Gender inequality

"Gender imbalance" redirects here. For demographics, see Sex-selective abortion.

Gender inequality refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals based on their gender. It arises from differences in socially constructed gender roles.[1] Gender systems are often dichotomous and hierarchical; gender binary systems may reflect the inequalities that manifest in numerous dimensions of daily life. Gender inequality stems from distinctions, whether empirically grounded or socially constructed. (On differences between the sexes, see Sex and psychology.)

Natural sex differences

There are natural differences between the sexes based on biological and anatomic factors, most notably differing reproductive roles. Biological differences include chromosomes and hormonal differences.[1] There is a natural difference also in the relative physical strengths (on average) of the sexes, both in the lower body and more pronouncedly in the upper-body, though this does not mean that any given man is stronger than any given woman.[2][3] Men, on average, are taller, which provides both advantages and disadvantages.[4] Women live significantly longer than men,[5] though it is not clear to what extent this is a biological difference - see Life expectancy.

In the workplace


93% of workplace deaths (fatal occupational injuries) in the US between 1980 and 1997 were men (97,053 deaths). The male fatality rate (8.6 per 100,000 workers) was 11 times greater than the female death rate of the 1980-97 time range (0.8). This accounts for the other 7% of work place deaths (6,886 deaths).[6]

Income disparities linked to job stratification

Main article: Gender pay gap

Wage discrimination exists when workers are equally qualified and perform the same work but one group of workers is paid more than another. Historically, wage discrimination has favored men over similarly qualified women.[7]

Income disparity between genders stems from processes that determine the quality of jobs and earnings associated with jobs. Earnings associated with jobs will cause income inequality to take form in the placement of individuals into particular jobs through individual qualifications or stereotypical norms. Placement of men or women into particular job categories can be supported through the human capital theories of qualifications of individuals or abilities associated with biological differences in men and women. Conversely, the placement of men or women into separate job categories is argued to be caused by social status groups who desire to keep their position through the placement of those in lower statuses to lower paying positions.[8]

Human capital theories refer to the education, knowledge, training, experience, or skill of a person which makes them potentially valuable to an employer. This has historically been understood as a cause of the gendered wage gap but is no longer a predominant cause as women and men in certain occupations tend to have similar education levels or other credentials. Even when such characteristics of jobs and workers are controlled for, the presence of women within a certain occupation leads to lower wages. This earnings discrimination is considered to be a part of pollution theory. This theory suggests that jobs which are predominated by women offer lower wages than do jobs simply because of the presence of women within the occupation. As women enter an occupation, this reduces the amount of prestige associated with the job and men subsequently leave these occupations. The entering of women into specific occupations suggests that less competent workers have begun to be hired or that the occupation is becoming deskilled. Men are reluctant to enter female-dominated occupations because of this and similarly resist the entrance of women into male-dominated occupations.[9]

The gendered income disparity can also be attributed in part to occupational segregation, where groups of people are distributed across occupations according to ascribed characteristics; in this case, gender. Occupational gender segregation can be understood to contain two components or dimensions; horizontal segregation and vertical segregation. With horizontal segregation, occupational sex segregation occurs as men and women are thought to possess different physical, emotional, and mental capabilities. These different capabilities make the genders vary in the types of jobs they are suited for. This can be specifically viewed with the gendered division between manual and non-manual labor. With vertical segregation, occupational sex segregation occurs as occupations are stratified according to the power, authority, income, and prestige associated with the occupation and women are excluded from holding such jobs.[9]

As women entered the workforce in larger numbers since the 1960s, occupations have become segregated based on the amount femininity or masculinity presupposed to be associated with each occupation. Census data suggests that while some occupations have become more gender integrated (mail carriers, bartenders, bus drivers, and real estate agents), occupations including teachers, nurses, secretaries, and librarians have become female-dominated while occupations including architects, electrical engineers, and airplane pilots remain predominately male in composition.[10] Based on the census data, women occupy the service sector jobs at higher rates than men. Women’s overrepresentation in service sector jobs, as opposed to jobs that require managerial work acts as a reinforcement of women and men into traditional gender roles that causes gender inequality.[11]

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, U.S., 2009.[12]

Scholars disagree about how much of the male-female wage gap depends on factors such as experience, education, occupation, and other job-relevant characteristics. Sociologist Douglas Massey found that 41% remains unexplained,[9] while CONSAD analysts found that these factors explain between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of the raw wage gap.[13] CONSAD also noted that other factors such as benefits and overtime explain "additional portions of the raw gender wage gap".

The glass ceiling effect is also considered a possible contributor to the gender wage gap or income disparity. This effect suggests that gender provides significant disadvantages towards the top of job hierarchies which become worse as a person’s career goes on. The term glass ceiling implies that invisible or artificial barriers exist which prevent women from advancing within their jobs or receiving promotions. These barriers exist in spite of the achievements or qualifications of the women and still exist when other characteristics that are job-relevant such as experience, education, and abilities are controlled for. The inequality effects of the glass ceiling are more prevalent within higher-powered or higher income occupations, with fewer women holding these types of occupations. The glass ceiling effect also indicates the limited chances of women for income raises and promotion or advancement to more prestigious positions or jobs. As women are prevented by these artificial barriers, from either receiving job promotions or income raises, the effects of the inequality of the glass ceiling increase over the course of a woman’s career.[14]

Statistical discrimination is also cited as a cause for income disparities and gendered inequality in the workplace. Statistical discrimination indicates the likelihood of employers to deny women access to certain occupational tracks because women are more likely than men to leave their job or the labor force when they become married or pregnant. Women are instead given positions that dead-end or jobs that have very little mobility.[7]

In Third World countries such as the Dominican Republic, female entrepreneurs are statistically more prone to failure in business. In the event of a business failure women often return to their domestic lifestyle despite the absence of income. On the other hand, men tend to search for other employment as the household is not a priority.[15]

The gender earnings ratio suggests that there has been an increase in women’s earnings comparative to men. Men’s plateau in earnings began after the 1970s, allowing for the increase in women’s wages to close the ratio between incomes. Despite the smaller ratio between men and women’s wages, disparity still exists. Census data suggests that women’s earnings are 71 percent of men’s earnings in 1999.[10]

The gendered wage gap varies in its width among different races. Whites comparatively have the greatest wage gap between the genders. With whites, women earn 78% of the wages that white men do. With African Americans, women earn 90% of the wages that African American men do.

There are some exceptions where women earn more than men: According to a survey on gender pay inequality by the International Trade Union Confederation, female workers in the Gulf state of Bahrain earn 40 per cent more than male workers.[16]

In 2014, a report by the International Labor Organization (ILO) reveals the wage gap between Cambodian women factory workers and other male counterparts. There was a $25 USD monthly pay difference conveying that women have a much lower power and being devalued not only at home but also in the workplace. [17]

Professional education and careers

The gender gap also appeared to narrow considerably beginning in the mid-1960s. Where some 5% of first-year students in professional programs were female in 1965, by 1985 this number had jumped to 40% in law and medicine, and over 30% in dentistry and business school.[18] Before the highly effective birth control pill was available, women planning professional careers, which required a long-term, expensive commitment, had to "pay the penalty of abstinence or cope with considerable uncertainty regarding pregnancy."[19] This control over their reproductive decisions allowed women to more easily make long-term decisions about their education and professional opportunities. Women are highly underrepresented on boards of directors and in senior positions in the private sector.[20]

Additionally, with reliable birth control, young men and women had more reason to delay marriage. This meant that the marriage market available to any one women who "delay[ed] marriage to pursue a career...would not be as depleted. Thus the Pill could have influenced women's careers, college majors, professional degrees, and the age at marriage."[21]

Studies on sexism in science and technology fields have produced conflicting results. Corinne et al. found that science faculty of both sexes rated a male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than an identical female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant.[22] Williams and Ceci, however, found that science and technology faculty of both sexes "preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles" for tenure-track positions.[23]

Customer preference studies

A 2010 study conducted by David R. Hekman and colleagues found that customers who viewed videos featuring a black male, a white female, or a white male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19 percent more satisfied with the white male employee's performance.[24][25][26][27][28]

This discrepancy with race can be found as early as 1947, when Kenneth Clark conducted a study in which black children were asked to choose between white and black dolls. White male dolls were the ones children preferred to play with.[29][30]

Gender pay differences in the medical field

Although the disparities between men and women are decreasing in the medical field, gender inequalities still exist as social problems. From 1999 to 2008, recently qualified female doctors in the US made almost $170,000,000 less than their male counterparts. The pay discrepancy could not be explained by specialty choice, practice setting, work hours, or other characteristics.[31]

Gender discrimination against men

There is a common misconception that women are the only ones that experience gender inequality in the workplace, but that is not true; Men face discrimination as well. Where women will receive some form of parental leave after having a child, a father will not get nearly as much time off, if any at all. New fathers usually will not get enhanced pay during parental leave like women do. Many employers will work with women when it comes to schedule changes, but men will rarely enjoy that same benefit. Under the Equality Act 2010, sex discrimination is not solely defined as a man harassing a woman; male employees have also faced sexual harassment in the workplace, though it is rarely, if ever, discussed. [32]

At home

Gender roles in parenting and marriage

Sigmund Freud suggested that biology determines gender identity through identification with either the mother or father. While some people agree with Freud, others argue that the development of the gendered self is not completely determined by biology, but rather the interactions that one has with the primary caregiver(s).

According to the non-Freudian view, gender roles develop through internalization and identification during childhood. From birth, parents interact differently with children depending on their sex, and through this interaction parents can instill different values or traits in their children on the basis of what is normative for their sex. This internalization of gender norms can be seen through the example of which types of toys parents typically give to their children ("feminine" toys such as dolls often reinforce interaction, nurturing, and closeness, "masculine" toys such as cars or fake guns often reinforce independence, competitiveness, and aggression).[1] On the other hand, it has been shown that rhesus macaque children exhibit preferences for stereotypically male and female toys.[33] Education also plays an integral role in the creation of gender norms.[34]

In Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, Meg Meeker emphasizes the importance of opposite-gender parental roles. She claims "fathers, more than anyone else, set the course for a daughter's life."[35]

Gender inequality in relationships

Gender equality in relationships has been growing over the years but for the majority of relationships, the power lies with the male.[36] Even now men and women present themselves as divided along gender lines. A study done by Szymanowicz and Furnham, looked at the cultural stereotypes of intelligence in men and women, showing the gender inequality in self-presentation.[37] This study showed that females thought if they revealed their intelligence to a potential partner, then it would diminish their chance with him. Men however would much more readily discuss their own intelligence with a potential partner. Also, women are aware of people’s negative reactions to IQ, so they limit its disclosure to only trusted friends. Females would disclose IQ more often than men with the expectation that a true really true friend would respond in a positive way. Intelligence continues to be viewed as a more masculine trait, than feminine trait. The article suggested that men might think women with a high IQ would lack traits that were desirable in a mate such as warmth, nurturance, sensitivity, or kindness. Another discovery was that females thought that friends should be told about one’s IQ more so than males. However, males expressed doubts about the test’s reliability and the importance of IQ in real life more so than women. The inequality is highlighted when a couple starts to decide who is in charge of family issues and who is primarily responsible for earning income. For example, in Londa Schiebinger’s book, "Has Feminism Changed Science?", she claims that "Married men with families on average earn more money, live longer and happier, and progress faster in their careers," while "for a working woman, a family is a liability, extra baggage threatening to drag down her career."[38] Furthermore, statistics had shown that "only 17 percent of the women who are full professors of engineering have children, while 82 percent of the men do."[39]

Attempts in equalizing household work

Despite the increase in women in the labor force since the mid-1900s, traditional gender roles are still prevalent in American society. Women may be expected to put their educational and career goals on hold in order to raise children, while their husbands work. However, women who choose to work as well as fulfill a perceived gender role of cleaning the house and taking care of the children. Despite the fact that different households may divide chores more evenly, there is evidence that supports that women have retained the primary caregiver role within familial life despite contributions economically. This evidence suggest that women who work outside the home often put an extra 18 hours a week doing household or childcare related chores as opposed to men who average 12 minutes a day in childcare activities.[40] One study by van Hooff showed that modern couples, do not necessarily purposefully divide things like household chores along gender lines, but instead may rationalize it and make excuses.[36] One excuse used is that women are more competent at household chores and have more motivation to do them. Another is that some say the demands of the males’ jobs is higher.

Gender inequalities in relation to technology

One survey showed that men rate their technological skills in activities such as basic computer functions and online participatory communication higher than women. However, it should be noted that this study was a self-reporting study, where men evaluate themselves on their own perceived capabilities. It thus is not data based on actual ability, but merely perceived ability, as participants' ability was not assessed. Additionally, this study is inevitably subject to the significant bias associated with self-reported data.[41]

Property Inheritance

Many countries have laws that give less inheritance of ancestral property for women compared to men.[42][43]

Structural marginalization

Gender inequalities often stem from social structures that have institutionalized conceptions of gender differences.

Marginalization occurs on an individual level when someone feels as if they are on the fringes or margins of their respective society. This is a social process and displays how current policies in place can affect people. For example, media advertisements display young girls with easy bake ovens (promoting being a housewife) as well as with dolls that they can feed and change the diaper of (promoting being a mother).

Gender stereotypes

Main article: Gender stereotypes

Cultural stereotypes are engrained in both men and women and these stereotypes are a possible explanation for gender inequality and the resulting gendered wage disparity. Women have traditionally been viewed as being caring and nurturing and are designated to occupations which require such skills. While these skills are culturally valued, they were typically associated with domesticity, so occupations requiring these same skills are not economically valued. Men have traditionally been viewed as the breadwinner or the worker, so jobs held by men have been historically economically valued and occupations predominated by men continue to be economically valued and earn higher wages.[9]

Biological fertilisation stereotypes

Bonnie Spanier coined the term hereditary inequality.[44] Her opinion is that some scientific publications depict human fertilization such that sperms seem to actively compete for the "passive" egg, even though in reality it is complicated (e.g. the egg has specific active membrane proteins that select sperm etc.)

Sexism and discrimination

Gender inequality can further be understood through the mechanisms of sexism. Discrimination takes place in this manner as men and women are subject to prejudicial treatment on the basis of gender alone. Sexism occurs when men and women are framed within two dimensions of social cognition.

Discrimination also plays out with networking and in preferential treatment within the economic market. Men typically occupy positions of power within the job economy. Due to taste or preference for other men because they share similar characteristics, men in these positions of power are more likely to hire or promote other men, thus discriminating against women.[9]

In television and film

The New York Film Academy took a closer look at the women in Hollywood and gathered statistics from the top 500 films from 2007 to 2012; for their history and achievements, or lack of.

With only a 5:1 ratio of men working in films than women, the 30.8% of women having speaking characters, who may or may not have been a part of the 28.8% of women who were written to wear revealing clothing compared to the 7% of men who did, or the 26.2% of women who wore little to no clothing opposed to the 9.4% of men who did the same.[45]

Hollywood actresses get paid less than actors. Topping the Forbes' highest paid actors list, of 2013, is Robert Downey Jr. with $75 million yet Angelina Jolie tops the highest paid actresses list with only $33 million,[46] tying with Denzel Washington ($33 million) and Liam Neeson ($32 million) who were the last two of the top ten highest paid actors list.[47]

During the 2013 Academy Awards, 140 men were nominated for an award but only 35 women were nominated, however, no woman was nominated for directing, cinematography, film editing, writing (original screenplay), or original score that year. But ever since the Academy Awards first opened in 1929, only 7 women producers have won the Best Picture category (all women who have been co-producers with men), only 8 women have been nominated for Best Original Screenplay, and Lina Wertmuller (1976), Jane Campion (1994), Sofia Coppola (2004), and Kathryn Bigelow (2012) were the only 4 women to be nominated for Best Directing, with Bigelow being the first woman to win for her film The Hurt Locker.

77% males make up the Academy Awards' voters.[45]

Impact and counteractions

Gender inequality and discrimination are argued to cause and perpetuate poverty and vulnerability in society as a whole.[48] Household and intra-household knowledge and resources are key influences in individuals' abilities to take advantage of external livelihood opportunities or respond appropriately to threats.[48] High education levels and social integration significantly improve the productivity of all members of the household and improve equity throughout society. Gender Equity Indices seek to provide the tools to demonstrate this feature of poverty.[48]

Poverty has many driving factors, one of which is the gender wage gap. Women are more likely to be living in poverty and the wage gap is one of the causes.

There are many difficulties in creating a comprehensive response.[49] It is argued that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) fail to acknowledge gender inequality as a cross-cutting issue. Gender is mentioned in MDG3 and MDG5: MDG3 measures gender parity in education, the share of women in wage employment and the proportion women in national legislatures.[48] MDG5 focuses on maternal mortality and on universal access to reproductive health.[48] These targets are significantly off-track.[49]

Addressing gender inequality through social protection programmes designed to increase equity would be an effective way of reducing gender inequality, according to the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).[49] Researchers at the ODI argue for the need to develop the following in social protection in order to reduce gender inequality and increase growth:[48]

The ODI maintains that society limits governments' ability to act on economic incentives.[49]

NGO's tend to protect women against gender inequality and Structural violence.

During war, combatants primarily target men. Both sexes die however, due to disease, malnutrition and incidental crime and violence, as well as the battlefield injuries which predominately affect men.[50] A 2009 review of papers and data covering war related deaths disaggregated by gender concluded "It appears to be difficult to say whether more men or women die from conflict conditions overall."[51] The ratio also depends on the type of war, for example in the Falklands War 904 of the 907 dead were men. Conversely figures for war deaths in 1990, almost all relating to civil war, gave ratios in the order of 1.3 males per female.

Another opportunity to tackle gender inequality is presented by modern information and communication technologies. In a carefully controlled study,[52] it has been shown that women embrace digital technology more than men. Given that digital information and communication technologies have the potential to provide access to employment, education, income, health services, participation, protection, and safety, among others (ICT4D), the natural affinity of women with these new communication tools provide women with a tangible bootstrapping opportunity to tackle social discrimination.

Variations by country or culture

The Gender gap index world map for 2013.[53]

Gender inequality is a result of the persistent discrimination of one group of people based upon gender and it manifests itself differently according to race, culture, politics, country, and economic situation. It is furthermore considered a causal factor of violence against women. While gender discrimination happens to both men and women in individual situations, discrimination against women is an entrenched, global pandemic. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, rape and violence against women and girls is used as a tool of war.[54] In Afghanistan, girls have had acid thrown in their faces for attending school.[55] Considerable focus has been given to the issue of gender inequality at the international level by organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the World Bank, particularly in developing countries. The causes and effects of gender inequality vary geographically, as do methods for combating it.


One example of the continued existence of gender inequality in Asia is the "missing girls" phenomenon.[56]


Cambodia is one of the examples. A Cambodian said “Men are gold, women are white cloth”, emphasizing women had a lower value and importance compared to men.[57] In Cambodia, approximately 15% (485,000 hectares) of land was owned by a women.[58] In Asian culture, there is a stereotype where women usually have a lower status than men because males carry on the family name and hold the responsibilities to take care of the family. Females on the other hand has a less important role. Their main role is to carry out domestic chores, taking care of her husband and children.[59] Women are also the main victims suffering from poverty as they have little or no access to education, low pay and low chances owning assets such as lands, homes or even basic item home but also in the workplace.[60]

In Cambodia, the Ministry of Women’s Affair (MoWA) was formed in 1998 with the role to improve women’s overall power and status in the country. [61]


India ranking remains low in gender equality measures by the World Economic Forum, although the rank has been improving in recent years.[53][62] When broken down into components that contribute the rank, India performs well on political empowerment, but is scored near the bottom with China on sex selective abortion. India also scores poorly on overall female to male literacy and health rankings. India with a 2013 ranking of 101 out of 136 countries had an overall score of 0.6551, while Iceland, the nation that topped the list, had an overall score of 0.8731 (no gender gap would yield a score of 1.0).[63] Gender inequalities impact India's sex ratio, women's health over their lifetimes, their educational attainment, and economic conditions. It is a multifaceted issue that concerns men and women alike.

The labor force participation rate of women was 80.7% in 2013.[64] Nancy Lockwood of Society for Human Resource Management, the world's largest human resources association with members in 140 countries, in a 2009 report wrote that female labor participation is lower than men, but has been rapidly increasing since the 1990s. Out of India's 397 million workers in 2001, 124 million were women, states Lockwood.[65]

India is on target to meet its Millennium Development Goal of gender parity in education before 2016.[66] UNICEF's measures of attendance rate and Gender Equality in Education Index (GEEI) attempt to capture the quality of education.[67] Despite some gains, India needs to triple its rate of improvement to reach GEEI score of 95% by 2015 under the Millennium Development Goals. A 1998 report stated that rural India girls continue to be less educated than the boys.[68]

United States

The World Economic Forum measures gender equity through a series of economic, educational, and political benchmarks. It has ranked the United States as 19th (up from 31st in 2009) in terms of achieving gender equity.[69] The US Department of Labor has indicated that in 2009, "the median weekly earnings of women who were full-time wage and salary workers was…80 percent of men’s";[70] The Department of Justice found that in 2009, "the percentage of female victims (26%) of intimate partner violence was about 5 times that of male victims (5%)".[71] "The United States ranks 41st in a ranking of 184 countries on maternal deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, below all other industrialized nations and a number of developing countries"[72] and women only represent 20% of members of Congress.[69]

Political affiliations and behaviors

Existing research on the topic of gender/sex and politics has found differences in political affiliation, beliefs, and voting behavior between men and women, although these differences vary across cultures. Gender is omnipresent in every culture, and while there are many factors to consider when labeling people "Democrat" or "Republican"—such as race and religion—gender is especially prominent in politics.[73][74] Studying gender and political behavior poses challenges, as it can be difficult to determine if men and women actually differ in substantial ways in their political views and voting behavior, or if biases and stereotypes about gender cause people to make assumptions.[75] However, trends in voting behavior among men and women have been proven through research.

Research shows that women in postindustrial countries like the United States, Canada, and Germany primarily identified as conservative before the 1960s; however, as time has progressed and new waves of feminism have occurred, women have become more left-wing due to shared beliefs and values between women and parties more on the left.[76] Women in these countries typically oppose war and the death penalty, favor gun control, support environment protection, and are more supportive of programs that help people of lower socioeconomic statuses.[73] Voting behaviors of men have not experienced as drastic of a shift over the last fifty years as women in their voting behavior and political affiliations. These behaviors tend to consistently be more conservative than women overall.[76] These trends change with every generation, and factors such as culture, race, and religion also must be considered when discussing political affiliation. These factors make the connection between gender and political affiliation complex due to intersectionality.[77]

Candidate gender also plays a role in voting behavior. Women candidates are far more likely than male candidates to be scrutinized and have their competence questioned by both men and women when they are seeking information on candidates in the beginning stages of election campaigns.[75] Democrat male voters tend to seek more information about female Democrat candidates over male Democrat candidates. Female Republican voters tend to seek more information about female Republican candidates.[75] For this reason, female candidates in either party typically need to work harder to prove themselves competent more than their male counterparts.[75]

Challenges to women in politics

Overall, politics in the United States are dominated by men, which can pose many challenges to women who decide to enter the political sphere. As the number of women participants in politics continue to increase around the world, the gender of female candidates serves as both a benefit and a hindrance within their campaign themes and advertising practices.[78] The overarching challenge seems to be that—no matter their actions—women are unable to win in the political sphere as different standards are used to judge them when compared to their male counterparts.[79]

One area in particular that exemplifies varying perceptions between male and female candidates is the way female candidates decide to dress and how their choice is evaluated. When women decide to dress more masculine, they are perceived as being "conspicuous." When they decide to dress more feminine, they are perceived as "deficient."[80] At the same time, however, women in politics are generally expected to adhere to the masculine standard, thereby validating the idea that gender is binary and that power is associated with masculinity.[81] As illustrated by the points above, these simultaneous, mixed messages create a "double-bind" for women. Some scholars go on to claim that this masculine standard represents symbolic violence against women in politics.[80]

Political knowledge is a second area where male and female candidates are evaluated differently and where political science research has consistently shown women with a lower level of knowledge than their male counterparts.[82] One reason for this finding is the argument that there are different areas of political knowledge that different groups consider.[83] Due to this line of thought, scholars are advocating the replacement of traditional political knowledge with gender-relevant political knowledge because women are not as politically disadvantaged as it may appear.[82]

A third area that affects women’s engagement in politics is their low level of political interest and perception of politics as a "men's game."[84] Despite female candidates' political contributions being equal to that of male candidates, research has shown that women perceive more barriers to office in the form of rigorous campaigns, less overall recruitment, inability to balance office and family commitments, hesitancy to enter competitive environments, and a general lack of belief in their own merit and competence.[85] Male candidates are evaluated most heavily on their achievements, while female candidates are evaluated on their appearance, voice, verbal dexterity, and facial features in addition to their achievements.[80]

Steps needed for change

Several forms of action have been taken to combat institutionalized sexism. People are beginning to speak up or "talk back" in a constructive way to expose gender inequality in politics, as well as gender inequality and under-representation in other institutions.[86] Researchers who have delved into the topic of institutionalized sexism in politics have introduced the term "undoing gender." This term focuses on education and an overarching understanding of gender by encouraging "social interactions that reduce gender difference."[81] Some feminists argue that "undoing gender" is problematic because it is context-dependent and may actually reinforce gender. For this reason, researchers suggest "doing gender differently" by dismantling gender norms and expectations in politics, but this can also depend on culture and level of government (e.g. local versus federal).[81]

Another key to combating institutionalized sexism in politics is to diffuse gender norms through "gender-balanced decision-making," particularly at the international level, which "establishes expectations about appropriate levels of women in decision-making positions."[87] In conjunction with this solution, scholars have started placing emphasis on "the value of the individual and the importance of capturing individual experience." This is done throughout a candidate's political career—whether that candidate is male or female—instead of the collective male or female candidate experience.[88] Five recommended areas of further study for examining the role of gender in U.S. political participation are (1) realizing the "intersection between gender and perceptions"; (2) investigating the influence of "local electoral politics"; (3) examining "gender socialization"; (4) discerning the connection "between gender and political conservatism"; and (5) recognizing the influence of female political role models in recent years.[89] Due to the fact that gender is intricately entwined in every societal institution, gender in politics can only change once gender norms in other institutions change, as well.

See also

Notes and references

  1. 1 2 3 Wood, Julia. Gendered Lives. 6th. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.
  2. Maughan RJ, Watson JS, Weir J (1983). "Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal muscle". The Journal of Physiology. 338 (1): 37–49. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1983.sp014658. PMC 1197179Freely accessible. PMID 6875963.
  3. Frontera, Hughes, Lutz, Evans (1991). "A cross-sectional study of muscle strength and mass in 45- to 78-yr-old men and women". J Appl Physiol. 71 (2): 644–50. PMID 1938738.
  4. Samaras, Thomas (2007). Human body size and the laws of scaling. New York: Nova Science. pp. 33–61. ISBN 1-60021-408-8. Retrieved 2012-11-18.
  5. "Life expectancy at birth, Country Comparison to the World". CIA World Factbook. US Central Intelligence Agency. n.d. Retrieved 12 Jan 2011.
  7. 1 2 Burstein, Paul. "Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy." Edison, NJ: Aldine Transaction, 1994.
  8. Jacobs, Jerry. Gender Inequality at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1995.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 Massey, Douglas. "Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System." NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007.
  10. 1 2 Cotter, David, Joan Hermsen, and Reeve Vanneman. The American People Census 2000: Gender Inequality at Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2000.
  11. Hurst, Charles, E. Social Inequality. 6th. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007.
  12. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2009. Report 1025, June 2010.
  13. CONSAD research corp. (12 January 2009). "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2013. Retrieved 30 October 2015.
  14. Cotter, David, Joan Hermsen, Seth Ovadia and Reeve Vanneman. "Social Forces: The Glass Ceiling Effect." Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.
  15. Sherri Grasmuck and Rosario Espinal. "Market Success or Female Autonomy?" Sage Publications, Inc, 2000.
  16. Women 'earn less than men across the globe', Vedior, 4 March 2008
  17. "What's a woman worth?: wages and democracy in Cambodia". openDemocracy. 2015-02-01. Retrieved 2016-11-06.
  18. Goldin, Claudia, and Lawrence F. Katz. "On The Pill: Changing the course of women's education." The Milken Institute Review, Second Quarter 2001: p3.
  19. Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence F. Katz. "The Power Of The Pill: Contraceptives And Women's Career And Marriage Decisions," Journal of Political Economy, 2002, v110 (4,Aug),p731.
  20. Archived July 19, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
  21. Goldin, Claudia (2006). "The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment, Education, And Family". American Economic Review. 96 (2): 13.
  22. Corinne; et al. (2012). "Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students". PNAS. 109: 16474–16479. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109. PMC 3478626Freely accessible. PMID 22988126.
  23. Williams, Wendy; Stephen, Ceci (28 April 2015). "National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track". PNAS. 112 (17): 5360–5365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418878112. PMC 4418903Freely accessible. PMID 25870272. Retrieved 30 October 2015.
  24. Hekman, David R.; Aquino, Karl; Owens, Brad P.; Mitchell, Terence R.; Schilpzand, Pauline; Leavitt, Keith. (2009) "An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction". Academy of Management Journal.
  25. Bakalar, Nicholas (2009) "A Customer Bias in Favor of White Men." New York Times, June 23, 2009.
  26. Vedantam, Shankar (2009) "Caveat for Employers." Washington Post, June 1, 2009.
  27. Jackson, Derrick (2009) "Subtle, and stubborn, race bias." Boston Globe, July 6, 2009.
  28. National Public Radio. Lake Effect
  29. Dweck, Carol S. (2009). Prejudice: How It Develops and How It Can Be Undone. Switzerland: Karger. doi:10.1159/000242351
  30. Clark, Kenneth B. and Clark, Mamie P. (1947). "Racial identification and preference among negro children." In E. L. Hartley (Ed.) Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  31. Lo Sasso, Anthony T.; Richards, Michael R.; Chou, Chiu-Fang; Gerber, Susan E. (2011). "The $16,819 Pay Gap For Newly Trained Physicians: The Unexplained Trend Of Men Earning More Than Women". Health Affairs. 30 (2): 193201. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0597. Overall, new women physicians earned $151,600 in 1999 versus $173,400 for men—a 12.5 percent salary difference. The gender difference grew to nearly 17 percent in 2008 ($174,000 versus $209,300).
  32. Simpson, Stephen. "Sex Discrimination against men: 10 Ways Employers Could Fall Foul - Personnel Today". Personnel Today. Reed Business Information Ltd. Retrieved November 9, 2016.
  33. "Yerkes - Yerkes Researchers Find Sex Differences in Monkey Toy Preferences Similar to Humans". 2008-04-10. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
  34. Vianello, Mino, and Renata Siemienska. Gender Inequality: A Comparative Study of Discrimination and Participation. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications Ltd., 1990.
  35. Meeker, Meg (2006). Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters: 10 Secrets Every Father Should Know. Ballantine Books. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-345-49939-4.
  36. 1 2 van Hooff, Jenny H. (March 2011). "Rationalising inequality: heterosexual couples' explanations and justifications for the division of housework along traditionally gendered lines". Journal of Gender Studies. 20 (1): 19–30. doi:10.1080/09589236.2011.542016.
  37. Szymanowicz, Agata; Adrian Furnham (March 2011). "Do intelligent women stay single? Cultural stereotypes concerning the intellectual abilities of men and women". Journal of Gender Studies. 20 (1): 43–54. doi:10.1080/09589236.2011.542019.
  38. Schiebinger, Londa. Has Feminism Changed Science. p. 92.
  39. Schiebinger, Londa. Has Feminism Changed Science. p. 96.
  40. Friedman, Ellen, and Jennifer Marshall. Issues of Gender. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. , 2004.
  41. Eszter Hargittai, What Causes Variation in Contributing to Participatory Web Sites?
  43. Qur'an, [Quran 4:11].
  44. Schiebinger, London (2001). Has Feminism Changed Science. United States of America: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674005449.
  45. 1 2 "Gender Inequality in Film". New York Film Academy Blog. Retrieved 10/4/2014. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  46. Forbes, Moira. "Hollywood's Highest-Paid Actresses: Where Gender Bias Reigns Supreme".
  47. Torrelio, Sebastian. "Robert Downey Jr. Tops Forbes' Highest-Paid Actors List for Second Year".
  48. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nicola Jones, Rebecca Holmes, Jessica Espey 2008. Gender and the MDGs: A gender lens is vital for pro-poor results. London: Overseas Development Institute Archived March 10, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
  49. 1 2 3 4 Nicola Jones and Rebecca Holmes 2010. Gender, politics and social protection. London: Overseas Development Institute
  50. Ormhaug et al say "In a widely respected study on war mortality in Kosovo, Spiegel and Salama (2000) found that men were 8.9 times more likely to die from war-related trauma than women, which coincides with men being systematically targeted."
  51. Christin Ormhaug, in collaboration with Patrick Meier and Helga Hernes (23 November 2009). "Armed Conflict Deaths Disaggregated by Gender". PRIO.
  52. Hilbert, Martin (November–December 2011). "Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics". Women's Studies International Forum. Elsevier. 34 (6): 479–489. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2011.07.001.
  53. 1 2 The Global Gender Gap Report 2013, World Economic Forum, Switzerland
  54. Gettleman, Jeffrey (October 7, 2007). "Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War". New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2011.
  55. Filins, Dexter (August 23, 2009). "A School Bus for Shamsia". New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2011.
  56. Kristoff, Nicholas D. (August 23, 2009). "The Women's Crusade". New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2011.
  57. "What's a woman worth?: wages and democracy in Cambodia". openDemocracy. 2015-02-01. Retrieved 2016-11-06.
  58. "Measuring Women Status And Gender Statistics in Cambodia Through the Surveys and Census" (PDF). National Institute of Statistics (NIS), Ministry of Planning.
  59. "Characteristics of the Traditional Asian Family". Retrieved 2016-11-06.
  60. "What's a woman worth?: wages and democracy in Cambodia". openDemocracy. 2015-02-01. Retrieved 2016-11-06.
  61. "Measuring Women Status And Gender Statistics in Cambodia Through the Surveys and Census" (PDF). National Institute of Statistics (NIS),Ministry of Planning.
  62. 2011 Gender Gap Report World Economic Forum, page 9
  63. "Global Gender Gap Report 2013". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
  64. "Human Development Report for 2012". United Nations Development Project. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
  65. Nancy Lockwood (2009). "Perspectives on Women in Management in India" (PDF). Society for Human Resource Management.
  67. Unterhalther, E. (2006). Measuring Gender Inequality in South Asia. London: The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
  68. Victoria A. Velkoff (October 1998). "Women of the World: Women's Education in India" (PDF). U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved 25 December 2006.
  69. 1 2 World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report. 2009. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  70. "Quick Stats on Women Workers". U.S. Department of Labor. Archived from the original on April 26, 2011.
  71. "National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010". Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  72. "CEDAW 2011 website". Retrieved February 15, 2011.
  73. 1 2 Croucher, Stephen M.; Spencer, Anthony T.; McKee, Connie (2014-03-15). "Religion, Religiosity, Sex, and Willingness to Express Political Opinions: A Spiral of Silence Analysis of the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election". Atlantic Journal of Communication. 22 (2): 111–123. doi:10.1080/15456870.2014.890001. ISSN 1545-6870.
  74. DeFrancisco, Victoria Pruin; Palczewski, Catherine Helen (2014). Gender in Communication: A Critical Introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-4522-2009-3.
  75. 1 2 3 4 Ditonto, Tessa M.; Hamilton, Allison J.; Redlawsk, David P. (2013-05-14). "Gender Stereotypes, Information Search, and Voting Behavior in Political Campaigns". Political Behavior. 36 (2): 335–358. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9232-6. ISSN 0190-9320.
  76. 1 2 Inglehart, Ronald; Norris, Pippa (2000-01-01). "The Developmental Theory of the Gender Gap: Women's and Men's Voting Behavior in Global Perspective". International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique. 21 (4): 441–463. doi:10.1177/0192512100214007. JSTOR 1601598.
  77. DeFrancisco, Victoria Pruin; Palczewski, Catherine Helen (2014). Gender in Communication: A Critical Introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 8–9. ISBN 978-1-4522-2009-3.
  78. Lee, Yu-Kang (2014). "Gender stereotypes as a double-edged sword in political advertising Persuasion effects of campaign theme and advertising style". International Journal of Advertising. 33: 203. doi:10.2501/IJA-33-2-203-234.
  79. Parry-Giles, Shawn (2014). Hillary Clinton in the News: Gender and Authenticity in American Politics. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. p. 258.
  80. 1 2 3 Flicker, Eva (2013). "Fashionable (dis-)order in politics: Gender, power and the dilemma of the suit". International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics. 9: 201–219. doi:10.1386/macp.9.2.201_3.
  81. 1 2 3 Charles, Nickie (2014-07-01). "Doing Gender, Practising Politics: Workplace Cultures in Local and Devolved Government". Gender, Work & Organization. 21 (4): 368–380. doi:10.1111/gwao.12042. ISSN 1468-0432.
  82. 1 2 Dolan, Kathleen (2011-01-01). "Do Women and Men Know Different Things? Measuring Gender Differences in Political Knowledge". The Journal of Politics. 73 (1): 97–107. doi:10.1017/S0022381610000897. ISSN 0022-3816.
  83. Carpini, Michael; Keeter, Scott (1993). "Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First". American Journal of Political Science. 37: 1179–1206. doi:10.2307/2111549.
  84. Moore, Robert G. (2005-12-01). "Religion, Race, and Gender Differences in Political Ambition". Politics & Gender. null (04): 577–596. doi:10.1017/S1743923X05050154. ISSN 1743-9248.
  85. Lawless, Jennifer; Fox, Richard (2008). "Why are women still not running for public office?". Issues in Governance Studies. 16.
  86. DeFrancisco, Victoria Pruin; Palczewski, Catherine Helen (2014). Gender in Communication: A Critical Introduction. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 117–118. ISBN 978-1-4522-2009-3.
  87. Santos, Maria; Amancio, Ligia; Alves, Helder (2013). "Gender and politics: The relevance of gender on judgments about the merit of candidates and the fairness of quotas.". Portuguese Journal of Social Science. 12: 133–149. doi:10.1386/pjss.12.2.133_1.
  88. McDermott, Rose (2013-03-01). "A Feminist Scientific Approach to the Analysis of Politics and Gender". Politics & Gender. 9 (01): 110–115. doi:10.1017/S1743923X12000761. ISSN 1743-9248.
  89. Fox, Richard L. (2011-03-01). "Studying Gender in U.S. Politics: Where Do We Go from Here?". Politics & Gender. 7 (01): 94–99. doi:10.1017/S1743923X10000589. ISSN 1743-9248.


This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/4/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.