If the influences of our family structure are predictive of later gender expectations, it is important to consider the factors that help influence these expectations. There are biological distinctions that make an individual a female or male; nevertheless society places its own interpretations onto these differences and labels us as “feminine” or “masculine” individuals. Through subtle interactions between nature and nurture, society has shaped notions of femininity and masculinity. Gender-role stereotypes traditionally have shown to be related to plans for work, marriage, and parenthood (Herzog & Backman, 1982).
Gender is a practice in which all people engage; it is something we perform routinely over and over in our daily lives. Gender is something that we “do” rather than “have,” and in a sense, society assumes it is bred into our genes. The social expectations and attitudes that are learned are called gender socialization; we are trained and gain knowledge of the proper thinking and behaviors related with being a boy or a girl (Brines, 1994). At an early age, we are raised by our family and conditioned on what it means to be male or female in society. Children’s first introduction to what it means to be male or female comes from their parents (Lauer & Lauer, 1994). Proper attitudes and behaviors are learned at home and then later reinforced by cultural norms within society. For the most part in the contemporary family, structured gender roles are a reflection of the parents’ beliefs about gender.
Most individuals in the United States are taught that there are two and only two sexes, male and female, and two and only two genders, feminine and masculine (Lucal, 2008). We are taught that a real woman is feminine, a real man is masculine, and that any eccentricity or discrepancy is outlandish or abnormal. We are assigned a sex category based on our genitalia, and this category later becomes a gender status with gender markers. We are taught that estrogen, breasts, shaved legs, and a vagina make a woman, while testosterone, facial hair, big muscles, and a penis make a man. Many of us never question what we have been taught about sex and gender, so we go through life assuming that gender is a fairly uncomplicated matter: a person who wears make-up, high heel shoes, and a skirt is a feminine female, while a person who plays rugby, belches in public, and walks with a swagger is a masculine male (Lorber, 1994). Conceptually, our sex is biological, whereas our gender roles are socially and culturally learned from birth.
As the fundamental arena for the enduring gender inequality in the United States, the contemporary family structure, literally and figuratively, helps to support gender inequality in society today. Lorber (1994) believes that gender is embedded in all the social processes of everyday life and social organizations. From inception through early childhood and afar, children learn what is foreseen of them based on their gender, and they learn to behave in a certain way according to those expectations (Eitzen, 2000). Women are, according to stereotyped thought, more nurturing than men. For instance, girls are raised to become nurturing women and to acquire an instinct for love and service toward their family. By contrast, boys are raised to be brave, tough, and strong and to provide support and protection to their family. In this way, influences from the family structure allow children to acquire basic skills in accordance with their genders.
The United States places women and men unequally. These variations among gender relations might be considered to be biologically-rooted dispositions. It could be that men, on average, are more aggressive than women, because of genes and hormones that might cause them to have a stronger instinctual tendency to dominate. In addition, it might be said that women, on average, are more nurturing and have stronger dispositions to engage in care-giving behavior because of their genes and hormones. The ancient nature versus nurture debate sheds little light on the issue, as gender differences could as easily originate from biological influences as from environmental influences.
Whether gender stems from biological or social influences, women in American society are regarded as inherently nurturing. There is nothing wrong with a woman nurturing, and it could even be the case that the nurturing instinct is a benefit for women. For example, a woman’s nurturing instinct could result in her having a better ability to deal with logic, reasoning, and decision-making. Deutsch (2007) states that “several studies of women in masculine occupations showed how they carefully negotiated a uniquely feminine way of implementing their professional roles, thereby accomplishing gender and professional credibility simultaneously” (p. 110). Be it nature or nurture, women deal with life experiences differently than men.
In conclusion, the family is the crucial site where gender relations are produced and reproduced, which results in gender inequality in the United States. The ways we learn, think about, and experience gender and its related biological factors originate in our society, beginning with the family. Although there are obvious biological distinctions that create male and females, it is the family structure that creates gender inequality.
References
Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home. American Journal of Sociology, 100(3), 652-88. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Deutsch, F.M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender and Society, 21(1), 106-127. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Eitzen, D. S. (2000). Social problems (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ferree, M. (1990). Beyond separate spheres: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 866-84. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Herzog, A. R., & Bachman, J. G. (1982). Sex role attitudes among high school seniors: Views about work and family roles. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Research Center, Inst. for Social Research, Univ. of Mich.
Lareau, A. (2002). Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and white families. American Sociological Review, 67(5), 747-776. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
Lauer, R. H., & Lauer, J. C. (1994). Marriage and family: The quest for intimacy. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Lorber, Judith. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lucal, B. (2008). Building boxes and policing boundaries: (De)constructing intersexuality, transgender and bisexuality. Sociology Compass, 2(2), 519–536.
Ochoa, G.M., Lopez, E.E., & Emler, N.P. (2007). Adjustment problems in the family and school contexts, attitude towards authority and violent behavior at school in adolescence. Adolescence Journal, 42(168), 780-794.
Process of Socialization: Personality Development. (n.d.). Retrieved February 15, 2012 from http://anthro.palomar.edu/social/soc_3.htm
Risman, B. (2004). Gender as a social structure theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429-450. Retrieved from http://www.soc.washington.edu/
users/brines/risman.pdf
Robinson, J. P., and Milkie, M.A. (1998). Back to the basics: Trends in and role determinants of women’s attitudes toward housework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60(1), 205-18. Retrieved from JSTOR database.
