|
Word Search |
Women in society
|
Are the relationships between the genders changing? Is it possible for women to achieve as much as men do in the public worlds of work and politics? This document provides you with a number of sociological ideas and concepts which have been used to explain women's situation and positions in modern western societies. Click on the name of each concept for an explanation of that concept in this box. I suggest you begin with the links in the navigation bar on the left going from top to bottom. You should then use the links on the navigation bar to the right of this box. Patriarchy and the notion of a 'Patriarchal Society' are ideas with a long history. Patriarchy is a concept 'invented' by male social theorists and its 'modern' form originated in the 17th century - a period we might suggest to be the birth of modernity itself. Patriarchy is a concept used to explain the male dominance of the salient social institutions of society. In particular the State, the Law and the Family. Those theorists who value the concept tend to the view that inequalities of power within society are based upon the gender divisions between men and women. Men dominate women again both as individuals and as a group of individuals. Proponents of the idea of patriarchy argue that there are two sets of evidence which prove this male domination. First empirical research which demonstrates that men occupy the leading positions in most social institutions. Secondly, there is evidence of what is referred to as 'male bias'. This is said to be found throughout the social institutions of society. In particular feminists point to the powerful institution of The Law, which, they say, is made by and for men. Moreover the proponents of the theory of patriarchy suggest that men possess a particular 'psychology' or way of thinking which entails them being misogynist (to hate women). Feminists suggest that crimes of rape and violence towards women are clear examples of this essential male condition. One British feminist who continues to value and use the idea of patriarchy is Sylvia Walby. You might like to examine her work and in particular a) the six structures of patriarchy she suggests to exist
in modern society and b) the distinction she makes between private and public
patriarchy.
GENDER SOCIALISATION is something of a misnomer in sociology. For until very recently what the term really meant and pointed to was female socialisation. Presupposing a British audience I would point to Ann Oakley as being the significant theorist who put the idea of 'gender socialisation' on the sociological and public 'map'. Oakley argued that to understand women's position in society it was necessary to make a distinction between 'SEX' and 'GENDER'. 'Sex' refers to all the biological aspects of being a male or a female, whilst 'gender' refers to all the social and cultural aspects of being a man or a woman; of being masculine or of being feminine. Oakley, in many respects understandably, was not concerned to explain the socialisation of men rather her work was to concentrate on the socialisation of girls and women. She paid particular attention to the role of the family in this process. Oakley suggested that the family was the institution largely responsible for the 'making' of girls into women. The family achieved this outcome by teaching and exposing girls to the 'gender attributes' necessary for girls to become (conforming) women. Activities such as 'helping mum' and being a 'pretty girl' are exemplars of this gendered process. Parents act as 'ROLE-MODELS' teaching young girls the correct ROLE for women. Oakley suggested that this 'socialisation' was achieved through the use of three processes (discussed elsewhere on this site). Oakley's major conclusion was that girls and boys experienced distinct forms of socialisation and that this DIFFERENTIAL SOCIALISATION was the process that maintained the dominant divisions between the genders in society. Oakley's work is indicative of feminist thinking on the importance of the family in the maintenance of women's oppression in society. IDEOLOGY OF DOMESTICITY: This concept is one which attempts to explain the manner in which women are REPRESENTED in public life. Proponents of this idea signal the role of social institutions, and in particular the various media, in propagating a particular and IDEAL of women in society. This view is that women are primarily 'mothers' and 'wives' and that these two roles are somehow 'natural' to the notion of femininity. Feminists point to the use of certain MYTHS by the media with which they reinforce this idea of women. The MYTH OF MOTHERHOOD is an example of one such myth another is the notion of the CAREER-WOMAN. Indeed these two myths are two sides of the same coin. What's wrong with the idea of the career-woman? There is no use in society of the term career-man (!). This is because it is assumed as the norm of society (another IDEAL, this one for men) that men will seek to achieve a career. The term career-woman however marks out what is seen as exceptional (and unacceptable?). Those women LABELLED with this term are usually implied to be failing in what are often argued to be in their 'real' roles: as mothers and wives. Conversely, the 'myth of motherhood' assumes that a MATERNAL INSTINCT as well as an ALTRUISTIC GENE means that 'normal' women seek to be family builders. The 'ideology of domesticity' is an ideology which presupposes that women and men are naturally members of distinct spheres of society: women in the 'private' sphere of families and men in the public world of 'work' and business. Now it is also clearly the case that the relationships between the genders are changing. More and more women are joining the paid labour force and indeed in Britain by the year 2010 the majority of the labour force will be women. Moreover more of the managers in business are female, more women are starting their own businesses too. All good stuff, so is the 'ideology of domesticity' now a redundant concept? In many senses the 'ideology of domesticity' does not take the same form as it did even as recently as 20 years ago. However this does not mean that this ideology is any less prevalent. A recent survey of women in business by the British Institute of Management found that whilst women were improving their position in the world of work, these women went home of an evening to...THE IRONING, MEAL PREPARATION and CHILD CARE, and in many cases to....emotionally distraught partners who could not cope with the woman's high earning power!!. These women reported to the survey that they felt that it was their responsibility to do this domestic labour and EMOTION WORK.
DOUBLE-SHIFT Feminists will often invoke the idea of the 'double-shift' to describe and explain the general trend amongst women in modern societies at the turn of the millennium to be a member of the paid labour force and to look after the home and family. All surveys conducted in the last ten years or so suggest that women, even those with full-time paid employment, are still the adult in the family held responsible for the bulk of the work in the household. Such surveys suggest that men tend to confine their efforts to DIY around the house and the household shopping (though I must confess to 'reading' this latter statistic as probably referring to the fact that with the advent of Hypermarkets on the edge of towns men are employed to carry and transport the shopping). Moreover research conducted by Lydia Morris in Cleveland in the north-east of England indicated that even married men who were experiencing long-term unemployment did not use their newly found 'spare' time to increase their share of domestic labour! (Morris, L (1993) Social Divisions (Routledge)). You can follow up this idea of the double-shift by checking out the survey results yourself.
EMOTION WORKERS. Women-in-between is an idea often used by feminists to explain the manner in which mature adult women are presumed to have (and they presume it themselves) responsibility for the care of not only their own children but their elderly relatives and in many cases their in-laws.This presumption is typically based upon a notion that women are naturally caring (and that men are not!) and that they are good at the business of emotions. In short it is claimed that women make natural EMOTION WORKERS. Many feminists themselves claim that there is a 'female psychology' based upon a 'female biology' that is qualitatively distinct to a male psychology (women are much nicer people than men, goes the argument).
THE FEMINISATION OF THE LABOUR FORCE. Since the end of the second world war there has been a significant increase in the proportion of women employed in most western labour forces. There are at least two structural causes for this phenomenon. First there has been an increase in the size and scope of most 'welfare states' and as a consequence the need to recruit a labour force to supply its services. Women found employment in this sector typically as health semi-professionals such as nurses (though less so as doctors!) and teachers (though less likely in the University sector). Secondly, there has been ever since the late '50s a shift in most western economies from the manufacturing to the service sector of the economy. This latter is typically a sector of the economy which has traditionally employed women in larger numbers than the manufacturing sector has. Some commentators suggest that another factor in the rise number of women employed in the economy is the change in women's expectations. Certainly by the year 2010 the majority of the labour force in Britain will be female. The question that now forces itself on to our agenda relates to the type of work women might typically find themselves doing in the 21st century.
VERTICAL SEGREGATION Feminists use the twin notions of VERTICAL and HORIZONTAL SEGREGATION to describe the patterns of employment that women might typically find themselves doing in contemporary western nations. Vertical segregation describes the empirical pattern which demonstrates that women tend to find themselves on the lower rungs of a hierarchy of jobs in any given industry. Thus notwithstanding the Sex Discrimination Act and Equal Pay Act which attempted to guarantee women equal pay for equal work it is still the case that women earn some 80% of the male salary for like work and this some twenty years after the passing of these two Acts. Horizontal segregation points to the empirical reality that women are typically are to be found employed in particular types of industries.The feminist, Angela Coyle, suggests that typically women will be found in the 3C's: catering, caring and cleaning jobs. All these occupations suggest that women occupy low paid low status jobs. SEX-ROLE SPILLOVER: Sociologists, whether feminist or otherwise, have long since been aware that women may be employed for explicit 'feminine' qualities. Sex workers are an obvious case in point! But the idea of SEX-ROLE SPILLOVER suggests that in all industries there are certain expectations of women that are not expected of men.For example many of the female students I teach in need of part-time work are often employed as waitresses and bar staff. Many of them tell me that they are required by their bosses to 'look good' in the job. This evocation to 'look good' usually entails that they wear make-up, short skirts and smile a lot at middle-aged men! As most point out to me they could do the job just as well in comfortable trousers, no make-up and without smiling like a Cheshire cat at middle-aged men. Many corporations will now employ women precisely because of these 'feminine' qualities especially given the male clientele many have to provide for.... ADJUNCT CONTROLLERS. Some sociologists
use the rather paradoxical idea of 'adjunct controllers' to describe and explain the
current patterns of female employment. It is a paradox because on the one hand adjunct suggests someone who takes orders
from an other, whilst controller implies the opposite. Yet the idea seems to tell us much
about certain types of female employment. Sociologists point to the fact that in many
corporations women are found employed in two sectors of the workplace: I once read a statistic which suggested that women did two-thirds of the world's work and yet only commanded one-third of the world's resources. WOMEN = POVERTY is an equation which scandalously persists.Whether in the so-called 'third world' or the 'west', women are statistically more likely to be poorer than men are; whatever the class or ethnicity of the woman in question. Single-parenthood is the most likely reason for this poverty. Most single-parent families are headed by women. Most single parent families are the result of divorce (not single young women trying to obtain a coucil house!) and most divorces are the result of male infidelity or male violence. You can check out the facts with a quick visit to the reference section of any reasonable library.
THE 4 FEMINISMS? There are at least 4 distintive variants of feminism. I can only briefly describe those here, though there is extended discussion of some of these elsewhere on this site. To discuss them in terms of their chronological appearance on the stage of history. LIBERAL FEMINISM. The eighteenth century social theorist Mary Wollstonecraft, can be argued to be the first 'modern' feminist.She proposed a feminism that worked within the dominant Liberal tradtions of her time. Modern liberal feminists follow her arguments that women seek EQUALITY in LAW and EDUCATION, in particular with men. MARXIST/SOCIALIST FEMINISM: F. Engels, the close associate of Karl Marx, prompted feminists with his ideas of the 'world historic defeat of women' early in the history of humankind. He also suggested monogamy and marriage a form of female enslavement by a patriarchal society. Socialist feminists argue that gender is a significant STRUCTURAL inequality in CAPITALISTIC societies, thus women are an oppressed group. However they also argue that gender inequalities must be understood alongside inequality as well. Such a position takes the view that some women are more oppressed than others: depending upon the woman's class position. Contemporary socialist feminists reject the idea of a simple equality with men. Rather they suggest that women's social and cultural 'differences' are given value in any political struggle. RADICAL FEMINISM: Usually based in the U.S.A. (but there are notable proponents of this view in Europe, particulary France) radical feminists take the view that it is PATRIARCHY that is the cause of ALL women's oppression. Women are viewed as a 'class' of oppressed agents, oppressed by ALL men. This is a position that typically entails an argument that women's biology gives then a distinctive 'psychology' to men. Feminists such as Firestone argue that mens control of women's biology has been the basis of patriarchal power. Moreover that as we move into the era of new birth technologies women can liberate themselves from men. An important aspect of this position is the rejection of a demand for equality with men. The contemporary radical feminists are particularly interested in discussions of the (female) body in an attempt to demonstrate the manner in which 'gender relations' might be understood in terms of an identity politics. BLACK FEMINISM This 'feminism' has developed a general set of criticisms of all the other three feminisms. It argues that other feminisms display ETHNOCENTRIC assumptions with regard to 'ethnic minority' women. In particular black feminists argue that the other feminism's (particularly radical and marxist) criticism of the family is unjustified and fails to appreciate the manner in which Afro-Carribean women in particular, have used the family as a basis of freedom. Curiously black feminists may find a 'bedfellow' with Judith Butler, the U.S. based radical feminist philosopher, who argues that the important social factors in considering a women's position are the factors of race and gender. Well what do YOU think? Time to get your own thoughts sorted! This document has introduced you to a number of sociological concepts which should assist you in thinking through the problem of women's condition in modern western societies.
|
