The Ever Unequal Genders


Gauravi Lobo

Bachelor of Arts in Psychology & Communication

University at Buffalo, the State University of New York


Professor: LOW LIH JENG

Course: ESL 408LEC

Semester: Spring 2010

Grade Received: A

“I have no respect for the passion of equality, which seems to me, merely idealizing envy,”

said Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (Holmes, 1935). This

famous line sums up in a few words, that striving for equality is a fairly pointless objective.

Striving for equality is striving for a balance, an equilibrium that is only possible when the

two halves aiming to achieve it are similar. Equality is not possible between two parts that are

seen to posses’ completely different attributes. In such a case, as Justice Holmes so aptly

states, all that is achieved is an acceptance of envy, thus emphasizing the inequality.

Despite this reasoning, human society strives for equality in many spheres. One of the most

prominent being gender equality. The debate about gender equality has been going on for

centuries. If Justice Holmes is to be believed, this eternal debate seems to be a perfect

example of a futile pursuit. While it is true that in recent times we have seen a shift in the

perception of the two sexes in certain avenues, true equality seems to be an unattainable

objective. Gender equality is not possible in the current social order because of certain innate

structural aspects of society that present the sexes as being unequal. These foundations of

society have a subtle, yet powerful influence over human perception of the sexes.

Before agreeing that equality is an impossible phenomenon, one must have a clear

understanding of what equality means. Equal is defined as being evenly balanced, or as

having the same rights (The Illustrated Oxford Dictionary, p. 270). This kind of equality is in

regards to equal rights and opportunities afforded by each of the sexes. However, for the

purpose of this essay, equality does not mean equal rights. It does not meant equality in the

eyes of the law. Instead, it means equality in terms of the societal perception of men and

women or equality in terms of the perception of the roles and identity’s associated with the

sexes.
Another concept that must be clearly defined before one can comprehend the concept of

gender equality is gender identity. The terms gender and sex are often mixed up and used

interchangeably (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). They do, however, possess exclusive meanings

(Backlund & Ivy, 2004). A person’s sex implies the biological and physiological

characteristics that make them male or female (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). Gender on the other

hand, reflects the psychological and emotional characteristics (Backlund & Ivy, 2004).

Gender is culturally constructed; it is not something we are born with (Backlund & Ivy,

2004). A person’s maleness or femaleness is taught through their culture from the time of

birth (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). What gender identity is taught does depend on the biological

anatomy of the person i.e.: the sex of the person (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). However, gender is

a societal construct (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). It is this very societal construct that will never

be seen on an equal plane.

The human being begins its life as an infant with an easily influenced mind. When a child is

born, one of the first questions asked by family and well-wishers is, what is the sex of the

baby (Cavanaugh & Kail, 2010). Although this may seem like simply a biological distinction,

in truth, knowing the sex of a baby is also knowledge of a distinct social role that comes with

a particular gender (Cavanaugh & Kail, 2010).


Human beings do not live in a gender-neutral world for very long (Cavanaugh & Kail 2010).

According to Serbin et al, by 18 months of age, babies stop viewing gender-stereotyped toys

equally (as cited in Cavanaugh & Kail, 2010, p. 194). For example, girls look longer at

pictures of dolls and boys look longer at pictures of trucks (Cavanaugh & Kail, 2010). By age

four, children are expansively aware of gender-stereotyped role-play (Cavanaugh & Kail

2010). As stated by Gelman, Taylor, & Nguyen they believe girls play hopscotch, but boys
play football; girls bake cookies, but boys take out the trash, women feed babies but men

chop wood (as cited in Cavanaugh & Kail, 2010, p. 195). By this age, they have also begun to

learn about traits and behaviors that are stereotypically masculine or feminine (Cavanaugh &

Kail 2010). Parents further endorse this kind of gender stereotyping. According to social

cognitive theorists like Albert Bandura and Walter Mischel, children learn most social roles

by watching and observing behaviors around them and understanding what the outcome of

various actions will be (as cited in Cavanaugh & Kail 2010, p. 197). A study conducted

observing sets of parents who gave equal love and attention to both sons and daughters,

however in behavior related to gender roles, parents behaved differently with sons and

daughters (Cavanaugh & Kail, 2010). Activities such as playing with dolls, playing dress up

or helping in the kitchen are more encouraged in daughters, whereas rough and tumble play is

encouraged in boys (Cavanaugh & Kail, 2010). Parents tend to tolerate mild aggression in

boys more easily than they do in girls (Cavanaugh & Kail, 2010). In this way parents begin to

teach children gender stereotypes from a very young age. Children learn the distinction

between ‘male activities’ and ‘female activities’. They learn what society deems as

acceptable, prescribed behavior for either of the sexes.

As a child grows older it becomes near impossible to break these gender stereotypes

(Cavanaugh & Kail, 2010). Gender becomes the key structure around which a child organizes

all other information (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). This theory, popularized by psychologist

Sandra Bem is known as the Gender Schemata Theory (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). A schema is a

cognitive structure that helps us to interpret the world around us (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). The

way this works in relation to gender is when, for example, a girl learns that typical cultural

prescriptions for femininity are kindness and politeness, she encompasses these traits into her
emerging schema and begins to behave in a kind and polite way (Backlund & Ivy, 2004).

Gender schemas basically provide a guideline for how to behave (Backlund & Ivy, 2004).

The development of and adherence to these gender schemas helps explain why it is so

difficult to dislodge gender stereotypical thinking in later life (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). Bem’s

ideas in gender socialization also explain the effect of culture on the acquisition of gender

(Backlund & Ivy, 2004). Bem stresses on some fundamental, culturally shared beliefs about

the sexes, two of which being;

1. Females and males are totally different and opposite beings

2. Males are superior to females

Children tend to accept these beliefs without understanding that alternatives are possible

(Backlund & Ivy, 2004). It becomes virtually impossible for a child to question or refute

these beliefs as they are ingrained into the gender schemata the child uses to interpret the

world (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). As the child becomes an adult, he or she cannot fathom a

world or society that is organized differently, and hence the childhood perception of gender

stays with one throughout his or her lifetime (Backlund & Ivy, 2004).

This childhood schemata that influences perception in turn affects they way humans interact

with each other as adults (Backlund & Ivy, 2004). Men and women have 2 very different

communication styles, according to linguist Deborah Tannen (as cited in Renzetti & Curran,

1995, p. 152). Tannen further argues that men and women also have different communication

goals (as cited in Renzetti & Curran, 1995, p.152). Just as different cultures speak different

dialects, men and women speak different genderlects (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). According

to Tannen men tend to speak a language of status and independence, whereas women
continue to speak one of intimacy and connectedness (as cited in Renzetti & Curran, 1995, p.

152).

According to McConell-Ginnet and Edelsky, these distinct genderlects cause men to

dominate women in cross-sex conversations in at least three distinct ways:

1. They tend to do more of the talking.

2. They interrupt women more often than women interrupt them.

3. They tend to focus the conversation on topics of their choosing.

McConnell-Ginnet and Edelsky further argue that the best explanation for the above

phenomenon’s is that just like in other unequal power relationships; parent-child, boss-

employee, the conversation styles reflect perceived power distribution in the relationships

(Renzetti & Curran, 1995, p. 152).

Non-verbal communication patterns also illustrate the distinct difference between the two

genders (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). Henry states that men tend to have a more dominating

style, they tend to invade the personal space of women more by standing closer to women,

and touching them or staring more (as cited in Renzetti & Curran, 2004, p. 152). Women’s

non-verbal cues tend to be characterized averting their eyes when stared at, but they also tend

to smile more, which indicated either sociability or submissiveness (Renzetti & Curran,

1995).

All these various factors cause communication to become gendered (Backlund & Ivy, 2004).

Gendered communication basically means that what we say or how we use communication to

relate to others is strongly influenced by our genders (Backlund & Ivy, 2004).
Simply indicating that the communication patterns are dissimilar however, is not an indicator

of inequality. The inequality lays in the perception of the two styles of gender

communication. The typical communication style of men (dominating, authoritative) is

viewed as not only different from that of women (submissive and intimate) but it is often

viewed as the superior style (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). What men do, they way men talk is

viewed as ‘good’ or correct’ whereas women, being the ‘other’ way of communication,

always become the wrong way (Renzetti & Curran, 1995).

Altering their communication styles is not a plausible solution for women. Lakeoff states that

since women’s communication style is more connective, it is often viewed negatively and

related to dependence, incompetence and insecurity (as cited in Renzetti & Curran, 1995, p.

153). He further illustrates that if a woman tries to adapt or change her communication style

to suit a more masculine one, she tends to be viewed as unfeminine or excitable (as cited in

Renzetti & Curran, 2004, p. 153). Thus, with women’s style perceived as inferior and adding

the further hindrance of being unable to effectively change their communication patterns,

human communication patterns become another example of how the gender traits are

perceived as being unalterably unequal.

Despite their communication styles being viewed as unequal, it can be argued that a popular

avenue where men and women are said to be seen as equal in today’s society is in the

corporate world. Men and women are seen to be taking on the same jobs (Miller, 2009). It is

not uncommon to see women taking up occupations that were ideally seen as men’s jobs

(Miller, 2009). It is no longer a surprise to see a woman working as a doctor or as a lawyer

(Miller, 2009). The chief of police in police forces are often seen to be women (Miller, 2009).
These seeming changes in the equality of men and women seem to be more on the surface

than a genuine alteration of perception.

Women report that very often they are faced with the ‘glass ceiling effect’ (Miller, 2009). The

glass ceiling effect is a phenomenon visible in organizations. Morrison and Von Gilnow state

it is used to described ‘a barrier so subtle that it is transparent yet so strong that it prevents a

women and minorities from moving up in the management hierarchy’ (as cited in Miller,

2009, p. 218). While women are seen taking the same jobs, the slightly biased societal

perception of them disallows them from rising up the managerial hierarchy, as do men.

According to Buzzanell, while it is true that job opportunities are more uniformly afforded to

both the sexes, traditional characteristics that are valued in a bureaucratic workplace are still

stereotypically male characteristics (as cited in Miller, 2009, p. 112). For example, logic

aggressiveness and competitiveness are valued whereas stereotypically female traits such as

intuition, connectedness and co-operation are downplayed (Miller, 2009).

Communication styles and organizational skills valued are intricately connected to another

pervasive structural aspect of our society that we tend to undervalue, yet it serves one of the

most important functions in any society today; language. With particular reference to the

English language, this aspect of society is another example of how our perception of gender

is skewed. Words that are traditionally associated with men tend to have a different

connotation than those associated with women (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). ‘Masculine’ words

like governor, master or bachelor, tend to connote power, authority or a positively valued

status (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). Their feminine counter parts, however, governess, mistress

or spinsters, have negative connotations that are degrading or sexual (Renzetti & Curran,

1995). According to Nilsen, the word master implies someone who is accomplished and
respected in his art whereas its counter part mistress entails an elderly paramour or an

adulteress (as cited in Renzetti & Curran, 1995). Also consider patron and matron, both the

Middle English words for mother and father (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). In today’s English,

patron signifies a supporter or a benefactor whereas a matron is someone who supervises a

public institution such as a prison, or simply, an old woman. According to Smith,

lexicographers note that as soon as words become associated with women, they acquire

semantic characteristics that agree with social typecasts of women in general (Renzetti &

Curran, 1995). This indication of the subtle, underlying perception of the status of women in

our society is often explained by linguistic sexism (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). As stated by

Renzetti & Curran (1995), linguistic sexism refers to “ways in which a language devalues

members of one sex”. The concept also involves defining women’s ‘place’ in society

unequally (Renzetti & Curran, 1995).

Another literal indicator of women’s ‘place’ in society is how word pairs are indicated in

written text (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). Brothers and sisters, husband and wife, boys and

girls; all of the above are word pairs where the masculine is written before the feminine

(Renzetti & Curran, 1995). If the pairs were inversed, they would most likely sound awkward

or incorrect (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). For example; Eve and Adam, queen and king,

hostess and host (Renzetti & Curran, 1995).

Take the example of another linguistic indicator; the titles of respect we use for men and

women. Men are addressed as Mr. whereas women are addressed as Miss or Mrs. (Renzetti

& Curran, 1995). Women’s tittles are indicators of their relationships to men whereas a man’s

title reveals nothing about his relationship to women (Renzetti & Curran, 1995).
There are, however, critics who feel this stress on language and its implications is a rather

vague argument (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). Even so, as stated by Martyna, Treichler and

Frank, “one of the really important functions of language is to be constantly declaring to

society the psychological place held by all of its members” (as cited in Renzetti & Curran,

1995). The fact that women are given an inferior status by the English language does not

simply indicate the unequal perception of them in our society, but also reinforces it (Renzetti

& Curran, 1995). Language serves as a medium of socialization, for as a child learns how to

use language of a particular culture, he or she also learns how to think and behave as a

member of that particular culture (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). Words used in a language

influence our perception than we give them credit for. Words are symbols with a definite

meaning and we use these symbols to define describe and evaluate the world around us

(Renzetti & Curran, 1995). Members of society share the meaning of these symbols and use

them to communicate and comprehend one another (Renzetti & Curran, 1995). Thus,

language is constantly shaping our perception and reinforcing the disparate perception of the

sexes in human society.

When any idea, thought or belief is so tightly interlinked with factors that constantly shape

ones perception, it becomes hard for that belief to ever be modified or eradicated (Renzetti &

Curran, 1995). The two genders are not seen to be equal by certain factors that are at the very

foundation of a human beings socialization process; upbringing, communication and

language. Even so, in the past three decades, we have seen significant steps taken towards

gender equality (Lips, 2001). From the 1970’s onwards, human history has seen a prominent

surfacing of movements for social change in the status of women and the relations between

men and women (Lips, 2001). However, such movements seem to simply reflect a change in
political and legal ideology. For example in the United States, in 1986, the Supreme Court

found that sexual harassment was a form of illegal job discrimination (Imbornoni, n.d). In

Virginia, 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that the all-male Virginia Military Training School

had to admit female students in order to continue to receive public funding (Imbornoni, n.d).

These changes are beneficial and much desired but they have yet to significantly impact the

framework ideals upon which our society is built.

It may be concluded that this framework that has endured for so many years, may never truly

be eradicated, thus making gender equality unattainable. Instead of society focusing its

energy on achieving an impossible goal, it maybe in its better interest to simply accept the

differences of the two genders. With this, it may become possible draw on the strengths of

both gender’s traits. When both genders are accepted as having different virtues, where none

is better than the other, it may finally relieve society from forever condemning one gender to

be inferior to the other.

___________________________________________________________________________
 References

Ellis, M., Fullalove, M., Hunt, P., Lyford, I., McLaughlin, G., O'Conner, S., Soranzo,

V., Stalker, G., & Thomasson, N. (Eds.). (2007) Illustrated Oxford dictionary.

Great Britain: Dorling Kindersley Limited & Oxford University Press.

Holmes, O.W. (1953). Holmes-Laski letters; The correspondence of Mr. Justice

Holmes and Harold J. Laski, 1916-1935, M. De Wolfe Howe, (Ed.).

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Imbornoni, A.M., (n.d.). Women’s rights movement in the U.S. timeline of key events

in the American women’s rights movements 1980-present. Retrieved from

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline3.html

Ivy, D. K., & Backlund, P. (2004). Gender speak: Personal effectiveness in gender

communication (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kail, R.V., & Cavanaugh, J.C. (2010). Human development: A life-span view (5th

ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Lindsey, L. L. (1994). Gender roles: A sociological perspective (2nd ed.). New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Lips, L. M. (2001). Sex and gender: An introduction (4th ed.). California: Mayfield

Publishing Company.

Miller, K. (2009). Organizational communication approaches and processes (5th ed.).

Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Renzetti, C. M., & Curran, D. J. (1995). Women, men, and society (3rd ed.). United

States of America: Simon and Shuster Company.