Gender Stratification: Structural Sexism (Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht)
As most sociologists agree, the social structure underlies
and perpetuates much of the sexism in society. Structural sexism, also known as
institutional sexism, refers to the ways the organization of society and
specifically its institutions subordinate individuals and groups based on their
sex classification. Structural sexism has resulted in significant differences
in the education and income levels, occupational and political involvement, and
civil rights of women and men.
Education and Structural Sexism
Over 775 million adults over the age of 15 cannot read or
write, and nearly two-thirds of them are women. Of the approximately 123
million illiterate youth, 76 million are female (UNESCO 2012).
Because children born to educated mothers are less likely to
die at a young age, there is an education dividend associated with educating
women. For example, if universal primary education was available for all girls
in sub-Saharan Africa, 200,000 fewer children would die each year, and
universal secondary education for all girls would save as many as 1.8 million
lives annually (UNESCO 2011).
Historically, U.S. schools have discriminated against women. Before the 1830s, U.S. colleges accepted only males students. In 1833, Oberlin College in Ohio became the first college to admit women. Even so, in 1833, female students at Oberlin were required to wash male students' clothes, clean their rooms, and serve their meals and were forbidden to speak at public assemblies (Fletcher 1943; Flexner 1972).This also only pertained to white women, as slavery was still a practiced institution.
In the 1960s, the women's movement sought to end sexism in education. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states that not person shall be discriminated against on the basis of sex in any educational program receiving federal funds. These guidelines were designed to end sexism in the hiring and promoting of teachers and administrators. Title IX also sought to end sex discrimination in granting admission to college and awarding financial aid. Finally the guidelines called for an increase in opportunities for female athletes by making more funds available for their programs.
In 2012, few differences existed between men and women in
their completion rates of high school and college degrees (NCES 2013). In fact,
in recent years, most U.S. colleges and universities have had a higher
percentage of women than men enrolling directly from better educated than their
husbands while only 16 percent of fathers are better educated than their wives,
the remainder of spouses having similar educational background (Wang et al.
2013). This trend is causing some concern that many young American men may not
have the education they need to compete in today’s global economy.
Concern over the continued lack of women in STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) is also justified. Women earn 81 percent of master’s degrees in
library science but only 22 percent of master’s degrees in engineering and
engineering technologies. Reasons for the STEM gender disparity include
reliance on gender stereotyping (“Boys are better in math and science than
girls!”), a lack of female STEM role models, little encouragement to follow
STEM pursuits, and a lack of awareness about women in STEM fields (AAUW 2011).
Women earned 51 percent of doctorate degrees (e.g., JDs,
MDs, PhDs) in 2012. Nonetheless, unlike many of their male counterparts, many
women “opt out” of labor force participation. Hersch (2013) reports that female
graduates of elite institutions, those most likely to find satisfying
employment in their field of study, are more likely to “opt out” of the
workforce than peers from less selective institutions who have children under
the age of 18, have significantly lower levels of labor force involvement than
their academic equals without children under the age of 18.
In higher education, there are also structural limitations
that discourage women from advancing. Women seeking academic careers may find
that securing tenure track position is more difficult for them than it is for
men, and that having children pre-tenure negatively impacts the likelihood of
getting tenure, that is, there is a “pregnancy penalty” (Ceci et al. 2009),
Similarly, in an analysis of data from the National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty, Leslie (2007) reports that, as the number of children increases, the
number of hours of female faculty member works decreases, and the number of
hours a male faculty member works increases. Finally, research also indicates
gender stereotyping in letters of recommendation. Women are more often
described as socio-emotive (e.g. helpful) rather than active/assertive (e.g.
ambitious) and, thus, are evaluated less positively (Madera et al. 2009).
Similarly, female faculty are disproportionately assigned service duties (e.g.
advising) when compared to their male counterparts, which places them at a
disadvantage when being considered for tenure and/or promotion (Misra et al. 2011).
Sources
Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht, Caroline 2015.
Understanding Social Problems. Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization). 2012 (September). “Adult and Youth Literacy.” Fact Sheet, No 20. Available at www.uis.unesco.org
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization). 2011. “EFA Global Monitoring Report.” Available at www.unesco.org
Fletcher, Robert S. 1943. History of Oberlin College to the Civil War. Oberli, OH: Oberlin
College Press.
Flexnor, Eleanor. 1972. Century
of Struggle: The Women’s Rights Movement in the United States. New York:
Atheneum
NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics) 2013. The
Condition of Education, 2012. U.S. Department of Education. Available at www.nces.ed.gov
Wang, Wendy, Kim Parker, and Paul Taylor. 2013 (May 29). Breadwinner Moms. Pew Research Social
and Demographic Trends. Available at www.pewsocialtrends.org
Hersch, Joni 2013. “Opting Out among Women with Elite
Education.” Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper. 13-05. Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University.
Ceci, Stephne J., Wendy M. Williams, and Susan M. Barnett.
2009. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Socio-Cultural and Biological
Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin
135(2): 218-261.
Leslie, David W. 2007 (March). “The Reshaping of America’s
Academic Workforce.” Research Dialogue
87. New York: TIAA-CREF Institute. Available at www.tiaa-crefinstitute.org
Madera, Juan M., Michelle M. Hebl, and Randi C. Martin.
2009. “Gender and Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Agentic and Communal
Differences.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 94(6): 1,591-1,599.
Misra, Joya, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, Elissa Holmes, and
Stephanie Agiomavritis. 2011. “The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work.” Academe
97:22-26.
No comments:
Post a Comment