gender socialization essay pdf

Gender Socialization: Examples, Agents & Impact

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Gender socialization is the process through which individuals learn the behaviors, expectations, and roles associated with their assigned gender within a society. Parents dressing their baby girl in pink and buying her dolls, while dressing their baby boy in blue and buying him toy trucks is an example of gender socialization.

What is Gender Socialization?

• Gender socialization is the process through which a culture’s gender-related rules, norms, and expectations are learnt.
• This process often begins from a very early age for most people. It is thought that children are aware of their gender by the time they are 3 years old, long before they come to recognize any other type of group they may belong to (Stockard, 2006).
• In gender socialization, it is important to distinguish between sex and gender. When referring to anatomical or reproductive differences between men and women, many social scientists use the term sex (Kretchmar, 2011). When referring to gender, this is a social construct which is believed to exist on a continuum and involves ideas about masculinity and femininity.
• The central idea of gender socialization is that societies have their own ideas of what gender is. People and cultures throughout the world recognize that there are different gender groups and they have assigned roles and responsibilities.
• Through gender socialization, people develop their own beliefs about gender and ultimately form their own gender identity. People may not be consciously aware of the gender norm decisions that they make. Gender roles and norms are often built into the script of what a man/woman should do or be.

Examples of Gender Socialization

An example of gender socialization is how toys are gendered, being marketed towards boys and girls. In many toy stores, there are often segregated ‘boy toys’ and ‘girl toys.’

The toys for boys may often be blue and come in the form of action figures, toy cars, and building blocks, whereas the toys for girls are often pink and come in the form of baby dolls, dress-up games, and toy cooking and cleaning sets.

The types of toys and activities are thought to reinforce what genders should do. For instance, the toys advertised to boys reinforce that to be male involves being adventurous, strong, and logic driven.

The toys advertised to girls reinforce that to be female means to be maternal, physically attractive, and to manage household tasks.

The advertising for these toys is also usually targeted at specific genders. The boxes for ‘girl toys’ for instance may be various shades of pink and display a young girl playing with the toy on the packaging.

Thus, if a girl sees this, she will likely understand that this toy is targeted for her, rather than packaging which is blue and displays a young boy playing with the toy.

Agents of Gender Socialization

We normally refer to the people responsible for our socialisation as agents of socialisation and, by extension, we can also talk about agencies of socialisation (such as our family, the education system, the media and so forth).

Gender socialization is a form of primary socialization which is the process by which children and infants learn the norms and behaviors associated with their gender. It is thought to occur within the family, peer groups, mass media and school curriculum (Bhattacharjee, 2021).

Parent socialization

Parents are often the first socialization of gender that children experience.

Gender socialization can often begin as soon as parents find out whether they are expecting a boy or a girl. Before the child is born, they may begin painting the baby’s room a certain color and buy specific clothing which is ‘appropriate’ for their child’s gender.

The language that parents use around their child can also reflect gender socialization. Girls may be referred to as ‘pretty’ or ‘delicate’, whereas boys may be described as ‘strong’ and ‘boisterous.’ Children learn from this language how they should be according to their gender.

Often there are different expectations for children depending on their gender. Girls may be expected to help out their mother with cooking, shopping, and cleaning activities. Boys may be expected to have high job aspirations, engage in sports, and help their father with fixing things.

Children tend to be especially attentive to same-gender models (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Therefore, when children observe their same-sex parent exhibit specific behaviors or engaging in activities which differ from other genders, the child is more likely to exhibit the same behaviors.

The way that parents behave with their child may differ depending on the child’s gender. Girls may be encouraged to play and behave in a polite and quiet manner, whereas boys may be encouraged to play louder and rougher.

Even if parents try not to reinforce gender norms, if they have their own gendered socialization from when they were younger, these parents may be inadvertently reinforcing this onto their children.

Peer socialization

Children can also be socialized by their peers in different ways, according to their gender.

It is thought that by the time children reach the age of three, they often prefer playing with other children of the same gender (Wharton, 2005).

This is often found across a variety of cultures and continues until adolescence. They often prefer to play with peers who share similar interests and thus are more likely to be socialized by peers of the same gender.

An explanation for gender-segregated play is that boys and girls play very differently and seek out others whose play style is similar (Stockard, 2006).

Girls often form intimate friendships with a small number of other girls and they take turns speaking and expressing agreement. Boys often play in larger groups, engage in rougher activities, and use interruptions and boasts.

When spending time with peers, boys and girls learn what is ‘appropriate’ for their gender. They may discuss with each other what boys and girls should do.

Peers can ‘punish’ each other for engaging in activities that do not conform to their gender. Girls seem to face less pressure than boys to conform to gender norms than boys and are less likely to receive negative attention for participating in ‘cross-gender’ activities and games (Wharton, 2005).

School socialization

Teachers and other educators may place expectations on children based on their gender.

They could do this by labeling and organizing students in group activities or creating different activities for boys and girls. As with parents, teachers may use gendered language when speaking to and about boys and girls.

Schools may encourage boys to engage in science or mathematics whereas they may be more forgiving if girls are not succeeding in these subjects.

Teachers may also discipline students in different ways depending on their gender, which may reinforce children’s beliefs and assumptions.

Media socialization

Gender socialization through media can include through movies, television, and literature. The media can reinforce gender stereotypes so that children have ideas about what it means to be a boy or a girl.

In a lot of movies and TV, men can often be seen as the heroes and going on adventures. In comparison, women are usually outnumbered by the number of male characters, are often portrayed as being physically attractive, and are frequently introduced as the love interest for the male characters.

Female characters are often seen as passive characters who need to be rescued by men and dressed in a way which appeals to the male gaze.

Studies show that children who watch a lot of TV tend to have more sex-stereotypical views of men and women and that this influences their choice of toys, career aspirations, and self-esteem (Burn, 1996).

While the media is beginning to portray males and females in non-stereotypical ways, a lot of older media shows them in traditionally gender-appropriate ways.

For instance, women are shown doing housework or as being stay-at-home mothers, whereas men are shown engaging in a wider variety of activities.

Theories to Explain Gender Socialization

Social learning theory.

Social learning theory is most closely associated with the work of psychologist Albert Bandura. This theory relates to the behaviorist approach which defines learning in terms of stimulus and response.

Social learning theory explains that gender socialization comes as a result of children being reinforced, both positively and negatively, for gender appropriate and inappropriate behavior (Wharton, 2005).

For example, if a boy plays with a ‘gender appropriate’ toy such as a football, he may receive positive reinforcement from his father. Whereas, if the boy plays with a ‘gender inappropriate’ toy such as a doll, he may be ignored or receive negative attention from his father.

According to this theory, children learn what is appropriate from noticing the behavior of their same-sex parent. A young girl may learn what it means to be female by observing her mother, whereas a boy learns what it means to be male by observing his father.

Social learning theory can be discredited by research which has shown that parents who exhibit sex stereotypical behaviors are not more likely than other parents to have children who exhibit sex stereotypical behaviors (Stockard, 2006).

Likewise, children are not thought to be passive learners as social learning theory makes them out to be. Instead, they are more actively engaged in their socialization than the theory suggests (Wharton, 2005).

Gender codes

Gender codes are hidden, unspoken assumptions about the proper roles of men and women which are transmitted through the socialization process and are negotiated by each generation. Gender codes are not uniform but vary with location.

Traditional gender codes tend to be stronger in the working class than the middle class, but all people have access to both conservative and radical gender codes and negotiate their way through to their own balance.

Cognitive development theory

Cognitive development theories for gender socialization build on the research of psychologist Jean Piaget.

These theories emphasize how the socialization process is developmental in nature. It also argues that children have an active role to play in the development of their gender identity (Stockard, 2006).

Psychologists Lawrence Kohlberg was one of the first to apply cognitive development theories to gender identity. He argued that ‘children’s views of appropriate gender roles… change as they grow older, reflecting their changing cognitive development’.

It is thought that younger children have the most rigid definitions of gender and are more likely to punish others for violating gender norms. As they get older and gain more cognitive flexibility, gender stereotypes and gender roles become more flexible for them.

Kohlberg believed that once children develop gender constancy – the recognition that their gender is stable and unchanging – they become more motivated to demonstrate gender appropriate behavior (Wharton, 2005).

Cognitive development theories expand on social learning theory as they acknowledge that children play an active role in the socialization process and suggest that ideas about gender change and develop over time.

However, the fact that children can demonstrate gendered behavior as young as two or three years old, long before gender constancy, discredits Kohlberg’s theory (Martin & Ruble, 2004).

Gender schema theory

Gender schema theory was introduced by psychologist Sandra Bem in 1981 who asserted that children learn about gender roles from the culture in which they live. According to Bem, in cultures where differences between genders are emphasized, children learn to use gender as a way to process information about the world.

Gender schemas are thought to help children organize information and maintain a sense of consistency and predictability (Stockard, 2006). These schemas tend to be polarized so children come to understand what they believe is acceptable and appropriate for different genders.

Gender schemas provide an efficient way to hold new information and make new situations more predictable. Children develop more elaborate gender schemas as they develop their gender identity and their understanding of gender roles.

This theory suggests that the gender schemas are internalized in a way that males and masculinity are the norm and are more highly valued than females and femininity (Wharton. 2005).

A limitation of gender schema theory is the issue of individual differences. The theory does not account for why children with much of the same environmental influences respond differently to gender appropriate behavior.

Psychoanalytic theory

The psychoanalytic theory of gender socialization is different from other theories as it is not a learning theory. Founded by Sigmund Freud , its application to gender socialization was outlined in the 1970s by Nancy Chodorow.

The theory suggests that some aspects of gender identity result from unconscious psychological processes and not from conscious processes such as modeling or schemas.

A key factor of gender socialization according to psychoanalytic theory is the role of the mother as the primary caregiver. Chodorow argues that children’s first identification is with the feminine since they spend more time with their mothers early in life.

Eventually, children need to develop a sense of themselves and their own gender identity. For girls, this process is easier since they have already identified with the mother. For boys, however, they must first reject their feminine identification and develop masculinity.

This masculinity is defined as being ‘not feminine’. During this process, boys also learn to often devalue femininity.

Criticisms of psychoanalytic theory for gender socialization are that the theory is hard to empirically verify. It also reinforces gender stereotypes, places too much emphasis on the unconscious, and does not explain how children who were not raised by mothers develop their gender identity.

How Does Gender Socialization Affect Society?

Women are devalued.

In many societies, tasks and behaviors that are associated with femininity and being female are often devalued.

Women often complete more unpaid labor such as housework and childcare since this is seen as a feminine role and is not appreciated by being paid.

Inequalities in the workplace

Since women are often devalued, many employers may have the gender bias that women will be weaker workers, especially if they have extra labor to do at home.

Women can still experience a wage gap for completing the same work as men. Women-dominated jobs such as those in healthcare are often underpaid in comparison to male-dominated roles.

Women who have children also find they may experience a ‘penalty’ in the workforce and are not afforded the same opportunities as men who have children.

Negative attitudes about different genders

Children often favor their own gender in their attitudes and show gender discriminatory behaviors to other genders.

Gender segregated behavior may be supported by adults and may become a problem when children need to be able to function in gender-integrated settings such as school.

Children may find that they are not able to effectively relate with other genders which can further separate them and enhance differences.

Both boys and girls tend to associate positive characteristics with their own gender. However, after the age of 6, it is found that many girls stop showing this pattern and mostly consider that something that requires a lot of intelligence should preferably be done by a male (Bian et al., 2017).

Thus, girls can often develop negative feelings and attitudes towards their own gender and their own abilities.

Moreover, suppose society has very strict ideas about gender. In that case, this can negatively affect individuals who identify as non-binary, transgender, or anyone who does not subscribe to their assigned gender at birth. It can be hard for these individuals to be their true selves in a society that sees gender as being on a strict binary.

Limitations for men

Gender socialization is limited to both men and women in society. Boys and men can experience gender role conflict and pressure to succeed and dominate in their careers. They may feel like a failure if this is not what they want to or cannot do.

Men and boys may also intentionally avoid expressions of affection with their peers, believing that anger is the only appropriate expression of emotion for them. They often view more vulnerable emotions and crying as being feminine and would not be comfortable displaying these in front of others.

If a boy were to express typically ‘feminine’ traits, they would be at risk of being bullied, so they learn not to display these traits.

Likewise, if men are pushing down their vulnerable emotions, this can eventually damage their mental health and they could be less likely to reach out for help if they were struggling.

Finally, if men are socialized into being more aggressive, they may be more likely to commit crimes and specifically display acts of violence against women.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does gender socialization relate to gender stereotypes.

Gender stereotyping is where a set of gender attributes, characteristics, or roles are ascribed to people by reason of their membership to their gender.

People are thought to be socialized to have gender stereotypes.

If society has specific ideas about what each gender should be, and these are socialized to children, this can lead to them having stereotypes about other genders or adhering to their own gender stereotypes.

Although gender stereotypes tend to become more flexible later in childhood with the development of cognitive flexibility, in many instances, they can persist throughout life and continue to influence behavior (Solbes-Canales et al., 2020).

Interestingly, gender stereotyping is less restrictive for female stereotypes than for male stereotypes, meaning that females are less scrutinized for not adhering to gender stereotypes, but males are.

How does gender socialization relate to sexism?

The persistence of traditional gender roles exacerbates gender inequalities, encourages rigid behaviors, and maintains unbalanced power relations within societies in favor of men (Marcus, 2018).

With society having the attitude that women are weaker or less competent than men at the same work, this can lead to discriminatory behavior towards women.

The roots of prejudices, discrimination, and violence against women can be traced back to widespread gender stereotypes, which come from gender socialization (McCarthy et al., 2018).

Is gender socialization important?

Gender socialization is thought to be important since it helps individuals to develop their gender identity – deeply held internal perception of one’s gender.

Being aware of gender socialization and gender roles means that individuals can choose what they most identify with and develop their own identities.

Can gender socialization occur throughout life?

Although a lot of gender socialization occurs during childhood, it is a lifelong process. The beliefs about gender that are acquired in childhood can affect people throughout their lives.

Many new ideas about gender can be learnt well into adulthood, meaning that new expectations can be learnt. Through gender socialization, people have shaped ideas about what they believe they can achieve.

For instance, a man may believe he is capable of being successful in his career compared to a woman who may think she will have less success due to being a woman.

Can gender socialization be tackled?

It can be useful to become more aware of how individuals have been socialized based on their assigned gender. In this way, people can consider whether they behave or make decisions based on how they have been socialized, or whether it is because it is their own choice.

Since there are a lot of issues with gender socialization, parents and educators can put things in place to ensure children are not restricted by their gender.

They can use gender neutral terms when speaking to the children, ensuring that boys and girls are being spoken to in similar ways.

Parents can encourage children to play with a wide range of toys and activities during early childhood and can help to create playful environments where children interact with a mix of genders.

Also, parents and teachers can discuss and challenge gender stereotypes with children and not put so much emphasis on gender differences. In this way, children should have an understanding that they do not need to be stuck in their traditional gender roles.

Bhattacharjee, N. (2021). Through the looking glass: Gender socialisation in a primary school. In Gender and Education in India A Reader (pp. 40-52). Routledge.

Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., & Cimpian, A. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests.  Science, 355 (6323), 389-391.

Burn, S. M. (1996).  The social psychology of gender . McGraw-Hill.

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation.  Psychological review, 106 (4), 676.

Kretchmar, J. (2011). Gender socialization. of Salem Press. Sociology reference guide. Gender roles & equality , 41-52.

Marcus, R. (2018). The norms factor: recent research on gender, social norms, and women”s economic empowerment.

Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. (2004). Children”s search for gender cues: Cognitive perspectives on gender development.  Current directions in psychological science, 13 (2), 67-70.

McCarthy, K. J., Mehta, R., & Haberland, N. A. (2018). Gender, power, and violence: A systematic review of measures and their association with male perpetration of IPV.  PloS one, 13 (11), e0207091.

Solbes-Canales, I., Valverde-Montesino, S., & Herranz-Hernández, P. (2020). Socialization of gender stereotypes related to attributes and professions among young Spanish school-aged children.  Frontiers in psychology, 11 , 609.

Stockard, J. (2006). Gender socialization. In Handbook of the Sociology of Gender  (pp. 215-227). Springer, Boston, MA.

Wharton, A. S. (2005).  The sociology of gender: An introduction to theory and research . John Wiley & Sons.

Related Articles

Latour’s Actor Network Theory

Cultural Lag: 10 Examples & Easy Definition

Value Free in Sociology

Cultural Capital Theory Of Pierre Bourdieu

Pierre Bourdieu & Habitus (Sociology): Definition & Examples

Two-Step Flow Theory Of Media Communication

Gender Socialization

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2021
• Cite this reference work entry

• Elham Hoominfar 6  

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals ((ENUNSDG))

280 Accesses

1 Citations

Gender roles

Gender socialization is a “process by which individuals develop, refine and learn to ‘do’ gender through internalizing gender norms and roles as they interact with key agents of socialization, such as their family, social networks and other social institutions” (p. 6) (John et al. 2017 ).

Introduction

The importance of understanding gender socialization is in addressing gender inequality and gender discrimination which have harmful consequences for people in the society. Understanding the formation of this discrimination promotes the Sustainable Development Goals in reducing gender inequality and increasing more opportunities for women. It is a great achievement for society to move toward a sustainable and comprehensive development and reduce any kind of inequality. Gender equality would be supported by recognizing the agents and factors that have formed unfair gender social norms and also improving awareness of the social fact that gender roles and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Abbott P, Wallace C, Tyler M (2005) An introduction to sociology: feminist perspectives. Routledge, London

Google Scholar  

Arnett JJ (2014) Socialization in emerging adulthood: from the family to the wider world, from socialization to self-socialization. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD (eds) Handbook of socialization. Theory and research, 2nd edn. Guilford Publications, New York, pp 85–109. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Bandura A (2002) Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In: Bryant J, Zillmann D (eds) Media effects: advances in theory and research, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 121–154

Bandura A, Bussey K (2004) On broadening the cognitive, motivational, and sociostructurally scope of theorizing about gender development and functioning: comment on Martin, Ruble, and Szkrybalo (2002). Psychol Bull 130:691–701

Article   Google Scholar  

Bem SL (1981) Gender Schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychol Rev 88(4):354–364

Bem SL (1993) The lenses of gender: transforming the debate on sexual inequality. Yale University Press, New Haven

Blakemore JEO, Hill CA (2008) The child gender socialization scale: a measure to compare traditional and feminist parents. Sex Roles 58(3–4):192–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9333-y

Brewer L (2001) Gender socialization and the cultural construction of elder caregivers. J Aging Stud 15(3):217–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-4065(01)00020-2

Bukowski W, Castellanos M, Vitaro F, Brendgen M (2016/2014) Socialization and experiences with peers. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD (eds) Handbook of socialization. Theory and research, 2nd edn. Guilford Publications, pp 228–251. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Chen J, Liu H, Xie Z (2010) Effects of rural–urban return migration on women’s family planning and reproductive health attitudes and behavior in rural China. Stud Fam Plan 41(1):31–44

Colaner CW, Rittenour CE (2015) “Feminism begins at home”: the influence of mother gender socialization on daughter career and motherhood aspirations as channeled through daughter feminist identification. Commun Q 63(1):81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2014.965839

Collins RL (2011) Content analysis of gender roles in media: where are we now and where should we go? Sex Roles 64(3):290–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5

Crespi I (2004) Socialization and gender roles within the family: a study on adolescents and their parents in Great Britain. MCFA Annals . Retrieved from http://www.mariecurie.org/annals/volume3/crespi.pdf ; http://mariecurie.org/annals/volume3/crespi.pdf

Cvencek D, Meltzoff AN, Greenwald AG (2011) Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Dev 82(3):766–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x

Dietz T (1998) An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games: implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles 38(5):425–442. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018709905920

Duflo E (2012) Women empowerment and economic development. J Econ Lit 50(4):1051–1079

Dunn J (2014) Siblings. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD (eds) Handbook of socialization. Theory and research, 2nd edn. Guilford Publications, New York, pp 182–202. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Eijk GV (2017) Between risk and resistance: gender socialization, equality, and ambiguous norms in fear of crime and safekeeping. Fem Criminol 12(2):103–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085115605905

Elkin F, Handel G (1989) The child b society: the process of socialization, 5th edn. Random House, New York

Emolu E (2014) Play, toys and gender socialization. J Plus Educ XI(2):22–30

Fee E, Krieger N (1994) Man-made medicine and women’s health: the biopolitics of sex/gender and race/ethnicity. In: Fee E, Krieger N (eds) Women’s health, politics, and power. Baywood Publishing, Amityville, pp 11–29

Frawley TJ (2008) Gender schema and prejudicial recall: how children misremember, fabricate, and distort gendered picture book information. J Res Child Educ 22(3):291–303. Retrieved from ProQuest database

Grusec JE, Davidov M (2014) Analyzing socialization from a domain specific perspective. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD (eds) Handbook of socialization. Theory and research, 2nd edn. Guilford Publications, New York, pp 158–182. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Grusec JE, Hastings PD (2014) Handbook of socialization. Theory and research, 2nd edn. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Halim ML, Ruble DN, Tamis-LeMonda CS, Zosuls KM, Lurye LE, Greulich FK (2014) Pink frilly dresses and the avoidance of all things “girly”: children’s appearance rigidity and cognitive theories of gender development. Dev Psychol 50(4):1091–1101

Hancock AM (2007) Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Polit Gend 3(02):248–254

Heilman ME (2001) Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J Soc Issues 57(4):657–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00234

Hines M (1982) Prenatal gonadal hormones and sex differences in human behavior. Psychological Bulletin 92(1):56–80

John AN, Stoebenau K, Ritter S, Edmeades J, Balvin N (2017) Gender socialization during adolescence in low- and middle-income countries: conceptualization, influences and outcomes. UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/IDP_2017_01.pdf

Kabeer N (2015) Women workers and the politics of claims-making in a globalizing economy. Working paper 2015–13. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development

Kereszty O (2009) Gender in textbooks. Practice and Theory in Systems of Education 4(2):1–7

Lawson KM, Crouter AC, McHale SM (2015) Links between family gender socialization experiences in childhood and gendered occupational attainment in young adulthood. J Vocat Behav 90:26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.003

Leaper C, Farkas T (2014) The socialization of gender during childhood and adolescence. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD (eds) Handbook of socialization. Theory and research, 2nd edn. Guilford Publications, New York, pp 541–566. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Leaper C, Friedman C (2007) The socialization of gender. In: Grusec J, Hastings P (eds) Handbook of socialization: theory and research. Guilford Press, New York, pp 561–587. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2006-23344-022

Leuptow LB, Garovich L, Leuptow MB (1995) The persistence of gender stereotypes in the face of changing sex roles: evidence contrary to the sociocultural model. Ethol Sociobiol 16:509–530

Lindsey L (2016) Gender roles, a sociological perspective, 6th edn. Routledge, London. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qjjbCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=biology+base+for+gender+roles&ots=U4gC97EdMo&sig=JtU4BZOJq0pKkalvxY7LugYSgPQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Maharjan A, Bauer S, Knerr B (2012) Do rural women who stay behind benefit from male out-migration? A case study in the hills of Nepal. Gend Technol Dev 16(1):95–123

McLeod S (2018) Simply psychology. Published online: https://www.simplypsychology.org/simplypsychology.org-Oedipal-Complex.pdf

Millett K (1971) Sexual politics. Granada Publishing Ltd, London

Millett K (2005) Theory of sexual politics. In: Cudd AE, Andreasen RO (eds) Feminist theory: a philosophical anthology. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, pp 37–59. ISBN 1-4051-1661-7

Oakley A (1972) Sex, gender, and society. Maurice Temple Smith, London

Paek H, Nelson MR, Vilela AM (2010) Examination of gender-role portrayals in television advertising across seven countries. Sex Roles. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9850-y . this issue

Pomerleau A, Bolduc D, Malcuit G, Cossette L (1990) Pink or blue: environmental gender stereotypes in the first two years of life. Sex Roles 22:359–367

Prentice DA, Carranza E (2002) What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychol Women Q 26:269–281

Prot S, Anderson CA, Gentile DA, Warburton W, Saleem M, Groves CL, Brown SC (2014) Media as agents of socialization. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD (eds) Handbook of socialization. Theory and research, 2nd edn. Guilford Publications, New York, pp 276–230. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Ridgeway CL, Correll SJ (2004) Unpacking the gender system, a theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gend Soc 18(4):510–531

Risman B (2004) Gender as a social structure: theory wrestling with activism. Gend Soc 18(4):429–450

Ryle R (2011) How do we learn gender? In: Questioning gender, p 119. SAGE Publications

Smetana JG, Robinson J, Rote WM (2014) Socialization in adolescence. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD (eds) Handbook of socialization. Theory and research, 2nd edn. Guilford Publications, New York, pp 6–85. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Smith SL, Pieper KM, Granados A, Choueiti M (2010) Assessing gender-related portrayals in top-grossing G-rated films. Sex Roles 62:774–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9736-z

Stockard J (1999) Gender socialization. In: Chafetz JS (ed) Handbook of the sociology of gender. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 215–227

Stone A (2007) An introduction to feminist philosophy. Polity Press, Cambridge, MA

Taylor F (2003) Content analysis and gender stereotypes in children’s books. Teach Sociol 31(3):300–311. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3211327

Turner JS (2010) Sex and the spectacle of music videos: an examination of the portrayal of race and sexuality in music videos. Sex Roles. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9766-6 . this issue

Wentzel KR (2014) Socialization in school settings. In: Grusec JE, Hastings PD (eds) Handbook of socialization. Theory and research, 2nd edn. Guilford Publications, New York, pp 251–276. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Witt SD (2000) The influence of peers on children’s socialization to gender roles. Early Child Dev Care 162(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443001620101

Women and Hollywood (2017a) Women onscreen, top-grossing 100 films. https://womenandhollywood.com/resources/statistics/2017-statistics/

Women and Hollywood (2017b) 2016–2017 SEASON, Women on TV. https://womenandhollywood.com/resources/statistics/tv-statistics/

Wood W, Eagly AH (2002) A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychol Bull 128:699–727

Yabiku ST, Agadjanian V, Sevoyan A (2010) Husbands’ labour migration and wives’ autonomy, Mozambique 2000–2006. Popul Stud 64(3):293–306

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

Elham Hoominfar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elham Hoominfar .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

European School of Sustainability Science and Research, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Hamburg, Germany

Walter Leal Filho

Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, Institute for Interdisciplinary Research, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

Anabela Marisa Azul

Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, The University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil

Luciana Brandli

The University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, Brazil

Amanda Lange Salvia

International Centre for Thriving, University of Chester, Chester, UK

Section Editor information

Environmental Science and Management, Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA

Melissa Haeffner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Hoominfar, E. (2021). Gender Socialization. In: Leal Filho, W., Marisa Azul, A., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A., Wall, T. (eds) Gender Equality. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95687-9_13

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95687-9_13

Published : 29 January 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-95686-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-95687-9

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Reference Module Physical and Materials Science Reference Module Earth and Environmental Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Gender socialization and identity theory.

1. Introduction

2. gender socialization and families: a review of the literature, 2.1. family and the construction of gender, 2.2. gender socialization by the family: an either/or dichotomy, 2.3. homophily, 2.4. psychoanalytic perspectives on gender.

[B]oys’ identification with masculinity, necessary to attain the correct gender role, happens through rejecting what stands for femininity. Boys come to recognize that what they are supposed to be is what their mothers are not…Rejecting femininity is then consonant with denigrating femininity, so that tasks, traits, and qualities associated with being feminine are considered less socially valuable than are tasks, traits, and qualities associates with being masculine. ([ 19 ], p. 156)

2.5. Doing Gender

When we view gender as an accomplishment, an achieved property of situated conduct, our attention shifts from matters internal to the individual and focuses on interactional and, ultimately, institutional arenas. In one sense, of course, it is individuals who do gender. But it is a situated doing, carried out in the virtual or real presence of others who are presumed to be oriented to its production. Rather than as a property of individuals, we conceive of gender as an emergent feature of social situations: both as an outcome of and a rationale for various social arrangements and as a means of legitimating one of the most fundamental divisions of society. ([ 39 ], p. 4)

2.6. Variants of Identity Theory and Gender: Nascent Stages of Inquiry

3. using identity theories to understand gender, 3.1. identity forms: person, role, and social identities, 3.2. identity salience: stryker’s identity theory, 3.3. gender as a person, role, and social identity: perpetuating gendered behavior.

Interacting with another requires at least a minimal cultural definition of who self and other are. Perhaps because it is a simple, fast, habitually used cultural dichotomy, research shows that people automatically sex categorize ( i.e. , label as female or male) any concrete other with whom they interact, even when other definitions, such as teacher-student, are available. ([ 25 ], p. 192)

3.4. Gender as a “Person” Identity

3.5. gender as a “role” identity.

[T]the meanings associated with role identities are both shared and idiosyncratic, and individuals must negotiate the latter with others who may have a different set of understandings about role identity meanings. Whatever the identity meanings, they are linked to the meanings implied by one’s role behavior; in other words, there is correspondence between these self-meanings while in a role and role behavior. ([ 9 ], p. 89)

3.6. Gender as a “Social” Identity

3.7. salience and commitment: identity hierarchy and gender construction.

Gender is a diffuse status characteristic (a characteristic that is not attached to a specific skill) in interaction. When activated (as it is in most encounters), it invokes cultural assumptions that men are competent and valuable and that women are incapable and not to be taken seriously; thus women are placed at a disadvantage. ([ 65 ], p. 195)

4. Using Identity Control Theory to Understand Gender

4.1. identity control theory and emotion, 4.2. identity control theory and gender, 4.3. how identity control theory operates to control gendered behavior, 5. conclusions, acknowledgements, conflicts of interest.

• Jean Stockard. “Gender socialization.” In Handbook of the Sociology of Gender . Edited by Janet S. Chafetz. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999, pp. 215–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott Coltrane. Gender and Families . Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ronald F. Levant, and Thomas J. Rankin. “The gender role socialization of boys to men.” In Gender in Organizations . Edited by Ronald J. Burke and Debra A. Major. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2014, pp. 55–72. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edward O. Wilson. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis . Boston: Harvard University Press, 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon Stryker, and Peter J. Burke. “The past, present, and future of an identity theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly 63 (2000): 284–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sheldon Stryker, and Richard T. Serpe. “Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: A theory and research example.” In Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior . Edited by William Ickes and Eric S. Knowles. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982, pp. 199–218. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheldon Stryker. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version . Menlo Park: Benjamin Cummings, 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter J. Burke, and Jan E. Stets. Identity Theory . New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jan E. Stets. “Identity theory.” In Contemporary Social Psychological Theories . Edited by Peter J. Burke. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Michael J. Carter. “Advancing identity theory: Examining the relationship between activated identities and behavior in different social contexts.” Social Psychology Quarterly 76 (2013): 203–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Greer Litton Fox, and Velma McBride Murry. “Gender and families: Feminist perspectives and family research.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 (2000): 1160–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gary W. Peterson, and Della Hann. “Socializing children and parents in families.” In Handbook of Marriage and the Family , 2nd ed. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz and Gary W. Peterson. New York: Plenum Press, 1999, pp. 327–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheila McIsaac Cooper. “Historical analysis of the family.” In Handbook of Marriage and the Family , 2nd ed. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz and Gary W. Peterson. New York: Plenum Press, 1999, pp. 13–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gary W. Peterson, and Boyd C. Rollins. “Parent-child socialization.” In Handbook of Marriage and the Family , 1st ed. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. New York: Plenum, 1987, pp. 471–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frederick Elkin, and Gerald Handel. The Child and Society: The Process of Socialization , 5th ed. New York: Random House, 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• Michael M. Messner. “Barbie girls versus sea monsters: Children constructing gender.” Gender and Society 14 (2000): 765–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Margaret L. Anderson. “The social construction of gender.” In Thinking about Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender . Edited by Margaret L. Anderson. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2003, pp. 21–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kay Bussey, and Albert Bandura. “Social cognitive theory and gender development and functioning.” In The Psychology of Gender . Edited by Alice H. Eagly, Anne H. Beall and Robert J. Sternberg. New York: The Guilford Press, 2004, pp. 92–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leslie C. Bell. “Psychoanalytic theories of gender.” In The Psychology of Gender . Edited by Alice H. Eagly, Anne H. Beall and Robert J. Sternberg. New York: The Guilford Press, 2004, pp. 145–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alexis J. Walker. “Gender and family relationships.” In Handbook of Marriage and the Family , 2nd ed. Edited by Marvin B. Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz and Gary W. Peterson. New York: Plenum Press, 1999, pp. 439–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter J. Burke. “Identity processes and social stress.” American Sociological Review 56 (1991): 836–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jan E. Stets, and Michael J. Carter. “The moral self: Applying identity theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly 74 (2011): 192–215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peter J. Burke. “Marital socialization, gender, and identity change.” In Paper presented at The Pacific Sociological Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 2002.
• Peter J. Burke. “Gender identity, sex, and school performance.” Social Psychology Quarterly 52 (1989): 159–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cecilia L. Ridgeway, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. “The gender system and interaction.” Annual Review of Sociology 25 (1999): 191–216. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jeanne H. Block. “Socialization influences on personality development in males and females.” In Apa Master Lecture Series on Issues of Sex and Gender in Psychology . Edited by Marjorie M. Parks. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janet Lever. “Sex differences in the complexity of children’s play and games.” American Sociological Review 43 (1978): 471–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Donna Eder, and Maureen T. Hallinan. “Sex differences in children’s friendships.” American Sociological Review 43 (1978): 237–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lawrence Kohlberg. “A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex role concepts and attitudes.” In The Psychology of Sex Differences . Edited by Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mary F. Waldrop, and Charles F. Halverson Jr. “Intensive and extensive peer behavior: Longitudinal and cross sectional analyses.” In Child Research Branch, National Institute of Mental Health . Washington: National Institute of Mental Health, 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
• Luis M. Laosa, and Jere E. Brophy. “Effects of sex and birth order on sex-role development and intelligence among kindergarten children.” Developmental Psychology 6 (1972): 409–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Donald R. Omark, and R. Edelman. “Peer group social interactions from an evolutionary perspective.” In Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Devlopment Conference, Philadelphia, April 1973.
• Gwen Moore. “Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks.” American Sociological Review 55 (1990): 726–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Richard Isay. Being Homosexual: Gay Men and Their Development . New York: Avon, 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jessica Benjamin. Shadow of the Other: Intersubjectivity and Gender in Psychoanalysis . New York: Routledge, 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel. “Feminine guilt and the oedipus complex.” In Female Sexuality: New Psychoanalytic Views . Edited by Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1970, pp. 94–134. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nancy Chodorow. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysts and the Sociology of Gender . Berkeley: Univeristy of California Press, 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nancy Chodorow. “Heterosexuality as a compromise formation: Reflections on the psychoanalytic theory of sexual development.” Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought 15 (1992): 267–304. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarah Fenstermaker, and Candace West. Doing Gender, Doing Difference: Inequality, Power, and Institutional Change . New York: Routledge, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Candace West, and Don H. Zimmerman. “Doing gender.” Gender and Society 1 (1987): 125–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michael J. Carter. “The moral identity and group affiliation.” Current Research in Social Psychology 21 (2013): 1–13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter J. Burke, and Jan E. Stets. “Identity change.” In Identity Theory . Edited by Peter J. Burke and Jan E. Stets. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 175–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• Susan Harter. “The development of self-representations during childhood and adolescence.” In Handbook of Self and Identity . Edited by Mark R. Leary and June P. Tangney. New York: The Guilford Press, 2003, pp. 610–42. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greer Litton Fox, and Carol Bruce. “Conditional fatherhood: Identity theory and parental investment theory as alternative sources of explanation of fathering.” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (2001): 394–403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• K. Jill Kiecolt, and Anna F. LoMascolo. “Roots of identity: Family resemblences.” In Advances in Identity Theory and Research . Edited by Peter J. Burke, Timothy J. Owens, Richard T. Serpe and Peggy A. Thoits. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2003, pp. 27–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Henri Tajfel. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arthur Aron, Elaine N. Aron, Michael Tudor, and Greg Nelson. “Close relationships as including other in the self.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (1991): 241–53. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peggy A. Thoits, and Lauren K. Virshup. “Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions of social identities.” In Self and Identity: Fundamental Issues . Edited by Richard Ashmore and Lee Jussim. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 106–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• D. Kelly McLain, Deanna Setters, Michael P. Moulton, and Ann E. Pratt. “Ascription of resemblance of newborns by parents and nonrelatives.” Evolution and Human Behavior 21 (2000): 11–23. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ralph H. Turner. Family Interaction . New York: John Wiley, 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vern L. Bengston, Alan C. Acock, Katherine R. Allen, Peggye Dilworth-Anderson, and David M. Klein. “Theory and theorizing in family research.” In Sourcebook of Family Theory & Research . Edited by Vern L. Bengston, Alan. C. Acock, Katherine R. Allen, Peggye Dilworth-Anderson and David. M. Klein. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2005, pp. 3–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• George McCall, and J. S. Simmons. Identities and Interaction , rev. ed. New York: Free Press, 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Andrew J. Weigert. “Identity: Its emergence within sociological psychology.” Symbolic Interaction 6 (1983): 183–206. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sheldon Stryker, and Ann Statham. “Symbolic interactionism and role theory.” In The handbook of Social Psychology , 3rd ed. Edited by Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson. New York: Random House, 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• John P. Hewitt. The Dilemmas of the American Self . Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• John P. Hewitt. Self and Society . Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Neil J. MacKinnon. Symbolic Interaction as Affect Control . New York: Island Press, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter J. Burke, and Viktor Gecas. “Self and identity.” In Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology . Edited by Karen Cook, Gary Alan Fine and James S. House. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter J. Burke. “The self: Measurement implications from a symbolic interactionist perspective.” Social Psychology Quarterly 43 (1980): 18–29. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peter J. Burke, and Donald C. Reitzes. “The link between identity and role performance.” Social Psychology Quarterly 44 (1981): 83–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michael J. Carter. “Identity theory.” In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology . Edited by George Ritzer. Oxford, USA: Blackwell Publishers, 2007, Volume 5, pp. 2223–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• William James. Principles of Psychology . New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1890. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jan E. Stets, and Michael J. Carter. “The moral identity: A principle level identity.” In Purpose, Meaning, and Action: Control Systems Theories in Sociology . Edited by Kent A. McClelland and Thomas J. Fararo. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Timothy J. Owens. “Self and identity.” In Handbook of Social Psychology . Edited by J. DeLamater. New York: Kluwer Academic, 2003, pp. 205–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jan E. Stets, and Peter J. Burke. “Gender, control, and interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1996): 193–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cecilia L. Ridgeway. “Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment.” American Sociological Review 62 (1997): 218–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marilynn B. Brewer, and Layton N. Lui. “The primacy of age and sex in the structure of person categories.” Social Cognition 7 (1989): 262–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peter J. Burke. “Identities and social structure: 2003 cooley-mead award address.” Social Psychology Quarterly 67 (2004): 5–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hazel Markus, and Daphna Oyserman. “Gender and thought: The role of the self-concept.” In Gender and Thought: Psychological Perspectives . Edited by Mary Crawford and Margaret Gentry. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989, pp. 100–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anne Reid, and Kay Deaux. “Relationship between social and personal idenities: Segregation or integration? ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (1996): 1084–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barrie Thorne. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School . New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrie Thorne. “Girls and boys together...But mostly apart: Gender arrangements in elementary schools.” In Relationships and Development . Edited by Willard W. Hartup and Zick Rubin. Hillsdale: Laurence Erlbaum, 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Penelope J. Oakes, S. Alexander Haslem, and John C. Turner. Stereotyping and Social Reality . Oxford, USA: Basil Blackwell, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allison Munch, J. Miller McPherson, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. “Gender, children, and social contact: The effects of childrearing for men and women.” American Sociological Review 62 (1997): 509–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• J. Miller McPherson, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. “Sex segregation in voluntary associations.” American Sociological Review 51 (1986): 61–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herminia Ibarra, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. “New directions in social network research on gender and organizational careers.” In Creating Tomorrow’s Organizations . Edited by Cary L. Cooper and Susan E. Jackson. New York: John Wiley, 1997, pp. 359–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cecilia L. Ridgeway, and Chris Bourg. “Gender as status: An expectation states theory approach.” In The Psychology of Gender . Edited by Alice H. Eagly, Anne H. Beall and Robert J. Sternberg. New York: The Guilford Press, 2004, pp. 217–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wendy Wood, and Stephen J. Karten. “Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (1986): 341–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cecilia L. Ridgeway. “Gender, status, and the social psychology of expectations.” In Theory on Gender/Feminism on Theory . Edited by Paula England. New York: Aldine, 1993, pp. 175–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peter J. Burke, and Judy Tully. “The measurement of role/identity.” Social Forces 55 (1977): 881–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peter J. Burke, and Alicia D. Cast. “Stability and change in the gender identities of newly married couples.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60 (1997): 277–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jan E. Stets. “Justice, emotion, and identity theory.” In Advances in Identity Theory and Research . Edited by Peter J. Burke, Timothy J. Owens, Peggy A. Thoits and Richard Serpe. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 2003, pp. 105–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jan E. Stets. “Emotions in identity theory: The effect of status.” Advances in Group Processes 21 (2004): 51–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leslie R. Brody. “Gender and emotion: Beyond stereotypes.” Journal of Social Issues 53 (1997): 369–94. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

© 2014 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Share and Cite

Carter, M.J. Gender Socialization and Identity Theory. Soc. Sci. 2014 , 3 , 242-263. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci3020242

Carter MJ. Gender Socialization and Identity Theory. Social Sciences . 2014; 3(2):242-263. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci3020242

Carter, Michael J. 2014. "Gender Socialization and Identity Theory" Social Sciences 3, no. 2: 242-263. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci3020242

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

12.2 Gender and Gender Inequality

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Explain the influence of socialization on gender roles in the United States
• Explain the stratification of gender in major American institutions
• Provide examples of gender inequality in the United States
• Describe the rise of feminism in the United States
• Describe gender from the view of each sociological perspective

Gender and Socialization

The phrase “boys will be boys” is often used to justify behavior such as pushing, shoving, or other forms of aggression from young boys. The phrase implies that such behavior is unchangeable and something that is part of a boy’s nature. Aggressive behavior, when it does not inflict significant harm, is often accepted from boys and men because it is congruent with the cultural script for masculinity. The “script” written by society is in some ways similar to a script written by a playwright. Just as a playwright expects actors to adhere to a prescribed script, society expects women and men to behave according to the expectations of their respective gender roles. Scripts are generally learned through a process known as socialization, which teaches people to behave according to social norms.

Socialization

Children learn at a young age that there are distinct expectations for boys and girls. Cross-cultural studies reveal that children are aware of gender roles by age two or three. At four or five, most children are firmly entrenched in culturally appropriate gender roles (Kane 1996). Children acquire these roles through socialization, a process in which people learn to behave in a particular way as dictated by societal values, beliefs, and attitudes. For example, society often views riding a motorcycle as a masculine activity and, therefore, considers it to be part of the male gender role. Attitudes such as this are typically based on stereotypes, oversimplified notions about members of a group. Gender stereotyping involves overgeneralizing about the attitudes, traits, or behavior patterns of women or men. For example, women may be thought of as too timid or weak to ride a motorcycle.

Gender stereotypes form the basis of sexism. Sexism refers to prejudiced beliefs that value one sex over another. It varies in its level of severity. In parts of the world where women are strongly undervalued, young girls may not be given the same access to nutrition, healthcare, and education as boys. Further, they will grow up believing they deserve to be treated differently from boys (UNICEF 2011; Thorne 1993). While it is illegal in the United States when practiced as discrimination, unequal treatment of women continues to pervade social life. It should be noted that discrimination based on sex occurs at both the micro- and macro-levels. Many sociologists focus on discrimination that is built into the social structure; this type of discrimination is known as institutional discrimination (Pincus 2008).

Gender socialization occurs through four major agents of socialization: family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Each agent reinforces gender roles by creating and maintaining normative expectations for gender-specific behavior. Exposure also occurs through secondary agents such as religion and the workplace. Repeated exposure to these agents over time leads men and women into a false sense that they are acting naturally rather than following a socially constructed role.

Family is the first agent of socialization. There is considerable evidence that parents socialize sons and daughters differently. Generally speaking, girls are given more latitude to step outside of their prescribed gender role (Coltrane and Adams 2004; Kimmel 2000; Raffaelli and Ontai 2004). However, differential socialization typically results in greater privileges afforded to sons. For instance, boys are allowed more autonomy and independence at an earlier age than daughters. They may be given fewer restrictions on appropriate clothing, dating habits, or curfew. Sons are also often free from performing domestic duties such as cleaning or cooking and other household tasks that are considered feminine. Daughters are limited by their expectation to be passive and nurturing, generally obedient, and to assume many of the domestic responsibilities.

Even when parents set gender equality as a goal, there may be underlying indications of inequality. For example, boys may be asked to take out the garbage or perform other tasks that require strength or toughness, while girls may be asked to fold laundry or perform duties that require neatness and care. It has been found that fathers are firmer in their expectations for gender conformity than are mothers, and their expectations are stronger for sons than they are for daughters (Kimmel 2000). This is true in many types of activities, including preference for toys, play styles, discipline, chores, and personal achievements. As a result, boys tend to be particularly attuned to their father’s disapproval when engaging in an activity that might be considered feminine, like dancing or singing (Coltraine and Adams 2008). Parental socialization and normative expectations also vary along lines of social class, race, and ethnicity. African American families, for instance, are more likely than Caucasians to model an egalitarian role structure for their children (Staples and Boulin Johnson 2004).

The reinforcement of gender roles and stereotypes continues once a child reaches school age. Until very recently, schools were rather explicit in their efforts to stratify boys and girls. The first step toward stratification was segregation. Girls were encouraged to take home economics or humanities courses and boys to take math and science.

Studies suggest that gender socialization still occurs in schools today, perhaps in less obvious forms (Lips 2004). Teachers may not even realize they are acting in ways that reproduce gender differentiated behavior patterns. Yet any time they ask students to arrange their seats or line up according to gender, teachers may be asserting that boys and girls should be treated differently (Thorne 1993).

Even in levels as low as kindergarten, schools subtly convey messages to girls indicating that they are less intelligent or less important than boys. For example, in a study of teacher responses to male and female students, data indicated that teachers praised male students far more than female students. Teachers interrupted girls more often and gave boys more opportunities to expand on their ideas (Sadker and Sadker 1994). Further, in social as well as academic situations, teachers have traditionally treated boys and girls in opposite ways, reinforcing a sense of competition rather than collaboration (Thorne 1993). Boys are also permitted a greater degree of freedom to break rules or commit minor acts of deviance, whereas girls are expected to follow rules carefully and adopt an obedient role (Ready 2001).

Mimicking the actions of significant others is the first step in the development of a separate sense of self (Mead 1934). Like adults, children become agents who actively facilitate and apply normative gender expectations to those around them. When children do not conform to the appropriate gender role, they may face negative sanctions such as being criticized or marginalized by their peers. Though many of these sanctions are informal, they can be quite severe. For example, a girl who wishes to take karate class instead of dance lessons may be called a “tomboy” and face difficulty gaining acceptance from both male and female peer groups (Ready 2001). Boys, especially, are subject to intense ridicule for gender nonconformity (Coltrane and Adams 2004; Kimmel 2000).

Mass media serves as another significant agent of gender socialization. In television and movies, women tend to have less significant roles and are often portrayed as wives or mothers. When women are given a lead role, it often falls into one of two extremes: a wholesome, saint-like figure or a malevolent, hypersexual figure (Etaugh and Bridges 2003). This same inequality is pervasive in children’s movies (Smith 2008). Research indicates that in the ten top-grossing G-rated movies released between 1991 and 2013, nine out of ten characters were male (Smith 2008).

Television commercials and other forms of advertising also reinforce inequality and gender-based stereotypes. Women are almost exclusively present in ads promoting cooking, cleaning, or childcare-related products (Davis 1993). Think about the last time you saw a man star in a dishwasher or laundry detergent commercial. In general, women are underrepresented in roles that involve leadership, intelligence, or a balanced psyche. Of particular concern is the depiction of women in ways that are dehumanizing, especially in music videos. Even in mainstream advertising, however, themes intermingling violence and sexuality are quite common (Kilbourne 2000).

Social Stratification and Inequality

Stratification refers to a system in which groups of people experience unequal access to basic, yet highly valuable, social resources. There is a long history of gender stratification in the United States. When looking to the past, it would appear that society has made great strides in terms of abolishing some of the most blatant forms of gender inequality (see timeline below) but underlying effects of male dominance still permeate many aspects of society.

• Before 1809—Women could not execute a will
• Before 1840—Women were not allowed to own or control property
• Before 1920—Women were not permitted to vote
• Before 1963—Employers could legally pay a woman less than a man for the same work
• Before 1973—Women did not have the right to a safe and legal abortion (Imbornoni 2009)

The Pay Gap

Despite making up nearly half (49.8 percent) of payroll employment, men vastly outnumber women in authoritative, powerful, and, therefore, high-earning jobs (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Even when a woman’s employment status is equal to a man’s, she will generally make only 81 cents for every dollar made by her male counterpart (Payscale 2020). Women in the paid labor force also still do the majority of the unpaid work at home. On an average day, 84 percent of women (compared to 67 percent of men) spend time doing household management activities (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). This double duty keeps working women in a subordinate role in the family structure (Hochschild and Machung 1989).

Gender stratification through the division of labor is not exclusive to the United States. According to George Murdock’s classic work, Outline of World Cultures (1954), all societies classify work by gender. When a pattern appears in all societies, it is called a cultural universal. While the phenomenon of assigning work by gender is universal, its specifics are not. The same task is not assigned to either men or women worldwide. But the way each task’s associated gender is valued is notable. In Murdock’s examination of the division of labor among 324 societies around the world, he found that in nearly all cases the jobs assigned to men were given greater prestige (Murdock and White 1968). Even if the job types were very similar and the differences slight, men’s work was still considered more vital.

Part of the gender pay gap can be attributed to unique barriers faced by women regarding work experience and promotion opportunities. A mother of young children is more likely to drop out of the labor force for several years or work on a reduced schedule than is the father. As a result, women in their 30s and 40s are likely, on average, to have less job experience than men. This effect becomes more evident when considering the pay rates of two groups of women: those who did not leave the workforce and those who did: In the United States, childless women with the same education and experience levels as men are typically paid with closer (but not exact) parity to men. However, women with families and children are paid less: Mothers are recommended a 7.9 percent lower starting salary than non-mothers, which is 8.6 percent lower than men (Correll 2007).

This evidence points to levels of discrimination that go beyond behaviors by individual companies or organizations. As discussed earlier in the gender roles section, many of these gaps are rooted in America’s social patterns of discrimination, which involve the roles that different genders play in child-rearing, rather than individual discrimination by employers in hiring and salary decisions. On the other hand, legal and ethical practices demand that organizations do their part to promote more equity among all genders.

The Glass Ceiling

The idea that women are unable to reach the executive suite is known as the glass ceiling. It is an invisible barrier that women encounter when trying to win jobs in the highest level of business. At the beginning of 2021, for example, a record 41 of the world’s largest 500 companies were run by women. While a vast improvement over the number twenty years earlier – where only two of the companies were run by women – these 41 chief executives still only represent eight percent of those large companies (Newcomb 2020).

Why do women have a more difficult time reaching the top of a company? One idea is that there is still a stereotype in the United States that women aren’t aggressive enough to handle the boardroom or that they tend to seek jobs and work with other women (Reiners 2019). Other issues stem from the gender biases based on gender roles and motherhood discussed above.

Another idea is that women lack mentors, executives who take an interest and get them into the right meetings and introduce them to the right people to succeed (Murrell & Blake-Beard 2017).

Women in Politics

One of the most important places for women to help other women is in politics. Historically in the United States, like many other institutions, political representation has been mostly made up of White men. By not having women in government, their issues are being decided by people who don’t share their perspective. The number of women elected to serve in Congress has increased over the years, but does not yet accurately reflect the general population. For example, in 2018, the population of the United States was 49 percent male and 51 percent female, but the population of Congress was 78.8 percent male and 21.2 percent female (Manning 2018). Over the years, the number of women in the federal government has increased, but until it accurately reflects the population, there will be inequalities in our laws.

Movements for Change: Feminism

One of the underlying issues that continues to plague women in the United States is misogyny . This is the hatred of or, aversion to, or prejudice against women. Over the years misogyny has evolved as an ideology that men are superior to women in all aspects of life. There have been multiple movements to try and fight this prejudice.

In 1963, writer and feminist Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique in which she contested the post-World War II belief that it was women’s sole destiny to marry and bear children. Friedan’s book began to raise the consciousness of many women who agreed that homemaking in the suburbs sapped them of their individualism and left them unsatisfied. In 1966, the National Organization for Women (NOW) formed and proceeded to set an agenda for the feminist movement . Framed by a statement of purpose written by Friedan, the agenda began by proclaiming NOW’s goal to make possible women’s participation in all aspects of American life and to gain for them all the rights enjoyed by men.

Feminists engaged in protests and actions designed to bring awareness and change. For example, the New York Radical Women demonstrated at the 1968 Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City to bring attention to the contest’s—and society’s—exploitation of women. The protestors tossed instruments of women’s oppression, including high-heeled shoes, curlers, girdles, and bras, into a “freedom trash can.” News accounts incorrectly described the protest as a “bra burning,” which at the time was a way to demean and trivialize the issue of women’s rights (Gay 2018).

Other protests gave women a more significant voice in a male-dominated social, political, and entertainment climate. For decades, Ladies Home Journal had been a highly influential women’s magazine, managed and edited almost entirely by men. Men even wrote the advice columns and beauty articles. In 1970, protesters held a sit-in at the magazine’s offices, demanding that the company hire a woman editor-in-chief, add women and non-White writers at fair pay, and expand the publication’s focus.

Feminists were concerned with far more than protests, however. In the 1970s, they opened battered women’s shelters and successfully fought for protection from employment discrimination for pregnant women, reform of rape laws (such as the abolition of laws requiring a witness to corroborate a woman’s report of rape), criminalization of domestic violence, and funding for schools that sought to counter sexist stereotypes of women. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade invalidated a number of state laws under which abortions obtained during the first three months of pregnancy were illegal. This made a nontherapeutic abortion a legal medical procedure nationwide.

Gloria Steinem had pushed through gender barriers to take on serious journalism subjects, and had emerged as a prominent advocate for women’s rights. Through her work, Steinem met Dorothy Pittman-Hughes, who had founded New York City’s first shelter for domestic violence victims as well as the city’s Agency for Child Development. Together they founded Ms . Magazine, which avoided articles on homemaking and fashion in favor of pieces on women’s rights and empowerment. Ms . showcased powerful and accomplished women such as Shirley Chisholm and Sissy Farenthold, and was among the first publications to bring domestic violence, sexual harassment, and body image issues to the national conversation (Pogrebrin 2011).

Many advances in women’s rights were the result of women’s greater engagement in politics. For example, Patsy Mink, the first Asian American woman elected to Congress, was the co-author of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, Title IX of which prohibits sex discrimination in education. Mink had been interested in fighting discrimination in education since her youth, when she opposed racial segregation in campus housing while a student at the University of Nebraska. She went to law school after being denied admission to medical school because of her gender. Like Mink, many other women sought and won political office, many with the help of the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC). In 1971, the NWPC was formed by Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm, and other leading feminists to encourage women’s participation in political parties, elect women to office, and raise money for their campaign.

Shirley Chisholm personally took up the mantle of women’s involvement in politics. Born of immigrant parents, she earned degrees from Brooklyn College and Columbia University, and began a career in early childhood education and advocacy. In the 1950’s she joined various political action groups, worked on election campaigns, and pushed for housing and economic reforms. After leaving one organization over its refusal to involve women in the decision-making process, she sought to increase gender and racial diversity within political and activist organizations throughout New York City. In 1968, she became the first Black woman elected to Congress. Refusing to take the quiet role expected of new Representatives, she immediately began sponsoring bills and initiatives. She spoke out against the Vietnam War, and fought for programs such as Head Start and the national school lunch program, which was eventually signed into law after Chisholm led an effort to override a presidential veto. Chisholm would eventually undertake a groundbreaking presidential run in 1972, and is viewed as paving the way for other women, and especially women of color, achieving political and social prominence (Emmrich 2019).

Theoretical Perspectives on Gender

Sociological theories help sociologists to develop questions and interpret data. For example, a sociologist studying why middle-school girls are more likely than their male counterparts to fall behind grade-level expectations in math and science might use a feminist perspective to frame her research. Another scholar might proceed from the conflict perspective to investigate why women are underrepresented in political office, and an interactionist might examine how the symbols of femininity interact with symbols of political authority to affect how women in Congress are treated by their male counterparts in meetings.

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism has provided one of the most important perspectives of sociological research in the twentieth century and has been a major influence on research in the social sciences, including gender studies. Viewing the family as the most integral component of society, assumptions about gender roles within marriage assume a prominent place in this perspective.

Functionalists argue that gender roles were established well before the pre-industrial era when men typically took care of responsibilities outside of the home, such as hunting, and women typically took care of the domestic responsibilities in or around the home. These roles were considered functional because women were often limited by the physical restraints of pregnancy and nursing and unable to leave the home for long periods of time. Once established, these roles were passed on to subsequent generations since they served as an effective means of keeping the family system functioning properly.

When changes occurred in the social and economic climate of the United States during World War II, changes in the family structure also occurred. Many women had to assume the role of breadwinner (or modern hunter-gatherer) alongside their domestic role in order to stabilize a rapidly changing society. When the men returned from war and wanted to reclaim their jobs, society fell back into a state of imbalance, as many women did not want to forfeit their wage-earning positions (Hawke 2007).

Conflict Theory

According to conflict theory, society is a struggle for dominance among social groups (like women versus men) that compete for scarce resources. When sociologists examine gender from this perspective, we can view men as the dominant group and women as the subordinate group. According to conflict theory, social problems are created when dominant groups exploit or oppress subordinate groups. Consider the Women’s Suffrage Movement or the debate over women’s “right to choose” their reproductive futures. It is difficult for women to rise above men, as dominant group members create the rules for success and opportunity in society (Farrington and Chertok 1993).

Friedrich Engels, a German sociologist, studied family structure and gender roles. Engels suggested that the same owner-worker relationship seen in the labor force is also seen in the household, with women assuming the role of the proletariat. This is due to women’s dependence on men for the attainment of wages, which is even worse for women who are entirely dependent upon their spouses for economic support. Contemporary conflict theorists suggest that when women become wage earners, they can gain power in the family structure and create more democratic arrangements in the home, although they may still carry the majority of the domestic burden, as noted earlier (Rismanand and Johnson-Sumerford 1998).

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory is a type of conflict theory that examines inequalities in gender-related issues. It uses the conflict approach to examine the maintenance of gender roles and inequalities. Radical feminism, in particular, considers the role of the family in perpetuating male dominance. In patriarchal societies, men’s contributions are seen as more valuable than those of women. Patriarchal perspectives and arrangements are widespread and taken for granted. As a result, women’s viewpoints tend to be silenced or marginalized to the point of being discredited or considered invalid.

Sanday’s study of the Indonesian Minangkabau (2004) revealed that in societies some consider to be matriarchies (where women comprise the dominant group), women and men tend to work cooperatively rather than competitively regardless of whether a job is considered feminine by U.S. standards. The men, however, do not experience the sense of bifurcated consciousness under this social structure that modern U.S. females encounter (Sanday 2004).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism aims to understand human behavior by analyzing the critical role of symbols in human interaction. This is certainly relevant to the discussion of masculinity and femininity. Imagine that you walk into a bank hoping to get a small loan for school, a home, or a small business venture. If you meet with a male loan officer, you may state your case logically by listing all the hard numbers that make you a qualified applicant as a means of appealing to the analytical characteristics associated with masculinity. If you meet with a female loan officer, you may make an emotional appeal by stating your good intentions as a means of appealing to the caring characteristics associated with femininity.

Because the meanings attached to symbols are socially created and not natural, and fluid, not static, we act and react to symbols based on the current assigned meaning. The word gay , for example, once meant “cheerful,” but by the 1960s it carried the primary meaning of “homosexual.” In transition, it was even known to mean “careless” or “bright and showing” (Oxford American Dictionary 2010). Furthermore, the word gay (as it refers to a person), carried a somewhat negative and unfavorable meaning fifty years ago, but it has since gained more neutral and even positive connotations. When people perform tasks or possess characteristics based on the gender role assigned to them, they are said to be doing gender . This notion is based on the work of West and Zimmerman (1987). Whether we are expressing our masculinity or femininity, West and Zimmerman argue, we are always "doing gender." Thus, gender is something we do or perform, not something we are.

In other words, both gender and sexuality are socially constructed. The social construction of sexuality refers to the way in which socially created definitions about the cultural appropriateness of sex-linked behavior shape the way people see and experience sexuality. This is in marked contrast to theories of sex, gender, and sexuality that link male and female behavior to biological determinism , or the belief that men and women behave differently due to differences in their biology.

Sociological Research

Being male, being female, and being healthy.

In 1971, Broverman and Broverman conducted a groundbreaking study on the traits mental health workers ascribed to males and females. When asked to name the characteristics of a female, the list featured words such as unaggressive, gentle, emotional, tactful, less logical, not ambitious, dependent, passive, and neat. The list of male characteristics featured words such as aggressive, rough, unemotional, blunt, logical, direct, active, and sloppy (Seem and Clark 2006). Later, when asked to describe the characteristics of a healthy person (not gender specific), the list was nearly identical to that of a male.

This study uncovered the general assumption that being female is associated with being somewhat unhealthy or not of sound mind. This concept seems extremely dated, but in 2006, Seem and Clark replicated the study and found similar results. Again, the characteristics associated with a healthy male were very similar to that of a healthy (genderless) adult. The list of characteristics associated with being female broadened somewhat but did not show significant change from the original study (Seem and Clark 2006). This interpretation of feminine characteristic may help us one day better understand gender disparities in certain illnesses, such as why one in eight women can be expected to develop clinical depression in her lifetime (National Institute of Mental Health 1999). Perhaps these diagnoses are not just a reflection of women’s health, but also a reflection of society’s labeling of female characteristics, or the result of institutionalized sexism.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/12-2-gender-and-gender-inequality

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Three Essays on Gender Role Socialization, Gender Equality, and Gendered Policy

Add to collection, downloadable content.

• Affiliation: College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Public Policy
• Gender role attitudes measure opinions about men’s and women’s roles in society. The attitudes can guide individual behaviors and policy decisions. This dissertation explores the generation of gender role attitudes in the family, how the attitudes change women’s social participation with other indicators, and whether it can predict gendered policies that protect women’s rights. This is the first study to focus on the transmission of gender role attitudes inside families in China. It also collects province-level data on gender role attitudes in China and analyzes the dynamics between gender ideology and gendered policy. This dissertation also uses comparative methods to study the role of gender ideology in women’s labor force participation and political representation.In the second chapter, I find that parental behaviors, such as the distribution of housework, have significant correlations with children’s knowledge of gender equality in China. When parents undertake housework responsibilities more equally, it is associated with the finding that children would better understand gender equality. The correlation differentiates in various family patterns based on the number of children and their genders. The third and fourth chapters examine the impact of gender role attitudes. The third chapter evaluates the effect of female political representation on the gender gap in labor force participation, along with the influence of gender role attitudes and paid maternity leave. I find that female representation influences women in the labor market majorly through gendered policy in developing countries, which has an immediate effect but may not last in the long term. In developed countries, gender role attitudes are the key factor in the relationship between political representation and labor force participation.The fourth chapter examines the geographic distribution of gender role attitudes at the province level in China. I also analyze the association between gender ideology and gendered policy. Although provincial gender role attitudes are not a significant factor in explaining policy change, they still provide insights into how provincial governments in China make policy decisions. It also shows that social development, rural-urban segregation, cultural traditions, and ethnic groups are profoundly associated with local policymaking on gender.
• Gender Equality
• Gender Role Socialization
• Public policy
• Gender Role Attitudes
• https://doi.org/10.17615/v72f-0r68
• Dissertation
• In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted
• Kreitzer, Rebecca J
• Moulton, Jeremy G
• Addo, Fenaba R
• Smith, Richard L
• Doctor of Philosophy
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Graduate School

This work has no parents.

Select type of work

Master's papers.

Deposit your masters paper, project or other capstone work. Theses will be sent to the CDR automatically via ProQuest and do not need to be deposited.

Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters

Deposit a peer-reviewed article or book chapter. If you would like to deposit a poster, presentation, conference paper or white paper, use the “Scholarly Works” deposit form.

Undergraduate Honors Theses

Deposit your senior honors thesis.

Scholarly Journal, Newsletter or Book

Deposit a complete issue of a scholarly journal, newsletter or book. If you would like to deposit an article or book chapter, use the “Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters” deposit option.

Deposit your dataset. Datasets may be associated with an article or deposited separately.

Deposit your 3D objects, audio, images or video.

Poster, Presentation, Protocol or Paper

Deposit scholarly works such as posters, presentations, research protocols, conference papers or white papers. If you would like to deposit a peer-reviewed article or book chapter, use the “Scholarly Articles and Book Chapters” deposit option.

• Corpus ID: 37731541

Gender: A Social Construction

• Julianna Greco
• Published 4 May 2013

4 Citations

The role of women in political development, gender construction of women as maung geulis in indonesian football, gender responsiveness in the counseling sessions of the empowerment and welfare organization (pkk) in an attempt to increase family resilience in cilacap regency, teaching transgender singers, 12 references, parental influence on children's socialization to gender roles., are television commercials still achievement scripts for women, gender socialization in chinese kindergartens: teachers’ contributions, hegemonic masculinity, sexuality sells: a content analysis of lesbian and heterosexual women's bodies in magazine advertisements, the impact of religion on gender-role attitudes, selling feminism, consuming femininity, “we are the champions”: masculinities, sports and popular music, review of 'women, the koran and international human rights law: the experience of pakistan', related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Gender Socialization Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Collins/anderson, lorber on gender socialization, works cited.

Feminists and gender experts generally agree that, at birth, there is no femininity or masculinity. It is through early gender socialization that infants become engendered according to their sex (Scott and Jackson 41). Gender is defined as “a social symbolic construction that expresses the meaning a society confers on biological sex” (Wood 320). From an early age, boys and girls learn different gender-specific roles in their environment as taught by parents, siblings or caregivers.

Lorber observes that “parents produce gendered children through the toys they buy… they also encourage them to play in a gender-appropriate way – girls with dolls, boys with action figures” (61). Thus, parents influence early gender socialization by controlling “the patterns of gendered behavior, which, not only become part of a child’s identity as a boy or a girl but also become embodied” (Lorber 63). Besides, parents, the media, peers and school also influence early gender socialization.

It is evident that gender socialization is intertwined with culture. In patriarchal societies, “society is organized around certain kinds of social relationships and ideas” (Johnson 78) that seem to favor men. However, this “does not mean that all men – each and every one of them – are oppressive people” (Johnson 76).

Rather, it is the social system that breeds social oppression and male dominance that characterize patriarchy. It is through understanding the larger social system that society can identify the positive gender roles that can promote gender equity and reduce oppression. This paper reviews the arguments for and against early gender socialization, patriarchy and its effects, and the effect of engendered society on gender roles and performance.

Gender identity plays a big role in social stratification in many cultures including the American society. Typically, a patriarchal ‘system’ assigns males and females distinct heterosexual roles, a practice, which serves to perpetuate male dominance.

However, Johnson holds a different view; he views patriarchy as a system that “includes cultural ideas about men and women, the web of relationships that structure social life, and the unequal distribution of rewards and resources that underlies oppression” (84). He encourages society to view patriarchy as a system that all people participate in, not as an embodiment of masculinity.

From an early age children are taught, via explicit or subtle means, to conform to societal gender constructs (either feminine or masculine) in their behavior, looks and actions. Dworkin views this as a cultural product where “women live in fairy tales as magical figures, as beauty, danger, innocence, malice, and greed” (32). Culture creates distinctive and appealing identities through fairy tales – the wicked witch, the beautiful princess, the heroic prince – to define who we are” (Dworkin 32).

Therefore, patriarchy is intertwined with cultural norms, gender roles and identities in a given society. In many societies, social inequalities are attributed to patriarchy. This implies that, in such societies, more men than women occupy powerful positions and well-paying jobs in business, law and government. In light of this, Johnson defines patriarchy as “male-dominated, male-centered, and male-identified” (84).

A male dominated society places men in dominant and influential positions, a practice that increases social inequality in the society. Such a society is often organized around social control, with men, through oppression and threats of violence, exerting control over women, who need male protection and supervision. A patriarchal society is male identified when most socially valued attributes and personal qualities are associated with men while devalued qualities and roles are associated with women.

This explains why patriarchies feel threatened by movements related to class, race or sexuality/gender. A patriarchal society is also male-centered. In such a society, men and boys are the center of attention while women are pushed to the periphery. Moreover, men and masculine roles are the center of focus or public attention in patriarchal societies.

Allan Johnson’s definition of the term patriarchy dispels common misconceptions surrounding oppression. He contends that society erroneously associates patriarchy with males, which often leads to the conclusion that men are oppressive. However, he argues that patriarchy is “about standards of feminine beauty and masculine toughness, images of feminine vulnerability and masculine protectiveness, of older men coupled with young women, of elderly women alone” (84).

It is the patriarchal “system that encourages men to value women primarily in terms of their ability to meet men’s needs and desires and to support men’s self-images as potent and in control” (96). Thus, people should learn to distinguish between the individual male and the patriarchal system.

It is by recognizing this difference that people can begin to address the actual causes of gender violence and social inequality. In view of this, bias based on gender, race or social class is not oppression per se, but “the sum of individual failings on the part of blacks, women, and the poor, who lack the right stuff to compete successfully with whites, men, and others who know how to make something of themselves” (76).

Thus, to eliminate social inequality, it is important that people understand the misconceptions surrounding patriarchy. Patriarchy revolves around social relationships and structures, which may limit an individual to some extent. It is worth noting that, through his argument, Johnson’s gives a new perspective on patriarchy, whereby he portrays men not as villainous as commonly portrayed by gender many movements.

The social norms define how people act or behave, which explains why people make the decisions they make in a patriarchal context. Johnson observes that the symbols in our culture “make up the patriarchal culture” (84), which, in turn, “affect the structure of social life” (87). Thus, it is our culture that creates power relations and gender roles, which then shape people’s behavior and values in patriarchal societies.

Today’s dynamic society requires people to recognize that gender is closely intertwined with other social aspects in “a matrix” of social domination. In modern societies, gender, race and economic class shape the issues of inequality and power relations. Also, social identity is largely organized around social domination, stratification and oppression. Therefore, in order to reconstruct the role of race, class and gender in society, it is important to examine them in the context of power relations.

Sociologists, Andersen and Collins, have developed a framework for understanding these social categories. First, they propose that the three categories are not absolute as they are constructs of social interaction (76). Second, the social categories create binary social groups, not social identities. This means that individuals can either be male or female, poor or wealthy, etc. It is through these power-based groupings that power relations are played out in the society.

A third concept in Andersen and Collins’ framework is that the three categories, besides directly defining group identities, their effects result in distinct social structures in the society. In this way, they contribute indirectly to identity formation. The fourth element of this framework relates to the fact that the three categories affect social interactions, social institutions and each group’s consciousness in the society. Based on this framework, it is easier for people to understand the significance of the three categories on gender socialization.

In the modern American society, it is often thought that people are no longer classist, racist and/or feminist. It is generally believed that a person’s gender, class or race does not disadvantage him or her in the society. However, Andersen and Collins argue that these social groupings are still significant as “the system of privilege and inequality (by race, class and gender) is less visible to those who are more privileged” (78).

That is why women complain about male dominance while men believe that patriarchy does not exist. It shows that the American society tends towards the status quo, which favors the groups in power. In contrast, the other groups/categories are marginalized, making them victims of social injustice.

The dominant forms of knowledge help perpetuate this trend by stating that racism, sexism and classism does not exist in the modern society (Scott and Jackson 67). It is no wonder social inequality continues to persist in modern societies. Therefore, an understanding the role of gender, class and race in power relations would help unravel the issue of social domination.

Andersen and Collins note that the three categories affect social domination, which then influence “social interactions, access to power and group consciousness” (77). It is clear that the individual categories do not work in isolation, but rather their combined effects help define an individual’s social experience. Therefore, oppression, in power relations, is a product of the interconnections between the social groups in the society.

On her part, Dworkin, unlike other sociologists and gender experts, criticizes female oppression, pornography and sexual violence in her analysis of fiction books. In her work, entitled “ Woman Hating” , she explores gender socialization in fairy tales and sexist writings.

She argues that cultural symbols and images are some of the way power-based gender relations are established and maintained in the society. To illustrate how cultural stereotypes are created, Dworkin writes that fairy tale characters “Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow-white and Rapunzel – all are characterized by passivity, beauty, innocence and victimization… they never think, act, initiate, confront, resist, challenge, feel, care, or question” (42).

From a social perspective, only good women have these attributes. Also, in fairy tales, females “are characterized by passivity, beauty, innocence, and victimization” (42). The same trend occurs in gender roles, whereby from an early age “culture predetermines who we are, how we behave, what we are willing to know, what we are able to feel” (35). Thus, culture has shaped women’s behavior and actions to conform to ‘acceptable’ social standards. They have to do what is deemed ‘good’ in the eyes of men and society.

Because of this, “women strive for passivity, because they want to be good” (48). It is the same ingrained mentality that “convinces women that they are bad, the bad need to be punished and destroyed, so that they become good” (48). The women, therefore, view oppression and male dominance as acceptable in the society. Dworkin’s arguments echo similar arguments made in many masculinity and feminine studies.

Scott and Jackson state that, in most societies, gender roles are fixed right from birth with each role viewed as a discrete and pure trait (51). People create a set of masculine and feminine traits, which they attribute to a particular gender (male or female trait). For example, being tough is considered a male trait, whereas being sensitive or caring is a female trait. In this regard, the traits or values are portrayed as mutually exclusive and nobody can possess both the male and female traits.

Lorber holds the view that gender is a construct of human interaction, hence, like culture, relies on sustained social interactions. Lorber notes that gender socialization is created early in life.

From birth, children’s perceptions regarding masculinity and femininity are largely shaped by the body images they see. Even at birth, infants are perceived differently: “little boys have strong grips and hearty howls… and little girls have dainty fingers and gentle cries” (61). According to Lorber, parents create socially gendered children through the play toys they give them.

Parents buy action figures and Barbie dolls for their boys and girls respectively. They even encourage the kids to use the toys in ways they consider to be socially acceptable. In this way, younger children learn to act and behave in gender-appropriate ways. It also plays a role in shaping the children’s gender identity early in life. Lorber argues that parents influence early gender socialization through the naming of their newborn baby, mode of care and dress.

The children’s interactions with same-sex and opposite-sex siblings and relatives shape their self-identity in the context of gender. It is their cognitive development that allows children to identify and apply their actions in gender-specific ways and avoid inappropriate behaviors.

With regard to early gender roles, Lorber observes that the young children “perform of gender roles in ways that constitute them as two separate, opposed groups” (67), a trend, which is reinforced by “the adults’ approval of children’s performance of difference” (68).

The children interpret the adults’ approval of their gender-specific actions as an inherent difference that exists between male and female. Referring to the gendered roles he observed in children’s games, “Barbie Girls vs. Sea Monsters” Lorber observes that, in gender relations, the gender boundaries are clearly marked such that children have to “affirm their commitment to difference” (68) from an early age in their personal interactions.

Lorber regards gender as a social platform for assigning social statuses, responsibilities and behaviors. It is through early gender socialization that a social stratification system is created resulting to social inequalities that continues throughout one’s life. The gender socialization process creates distinct ways of differentiating a “male” from a “female”.

The early social interactions, children learn roles and behaviors expected of their gender, a trend that continues well into their adulthood. It is through social encounters that human beings learn to behave and act in a gender-appropriate manner and to object to differing gender norms.

Gender-based expectations or behaviors are enforced by peers, the media and other social platforms. Lorber notes that, “in sports, extreme body modification, in particular, steroid use to build muscle masses” (72) is a common trend among the youth because this action is considered a standard of excellence in sports. Thus, daily human interactions in sports build gender-based expectations for both male and female bodies.

The gender socialization process institutionalizes gender roles creating gender-stratified relations. Lorber’s argument that early gender socialization through play toys and body modification emphasizes the need for people to realize that gender constructs are products of human interactions shaped by culture and individual perceptions.

Boys and girls usually engage “in sports to emulate professional athletes who use extreme body modification, in particular, steroid use to build muscle mass” (71). Therefore, coaches and parents should focus on improving the children’s behavior patterns, taking into account their personality differences, rather than creating distinct gender roles and behaviors for their children.

Andersen, Margaret and Collins, Patricia. Race, Class, & Gender: An Anthology. New York: Cengage Learning, 2007. Print.

Dworkin, Andrea. Woman Hating . New York: Penguin Group, 1974. Print.

Johnson, Allan. Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy . Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2005. Print.

Lorber, Judith. Gender inequality: Feminist theories and politics . United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Scott, Sue and Jackson, Stevi. Theorizing Sexuality Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 2007. Print.

Wood, Julia. Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture . Boston: Wadsworth, 2009. Print.

• Race, Class, and Gender: Rothenberg’s book
• “We Should All Be Feminists” Adichie’s TED Talk
• Importance of Gender-Specific Treatment Programs for Adolescents
• The Smurfette Principle: Gender Stereotypes and Pop-Culture
• On one hand people regard women as devi (goddess), on the other hand they burn them alive
• Contemporary Issues in Management: Gender and Leadership
• Whether Housewives Happier than Full-time Working Mothers
• Challenging Sexuality: "Brokeback Mountain" and "Boys Don't Cry"
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, January 17). Gender Socialization. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-socialization/

"Gender Socialization." IvyPanda , 17 Jan. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/gender-socialization/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Gender Socialization'. 17 January.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Gender Socialization." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-socialization/.

1. IvyPanda . "Gender Socialization." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-socialization/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Gender Socialization." January 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/gender-socialization/.

What Is Gender Socialization? Definition and Examples

• Archaeology

• Ph.D., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• M.A., Psychology, Fielding Graduate University
• B.A., Film Studies, Cornell University

Gender socialization is the process by which we learn our culture's gender-related rules, norms, and expectations. The most common agents of gender socialization—in other words, the people who influence the process—are parents, teachers, schools, and the media. Through gender socialization, children begin to develop their own beliefs about gender and ultimately form their own gender identity.

Sex vs. Gender

• The terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably. However, in a discussion of gender socialization, it’s important to distinguish between the two.
• Sex is biologically and physiologically determined based on an individual's anatomy at birth. It is typically binary, meaning that one's sex is either male or female.
• Gender is a social construct. An individual's gender is their social identity resulting from their culture's conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Gender exists on a continuum.
• Individuals develop their own gender identity, influenced in part by the process of gender socialization.

Gender Socialization in Childhood

The process of gender socialization begins early in life. Children develop an understanding of gender categories at a young age. Studies have shown that children can discern male voices from female voices at six months old, and can differentiate between men and women in photographs at nine months old. Between 11 and 14 months, children develop the ability to associate sight and sound, matching male and female voices with photographs of men and women. By age three, children have formed their own gender identity . They have also begun to learn their culture’s gender norms, including which toys, activities, behaviors, and attitudes are associated with each gender.

Because gender categorization is a significant part of a child's social development, children tend to be especially attentive to same-gender models . When a child observes same-gender models consistently exhibit specific behaviors that differ from the behaviors of other-gender models, the child is more likely to exhibit the behaviors learned from the same-gender models. These models include parents, peers, teachers, and figures in the media.

Children’s knowledge of gender roles and stereotypes can impact their attitudes towards their own and other genders. Young children, in particular, may become especially rigid about what boys and girls "can" and "cannot" do. This either-or thinking about gender reaches its peak between the ages of 5 and 7 and then becomes more flexible.

Agents of Gender Socialization

As children, we develop gender-related beliefs and expectations through our observations of and interactions with the people around us. An "agent" of gender socialization is any person or group that plays a role in the childhood gender socialization process. The four primary agents of gender socialization are parents, teachers, peers, and the media.

Parents are typically a child’s first source of information about gender. Starting at birth, parents communicate different expectations to their children depending on their sex. For example, a son may engage in more roughhousing with his father, while a mother takes her daughter shopping. The child may learn from their parents that certain activities or toys correspond with a particular gender (think of a family that gives their son a truck and their daughter a doll). Even parents who emphasize gender equality may inadvertently reinforce some stereotypes due to their own gender socialization.

Teachers and school administrators model gender roles and sometimes demonstrate gender stereotypes by responding to male and female students in different ways. For example, separating students by gender for activities or disciplining students differently depending on their gender may reinforce children’s developing beliefs and assumptions.

Peer interactions also contribute to gender socialization. Children tend to play with same-gender peers. Through these interactions, they learn what their peers expect of them as boys or girls. These lessons may be direct, such as when a peer tells the child that a certain behavior is or is not "appropriate" for their gender. They can also be indirect, as the child observes same- and other-gendered peers' behavior over time. These comments and comparisons may become less overt over time, but adults continue to turn to same-gendered peers for information about how they are supposed to look and act as a man or a woman. 

Media, including movies, TV, and books , teaches children about what it means to be a boy or a girl. Media conveys information about the role of gender in people’s lives and can reinforce gender stereotypes. For example, consider an animated film that depicts two female characters: a beautiful but passive heroine, and an ugly but active villain. This media model, and countless others, reinforces ideas about which behaviors are acceptable and valued (and which are not) for a particular gender.

Gender Socialization Throughout Life

Gender socialization is a lifelong process. The beliefs about gender that we acquire in childhood can affect us throughout our lives. The impact of this socialization can be big (shaping what we believe we are capable of accomplishing and thus potentially determining our life's course), small (influencing the color we choose for our bedroom walls), or somewhere in the middle.

As adults, our beliefs about gender may grow more nuanced and flexible, but gender socialization can still affect our behavior, whether in school, the workplace, or our relationships.

• Bussey, Kay, and Albert Bandura. “Social Cognitive Theory of Gender Development and Differentiation.” Psychological Review , vol. 106, no. 4, 1999, pp. 676-713.
• “Gender: Early Socialization: Sythesis.” Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Development , Aug. 2014, http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/gender-early-socialization/synthesis
• Martin, Carol Lynn, and Diane Ruble. “Children’s Search for Gender Cues: Cognitive Perspectives on Gender Development.” Current Directions in Psychological Science , vol, 13, no. 2, 2004, pp. 67-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00276.x
• McSorley, Brittany. “Gender Socialization.” Udemy , 12 May 2014, https://blog.udemy.com/gender-socialization/
• Emma Watson's 2014 Speech on Gender Equality
• What Is Radical Feminism?
• The Sociology of Gender
• How Gender Differs From Sex
• Gender Schema Theory Explained
• Language and Gender Studies
• What Is Political Socialization? Definition and Examples
• 3 Advantages of Single-Sex Schools
• Understanding Socialization in Sociology
• Social Cognitive Theory: How We Learn From the Behavior of Others
• Understanding Sexual Orientation From a Psychological Perspective
• The Advantages of an All-Boys School
• What Sociology Can Teach Us About Thanksgiving
• Definition of Cis Man
• The Difference Between Transgender and Transsexual Women
• 10 Things You Should Know About Gender in Spanish