At the end of the 19th century. The first studies of women began to be conducted - in Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, and the Netherlands. Several monographs have appeared devoted to them or their comparison with men, in particular the works of T. Higginson, L. Fratti, X. Lange, M. Lefebvre, X. Marion, L. Marholm. E. Kay (the last three authors are women); G. Ellis’s interesting monograph “Man and Woman” was translated into Russian in 1898.
However, the Dutch scientist G. Heymans can be considered a real pioneer of the new branch of psychology. Firstly, his book “Psychology women"(1911) differed from previous works in its scientific nature: style, argumentation, reference to research by other authors. Secondly, he himself conducted two large-scale studies. His book and research deserve detailed consideration. I will list some provisions from the book by G. Gaymans, which are also relevant for modern gender psychology, and will also provide some data from his review of studies of sex differences (according to physiologists and doctors). This review demonstrates the state of science at the beginning of the 20th century.
- Differences between women and men are statistical in nature - in the form of trends, while a particular man and woman may not correspond to these trends.
- Women have begun to be studied very actively, but it is necessary to study the psychology of men separately.
- The gender factor of the researcher is important. Men underestimate the complexity of women psyche, A women exaggerate it.
- Women were found to have a smaller volume of consciousness. Because the hysteria more often occurs in women, and it is characterized by a narrowed consciousness, then the volume of consciousness in women is less than in men. Men can talk and do things, a woman can only do one thing. The woman does not reflect and is not aware of her feelings (for example, fatigue while walking).
- Suggestibility is not related to gender. Emotional women and emotional men are more suggestible and susceptible to the influence of others compared to unemotional representatives of both sexes.
- Emotionality in women is their main difference from men. Girls are more likely than boys to give an aesthetic assessment to new objects, and boys are interested in their purpose. Girls react more emotionally to praise and reproach; they are easier to move, cause laughter and tears.
- Women perceive better, but observe worse.
- Women have the best memory. But the degree of memory development should be taken into account. A higher percentage of exceptional memory was noted in men, and good and poor memory in women.
The value of Gaymans's research lies in the fact that he described characteristics of behavior that usually remain beyond the attention of psychologists.
According to the magazine PsychologicalAbstracts, From 1950 to 1980, 30 thousand papers on sex differences were published.
In domestic science in the late 1960s. a more or less favorable atmosphere was created for the development of gender issues. Enormous credit here belongs to B. G. Ananyev, the creator of the Leningrad-Petersburg school of psychologists. The principle of sexual dimorphism has been declared one of the fundamental principles of psychological research. B. G. Ananyev not only organized these studies, but also gave them a deep theoretical assessment. Global differences between women and men were highlighted: earlier maturation of the former, greater stability of the female body and psyche, greater typicality of women and originality of men. Until now, in foreign gender psychology there are no works with such a level of theoretical generalization, despite the abundance of experimental facts.
Sexual differences have been studied in a very wide range: from animal psychology (N.A. Tikh) and psychophysiology to social psychology. Sex differences in psychomotor skills (I. Ya. Kruminya), body reactivity (G. I. Akinschikova), neuropsychic regulation systems (L. V. Buravtsova), intelligence (M. D. Dvoryashina, L. A. Baranova), communication were studied , social perception and interpersonal relationships (A. A. Bodalev, V. N. Kunitsyna, I. S. Kon, N. N. Obozov, etc.), production activity (E. S. Chugunova, V. N. Panferov, S. M. Mikheeva and others), conformity (V. A. Losenkov).
The fifth period (from the 1990s to the present) is characterized by the rapid development of gender psychology. Signs of the blossoming of this field include a new surge in experimental research, theoretical understanding of empirical facts, the beginning of cross-cultural research throughout the world, the adaptation of known methods and techniques for the study of gender, and the creation of specific gender methodologies.
At a new stage, scientists began to develop a more subtle understanding of gender issues. The areas in which sex differences are most often found (in particular, male superiority in visuospatial abilities) have become known. They are tested in different cultures. There is a search for reasons that explain empirical facts. Research began to be more carefully planned. A lot of techniques have been discovered that have proven to be sensitive to the study of men and women.
In many countries, on the basis of gender research (including psychology), textbooks are being changed, and education is being restructured taking into account a gender approach. Numerous companies have a policy of equal opportunities for male and female managers. The latter are trained under special programs. Psychologists and psychotherapists also implement a gender approach. Thus, the implementation of gender research results into practice has begun.
Sex stratification.
Let's consider another aspect of gender issues that is relevant to the history of human development. In many cultures, the two sexes are viewed as unequal. This phenomenon is called stratification of the sexes (i.e., their inequality).
In a number of cultures, there is a phenomenon in which men and women occupy unequal positions in society (usually men have an advantage, but this is not necessary).
In primitive society there was no sexual division of labor: the occupations and responsibilities of all men (with the exception of shamans) and all women were the same.
In a barbarian society, only leaders and their warriors could lead an idle life; the rest were engaged in housekeeping, agriculture or cattle breeding. But the most worthy occupation, which brought glory and booty, was considered military affairs.
A hierarchy was also formed in the assessment of different occupations in the Middle Ages: agricultural ones were considered the best (although this did not prevent peasants from being treated as inferior beings), and the most disapproved were usury and trade; Crafts were also considered sinful.
During the Renaissance, the attitude towards work changed: it acquired religious and ethical value, laziness began to be considered a vice, and professional competence- dignity.
This is how the prestige of work and individual occupations was formed, and in the future this led to gender discrimination: some occupations began to be considered male, others - female, and very often it was the former that were prestigious, and the latter not (for example, the public work of the former compared to domestic work second).
Perhaps women are trying to get away from housework precisely because it is not prestigious. There are cases when women preferred to work for hire in other people's families, rather than in their own, in order to have “work for money”, which is more encouraged by society and more standardized than non-prestigious, free domestic work that is not limited by strict time frames. Payment for this labor (calculation of pensions for housewives raising children, adopted back in the USSR) does not solve the problem as long as it remains secondary in the perception of men and the entire society.
Education was also an important factor determining gender inequality.
In the 16th century in the European village, women were entirely illiterate, and among men, 3% of farm laborers and 10% of wealthy peasants were literate.
In the 17th century In France, half of the men and a quarter of the women were literate. But a person's position in society was determined not only by formal education. but also knowledge in itself. Thus, the shaman’s knowledge, which other members of the primitive tribe did not have, provided him with a special status and even contributed to gaining power - the leader of the tribe was often a shaman.
Other cultures had different attitudes towards women's education - in India, for example, it was positive, while in other Asian countries it was negative.
From the very beginning, ideologists of the feminist movement associated literacy and education with the position of women in society. In Europe and Russia, under the influence of the suffragette movement and other “equal rights” in the early 20th century. There were different attitudes towards women's education - from full support to acute rejection.
The next factor in gender inequality was property. Since in many societies property gave power and high status, the fact that women did not have it determined their subordinate position. But there were exceptions to this rule.
Thus, in the Iroquois Indian tribe, property was passed on through the maternal, not paternal, line.
Currently, the economic factor is still of great importance. It determines the status of a woman both in society in general and in the family in particular.
Possession of power is perhaps the most important factor influencing gender inequality. In many cultures, men have occupied and continue to occupy a dominant position. Women are an exception in this regard. And currently, gender inequality persists in the power structures of many countries. This state of affairs has traditionally been explained either by women's inability to govern or their reluctance to do so. This extended to the status of the head of the family.
The attitude of the church as an institution with power, and power structures in general, also influenced the unequal position of the sexes. Many denominations preach such inequality. Catholicism and Islam are considered the most irreconcilable towards women.
It is sometimes difficult to determine the attitude of society as a whole towards women.
The consequence of sexual stratification is a unique gender ideology, which develops in every culture and is expressed in ideas about the qualities desirable for men and women, respectively.
Subject, tasks and methods of gender psychology.
In my opinion, I. S. Kletsina approached the understanding of the subject of gender psychology and its sections most accurately.
The subject of gender psychology in the broadest sense is the mental characteristics that are associated with gender. The specification of this position is contained in various sections of this area of psychology. There are 6 large sections: 1) psychology of comparison between men and women; 2) psychology of women; 3) psychology of men; 4) gender socialization; 5) psychology of gender relations; 6) gender psychology of leadership.
- Psychology of comparison between men and women. Over the course of the history of gender psychology, this section has had various names: sexual dimorphism, sexual dippsychism, sexual differences, gender differences. The essence of the section is that Men and women, boys and girls are compared according to various parameters - from psychophysiological and neuropsychological to socio-psychological characteristics of the psyche. This does not necessarily establish differences. Similarities must also be established. The purpose of this comparison is to establish the uniqueness of the sexes, the specific characteristics of men and women. This section of gender psychology is the most developed, but not all parameters of the psyche have been studied yet.
- Psychology of women studies those features of the psyche and behavior of women that were not the subject of the first section. Very often in foreign works the psychology of women and the psychology of gender differences are intertwined. However, the psychology of women also has its own specific subject: those mental features that men do not have, primarily related to female physiology. Here the mental state of women during the menstrual cycle, defloration, pregnancy, childbirth, and menopause is studied. In addition, the subject of women's psychology is motherhood, women's employment and women's professions, women's unemployment, women's deviant behavior, and finally, specifically women's diseases. The list could be continued - many problems are still waiting to be studied. .
- 3. Psychology of men takes the first steps. The subject here is those mental characteristics that women do not have. In particular, the influence of male hormones on the ability of men to solve spatial problems is being studied. There are also specific male diseases (for example, related to the sexual sphere) that affect the psyche of men and which do not affect women. It is important to study the psychological factors of male mortality. You can explore male professions where there is not a single woman, as well as male groups - business, professional, clubs, companies where women are not allowed. Margaret Mead describes such clubs in various cultures. In short, there is an area that requires its development.
- Gender socialization. The subject of this area of gender studies is socialization, which consists of the formation of gender identity and the development of gender roles, including how gender stereotypes influence this process.
- Psychology of gender relations. The subject of this area is quite broad, since gender relations are not only relationships between the sexes, but also within each sex. In other lectures I will show that people behave differently in same-sex and mixed-sex groups. Communication in intimate groups - friendly, sexual, marital - is also of interest. Finally, deviant relationships between the sexes, in particular those related to violence, are being actively studied.
- 6. Gender psychology of leadership. This area could be considered a section
psychology of gender relations, but this is not entirely correct. Select
the following circumstances allow it to be included in a separate section: firstly, it
the issues go beyond just gender relations, covering both
differences between men and women leaders, and gender society
lization of leadership, and the psychology of women's management. Secondly, between
men and women often develop dominance-subject relationships
repair, leader and follower, and these processes require independent
research.
As for the tasks of gender psychology, its theoretical aspects include the development of theories and concepts, methods and techniques, conducting extensive research, and its applied aspects include the implementation of results and achievements in practice. A gender approach should become an integral part of the work of a psychologist: a researcher, a consultant, and a leader of training groups. This approach provides ample opportunities to help practitioners who work with people: managers, lawyers, teachers and educators, and medical workers.
At the beginning of the 20th century. In gender psychology, the following 5 research methods were adopted:
1. Rough induction. Within the framework of this method, common everyday statements about men and women, received, as a rule, from the researcher’s acquaintances, were analyzed. But the reliability of results based on the opinions of subjects is usually low: the fact is that at Most of them have an implicit (HIDDEN) gender theory about sexual differences, personality characteristics of women and men, etc.
- Experiment. Generally not widely used.
- Deduction. Achievements of general psychology and established V In it, the patterns were applied to the subjects taking into account their gender. At the same time, there was a danger that certain specific characteristics (in particular, women) would not be taken into account, since it was assumed in advance that all subjects similar on each other, i.e. they obey general laws. Especially often This method was used by French researchers. And in modern gender psychology, the results can be distorted due to the fact that, for example, when studying female subjects, scientists use methods that have proven themselves on male subjects.
- Biographical method. Used to analyze outstanding historical figures, however, its application to women is limited, since, firstly, there are few well-known historical figures among women, secondly, the historical roles of men and women are unevenly covered and, thirdly, the differences between famous and non-famous women and famous and non-famous men are not the same due to the fact that it is more difficult for a woman to achieve fame than for a man.
- Questionnaire Gaymans believed valuable method, but it was necessary to take into account some characteristics of the subjects - in particular, their emotionality.
Currently, gender psychology uses the entire arsenal of psychological methods: observation, experiment, questioning, interviewing, tests, modeling, etc. However, not all methods are suitable for studying gender issues. Some techniques need to be created anew or already known ones adapted specifically to study certain problems. But nevertheless, gender psychology has already formed its own arsenal of psychological techniques. We will consider many of them in the practical part of the topic being studied.
Theories and concepts
The theories and concepts of gender psychology can be divided into 6 categories depending on the section in which they appeared and what problem they explain.
These are the theories and concepts:
1) gender differences;
2) gender socialization;
3) psychology of women;
4) psychology of men;
5) psychology of gender relations;
6) gender psychology of leadership.
The development of ideas about women's gender identity and narcissism belongs to Z. Freud. In his work Femininity, he depicted women as envious of the male anatomy. They also had to be passive, dependent, subordinate, prone to masochism - it was this set, according to Freud, that was “feminine”. Men were portrayed differently: active, striving for power and control over the world, prone to sadism. Any deviation from these standards was considered a manifestation of an unhealthy gender identity.
Some psychoanalytic ideas about identity are still popular: for example, the idea that gender identity is formed in early childhood, through interactions with the mother, as well as with the father. Psychoanalysis also left us with a legacy of the concept of the phenomenon of narcissism. Normal narcissism (which occurs in a child in the first two years of life) - necessary element self-esteem and self-confidence ordinary person(all people need to be loved and admired to some extent).
Within the framework of cognitivism, 3 concepts are known: 1) “human information processing” by D. Hamilton; 2) “schema theory” by S. Taylor and J. Crocker and 3) gender schema theory by S. Bem. They all echo each other. Their essence is this.
A person strives to organize his knowledge about the world around him and resorts to schemes (i.e., stereotyped stimuli).
When processing social information, three types of schemas are used: personal (I), situational (I-YOU) and role-based (M-F).
The latter can be associated with gender (M-F) or with position (Chief-Subordinate), position in the group (Leader-Private).
The scheme allows you to quickly identify a social stimulus and predict its behavior. This is how stereotypes are born about how men and women should behave (gender stereotypes).
Boys and girls grow up in a world where the categories of “masculine” and “feminine” are very important. From all the surrounding information, boys choose what is “masculine,” and girls choose what is “feminine,” i.e., they use gender schemas. As a result, they internalize stereotypical behaviors for men and women. There are situations when an individual behaves “not according to the pattern” (i.e., deviates from the gender stereotype), but such cases are unpleasant, and the person strives to eliminate the discrepancy between the predicted behavior of the stereotype and the actual behavior of another person.
Sandra Bam's gender schema theory attempts to combine cognitivism with social learning theory. Children encode and organize information, including information about themselves, according to the dichotomous “masculinity-femininity” scheme. This includes data on the anatomy of men and women, their participation in the birth of children, their professions and division of activities (including housework), their personal characteristics and behavior. Having learned what this dichotomy means, the child sorts all information into two categories: for example, he classifies the concepts “sensitivity” and “nightingale” as “feminine,” and “assertiveness” and “eagle” as “masculine.” The next step is for the child to make a generalization: which attributes constitute “feminine” and which ones constitute “masculine.” A corresponding gender stereotype is formed - what boys can do and how they behave, and what girls can do and how. Anyone who behaves according to a stereotype has a gender typicality - a typical boy or a typical girl.
Gender socialization must be carried out according to the gender scheme, since the child will live in a society that is organized according to the principle of gender dichotomy. Some modern parents are raising their children in new ways. They buy boys and girls the same toys (dolls and cars), clothes in both pink and blue. Moms and dads do the same housework (dad does the laundry, and mom repairs the iron). Children play the same games, etc. But the child grows up not only in the family. He watches TV, observes the behavior of men and women in real life, and he will still understand that a boy combined with dolls is not normal. Parents should help the child sort information into “male-female.”
Thus, all concepts that explain differences between the sexes can be divided into two broad categories: biological and social.
Biological studies proceed from the fact that differences between men and women are explained by genetic and hormonal factors, brain structure, innate features of constitution, temperament, etc.
Social suggests that differences between the sexes are shaped by society and culture.
Humanity is changing. Changes affect even those things that, seemingly from time immemorial, have been and will remain unchanged. The gender roles of men and women are also undergoing changes. To be even more precise, in our time the boundaries between traditionally “masculine” and “feminine” are already difficult to distinguish.
The gender role and everything connected with it is a relatively new phenomenon and for our society remains a rather ambiguous and not fully understood category. Therefore, before delving into this topic, we need to define the basic concepts.
Biological sex– a set of genetically and hormonally determined characteristics of an organism, summarizing all its reproductive (sexual) characteristics that distinguish it from representatives of another biological sex and determine its role in the process of fertilization during sexual reproduction.
It is customary to talk about the existence of two types of biological sex: male and female.
Gender – social person's gender; characterization of a person in terms of masculinity (a set of physical, mental and behavioral characteristics considered masculine) or femininity (a set of qualities traditionally attributed to women or expected from women).
The modern world is dominated by binary gender system- dividing people into two opposing groups men and women.
It is interesting that not in all cultures gender is a significant social category, as in ours. There are societies where there are three or more genders, as well as many gender roles.
Gender role- view social roles, representing behavior, normative expected from male and female individuals. This behavior, which traditionally seen as appropriate for both men and women.
Social role- socially normalized behavior of a person who occupies a certain position in society and, in connection with this, has certain rights and responsibilities.
Thus, gender roles of men and women- these are forms of behavior expected by society from men and women.
But gender roles are not only expected, they are also:
- are prescribed
- are vaccinated (through upbringing and education),
- are getting used to
- are being fulfilled
- are violated
- accepted or rejected by the individual.
There is another concept related to gender – gender identity.
Gender identity- a person’s internal sense of himself as a representative of one gender or another, that is, a man, a woman or a representative of another category.
How are the gender roles of men and women formed?
A person is born male or female only in the biological sense, in the social sense he becomes man or woman. There are no differences in the behavior of female and male infants. There is no significant gender difference between a man and a woman!
Initially, representatives of both sexes are simply people. The set of human characteristics and qualities is the same, divided into male and female qualities conditionally accepted in society.
A boy becomes a man because he educate as a man, they develop traditionally masculine traits and qualities, instill appropriate principles and goals, and teach masculine models of behavior. Likewise, a girl learns to be a woman.
Boys and girls brought up differently, they are expected to behave differently, reinforce the manifestations of different character traits, and make different demands.
Is it any wonder then that, growing up, men and women look at each other as beings from different planets? How can they understand each other if they are different and no one taught them mutual understanding? Only through self-education and acquiring personal communication experience.
Gender roles of women and men are changing over the course of history, have been and remain different in different cultures and societies, differ depending on the economy, politics, religion and other social factors in the life of a particular society. But we can still talk about some traditionality gender roles that have been passed down from generation to generation for centuries.
In our society, the gender roles of men are traditionally designated as “Breadwinner”, “Owner”, “Defender”. They persist, but it’s impossible not to notice that “soft”, even feminine, masculinity has been in fashion for a couple of decades. What is increasingly valued in men is not physical strength, activity, courage, and the ability to take risks, but intelligence, forbearance, restraint, the ability to communicate, empathize and care.
Traditional gender roles for women: “Homemaker”, “Mother”, “Wife”. Society expects a woman to be kind, patient, modest, gentle, caring, understanding, and “homey.” But how many women in our time are socially active, active, work on an equal basis with men, often earning more than men?! The breadwinner is no longer He, but She. In a woman, not only beauty, kindness and thriftiness are valued, but also the ability to earn money, efficiency, determination, resistance to stress, and courage.
The most common gender role of women in our society has no name. This role, characteristic of women who are representatives of the working class, appeared in our society and became entrenched in it in the twentieth century. You can call this role " Universal Soldier". A woman is required to be a wife, mother, housewife, worker, breadwinner, protector - ideal always and in everything and at the same time successful everywhere!
Consequences of the struggle for equal rights
Women's struggle for gender equality, which began at the end of the nineteenth century, ended with many women now working for themselves and for men, and men abdicating part of the responsibility for raising funds to support the family, while not considering themselves obligated to help women with their needs. home and in raising children.
A modern woman takes on too much and, “turning” into a man, complains: “There are simply no normal men left!”
The gender role of men is also undergoing significant changes these days. She getting closer to the traditional gender role of a woman, just like the gender role of a woman to a man. Gender roles merge together.
Another trend is also observed. Men and women switch roles! For example, today it is becoming increasingly popular (especially in Western European countries) for men, rather than women, to go on maternity leave (and they do it voluntarily, of their own free will).
It was after women received equal rights with men that not equality, but a change in roles began to be observed.
Men and women legally have equal rights, but in fact remain unequal. A modern woman is more often both a Homemaker (the traditional role of a woman) and a Provider (the traditional role of a man), and a man is more often either a Provider or a Homemaker. This is what the movement and struggle for gender equality led to - to new inequality.
But the fact is that a man and a woman cannot be equal, because nature made them different! No matter how strong a person’s mind is and no matter how developed his personality is, he also biological being, nature also determines the gender role.
Even if a woman chooses a traditionally male gender role, and her man chooses a female one, there will come a time when their system goes wrong. This moment will be the birth of the child. No matter how feminine a man is, no matter how well he knows how to run a house and take care of children, there is something that will never allow him to fully realize himself in the female role - he cannot get pregnant and give birth to a child.
If both spouses have the same rights and responsibilities and are completely equal, there will be no family! Who will take care of the children if both work? Who will bring money into the house if both are unemployed?
Women solve this problem by shouldering a double burden of responsibility, but judging by the number of unhappy women, unhappy families, divorces and children growing up without a father, it is not difficult to guess that this approach to solving the problem ineffective.
Freedom to be yourself
It would seem, why in our time, when a man and a woman are equal in rights, can freely, voluntarily, without the obligatory consent of relatives, choose each other and create a family of love, there are so many unhappy couples? Is it because, retreating from traditions and nature, people simply do not understand How they can continue to live.
When people don’t know what to do with freedom, it becomes a greater evil for them than the need to live under someone’s strict leadership. But Liberty– this is the highest value, this is the opportunity to be yourself! A person today is free to choose who he should be and how he should live. He is not obliged to adhere to the gender role that is imposed and expected. Regardless of gender, it is important to be yourself!
If a girl likes to fight, why not become a professional boxer? If a boy likes to take care of younger children, why shouldn't he become a teacher? But the phrases “You’re a boy!” or “You’re a girl!” wean children understand yourself. As a result, the child speaks, acts and feels as expected, and not as he really experiences it.
The problem “I don’t know what to do with freedom of choice” grows out of the problem “I don’t know myself.”
Too traditional and strict, requiring strict adherence to social norms and stereotypical thinking, upbringing in childhood in adulthood leads to what is called gender role stress.
Gender role stress – This is a state of mental tension that occurs in the event of an inability to adhere to one’s gender role or, on the contrary, the need to adhere to behavior characteristic of the opposite gender role.
The trends observed today in developed countries are such that emphasizing gender differences is considered incorrect, since the traditional gender role has come to be understood as imposition the needs of society to the individual without taking into account his personal desires and goals. Society, by imposing certain patterns of behavior on a person, deprives him of the opportunity to be himself, and therefore to be happy.
On the other hand, if all people behave only the way they want, without being guided by social norms and requirements for themselves as a representative of a certain gender, the world risks losing such important institutions for the continuation of the human race as marriage and family! After all, it was the emergence of traditional gender roles of men and women that once upon a time gave rise to monogamy, the traditional family and the responsibility to take care of one’s children until they grow up!
Survey for women. Do you adhere to traditional gender-role norms of female behavior?
