Role of Gender in Family - Term Paper Example

Role of Gender in Family Introduction Gender is an essential organising principle of peoples lives, family relationships, and society. Women and menhave powerful expectations about gender and intimate relationships in modern society. Traditional societal gender expectations for how men and women should act and what they ought to value persist to influence our lives and shape our family relationships. Nonetheless these societal expectations are in transition, and many people today are striving to define themselves and their family relationships in new, less restrictive ways. They believe that traditional gender expectations often keep them from finding their own individually defined purpose and fulfillment. They are searching for ways to live and love free from the constraints of rigid, gender-based expectations and inequities. This article discusses the roles played by gender in the family and the issues arising from it in this contemporary world. Family and gender are so intertwined that it is impossible to understand one without reference to the other (Coltrane 1998). Families are not merely influenced by gender; rather, families are organised by gender. Gender is as central to understanding families as is the concept of generation: Gender and generation are the two fundamental, organising principles of family life. The names of family roles (mother, son, sister, nephew, grandma, uncle) tell us both the gender and generational location of family members. Gender typically indicates as much about the expectations for, and status or power of, a person in a family as does generational location. Gender Role in the Family (Social Construction) As decades past, several theoretical traditions have evolved to better explain the role of gender in people’s lives and relationships like that of Risman (1998). While there have been differences in their conceptualisation of gender, contemporary gender theorists like Coltrane (1998) and Risman (1998) agree that whereas sex is based on relatively distinct biological factors, gender is a social construction. Gender is something that we do rather than being what we are. As Coltrane (1998) asserts “we are expected to do gender to exhibit or enact those attributes or actions that are defined as masculine or feminine in a particular cultural context.” In this socially constructed gender system, the prescriptions for each gender are defined in relation to the other. Maleness and femaleness are cast as dichotomised and polarised categories; human capacities are divided up and relegated, as if they belong naturally to one gender and not the other. Traditionally, manhood is defined narrowly in instrumental terms-rationality, stoicism, independence, aggressiveness, and achievement orientation. Womanhood is defined in expressive terms-nurturance, emotionality, dependence, selflessness, and relationship orientation. Supposed differences between the genders are exaggerated, with similarities suppressed. Individuals are judged positively if they comply with the social expectations for their gender and negatively if they do not. For instance, in contemporary English culture, men or boys are commonly referred to as “wimps” or “fags” for showing supposedly feminine qualities, such as emotionality and vulnerability (Katz & Earp, 1999). Women are commonly perceived as “bitches” or “pushy” if they exhibit the “masculine” quality of assertiveness (Lerner, 1997). The dichotomised categories of gender are granted unequal social value. Male characteristics are regarded as the ideal standard for human behavior, and there is an implicit assumption that male attributes and experiences are somehow gender-neutral and normative (Katz & Earp, 1999). In their presumed difference from men, womens qualities and experiences are devalued and used to justify inequality. These constructed gender differences are used as a justification for sex stratification. Gender is considered a reasonable and legitimate basis for the distribution of rights, resources, power, privilege, and responsibilities (Risman, 1998). On the basis of gender, men as a group have had more privilege and women have been oppressed in virtually every culture. Gender is intertwined with other dimensions of social expectations and power. Race, social class, sexual orientation, and religion also organise mens and womens lives and family relationships. “We exist in social contexts created by the intersections of systems of power (e.g., race, class, gender, and sexual orientation) and oppression (prejudice, class stratification, gender inequality, and heterosexist bias)” (Bograd 1999, p. 276). Not all men are equally privileged in our society, nor are all women affected by multiple oppressions. Yet in every cultural group, men have more privilege and status than do their mothers or sisters (Risman, 1998). In understanding the gender-based nature of peoples lives and relationships, it is important to consider them in the context of powerful cultural and religious beliefs, along with the socioeconomic conditions that influence family processes. Gender Influence in Family The influence of gender on family life must be understood at multiple levels; gender has consequences at the personal, relational, and societal levels (Risman, 1998). At the personal level, individuals respond to gender-based expectations for how they should feel and behave, what they should want and value, and how they should look. Gender shapes our identities, and the real and perceived life choices available to us. At a relational level, gender organises the social processes of everyday life, particularly in our family or intimate relationships. For instance, in most heterosexual couples, men are still viewed as the primary breadwinner even if the female partner is employed full-time (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000), and employed women continue to shoulder the majority of household and child care obligations (Hochschild, 1997). Gender inequality is manifested in intimate relationships in many ways but often reflects assumptions about which persons needs and desires are given top priority (Knudson-Martin & Mahoney 1998, pp. 81-90). Reviews of the relevant research (Williams, 2000) reveal that men typically hold the bulk of the power in heterosexual families of all racial backgrounds. Gender-based power differentials can manifest in both partners prioritising the mans career and personal interests; expecting less responsibility from him in household coordination, chores, and parenting; granting him greater influence in important family decisions; prioritising his leisure time and allowing him more discretionary spending; and expecting from him less emotional investment in family relationships (McGoldrick, Anderson, & Walsh 1989, pp. 106-123; Rabin, 1996; Zvonkovic, Greaves, Schmeige, & Hall 1996, pp. 91-100). These gender-based power differentials also can influence both partners to assume that the female partner should be primarily responsible for parenting and housework, and-from a position of restricted power-for maintaining effective family functioning, and that she should limit outside activities, including paid employment and leisure, so that these activities do not pose a threat to the family (Rabin, 1996). Although many gay and lesbian couples also structure their relationships according to power differentials (Carrington, 1999; Renzetti 1997, pp. 70-89), several scholars like McWhirter, Sanders, & Reinisch (1990) have found that the relationships of same-sex couples tend to be characterised by more egalitarianism than heterosexual relationships. Gender and Parenting Gender also influences parenting behaviour. As a primary and influential socialising agent of children (Coltrane, 1998), parents teach what is “appropriate” and “inappropriate” behaviour for each gender, and how the genders should interact with one another. From a very young age, parents model or openly express their ideas about how gender should be done. For instance, children learn that performing a disproportionate amount of the housework and child care is part of being a woman and doing gender appropriately. Until children can do gender themselves, adults perform this function for them. Parents often begin the process of gender socialisation before the birth of a child. They often want to know the sex of their unborn child in order to choose gender-appropriate names and clothing (Grieshaber 1998, pp. 15-35). During preschool years, parents tend to give their children gender-stereotyped toys: Boys receive more vehicles, sports equipment, and military toys, and girls receive more dolls and domestic toys. Parents also interact differently with their children depending on their gender (Lindsey, Mize, & Pettit, 1997, pp. 643-661; Sandnabba & Ahlberg, 1999, pp. 249-263), rewarding gender-typical play and punishing atypical play. Chores also are often assigned in a gender stereotypical fashion. Additionally, Crouter, McHale, and Bartko (1993) found that in families in which the father is the sole breadwinner, fathers spend three times more time in dyadic activities with sons than with daughters; in dual-earner families, fathers spend similar amounts of time with sons and daughters (cited in Walsh 2003, p. 123). Issues Arising from Gender in the Family Gendering of family life is considered to be normal and desirable, some scholars and practitioners have highlighted many negative consequences with rigid gender expectations resulting into power differentials. Gender constraints at the personal level restrict freedom for both women and men, discouraging the development of their full human capacities. For instance, when men enact traditional expectations to be stoic and autonomous breadwinners, they often fail to develop more meaningful relationships with children and become isolated from partners, friends, and their own inner experience (Rosen 1999, pp. 124-140; Silverstein 1996, pp. 3-37). When women enact expectations to prioritize the needs of others at the expense of their own, they often become lonely and depressed (Papp 2000, pp. 132-153), and sacrifice personal goals (McGoldrick 1999, 106-123). Gender-Based Inequities According to research, many couple relationships are marked by incongruence between an ideological commitment to equality and inequitable interactional patterns (Carrington, 1999; Deutsch, 1999; Rabin, 1996). Rosenbluth et al. (1998) found that despite their participants endorsement of equality as ideal and very important in their marriages, fewer than 28% equally shared household tasks (pp. 227-244). Carrington (1999) found a similar pattern among some gay and lesbian couples, who held a strong commitment to equality, yet did not translate this principle into daily divisions of family work. This incongruence can appear in parenting practices as well; parents may verbally express beliefs about gender equality to children, then-often unwittingly-behave in ways that contradict these beliefs (Walsh, 1998). For instance, parents may model gender inequities if the mother typically responds to a childs needs because the father is “busy,” or if they expect a daughter to help more with household chores than her brother. The assumptions that underlie the separate sphere ideology continue to operate powerfully in society, serving as constraints to gender equality in family life. Social ideologies continue to cast men and women as radically different and gender-based inequities in families as normative or even desirable. In addition, economic structures that assume that employees do not have family responsibilities, and ideologies related to motherhood, have detrimental effects on family life. Power Differentials Several scholars (Rabin, 1996; Steil, 1997) contend that deep friendship and sustained intimacy are unattainable in a relationship based on power differentials. When a relationship is structured primarily around the needs and desires of one person, it leads to relationship “failures” of empathy, interest, respect, and authenticity, and a resulting dehumanizing of the woman, which preclude the possibility of friendship and intimacy. Beavers (1985) found that the greater the power differential between partners, the more dysfunctional and unsatisfying the marriage. Gottmans longitudinal research on married couples found that “when a man is not willing to share power with his partner, there is an 81 percent chance that his marriage will self-destruct” (Gottman & Silver, 1999, p. 100). Tragically, in a large number of couples, these power differentials are characterised by intrafamilial abuse, resulting in potentially dire consequences, including psychological trauma, physical injury, and death of the victim, who is typically female (Bograd, 1999; McGoldrick et al., 1999; Renzetti 1997, pp. 70-89). Although estimates of prevalence rates differ, scholars agree that the problem is at epidemic proportions. For example, in 1998, women experienced about 900,000 violent offenses at the hands of an intimate partner; the rate of intimate partner violence for women is 7.7 per 1,000, while that for men is 1.5 per 1,000; nearly three out of four victims of murder by an intimate partner are women, and women are victims of 85% of violent non-lethal crime (Rennison & Welchans, 2000). Although violence also exists among gay and lesbian couples (Renzetti, 1997), much family violence is linked to traditional gender ideologies and the abuse of male privilege (McGoldrick et al., 1999). Graham-Bermann and Brescoll (2000) found that the amount of physical violence and emotional abuse experienced by mothers is positively related to how much children believe in the inherent superiority and privilege of men in the family (pp. 600-612). This finding reveals the damaging transmission of destructive gender attitudes across generations. Conclusion Gender roles played in the family initially goes under its social construction wherein treatment of each gender is identified with relation to the other as previously discussed. Being at the heart of many couple conflicts that at some extent may result into broken families, it is seriously important to understand the roles played by gender in family life. In the latter part of this article, important issues have been raised like gender inequities and power differences arising from gender roles. Along with social ideologies, these issues serve as constraints to gender equality in family life that continue to separate men and women explaining gender-based inequities as being normal and desirable in contemporary family. References Bograd, M. (1999). Strengthening domestic violence theories: Intersections of race, class, sexual orientation, and gender. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 25: pp. 275-290. Carrington, C. (1999). No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbians and gay men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Coltrane, S. (1998). Gender and families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Deutsch, F.M. (1999). Halving it all: How equally shared parenting works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Friedman, S.D., & Greehaus, J. H. (2000). Work and family-allies or enemies? New York: Oxford University Press. Gottman, J.M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York: Random House. Graham-Bermann, S., & Brescoll, V. (2000). Gender, power, and violence: Assessing the family stereotypes of the children of batterers. Journal of Family Psychology. 14: pp. 600-612. Grieshaber, S. (1998). Constructing the gender-based infant. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Gender in early childhood (pp. 15-35). New York: Routledge. Hochschild, A.R. (1997). The time bind. New York: Henry Holt. Katz, J., & Earp, J. (1999). Tough guise: Violence, media, and the crisis in masculinity [VHS]. Northampton, MA: Media Education Foundation. Knudson-Martin, C., & Mahoney, A.R. (1998). Language and processes in the construction of equality in new marriages. Family Relations. 47: pp. 81-91. Lerner, H. (1997). The dance of anger: A womans guide to changing the patterns of intimate relationships. New York: HarperCollins. Lindsey, E.W., Mize, J., & Pettit, G.S. (1997). Differential play patterns of mothers and fathers of sons and daughters: Implications for childrens gender-role development. Sex Roles. 37: pp. 643-661. McGoldrick, M. (1999). Women and the family life cycle. In B. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family, and social perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 106-123). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Papp, P. (2000). Gender differences in depression: His or her depression. In P. Papp (Ed.), Couples on the fault line: New directions for therapists (pp. 132-153). New York: Guilford Press. Rabin, C. (1996). Equal partners, good friends: Empowering couples through therapy. London: Routledge. Rennison, C.M., & Welchans, S. (2000 May). Intimate partner violence. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Renzetti, C.M. (1997). Violence and abuse among same-sex couples. In A. Cascarelli (Ed.), Violence between intimate partners: Patterns, causes, and effects (pp. 70-89). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Risman, B.J. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Rosen, E.J. (1999). Men in transition: The “new man.” In B. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family, and social perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 124-140). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Rosenbluth, S.C., Steil, J.M., & Whitcomb, J.H. (1998). Marital equality: What does it mean? Journal of Family Issues,19(3), 227-244. Sandnabba, N.K., & Ahlberg, C. (1999). Parents attitudes and expectations about childrens cross-gender behavior. Sex Roles,40, 249-263. Silverstein, L. (1996). Fathering is a feminist issue. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 20: pp. 3-37. Steil, J.M. (1997). Marital equality: Its relationship to well-being of husbands and wives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. New York: Guilford Press. Walsh, F. ed. (2000). Normal Family Processes: Growing Diversity and Complexity. New York: Guildford Press. Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press. Zvonkovic, A., Greaves, K., Schmeige, C., & Hall, L. (1996). The marital construction of gender through work and family decisions. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 58: pp. 91-100. Read More