Gender+Roles+of+US+Women

=Gender Roles of Women in the United States =

 According to the [|World Health Organization] (2014), “gender refers to the socially constructed roles behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.” Thus, role are built into to social constructs of gender. Because society is ever-changing, so then are the roles that are considered appropriate.

Changes through Time
During the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States, marriage served to combine family wealth and maintain the national reliance on the centralized national focus, the farm. Men and women married within socioeconomic boundaries in order to contribute to production of products (Hunter, 2011). The family dynamic was chosen based on sustainability of wealth.  During the latter half of the 19th century, individuals began to take on the growing individualist attitude and chose partners for themselves. Coupled with the increase in the wage labor industry, the view of marriage shifted; marriage and the inheritance of land was no longer the necessity for a sustainable life, labor wage provided this individually-controlled stability. Thus, marriage transformed into an opportunity to seek love, reshaping the relationships between partners (Hunter, 2011). Because men were now leaving the home to work, women were naturally allocated the duties of maintaining the work at home- children included. This may seem organic- someone must stay home to care for the children. However it is important to note that the idea or women entering the labor wage force was not considered as an option.

The women born between 1946 and 1956, early baby boomers, were the first to enter the labor force age after the [|Civil] [| Rights Act of 1964,]  which banned discrimination based on sex. These women had access to many important rights that women of prior generations did not, including legalized abortion and the birth control pill, both key factors in the changing of sexual practices and attitudes towards marriage (Rudman & Phelan, 2010). Birth control and [|abortion access]  publicized the notion that sexual behaviors could be enacted for purposes other than childrearing. Although women remained (and still remain) the only sex with the ability to reproduce, this challenged the underlying perception that this was/is the only purpose for sex (and thus for women). portunity to seek love, reshaping the relationships between partners (Hunter, 2011). Because men were now leaving the home to work, women were naturally allocated the duties of maintaining the work at home- children included. This may seem organic- someone must stay home to care for the children. However it is important to note that the idea or women entering the labor wage force was not considered as an option.

How are Women’s Gender Roles Formed?
For years, conversations surrounding gender roles have centered on the family. “Analysis of the research <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> done shows that almost all definitions of sex behavior as conforming, normative, deviant, or changing are based on social expectations of the male and female fulfilling their roles as part of a nuclear family unit or in anticipation of creating such a unit,” (Clavan, 1972). “Family ideals are a primary source of gender ideology because they define and rest upon men’s and women’s essential natures, the relational aspect of gender roles, and the connections between gender, sexuality, and reproduction, (Edgell & Docka, 2007).” In other words, the family construct provides us with the language to distinguish between men and women. In the United States specifically, the introduction of family brings the topic of religion to the conversation as well, as religion often rules the morals and ideals of a family (Edgell & Docka, 2007).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5;">The media plays a huge role in the forming and reiteration of perspectives on roles. For instance, the representation of a “ <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5;">[|perfect housewife] <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.5;">” providing everything necessary to coordinate a functioning, happy family was broadcasted across American televisions in the 1950s (Rudman & Phelan, 2010). As a result, media messages echoed the religious institutions’ division of labor within the family system, encouraging child-bearing and rearing women to create happy families. Rudman and Phelan (2010) further argued that despite changes in the rigidity of these structures, the images of these housewives remain in our heads today, and are regularly issues for debate.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">One Perspective, Two Types of Families
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The concept of the [|Standard North American Family] (SNAF), introduced by researcher Dorothy Smith (1993) as, “a nuclear family comprised of a married male-female couple oriented toward the bearing and raising of children.“ She maintained that the Standard North American Family comprised the dominant family ideal in the United States. While this provides a salient point, it is also argued that this perspective is based on a white, middle-class cultural orientation and is easier to achieve with a white, middle-class income (Edgell & Docka, 2007). This serves to illustrate the context in which American families have often been researched and provides important insight into the lack of focus on minority women and their impact on the development of gender roles in the United States.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Smith (1993) upholds that there are two main ideals in the contemporary US context; both are merely variations of the SNAF family. One is the, “‘nurturing’ family in which men’s and women’s natures and roles are similar, marriage is companionate, and individual self-expression and mutual satisfaction are highly prized.” And then the, “‘traditional’ family which reproduces an understanding of men and women as fundamentally different in nature, with complementary roles organized around child-bearing and financial provision,” (Smith, 1993). Most of the research on gender roles has been conducted looking to the past to determine patterns. The distinction between nurturing and traditional roles was only established in the early 1990s, so though it provides a glimpse into the emergence of contemporary roles of men and women in the American family- it also highlights the lack of need for a distinction until that point.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Who supports which model?
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is relevant to note the extent to which church and religion are the central topics from which American society and history explain gender roles. Study after study explains the impact “the church” has on the perpetuation of gender role assignment. For the majority of American history, [|religious institutions have promoted philosophies that emphasize the difference between men’s and women’s natures]. This focus on the differences has led to distinct scripts for men and women to follow. In turn, women have been delegated the roles in the domestic realm, with duties focused on the home, and men have been assigned the task of providing for the family through wage labor. These institutions in the United States, “emphasize the importance of stable, monogamous, heterosexual marriages which produce children; support parental authority; and discourage premarital and extramarital sex,” (Smith, 1993). According to the [|2008 American Religious Identification Survey], approximately 51% of Americans identify as Protestant and 25% identify as Catholic, both groups that today endorse traditionally gendered family roles (Edgell & Docka, 2007; Kosmin & Keysar, 2009). Several US government policies support and uphold this traditional, heterosexual family system; for example, the [|Defense of Marriage Act (1996)] limited non-married couples abilities to secure benefits provided by the national government (Hunter, 2011). This further reiterates the US perspective of a central family system, one that prescribes separate roles and responsibilities to men and women.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This contrasts the distinction made by the [|feminist social science movement of the 1980s], which argues that, “essential differences between men and women are not based on biological, but on social conditions,” (Santore, 2001). It is argued that because women are placed in the domestic sphere, their lives are then oriented around the domestic system, and they learn to function primarily as a caring supporter of the man. The men, in this context, learn to thrive within the working world, developing a necessity towards more aggressive and emotionally distant personality that assists his success in the workplace (Santore, 2001). Again, this perspective reiterates the idea that women entering the labor wage force was not considered as an option, which resulted in the differences in roles. Not, as other perspectives claim, that differences in innate roles that resulted in predetermined societal roles.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">A Few Contemporary Religious Views
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In one study, an [|African Methodist Episcopal Church], A [|Liberal Protestant] Congregation, and a [|Catholic] Parish were asked a variety of questions about their members (Edgell & Docka, 2007). The authors of the study focused on the patterns of verbiage with which women, men, and duties were disclosed. They found that in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, men’s and women’s roles as were described as, ‘‘husband,’’ ‘‘wife,’’ ‘‘father,’’ and ‘‘mother,’’ and families who’s women took on provider roles were poorly received by members of the community (Edgell & Docka, 2007). In comparison, the language used by the Liberal Protestant Congregation focused on discussions of a “community” instead of family, suggesting that by turning away from the use of the “family,” which holds many traditional connotations of gender distinction, a more inclusive rhetoric is created (Edgell & Docka, 2007). Finally, the Catholic Parish distinguished the very different roles of men and women and reflected the traditional perspectives (Edgell & Docka, 2007). Though this congregation did encourage women to seek help from abusive relationships, the idea of independence of the women is still very clearly linked to vulnerability and the need to be protected. The collective study of these vastly different congregations shows that although the traditionally gender-structured perspectives of religious institutions still pervade much of the country’s experiences, there are also those that have begun to expand their repertoire of ideals.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">To the 1990s, AND BEYOND!
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Women's childbearing and marriage patterns have been among the first to depart significantly from the past. Since the 1990s, women have on average have two children in their lifetimes, compared with the women born in the mid-1950s, who averaged almost four (Bianchi & Spain, 1996). As well, compared with earlier decades, women in the 1990s are more likely to bear children out of wedlock, to wait until their thirties to begin families, or to remain childless (Bianchi & Spain, 1996). So, as the US reached the 1990s, the research focused on the central conflict of domestic life as “family versus money,” (Bianchi & Spain, 1996). The women’s rise in education attainment, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s was a key factor in the women’s movement toward paid work outside of the household; the more educated, the more likely she is to work for higher pay, concluding in an ability to be sustainable (Bianchi & Spain, 1996). No longer were all families sustainable on the singular income of the make, as such, women’s place in the work force grew tremendously.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In regards to attitudes in the home, in a 2008 study, more than 53% of cohabitating men-women partnerships assert that women are the decision makers in the home (Clavan, 1972). Contrastingly, according to Bianchi and Spain (1996), “The gender gap persists, male-female wage gap persists, and yet, over the past 10 years, in almost every country in the developed countries, by most economic indicators women's lives have improved relative to men's.”

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The research reminds us that although thirteen of fifteen of the fastest growing job categories in the US are dominated by women, the top leadership positions remain filled by men (Bianchi & Spain, 1996). The family dynamic is changing at home, but at work, patriarchy survives (Clavan, 1972). As Rudman and Phelan (2010) assert, “Although attitudes toward women’s rights and professional ambitions have undergone a revolution since the 1960s, stereotypes that differentially attribute argentic qualities to men and communal qualities to women are remarkably resistant to change and consistent across cultures.” In other words, there is still much progress to be made in equality across all realms, though the balance is evening.

=<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">References = <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bianchi, S., & Spain, D. (1996). Women, Work, and Family in America. Washington DC: Population Reference Bureau. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Clavan, S. (1972). Changing Female Sexual Behavior and Future Family Structure. The Pacific Sociological Review, 15(3), 295-308. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388348 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Edgell, P., & Docka, D. (2007). Beyond the Nuclear Family? Familism and Gender Ideology in Diverse Religious Communities. Sociological Forum, 22(1), 25-50. doi:10.1111/j.1573-7861.2006.00003.x <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hunter, E. (2011). Change and Continuity in American Marriage. In S. Seidman, N. Fischer, & C. Meeks, Introducing the New Sexuality Studies (pp. 308-312). London: Routledge. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Kosmin, B. A., & Keysar, A. (2009). American Religious Identifcation Survey (ARIS 2008). Institute for the Study of Sexularism in Society and Culture. Hartford: Program on Public Values. Retrieved from http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Rudman, L., & Phelan, J. (2010). The Effect of Priming Gender Roles on Women's Implicit Gender Beliefs and Career Aspirations. Social Psychology, 43(3), 192-202. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000027 <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Santore, D. (2001). Gender and the Organization of Heterosexual Intimacy. In S. Seidman, N. Fischer, & C. Meeks, Introducing the New Sexuality Studies (pp. 201-205). London: Routledge. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Smith, D. E. (1993). The Standard North American Family-SNAF as an Ideological Code. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 50-65. <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">World Health Organization. (2014). What Do We Mean by "Sex" and "Gender"? Retrieved from Gender, Women, and Health: http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/