GAS

FM-AA-CIA-15 Rev.
0 10-July-2020
Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__
STUDY GUIDE FOR MODULE NO. ___

1
CHAPTER 1: Anatomy and Destiny:

Biological Arguments about Gender Difference
MODULE OVERVIEW
This chapter introduces some of the issues and theoretical perspectives relevant in gender
research today before reflecting on the role gender plays in every stage of a person’s life.
MODULE LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Define what is gender and how it is produced.

2. To be able to discuss the rigidity of gender binaries, challenge biologically-based notions of
gender difference, and hypothesize how gender identity is formed through process of
socialization and social control.
LEARNING CONTENTS
Ecological Context: Theoretical Perspectives on Gender Differences
Biological Perspectives
It is generally accepted that females and males of any species exhibit distinct biological and
physiological differences that are present at birth. Based on this fact, proponents of the
biological perspective view the expression of sex in its cultural context (i.e., gender) as
predetermined by the genetic, physiological, and neural foundations of biological sex.
Research with mammals and nonprimate populations has provided evidence that prenatal
exposure and manip- ulation of androgens (male “sex hormones” that stimulate or control the
development and maintenance of masculine characteristics) and estrogens (female sex
hormones) correlate with measurable changes in brain development. In infants and children,
these differences align with gender- typical choices of toys and play behavior (Knickmeyer
& Baron-Cohen, 2006; Shepard, Michopolous, Toufexis, & Wilson, 2009).
In humans, similar patterns emerge: Studies of prenatal exposure to testosterone show that
high testosterone levels correlate with male-typical behaviors in childhood (Auyeung et al.,
2009; Hines, 2004). Such biological factors continue to shape behavior throughout life. For
example, there is evidence that testosterone level is related to aggressiveness. Because men
are known to have higher average levels of testosterone than women, they should be
expected to exhibit more aggressive behavior. And, in fact, a review of research on this topic
reveals that this is indeed the case (Archer & Mehdikhani, 2004).
PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1

FM-AA-CIA-15 Rev. 0 10-July-2020
However, it is entirely possible that in cultures that encourage aggressive behavior in both
genders, women may be more aggressive than men in cultures that discour- age aggressive
behaviors in general. In addition, there is clear evidence that females show more aggressive
behavior than males in certain situations, for example, when protecting their offspring
from predators.
Even though the biological research finds convincing evidence that genetic makeup and
hormonal exposure pre- dispose the developing brain to gender-typical behaviors, the next
section shows that the biological foundations alone are not sufficient to account for sex- and
gender-typical behavior throughout life.
Evolutionary Perspectives
According to theories of evolution, many gender differences may be explained by an

organism’s motivation to pass on genes by producing offspring and ensuring the
survival of the species at large (Buss, 1994a). Among humans, the particular way in which
this is accomplished appears to differ among men and women. Women, who have the ability
to produce a limited number of children over a lifetime, put their energy into creating an
environment that promotes the survival of a maximum number of children. To accomplish
this, many women’s activities are directed toward the family and involve food preparation,
home maintenance, and creation of a protective network of others who will assist in
completing larger tasks and in protecting against enemies (a part of the microsystem). In
other words, women create a developmental niche (or a microsystem) that will be most
favorable for the development of their children.
In contrast, men can produce an almost unlimited number of children, given the availability
of women. According to the evolutionary perspective, men strive to produce as many
children as possible because the more they have, the more will be likely to survive. To do
this, they have to compete with other men. Under these circumstances, much of their energy
is devoted to competing with other men for available women, and the focus is on physical
strength and aggressiveness.
Despite these different reproductive strategies, women and men have a common goal; this
ensures their children have the greatest possible chance of survival. According to Darwin’s
“survival of the fittest” doctrine, children have a greater chance of survival if both parents
have healthy genes. Consequently, men and women can increase the chances of their
children’s survival if they mate with a healthy partner. Both men and women enhance and
display those characteristics that are evolutionarily attractive in order to be chosen as mates.
According to this perspective, men tend to exhibit behavior that conveys strength and sexual
prowess, such as engaging in challenging sports and games or displaying symbols of wealth
and status—ranging from a Mercedes Benz in Europe to camels in Egypt. Women, however,
tend to reinforce symbols of youthfulness and health, such as smooth skin, healthy teeth and
hair, and a strong body, to communicate that they are young and fit enough to bear many
children. If one accepts this evolutionary view of reproductive strategies, then it may help
explain those social behaviors that are considered specific to women and men in most

societies.
Socialization and Learning Perspectives
Beginning at birth, individuals are socialized into their particular culture and taught the
values, beliefs, and behaviors that will permit them to successfully function within it (see
Chapter 3). From an early age, as part of the socialization process, children learn to conform
to the roles
that culture considers consistent with their biological sex. In general, girls are rewarded and
praised for exhibiting behavior considered desirable for a woman in that culture and
discouraged from showing undesirable, or gender- inappropriate, behavior. In turn, boys are
rewarded for “malelike” behavior and ridiculed if they exhibit behaviors reserved for girls or
women.
By no means are “feminine” and “masculine” behaviors consistent across cultures.

Occasionally, gender- specific norms may interact with cultural norms and modify gender
roles. For example, although modesty and humility are viewed in China as culturally
important values for all individuals, in other cultures these traits are more desirable, and
more expected, in women than in men. For example, Chinese women have been found to be
more self-effacing, modest, and less likely to take personal credit for accomplishments than
are men, even though the cultural norm requires modestyfrom both genders. However, other
sources suggest that these values,as well as gender socialization, areundergoing significant
change inChina and in other Asian countries(Hao & Chen, 2014).
In addition to direct reinforcement and punishment, children in most cultures also observe
same-sex adult role models and imitate the gender-appropriate behavior exhib- ited by these
models. These behaviors are further reinforced and become internalized as attributes of
gender-appropriate behavior patterns. In short, gender concepts are salient at many, if not
all, levels of the ecological system and linked to gender differences as they occur in various
cultures.
As Gibbons, Stiles, Perez-Prada, Shkodriani, and Medina (1996) have demonstrated, these
cultural “systems” influence the gender socialization of children. In their studies, the
researchers obtained drawings of the “ideal” woman and the “ideal” man from children and
adolescents in several different countries (see Figure 8.1). Although they found a common
tendency for the children to portray women as caring for children and the men as occupied in
work roles outside the home, the researchers also found specific cultural differences. For
instance, adolescents were more likely to draw the ideal woman in a nontraditional role as
businesswoman in cultures with “masculine” work values, and the ideal man in a
nontraditional role as caregiver in “feminine” cultures. The latter was the case in Norway,
where adolescents more often expect the “ideal” man to participate in housework (Stiles &
Gibbons, 1995). The researchers explain this finding by pointing out that Norwegians hold
very egalitarian beliefs about the roles and status of women and men in their society and
convey these beliefs to their children. Ideals may not always reflect social reality. For
example, in highly “masculine” cultures such as Japan, positions of power have been largely

held by men. Women have had only limited opportunity to achieve status and power, instead
they have tended to remain in subordinate positions, both in the workplace and in private life.
However, there is evidence that the role of Japanese women is changing, affecting the image
of women throughout Asia.
In summary, these different perspectives all propose a slightly different explanation for why
some behaviors seem to vary with gender. The biological perspective considers gendered
behavior a result of underlying biological and physiological processes. The evolutionary
perspective describes gendered behavior as the result of evolutionary processes. Gendered
behaviors represent behaviors that have evolved as most adaptive, considering both
biological attributes and environmental challenges. Finally, socialization and learning
theories see gendered behaviors as the result of a person’s individual learning history within
a specific sociocultural context. None of these perspectives can fully account for the
phenomenon of gender differences and how they originated. Nonetheless, each can explain
influences on various levels of the ecological system.
Keep this in mind during the upcoming discussion of how issues of sex and gender relate to
development in each stage of the lifespan.
Infancy
As described in Section 8.1.1, the foundations for behavior are shaped by an intricate
interaction of genetic and physiological factors. Even though these biological characteristics
vary significantly from person to person, and sometimes the classification of “male” or
“female” is ambiguous at best, culture creates an artificial dichotomy of two mutually
exclusive groups. Once the doctor or midwife announces “It’s a boy” or “It’s a girl,” the first
major decision in a child’s life has been made for him or her. The labels “male” and “female”
come with distinctive sets of normative expectations that build a framework for identity and
interactions with others in most situations. Furthermore, the assigned membership in one or
the other such exclusive category carries great implications for the individual and his or her
ecological system.
Gender Preference and Gender Ratio at Birth
Within the human population, the distribution of male and female births is approximately
equal, with only a slightly higher birthrate for males: 103 male births for every 100 female
births (CIA World Factbook, 2015).
Yet, there appear to be some striking differences among cultures, as can be observed in
recent demographic data (see Table 8.1). These data show that, compared to countries in
other parts of the world, in many Asian countries, male births outnumber female births by a
larger margin. For example, in China, 110 boys are born for every 100 girls. India (112 boys
per 100 girls) shows a similar pattern. Both countries contrast with Brazil and the United
States (105 boys born per 100 girls). Although these ratios do not sound vastly different, the
absolute numbers are astounding when taking into account total population. In the two
population-richest countries combined (China and India), there are close to 35 million more
male children than female children (ages 0–14 years). In comparison, boys outnumber girls
by only 2.5 million in the next two most populated countries combined (the United States
and Brazil). Researchers speculate that the cultural tradition of “son preference” along with
family planning policies in
the former countries have led to this imbalance in male-to- female birth rates.
In 2015, the figures showed only a few slight but not significant changes—some increases
and some decreases. For example, the total male-to-female ratio for the world was 1.01,
Brazil 0.97, China 1.06, India 1.08, New Zealand 0.99, South Africa 0.98, Sweden 1.00,
Taiwan 0.99, and United States 0.97.
According to cultural traditions in many societies, the family name and family property are
passed down patri lineally. Sons inherit the family wealth, name, and status, which they will

pass on to their sons. Male children are also often expected to support aging parents. A
daughter becomes part of her husband’s family and no longer has obligations toward her
birth parents. In addition, a dowry system may require parents to pay a dowry price to the
future husband. This may become a great financial bur- den for a family with more than one
daughter. Within such an ecological system, parents may prefer sons as insurance for
financial support and physical security in older age.
By virtue of the value that is placed on male and female offspring, male and female infants
are born into very different ecological systems at birth, and these ecological systems
influence development throughout life. For example, a newborn son or daughter will likely
have different numbers of older brothers or sisters depending on whether there is a cultural
preference for male children within the macrosystem and/or the availability of prenatal
gender determination technology within the exosystem. Almond and Edlund (2008) found
evidence for son preference among families within their analysis of census data in the United
States, focusing on statistics for families of Chinese, Korean, and Indian descent. In these
families, if the first two children were female, then the third child would be twice as likely to
be a boy rather than a girl. Moreover, when at least one of the first two children is a boy,
parents are less likely to have a third child.
In the larger population, these practices ultimately have greater social consequences. Male-
biased sex ratios have been thought to relate to increased violence and crime among young
men, as well as a reduction in unwanted births and female infant mortality.
Childhood
As pointed out in Chapter 3, parents are the primary source of socialization in the lives of
young children, and they introduce the important knowledge, values, beliefs, and expected
behaviors of the culture. One aspect of this concerns society’s expectations regarding
appropriate behavior for women and men or gender role stereotypes.
Lucas-Stannard (2013), discussing gender-neutral par- enting, presents an approach focusing

on a child’s self- identity. This book is recommended in the Further Reading section.
Gender Socialization
One of the most exhaustive investigations of gender stereotypes and attitudes was conducted
by Williams and Best (1990), who found significant differences between male and female
stereotypes in each of the twenty-five countries studied. In general, passivity,
submissiveness, affiliation, and nurturance were seen as more typical in descriptions of
women, whereas activity, dominance, achievement, and aggressiveness were more typical of
men. In this study, Williams and Best also found fascinat- ing evidence related to differences
in the socialization of gender stereotypes among children five to eleven years of age. For
example, across all age groups, children in most countries were more familiar with the male
stereotype than with the female, suggesting that male stereotypes are more dominant in their
lives and are learned earlier. Only in Brazil, Portugal, and Germany did five-year-old chil-
dren clearly identify more items associated with the female stereotype. Overall, Williams and

Best suggest that gender stereotypes are well established in children by the time they are
eight years old. After that age, they serve as powerful “blueprints” for behaviors that are
reinforced throughout life. Gender role stereotypes not only promote overt behavior and
prescribe types of clothing and social rituals, but they also influence the way in which men
and women in a given society view themselves and others. According to these researchers,
by the age of nine, children are already applying gender stereotypes in their descriptions of
themselves. In the case of the Midwestern siblings Alisa and Alan, both did well in school,
and both wanted a career. Yet, Alisa was raised according to the cultural stereotype of
women as caregivers. She cared for her husband and two children, and even after her
divorce, she continued her role as the caregiver of her elderly mother.
Feminist scholars frequently argue that these gender blueprints socialize women into lower-
status roles and dependency due to the differential positions of power either group holds in
society. Because, in most known societies, men tend to hold positions of power and to
distribute available resources, they frequently have the opportunity to define social roles for
both women and men. They also have the potential to use resources and status as rewards. To
preserve male social dominance, younger men are rewarded for conforming to the behavior
that later enables them to achieve positions of power in society. Among these desirable
behaviors are competitiveness, aggressiveness, and dominance. If men conform successfully
and “play by the rules,” then they will gain power, status, and access to resources.
Women, in contrast, are usually discouraged from exhibiting behaviors that are reserved for
men. Instead, an entirely different set of normative behaviors is defined for them. In many
cultures, they are expected to be submissive, nurturing, and weak. This feminine ideal is
defined by men to preserve male privilege. The idea is that weak and submissive individuals
are not likely to compete for resources and power. By conforming to this feminine ideal,
women become attractive and gain the recognition of powerful men. In turn, they may be
rewarded by receiving indirect access to power and resources. Women who refuse to
conform to the female gender role will be denied these resources and status. In this case, the
differing social status and power of women and men represent an important part of the
ecological system in which children grow up. Power differences between women and men
are related to their differential treatment by society, as well as gender differences in behavior.

In polygynous societies, in which it is customary for men to have multiple reproductive

partners, the competition among men for women is very strong. In sub-Saharan Africa,
young boys are taught to be aggressive and competitive. In societies in which monogamy or
even polyan- dry prevails, the number of reproductive partners is restricted, and men are not
engaged in competition to the same extent. For example, the role and socialization of boys in
Nyinba, Tibet, are quite different. They are taught cooperation and sharing rather than
competition and aggressiveness because they will one day share a common wife and children
with one or more men. In addition, poly- androus societies grant women more control over
resources and more independence from one particular man. Consequently, socialization of
girls focuses more on independence and assertiveness and less on obedience and
submissiveness.
More fathers are staying at home to care for their children as mothers enter the workforce.
(Westend61 GmbH/Alamy Stock Photo)
Cultural Influences on Female and Male Socialization
Despite widespread similarities in gender role expectations across cultures, there are distinct
differences in how gender-related behaviors are transmitted to young girls and boys.
Depending on availability of role models, displays of expected role behavior, or influence of
socialization agents, children in different cultures experience their socialization differently.
Examples of gender role socialization from a variety of cultural perspectives, including

Korean, Japanese, Islamic, Indian, Nigerian, and Native American, will serve as illustrations
of this point. (See Box 8.1.)
One cannot view the socialization of certain behaviors independently from the cultural
context. Cultures define the basic values and ideals (macrosystems), as well as the agents
who teach the values and the settings in which they are taught (microsystems). In turn,
individuals growing up in this ecological system will shape their environment by adding
individual characteristics to that setting, estab- lishing a unique developmental niche. As a
consequence, the socialization experiences of individuals in the various cultures described in
this chapter have taken very different paths.
Gender Relationships in Childhood
Apart from parents and caregivers, the role of peers in childhood socialization cannot be
underestimated. In fact, in most cultures, peer relationships play a role nearly as important as
the family. Consequently, same-sex and mixed-sex peer groups provide an effective context
for the observation and practice of gender role behaviors. For example, it could be argued
that early gender segregation indicates very large differences in normative expectations for
women and men in that society; these differences need to be reinforced early. However,
mixed-sex peer groups throughout childhood and the relative lack of differential treatment of
the two genders may indicate greater equality between the genders in adulthood. A look at
different cultures shows that the relationship between gender relations in childhood and
adult gender role behavior is not always linear.
There is a large range of cultural variation in the extent to which children’s playmates are of
both genders or pre- dominantly of the same gender. Gender relations in playgroups range
from completely segregated to segregated for part of the time to intergender relations. The
makeup of playgroups can be more or less dictated by cultural conventions that include the
gender constellation of the groups.
Overall, however, Eleanor Maccoby’s (1990, 2002) research suggests that the preference for
same-sex playmates is universal, regardless of cultural norms prescrib- ing gender-
segregated environments in childhood. Although cultural research on playmate preference is
still scarce, a few studies conducted in non-Western cultures seem to confirm Maccoby’s
claim. Munroe and Romney (2006) analyzed observational data from Belize, Kenya, Nepal,
and American Samoa. These four cultures vary in their emphasis on gender differentiation.
The Logoli of Kenya and the Newars of Nepal emphasize strict gender- specific roles, rituals,
and activities, thus exposing girls and boys to very different socialization experiences. In
contrast, among the Garifuna of Belize and in American Samoan society, gender-
differentiated socialization is much less pronounced. For example, girls and boys are
expected to contribute about equally to work around the house, and there are no gender-
specific initiation rites.
The seemingly consistent phenomenon of same-sex preference in playmates lends itself to a

biological explanation of gender differences. Due to their predisposition, boys might bond
together through activities that facilitate physicality and competition. Girls’ pattern of play,

in comparison, emphasizes interaction and collaboration. However, biological predisposition

toward gender-specific behavior and preferences may only serve as a partial explanation.
Harkness and Super (1985) explain these differences in terms of the developmental niche, in
which children actively explore and define gender relations within the parameters set by
cultural expectations. In addition, unique group processes, inherent in the microsystem of the
playgroup, may highlight the expression of gender-specific behaviors. Gauvain and Cole
(2008) note that “gender-related behaviors are more evident when children are observed in
groups than when they are tested individually” (p. 187).
Adolescence
Markers of Sexual Maturation
Much of the change associated with adolescent development centers on puberty, a period
of biological transition between childhood and adulthood lasting approximately one to two
years. The physical and physiological changes during puberty are dramatic, having both
psychological and social consequences.
In boys, the transition from child to adult may be marked by several physical events,
including change in voice, emergence of pubic and facial hair, nocturnal ejacu- lation, and/or
a sudden growth spurt and muscle development. The age at which a boy is granted “adult
status” varies greatly by culture, mostly depending on which physical “marker” is used as
indicator of physical adulthood. Nonetheless, it is thought that human sexual devel-
opment, regardless of cultural context, may now begin as early as age ten.
The “landmark event” for girls marking the end of childhood is menarche, or first
menstruation. The importance of viewing menarche within the cultural context and the
ecocultural system is illustrated in a study of young girls living at low and high altitudes in
Peru. Gonzales and Villena (1996) compared ten- to nineteen-year-old Peruvian girls living
in the mountainous regions of Lima with girls of similar age in Cerro de Pasco. Results
indicated that those living at higher elevations, where food sources are more limited,
experienced the onset of menarche later than those living at sea level in Cerro de Pasco. The
authors concluded that although nutrition is an important factor in determining the age at
which menarche occurs, one’s physical surroundings and developmental niche also need to
be considered. Another example of this close interaction between environment and physical
development is a study by Proos, Hofvander, and Tuvemo (1991). They observed that the
drastic change in environment experienced by Indian girls adopted in Sweden led to an
earlier onset of menarche. This earlier onset may affect the women’s overall height by
cutting short the period of physical growth.
Some cross-cultural researchers have focused on the extent to which exposure to

modernization alters the menstrual experience of young girls. In one such study, Fitzgerald
(1990) examined three Samoan communities as part of an ongoing stress and health project
at the University of Hawaii. One community consisted of resi- dents living in remote
traditional villages on the island of Savaii in Western Samoa. A second community,

experienc- ing rapid modernization, was made up of seven villages on the southern coast of
the island of Tutuila in American Samoa. The third community was composed of individu-
als living in affluent neighborhoods in Honolulu, Hawaii. Ninety-three young girls reported
on their family medical history, menstrual symptoms, menstrual beliefs and practices, and
menstrual experiences. According to Fitzgerald, although the literal translation of the
Samoan word for “menstruation” (ma’imasina) means “monthly illness,” most Samoans
view menstruation as a natural part of life—something given to them by God to prepare them
for motherhood—over which they have no control. Findings revealed that the more exposed
Samoans were to the influences of modernization, the more likely they were to report
severe menstrual symptoms. This suggests that as cultures come into greater contact with
each other, the values and beliefs of one tend to influence the behaviors of the other.
In this case, the values and beliefs characteristic of the more modern society (Honolulu)
tended to affect the menstrual experience of the Samoan islanders. Once again, this tends to
support the validity of studying behavior from the perspective of the recurring themes of the
ecological model and the developmental niche.
In addition to clear biological markers of sexual maturity, there are distinct cultural markers
that indicate a read- iness among women and men to find a sexual partner. Biological and
cultural markers may or may not coincide, depending on cultural norms. For example,
Hindus consider a girl sexually mature with the onset of menstruation. However, a
sexually mature unmarried woman living in her father’s house is considered unfortunate for
all involved, and it is the duty of the father to marry off his daughter as soon as she reaches
puberty or even before.
The transition from adolescence to adulthood is often considered a highly spiritual event that
is celebrated with elaborate initiation ceremonies. These ceremonies often involve a ritual
change of hairstyle, clothing, tattoos, or even circumcision to make the newly gained status
as adult visible to all. However, transition to adulthood is not always marked by one single
event. Mayan culture, for example, considers young women and men to be sexually mature
and allows them to find a mate when they begin to feel sexual desire. Parents or other
members of the community do not get involved in the young person’s decisions about
who or when to marry. This generally does not happen until the ages of sixteen to eighteen
for women and twenty for men.
Gender, Sexuality, and Cultural Taboos
Once young women and young men are considered sexually mature, they are prepared to
experience their first initial sexual encounter. Across cultures, these experiences vary
greatly in terms of how strictly they are guided by cultural norms and which forms they take.
The expectation of chastity until marriage (particularly for women) is a norm among many
cultures. Patriarchal societies and those based on traditional Catholic or Islamic values
generally have very strict chastity norms. Consequently, young women have little or no
sexual experience or instruction until they marry. In societies in which girls are allowed to
explore their sexuality more or less freely, such as the Masai of Kenya or the Hopi Indians of
North America, there are some legal or normative rules about the age at which a girl may

become sexually active. Usually, the minimum age is no younger than thirteen or fourteen.
Chastity norms rarely apply in the same way to young men. Instead, boys are frequently
encouraged to engage in various types of activity to practice sexual behavior, satisfy their
sexual desires, or express their virility and dominance. Young men’s sexual experience is
seen as preparation for a long- term relationship or marriage. It is a well-known practice in
some cultures for older women, frequently prostitutes or unmarried women in the
community, to instruct adolescent boys in sexual matters.
In some cultures, such as the indigenous societies of North and South America,
communication about sexual matters is largely taboo and surrounded by myths, so that
adolescents are left to explore their sexuality on their own. In their study of Mayan culture in
Guatemala, Bertrand, Ward, and Pauc (1992) report that adolescents receive little education
or information about sex. Young girls do not learn about menstruation until they experience
menarche and have few sources from which to learn about sexual matters. In contrast, boys
learn about physical development in school, from friends, or even from television or
movies. Although these are informal sources of information, culturally sanctioned
information about marriage is conveyed during a traditional religious ceremony. However,
according to their findings, this ceremony is considered primarily a ritual and does not
provide practi- cal advice and instruction regarding sexual relations.
In addition to prohibiting sexual intercourse before marriage, some societies have strict
taboos about sexual activities. In China, the only sexual behavior considered legal and
morally permissible is heterosexual intercourse within a monogamous marriage. Any other
behavior is considered illegal. Traditional Hinduism prescribes a very specific definition of
sexuality, and following that definition is absolutely essential. Any unnatural sexual
activity, including extramarital relations or homosexuality, results in losing one’s caste,
mutilation, or even death. It should be noted that these norms refer to the strictest followers
of traditional Hindu teachings. In modern India, as in many other cultures, the norms
themselves, as well as the consequences for breaking them, vary greatly.
Young adolescents in many other cultures are permitted to explore and express their
sexuality in a variety of ways. For example, among the Maya in Guatemala, it is common to
freely choose one’s sexual partner. Parents do not have much to say regarding the selection
of a mate or the age of marriage. Nonetheless, Mayan adolescents respect cultural traditions
and generally abstain from sexual contact before marriage. Their interactions are typically
limited to talking, holding hands, kissing, and embracing.
In cultures in which premarital relations between women and men are not prohibited by
cultural norms, they are considered an expression of love and affection. Yet, how love and
affection are perceived and expressed is, again, subject to wide cultural variations. In a
comparison of college students of four different ethnic backgrounds, Dion and Dion (1993)
found that Asian subjects of both genders view love relationships more in terms of friendship
and caring than do women and men of European or Anglo-Celtic backgrounds. The authors
argue that this view of love is consistent with the notion of self and others in cultures that
emphasize collectivism.
In most cultures, the concepts of gender and sexuality are closely related. The cultural norms

about what men and women should look like and how they should behave extends to the
realm of sexuality. For example, gender- appropriate behavior for women usually includes
being attracted to men and engaging in sexual relations with men. Thus, a lesbian woman
violates this female gender norm by being attracted to and sexually active with other women.
By deviating from the female gender norm, she sheds doubt on her “womanhood.” If she
does not behave like a “real” woman, then is she a “real” woman? Conversely, a heterosexual
man, who happens to be feminine in his appearance or makes a career choice that is more
typical for women in his culture, will likely be perceived as gay. If he is gender atypical in
his behavior, then it is thought he must also be gender atypical in his sexuality.
Other sexual minorities, such as transgendered individuals and bisexual youth, face similar
challenges. In adolescence, when issues of gender and sexuality become particularly salient,
young people may struggle with the expression of their gender identity and sexuality.
Deviating from gender norms and/or deviating from sexual norms may have serious social
and psychological consequences. Interestingly, the extent of the consequences depends on
how strictly gender deviation is viewed in a given cultural context. For example, in
traditional Latino cultures that value and expect “machismo” from young men and pas-
sivity, subservience, and nurturance from young women, those who deviate from these ideals
are stigmatized, ostra- cized, and sometimes the victims of violence. When strict gender
norms are less pervasive in a person’s ecological system, mild or temporary deviations from
gender norms may be tolerated. This might be the case in some contemporary Northern
European countries, in which people hold very egalitarian beliefs about the roles and norms
for women and men in society; see Stiles and Gibbons (1995), as cited previously in the
chapter. Not coincidentally, Scandinavian countries have the most liberal laws concerning
sexual minorities.
In recent years, we have heard more about transgender—of or relating to people who have
a sexual identity that is not clearly male or clearly female— individuals as they openly
declare their sexuality. Awareness of transgender issues in the media has increased
dramatically since 1952 when George (Christine) Jorgensen, an American veteran,
announced she had undergone gender reassessment surgery. Within just the past few years,
the topic has received increased attention due, in part, to the publicity given a few high-
profile individuals (Bruce (Caitlyn)
Jenner, Chastity (Chaz) Bono), the presence of transgender characters on television programs
and in motion pictures, and the publication of books on the topic. Cross-culturally, we have
found transgender individuals in Thailand, India, Iran, Nepal, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other
countries. However, it is an area that has not received a great deal of professional research
interest. Perhaps with greater attention devoted to it, the situation will change in the future.
Of interest to readers may be the website and blog by a mother whose six-year-old son told
her at age three that something went wrong when he was born because he is really a girl. See
https://gendermom.wordpress.com/.
In this regard, the 3rd annual LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) Research
Symposium was held in 2015 at the University of Illinois with a focus on research—
challenges and opportunities—for working with these populations and for formulating
practices and policies.

Finally, there is an informative article on evidence from the Boston University Medical
Center of the biological basis for gender identity that may go a long way in changing
physicians’ perspectives on transgender medicine and improve health care for these
individuals. See Boston University Medical Center (2015, February 13) to be taken directly
to their website.
Adulthood
The life tasks that individuals encounter in early and middle adulthood can be considered
universal. In any culture, most adults are faced with responsibilities related to child- rearing
and providing for themselves and their families. In short, they have to “make a living.” How
these responsibilities are distributed and what the settings in which people “make a living”
look like depends, in large part, on the individual’s ecological system. Cultural values,
socioeco- nomic status, and family size are just some examples of ecological influences, as
well as characteristics of the developmental niche. This section looks at the specific ways in
which gender influences the lives of adults in different cultural environments.
Status and the Division of Labor within the Family
Based on universal gender role stereotypes and gender role socialization, the adult roles of
women and men are very different. Throughout history, and in almost all known societies,
women have taken primary responsibility for child-rearing and housework, whereas men
have been responsible for work outside the home. Industrialization and increasing economic
pressures have brought about drastic changes that have affected the exclusive nature of this
arrangement. Today, agricultural
communities can no longer sustain all their families, and many men have to leave their
villages and towns to find work in larger cities. As a result, traditional family structure is
disrupted and, along with it, traditional gender roles. Women then find it necessary to seek
work outside the home to fulfill some of the tasks the departed men leave behind. Also, in
highly industrialized countries, technology has made housework much easier and less time
consuming, but sometimes more expensive. In many cases, these additional financial needs
can only be met by an additional income provided by the woman.
Surprisingly (or maybe not so surprising to some), increased participation of women in the
workforce has not led to a significant change in gender roles at home. Numerous studies
show that men tend to participate more in housework when their spouse works outside the
home. However, even if both spouses are employed full time, child-rearing and housework
are still the main responsibilities of the woman. Similar patterns are found in families in
the United States, Switzerland, Indonesia, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, and
elsewhere.
Division of Labor in the Workforce
In addition to the gendered division of labor in the family, women and men are frequently

segregated into different occupations in the labor force. Many occupational fields are either
female or male dominated. One possible explanation is that those occupations requiring
female stereotyped attributes (e.g., nurturance) are female dominated because women have
better skills for that work or simply prefer it. For many women and men, these gender-stereo-
typed occupations represent an important aspect of their developmental niche. Not
surprisingly, in many cultures, women tend to be teachers, nurses, or caregivers. Similarly,
occupations requiring physical endurance, strength, or assertiveness (e.g., laborer jobs or
executive positions) tend to be dominated by males. However, stereotypical gender roles are
only one possible explanation for occupational gender segregation.
Occupational fields are also frequently segregated by status. Female-dominated occupations

generally have a lower status than male-dominated occupations, regardless of the work
involved. For example, activities that involve interpersonal communication and interaction
are often associated with women because they tend to have stronger verbal and interpersonal
skills. This helps explain why more women than men become teachers, therapists, and social
workers. Yet, few women are involved at the highest levels in international politics, science,
business, or aca- demia, all of which require a great deal of interpersonal and verbal skills.
Badal, mentioned in the opening vignette, who prepared to be a youth counselor in India,
probably has many more female colleagues than male colleagues, unless this occupation is
highly regarded in his culture.
High-status occupations typically are better paid and are associated with access to greater
resources, resulting in frequent wage and status gaps between some women and men. [In the
United States, current discussions of wage inequality are a “hot topic.”] As a consequence,
women are often economically disadvantaged and dependent on their husbands or other men
as financial providers. In fact, it appears that there is a consistent gender difference in how
men and women view the relationship between status, money, and pay. Tang (1996) revealed
that men in the United States with high money ethic endorsement (MEE)— the psychological
importance of money—allocated significantly more money to the highest position and less
money to the lowest positions (creating a large pay differential and clearly linking status with
money) than did those to whom money was less important. Women’s allocation of money
was not affected by their MEE. In a subsequent study, Tang, Furnham, and Davis (2000)
conducted a cross- cultural comparison of pay differentials (in the United States, Taiwan, and
the United Kingdom) as a function of the rater’s sex and MEE. Findings showed that
Taiwanese allocated more money to different positions than did their British and American
counterparts. Men tended to have a significantly higher top/bottom pay differential than
women. In another study focusing on the devaluation of women’s work, England, Hermsen,
and Cotter (2000) found that there is a “wage penalty” for working in occupations that have
a higher percentage of women.
Many governments have now established public policies and laws that have led to greater
gender equality with regard to material and economic differences (i.e., antidiscrimination
employment laws). However, differences in the representation of men and women in occupa-
tional fields continue to exist. Maria Charles’ and Karen Bradley’s (2009) study of forty-four
societies revealed a surprising trend: In societies that have “regulated” gender equality,
occupations are more segregated by gender than in societies with less institutional gender

equity. In particular, in such industrially “advanced” countries, men enter the
mathematics/engineering occupations in significantly greater numbers than women. The
authors argue that economic independence from gender inequality (macrosystem) allows
individuals the choice to express their “innate” gendered selves as part of a fundamental
identity. The next section explores how the cultural expression of gender reinforces or
changes the ecological context in which individual growth and development takes place in
adult life.
Gender Relations in Social Status and Public Policy
Social and economic stratification is deeply rooted in culture, contributes to gender
inequality, and is reflected in relationships within the family. Assuming that economic power
equals social power, the family member with the greatest social power will be most dominant
within the family and thus be a powerful influence within the microsystem. Asserting this
power can mean making financial and social decisions, asserting one’s needs, assigning tasks
to other family members, and yielding or denying access to resources.
For several centuries, men generally have had more economic and social power than women.
Therefore, they are likely to control and shape interpersonal relationships with a spouse and
within the family. Although women may manage everyday financial or social affairs, the ulti-
mate power of approval or disapproval for decisions often lies with men, who may or may
not choose to exercise this power. Because these status differences are so pervasive, they are
often reinforced by the political institutions present within a culture’s various ecological
settings.
Francoeur and Noonan (2004) perceive some radical changes in this established world order.
They argue that there is evidence for a global “sexual revolution,” which is bound to change
the ways in which people relate and shift gradually toward a new gender equality. The
authors provide the following examples of changing “gender culture” around the world: (1)
In Finland, the popularity of both marriage and cohabitation are declining. Two national sur-
veys, in 1972 and 1993, show that the fastest-growing lifestyle is couples “living alone
together” (LAT) (in a sexual relationship). In these same surveys, LAT couples report being
much happier with their personal and intimate lives than married or unmarried cohabiting
couples. Similar trends have been reported in Germany and elsewhere.
(2) China has been widely condemned for its one-time one-child-per-family policy, forced
abortions, and female infanticide. But because these policies have also created a serious
surplus of males, young Chinese women are enjoy- ing an unexpected change in bargaining
power and choice in picking the best possible husband. (3) In Latin America, Peruvian
women have enthusiastically endorsed a government campaign to make contraception
available to all women, especially the poor. In a nation where 90% of the people are Catholic
and many rural women have ten or more children, Peru’s women are ignoring the pope’s ban
on contraception and asserting their right to control their own sexual and reproductive lives.
(4) In Algeria, Muslim women are turning to personal advertisements to find mates of their
own choice, despite strong family disapproval and censorship by fundamentalist Islamic
men. (5) There is a growing tradition of financially established single Italian men,

“mammoni,” who continue living with their parents into their thirties, forties, and beyond,
instead of marrying and moving out on their own. Italian husbands and Catholic bishops
complain that Italian women are not listening to them anymore. So many Italian women,
married and unmarried, are using birth control and having abortions that Italy now has the
sixteenth lowest birthrate (9.18 births per 1,000 people) of nations in the world.
These examples lend themselves to the conclusion that gender continues to permeate all
levels of the ecological system in adult life. Ultimately, individual development is framed by
fundamental beliefs about differences between men and women.
Later Adulthood
As is the case throughout life, the physical, psychological, and social changes in later adult
years affect men and women in similar and different ways. Cultural views of aging, gender,
and gender relations shape the ecological system in which older men and women develop.
The Experience of Menopause
A major event for women during these years is the experience of menopause. Because
menopause, like menarche, is a universal event, it would be easy to assume that all women
experience it in the same way. However, based on our previous discussions of
Bronfenbrenner ’s ecological model, we would expect that cultural values, expectations, and
context would contribute strongly to shaping the experience—and they do. For example, in
previous decades, Europeans and North Americans, among others, frequently described
menopause as a “change of life.” Many early television programs stereotyped elderly and
middle-age women as moody, unpredictable, and depressed. The picture of menopause as
presented in contemporary print media does not seem to have significantly improved.
Although the frequency of articles on menopause has increased, the information is often
insuffi- cient, treated as a negative experience or disease needing medical treatment,
frequently containing contradictions and inconsistencies, and ignoring or giving little
attention to such factors as race and ethnicity, lifestyle differences, stress, or aging.
Today, most North Americans and, in fact, people in many other countries view menopause
very differently. Women’s own expectations have changed, and for some, menopause is seen
as a liberating experience. Part of this new view can be attributed to changing cultural views
of aging. For research that views menopause from a contex- tual analysis, see Anderson
(1999).
Robinson (2002) reviewed cross-cultural studies conducted in Israel, North America, Japan,
Peru, the Yucatan, and the Greek island of Evia. Results indicate that there are enormous
differences in the experience of menopause among women in the same culture and among
women in different cultures. Robinson concludes further that, indeed, menopausal symptoms
are the result of not only physical factors but also psychological and cultural influences.
From these examples, it becomes clear that both the physical change during menopause itself
and the cultural view of menopause shape a woman’s experience. Is menopause just another
“developmental stage,” or is menopause an “illness” that can be treated (e.g., with hormone

replacement therapy)? If menopause is an “illness” that warrants treatment, then should we
begin to consider hormone treatment for puberty as well, with its many discomforting
symptoms (e.g., acne, mood swings, and change in body shape)?
Divorce and Widowhood
You may recall from the discussion of cultural views on marriage in Chapter 4 that men and
women in later adulthood, in most cultures and religions, consider marriage to be one of the
highest sacraments. However, in any society, there will be a number of individuals who do
not have a spouse, either because they never married or because they lost their mate through
divorce or death.
According to traditional Hindu beliefs, divorce is unacceptable. If men are not content in
their marriage, then they are allowed to take a second wife. After their wife’s death, men are
also permitted to remarry immedi- ately. Widowhood for women, in contrast, carries a strong
social stigma. Without her husband, women are considered incomplete and even sinful.
They are not allowed to remarry, become social outcasts, and simply await their own death.
As a result, some women choose to burn themselves at their husband’s funeral to attain
spiritual salva- tion. Sati, or widow immolation, is a sacred practice (Kumar & Kanth, 2007).
Although the current Indian government strongly discourages this practice, a widow’s
memory is still held in high regard if she dies within a reasonable time after her husband’s
death.
Among the Hausa of Northern Nigeria, marriage also plays an important spiritual role.
Adults who die while still married are expected to move on to Lahira, or paradise. Although
divorced and widowed adults are stigmatized, they are not met with nearly as much
resentment as adults who never marry. Previously married women can still acquire some
status by becoming prostitutes and remarrying later, an option denied to women who were
never married.
In many Native American societies, a widow secures her livelihood by marrying one of her
husband’s brothers or another close relative. Divorced women may return to their parents or
marry another man. Divorce proceedings are relatively uncomplicated unless wife and
husband share a great deal of property or the wife’s relatives want to negotiate the return of
the bride price paid to the husband. These examples of women in different societies show
that even in adulthood, individuals create their own developmental niche in response to
cultural norms and expectations associated with, in this case, divorce and widowhood.
When viewing divorce in the larger ecological context, it becomes clear that cultural beliefs
about gender roles and gender-typical behavior (macrosystem) shape individual experiences
within the family (microsystem). “Divorce is not merely behavior on the microlevel, but is
associated with shifting cultures on the macrolevel” (Yodanis, 2005, p. 656). Yodanis argues
that the option of divorce, when accepted in society, gives women the power to negotiate
equal status in the family. Her study of twenty-two countries revealed that women and men
experience more equality in their marriage when divorce is practiced and accepted in their
society. In countries that, until recently, outlawed divorce (the Philippines and Ireland) or in

which divorce is highly unaccepted (Japan), gender roles within the family tended to be more
traditional and unequal in terms of work distribution and decision-making power in the
home.
These findings are mirrored in Bulbeck’s (2005) description of young people’s understanding
of gender relations within the larger cultural context. Even though many of the young adults
interviewed had not yet established their own families, the cultural beliefs about gender
relations within the family were well established. Respondents from Asian cultures (Japan,
Korea, and Thailand) tended to emphasize separate roles for men and women within the
family. These beliefs were associated with the cultural belief that prescribed gender roles
serve the family and society. In contrast, young adults from Australia, the United States, and
Canada showed strong support for gender equality in the home based on individual
preference.
Gender Roles and Status in Old Age
In traditional societies, age is frequently associated with a gain in community status. Older
adults are respected and accepted as leaders who bring with them a wealth of life experience.
Furthermore, they are frequently thought to have supernatural powers, and they hold
important spiritual and religious responsibilities. Finally, both female and male elders are
considered important to the socialization process because they pass on the group’s cultural
heritage to the next generation. In societies in which status is based on age and role as much
as gender, older women may actually gain considerable power, both within their families
and in society, once they have broken through the “seniority” barrier. This may be the case in
Asian societies more so than in Western cultures.
Sangree (1992) examined two societies, with a particular focus on older men and women.
The Tiriki of Kenya and the Irigwe of Nigeria are two societies that view their elders with
great respect and appreciate the wisdom they bring to the society. On closer examination,
Sangree dis- covered it is not seniority alone that leads to status and influence among these
elders. A necessary condition for being recognized as an elder is grandparenthood. To
achieve the highest respect as an older person, one has to have at least three living children.
Being accepted as an elder represents a gain in status, particularly for Tiriki women.
According to cultural norms, Tiriki women cannot be initiated as adults and are denied
important positions in the clan or the village. Moreover, their activities are limited to
domestic work and farming. As elders, women achieve considerable power and influence by
being involved in community affairs, although their contributions are not publicly
recognized.
Among the Irigwe, elder status derives from the cultural belief surrounding a mystical
relation between
death and birth. The Irigwe believe that the soul of a deceased person will eventually be
reincarnated as a newborn. The departure of one soul is essential for the creation of a new
life. Elders who are approaching death are held in high esteem because their death ensures
the continuation of life.

Although Irigwe women are not granted formal leadership in the form of a public office,
they nevertheless play a critically important role in community life. In contrast to Tiriki
society, women have more opportunities to excel in certain areas and gain public recognition
(e.g., as healers or craftswomen). As grandmothers, they achieve even more status and are
held in high regard.
With changes brought about by modernization, the gender roles and status of older adults, as
well as of younger adults, have changed, particularly in Irigwe society. Sangree (1992)
describes how young educated men are taking over community activities formerly conducted
by the male and female elders. Such changes are not characteristic of younger women. They
are often too busy with their family responsibilities or limited by their lack of education to
compete with men for jobs and status.
Among the Tiriki, male elders retain their influence in some local affairs. The culture has
preserved the elder males’ role as an essential agent in the socialization and initiation of
younger males. They are also more involved in their sons’ lives because they manage their
sons’ property while they are away from home for work. The influence and status of female
elders are gradually disappearing, and there are fewer opportunities for them to be involved
within the community. Overall, the status of Tiriki individuals in late adulthood and how
they are viewed increasingly resemble the view held by other modern cultures.
LEARNING ACTIVITY
Study Questions
Define the terms “sex” and “gender” and distinguish between them.
Use biological, evolutionary, and social learning perspectives to explain gender differences
that are considered universal (e.g., relative strength, body size, aggression, and verbal skills).
Give examples of how factors at the micro-, exo-, and macrolevels of the ecological system
explain cultural differences in gender equality during adulthood.
Discuss gender socialization during childhood and some of the influences on it.
Describe the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Comment on the division of labor
within the family and within a culture’s labor force.
Consider cultural differences and similarities in divorce and widowhood.
Describe changes in gender roles and status in late adulthood, and give examples.
SUMMARY

This chapter discusses the development of women and men across the lifespan. Whereas
some gender differences can be viewed from a biological perspective, the emphasis here is
on social and cultural forces that contribute to the psychological development of men and
women in different societies. In early childhood, prevailing gender stereotypes already
influence the socialization of gendered behavior. Cultural customs and arrangements
determine the structure and content of social interaction between boys and girls. These
interactions become increasingly important during adolescence, when young people are
preparing for their roles as adults. Aside from biological maturity, cultural norms determine
when a youth may engage in sexual activity. In addition, cultural rules may dictate mate
selection, as well as acceptable or unacceptable sexual activities. The years of adulthood are
characterized by clearly stipulated roles and obligations, many of which are defined by
gender. Although many of these roles show great similarities across cultures, the status of
men and women and their relationships may differ depending on their cultural environment
and their unique developmental niche.
REFERENCES
Gardiner, H. W. (2018). Lives Across Cultures Cross-Cultural Human Development (Sixth Edition ed.).
Hudson Street NY, New York: Pearson Education

STUDY GUIDE FOR MODULE NO. ___

2
CHAPTER 2: Understanding Gender:

Social and Cultural Constructions
MODULE OVERVIEW
This chapter examines how gender affects people’s social lives, focusing on how women and men
relate to each other. The chapter reviews the long-standing nature-culture debate. Evolutionary and cultural
approaches have often been viewed in the past as oppositional. Some have argued that the psychology of
gender is fixed as a result of inherent, evolved sex differences. Others have viewed gender as a wholly
arbitrary cultural construction based on rules about masculinity and femininity determined only by history, not
biology. This current chapter seeks to transcend simplistic debates about whether gender is more conditioned
by nature or by culture by detailing a “third way”—the social structural approach which has the potential to
incorporate and envelop insights from both evolutionary and cultural theories.
MODULE LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. To provide conceptual tools as well as foundations of empirical facts about gender.

2. To determine how important gender is to our lives and social structure.
LEARNING CONTENTS (Conceptual Approaches to Gender)
No two human groups experience more constant social differentiation than men and women. Indeed,
the first question people typically ask about a newborn is whether the baby is a boy or a girl. Of course,
gender is rooted in biological sex categories, based on the genotype and genitalia one possesses when born.
But many cultural constructions, such as gender stereotypes, are layered on top of this biological distinction.
These cultural beliefs dictate the relative masculinity or femininity of a host of behaviors, traits, occupations,
and roles. This book loosely follows the conventional distinction gender researchers make between the terms
“sex” and “gender.” When strictly referring to the biological categories of male and female we typically use the
term “sex,” and when referring more broadly to social constructions of masculinity and femininity, such as
stereotypes and roles, we typically use the term “gender.” This rule, however, is not hard and fast. For
example, we sometimes use “gender” when referring to people’s social classification of others as male or
female because once an individual is categorized by sex, a variety of assumptions about gender (i.e.,
masculinity or femininity) automatically come into play. As a result, we frequently use “sex” and “gender”
interchangeably when referring to the simple categorization of these two groups.
Biological and Cultural Explanations
Essentialism remains an important undercurrent in nature–culture debates among gender theorists

and researchers (see Eagly & Wood, 1999, Wood & Eagly, 2002, for insightful discussions). On one side,
some evolutionary theorists view women and men as fundamentally different, both physically and
psychologically, such as in their abilities, ways of thinking, and personalities. From this perspective, gender
stereotypes (e.g., that men are analytical and women emotional) reflect inherent and stable sex differences
that developed as adaptations that served to increase the odds of human survival.

By contrast, most cultural or social theorists view gender as a social construction, a product of
cultural ideals about femininity and masculinity. Gender, of course, builds on the biological categories of
female and male, but social constructionists tend to believe that biological sex differences affect only a limited
number of physical traits (e.g., size, genitalia, and facial hair) and that psychological differences between the
sexes are culturally created. Biological essentialism is anathema to social constructionists, who point out that
variation within each sex on any specific characteristic remains much greater than the average difference
between the sexes (Hyde, 2005). From this perspective, differences between men and women trace back to
culture more than nature. These differences nevertheless become “real” because social forces compel men
and women to enact or “perform” gender (and not because sex differences are deeply embedded in people’s
genetic codes).
The Cultural Approach
The most prominent cultural theories and research on the psychology of gender emphasize gender
socialization, the process by which girls and boys learn feminine and masculine identities (e.g., see C. L.
Martin & Ruble, 2004). From infancy on, how people are treated depends on their sex. Nonetheless,
socialization is not a passive process. Rather, as children learn gendered expectations, they also begin
actively to “perform gender,” trying to live up to society’s predetermined gender ideals and stereotypes
(processes we explore in detail in subsequent chapters). Thus, cultural theorists are social constructionists;
they assume that cultural beliefs create most, if not all, observed sex differences in behavior as people act out
cultural scripts assigned to their gender.
Social learning theory (Mischel, 1966) represents one influential cultural explanation of gender
differences. Social learning theorists focus on modeling or observational learning, which refers to acquiring
behaviors by observing how similar others, such as same-sex others, behave. Consistent with the social
learning perspective, many studies demonstrate that children learn what it means to be male or female
through observation. For instance, children are more likely to imitate the behavior of a person of the same sex
as opposed to the other sex (Bussey & Bandura, 1999).
Cultural theorists (e.g., Bem, 1981) also emphasize how society communicates shared cultural ideals
about how people of each gender ought to behave. These expectations range from the kinds and colors of
clothes boys and girls should wear (e.g., blue vs. pink) to the kinds of activities (e.g., baseball vs. figure
skating) and occupations (e.g., doctor vs. nurse) they should prefer. These gendered cultural ideals form
coherent knowledge structures known as “gender schemas” that guide people’s perceptions of self and others
and their behavior and preferences and generally become the lenses through which people view their social
world (Bem, 1981). Children quickly learn gender schemas, such as which toys they ought to prefer, and use
this knowledge to understand other people and to inform their actions toward others. Gender schemas
represent habits of mind that persist through adulthood. For instance, one might assume solely on the basis of
their gender that a man probably prefers watching football over shopping, whereas a woman would likely
prefer shopping.
Consider how cultural theorists might explain popular beliefs about sex differences by listing your own
responses to the question, “What cultural forces or institutions account for the persistence of gender
stereotypes?” We cannot enforce a brief pause “here, but humor us—it will only take a few seconds for you to
list a few things that most quickly come to mind.
Have you made a short list? If you have, we suspect it includes the media (e.g., television, movies, video

games, the Internet), authority figures (e.g., parents and teachers), and peers as conduits of stereotypes.
Why? Because the media, authority figures, and peers transmit cultural beliefs that affect children’s
socialization. If these cultural agents consistently reinforce messages about sex differences, they can at least
partly account for the continuation of gender stereotypes. Also, because people adopt traits appropriate to
their gender (i.e., attempt to live up to the stereotypes about their sex), gender socialization can precipitate
actual sex differences in behavior. In turn, sex differences in behavior perpetuate the stereotypes by making
them appear to be accurate.
There is no doubt that cultural in influences are both important and ubiquitous. The next time you
watch a television sitcom, go to a movie, or read a book, try to notice their heavy reliance on stereotypes to
“tell a story.” This shows how stereotypes allow people to communicate with each other in a kind of short-
hand code that relies on culturally shared assumptions about gender. Television commercials (and the
products they advertise) illustrate this phenomenon nicely. For instance, spend a day counting how many
advertisements for cleaning products feature women versus men. An analysis of television commercials from
the 1990s revealed that female characters tend to be shown in a family setting rather than at work in a paid
job. And women depicted at work tend to hold service-oriented or clerical positions rather than high-status
professional jobs; they also tend to lack authority and were frequently shown as sex objects (Coltrane &
Adams, 1997).
The constant bombardment of such cultural images can influence viewers’ gender attitudes. For
example, men who viewed more “macho” (vs. androgynous) magazine advertisements subsequently evinced
more traditional gender role attitudes (Garst & Bodenhausen, 1997). Among adolescent girls, those who
watch more television also show more traditional gender role attitudes (Rivadeneyra & Ward, 2005), as do
girls who frequently view music videos (Ward, Hansbrough, & Walker, 2005). There is the myriad effects that
cultural forces, including the media, have on people’s perceptions of gender.
But exclusively cultural explanations of gender tend to beg an important question: How did beliefs
about what it means to be male or female get started in the first place? The cross-cultural ubiquity and
consistency of beliefs about gender remain especially puzzling given the existence of few, if any, inherent
psychological sex differences (see Hyde, 2005). In other words, if men and women are more similar than
different, why do so many human cultures persistently view the sexes as different? And why do so many
cultures tend to agree in their characterizations of the two sexes (e.g., viewing men as aggressive and women
as warm)? In fact, evolutionary psychologists use cross-cultural consistency as a primary source of support
for their suggestion that sex differences stem from different selection pressures that were first established in
primeval environments.
The Evolutionary Approach
Based on Darwinian theory, the evolutionary approach emphasizes biologically based sex differences, not
only in physical characteristics but in psychological traits, mental processes, and behavior (e.g., Buss, 2003).
Like cultural theorists, evolutionary psychologists are concerned with the origins of gender differences, but
their focus is on more distal, biological causes. Both schools of thought argue that past events continue to
influence people today, but evolutionary theorists stress long-ago species adaptation, whereas cultural
theorists focus on more proximate social forces. Moreover, evolutionary theorists uniquely rely on comparing
people to animals because some of the basics of heterosexual reproduction, which are theorized to have
created psychological and behavioral sex differences, ought to have had similar evolutionary influences
across species.

When it comes to gender, evolutionary theorists suggest an alternative to cultural explanations. They
contend that men and women fundamentally differ, in all sorts of ways, because of evolutionary biology. For
instance, why are men stereotyped as aggressive and women as nurturing? Evolutionary theorists answer
that these beliefs accurately reflect inherent sex differences. Men evolved to be competitive providers,
whereas women evolved to be caregivers. The evolutionary approach generates controversy among gender
researchers because it suggests an essentialistic view in which men and women fundamentally differ
psychologically as well as physically. Although social as well as natural scientists generally accept Darwinian
evolution as an explanation for how humans evolved over time, whether evolutionary pressures created
significant biologically based sex differences in people’s personality traits and behavior remains a matter of
debate (see Eagly & Wood, 1999, Wood & Eagly 2002, or Hyde, 2005, for the more minimalist position and
Buss, 2003, for the evolutionary argument).
The Continuing Nature–Culture Debate
Evolutionary theorists support their views by pointing to cross-cultural consistencies in sex differences, which
they view as incompatible with the cultural approach. For instance, an initial examination of men’s and
women’s mate preferences in 37 nations suggested, as sexual selection theory predicts, that men and women
focus on different characteristics when choosing mates (Buss et al., 1990), with women putting greater
emphasis on a mate’s earning potential (i.e., ability to obtain resources) and men putting more emphasis on
potential mates’ physical attractiveness.
A reanalysis of the same data (by Eagly & Wood, 1999) with an eye toward cross-cultural differences
in mate preferences, however, suggests a social explanation for these gender differences. National indices of
gender equality (e.g., gender similarities in health, standard of living, and occupational equality) significantly
accounted for sex differences in mate preferences. Specifically, more egalitarian nations show reduced sex
differences in preferences for mates with good earning potential. When women have few opportunities to gain
resources on their own, they appear to seek such resources in their mates, but when women’s status is higher
this sex difference tends to dissipate (although not completely disappear).
A Third Way: The Social Structural Approach
Structural explanations suggest that the social positions of groups within society and the structure of
intergroup relationships determine perceptions of and behavior toward members of differing social groups.
“Social position” refers to the roles and occupations members of a group typically perform and their place in
status and power hierarchies. The “structure of intergroup relationships” refers to how situational context
shapes intergroup relations. For example, when groups vie for limited resources (e.g., land or water is scarce)
or have incompatible goals, intergroup relations tend toward competitiveness. In contrast, when groups have
little choice but to depend on each other to achieve shared goals (e.g., when groups must create alliances to
defeat a common threat or enemy), cooperative intergroup relations occur. In short, power disparities and
interdependence motives represent structural variables that permeate and inform all intergroup relations,
including gender (S. T. Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002).
Structural variables play an important role in shaping gender relations, the content of gender
stereotypes, and observed sex differences in traits and behaviors. Because structural explanations emphasize
social causes, they fit under the general umbrella of social constructionism. But structural explanations can
also complement and incorporate evolutionary theory.

Given that social structural explanations represent a kind of constructionist approach; how do they differ from
cultural explanations? To some degree, the two overlap. Like cultural theorists, social structural theorists view
socialization as an important mechanism that shapes men’s and women’s traits and behaviors. However, by
focusing on the causal role of factors such as groups’ relative positions in a status hierarchy, structural
explanations do not merely describe the content and transmission of current gender beliefs, but can help to
(1) explain the underlying origins and content of gender stereotypes as well as actual sex differences in traits
and behaviors; (2) predict the degree of consistency versus variation in stereotypes and behaviors across
cultures and historical periods; (3) explain when and why gender stereotypes become prescriptive ideals, not
just expectancies, concerning how men and women ought to behave; and (4) span and interconnect various
levels of analysis, from wider social conditions to intergroup behaviors to individual psychology.
Social Role Theory
Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) focuses on two social structural aspects of gender relations: a gendered
division of labor and gender-based hierarchy (in which men generally have more status and power than
women). The theory suggests that these structural factors determine the content of socially shared beliefs
about men and women as well as observed gender differences in personality, skills, and behavior. We
illustrate social role theory’s insights, organized according to the advantages of social structural theories listed
previously.
The Origins and Content of Gender Stereotypes and Sex Differences
Social role theory observes that roles generate specific demands for individuals to exhibit particular traits and
behaviors. For example, women’s long-standing child-rearing role requires nurturing traits and behaviors. The
cultural assignment of women to a child-rearing role is rooted in reproductive biology, which ties women to
bearing and nourishing infants. Social role theory suggests that such role segregation produces stereotyped
expectations; for example, because of women’s link to child rearing, people associate women with communal
traits (e.g., helpful, nurturing, and kind). Similarly, social role theory attributes stereotypes of men as more
assertive, competitive, and aggressive (i.e., more agentic) to their nondomestic work roles, which tend to
require physical bravery and leadership skills.
Status differences between men and women reinforce these gender-stereotypical expectations. The
two structural aspects of gender relations that social role theory identifies—division of labor and hierarchy—
are closely related. Male roles typically accrue more status and provide greater opportunity to amass
resources than female roles. Housekeeping and rearing children—traditionally women’s work—do not confer
prestige or significant amounts of money. The content of stereotypes of many low- versus high-status groups
corresponds to the content of stereotypes of homemakers versus providers because the communal traits
assigned to women are low-status traits, whereas the agentic traits assigned to men are high-status traits (S.
T. Fiske et al., 2002; Ridgeway, 2001b). In other words, gender stereotypes strongly reflect status differences
in men’s and women’s traditional social roles.
Social role theory posits that roles not only foster stereotypes about each sex but also help to create a
corresponding reality. This occurs because (1) people are socialized to enact the traits demanded of roles
their group typically occupies (e.g., girls are taught to be nurturing and are rewarded for acting this way), (2)
people adopt traits associated with their social groups (e.g., girls and women are more likely than boys and
men to define themselves in terms of nurturance), and (3) performing gender-linked roles increases the
degree to which people exhibit the traits and behaviors these roles require (e.g., when women become

mothers, the role elicits nurturing behavior).
Because social rewards and punishments provide incentives for people to act in line with expectations
about members of their group, an individual may act in concert with gendered expectations even when this
does not suit his or her personality. For instance, a woman might act in a nurturing way not because she
wishes to but rather to avoid the sting of others’ disapproval. The processes outlined previously serve to
ensure that women and men do behave differently, which fosters a reality that matches gender stereotypes
(Rudman & Fairchild, 2004; Swim, 1994).
The implications of social role theory for the content of gender stereotypes and for sex differences in
traits and behaviors are clear. Social role theory suggests that cultural beliefs about women and men are not
haphazard or arbitrary. From this perspective, cultural ideals of femininity and masculinity could have
developed differently only if men’s and women’s social roles had been different. If, for instance, women and
men contributed equally to child rearing and work outside the home, they would be perceived as having
similar, not different, traits.
When and Why Gender Stereotypes Become Prescriptive Ideals
Another advantage of structural approaches is that they help to explain why gender stereotypes are
prescriptive, specifying the way men and women ought to act, as well as descriptive, specifying how men and
women tend to act. Prescriptions have been referred to as “injunctive norms,” or socially enforced
expectations about how people ought to behave that elicit punishment when people do not conform (Burgess
& Borgida, 1999; Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Social role theory suggests that role demands create gender
prescriptions. When a society relies on a group-based division of labor, it has a stake in ensuring that people
act in accordance to their roles. If people fail to enact their roles or to do them well, the normal division of
labor becomes inefficient and unproductive. In a gender-traditional society, if women fail to nurture the
children, who will raise them? If men do not succeed at work, how can they provide for their families?
Observing whether violating a stereotype results in anger, not just surprise, from onlookers illustrates
whether a stereotype is prescriptive or merely descriptive. If people who deviate from the stereotype are
rejected, then the belief functions prescriptively. Prescriptions pressure individuals to conform to their
expected roles (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). For instance, a man might decide not to quit his job to be a stay-
at-home father for fear of others’ disapproval or rejection. Gender prescriptions, therefore, create sex
differences in traits and behavior even when individual men and women do not initially possess stereotyped
traits. Further, such prescriptions create strong resistance to changes in gender roles, such as backlash
toward working women as “bad mothers” (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2004). By contrast, aspects of stereotypes
that are not role based, such as the stereotype that women like shoes, are unlikely to be highly prescriptive:
People do not care so much if a particular woman is not “into shoes” but are more likely to condemn her for
not being interested in raising children.
LEARNING ACTIVITY
The following are gender inequality and gender roles topics. Using the concepts and theories that you have
learned in this chapter, write a comprehensive 1 page essay. Choose only 1 topic below.
1. Is it true that the unequal gender status still dwells at every workplace?
2. Why do men think that they are better than women?

3. Why is it essential to resolve the issues of inequality among genders?

4. Should a woman be the head of a family?
5. Would the world become better if it became matriarchal?
6. How can the Philippine society fight the gender inequality?
ARNING CONTENTS (title of the subsection
SUMMARY
This chapter outlined the dispute between theorists and researchers who emphasize the role of culture
versus the role of evolution in shaping gender relations and creating sex differences in behavior. This debate
is often intense because, far from being an arcane academic matter, it has serious political consequences,
including whether and how gender equality might be achieved. The cultural approach views gender as a
social construction primarily shaped by social values and beliefs. Although gender is based on a biological
dichotomy, cultural theorists view it as more of a social than a biological category. Further, these theorists
view gendered beliefs as arbitrary cultural products, mere accidents of history and cultural development.
By contrast, the evolutionary approach emphasizes nature over culture, suggesting biologically based
sex differences that result from human evolution. This approach focuses on sexual selection (i.e., how men’s
and women’s mate preferences exerted selection pressures on the other sex). In particular, evolutionary
theorists suggest that women’s greater reproductive investment led them to prefer dominant, high- status
male mates who appeared capable of amassing resources by competing successfully with other men. This, in
turn, accounts for men’s tendency to compete aggressively with other men and, because of nagging doubts
about paternity, to attempt to control their female mates.
Social structural approaches offer a way of integrating cultural and evolutionary forces. By focusing on
the relative roles and positions of groups in society and the conditions that shape intergroup relations,
structural approaches offer unique insight into the origins of cultural conceptions of gender. This approach is
also well suited to explaining similarities and differences in how gender functions over time and across
cultures, based on differences and similarities in structural relations between the sexes. Social role theory,
which focuses on gender roles (e.g., caregiver vs. provider) and status differences, has been the most
prominent structural theory of gender. This theory has demonstrated how a gendered division of labor and
gender hierarchy can account for prescriptive conceptions of gender and actual sex differences in
behavior.
REFERENCES
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The Social Psychology of Gender: How Power and Intimacy Shape
Gender Relations. 72 Spring Street New York, New York: The Guilford Press.

STUDY GUIDE FOR MODULE NO. _3_
CHAPTER 3:
GENDER AND CULTURE IN PSYCHOLOGY
MODULE OVERVIEW
Even if biology were destiny, the founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud argued, the process by
which biological males and females become gendered men and women does not happen naturally nor
inevitably. Gender identity, he argued, is an achievement – the outcome of a struggle for boys to separate
from their mothers and identify with their fathers, and of a parallel and complementary struggle for girls to
reconcile themselves to their sexual inadequacy and therefore maintain their identification with their mothers.
In this chapter we give a brief overview of the ways of thinking about psychology and gender that
have been developed in recent decades. We begin by sketching the most common ways of conceptualizing
gender in psychology. We then discuss some feminist critiques of these ways of understanding gender. Then
we turn to current feminist thinking about femininity and masculinity, the production of gender in daily life,
gender asymmetries in power, and intersectionality.
MODULE LEARNING OBJECTIVE
1. To introduce students to relevant theories of gender and sexuality and will be asked to apply these
theories of gender and sexuality and to apply these theories to a range of contemporary issues that
are relevant to both national context and broader international context.
LEARNING CONTENTS
Gender, the equality of the sexes, and societal inequalities more generally have been intensely
debated and studied by social scientists in the last several decades. In the wake of the debates, new fields of
study and new ways of thinking about old issues have emerged. This is as true of psychology as of other
social sciences. When psychologists take contemporary scholarship on gender, ethnic groups, sexuality, and
other social categorizations into account, foundational assumptions and practices in psychology begin to shift.
To begin with, new and different psychological questions emerge and new topics are brought forward.
To answer such new questions and address new topics, new research methods have been devised. This, in
turn, has caused gender researchers to become attentive to epistemological questions. In this book, we
discuss these three innovations associated with gender scholarship: (1) in content, that is, new knowledge
about gender and culture; (2) in method, that is, alternate ways of doing research and practice; and (3) in
epistemology, that is, new ways of thinking about psychological knowledge. We approach these innovations
from several different angles. We present theoretical tools for thinking about gender, culture, and psychology,
as well as methodological tools for doing research about these issues.
We present research projects that illustrate innovative method and theory. We also present overviews
of issues that have been central to psychological theorizing about gender and culture. And we present
debates among gender researchers about such issues. In our presentations we draw upon fields outside
psychology, including anthropology, history, sociology, political science, feminist studies, and science studies.
We also draw upon several fields within psychology, including critical psychology, feminist psychology,
sociocultural psychology, discursive psychology, rhetorical psychology, post-structural psychology, and critical
history of psychology. Psychologists in these fields have analyzed the influence of political processes, cultural
patterns and forces, and national contexts, as well as social subordination and exclusion, on 1 the knowledge
that psychology has produced. Many have questioned the idea of universal, ahistorical, “generic” human
beings, and many have also advanced epistemological and methodological critiques of psychology.
The roots of the new psychological scholarship on gender and culture

Psychological scholarship about gender and culture constitutes a rich and varied field of knowledge
that has flowered over the last forty years. It began with psychological researchers and psychotherapists who
were active in the women’s liberation movement in the 1960s and 1970s. They established a field of
knowledge, then called the psychology of women, which challenged many taken-for-granted ideas in
psychology. They argued, for instance, that psychology was androcentric; that is, that the discipline and many
of its practices had been shaped by the interests and experiences of men, primarily white, middle-class men
in western, high-income parts of the world.
Outside psychology, the multidisciplinary field now often called gender studies emerged around 1970
in the midst of the women’s movement, with its broad political goal of improving conditions and opportunities
for women. The earliest gender studies programs (then called women’s studies) developed as a part of this
social movement and drew intellectual inspiration, energy, and political support from it. The programs often
envisioned themselves as a heady combination of an academic department, a site of political activism and
mobilization, and a space of solidarity for women students, faculty members, and staff in the university and,
sometimes, for feminists in the community at large. Researchers in these academic programs came from
several different disciplines, among them psychology. They took seriously the project of forging connections
between their scholarly pursuits and their political commitments. For many, this was a matter of ethical
principle. Yet they were mindful that they walked a tightrope between academic strictures regarding the
objectivity of research and their feminist commitments to bettering the lives of women and girls.
In psychology, researchers who studied women also had to contend with the discipline’s disregard for
“applied” research, which was viewed as less valuable than “pure” or “basic” research. In the eyes of the
discipline, research about women (in contrast to research about men) was not seen as “general” research
about humans, but as research about a special group, often with solely utilitarian value. Feminists in
psychology took up research aimed at challenging discriminatory and oppressive cultural views and fostering
societal changes that would expand options for women and girls. The topics mirrored the social issues being
addressed by the feminist movement. Researchers in the 1970s, for example, studied the effects of mothers’
paid work outside the home on their children; the consequences of unintended childbearing and abortion; the
effects of discrimination, sexual harassment, or sexual violence on victims; and the well-being and adjustment
of children raised by lesbian women. Feminist psychologists also focused attention on ways that psychological
theories reproduced (sometimes deliberately, sometimes unwittingly) the culture’s template of good femininity,
which included motherhood, domesticity, and a conventional division of family labor.
As a consequence of connecting their research to their political commitments, some researchers

turned their backs on the psychology laboratory, as well as the reliance on college students as research
“subjects.” Conventional research methods were not suited to the questions they wanted to answer.
Moreover, in situating research in the “real world,” studying “real” problems framed in everyday language, and
taking into account the multiple social identities and investments of those they studied, researchers came to
see that societal and cultural forces had to be reckoned with.
In this period, feminists inside and outside psychology began to challenge established psychological
wisdom about men and women – both the claims made by clinical theories and the knowledge produced by
psychological research. Feminists in psychology claimed that psychology’s teachings about women were
laced with invidious stereotypes and dubious assertions (Sherif, 1979; Sherman, 1978; Weisstein,
1971/1993). They pointed out that a good deal of the accepted scientific knowledge in psychology unwittingly
incorporated cultural assumptions regarding male and female nature. As in the culture, so too in the discipline,
these assumptions served to legitimate the subordination of women in the family and in society. Feminists in
psychology challenged flawed theories and concepts and they criticized bias in personality tests, intelligence
measures, and indices of psychopathology. They also showed that no research method could insulate the
research process from the standpoint of the researchers.
Soon feminist scholars argued that the social location of researchers was of crucial importance in
constituting the researchers’ worldview and forming their view of which topics were worthy of study and which
ways of studying them were legitimate (Haraway, 1988; Harding, 1986, 1987). In other words, feminist critics
did not accept the idea of neutral researchers who “study nature,” but argued that all researchers, whether
openly expressing a political commitment or not, inevitably have an interested position. They argued that
one’s experiences as a human being who inhabits certain categories and social positions indelibly stamp
one’s perspective and choices of topics, methods, and theories. They went on to argue that the discipline
needed to rethink more or less all the knowledge it proffered about women. Very soon thereafter, their voices

were joined (and their message intensified) by the voices of psychologists who were not white and
psychologists who did not identify as heterosexual.
We have used the words feminist and feminism several times in the text, and we need to clarify what
we mean by them. Put succinctly, someone who calls herself or himself a feminist holds that women and men
are equally valuable. He or she also thinks that, in order for all women to be able to live safe and satisfying
lives, societal changes are necessary.
LEARNING ACTIVITY
1. Make an essay about the Origin of Psychological Scholarship regarding Gender and Culture
(Minimum of 200 words).
2. In your own understanding, what is feminism?
3. Enumerate three innovations associated with Gender Scholarship
LEARNING CONTENTS (title of the subsection)
Since the early years of academic psychology, researchers have been interested in finding out what
(if anything) distinguishes men’s and women’s mental life. This interest has continued to the present day. In
part, of course, the persistent interest in questions of male–female difference stems from policy debates
regarding equality between the sexes, family organization, and other crucial social issues. When
psychologists have searched for differences between men and women, they have usually turned their sights
toward traits, abilities, and emotions. They have conceived of these as personal characteristics and examined
whether certain characteristics were prevalent in women as opposed to men, or vice versa. In Chapter 14, we
take up research on such differences in detail.
Psychologists have also had a strong interest in the origins of sex differences. Some researchers
search for biological explanations of observed behavioral differences. They look to hormonal differences,
neurochemical differences, or differences in brain structure and function. Such biological differences are then
invoked as the causes of observed sex differences in behavior. Such explanations are often reductionist; that
is, they claim that what happens on the physiological level fully accounts for what happens on the
psychological level. Reductionist accounts, in other words, reduce psychology to biology (Robinson, 1995).
Biological explanations usually are phrased as though they were valid for all humans, regardless of cultural
background, historical epoch, or social categorization.
Many other psychologists have instead looked for evidence that differences in early experiences or
upbringing might create specific patterns of psychological differences between women and men.
Psychodynamic thought offers several examples (Chodorow, 1978; Erikson, 1968; Freud, 1905, 1952, 1963).
Social learning theories, such as those put forward by Bussey and Bandura (1999) and Martin et al. (2002),
also posit that differences between men and women are due to external influences in childhood (“nurture”),
not biology (“nature”). In both theoretical frameworks, the differences established in childhood are seen as
stable traits and abilities that reside inside the individual and cannot readily be changed. Like biologically
oriented researchers, socialization researchers have often made universal inferences about “men” and
“women” from differences they observed between the specific groups of men and women whom they studied
(Hare-Mustin and Marecek, 1994; Marecek, 1995a, 1995b).
As we discuss further, psychological researchers interested in differences between women and men
have often assumed that abilities, traits, and emotions can be fruitfully studied without taking into account the
meanings attributed to them in different situations or contexts. Such assumptions were more common earlier
than they are today, and they were not limited to research about male–female differences. For instance, a
great deal of social psychological research was conducted on young, white, male college students, but
conclusions were drawn about all humans. This practice was heavily criticized by early feminist psychologists
as androcentric. That is, the research centered on men’s experiences and interests and took them to
represent all human experiences and interests. Such one-sexed studies of “general human psychology” rarely
used women as subjects (Crawford and Marecek, 1989). An analysis of psychology journal articles showed
that when researchers used all-female (versus all-male) samples, they were more likely to provide a
justification for a single-sex sample and to point out that their results could not be generalized to the other sex

(Ader and Johnson, 1994). Similarly, samples of people who were not white, and of people who were not
heterosexuals, were rarely taken to represent the population of humans in general (Guthrie, 2004; Mays,
1988). When members of such groups were studied, the goal was to learn about issues that were seen as
specific to them, such as low academic achievement, unsafe sex, or teenage pregnancy.
Many feminists in psychology have criticized psychologists for being preoccupied with possible
intrinsic differences between men and women, but disregarding the different circumstances in which men and
women live. First they investigated whether psychology’s claims and findings about men and women were
universally valid (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974). If the findings were not universal, then what accounted for
them? Feminist psychologists studied the effects of social expectations, situational demands, and social
rewards and penalties. They found ample evidence that these social conditions produced gendered behavior
(Haaken, 1988; Sharps et al., 1994; Sherman, 1978). Moreover, many activities and behaviors elicited
different responses from others depending on whether they were performed by a woman or a man (Deaux
and Major, 1987). Researchers also studied how onlookers made different interpretations of behavior,
physical attributes, and skills depending on the sex category of the person whom the onlooker observed. Such
social gendering patterns were observed across the life span and across many different domains, including
infant temperament, behavior in corporate boardrooms, scholarly essay writing, and teenagers’ dating
behavior. For example, a number of studies showed that the physical characteristics, temperament, and
activities of an infant (sometimes referred to as Baby X) were judged and recalled differently depending on
whether onlookers believed Baby X was a boy or a girl (Seavey et al., 1975; Sidorowicz, 1980).
These lines of feminist research moved the explanatory locus from the inside of the individual to the
interpersonal surround. The researchers highlighted the power of local situational variations, social
expectations, and social rewards and penalties. Such forces, they showed, can influence people’s behavior in
such a way that women and men behave according to gendered expectations. The research also showed that
because of such expectations, a certain social situation may not be the “same” situation for a woman and a
man. Sometimes the “same” actions performed by a man or by a woman may be perceived as different
actions. Research within this “situational” framework has produced many important findings showing the
extent of situational demands and their power to create gendered patterns of behavior. This field of research
continues to flourish, accumulating more and more evidence of the thoroughgoing power of the social
environment. The research has lent itself to activist projects, such as programs to eliminate sex-role
stereotyping in school classrooms, activism against sexual harassment, and challenges to sexualized
portrayals of girls in popular culture (e.g., Lamb and Brown, 2006; Sadker et al., 1994).
Although the research on the power of situations has produced important knowledge, it does not
provide the complete picture. In much of the research, expectations and norms are presumed to be located in
Toward a cultural psychology of gender 33 cognitive schemas, attitudes, and beliefs. Little attention is paid to
tracing the origins of these expectations and norms to wider contexts. When psychologists stop at this point,
their theories risk “psychologizing” phenomena that are social and cultural in origin. They also risk framing
people as “cultural dopes,” that is, as automatons who cannot help but march to the tune of situational
demands (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 68). Situational approaches have also been criticized for accepting uncritically
the categories “man” and “woman” as they are conventionally conceived. In the eyes of the critics, the
categories themselves and their social and cultural origins need to be interrogated.
The approaches we describe below address these limitations. Above all, they take into account how
the meanings of sex categories are continually negotiated – for example, in close interactions, in institutional
frameworks, in state policies, and in mass media. These negotiations are of interest to psychologists because
they serve to regulate people’s conceptions of themselves and their actions, as well as interactions between
people. The approaches go beyond proximal situations to examine cultural and political systems of meaning
and power. Researchers assume that any phenomenon, no matter how local, is always formed and given
meaning within the larger social and cultural context. Researchers also assume that language – as the
primary medium of social interchange – plays a key role in giving meaning to phenomena and in social
negotiations about meanings. These approaches do not presuppose that “man” and “woman” are a priori
categories or natural kinds. Rather, they take the creation and upholding of the two-sex model as a subject of
investigation. They also take gender – that is, the meanings given to the sex categories – as a subject for
investigation. In this view, the sex categories and the meanings that they are given in a particular society are
not only about local situational demands. They are part of and dependent on larger cultural patterns (West
and Zimmerman, 1987, 2009).
Gender has to do with how individuals perform sex categories in everyday life. The expression “doing

gender” is often used to denote such performances. “Doing gender” most often involves performing oneself in
a way that enables one to pass as an acceptably feminine or masculine person (Butler, 1990; Fenstermaker
and West, 2002; Lorber, 1994). However, people also “do gender” by not conforming to the norms of
acceptable masculinity or femininity. This is so because their behavior, conforming or not, inevitably is
interpreted in terms of societal gender norms.
People do not “do gender” in a social and cultural vacuum. In most settings, there are shared rules
about how gender is to be enacted. Such demands and rules are the raw materials – the cultural resources –
from which personal meanings of gender are fashioned (Wetherell, 2007, 2008). Usually these rules need not
be expressed openly because people are quite knowledgeable about the boundaries that define the
acceptable behavior of members of each sex category. In fact, this tacit knowledge is an important part of
what it means to be a competent member of a culture (Garfinkel, 1967). By striving to pass as acceptably
masculine or feminine, individuals further legitimize the accepted meanings of the sex categories. The
behavior becomes proof, to the actor as well as to onlookers, that this is what it means to be a man or a
woman (Connell, 1995; Gulbrandsen, 2006a; Wetherell and Edley, 1999).
Can people stop doing gender or refuse to do gender? If researchers find that women and men are
becoming more similar, does this mean that people are no longer doing gender? No. Let us take a
hypothetical example of a workplace in which male and female employees have the same educational
background and the same profession. And let us say that a researcher finds no differences between women
and men in patterns of communication (an aspect of behavior for which researchers typically find sex
differences). The researcher would not conclude that the employees were no longer doing gender. Rather, the
researcher would conclude that communication was no longer a prime locus of the local gender order. As long
as sex categorization remains an important form of social stratification, people will have reason to inscribe
themselves in their appropriate category. People will continue to do gender as long as the social stratification
of people according to sex categories remains decisive for their individual fates (Butler, 1990).
If the meanings of femininity and masculinity are not fixed once and for all, but shift with societal and
cultural change, then it is pointless to search for enduring differences (or similarities) between people
categorized as women and men (Hare-Mustin and Marecek, 1994; Weatherall, 2002a). Rather, femininity and
masculinity need to be explored as cultural manifestations. Although femininity and masculinity are often
experienced as personal traits, they are better conceptualized as manifestations of the local gender order.
Femininity, for example, can be conceptualized as a set of normative ideas and cultural resources held in
place through social and cultural negotiations. The ideas and resources are usually fairly stable over time but
far from immutable. Conceptualized this way, femininity designates a repertoire of actions and characteristics
that are appropriate and even natural for individuals Femininity and masculinity 35 categorized as female.
Femininity therefore is located in the interactions and actions that have been given feminine meanings, not in
the minds or bodies of individual women (Currie et al., 2006, 2007). Masculinity, of course, is an exact parallel
(Edley and Wetherell, 1997; Wetherell and Edley, 1999).
Psychologists who view femininity and masculinity as parts of the gender order pursue a distinctive
research agenda. For instance, they are interested to learn about the local processes by which certain ideals
of femininity and masculinity are created and maintained. They might also study the processes by which
people come to feel that living up to the social requirements of their sex category is an authentic expression of
their inner selves. Put another way, these scholars study the processes by which people internalize the
cultural imperatives of femininity and masculinity such that they are experienced as “the way I really am” or
“the way I want to be.” In addition, these scholars study how people resist and change the imperatives. We
briefly explore these issues in the next section.
In recent decades and in many parts of the world, there have been dramatic changes in the ways that
people conceive of men and women. Feminist movements and other liberatory movements have protested
against gender imperatives. Many women and men have on occasion defied some social norms or flouted
certain gender imperatives. Despite the regulatory force of gender, individuals and groups have sometimes
developed a critical consciousness and mobilized for change. How has this happened? And how is it that
sometimes change has seemed impossible? Let us begin by noting that in most situations in everyday life,
there are several possible ways of acting. And there are also usually several ways of thinking about one’s
actions. Some of these ways are likely to be more culturally favored than others.
Sociocultural psychology offers two concepts that are helpful for thinking about identity processes and
sex categories. Many sociocultural psychologists have studied how children learn new skills. They focus not

only on learning an ability, but also on how possessing an ability comes to form a part of the learner’s sense
of self (Wertsch et al., 1995). The concepts of “mastery” and “appropriation” refer to two sets of processes
involved. “Mastery” refers to the state that a person has reached when he or she can perform a certain task
well enough to satisfy others and herself or himself. “Appropriation,” on the other hand, refers to the process
by which the mastery of a skill becomes part of a person’s selfimage (Rogoff, 1995, 2003; Wertsch, 1997). To
appropriate a skill means that performing this skill has become an expression of who the person is
(Gulbrandsen, 2006a; Haavind, 1998, 2002).
Not all skills that are mastered are also appropriated (that is, become part of the self). The cultural
meaning of a skill always contributes to the meaning that the skill comes to have for an individual. One
element of cultural meaning is the connection of the skill to various social categorizations, such as sex
category, social class, age, generation, and ethnicity. Such cultural connections influence whether or not the
skill will be appropriated into an individual’s sense of self (Thorsen and Toverud, 2002). For example, people
have traditionally expected it to be naturally easier for women to master abilities that are socially defined as
feminine; furthermore, they expect women to reach a higher level of mastery of such abilities. However,
traditionally, society has also afforded women more opportunities for mastering these feminine abilities and
granted them more social rewards for doing so. Indeed, these social patterns are so strong that it is
impossible to say whether or not women are inherently specialized to master “feminine” skills. These
arguments, of course, apply equally to men and “masculine” abilities.
Such cultural meanings have consequences for identity, that is, the appropriation of different abilities.
Let us take an example. Imagine that a boy and a girl have mastered “relational abilities” equally well. In
western societies, the meaning of these abilities is likely not the same for a girl as for a boy. “Relational
abilities” have been strongly marked as typical of women and are often taken as an expression of feminine
personality traits or even female hormones. A girl who masters relational abilities likely receives different
feedback from adults and peers than a boy. For example, she will be praised more than a boy, and she might
also receive fewer questioning or downright negative responses. If a girl consistently receives confirmation
from important people that “relational abilities” are expected of her as a girl, she will eventually begin to
experience being relational as an expression of who she is as a girl. A boy showing the same degree of
mastery would not receive affirmation from adults and peers that his relational abilities are part of who he is as
a boy. This would mean that relational abilities contribute to the girl’s experience of herself as feminine, but do
not contribute to the boy’s experience of himself as masculine. And this, in turn, would make it less likely that
a boy who had mastered relational abilities would appropriate these abilities as part of his identity as a boy
(Magnusson, 2006).
Appropriation is seldom all-or-none. There is often slippage and leakage. For instance, people do not
always appropriate all the abilities they master, even when the abilities may be culturally appropriate for their
sex category. Many women can recall that, as children, they were pushed to master a “feminine” skill but they
did not feel as if that skill was a part of themselves. One might say that they “went through the motions” but
their “heart was not in it.” That is, they knew how to perform, but they did not identify themselves as the kind of
person to whom these skills belonged. They did not appropriate the ability as an aspect of their identity. Many
men can recall similar experiences.
Sex category is a prime category for distinguishing among people and ranking them. Across the
world, sex category serves as one of the most important bases for distributing resources, privileges, and
status within society. Although distinctions between the sexes are more pronounced in some societies than in
others, there are no known societies in which sex categorization makes no difference. Power, privilege, and
resources tend to be inequitably distributed between men and women, whether in workplaces, leisure
activities, religious institutions, or intimate heterosexual relationships. Overall, men have more power than
women, although, of course, it is not true that all men are more powerful than all women. Sex category is thus
tied to power. Should psychological theory and practice take such power issues into account? Yes, according
to feminists and other critical psychologists.
The argument that gender scholars should study power is rooted in the women’s movements of the
1970s. Those movements highlighted inequities in all the aspects of power that we described in Chapter 3.
Men’s coercive power over women has been a main focus of feminist activists. Coercive power is the ability to
inflict one’s will on others even if those others do not agree. Such power was the target of the large-scale,
public “speak-outs” organized by the women’s movement in western, high-income countries. These speak-
outs broke the silence about men’s sexual violence and other kinds of violence against women and children
(Gavey, 2009). In Sweden, for example, massive protests against the Government Committee on Sex Crimes

(Swedish Department of Justice, 1976) forced the government to withdraw its proposed rape legislation. The
protesters criticized the committee for basing its work on a male-centered view of women and heterosexuality,
and for presuming that men had sexual rights to women’s bodies.
In the same period, women’s groups in many countries started shelters for battered women. This
volunteer shelter movement stood as a criticism of the healthcare system and the mental healthcare system,
as well as the criminal justice system and the law. Women and children who had been the victims of the
coercive power of men were often not taken seriously when they turned to the criminal justice system, the
healthcare system, and the mental healthcare system for help. Often women and children suffering from the
consequences of physical and sexual abuse were diagnosed as mentally disturbed rather than as reacting to
violence and abuse (Carlsson, 2009; Herman, 1992). It is not surprising that many activists became deeply
skeptical of mainstream health services and also of clinical psychology. Feminists criticized these systems for
neglecting gender-linked coercive power.
Prior to the 1970s, the training of mental health professionals about psychological distress and about
psychotherapeutic treatment largely omitted mention of men’s violence against women, rape, and sexual
assault, and the sexual abuse of children. When these issues were mentioned, they were described as rare
occurrences and as having inconsequential effects (Rush, 1980). Moreover, the psychotherapeutic literature
often described women (both those who were victims and those who were mothers of victims) as complicit in
or inviting the man’s violent acts (Bergman, 1988; James and McKinnon, 1990). This neglect of coercive
gendered power leads us to Stephen Lukes’s (1974) second dimension of power, the ability to “set the
agenda.” The ability to set the agenda involves controlling what can be talked about and how people are
allowed to talk about it.
Sharon Lamb, an American feminist psychologist, explored some linguistic practices by which
gendered power was kept off the agenda of mental health professionals. Lamb (1991) analyzed how
researchers publishing in professional mental health journals wrote about men’s violence against women. She
found several ways in which those researchers engaged in what she termed “linguistic avoidance” of men’s
violence against women – and particularly the linguistic avoidance of men’s responsibility for such violence.
The avoidance strategies included using euphemisms (“the incident”) for such acts and using passive verb
constructions (e.g., “the patient was hit in the face by a fist” and “the incident happened”).
Feminists also argued that many traditional psychotherapists had actively kept power off the agenda
in their work with clients. For example, many therapists remained unaware of the prevalence and
consequences of violence and sexual abuse, and ignorant about gendered power issues. Until recently, such
gaps in knowledge did not seem incompatible with the ethics of their professions. Many therapists skirted the
subject of violence (for example, by failing to ask couples in marital therapy whether their fights were physical
as well as verbal) and evaded questions of men’s responsibility for their violent actions (Hare-Mustin, 1978,
1980). Feminists in the mental health professions demanded that the psychotherapeutic professions –
especially those that worked with couples and families – put violence against women, the sexual abuse of
women, and the sexual abuse of children on their agenda. Critique and activism in psychology have led to
dramatic changes in psychological theories and practices. Today, the subject of intimate violence and the
development of treatments to help victims are given considerable attention by the psychotherapeutic
professions. Interventions for perpetrators are under development. But psychologists’ knowledge of the
antecedents and consequences of gendered violence is far from complete, and there are still many
controversies and gaps in knowledge and therapeutic practice. See, for instance, Gavey (2008), Gavey and
Schmidt (2011), Haaken and Reavey (2010), and Lamb (1999).
Ideological power – Lukes’s (1974) third dimension – must also be very much part of psychology’s
investigations. Ideological power is the power to shape people’s ways of seeing the world, their meanings and
interpretations, their preferences and wishes. Scholars today often refer to ideological power by Michel
Foucault’s term, disciplinary power. Cultural ideologies “discipline” people by portraying certain ways of
understanding themselves and comporting themselves as desirable and fitting (Foucault, 1975). For instance,
ideologies of gender specify particular practices as desirable ways of being as a woman or a man. When
people strive to achieve these particular ways of being and acting, they likely feel no sense of being coerced
or compelled. Disciplinary power that sets out the good or correct ways of being a person emanates from
many sources, including scientific pronouncements by psychologists. The knowledge and practices of
psychologists have become a prominent form of disciplinary power in contemporary western societies (Rose,
1989, 1996).

Contemporary societies are characterized by asymmetries between men and women that have
consequences for individuals as well as for groups. Here are a few examples. Men and women are often
treated differently when they do the same thing, as, for instance, when they have identical jobs. When a
woman performs a job, she usually gets paid less than a man who performs the same job. Men have more
freedom of movement than women in many societies. Women are more often the victims of sexual violence
than men; men are more often victims of street violence. Using such asymmetries as starting points for
thinking about individual behavior is a radical departure from conventional psychological theorizing. It means
thinking about the individual “from the outside,” not from the inside. Thinking from the outside means
assuming that such asymmetrical gender orders are not kept in place by intrinsic differences between women
and men. Instead they are sustained from the outside, above all, by ongoing social negotiations. Thus, it is
gender orders and the negotiations within them that maintain the ideology of intrinsic differences between
men and women. In other words, cultural ideologies about intrinsic psychological sex differences are
produced by extrinsic gender orders.
For psychologists who think from the outside, the question is not whether or not there are “real”
psychological differences between women and men. Such psychologists begin at the outside and argue that if
a society is organized to uphold strict distinctions between people in different sex categories, then that society
will inevitably promulgate ideologies about psychological and other differences between men and women. The
issue is not whether these ideologies are correct or incorrect. Researchers who think from the outside argue
that emancipatory research about sex and gender must go beyond efforts to correct erroneous ideas about
differences or similarities between women and men. If a researcher were to find evidence of such differences
in a society that ranks men and women differently, it would not be possible to know whether such differences
were intrinsic to men and women or were the product of the gender order (Hare-Mustin, 1994; Morawski,
1994).
We reiterate that gender is never just gender. What a person’s sex category means to her or him and
to others is always influenced by other salient categories of identity, such as social class, ethnicity, race, and
sexuality. Even if social categories are conceptually separable, they are not separable in social reality
(Buitelaar, 2006; Ferree, 2009; Prins, 2006). Sex category is always involved in mutually constitutive relations
with other categorizations, from which it cannot be meaningfully teased out. Because of this irreducible
complexity, extracting categories one by one for study can be no more than a starting point; it cannot provide
direct access to any inherent characteristics of the world (Walby, 2007).
For intersectionality theorists, social categories are contingent and dynamic; that is, they take
meaning in relation with one another, and they are created in specific and contingent historical processes.
Positing this view of social categories has implications for psychological theories of gender, as well as for
psychological theories of personal action and identity. One of the most important implications is the
importance of the situatedness of who and what are being studied. Intersectionality does away completely
with the idea of a generic woman or man, let alone a generic human being. Some intersectionality theorists
further argue that people are not just subjected to categorization. An individual is also always becoming a
subject; that is, shaping herself or himself as an active agent and as the source of his or her own thinking and
acting. Consequently, category markers (such as “woman” or “white”) are not just labels that position
individuals in social hierarchies. They are also resources that afford positions from which to understand and
narrate oneself, as well as to act (Prins, 2006). Identity in this view is therefore not just a matter of being
positioned by a set of social categories; it is also a matter of narrating and understanding oneself and acting in
relation to these categories (Buitelaar, 2006).
The language that people use makes certain meanings of gender available to them (Speer, 2005;
Weatherall, 2002b). Often this takes the form of constraint. Only a certain number of meanings of being a
woman or a man are available in a particular setting. Furthermore, in many cultures, there have been no
meanings available to a person outside the sex categories “woman” or “man.” Language practices play an
important part in setting and upholding restrictions on categories.
The language environment that young children enter as they learn to speak is saturated with words
and expressions for the locally accepted ways of understanding what boys and girls, or women and men, do,
say, and think. These words carry information about what is good and proper for members of each sex
category and what is not. The local patterns of language are shaped by the larger culture. In both local and

global settings, it is likely that language is gendered in problematic ways. Think about the large number of
pejorative words for “girls,” “girly behavior,” and “girl stuff ” that young children are immersed in daily. These
words and expressions are a large part of what is available to children to make sense of people as gendered
beings. Individual children do not invent these words, of course; rather, the words originate in the larger
language community. Language practices are a central focus for psychologists who study gender.
REFERENCES
Magnusson, E., & Marecek, J. (2012). Gender and Culture in Psychology Theories and Practices. New
York, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gender and Society
GEE 2
GENDER LABELS
AGENDER – A person who does not identify with any gender, or intentionally does not follow expectations of
gender.
“Agender means genderless or gender neutral. It does not determine your gender expression, which in
my case is trans femme” Jeri Cheney, 61
“The lack of gender. Not male, female, or anything else on the gender spectrum.” Lindsay Leedham, 29
ANDROGYNE - A gender identity in which a person feels their gender is between 'male' and 'female' and feels
both masculine and feminine simultaneously. An androgyne person may feel more masculine than feminine,
more feminine than masculine, or an equal amount of both at any given time. Presenting androgynously is not a
requirement for this gender identity.
- Can look male or female; portray male or female
- Ex. Rain Dove
ASEXUAL - An adjective used to describe people who do not experience sexual attraction.
“Asexual people don’t experience sexual attraction to anyone, but can still have libido” Hanson, 19.
- They may experience the urge doing it but not doing it with someone else
BISEXUAL - Sometimes shortened to "bi." A person who has the capacity to form enduring physical, romantic,
and/ or emotional attractions to those of the same gender or to those of another gender. People may experience
this attraction in differing ways and degrees over their lifetime. Bisexual people need not have had specific
sexual experiences to be bisexual; in fact, they need not have had any sexual experience at all to identify as
bisexual.
- Kinsey Scale – all of us is bisexual, there is just a degree of attraction.
CISGENDER - A term used by some to describe people who are not transgender. "Cis-" is a Latin prefix
meaning "on the same side as," and is therefore an antonym of "trans-." A more widely understood way to
describe people who are not transgender is simply to say non-transgender people.
“Being cisgender means my gender identity aligns with the sex I was assigned at birth” Gretchen Scott,
33
- Not transgender, show what is normal and what was assigned to you, express or portray what you
are given
CLOSETED - Describes a person who is not open about their sexual orientation. Better to simply refer to
someone as "not out" about being LGBTQ. Some individuals may be out to some people in their life, but not
out to others due to fear of rejection, harassment, violence, losing one's job, or other concerns.
- Not open about their sexual orientation; not out due to fear of rejection
COMING OUT - A lifelong process of self-acceptance. People forge a LGBTQ identity first to themselves, and
then they may reveal it to others. Publicly sharing one's identity may or may not be part of coming out.
- Life-long process of self-acceptance.
- Awareness, acknowledge, understanding, communicate
CROSS-DRESSER - While anyone may wear clothes associated with a different sex, the term cross-dresser is
typically used to refer to men who occasionally wear clothes, makeup, and accessories culturally associated
with women. Those men typically identify as heterosexual. This activity is a form of gender expression and not
done for entertainment purposes. Cross-dressers do not wish to permanently change their sex or live full-time as
women.
- Dressing for self-expression
- Ex. Harry Styles
DEAD NAME - The name given to a transgender person at birth, which they often change when they transition.
It should not be used to refer to them. Use the person’s chosen name instead.
- Ex. Rustom Padilla, Charice Pempengco, Rey Darius
38
Gender and Society
- Not example: Screen Names such as: Aiza, Marlou, since these are just screen names
DRAG
Study GuideKING - ACode
in (Course (usually cisgender)
and Course Title) woman who performs as a man for an audience.
Module No.__
- Woman performs as man but remains as woman

DRAG QUEEN - A (usually cisgender) man who performs as a woman for an audience.
- Man performs as woman but remains man
- Ex. Boobay, Tekla, Wally, Plastic Tierra
“A trans woman who performs drag is called a femme queen: whereas a drag queen is a cisgender man
who performs drag” Robyn Franklin, 21
GAY - The adjective used to describe people whose enduring physical, romantic, and/ or emotional attractions
are to people of the same gender. Sometimes lesbian is the preferred term for women.
- Not homosexual – derogative
- Man to woman, woman to man
GENDER EXPRESSION - External manifestations of gender, expressed through a person's name, pronouns,
clothing, haircut, behavior, voice, and/or body characteristics. Society identifies these cues as masculine and
feminine, although what is considered masculine or feminine changes over time and varies by culture.
Typically, transgender people seek to align their gender expression with their gender identity, rather than the
sex they were assigned at birth.
- What you express, represent, show. You express what you identify as
GENDER IDENTITY – A person is internal, deeply held sense of their gender. For transgender people, their
own internal gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned at birth. Most people have a gender
identity of man or woman (or boy or girl). For some people, their gender identity does not fit neatly into one of
those two choices (see non-binary and/or gender queer). Unlike gender expression, gender identity is not visible
to others.
“The whole purpose of the word ‘gender’ is to self-identify: I am who I am, what can I say?” Patrick
Nwosu, 28
- Internal, not visible to others
- Match or not match
GENDER NORMATIVE / GENDER STRAIGHT - A synonym for cisgender, gender straight people are those
whose gender identity matches up with expectations of their sex assigned at birth.
GENDER QUESTIONING - A person who is questioning their current gender identity and/or exploring other
identities and presentations.
- Exploring other identities
GENDER-FLUID - Someone for whom gender identity and presentation is a spectrum. A gender-fluid person
doesn’t confine themselves to one gender, or even a few. Instead, they may fluctuate between presenting as
feminine, masculine, neither, or both
- Fluctuate, both. Doesn’t confine themselves to one gender; not exclusive to one gender
- Ex. A guy wearing skirt skateboarding
HETEROSEXUAL - An adjective used to describe people whose enduring physical, romantic, and/ or
emotional attraction is to people of the opposite sex.
HIGH FEMME - Often used to describe a lesbian, bisexual, or queer woman who presents and identifies firmly
as feminine.
- Lesbian who represent themselves as feminine
- Lipstick Lesbian
- Ex. Cara Delavigne, Miley Cyrus, Bella Thorne, Kristen Stewart, Lili Reinhart
HOMOSEXUAL - An outdated clinical term referring to queer people that is considered derogatory and
offensive.
- Term we no longer use, derogatory
INTERGENDER - Someone who experiences their gender as in between other genders, such as someone whose
gender falls somewhere between being a man or a woman.
- Present, represent yourself
39
Gender and Society
INTERSEX - An umbrella term describing people born with reproductive or sexual anatomy and/or a
chromosome
Study pattern
Guide in (Course Code that cannotTitle)
and Course be classified as typically male or female. Those variations
Module No.__ are also sometimes
referred to as Differences of Sex Development (DSD.) Avoid the outdated and derogatory term
"hermaphrodite." While some people can have an intersex condition and identify as transgender, the two are
separate and should not be conflated.
- Biological, they have both genitals functioning or not (story of ma’am’s aunt
LESBIAN - A woman whose enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction is to other women. Some
lesbians may prefer to identify as gay or as gay women. Avoid identifying lesbians as "homosexuals," a
derogatory term.
LIPSTICK LESBIAN - Similar to femme, “lipstick lesbian” is used to describe a lesbian who presents their
gender in a feminine way. It is sometimes considered a derogatory term.
MASCULINE-OF-CENTER - Used to describe people who feel, and often present, as masculine but may not
identify as a man. Masculine-of-center people may also identify as butch, stud, aggressive, boi, transmasculine,
etc.
MASCULINE-PRESENTING - Describes someone who expresses gender in a masculine way. Someone who is
masculine-presenting might or might not also be masculine-of-center and vice versa.
METROSEXUAL - Usually used to describe a straight man — although some queer men may also use the term
— who spends more time on his appearance than is considered normal for men.
MISGENDER - When someone uses the wrong pronoun or term to refer to a person, such as calling a
transgender boy “her” or a transgender girl “him.”
MX. - Used instead of Mr., Mrs., or Ms. for someone who does not identify as either a man or a woman.
Example: Mx. Smith.
NON-BINARY AND/OR GENDERQUEER - Terms used by some people who experience their gender identity
and/or gender expression as falling outside the categories of man and woman. They may define their gender as
falling somewhere in between man and woman, or they may define it as wholly different from these terms. The
term is not a synonym for transgender or transsexual and should only be used if someone self-identifies as non-
binary and/or genderqueer. Non-binary is sometimes shortened to enby or NB.
OUT - Refers to a person who self-identifies as LGBTQ in their personal, public, and/or professional lives.
Preferred to openly gay.
PANGENDER -A Non-binary gender identity, referring to people who experience all gender identities either
simultaneously or over time.
PANSEXUAL - A person who has the capacity to form enduring physical, romantic, and/ or emotional
attractions to any person, regardless of gender identity.
POLYAMOROUS - Describes people who have consensual relationships that involve multiple partners.
Polyamorous people talk openly with their partners about having or having the desire to have sexual and/or
emotional relationships with multiple people and often set ground rules for their relationships. Polyamorous
people can be in relationships with monogamous people.
QUEER - An adjective used by some people, particularly younger people, whose sexual orientation is not
exclusively heterosexual. Typically, for those who only identify as queer, the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual
are perceived to be too limiting and/or fraught with cultural connotations they feel don't apply to them.
SEX - The classification of a person as male or female. At birth, infants are assigned a sex, usually based on the
appearance of their external anatomy. (This is what is written on the birth certificate.) A person's sex, however,
is actually a combination of bodily characteristics including chromosomes, hormones, internal and external
reproductive organs, and secondary sex characteristics.
SEX ASSIGNED AT BIRTH - Also seen as (SAAB). Refers to the sex (usually male or female, but sometimes
intersex) a doctor designated a person as after examining their genitals.
SEX REASSIGNMENT SURGERY - Sex reassignment surgery (SRS), also called gender confirmation surgery
(GCS), refers to doctor-supervised surgical interventions, and is only one small part of transition. Avoid the
40
Gender and Society
phrase "sex change operation." Do not refer to someone as being "pre-op" or "post-op." Not all transgender
people
Study Guidechoose to,Code
in (Course or can
and afford to, undergo medical surgeries.
Course Title) Module No.__
SEXUAL ORIENTATION/SEXUALITY - Describes a person's enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional

attraction to another person. Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same. Transgender people may
be straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer. For example, a person who transitions from male to female and is
attracted solely to men would typically identify as a straight woman.
SKOLIOSEXUAL - Being primarily sexually, romantically, and/or aesthetically attracted to genderqueer,
transgender, and/or non-binary people.
TRANS - Used as shorthand to mean transgender or transsexual — or sometimes to be inclusive of a wide
variety of identities under the transgender umbrella. Because its meaning is not precise or widely understood, be
careful when using it with audiences who may not understand what it means. Avoid unless used in a direct
quote or in cases where you can clearly explain the term's meaning in the context of your story.
TRANSFEMININE- Someone who was assigned male at birth but identifies and presents as feminine. This
person may or may not identify totally as a woman or a transgender woman.
TRANSGENDER- An umbrella term for people whose gender identity and/or gender expression differs from
what is typically associated with the sex they were assigned at birth. People under the transgender umbrella may
describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms — including transgender.
TRANSMASCULINE- Someone who was assigned female at birth but identifies and presents as masculine.
This person may or may not identify totally as a man or a transgender man.
TRANSSEXUAL- An older term that originated in the medical and psychological communities. Still preferred
by some people who have permanently changed — or seek to change — their bodies through medical
interventions, including but not limited to hormones and/or surgeries. Unlike transgender, transsexual is not an
umbrella term. Many transgender people do not identify as transsexual and prefer the word transgender. It is
best to ask which term a person uses.
UNIT 1
GENDER AND SEXUALITY AS A SOCIAL REALITY
LESSON 1
SEX, GENDER, AND SEXUALITY
Lesson Objectives:
When you finish reading this chapter, you should be able to
1. differentiate sex, gender, and sexuality,
2. discuss the implication of these differences; and
3. contemplate about your own sexuality and on the importance of appreciating
sexual diversity
Definition of Terms:
Sex - the biological aspect of sex, maleness or femaleness
Gender-the social interpretation of sex masculinity, femininity, etc,
Sexuality - the totality of our own experience of our sex and gender
Sex chromosomes - chromosomal markers that distinguish females (XX) from male (XY) species
Intersex - individuals with composite genitals (possessing some characteristics of both male and female
genitals)
41
Gender and Society

Introduction
What does it mean to be a male or a female, to be feminine or masculine, or to be man
or woman? The human mind and body are so complex such that to answer this question,
we have to trace our journey from the moment we were born, and go back to the journey we
humans have across the life span.
First thing you need to understand is the complexities of defining and differentiating sex, gender, and sexuality.
Having a clear grasp of these concepts is crucial since we will be using these terms over and over again in
succeeding discussions. Likewise, there are nuances in the meanings of these terms, which have an implication
on at which context we can appropriately use them
Moreover, as we start our discussion of gender and sexuality as social realities, we also want to understand how
a person's gender is expressed from birth to adulthood. Our ultimate goal is to foster understanding of the
diversity of how humans experience and express their sexuality.
SEX
Sex is the biological dimension of your gender and sexuality. Also referred to as biological sex or physical sex,
the term generally pertains to your identity depending on your sexual anatomy and physiology—the parts of
your body that are relevant to reproduction and the function of these parts. Sex is typically determined by
examining your genitals these are external organs that are associated with reproduction—the process or the
ability to create offspring
Among humans, sex is often assigned at birth. If at birth, a child is observed to have a penis and testicles, then
the child is categorized as male. If on the other hand, a child is observed to have a vagina, then the child is
categorized as female. However, there are cases when the baby's genitals appear to be a conglomerate of male
and female organs such that it may be difficult to classify the baby's sex without further examination. In the
past, this condition is referred to as hermaphroditism (from Hermes, a male Greek god, and Aphrodite, a female
Greek goddess). In modern times, the term intersexuality is used to refer to this phenomenon. Hermaphroditism
or intersexuality is a naturally occurring variation in humans and animals (1 in 1,500 births) according to the
American Psychological Association (APA) (2006).
Since it may be difficult to distinguish biological sex by merely examining the genitals, there are other
biological markers used. For instance, your chromosomes-protein structures which contain your genetic
materials are also used to determine sex. There are specific chromosomes referred to as sex chromosomes,
which marks a person's biological sex. An individual with a set of XY sex chromosomes is said to be a male,
while an individual with a set of XX sex chromosomes is said to be a female. The level of some hormones-
chemicals in our body that are responsible for sustaining bodily processes—are also used as markers. For
example, human males tend to have higher levels of testosterone, which is associated to sex drive and
aggressions. On the other hand, human females tend to have higher levels of estrogen and progesterone, which
are associated to lactation, menstruation, and other female reproductive functions.
GENDER
However, humans are meaning-making organisms. Our ability for higher order thinking
and our tendency to create social norms, allow us to attach social and cultural meanings
to things, including our sex. For example, males are typically expected be masculine and
females are expected to be feminine. Once parents are aware of their child's sex (male or
42
Gender and Society
female) during birth or through prenatal procedures such as ultrasound, they automatically attach social and
cultural
Study Guide meanings to their
in (Course Code child's
and Course sex and in doing so, they already set an expectation
Title) Modulein terms of how their child
No.__
should behave and how they should treat their child. This social dimension of one's sexuality is referred to as
gender.
There are many ways through which gender is manifested. As soon as a new baby arrives in the family, adults
surrounding the baby manifests their social interpretation of the baby's sex by the colors assigned to the baby.
For example, it is common for families to buy blue apparels and toys when the baby is a male, as the color blue
is associated with
boyhood. Conversely, female babies are often assigned the color pink, such that families
would buy clothes and toys that are color pink because the color is associated with girlhood.
Remarkably, the moment a baby is born, the name, toys, and apparels are picked by parents
and relatives based on their interpretation of the baby's sex.
Throughout childhood and adolescence, this assignment becomes more complex as the expectations go beyond
the kind of clothes worn, but also in terms of how the person
must or must not behave. There are set of behaviors that all female individuals must follow and so with the male
individuals, and all are expected to stick to these behaviors that are aligned with their biological sex. This
phenomenon of determining the normality of a
behavior based on whether it conforms or not to the expectations relative to one's biological
sex is referred to as heteronormativity. In the Filipino culture, girls are expected to have
certain characteristics of being gentle, caring, and loving while boys are encouraged to be
strong, rough, and assertive. These expectations also extend to how men and women are expected to behave, the
college courses they take, and the jobs they apply to.
However, there are people who do not follow culturally accepted standards of masculinity and femininity like
girls not wanting to wear dresses and boys not wanting to play rough sports. This is a natural variation of the
human gender expression. Social and cultural
practices change through time. Just 60 years ago, women could not wear pants without social disapproval, and
now wearing pants is already an accepted fashion trend among people of different genders.
How we express our gender is largely based on our social and cultural setting. Most are comfortable with their
sex and gender, men who are masculine and women who are feminine. Each culture also has different standards
on how to be a man and a woman and how they should present themselves according to their sex and gender.
Gender Identity
One important aspect of our gender is our sense of who we are: Do we see and experience ourselves as a man, a
woman, or neither. This refers to our gender identity. Typically, males are comfortable identifying as a man and
females are comfortable identifying as a woman.
However, there are cases wherein a person's biological sex does not align with one's gender identity. People
with this experience are referred to as transgenders, such as a male who does not feel comfortable identifying as
a man (transgender woman) or a female who is not comfortable identifying as a woman (transgender man).
Transgender people may undergo gender reassignment surgery to align their physical characteristics to their
43
Gender and Society
gender identity. However, due to many factors such as belief systems, culture, and economics, some do not opt
for Guide
Study surgery.
in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Another aspect of our gender pertains to our emotional and sexual attraction to a person.
This aspect refers to our sexual orientation. According to the Psychological Association of
the Philippines, typically at ages 6 or 8, we experience or develop attraction to other people. By adolescence, we
already know who we are attracted to and would experiment through
dating and relationships.
Everyone's sexuality is different and deeply personal. Our capacity for emotional and
sexual attraction is diverse and complex, but there are a few common terms or labels for us
to use.
People who are attracted to the opposite sex are called 'heterosexuals' or "straight."
People who are attracted to people of the same sex are called "homosexual." "gay" or "lesbian."
"Bisexual" or "bi" people are attracted to both sexes, male or female.
LGBT refers to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community
APPRECIATING DIVERSITY
According to the American Psychological Association (APA), nature and nurture play a complex role in
shaping our sexual orientation. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are part
of the human sexuality and is a large part of the human experience.
Identifying as a heterosexual, lesbian, bi, gay, or transgender is a deeply personal enough with their sexuality
that they feel safe to share it with other people. For others, process, so it may be more difficult for others to
come out'or for them to become comfortable comes early in adolescence while for some, it may take time to
understand and discover themselves.
According the Psychological Association of the Philippines, we can only truly tell the person is gay, lesbian, or
bisexual if the person shares with us his or her experiences as they share their sexuality since it is a personal and
sensitive topic. We can do that in an environment wherein we do not feel judged and discriminated upon.
People who experience prejudice and discrimination suffer negative psychological effects (APA), so we must
work towards an inclusive environment where everyone feels safe.
Summary
The complexities of the human sexuality can be quite overwhelming. We need to look at our own experience on
our journey of discovering our sense of being a man and a woman for us to understand others. We also need to
engage in conversations with others for us to appreciate the many different faces of human sexuality.
A baby is born and is given an assigned sex based on its genitals. In toddler years, they are raised to be a 'man'
or a woman' based on accepted social and cultural standards. We know that these standards change through
time, what is not acceptable now may be acceptable in the future.
44
Gender and Society
Adolescence is when we discover our emotional and sexual attraction towards other
people. For most, it is easy to identify who they are attracted to, but for others, it can be a long
and difficult process. Fostering an inclusive environment wherein everyone feels safe is very
important at this stage.
Assessment
1. Distinguish sex, gender, and sexuality and provide examples on how each is manifested
in real life situations.
2. Look for books or articles dedicating their discussion on human sexuality. Write down
an essay comparing how these materials define sex, gender, and sexuality
References
American Psychological Association. (2008). Answers to your questions: For a better
understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality. Washington, DC: Author.
(Retrieved from www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf]
American Psychological Association. (2006). Answers to your questions about individuals
with intersex conditions. Washington, DC.
Psychological Association of the Philippines. (2013). Reaffirmation of non-discrimination of LGBT Filipinos.
Manila, Philippines: Author. (Retrieved from www.pap.prg.ph
45
Gender and Society

GAS

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

GAS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GAS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FM-AA-CIA-15 Rev.

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

STUDY GUIDE FOR MODULE NO. ___

CHAPTER 1: Anatomy and Destiny:

MODULE LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Define what is gender and how it is produced.

Ecological Context: Theoretical Perspectives on Gender Differences

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

According to theories of evolution, many gender differ- ences may be explained by an

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 2

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

Socialization and Learning Perspectives

By no means are “feminine” and “masculine” behaviors consistent across cultures.

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 3

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

influences on various levels of the ecological system.

Gender Preference and Gender Ratio at Birth

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 5

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

Lucas-Stannard (2013), discussing gender-neutral par- enting, presents an approach focusing

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 6

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 7

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

In polygynous societies, in which it is customary for men to have multiple reproductive

(Westend61 GmbH/Alamy Stock Photo)

Cultural Influences on Female and Male Socialization

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 8

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

Gender Relationships in Childhood

The seemingly consistent phenomenon of same-sex preference in playmates lends itself to a

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 9

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

in comparison, emphasizes interaction and collaboration. However, biological predisposition

Markers of Sexual Maturation

Some cross-cultural researchers have focused on the extent to which exposure to

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 10

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

Gender, Sexuality, and Cultural Taboos

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 11

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 12

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 13

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

Status and the Division of Labor within the Family

Division of Labor in the Workforce

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 14

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

Occupational fields are also frequently segregated by status. Female-dominated occupations

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 15

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

Gender Relations in Social Status and Public Policy

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 16

Study Guide in (Course Code and Course Title) Module No.__

The Experience of Menopause

PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY 17