conflict theory gender inequality essay

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Theoretical Perspectives on Gender

Learning outcomes.

• Examine gender from a structural-functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspective

Sociological theories help to explain complex human behaviors, social phenomena, and social structures. To take a specific example, let’s consider how each theoretical perspective might explain the gender wage gap. In 2017, full-time working women made 80.5 cents to every dollar earned by men, meaning there is a gender wage gap of 19.5 percent. This gap is even more pronounced for Black and Hispanic women. [1] So why do women make less than men?

Not only do we need to examine each woman’s experience in the workforce, we should also understand intersectionality, or how each person’s experience is affected by race/ethnicity, social class, age, etc. We then want to scrutinize the structures and processes that shape these experiences. To establish a more comprehensive analytical framework, we can apply each of the three main sociological perspectives to better understand the socio-economic phenomenon of the gender wage gap.

Structural functionalists might look at how values and norms shape societal notions of success in the workforce, and how these established values and norms reinforce the division of labor as well as gender inequality. For functionalists, when roles are clearly established, social solidarity increases. When large numbers of women began to enter the workforce beginning in World War II, they were paid less, but the rationale for this wage was that it was a necessary cost-saving measure during wartime. When women began to collectively demand “equal pay for equal work” in the 1960s, formal norms (laws) had to be passed for this to occur. As we have seen over the past 60 years, values do not always keep up with changing norms and vice versa.

Conflict theorists influenced by the theories of Karl Marx might analyze how the bourgeoisie use the wage gap to perpetuate an unequal system, and how the wage gap is successful in keeping the working classes both divided and subject to a politically neutralizing false consciousness. Females, as a minority group, are paid less so that the dominant group (men) can maintain a greater share of status and power. The United States is an advanced capitalist society, so by paying some workers less than others (and all workers less than the actual value of their labor), those at the top increase their wealth, while the workers are led to believe they too can join the bourgeoisie if they work hard enough.

Interactionists would likely examine how meaning is produced and negotiated in social interactions and how that meaning is then translated into wage inequality. A woman who displays certain behaviors that are generally conceived of as being appropriate for leadership (i.e., strong, opinionated, concise) might be perceived as “bossy” or “difficult to work with,” whereas a man depicting the same behaviors would be perceived as someone who is ready for a leadership position. This type of meaning-making, which is heavily gendered through generational cycles of socialization, contributes to the wage gap at the microsociological level.

Let’s look at each of these perspectives again as they apply more broadly to gender.

Is the gender wage gap a real thing? Watch this vlog from John Green to learn about some of the latest research on the topic.

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism has provided one of the most important perspectives of sociological research in the twentieth century and has been a major influence on research in the social sciences, including gender studies. Viewing the family as the most integral component of society, assumptions about gender roles within marriage assume a prominent place in this perspective.

Functionalists argue that gender roles were established well before the pre-industrial era when men typically took care of responsibilities outside of the home, such as hunting, and women typically took care of the domestic responsibilities in or around the home. These roles were considered functional because women were often limited by the physical restraints of pregnancy and nursing and were unable to leave the home for long periods of time. These roles were passed on to subsequent generations, since they served as an effective means of keeping the family system functioning properly.

When changes occurred in the social and economic climate of the United States during World War II, changes in the family structure also occurred. Many women had to assume the role of breadwinner (or modern hunter-gatherer) alongside their traditional domestic role in order to stabilize a rapidly changing society. When the men returned from war and wanted to reclaim their jobs, society fell back into a state of imbalance, as many women did not want to forfeit their wage-earning positions (Hawke 2007).

Conflict Theory

According to conflict theory, society is a struggle for dominance among social groups (like women versus men) that compete for scarce resources. When sociologists examine gender from this perspective, they typically classify men as the dominant group and women as the subordinate group. According to conflict theory, social problems are created when dominant groups exploit or oppress subordinate groups. Consider the Women’s Suffrage Movement or the debate over women’s “right to choose” their reproductive futures. It is difficult for women to rise above men, as dominant group members create the rules for success and opportunity in society (Farrington and Chertok 1993).

Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), a German sociologist and Karl Marx’s frequent collaborator, studied family structure and gender roles. Engels suggested that the same owner-worker relationship seen in the labor force is also seen in the household, with women assuming the role of the proletariat (i.e., the industrial age, routine-bound workers). This is due to women’s dependence on men for the attainment of wages, which is even worse for women who are entirely dependent upon their spouses for economic support. Contemporary conflict theorists suggest that when women become wage earners, they can gain power in the family structure and create more democratic arrangements in the home, although they may still carry the majority of the domestic burden, as noted earlier (Rismanand and Johnson-Sumerford 1998).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism aims to understand human behavior by analyzing the critical role of symbols and meaning-making in human interaction. This is certainly relevant to the discussion of masculinity and femininity. Imagine that you walk into a bank hoping to get a small loan for school, a home, or a small business venture. If you meet with a male loan officer, you may state your case logically by listing all the hard numbers that make you a qualified applicant as a means of appealing to the practical, analytical characteristics associated with masculinity. If you meet with a female loan officer, you may make an emotional appeal by stating your good intentions as a means of appealing to the empathetic, nurturing characteristics associated with femininity.

Because the meanings attached to symbols are socially created and not natural, and fluid, not static, we act and react to symbols based on the current assigned meaning. The word gay , for example, once meant “cheerful,” but by the 1960s it carried the primary meaning of “homosexual.” In transition, it was even known to mean “careless” or “bright and showing” (Oxford American Dictionary 2010). Furthermore, the word gay (as it refers to a homosexual), carried a somewhat negative and unfavorable meaning fifty years ago, but has since gained more neutral and even positive connotations. When people perform tasks or possess characteristics based on the gender role assigned to them, they are said to be doing gender . This notion is based on the work of West and Zimmerman (1987). Whether we are expressing our masculinity or femininity, Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman argue, we are always “doing gender.” Thus, gender is something we do or perform, not something we are.

In other words, both gender and sexuality are socially constructed. The social construction of sexuality refers to the way in which socially created definitions about the cultural appropriateness of sex-linked behavior shape the way people see and experience sexuality. This is in marked contrast to theories of sex, gender, and sexuality that link male and female behavior to biological determinism , or the belief that men and women behave differently due to differences in their biology.

Being Male, Being Female, and Being Healthy

In 1971, Broverman and Broverman conducted a groundbreaking study on the traits mental health workers ascribed to males and females. When asked to name the characteristics of a female, the list featured words such as unaggressive, gentle, emotional, tactful, less logical, not ambitious, dependent, passive, and neat. The list of male characteristics featured words such as aggressive, rough, unemotional, blunt, logical, direct, active, and sloppy (Seem and Clark 2006). Later, when asked to describe the characteristics of a healthy person (not gender specific), the list was nearly identical to that of a male.

This study uncovered the general assumption that being female is associated with being somewhat unhealthy or not of sound mind. This concept seems extremely dated, but in 2006, Susan Seem and M. Diane Clark replicated the study and found similar results. Again, the characteristics associated with a healthy male were very similar to that of a healthy (genderless) adult. The list of characteristics associated with being female broadened somewhat, but did not show significant change from the original study (Seem and Clark 2006). This interpretation of feminine characteristic may help us one day better understand gender disparities in certain illnesses, such as why one in eight women can be expected to develop clinical depression in her lifetime (National Institute of Mental Health 1999). Perhaps these diagnoses are not just a reflection of women’s health, but also a reflection of society’s labeling of female characteristics, or the result of institutionalized sexism.

Watch this video to see more examples related to each of the main sociological theories on gender.

<a style="margin-left: 16px;" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vy-T6DtTF-BbMfpVEI7VP_R7w2A4anzYZLXR8Pk4Fu4" target="_blank"

• "Pay, equity, and discrimination." (2018). Institute for Women's Policy Research. https://iwpr.org/issue/employment-education-economic-change/pay-equity-discrimination/ . ↵

Introduction to Sociology Lumen/OpenStax Copyright © 2021 by Lumen Learning & OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

22 The Conflict Perspective

The conflict perspective.

Boundless, Boundless Sociology, http://oer2go.org/mods/en-boundless/www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/index.html

Conflict theory suggests that men, as the dominant gender, subordinate women in order to maintain power and privilege in society.

• Conflict theory asserts that social problems occur when dominant   groups mistreat subordinate ones, and thus advocates for a balance of power between genders.
• Frederich Engels compared the family structure to the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, suggesting that women had less power than men in the household because they were dependent on them for wages.
• Men, like any other group with a power or wealth advantage in Conflict Theory, fought to maintain their control over resources (in this case, political and economic power). Conflict between the two groups caused things like the Women’s Suffrage Movement and was responsible for social change.
• dominant Ruling; governing; prevailing; controlling.
• subordinate To make subservient.
• proletariat the working class or lower class
• dominant group a sociological category that holds the majority of authority and power over other social groups

According to conflict theory, society is defined by a struggle for dominance among social groups that compete for scarce resources. In the context of gender, conflict theory argues that gender is best understood as men attempting to maintain power and privilege to the detriment of women. Therefore, men can be seen as the dominant group and women as the subordinate group. While certain gender roles may have been appropriate in a hunter-gatherer society, conflict theorists argue that the only reason these roles persist is because the dominant group naturally works to maintain their power and status. According to conflict theory, social problems are created when dominant groups exploit or oppress subordinate groups. Therefore, their approach is normative in that it prescribes changes to the power structure, advocating a balance of power between genders.

In most cultures, men have historically held most of the world’s resources. Until relatively recently, women in Western cultures could not vote or hold property, making them entirely dependent on men. Men, like any other group with a power or wealth advantage, fought to maintain their control over resources (in this case, political and economic power). Conflict between the two groups caused things like the Women’s Suffrage Movement and was responsible for social change.

Friedrich Engels, a German sociologist, studied family structure and gender roles from a Marxist perspective. Engels suggested that the same owner-worker relationship seen in the labor force could also be seen in the household, with women assuming the role of the proletariat. This was due to women’s dependence on men for the attainment of wages. Contemporary conflict theorists suggest that when women become wage earners, they gain power in the family structure and create more democratic arrangements in the home, although they may still carry the majority of the domestic burden.

The Conflict Perspective Copyright © 2020 by Boundless, Boundless Sociology, http://oer2go.org/mods/en-boundless/www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/index.html is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

12.2 Gender and Gender Inequality

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Explain the influence of socialization on gender roles in the United States
• Explain the stratification of gender in major American institutions
• Provide examples of gender inequality in the United States
• Describe the rise of feminism in the United States
• Describe gender from the view of each sociological perspective

Gender and Socialization

The phrase “boys will be boys” is often used to justify behavior such as pushing, shoving, or other forms of aggression from young boys. The phrase implies that such behavior is unchangeable and something that is part of a boy’s nature. Aggressive behavior, when it does not inflict significant harm, is often accepted from boys and men because it is congruent with the cultural script for masculinity. The “script” written by society is in some ways similar to a script written by a playwright. Just as a playwright expects actors to adhere to a prescribed script, society expects women and men to behave according to the expectations of their respective gender roles. Scripts are generally learned through a process known as socialization, which teaches people to behave according to social norms.

Socialization

Children learn at a young age that there are distinct expectations for boys and girls. Cross-cultural studies reveal that children are aware of gender roles by age two or three. At four or five, most children are firmly entrenched in culturally appropriate gender roles (Kane 1996). Children acquire these roles through socialization, a process in which people learn to behave in a particular way as dictated by societal values, beliefs, and attitudes. For example, society often views riding a motorcycle as a masculine activity and, therefore, considers it to be part of the male gender role. Attitudes such as this are typically based on stereotypes, oversimplified notions about members of a group. Gender stereotyping involves overgeneralizing about the attitudes, traits, or behavior patterns of women or men. For example, women may be thought of as too timid or weak to ride a motorcycle.

Gender stereotypes form the basis of sexism. Sexism refers to prejudiced beliefs that value one sex over another. It varies in its level of severity. In parts of the world where women are strongly undervalued, young girls may not be given the same access to nutrition, healthcare, and education as boys. Further, they will grow up believing they deserve to be treated differently from boys (UNICEF 2011; Thorne 1993). While it is illegal in the United States when practiced as discrimination, unequal treatment of women continues to pervade social life. It should be noted that discrimination based on sex occurs at both the micro- and macro-levels. Many sociologists focus on discrimination that is built into the social structure; this type of discrimination is known as institutional discrimination (Pincus 2008).

Gender socialization occurs through four major agents of socialization: family, education, peer groups, and mass media. Each agent reinforces gender roles by creating and maintaining normative expectations for gender-specific behavior. Exposure also occurs through secondary agents such as religion and the workplace. Repeated exposure to these agents over time leads men and women into a false sense that they are acting naturally rather than following a socially constructed role.

Family is the first agent of socialization. There is considerable evidence that parents socialize sons and daughters differently. Generally speaking, girls are given more latitude to step outside of their prescribed gender role (Coltrane and Adams 2004; Kimmel 2000; Raffaelli and Ontai 2004). However, differential socialization typically results in greater privileges afforded to sons. For instance, boys are allowed more autonomy and independence at an earlier age than daughters. They may be given fewer restrictions on appropriate clothing, dating habits, or curfew. Sons are also often free from performing domestic duties such as cleaning or cooking and other household tasks that are considered feminine. Daughters are limited by their expectation to be passive and nurturing, generally obedient, and to assume many of the domestic responsibilities.

Even when parents set gender equality as a goal, there may be underlying indications of inequality. For example, boys may be asked to take out the garbage or perform other tasks that require strength or toughness, while girls may be asked to fold laundry or perform duties that require neatness and care. It has been found that fathers are firmer in their expectations for gender conformity than are mothers, and their expectations are stronger for sons than they are for daughters (Kimmel 2000). This is true in many types of activities, including preference for toys, play styles, discipline, chores, and personal achievements. As a result, boys tend to be particularly attuned to their father’s disapproval when engaging in an activity that might be considered feminine, like dancing or singing (Coltraine and Adams 2008). Parental socialization and normative expectations also vary along lines of social class, race, and ethnicity. African American families, for instance, are more likely than Caucasians to model an egalitarian role structure for their children (Staples and Boulin Johnson 2004).

The reinforcement of gender roles and stereotypes continues once a child reaches school age. Until very recently, schools were rather explicit in their efforts to stratify boys and girls. The first step toward stratification was segregation. Girls were encouraged to take home economics or humanities courses and boys to take math and science.

Studies suggest that gender socialization still occurs in schools today, perhaps in less obvious forms (Lips 2004). Teachers may not even realize they are acting in ways that reproduce gender differentiated behavior patterns. Yet any time they ask students to arrange their seats or line up according to gender, teachers may be asserting that boys and girls should be treated differently (Thorne 1993).

Even in levels as low as kindergarten, schools subtly convey messages to girls indicating that they are less intelligent or less important than boys. For example, in a study of teacher responses to male and female students, data indicated that teachers praised male students far more than female students. Teachers interrupted girls more often and gave boys more opportunities to expand on their ideas (Sadker and Sadker 1994). Further, in social as well as academic situations, teachers have traditionally treated boys and girls in opposite ways, reinforcing a sense of competition rather than collaboration (Thorne 1993). Boys are also permitted a greater degree of freedom to break rules or commit minor acts of deviance, whereas girls are expected to follow rules carefully and adopt an obedient role (Ready 2001).

Mimicking the actions of significant others is the first step in the development of a separate sense of self (Mead 1934). Like adults, children become agents who actively facilitate and apply normative gender expectations to those around them. When children do not conform to the appropriate gender role, they may face negative sanctions such as being criticized or marginalized by their peers. Though many of these sanctions are informal, they can be quite severe. For example, a girl who wishes to take karate class instead of dance lessons may be called a “tomboy” and face difficulty gaining acceptance from both male and female peer groups (Ready 2001). Boys, especially, are subject to intense ridicule for gender nonconformity (Coltrane and Adams 2004; Kimmel 2000).

Mass media serves as another significant agent of gender socialization. In television and movies, women tend to have less significant roles and are often portrayed as wives or mothers. When women are given a lead role, it often falls into one of two extremes: a wholesome, saint-like figure or a malevolent, hypersexual figure (Etaugh and Bridges 2003). This same inequality is pervasive in children’s movies (Smith 2008). Research indicates that in the ten top-grossing G-rated movies released between 1991 and 2013, nine out of ten characters were male (Smith 2008).

Television commercials and other forms of advertising also reinforce inequality and gender-based stereotypes. Women are almost exclusively present in ads promoting cooking, cleaning, or childcare-related products (Davis 1993). Think about the last time you saw a man star in a dishwasher or laundry detergent commercial. In general, women are underrepresented in roles that involve leadership, intelligence, or a balanced psyche. Of particular concern is the depiction of women in ways that are dehumanizing, especially in music videos. Even in mainstream advertising, however, themes intermingling violence and sexuality are quite common (Kilbourne 2000).

Social Stratification and Inequality

Stratification refers to a system in which groups of people experience unequal access to basic, yet highly valuable, social resources. There is a long history of gender stratification in the United States. When looking to the past, it would appear that society has made great strides in terms of abolishing some of the most blatant forms of gender inequality (see timeline below) but underlying effects of male dominance still permeate many aspects of society.

• Before 1809—Women could not execute a will
• Before 1840—Women were not allowed to own or control property
• Before 1920—Women were not permitted to vote
• Before 1963—Employers could legally pay a woman less than a man for the same work
• Before 1973—Women did not have the right to a safe and legal abortion (Imbornoni 2009)

The Pay Gap

Despite making up nearly half (49.8 percent) of payroll employment, men vastly outnumber women in authoritative, powerful, and, therefore, high-earning jobs (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Even when a woman’s employment status is equal to a man’s, she will generally make only 81 cents for every dollar made by her male counterpart (Payscale 2020). Women in the paid labor force also still do the majority of the unpaid work at home. On an average day, 84 percent of women (compared to 67 percent of men) spend time doing household management activities (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). This double duty keeps working women in a subordinate role in the family structure (Hochschild and Machung 1989).

Gender stratification through the division of labor is not exclusive to the United States. According to George Murdock’s classic work, Outline of World Cultures (1954), all societies classify work by gender. When a pattern appears in all societies, it is called a cultural universal. While the phenomenon of assigning work by gender is universal, its specifics are not. The same task is not assigned to either men or women worldwide. But the way each task’s associated gender is valued is notable. In Murdock’s examination of the division of labor among 324 societies around the world, he found that in nearly all cases the jobs assigned to men were given greater prestige (Murdock and White 1968). Even if the job types were very similar and the differences slight, men’s work was still considered more vital.

Part of the gender pay gap can be attributed to unique barriers faced by women regarding work experience and promotion opportunities. A mother of young children is more likely to drop out of the labor force for several years or work on a reduced schedule than is the father. As a result, women in their 30s and 40s are likely, on average, to have less job experience than men. This effect becomes more evident when considering the pay rates of two groups of women: those who did not leave the workforce and those who did: In the United States, childless women with the same education and experience levels as men are typically paid with closer (but not exact) parity to men. However, women with families and children are paid less: Mothers are recommended a 7.9 percent lower starting salary than non-mothers, which is 8.6 percent lower than men (Correll 2007).

This evidence points to levels of discrimination that go beyond behaviors by individual companies or organizations. As discussed earlier in the gender roles section, many of these gaps are rooted in America’s social patterns of discrimination, which involve the roles that different genders play in child-rearing, rather than individual discrimination by employers in hiring and salary decisions. On the other hand, legal and ethical practices demand that organizations do their part to promote more equity among all genders.

The Glass Ceiling

The idea that women are unable to reach the executive suite is known as the glass ceiling. It is an invisible barrier that women encounter when trying to win jobs in the highest level of business. At the beginning of 2021, for example, a record 41 of the world’s largest 500 companies were run by women. While a vast improvement over the number twenty years earlier – where only two of the companies were run by women – these 41 chief executives still only represent eight percent of those large companies (Newcomb 2020).

Why do women have a more difficult time reaching the top of a company? One idea is that there is still a stereotype in the United States that women aren’t aggressive enough to handle the boardroom or that they tend to seek jobs and work with other women (Reiners 2019). Other issues stem from the gender biases based on gender roles and motherhood discussed above.

Another idea is that women lack mentors, executives who take an interest and get them into the right meetings and introduce them to the right people to succeed (Murrell & Blake-Beard 2017).

Women in Politics

One of the most important places for women to help other women is in politics. Historically in the United States, like many other institutions, political representation has been mostly made up of White men. By not having women in government, their issues are being decided by people who don’t share their perspective. The number of women elected to serve in Congress has increased over the years, but does not yet accurately reflect the general population. For example, in 2018, the population of the United States was 49 percent male and 51 percent female, but the population of Congress was 78.8 percent male and 21.2 percent female (Manning 2018). Over the years, the number of women in the federal government has increased, but until it accurately reflects the population, there will be inequalities in our laws.

Movements for Change: Feminism

One of the underlying issues that continues to plague women in the United States is misogyny . This is the hatred of or, aversion to, or prejudice against women. Over the years misogyny has evolved as an ideology that men are superior to women in all aspects of life. There have been multiple movements to try and fight this prejudice.

In 1963, writer and feminist Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique in which she contested the post-World War II belief that it was women’s sole destiny to marry and bear children. Friedan’s book began to raise the consciousness of many women who agreed that homemaking in the suburbs sapped them of their individualism and left them unsatisfied. In 1966, the National Organization for Women (NOW) formed and proceeded to set an agenda for the feminist movement . Framed by a statement of purpose written by Friedan, the agenda began by proclaiming NOW’s goal to make possible women’s participation in all aspects of American life and to gain for them all the rights enjoyed by men.

Feminists engaged in protests and actions designed to bring awareness and change. For example, the New York Radical Women demonstrated at the 1968 Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City to bring attention to the contest’s—and society’s—exploitation of women. The protestors tossed instruments of women’s oppression, including high-heeled shoes, curlers, girdles, and bras, into a “freedom trash can.” News accounts incorrectly described the protest as a “bra burning,” which at the time was a way to demean and trivialize the issue of women’s rights (Gay 2018).

Other protests gave women a more significant voice in a male-dominated social, political, and entertainment climate. For decades, Ladies Home Journal had been a highly influential women’s magazine, managed and edited almost entirely by men. Men even wrote the advice columns and beauty articles. In 1970, protesters held a sit-in at the magazine’s offices, demanding that the company hire a woman editor-in-chief, add women and non-White writers at fair pay, and expand the publication’s focus.

Feminists were concerned with far more than protests, however. In the 1970s, they opened battered women’s shelters and successfully fought for protection from employment discrimination for pregnant women, reform of rape laws (such as the abolition of laws requiring a witness to corroborate a woman’s report of rape), criminalization of domestic violence, and funding for schools that sought to counter sexist stereotypes of women. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade invalidated a number of state laws under which abortions obtained during the first three months of pregnancy were illegal. This made a nontherapeutic abortion a legal medical procedure nationwide.

Gloria Steinem had pushed through gender barriers to take on serious journalism subjects, and had emerged as a prominent advocate for women’s rights. Through her work, Steinem met Dorothy Pittman-Hughes, who had founded New York City’s first shelter for domestic violence victims as well as the city’s Agency for Child Development. Together they founded Ms . Magazine, which avoided articles on homemaking and fashion in favor of pieces on women’s rights and empowerment. Ms . showcased powerful and accomplished women such as Shirley Chisholm and Sissy Farenthold, and was among the first publications to bring domestic violence, sexual harassment, and body image issues to the national conversation (Pogrebrin 2011).

Many advances in women’s rights were the result of women’s greater engagement in politics. For example, Patsy Mink, the first Asian American woman elected to Congress, was the co-author of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, Title IX of which prohibits sex discrimination in education. Mink had been interested in fighting discrimination in education since her youth, when she opposed racial segregation in campus housing while a student at the University of Nebraska. She went to law school after being denied admission to medical school because of her gender. Like Mink, many other women sought and won political office, many with the help of the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC). In 1971, the NWPC was formed by Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Shirley Chisholm, and other leading feminists to encourage women’s participation in political parties, elect women to office, and raise money for their campaign.

Shirley Chisholm personally took up the mantle of women’s involvement in politics. Born of immigrant parents, she earned degrees from Brooklyn College and Columbia University, and began a career in early childhood education and advocacy. In the 1950’s she joined various political action groups, worked on election campaigns, and pushed for housing and economic reforms. After leaving one organization over its refusal to involve women in the decision-making process, she sought to increase gender and racial diversity within political and activist organizations throughout New York City. In 1968, she became the first Black woman elected to Congress. Refusing to take the quiet role expected of new Representatives, she immediately began sponsoring bills and initiatives. She spoke out against the Vietnam War, and fought for programs such as Head Start and the national school lunch program, which was eventually signed into law after Chisholm led an effort to override a presidential veto. Chisholm would eventually undertake a groundbreaking presidential run in 1972, and is viewed as paving the way for other women, and especially women of color, achieving political and social prominence (Emmrich 2019).

Theoretical Perspectives on Gender

Sociological theories help sociologists to develop questions and interpret data. For example, a sociologist studying why middle-school girls are more likely than their male counterparts to fall behind grade-level expectations in math and science might use a feminist perspective to frame her research. Another scholar might proceed from the conflict perspective to investigate why women are underrepresented in political office, and an interactionist might examine how the symbols of femininity interact with symbols of political authority to affect how women in Congress are treated by their male counterparts in meetings.

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism has provided one of the most important perspectives of sociological research in the twentieth century and has been a major influence on research in the social sciences, including gender studies. Viewing the family as the most integral component of society, assumptions about gender roles within marriage assume a prominent place in this perspective.

Functionalists argue that gender roles were established well before the pre-industrial era when men typically took care of responsibilities outside of the home, such as hunting, and women typically took care of the domestic responsibilities in or around the home. These roles were considered functional because women were often limited by the physical restraints of pregnancy and nursing and unable to leave the home for long periods of time. Once established, these roles were passed on to subsequent generations since they served as an effective means of keeping the family system functioning properly.

When changes occurred in the social and economic climate of the United States during World War II, changes in the family structure also occurred. Many women had to assume the role of breadwinner (or modern hunter-gatherer) alongside their domestic role in order to stabilize a rapidly changing society. When the men returned from war and wanted to reclaim their jobs, society fell back into a state of imbalance, as many women did not want to forfeit their wage-earning positions (Hawke 2007).

Conflict Theory

According to conflict theory, society is a struggle for dominance among social groups (like women versus men) that compete for scarce resources. When sociologists examine gender from this perspective, we can view men as the dominant group and women as the subordinate group. According to conflict theory, social problems are created when dominant groups exploit or oppress subordinate groups. Consider the Women’s Suffrage Movement or the debate over women’s “right to choose” their reproductive futures. It is difficult for women to rise above men, as dominant group members create the rules for success and opportunity in society (Farrington and Chertok 1993).

Friedrich Engels, a German sociologist, studied family structure and gender roles. Engels suggested that the same owner-worker relationship seen in the labor force is also seen in the household, with women assuming the role of the proletariat. This is due to women’s dependence on men for the attainment of wages, which is even worse for women who are entirely dependent upon their spouses for economic support. Contemporary conflict theorists suggest that when women become wage earners, they can gain power in the family structure and create more democratic arrangements in the home, although they may still carry the majority of the domestic burden, as noted earlier (Rismanand and Johnson-Sumerford 1998).

Feminist Theory

Feminist theory is a type of conflict theory that examines inequalities in gender-related issues. It uses the conflict approach to examine the maintenance of gender roles and inequalities. Radical feminism, in particular, considers the role of the family in perpetuating male dominance. In patriarchal societies, men’s contributions are seen as more valuable than those of women. Patriarchal perspectives and arrangements are widespread and taken for granted. As a result, women’s viewpoints tend to be silenced or marginalized to the point of being discredited or considered invalid.

Sanday’s study of the Indonesian Minangkabau (2004) revealed that in societies some consider to be matriarchies (where women comprise the dominant group), women and men tend to work cooperatively rather than competitively regardless of whether a job is considered feminine by U.S. standards. The men, however, do not experience the sense of bifurcated consciousness under this social structure that modern U.S. females encounter (Sanday 2004).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism aims to understand human behavior by analyzing the critical role of symbols in human interaction. This is certainly relevant to the discussion of masculinity and femininity. Imagine that you walk into a bank hoping to get a small loan for school, a home, or a small business venture. If you meet with a male loan officer, you may state your case logically by listing all the hard numbers that make you a qualified applicant as a means of appealing to the analytical characteristics associated with masculinity. If you meet with a female loan officer, you may make an emotional appeal by stating your good intentions as a means of appealing to the caring characteristics associated with femininity.

Because the meanings attached to symbols are socially created and not natural, and fluid, not static, we act and react to symbols based on the current assigned meaning. The word gay , for example, once meant “cheerful,” but by the 1960s it carried the primary meaning of “homosexual.” In transition, it was even known to mean “careless” or “bright and showing” (Oxford American Dictionary 2010). Furthermore, the word gay (as it refers to a person), carried a somewhat negative and unfavorable meaning fifty years ago, but it has since gained more neutral and even positive connotations. When people perform tasks or possess characteristics based on the gender role assigned to them, they are said to be doing gender . This notion is based on the work of West and Zimmerman (1987). Whether we are expressing our masculinity or femininity, West and Zimmerman argue, we are always "doing gender." Thus, gender is something we do or perform, not something we are.

In other words, both gender and sexuality are socially constructed. The social construction of sexuality refers to the way in which socially created definitions about the cultural appropriateness of sex-linked behavior shape the way people see and experience sexuality. This is in marked contrast to theories of sex, gender, and sexuality that link male and female behavior to biological determinism , or the belief that men and women behave differently due to differences in their biology.

Sociological Research

Being male, being female, and being healthy.

In 1971, Broverman and Broverman conducted a groundbreaking study on the traits mental health workers ascribed to males and females. When asked to name the characteristics of a female, the list featured words such as unaggressive, gentle, emotional, tactful, less logical, not ambitious, dependent, passive, and neat. The list of male characteristics featured words such as aggressive, rough, unemotional, blunt, logical, direct, active, and sloppy (Seem and Clark 2006). Later, when asked to describe the characteristics of a healthy person (not gender specific), the list was nearly identical to that of a male.

This study uncovered the general assumption that being female is associated with being somewhat unhealthy or not of sound mind. This concept seems extremely dated, but in 2006, Seem and Clark replicated the study and found similar results. Again, the characteristics associated with a healthy male were very similar to that of a healthy (genderless) adult. The list of characteristics associated with being female broadened somewhat but did not show significant change from the original study (Seem and Clark 2006). This interpretation of feminine characteristic may help us one day better understand gender disparities in certain illnesses, such as why one in eight women can be expected to develop clinical depression in her lifetime (National Institute of Mental Health 1999). Perhaps these diagnoses are not just a reflection of women’s health, but also a reflection of society’s labeling of female characteristics, or the result of institutionalized sexism.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/12-2-gender-and-gender-inequality

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Contentious Politics and Political Violence
• Governance/Political Change
• Groups and Identities
• History and Politics
• International Political Economy
• Policy, Administration, and Bureaucracy
• Political Anthropology
• Political Behavior
• Political Communication
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Philosophy
• Political Psychology
• Political Sociology
• Political Values, Beliefs, and Ideologies
• Politics, Law, Judiciary
• Post Modern/Critical Politics
• Public Opinion
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• World Politics
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Gender inequality and internal conflict.

• Erika Forsberg Erika Forsberg Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University
•  and  Louise Olsson Louise Olsson Senior Advisor on Gender, Peace and Security/UNSCR 1325, Folke Bernadotte Academy; Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.34
• Published online: 05 August 2016
• This version: 23 March 2022
• Previous version

Prior research has found robust support for a relationship between gender inequality and civil war. These results all point in the same direction; countries that display lower levels of gender equality are more likely to become involved in civil conflict, and violence is likely to be even more severe, than in countries where women have a higher status. But what does gender inequality mean in this area of research? And how does research explain why we see this effect on civil war? Exploring this requires reviewing existing definitions and measurements of gender inequality, a concept that has several dimensions. Several clusters of explanations show how gender inequality could be related to civil war while more equal societies are better able to prevent violent conflict. It is clear that existing misconceptions that gender inequality primarily involves the role of women are clouding the fact that it clearly speaks to much broader societal developments which play central roles in civil war.

• gender inequality
• intrastate armed conflict
• gender norms
• masculinity
• empirical international relations theory

Updated in this version

The text of the article was edited to take into account emerging research. The conclusion was edited to reflect the new text. References were updated and expanded.

Introduction

Research has found robust support for a relationship between gender inequality and internal armed conflict. 1 These results all point in the same direction: countries that display higher levels of gender inequality are more likely to become involved in civil conflict, the violence is likely to be more severe, and post-conflict peace appears to be more fragile compared to countries where women have a higher status ( Caprioli, 2005 ; Dahlum & Wig, 2020 ; Demeritt et al., 2014 ; Gizelis, 2009 , 2011 ; Melander, 2005a ). These associations hold in global statistical analyses and when controlling for numerous alternative explanations, though later studies underline the need to consider more carefully the causal direction and differences between conflict phases ( Webster et al., 2019 ). Such considerations are also central for addressing the critique from civil war researchers on gender inequality only picking up on other more established explanations for civil war ( Cohen & Karim, 2021 ). This despite the suggestion of some studies that gender inequality could potentially even trump level of democracy and economic development in terms of explanatory power in civil war research ( Bjarnegård et al., 2015 ; Hudson et al., 2008–2009 ). 2

In international relations (IR) and security studies generally, and in the study of civil war specifically, gender inequality has long been an important research agenda for critical feminist scholars. 3 In contrast, positivist scholars on civil war have typically not put gender inequality at the forefront ( Gizelis, 2018 ; Reiter, 2015 ). Rather, the determinants of civil wars have mainly been sought in, for example, levels of poverty, regime characteristics, treatment of ethnic minorities, population size, and physical terrain. As such, the most frequently cited scholarly works that statistically investigate the correlates of civil war (e.g., Collier & Hoeffler, 2004 ; Fearon & Laitin, 2003 ; Hegre & Sambanis, 2006 ), as well as articles that review extant findings (e.g., Blattman & Miguel, 2010 ; Dixon, 2009 ; Florea, 2012 ; Lacina, 2008 ), make no mention of gender inequality. This is a puzzling omission, especially in light of the striking role gender appears to play in the mobilization and conduct of political violence of all kinds.

To contribute to progress, this article outlines variations in the understanding of the debated concept of gender inequality, and it discusses the manner in which research on civil war has sought to capture the concept through different measurements. Thereafter, we outline trends in potential explanations and suggest a model to understand the mechanisms in how gender inequality could be related to civil war onset. 4 As such, the contribution is primarily made to systematic empirical, that is, positivist, scholarship on civil war, set in the context of critical feminist debates. We conclude by discussing a few central potential paths for future research and the challenges these entail.

Conceptualizations of Gender Inequality

As noted by Melander (2005a) , if we succeed in “disentangling” and develop the complex gender inequality concept, and thereby move the theoretical explanation forward, the contribution to the understanding of civil war could be substantial. This theoretical development, Cohen and Karim (2021) argue, has to consider the concept’s complexity and the critique from feminist researchers, particularly related to carefully differentiating between gender and sex inequality—that is, gender as social constructions and the interaction, or intersection, with other identities.

The need to carefully consider the concept is apparent in previous research, which operates with slightly varying, underlying understandings of gender inequality. One trend is to consider gender inequality as a specific relation among groups where the level of inequality refers to an almost mathematical description of the distribution of certain resources between these groups. In the case of gender inequality, it concerns the resource distribution between men and women. The form of the resource varies. The more prominent forms focus on power, and on material and immaterial resources (see Caprioli, 2000 ; Gizelis, 2011 ; Regan & Paskeviciute, 2003 ). This distribution of resources is perceived to speak to dynamics on societal capacity on an aggregate level as women constitute about 50% of the adult population. There are interesting variations of this understanding of capacity, encapsulating ideas related to human capital (investments in the individual) as well as social capital. Regan and Paskeviciute (2003) , for example, see the limitations in women’s access to the labor market as decreasing the actual capacity of society, as fewer of its members will have skills and resources to affect developments. As an example of gender inequality as social capital, Gizelis conceives of gender inequality as the level of “resources embedded in social structures” in the form of “relation interaction.” It describes the situation on the social level, although it basically depends on human capital, measured in the form of access to education ( Gizelis, 2011 , p. 524). In its essence, research where gender inequality is understood as social capacity uses this to capture the distribution of skills, power, and resources in a society. This distribution can follow from the value assigned to men compared to women, but it could also be the result of political or socioeconomic developments that have different effects for men and women. Moreover, certain gendered socioeconomic developments could potentially explain an increased conflict risk through affecting the opportunity for military organizations to recruit by creating a male surplus ( Hudson & den Boer, 2002 ). A final underlying trend in the understanding of gender inequality, hence, is normative. An equal, or balanced, distribution of resources is considered fair and desirable, and an unequal resource distribution is assumed to indicate lesser value being assigned to a specific group (see, for instance, Caprioli, 2000 ; Kuper & Kuper, 1996 ; Olsson, 2009 ). In this understanding, gender inequality is considered in terms of one kind of normative intolerance more broadly. For example, in her study of the impact of gender inequality on civil war, Caprioli makes this link by comparing discrimination against women and ethnic groups as two manifestations of a domestic environment characterized by inequality. She correctly observes that gender inequality and discrimination of women have received much less scholarly attention than other types of inequalities: “Women, however, also constitute a minority group in terms of power, yet are largely excluded from systematic studies on intrastate conflict” ( Caprioli, 2005 , p. 166).

Capturing and Measuring Gender Inequality

Given the concept’s complexity, or vagueness, researchers have utilized many forms of measurements to capture potential mechanisms related to how gender inequality can be related to civil war onset. At its core are often questions of access to power to decide (over everything from the more “private” matters of one’s own body to influencing the larger “public” structures), and access to varying forms of material and immaterial resources (such as land, money, education, etc.). Different dimensions bring up a number of potentially relevant processes and dynamics for understanding the mechanisms involved in the relation of gender inequality to civil war. Let us look more closely at four central dimensions in previous research—political, economic, social, and physical (in)security—and outline a few concerns and considerations about content, interrelations, and measures.

The first dimension, often employed in capturing gender inequality, relates to access to political power. In fact, many would say that power is at the basis of the inequality concept and that the political dimension could be argued to most closely capture “real” power to exert influence in society. In research on conflict and inequality, Caprioli (2000) conceptualizes power as “a divisible, infinite resource and/or as the ability to reach goals” (p. 55). Thus, if women are not allowed to participate in the public sphere equally to men, then that entails a lower access to power ( Caprioli, 2000 ; see also Olsson, 2009 ). Two often-used measurements to capture political power are representation in political institutions and decision-making capacity. This indicates also the conundrum of being able to detect the difference between mere representation and actual influence.

Several studies suggest that high representation of women in political institutions, primarily the parliament, indicates, on average, a more gender-equal society ( Caprioli, 2000 , 2005 ; Caprioli & Boyer, 2001 ; Dahlum & Wig, 2020 ; Koch & Fulton, 2011 ; Melander, 2005a , 2005b ; Regan & Paskeviciute, 2003 ). Recently, using global data covering the 1817–2017 time period, Dahlum and Wig (2020) adds the nuance of “women’s mass political empowerment” by including the aspect of civil society engagement. They find strong support for women’s political participation being related to a more peaceful society. This added dimension of participation is central, as a high proportion of women in parliament does not always reflect a more gender-equal society. For instance, many highly authoritarian states do have parliaments, but these lack real influence. Hence, a large proportion of women in such rubber-stamp legislatures is not a valid indication of women having equal say in politics ( Bjarnegård & Melander, 2011 ; Melander, 2005a ).

Particularly in early research, the underlying question concerning power is thus whether it is women’s capacity to influence that in itself is central, or if it is the role of the gender equality norms in politics that is important and of which the level of women in politics is a reflection. Concerning the former, research notes that it is possible to use direct access to the highest decision making level as an indicator. Here, scholars have tried to use the existence of women as state leaders to measure political gender equality ( Caprioli & Boyer, 2001 ; Koch & Fulton, 2011 ; Melander, 2005a , 2005b ). What they have found, however, is that this measure may be a less adequate manifestation of gender equality. First, the reason for expecting women to behave differently in politics remains questionable. Rather, research finds increasing support for the gender equality norm having an effect on both men and women’s political behavior ( Asal et al., 2013 ; Bjarnegård, 2013 ; Bjarnegård et al., 2015 ; Melander, 2016 ). Second, many female leaders have come to power for dynastic reasons rather than as a force of female empowerment. Third, female executives may be forced to act more hawkish and “masculine,” being the only female in an all-male environment ( Melander, 2005a , 2005b ). 5

The second dimension is the economic. At its basis, this centers on access to material resources through which individuals in a group can affect their own lives. 6 In addition to contributing to the understanding of the broader distribution of financial resources between men and women in a society, studies that focus on the economic dimension often use employment rates of women to capture the growth of individual capacity. If women are holding jobs outside of the household, that is assumed to foster a sense of political participation and capacity to influence. In both senses, high levels of employment are considered indicative of a more gender-equal society ( Caprioli, 2000 , 2005 ; Caprioli & Boyer, 2001 ; Regan & Paskeviciute, 2003 ). Hence, this indicator, similar to that of suffrage, is argued to capture the breadth, or spread, of the gender equality norm in a society. In addition, this indicator can be relevant for understanding the more general distribution of physical resources, as women constitute about 50% of the adult population. In effect, if women do not work to generate income, a natural consequence is that control of financial material resources may be quite concentrated. 7

It should be noted that using female participation in the labor market as a measure of economic gender inequality can be quite crude. For example, Caprioli (2000) underlines that a caveat should be placed on equalizing women holding a job with women controlling the use of their paycheck. In addition, she notes that it does not include type of employment or household responsibilities, in particular considering that some countries have a large informal work sector. It also does not capture the size of the gender gap in wages, a problem that has become more in focus and which may be related to women’s status and capacity in many respects ( Caprioli, 2000 , p. 56). Finally, the economic dimensions underline the importance of gender equality as relative; ratios between men and women are perhaps more central than the actual number. For example, women’s participation in the labor force must be placed in relation to the level of men participating in the labor force, as the general level of official employment in some societies can be quite low. 8

A third dimension often emphasized by scholars concerns the social dimension of gender inequality. This is discussed in research both in terms of the value given to individuals depending on their sex and also in terms of that attached to the more structural perceptions of women/femininity compared to men/masculinity in a society, that is, gender. As noted by Caprioli, this dimension is quite difficult to capture. For example, it touches on perceptions of gender roles, guiding, for example, distributions of labor in a society, or affecting women’s political participation ( Caprioli, 2000 , p. 56). In that sense, research often considers this as fundamental to the other dimensions in that it can encapsulate both basic demographic aspects and normative values and understandings. It is here that empirical research on civil war and gender inequality in many respects comes closest to the feminist theory that builds its understanding of gendered discrimination based on patriarchal power structures and the social constructions of gender (see Olsson, 2009 ; Regan & Paskeviciute, 2003 ).

The social dimension is perhaps the one where the question of what the different measures capture is the most pertinent. To begin with two dominant demographic entry points, fertility rates and sex ratios, several studies have used these indicators to capture the basic state of gender inequality. For example, Caprioli (2000 , 2005) and Regan and Paskeviciute (2003) suggest that high fertility rates indicate persistent gender inequality in society. The reasons are several. The consequences of high fertility rates is that women spend a large proportion of their lives either pregnant or breastfeeding, which leads women in such societies to have less time to educate themselves, seek employment, and become involved in politics. As a consequence, women will have less influence and say in many important matters, and their potential to constrain government behavior will be decreased ( Regan & Paskeviciute, 2003 ), again supporting the proposition that social inequality may be fundamental for other dimensions of inequality. High fertility rates by themselves can also strongly indicate if women have the right to decide over their own bodies. In addition, high fertility rates have serious health consequences, which can affect the level of participation in society (see, for instance, Blumberg & Clark, 1989 ; Dasgupta, 1995 ). That said, research also warns that fertility rates might be curvilinear, arguing for caution in using this indicator ( Forsberg & Olsson, 2021 ).

The other demographic indicator used to measure the social dimension of gender inequality is distorted sex ratios, resulting in a male surplus ( den Boer & Hudson, 2004 ; Forsberg & Olsson, 2021 ; Hudson & den Boer, 2002 , 2005 ). As argued by Hudson and den Boer (2002) , if a common practice is to allow one child to live and not another (due to sex-selective abortion, or active or passive infanticide), or when one child is consistently prioritized in terms of nutrition and health care on the basis of gender, it is a clear indication of exaggerated gender inequality. Since such practices are almost universally the result of a son preference, it indicates that the value and status of females are substantially lower than that of males. 9 While distorted sex ratios among children can be an indicator of very grave versions of gender inequality, there are other forms of demographic imbalance that instead can be aspects of gender distributions of labor and gendered patterns of migration. For example, this can be overrepresentation of young men in urban areas ( Urdal, 2008 ), which, in effect, can speak to gender inequality, but of a more indirect and less grave form than that of distorted sex ratios among children.

Apart from the demographic indicators, the social dimension of gender inequality can focus on the value-based distribution of investment in individuals based on gender considerations. Hence, access to education is a core aspect of more immaterial resource distributions (see Melander, 2005a , p. 698). As education is central for an individual’s development and for society in general, basic education for girls has increased globally over the last decades. This is partly due to the international norm development, formalized in, for example, the former Millennium Development Goals, 10 which have directed development aid to improving girls’ education. Basic education has, therefore, become a less relevant measurement for understanding the level of gender inequality in a given society on the macro-level (see Caprioli, 2000 , p. 57). 11 As noted by Gizelis (2011) , however, it can still be a useful measurement on the micro-level, as access to education still can vary greatly within a state. To come to terms with the measurement problems on the macro-level, many studies nuance the measurement of access to education by studying female-to-male higher education attainment and deviations in literacy rates. Being costly, the former would capture the amounts of resources that are invested in women. It would probably also be related to other economic aspects of gendered distribution of labor, such as on what level women could be employed in business and state administration. Hence, it could speak to the elite aspects of developments of gender inequality. Deviations in literacy rates among the population at large, on the other hand, would capture the broader spread of a gender inequality norm. Such deviations would capture the level of social capital of a society in general ( Bussmann, 2007 ; Forsberg & Olsson, 2021 ; Melander, 2005a ).

Last, the dimension of physical (in)security of women has been used as a measure of gender inequality. There are some measures that capture the security of women indirectly, for example life expectancy and maternal mortality, or de jure rather than de facto security, such as legislation against domestic violence. However, Hudson et al. (2008–2009) suggest a measure that intends to be more immediate—direct violence against women. This is fruitful, they argue, as to a high degree it speaks to the situation in the most basic of institutions in a society, the family. They therefore focus on rape and violence against women (for a discussion, see Caprioli, 2000 , p. 55; Melander, 2005a ). However, it is not an easy measurement to use. Many forms of violence against women come with a stigma or a blaming of the victim. In addition, in some societies, domestic violence may not be considered illegal. Therefore, many women do not report abuse. This results in a lack of data on violence against women, which is sketchy at best in most states. To address this, Olsson (2009) uses the concept of security equality as a proxy for physical insecurity of women. This concept focuses on the resource distribution to protective measures set in place for different forms of violence, as violence tends to follow gender-specific patterns. It is therefore possible to see if, for example, domestic violence and rape are given a substantive amount of efforts and resources in comparison to violence, which affects primarily men.

In conclusion, these four key dimensions bring up numerous aspects of gender inequality and could potentially speak to a large number of different mechanisms connected to civil war. A problem when seeking to differentiate between explanations is that, regardless of which mechanism is examined, most research dealing with the relationship between gender inequality and civil war has used a combination of the same indicators, such as women in parliament, fertility rates, access to education, women’s participation in the labor force, and so forth. To further complicate matters, the indicators of these dimensions do not appear to co-vary in a way which makes it easy to spot a pattern ( Forsberg & Olsson, 2021 ). For example, in Georgia, the general views on women’s social roles are very conservative, with women being seen as primary caretakers and responsible for the household. However, the same survey found very positive views toward women getting higher education and holding a well-paid job outside of the household ( Naskidashvili, 2011 ). In Italy, economic equality is rising, resulting in very low fertility rates as the social dimensions of gender equality lag behind—thus, individual women may find it very difficult to reconcile the social role with the economic and thereby choose to have few or no children. 12 In addition, there can be substantial differences between urban and rural areas in a country ( Regan & Paskeviciute, 2003 , p. 294). In sum, there is a need for further research to develop the theoretical arguments on mechanisms, and based on that, to identify indicators of measurement that could separate between explanations. As these examples also highlight, there is a need to differentiate between sex and gender inequality. Here, this is a move in research to consider gender as speaking to fundamental norms, hierarchies, and institutions rather than to focus on mere sex distribution aspects. That said, one should also be careful not to assume that the use of sex-disaggregated statistics entails a biological theoretical understanding. Social constructions of gender hierarchies can be predicted to have effects that follow trends in the categories of men’s and women’s power and access to resources without these trends being based in biological differences.

Why Gender Inequality and Internal Armed Conflict?

What forms of theoretical explanations for why gender inequality could be related to internal armed conflict do exist, then? We argue that the analyses found in previous research revolve around two strands of explanations: why gender inequality may be associated with an increased risk for intrastate armed conflict, or why gender equality instead may contribute to resolving a conflict without violence. This takes as its starting point that conflict is present in all societies, and that only the risk of conflict being violent varies. Interestingly, these two strands of explanations are not necessarily two sides of the same coin. Theoretically, it is possible that severe inequality can affect the risk of violence while a positive presence of high gender equality may be completely unrelated to peace, and vice versa. In addition, we argue that these explanations revolve around explanations related to norms, societal capacity, and gendered developments ( Forsberg & Olsson, 2021 ), and can be relevant both from the structural and strategic perspectives ( Cohen & Karim, 2021 ) in understanding civil war risk. Here we will outline key arguments and explanations and structure these ideas into a model of how the study of mechanisms connecting gender inequality and civil war potentially could be taken forward.

Gender Inequality and Risk for Conflict

There are two forms of arguments regarding why gender inequality may contribute, directly or indirectly, to increasing the risk for violent conflict. One focuses on norms that may enhance violence, in particular a masculinized political culture lowering the threshold for violence. The other concerns gendered developments resulting in the direct provision of capacity to mobilize for conflict, in particular recruitment of young men.

Norms Enhancing Violence

All societies consist of groups with conflicting interests and a competition for power and other scarce resources. How these grievances are addressed affects the risk of war. As gender is a dominant organizing principle in all societies and the level of inequality varies greatly in this relationship, it has been argued that the treatment of women in highly unequal societies may serve as a blueprint for how grievances by other “out-groups” are perceived (see, e.g., Caprioli, 2000 , 2005 ; Caprioli & Boyer, 2001 ; den Boer & Hudson, 2004 ; Gizelis, 2009 , 2011 ; Goldstein, 2001 ; Hudson, 2012 ; Hudson & den Boer, 2002 ; Hudson et al., 2008–2009 ; Melander, 2005a , 2005b ; Peterson, 1992 ; Reardon, 1996 ; Tickner, 1992 ). As noted by Caprioli (2005 , p. 163), “norms of intolerance and inequality should have an incendiary impact on domestic and international behavior by legitimizing violence as a tool of conflict resolution.” Using the psychological concept of “othering,” Hudson and colleagues ( Hudson et al., 2008–2009 ; Hudson & den Boer, 2012 ) suggest that in highly patriarchal societies, where children grow up seeing women being dominated and controlled by men, they are provided with a template where violence and domination are considered normal. Moreover, highly patriarchal societies often espouse traditional gender roles based on a culture in which manhood is linked to toughness and more “warlike” attitudes and behavior, and prescribing that men are superior to women. For example, Enloe (1989) states that “militarization of ethnic nationalism often depends on persuading individual men that their own manhood will be fully validated only if they perform as soldiers, either in the state’s military or in insurgent autonomous or quasi-autonomous forces” (p. 55). As a consequence, these cultures are associated with more violence (e.g., Goldstein, 2001 ; Tickner, 1992 ).

As such, norms of gender inequality may be seen as one form of intolerance, where some groups consider it legitimate to oppress and dominate over other groups, be it women, sexual minorities, ethnic minorities, or political opposition groups. Evidence indeed suggests that such norms of intolerance correlate; for example, attitudinal survey-based studies show a correlation between sexist and racist attitudes (see, for instance, Henley & Pincus, 1978 ). 13 Such societies are more likely to see the “superior” group dominate over other “inferior” groups. It is postulated that societies with a very high level of male dominance in politics tend to be dominated by hypermasculine political cultures. This norm also prescribes violence as a means to resolve conflict on the highest decision-making levels. For example, this could be related to the risk of losing face or appearing weak if opting for negotiations ( Melander, 2005a ). Hence, the level of gender inequality can be considered as capturing how a society deals with existing grievances, that is, how elites deal with horizontal differences between groups.

Access to Young Men to Mobilize for Conflict

While Fukuyama (1998) provocatively argued that male aggression was directly related to war, the current consensus in civil war research is that armed conflict involves organized groups rather than individuals confronting each other at random. Gender may, however, play into developments that generate greater access to men for mobilization. A key resource for conducting a violent conflict is access to soldiers. The primary target group to mobilize is young men. As noted under the discussion on the social dimension of equality (see “ Capturing and Measuring Gender Inequality ”), high levels of gender inequality can affect the demographic balance. For example, a society characterized by gender inequality in the form of a persistent and strong son preference may, as a consequence, end up with a large male surplus. This is particularly evident in some Asian countries. In fact, the large number of missing women in India and China alone skews the world average so that the female-to-male ratio is smaller than 1, although it is expected to be larger than 1 (as women, on average, live longer). In regions with large male surpluses, it is likely that there will be a higher-than-average “supply” of men who have low opportunity costs and hence are easy to mobilize for political violence. For example, Urdal (2008) finds that youth bulges are related to increased risk of conflict. Hudson et al. (2008–2009) expand this argument by looking more closely at bulges resulting from very uneven sex ratios, which, in turn, stem from serious forms of gender inequality. The authors claim that such a male surplus can result in a large number of dissatisfied—that is, aggressive—men. According to this explanation, mobilization for war is made easier for two reasons: (a) the society in which these men live has a hypermasculinity-based culture that normatively encourages violence as a means of resolving conflict; (b) these men, being excluded from society as many of them cannot find a spouse or a job, have a higher likelihood of gathering and organizing into groups, or “gangs” ( Hudson et al., 2008–2009 ). Thus, such gendered developments create a larger number of men with low opportunity costs (being unmarried and unemployed); these men could be more susceptible to gender-based language in recruitment, and they are already connected in groups through which they can be more easily mobilized ( Forsberg & Olsson, 2021 ).

Gender Equality and Ability for Peaceful Resolution

If we look at the flip side, perhaps it is instead higher levels of gender equality that provide both the norms and the resources to handle conflicts in more nonviolent manners?

Norms Promoting Nonviolence

Highly unequal societies were postulated to be dominated by a political culture based on negative masculine roles that overemphasize violent means to resolve conflict. However, although some conflict over power and resources is inevitable, it is possible that instead, more equal states are dominated by norms more prone to nonviolent forms of handling grievances. Gender equality as a norm prescribes respect and resolution of conflict without violence (i.e., it decreases the role of hypermasculinity). Hence, equality norms may both prevent grievances from escalating to violent conflict in the first place and decrease the risk that a postconflict country relapses into violence ( Demeritt et al., 2014 ). As noted by Melander (2005a , 2005b) , societies characterized by gender equality are ingrained with norms that prescribe that men and women treat each other with respect. These norms then transfer to other societal relations, such as those between ethnic groups and political parties, and can explain the relative peacefulness of such states.

Hence, where socially constructed gender roles are more equal, it is expected that respect for others in the private sphere will carry over into society at large. The cost of using violence would increase substantially, and other methods of addressing grievances may be more institutionalized. Thus, societies with higher levels of equality are likely to have elites that are better at handing grievances by different groups ( Caprioli, 2000 , 2005 ; Melander, 2005a , 2005b ). This suggestion is not only supported by studying the link between gender equality and violent conflict across different countries. Melander (2016) notes that the relationship between gender inequality and internal conflict is found also at levels of analysis other than the country level. As found by Asal et al. (2013) , groups that proscribe a gender-inclusive ideology are less likely to pursue their objectives using violent means. At the individual level it has been found that gender-equal attitudes are correlated with advocating peaceful conflict resolution; in fact, it appears that such attitudes carry more explanatory power than biological sex ( Conover & Sapiro, 1993 ; Tessler & Warriner, 1997 ).

Societal Capacity to Prevent Violence

Let us now turn to the explanation that focuses on the capacity of a society to resist violence and handle conflict peacefully. Examining the risk for conflict relapse, Gizelis (2009) finds that higher levels of investment in women and their having access to more resources result in higher capacity to influence and to create and uphold networks—both vertical and horizontal—among a larger part of society. These capacities can be used to forward peace and create other means to resolve conflict. Rather than excluding competent individuals by upholding patriarchal structures, more gender equality—that is, higher status of women—indicates that there is more competence to draw from in a society. Thus, in the aftermath of conflict, peacebuilding efforts can gain more ground if finding effective local partners includes both women and men. The result is that the higher the status of women, the lower the risk of armed conflict. A continued development of this argument is that more benign gender roles—and the mobilization of women based on these roles in particular—are considered a central aspect of the argument for why these actors can play a mediating role to decrease violence ( Forsberg & Olsson, 2021 ). The same dynamic could come into play in the prevention of violence, not least through women’s mass mobilization and a more equal political culture ( Dahlum & Wig, 2020 ). In a similar vein, Regan and Paskeviciute argue that in a society with higher levels of gender equality, power will be more diffused. This can play out on the local level ( Regan & Paskeviciute, 2003 , pp. 289–290) where grassroots networks of women can constitute a positive resource for peace ( Gizelis, 2011 ). Liberia is such an example; there, women organized across warring lines in order to influence and pressure the warring parties ( Gizelis, 2011 ; Webster et al., 2019 ). Similarly, Kutz-Flamenbaum (2012) notes that women’s organizations can instrumentally play on gender roles in order to forward norms related to conflict resolution in situations where the security risks otherwise would be too high for male-dominated peace groups to operate, for example.

While we have focused mainly on the potential direct link between gender inequality and internal armed conflict, it should be noted that the link may be, in part, indirect or conditional upon specific circumstances. A related explanation to that of capacity is that the connection can be indirect if gender equality operates by strengthening societal institutions. Bussmann (2007) notes that a higher engagement of women in various societal sectors including politics, due to higher education levels and activity in the labor force, will work to constrain government behavior and strengthen state capacity and governance. Strengthened state capacity and governance are, as supported by several studies, in turn associated with peace. Similarly, several researchers find interaction effects with democracy and economic development. For instance, a recent study demonstrates that democracies are more peaceful than nondemocracies only when interacted with gender equality ( Melander, 2005a ).

A Model of Mechanisms

In moving forward, we agree with researchers who argue that we need to become more specific about the mechanisms and carefully consider gender as a more dynamic concept ( Cohen & Karim, 2021 ; Forsberg & Olsson, 2021 ; Gizelis, 2018 ; Webster et al., 2019 ). Combining existing insights into a model of both structural and strategic aspects can suggest ways forward.

Table 1. A Model of Mechanisms

As captured in Table 1 , structural conditions are central, as gender hierarchies are a fundamental organizing principle in all societies. As such, they can be related to the underlying conditions that can be associated with risk of civil war. In addition, as noted in civil war research, conditions by themselves do not result in war; there is a need for a strategic, actor-driven mechanism that utilizes existing conditions. As demonstrated by the model, mechanisms could also operate on both individual and group levels, suggesting the need for a nuanced use of methods to continue the examination ( Cohen & Karim, 2021 ; Forsberg & Olsson, 2021 ). Notably, Bjarnegård et al. (2017) disaggregate gender norms related to different forms of masculinity, finding that men who hold a view combining ideas of patriarchal values and male toughness are more likely to perceive violence as legitimate and to engage in political violence.

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

This article has sought to contribute to civil war research by outlining variation in conceptualization, measurements, and suggested mechanisms on the connection between gender inequality and intrastate armed conflict. That said, what do these observations say about how best to proceed? And what should be considered as particular challenges? We will end by considering some opportunities and challenges for future research, focusing on important areas that remain to be addressed.

The first area that needs to be addressed is development and differentiation between theoretical ideas regarding the connection between gender inequality and civil war. This includes identifying the most relevant indicators and finding valid and reliable data for an appropriate unit of analysis. Previous positivist research suffers from a paucity of valid comparable data that is available longitudinally and cross-nationally. As a consequence, most researchers often used the same set of indicators (women in parliament, fertility rates, access to education, women’s participation in the labor force) to assess what they clearly believe to be different types of mechanisms. In later years, however, we saw the development of the theoretical argument on what forms of mechanism connect gender inequality to war. This has been combined with addressing problems related to limited temporal scope, by using data over longer time series, and issues related to reversed causality ( Dahlum & Wig, 2020 ).

A second area to consider concerns the level of analysis. While cross-national data and measures may be relevant to assess the effect of political inequality (such as women in parliament), their applicability is less straightforward when pursuing a socioeconomic analysis of gender inequality. We know that gender inequality levels can vary between groups living in the same state, as demonstrated by Forsberg and Olsson (2021) in their subnational study of India. Another example, by Gizelis (2011) , demonstrates that gendered deviations in education and literacy rates may vary substantially within a country, where some regions appear to be relatively equal while others clearly invest more in men. Third, Melander (2005a) raises interesting questions in terms of whether we need to see certain levels of gender equality (or gender inequality) before we see an effect on conflict. For example, it is possible that demographic indicators such as sex ratios require a certain level to have an effect, while previous research has not been able to observe such effects concerning women’s participation in parliament (most notably, the argument of critical mass has no support; see Bjarnegård et al., 2015 ; Melander, 2005a ).

As eloquently noted by Melander (2005a) , in disentangling the concept and moving the theoretical explanation forward, the contribution to the understanding of civil war could be substantial. In this effort, however, it is apparent that an existing misconception in current debates—namely, that gender can be equated with sex and that it primarily involves the role of women (a misunderstanding which exists in both research and policy)—is clouding the fact that gender inequality clearly speaks to much broader and fundamental developments in a society. Rather, research is increasingly demonstrating that gender in terms of implications of existing hierarchies and constructions of masculinities and femininities appear to play central roles in civil war. This includes the intersection with other identities, such as class or ethnicity, and involves both agency and structural norms and institutions ( Cohen & Karim, 2021 ). Finally, as strongly suggested by a growing research field on the consequences of war for gender equality (i.e., Bakken & Buhaug, 2021 ; Joshi & Olsson, 2021 ; Nagel, 2021 ; Webster et al., 2019 ), we also need a much more nuanced understanding of the phases of conflict—separating between how different forms of gender dynamics can play into preparation and onset, compared to during war, its resolution, and postwar reconstruction—as there is indication that different forms of mechanisms can be at play during each phase. Such a nuanced analysis is central for future research that can be more integral to civil war studies.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the Swedish Research Council. The authors thank Elin Bjarnegård, Mats Hammarström, and Theodora-Ismene Gizelis for excellent suggestions on how to improve this essay. Authors are listed alphabetically; equal authorship is implied.

• Asal, V. , Legault, R. , Szekely, O. , & Wilkenfeld, J. (2013). Gender ideologies and forms of contentious mobilization in the Middle East . Journal of Peace Research , 50 , 305–318.
• Bakken, I. V. , & Buhaug, H. (2021). Civil war and female empowerment. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 65 (5), 982–1009.
• Bjarnegård, E. (2013). Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment: Explaining male dominance in parliamentary representation . Palgrave Macmillan.
• Bjarnegård, E. , Brounéus, K. , & Melander, E. (2017). Honor and political violence: Micro-level findings from a survey in Thailand. Journal of Peace Research , 54 (6), 748–761.
• Bjarnegård, E. , & Melander, E. (2011). Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: The negative effects of militarized masculinity . Journal of Gender Studies , 20 , 139–154.
• Bjarnegård, E. , Melander, E. , Bardall, G. , Brounéus, K. , Forsberg, E. , Johansson, K. , Sellström, A. M. , & Olsson, L. (2015). Gender, peace and armed conflict. SIPRI Yearbook . Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
• Blattman, C. , & Miguel, E. (2010). Civil war. Journal of Economic Literature , 48 , 3–57.
• Blumberg, R. L. , & Clark, M. H. (1989). Making the case for the gender variable: Women and the wealth and well-being of nations . United States Agency for International Development, Office of Women in Development.
• Bussmann, M. (2007, September 12–15). Gender equality, good governance, and peace [Prepared for presentation]. SGIR Sixth Pan-European International Relations Conference, Turin, Italy.
• Caprioli, M. (2000). Gendered conflict. Journal of Peace Research , 37 , 53–68.
• Caprioli, M. (2005). Primed for violence: The role of gender inequality in predicting internal conflict . International Studies Quarterly , 49 , 161–178.
• Caprioli, M. , & Boyer, M. A. (2001). Gender, violence, and international crisis. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 45 , 503–518.
• Cohen, D. , & Karim, S. (2021). Does more equality for women mean less war? Rethinking sex and gender inequality and political violence . International Organization , 1–31.
• Collier, P. , & Hoeffler, A. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers , 56 , 563–595.
• Conover, P. J. , & Sapiro, V. (1993). Gender, feminist consciousness, and war. American Journal of Political Science , 37 , 1079–1099.
• Dahlum, S. , & Wig, T. (2020). Peace above the glass ceiling: The historical relationship between female political empowerment and civil conflict. International Studies Quarterly , 64 (4), 879–893.
• Dasgupta, P. S. (1995). Population, poverty and the local environment . Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics.
• Demeritt, J. H. R. , Nichols, A. D. , & Kelly, E. G. (2014). Female participation and civil war relapse. Civil Wars , 16 , 346–368.
• den Boer, A. M. , & Hudson, V. M. (2004). The security threat of Asia’s sex ratios. SAIS Review of International Affairs , 24 (2), 27–43.
• Dixon, J. (2009). What causes civil wars? Integrating quantitative research findings. International Studies Review , 11 , 707–735.
• Enloe, C. (1989). Bananas, beaches and bases: Making feminist sense of international politics . University of California Press.
• Fearon, J. D. , & Laitin, D. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review , 97 , 75–90.
• Florea, A. (2012). Where do we go from here? Conceptual, theoretical, and methodological gaps in the large-N civil war research program . International Studies Review , 14 , 78–98.
• Forsberg, E. , & Olsson, L. , (2021). Examining gender inequality and armed conflict at the subnational level . Journal of Global Security Studies , 6 (2).
• Fukuyama, F. (1998). Women and the evolution of world politics . Foreign Affairs , 77 (5), 24–40.
• Gizelis, T.-I. (2009). Gender empowerment and United Nations peacebuilding . Journal of Peace Research , 46 , 505–523.
• Gizelis, T.-I. (2011). A country of their own: Women and peacebuilding . Conflict Management and Peace Science , 28 , 522–542.
• Gizelis, T.-I. (2018). Systematic study of gender, conflict, and peace . Peace Economics, Peace Science and Public Policy , 24 (4).
• Gleditsch, K. S. , Wucherpfennig, J. , Hug, S. , & Reigstad, K. G. (2011). Polygyny or misogyny? Reexamining the “first law of intergroup conflict.” The Journal of Politics , 73 , 265–270.
• Goldstein, J. S. (2001). War and gender . Cambridge University Press.
• Hegre, H. , & Sambanis, N. (2006). Sensitivity analysis of empirical results on civil war onset. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 50 , 508–535.
• Henley, N. M. , & Pincus, F. (1978). Interrelationship of sexist, racist, and antihomosexual attitudes. Psychological Reports , 42 , 83–90.
• Hudson, V. M. (2012). Sex and world peace . Columbia University Press.
• Hudson, V. M. , Caprioli, M. , Ballif-Spanvill, B. , McDermott, R. , & Emmett, C. F. (2008–2009). The heart of the matter: The security of women and the security of states . International Security , 33 (3), 7–45.
• Hudson, V. M. , & den Boer, A. (2002). A surplus of men, a deficit of peace: Security and sex ratios in Asia’s largest states . International Security , 26 (4), 5–38.
• Hudson, V. M. , & den Boer, A. M. (2005). Missing women and bare branches: Gender balance and conflict. ECSP Report , 11 , 20–24.
• Hudson, V. M. , & den Boer, A. M. (2012). A feminist evolutionary analysis of the relationship between violence against and inequitable treatment of women, and conflict within and between human collectives, including nation-states. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary perspectives on violence, homicide, and war (pp. 301–323). Oxford University Press.
• Joshi, M. , & Olsson, L. (2021). War termination and women’s political rights. Social Science Research , 94 , 102523.
• Kanazawa, S. (2009). Evolutionary psychological foundations of civil wars . The Journal of Politics , 71 , 25–34.
• Koch, M. T. , & Fulton, S. A. (2011). In the defense of women: Gender, office holding and national security policy in established democracies. The Journal of Politics , 73 , 1–16.
• Kuper, A. , & Kuper, J. (1996). The social science encyclopedia (2nd ed.). Routledge.
• Kutz-Flamenbaum, R. (2012). Mobilizing gender to promote peace: The case of Machsom Watch . Qualitative Sociology , 35 , 293–310.
• Lacina, B. (2008). Insights from macro studies of the risk of civil war. In M. Öberg & K. Strøm (Eds.), Resources, governance, and civil conflict . Routledge.
• Melander, E. (2005a). Gender equality and intrastate armed conflict . International Studies Quarterly , 49 , 695–714.
• Melander, E. (2005b). Political gender equality and state human rights abuse. Journal of Peace Research , 42 , 149–166.
• Melander, E. (2016). Gender and civil war. In D. T. Mason & S. McLaughlin Mitchell (Eds.), What do we know about civil wars? Rowman & Littlefield.
• Nagel, R. U. (2021). Gendered preferences: How women’s inclusion in society shapes negotiation occurrence in intrastate conflicts. Journal of Peace Research , 58 (3), 433–448.
• Naskidashvili, M. (2011). How does gender determine roles and behaviors of women in and outside of Georgian families? [Unpublished]. Caucasus Research Resource Center.
• Olsson, L. (2009). Gender equality and United Nations peace operations in Timor Leste: International peacekeeping . Brill Publishers.
• Peterson, V. S. (1992). Gendered states: Feminist (re)visions of international relations theory . Lynne Rienner.
• Reardon, B. (1996). Sexism and the war system . Syracuse University Press.
• Regan, P. M. , & Paskeviciute, A. (2003). Women’s access to politics and peaceful states . Journal of Peace Research , 40 , 287–302.
• Reiter, D. (2015). The positivist study of gender and international relations . Journal of Conflict Resolution , 59 , 1301–1326.
• Sleebos, J. (2003). Low fertility rates in OECD countries: Facts and policy responses (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Work Papers, No. 15). OECD Publishing.
• Tessler, M. , & Warriner, I. (1997). Gender, feminism, and attitudes toward international conflict: Exploring relationships with survey data from the Middle East . World Politics , 49 , 250–281.
• Tickner, J. A. (1992). Gender in international relations: Feminist perspectives on achieving global security . Columbia University Press.
• United Nations General Assembly . (2015, October 21). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . A/RES/10/1.
• Urdal, H. (2008). Population, resources, and political violence: A subnational study of India, 1956–2002. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 52 , 590–617.
• Webster, K. , Chen, C. , & Beardsley, K. (2019). Conflict, peace, and the evolution of women’s empowerment. International Organization , 73 (2), 255–289.

1. The terms civil war, civil conflict, internal conflict, and intrastate armed conflict are used interchangeably, referring to a violent conflict over government power and/or territory involving the government of a state and one or multiple armed opposition groups.

2. Closely related to studies of gender inequality is the question of whether women are more peaceful than men more generally. This peacefulness is discussed as either biological or social. The more essentialist version is based on a biological understanding. Women are considered peaceful by nature due to their nurturing mother role. The other is the social, constructivist explanation. In this version, women’s assumed peacefulness is linked to the social construction of femininity, for which nonviolent resolution is prescribed, but it is not considered to be an innate quality. However, women’s direct access to power and resources can in both of these forms have an impact on the likelihood of peace. While recognizing the potential interlink, this article is focused on gender inequality rather than women per se. This is because gender inequality has been found to be a more relevant explanation than women’s peacefulness (for a discussion, see Caprioli, 2000 ; Melander, 2005a ).

3. As noted by Hudson et al. (2008–2009) , this literature argues that standard social science norms, including hypothesis testing, are at odds with a feminist perspective. Combined with the striking neglect of including a gender perspective in positivist security studies, the consequence has been little cross-fertilization between the fields. However, a growing number of studies demonstrate that gender inequality is central for understanding civil war as well as other types of political violence.

4. The entire field is not reviewed; instead, the focus is on key publications that are considered to drive the research debate forward. Along with studies that analyze the link between gender inequality and the onset of internal armed conflict, a few references are included that focus on armed conflict more broadly (including interstate conflict and postconflict peacebuilding), as the theoretical explanations appear to be similar. For an overview, see Bjarnegård et al. (2015) .

5. There is also a methodological problem involved in using female state leaders as a measure of political gender equality; the sample is too small to enable statistical inference ( Melander, 2005a ).

6. In addition to this focus on the broader spread of resources in a society, the economic dimension can be used to understand the distribution of financial resources on the elite level—for example, women on the boards and/or in leadership positions of large companies.

7. Another aspect of economic gender equality, which has not been used in research on civil war so far, is the right to own property or the distribution of ownership of material resources. This aspect of equality is now targeted under the fifth goal of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which says that states should “undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws” (p. 20).

8. We are grateful to Elin Bjarnegård for underlining this point.

9. A variant of the male surplus measure is widespread use of polygyny, which in effect leads to a male surplus. Kanazawa (2009) suggests that polygynous societies are particularly prone to civil war. However, the measure is not discussed in terms of gender inequality. As suggested by Gleditsch et al. (2011) , who could not reproduce Kanazawa’s result in a test more aligned with the field of civil war research, misogyny is likely a better predictor of violence than polygyny.

10. Now also included in Goal Four of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ( United Nations General Assembly, 2015 , p. 19).

11. Given this relatively small gender gap in education, the persistent gaps in political representation and employment strongly indicate gender-based discrimination, as such differences cannot be attributed to differences in educational competence.

12. For an analysis of the link between fertility rates, employment status, and parental leave benefits in OECD countries, see Sleebos (2003) .

13. However, within civil war research, we are not aware of any attempt to empirically assess whether gender inequality is connected to other types of inequality and how the interplay of different forms of inequality is related to conflict risks.

Related Articles

• Gender and Political Behavior
• Equality and Political Philosophy
• Gender, Law, and Judging
• Gender, Politics, and Corruption
• Men's Political Representation
• Multiculturalism and Political Philosophy
• Gendering Institutional Change
• Gender and Foreign Policy
• How Gender Intersects with Political Violence and Terrorism

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Politics. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 27 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|81.177.180.204]
• 81.177.180.204

Character limit 500 /500

Module 9: Gender, Sex, and Sexuality

Theoretical perspectives on gender, learning outcomes.

• Examine gender from a structural-functionalist, conflict, and symbolic interactionist perspective

Sociological theories help to explain complex human behaviors, social phenomena, and social structures. To take a specific example, let’s consider how each theoretical perspective might explain the gender wage gap. In 2017, full-time working women made 80.5 cents to every dollar earned by men, meaning there is a gender wage gap of 19.5 percent. This gap is even more pronounced for Black and Hispanic women. [1] So why do women make less than men?

Not only do we need to examine each woman’s experience in the workforce, we should also understand intersectionality, or how each person’s experience is affected by race/ethnicity, social class, age, etc. We then want to scrutinize the structures and processes that shape these experiences. To establish a more comprehensive analytical framework, we can apply each of the three main sociological perspectives to better understand the socio-economic phenomenon of the gender wage gap.

Structural functionalists might look at how values and norms shape societal notions of success in the workforce, and how these established values and norms reinforce the division of labor as well as gender inequality. For functionalists, when roles are clearly established, social solidarity increases. When large numbers of women began to enter the workforce beginning in World War II, they were paid less, but the rationale for this wage was that it was a necessary cost-saving measure during wartime. When women began to collectively demand “equal pay for equal work” in the 1960s, formal norms (laws) had to be passed for this to occur. As we have seen over the past 60 years, values do not always keep up with changing norms and vice versa.

Conflict theorists influenced by the theories of Karl Marx might analyze how the bourgeoisie use the wage gap to perpetuate an unequal system, and how the wage gap is successful in keeping the working classes both divided and subject to a politically neutralizing false consciousness. Females, as a minority group, are paid less so that the dominant group (men) can maintain a greater share of status and power. The United States is an advanced capitalist society, so by paying some workers less than others (and all workers less than the actual value of their labor), those at the top increase their wealth, while the workers are led to believe they too can join the bourgeoisie if they work hard enough.

Interactionists would likely examine how meaning is produced and negotiated in social interactions and how that meaning is then translated into wage inequality. A woman who displays certain behaviors that are generally conceived of as being appropriate for leadership (i.e., strong, opinionated, concise) might be perceived as “bossy” or “difficult to work with,” whereas a man depicting the same behaviors would be perceived as someone who is ready for a leadership position. This type of meaning-making, which is heavily gendered through generational cycles of socialization, contributes to the wage gap at the microsociological level.

Let’s look at each of these perspectives again as they apply more broadly to gender.

Is the gender wage gap a real thing? Watch this vlog from John Green to learn about some of the latest research on the topic.

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism has provided one of the most important perspectives of sociological research in the twentieth century and has been a major influence on research in the social sciences, including gender studies. Viewing the family as the most integral component of society, assumptions about gender roles within marriage assume a prominent place in this perspective.

Functionalists argue that gender roles were established well before the pre-industrial era when men typically took care of responsibilities outside of the home, such as hunting, and women typically took care of the domestic responsibilities in or around the home. These roles were considered functional because women were often limited by the physical restraints of pregnancy and nursing and were unable to leave the home for long periods of time. These roles were passed on to subsequent generations, since they served as an effective means of keeping the family system functioning properly.

When changes occurred in the social and economic climate of the United States during World War II, changes in the family structure also occurred. Many women had to assume the role of breadwinner (or modern hunter-gatherer) alongside their traditional domestic role in order to stabilize a rapidly changing society. When the men returned from war and wanted to reclaim their jobs, society fell back into a state of imbalance, as many women did not want to forfeit their wage-earning positions (Hawke 2007).

Conflict Theory

According to conflict theory, society is a struggle for dominance among social groups (like women versus men) that compete for scarce resources. When sociologists examine gender from this perspective, they typically classify men as the dominant group and women as the subordinate group. According to conflict theory, social problems are created when dominant groups exploit or oppress subordinate groups. Consider the Women’s Suffrage Movement or the debate over women’s “right to choose” their reproductive futures. It is difficult for women to rise above men, as dominant group members create the rules for success and opportunity in society (Farrington and Chertok 1993).

Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), a German sociologist and Karl Marx’s frequent collaborator, studied family structure and gender roles. Engels suggested that the same owner-worker relationship seen in the labor force is also seen in the household, with women assuming the role of the proletariat (i.e., the industrial age, routine-bound workers). This is due to women’s dependence on men for the attainment of wages, which is even worse for women who are entirely dependent upon their spouses for economic support. Contemporary conflict theorists suggest that when women become wage earners, they can gain power in the family structure and create more democratic arrangements in the home, although they may still carry the majority of the domestic burden, as noted earlier (Rismanand and Johnson-Sumerford 1998).

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism aims to understand human behavior by analyzing the critical role of symbols and meaning-making in human interaction. This is certainly relevant to the discussion of masculinity and femininity. Imagine that you walk into a bank hoping to get a small loan for school, a home, or a small business venture. If you meet with a male loan officer, you may state your case logically by listing all the hard numbers that make you a qualified applicant as a means of appealing to the practical, analytical characteristics associated with masculinity. If you meet with a female loan officer, you may make an emotional appeal by stating your good intentions as a means of appealing to the empathetic, nurturing characteristics associated with femininity.

Because the meanings attached to symbols are socially created and not natural, and fluid, not static, we act and react to symbols based on the current assigned meaning. The word gay , for example, once meant “cheerful,” but by the 1960s it carried the primary meaning of “homosexual.” In transition, it was even known to mean “careless” or “bright and showing” (Oxford American Dictionary 2010). Furthermore, the word gay (as it refers to a homosexual), carried a somewhat negative and unfavorable meaning fifty years ago, but has since gained more neutral and even positive connotations. When people perform tasks or possess characteristics based on the gender role assigned to them, they are said to be doing gender . This notion is based on the work of West and Zimmerman (1987). Whether we are expressing our masculinity or femininity, Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman argue, we are always “doing gender.” Thus, gender is something we do or perform, not something we are.

In other words, both gender and sexuality are socially constructed. The social construction of sexuality refers to the way in which socially created definitions about the cultural appropriateness of sex-linked behavior shape the way people see and experience sexuality. This is in marked contrast to theories of sex, gender, and sexuality that link male and female behavior to biological determinism , or the belief that men and women behave differently due to differences in their biology.

Being Male, Being Female, and Being Healthy

In 1971, Broverman and Broverman conducted a groundbreaking study on the traits mental health workers ascribed to males and females. When asked to name the characteristics of a female, the list featured words such as unaggressive, gentle, emotional, tactful, less logical, not ambitious, dependent, passive, and neat. The list of male characteristics featured words such as aggressive, rough, unemotional, blunt, logical, direct, active, and sloppy (Seem and Clark 2006). Later, when asked to describe the characteristics of a healthy person (not gender specific), the list was nearly identical to that of a male.

This study uncovered the general assumption that being female is associated with being somewhat unhealthy or not of sound mind. This concept seems extremely dated, but in 2006, Susan Seem and M. Diane Clark replicated the study and found similar results. Again, the characteristics associated with a healthy male were very similar to that of a healthy (genderless) adult. The list of characteristics associated with being female broadened somewhat, but did not show significant change from the original study (Seem and Clark 2006). This interpretation of feminine characteristic may help us one day better understand gender disparities in certain illnesses, such as why one in eight women can be expected to develop clinical depression in her lifetime (National Institute of Mental Health 1999). Perhaps these diagnoses are not just a reflection of women’s health, but also a reflection of society’s labeling of female characteristics, or the result of institutionalized sexism.

Watch this video to see more examples related to each of the main sociological theories on gender.

• "Pay, equity, and discrimination." (2018). Institute for Women's Policy Research. https://iwpr.org/issue/employment-education-economic-change/pay-equity-discrimination/ . ↵
• Modification, adaptation, and original content. Authored by : Sarah Hoiland and Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Gender. Authored by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:IThELyrX@3/Gender . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]
• Theories of Gender: Crash Course Sociology #33. Provided by : CrashCourse. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquRz_cceH8&index=35&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtMJ-AfB_7J1538YKWkZAnGA&t=0s . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License
• Is the Gender Pay Gap Real?. Provided by : Vlogbrothers. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=23&v=it0EYBBl5LI . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature

Bibliography

• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

Gender Inequality and Theories of Justice

• Published: November 1995
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Turning to concrete questions of justice for women, Sen introduces the issue of ‘co‐operative conflicts’ and argues that these conflicts are often rooted in traditional conceptions of women's role, which are internalized as ‘natural’ by the women themselves. Sen's contention is that the capabilities approach can handle these conflicts better than Rawlsian liberalism and economic utilitarianism. To Sen, the central problem is to confront the underlying prejudice directly and to outline the need for and scope of reducing inequalities in capabilities without accepting that this project necessarily causes great inefficiency.

1 Practice and Theory

Empirical research in recent years has brought out clearly the extent to which women occupy disadvantaged positions in traditional economic and social arrangements. While gender inequalities can be observed in Europe and North America (and in Japan), nevertheless in some fields women's relative deprivation is much more acute in many parts of the ‘Third World’.

Indeed, there are extensive inequalities even in morbidity and mortality in substantial parts of Asia and North Africa. Despite the biological advantages that women have in survival compared with men (the ratio of women to men averages around 1.05 or so in Europe and North America, partly due to biological differences in mortality rates), the number of women falls far short of men in Asia and North Africa, though not in sub‐Saharan Africa. If we took the European and North American ratios as the standard, the total number of ‘missing women’ in Asia and North Africa would be astonishingly large (more than 50 million in China alone). Even if the sub‐Saharan African ratio of females to males is taken as the standard, the number of ‘missing women’ would be more than 44 million in China, 37 million in India, and a total exceeding 100 million world‐wide. 2 While looking at female: male ratios in the population is only one way of examining the relative position of women, this approach does give some insight into the acuteness of the problem of gender inequality in matters of life and death. It also throws some indirect light on the history of inequalities in morbidity and of unequal medical care. Direct observation of these other data confirm the intensity of gender inequality in vitally important fields. 3

I have begun with a rather stark account of some features of gender inequality. What bearing does a theory of justice have on our understanding and analysis of these dreadfully practical matters? One bearing is obvious enough. In describing some arrangements as ‘unjust’ we invoke—explicitly or by implication—some conception of justice, and it is necessary at some stage to come to grips with the appropriateness of the respective theories of justice to pronounce judgement on these matters. An observation of inequality can yield a diagnosis of injustice only through some theory (or theories) of justice.

A second context is a bit more complex but no less important. The tolerance of gender inequality is closely related to notions of legitimacy and correctness. In family behaviour, inequalities between women and men (and between girls and boys), are often accepted as ‘natural’ or ‘appropriate’ (even though they are typically not explicitly discussed). Sometimes the operational decisions relating to these inequalities (e.g. providing more health care or nutritional attention to boys vis‐à‐vis girls) are undertaken and executed through the agency of women themselves. The perceived justness of such inequalities and the absence of any contrary sense of deep injustice play a major part in the operation and survival of these arrangements. 4 This is not the only field in which the survival of extraordinary inequality is based on making ‘allies’ out of those who have most to lose from such arrangements. It is, therefore, important to scrutinize the underlying concepts of justice and injustice, and to seek a confrontation between theory and practice.

2 Co‐operative Conflicts

There are many areas of social organization in which all the parties have something to gain from having a workable arrangement, but the gains that are made respectively by different parties differ greatly from one working arrangement to another. There are co‐operative elements in these arrangements, but also elements of conflict in the choice of one arrangement rather than another.

This class of problem can be called ‘co‐operative conflicts’. 5 Such problems have been investigated in the literature of economics and game theory in different ways. For example, what J. F. Nash ( 1950 ) calls ‘the bargaining problem’ is a case of co‐operative conflict in which each party has well‐defined and well‐understood interests which coincide with their objectives.

Sometimes, simplifying assumptions are made that eliminate crucial aspects of co‐operative conflicts. One example is the assumption (used powerfully by Gary Becker, 1981 ) that the ‘altruistic’ head of the family acts in the joint interest of all, and everybody else in the family has exactly the same rational perception of the family's joint interest, which they all want to maximize in a rational and systematic way. This avoids the problem of   conflict in co‐operative conflicts by making everyone pursue the same objectives, as a result of which they have no disharmony of interests, or of objectives. If women (or girls) die in much larger numbers than men (or boys), because of differential medical attention and health care, then this model requires that such differentials are what every member of the family (including the relatively more‐stricken women) rationally promote and their consequences are what they jointly seek.

The existence of conflicts is, however, fully acknowledged in game‐theoretic discussions of ‘the bargaining problem’ inside the family (see, for example, Manser and Brown ( 1980 ); Lundberg and Pollak ( 1994 )). Different family members are seen to have partly divergent interests. It is taken for granted that every member of the family acts on the basis of promoting his or her rationally perceived individual interests, and there is no ambiguity about this. This has the effect of abstracting from the role of implicit theories of justice and of appropriateness, and instead of Beckerian ‘collectivism’, we have here thoroughly individualistic perception of interests and choices based on them.

There is an interesting contrast here that is worth a comment. The situation of real conflict between different members of the family is well caught by the game‐theoretic perspective in a way that the Beckerian formulation does not. On the other hand, the socially influenced perception of the absence of conflict between family members may well be closer to Becker's formulation than to the standard game‐theoretic one. What is needed is a combination, which acknowledges the possibility of real conflicts of interests (unlike in Becker's framework) coexisting with a socially conditioned perception of harmony (unlike in the standard game‐theoretic model). Implicit theories of justice and traditional understandings of what is ‘natural’ and ‘proper’ can play a major part in making people with divergent interests feel united around shared perceptions of common objectives. Thus, despite the illumination about conflicts provided by game‐theoretic models, they do tend to ignore some of the more important causal influences—related to perceptions of legitimacy—that give stability to extreme inequalities in traditional societies. 6

Theories of justice are important in bringing out the tension between perceptions of justice and what may be required by the demands of fairness or less partial rational assessment. Practical uses of theories of justice can be particularly important in the long run, since social change is facilitated by a clearer understanding of tensions between what happens and what is acceptable. While such an impact may be indirect, and while the connections between ethical analysis (on the one hand) and social perceptions and practical politics (on the other) may not be instantaneous, it would be a mistake to ignore the long‐run practical importance of a clearer understanding of issues of justice and injustice.

3 The Claims of Utilitarian Justice

No ethical theory has had as much influence in the modern world as utilitarianism. It has been the dominant mode of moral reasoning over the last two centuries. We can do worse than begin with the question: Why not go for the utilitarian theory of justice as the basis of analysis of gender inequality? The fact that utilitarianism had a radical role in providing effective critiques of many traditional inequities (Bentham's own 1789 practical concerns were much inspired by his outrage at what he saw around him) makes it particularly appropriate to look for a positive lead from that quarter.

Unfortunately, utilitarianism provides a rather limited theory of justice for several distinct reasons. First, utilitarianism is ultimately an efficiency‐oriented approach, concentrating on promoting the maximum sum total of utilities, no matter how unequally that sum total may be distributed. If equity is central to justice, utilitarianism starts off somewhere at the periphery of it.

It is, of course, possible to use utilitarianism to reject many inequalities, since inequalities are often also thoroughly inefficient. But given the lack of a basic concern with equality in the distribution of advantages, the utilitarian concentration on the promotion of utilities is not particularly oriented towards justice.

Secondly, the efficiency that utilitarianism promotes is, of course, specifically concerned only with the generation of utilities . Under different interpretations of utilities variously championed by different utilitarian authors, this amounts to promoting either maximal pleasures, or maximal fulfilment of felt desires, or maximal satisfaction of perceived preferences, or some other achievement in a corresponding mental metric. 7 As was discussed in the last section, one of the features of traditional inequalities is the adaptation of desires and preferences to existing inequalities viewed in terms of perceived legitimacy. This plays havoc with the informational basis of utilitarian reasoning since inequalities in achievements and freedoms (e.g., in morbidities, mortalities, extents of undernourishment, freedom to pursue well‐being) get concealed and muffled in the space of conditioned perceptions.

There is, in fact, some empirical evidence that the deprived groups such as oppressed women in deeply unequal societies even fail to acknowledge the facts of higher morbidity or mortality (even though these phenomena have an objective standing that goes beyond the psychological perception of these matters). 8 Basing the assessment of justice on a measuring rod that bends and twists and adapts as much as utilities do, can be formidably problematic. The difficulties are certainly big enough to discourage us from looking for a utilitarian theory of justice as an ethical arbitrator or as a conceptual frame of reference for analysing the problem of gender inequalities.

4 The Rawlsian Theory of Justice

Compared to the utilitarian approach the Rawlsian theory of ‘justice as fairness’ has many decisive advantages. The Rawlsian theory also has merits in terms of scope and reach over more relativist and less universalist approaches that have sometimes been proposed. 9

The Rawlsian approach avoids the peculiar reliance on selected mental characteristics that utilitarianism recommends. It also provides a foundation based on the idea of fairness that links the demands of justice to a more general mode of reasoning. 10 The use of ideas of fairness, rationality, reasonableness, objectivity, and reflective equilibrium provides Rawls's theory of justice with a depth of political argumentation that is remarkably effective. More substantively, the concern with equity in addition to efficiency as reflected in Rawls's principles of justice puts equity at the centre of disputes about justice in a way that utilitarianism (peripherally concerned, as it is, with equity) fails to do. 11

The Difference Principle of Rawls focuses on primary goods as the basis of assessing individual advantages. Primary goods are things that every rational person is presumed to want, such as income and wealth, basic liberties, freedom of movement and choice of occupation, powers and prerogatives of office and positions of responsibility, and the social bases of self‐respect. In this list there is a clear recognition of the importance of a variety of concerns that affect individual well‐being and freedom and which are sometimes neglected in narrower analyses (e.g., in the concentration only on incomes in many welfare‐economic analyses of inequality).

Despite these advantages there are some real problems in using the Rawlsian theory of justice as fairness for the purpose of analysing gender inequality. In fact, these problems are quite serious in many other contexts as well, and constitute, in my judgement, a general deficiency of the perspective of the Rawlsian theory of justice. Perhaps the most immediate problem relates to Rawls's use of the respective holdings of primary goods as the basis of judging individual advantage. The difficulty arises from the fact that primary goods are the means to the freedom to achieve, and cannot be taken as indicators of freedoms themselves.

The gap between freedoms and means to freedoms would not have been of great practical significance if the transformation possibilities of means into actual freedoms were identical for all human beings. Since these transformation possibilities vary greatly from person to person, the judgements of advantage in the space of means to freedom turn out to be quite different from assessments of the extents of freedoms themselves. The source of the problem is the pervasive diversity of human beings which make equality in one space conflict with equality in other spaces. 12 The particular issue of inter‐individual variations in converting primary goods into freedoms to achieve fits into a more general problem of divergence between different spaces in which the demands of equity, efficiency, and other principles may be assessed.

One of the features of gender inequality is its association with a biological difference which has to be taken into account in understanding the demands of equity between women and men. To assume that difference away would immediately induce some systematic errors in understanding the correspondence between the space of primary goods and that of freedoms to achieve. For example, with the same income and means to buy food and medicine, a pregnant woman may be at a disadvantage vis‐à‐vis a man of the same age in having the freedom to achieve adequate nutritional well‐being. The differential demands imposed by neo‐natal care of children also have considerable bearing on what a woman at a particular stage of life can or cannot achieve with the same command over primary goods as a man might have at the corresponding stage in his life. These and other differences, in which biological factors are important (though not exclusively so), make the programme of judging equity and justice in the space of primary goods deeply defective, since equal holdings of primary goods can go with very unequal substantive freedoms.

In addition to these differences which relate specifically to biological factors, there are other systematic variations in the freedoms that women can enjoy vis‐à‐vis men with the same supply of primary goods. Social conventions and implicit acceptance of ‘natural’ roles have a major influence on what people can or cannot do with their lives. Since the sources of these differences may appear to be ‘external’ to the human beings, it is possible to expect that they can be somehow accounted in when constructing a suitable basket (and index) of primary goods. If this could be adequately done, problems arising from these ‘external sources’ would be accountable within Rawlsian calculus.

However, in many circumstances this may not prove to be possible. Some of the social influences appear in most complex forms and may be hard to formalize into some component of primary goods. The sources of pervasive social discouragement are often hard to trace and harder to separate out.

Perhaps more importantly, as was discussed earlier, some of the constraints that are imposed on what women are free or not free to do may closely relate to women's own perceptions of legitimacy and appropriateness. The presence of this influence plays havoc, as was discussed earlier, with the utility‐based evaluation of justice. That problem has some bearing on the Rawlsian perspective as well. The behavioural constraints related to perceptions of legitimacy and correctness can strongly affect the relationship between primary goods and the freedoms that can be generated with their use. If women are restrained from using the primary goods within their command for generating appropriate capabilities, this disadvantage would not be observed in the space of primary goods. It is not clear how these constraints, many of which are implicit and socially attitudinal, can be incorporated within the framework of the ‘external’ category of primary goods.

I would, therefore, argue that despite major advantages in adopting the Rawlsian theory of justice in analysing gender inequality, there are also serious problems, arising particularly from variations in the correspondence between primary goods and freedoms to achieve. These problems are not specific to gender justice, but they apply with particular force in this case.

There is another problem that may be briefly mentioned here. This relates to the domain of applicability of the Rawlsian theory of justice. In the original presentation (Rawls, 1958 ; 1971 ), ‘justice as fairness’ did appear to be a theory with a very wide domain, applicable in many diverse social circumstances, with a universalist outlook. Without formally contradicting anything presented in that earlier version, Rawls's more recent presentations (Rawls, 1985 ; 1987 ; 1988 a ; 1988 b ; 1993 ) have increasingly stressed some special features of Western liberal democracies as preconditions for applying the principles of justice.

Rawls has emphasized that his ‘political conception’ of justice requires tolerance and acceptance of pluralism. These are certainly attractive features of social organization. If these were parts of the requirement imposed by Rawls's theory, without making it illegitimate to apply other parts of his principles of justice even when these conditions were not entirely met, the domain of his theory would not have been substantially reduced, even though its demands would have been significantly expanded. However, Rawls has sometimes asserted precisely that conditionality—making the requirements take a fairly ‘all or nothing’ form. This has the immediate effect of making it an illegitimate use of his theory to apply his principles of justice in circumstances where the conditions of tolerance are not met.

In the context of many ‘Third World’ countries in which the problems of gender inequality are particularly acute, Rawls's requirements of toleration are not at all well met. If, as a result, it becomes right to conclude (as seems to be suggested by Rawls) that his theory cannot be applied in such societies, then there is not a great deal to be said about gender inequality in those circumstances with the aid of ‘justice as fairness’.

I personally would argue that Rawls over‐restricts the domain of his theory, since it has usefulness beyond these limits. 13 The theory comes into its own in the fuller context of toleration that make Rawls's ‘political conception’ more extensively realizable, but the important questions of liberty, equity, and efficiency outlined by Rawls have substantial bearings even in those circumstances in which the demands of toleration are not universally accepted.

5 Freedoms, Capabilities, and Justice

I have argued elsewhere in favour of judging individual advantage directly in terms of the freedom to achieve, rather than in terms of primary goods (as in Rawls, 1971 ), incomes (as in standard welfare‐economic discussions), resources (as in Dworkin, 1981 ), and other proposed spaces. The ‘capability perspective’ involves concentration on freedoms to achieve in general and the capabilities to function in particular (especially when assessing freedoms to pursue well‐being). 14 Individual achievements in living could be seen in terms of human functionings, consisting of various beings and doings, varying from such elementary matters as being adequately nourished, avoiding escapable morbidity, etc., to such complex functionings as taking part in the life of the community, achieving self‐respect, and so on.

An important part of our freedom to achieve consists of our capability to function. In the functioning space an achievement is an n ‐tuple of functionings that are realized, whereas a capability set is a collection of such n ‐tuples of functioning combinations. The capability set of a person represents the alternative combinations of functioning achievements from which the person can choose one combination. It is, thus, a representation of the freedom that a person enjoys in choosing one mode of living or another. 15

When we want to examine a person's freedom to achieve in a more general context (including the achievement of social objectives), we shall have to go beyond the functioning space into the corresponding representations of broader achievements, e.g., promoting her social objectives such as reforming some feature or another of the society in which she lives. By pointing our attention towards freedoms in general, the capability approach is meant to accept the relevance of freedom over this broader space, even though the formal definition of capabilities may not take us beyond human functionings as such. 16

A number of questions have been raised about the cogency, scope, and applicability of the capability approach to justice. I have dealt with some of the issues elsewhere (Sen, 1992 a ; 1992) and will not go into them here. 17 There are also interesting issues in the relationship between this approach and the perspective emerging from Aristotelian analysis of capability, virtues, and justice, and these have been illuminatingly discussed by Martha Nussbaum ( 1988 a ; 1988 b ). These issues too I shall not pursue here. Instead I shall try to comment on some particular features of this approach that may be particularly relevant in developing a capability‐based theory of justice in general, and can be usefully applied specifically to analyse gender inequality.

I would argue that any theory of justice (1) identifies a space in which inter‐personal comparisons are made for judging individual advantages, and (2) specifies a ‘combining’ procedure that translates the demands of justice to operations on the chosen space. For example, the utilitarian approach identifies the relevant space as that of individual utilities (defined as pleasures, fulfilment of desires, or some other interpretation), and picks the combining formula of simply adding up the individual utilities to arrive at a sum total that is to be maximised. To take another example, Nozick's ( 1974 ) ‘entitlement theory’ specifies the space as a set of libertarian rights that individuals can have, and uses as a combining formula an equal holding of these rights. Similarly, the Rawlsian approach demands maximal equal liberty for all in the space of some specified liberties (through the ‘First Principle’) and supplements it by demanding a lexicographic maximin rule in the space of holdings of primary goods (included in the ‘Second Principle’ in the form of the ‘Difference Principle’).

It should be obvious that the specification of the space of functionings and capabilities in particular, and of achievements and freedoms in general, does not amount to a theory of justice. It merely identifies the field in which the ‘combining’ operations have to be defined. The assertiveness of the claim rests on the acceptance of the peculiar relevance of this space in judging individual advantage in formulating a theory of justice.

I have argued elsewhere that a theory of justice must include aggregative considerations as well as distributive ones. 18 It will be a mistake to see the space of functionings and capabilities as being exclusively related to specifications of the demands of equality. In assessing the justice of different distributions of individual capabilities and freedoms, it would be appropriate to be concerned both about aggregative considerations and about the extent of inequality in the distribution pattern.

It is not my purpose here to argue for a particular formula for combining the diverse considerations of equality and efficiency, and I am not about to propose a rival specification to the lexicographic maximin rule used by Rawls, or to the simple summation rule used by the utilitarians. There are good grounds for attaching importance both to overall generation of capabilities (this includes aggregative considerations in general and efficiency considerations in particular) as well as to reducing inequalities in the distribution of capabilities. Within that general agreement various formulae can be found that do not coincide with each other but which can be—and have been—defended in a reasonable way in many presentations. I have not gone beyond outlining a space and some general features of a combining formula, and this obviously falls far short of being a complete theory of justice. Such a complete theory is not what I am seeking, and more importantly for the present purpose, it is not especially needed to analyse gender inequality. The class of theories of justice that are consistent with these requirements is adequate for the present purpose.

6 Gender and Justice

Earlier in this paper I have tried to outline the connection between common perceptions of legitimacy and appropriateness (shared even by women themselves) in traditional societies and the gender inequalities that are generally accepted in those societies (even by the women themselves). In that context I illustrated the inequalities with some standard indicators of minimal success in living, such as survival rates. This was just one illustration of the kind of variable in terms of which inequalities can be assessed. Being able to survive without premature mortality is, of course, a very basic capability. When a fuller accounting is done, many other capabilities would have obvious relevance, varying from the ability to avoid preventable morbidity, to be well‐nourished, to be comfortable and happy, etc., on the one hand, as well as more complex freedoms to achieve, including social goals and objectives, on the other.

This way of judging individual advantage provides an immediate connection between (1) the basis of the class of theories of justice outlined in the previous section, and (2) the empirical realities in terms of which gender inequality can be effectively discussed. The main advantage in being concerned with this space rather than the space of resources, primary goods, incomes, etc., is that the perspective of freedom to achieve tells us a great deal more about the advantages that the persons actually enjoy to pursue their objectives (as opposed to the means they possess that may differentially privilege different people to promote their aims).

It has been suggested by Rawls ( 1988 b ), in a critique of my line of reasoning, that comparing people's capabilities would require the use of one universal set of ‘comprehensive’ objectives shared by all, and that demanding such uniformity would be a mistake. I agree that it would be a mistake to demand such uniformity, but is it really needed?

People do, of course, have different particular aims. Whether at a deep and sophisticated level a shared set of general objectives can be fruitfully assumed is an important question that has been addressed in the Aristotelian perspective by Martha Nussbaum ( 1988 b ). 19 But no matter what position we take on that particular question, it is important to recognize that inter‐personal comparison of capabilities are not rendered impossible by the absence of an agreed ‘comprehensive doctrine’. By looking at ‘intersections’ between different individual orderings, agreed judgements on capabilities can be made without invoking a single ‘comprehensive’ doctrine shared by all. 20 There can be incompletenesses in such orderings but that is a problem that applies to the indexing of primary goods as well. 21 The really serious cases of inequities that tend to move us towards agitating for social change would typically be captured by a variety of orderings, even when they would disagree with each other in many subtler issues.

The specification of the relevant space opens the way not only for the assessment of inequalities in those terms but also for understanding the demands of efficiency in that context. This is particularly important in understanding gender inequality for two distinct reasons.

First, as was argued earlier, gender relations do involve ‘co‐operative conflicts’. There are benefits for all through co‐operation, but the availability of many different arrangements (yielding different levels of inequality in the generated capabilities) superimpose conflicts on a general background of co‐operative gains. To deny the existence of the efficiency problem would be a great mistake, and cannot serve the cause of gender equality in a practical world. Efficiency issues have to be tackled along with problems of inequality and injustice.

Secondly, gender inequality is made acceptable to women themselves (along with the more powerful male members of the society at large) by playing up the demands of efficiency in particular social arrangements. The relatively inferior role of women and the shockingly neglected treatment of young girls are implicitly ‘justified’ by alleged efficiency considerations. The alternative of chaos and gross inefficiency is frequently presented, explicitly or by implication, in discussions on this subject. That line of argument has to be critically scrutinized and challenged.

To meet that general presumption and prejudice, what is needed is a serious analysis of the feasibility of alternative arrangements that can be less iniquitous but no less efficient. To some extent such an analysis can draw on what has already been achieved in other countries. In the light of specific circumstances, more particular analysis of feasibilities may also be needed. 22 The identification of deprivation has to be linked directly to the demands of fair division.

The central issue is to confront the underlying prejudice directly and to outline the need for and scope of reducing inequalities in capabilities without accepting that this must cause great inefficiency. The implicit prejudices call for explicit scrutiny. We have to be clear on the nature of the ‘theory’ underlying the practice of extreme inequality, and be prepared to outline what justice may minimally demand. The advantage of a theory of justice defined in terms of the capability space is to place the debate where it securely belongs.

Anand, S., and Ravallion, M. ( 1993 ). ‘ Human Development in Poor Countries: On the Role of Private Incomes and Public Services ’, Journal of Economic Perspectives , 7.

Becker, G. S. ( 1981 ). A Treatise on the Family . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Blair, D. H. ( 1988 ). ‘The Primary‐Goods Indexation Problem in Rawls' Theory of Justice ’, Theory and Decision , 24.

Bentham, J. ( 1789 ). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation . (London: Payne), republished Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.

Boserup, E. ( 1970 ). Women's Role in Economic Development . London: Allen and Unwin.

—— (1990). ‘Economic Change and the Roles of Women’, in Tinker (1990).

Chen, L., Huq, E., and D'Souza, S. ( 1981 ). ‘ Sex Bias in the Family Allocation of Food and Healthcare in Rural Bangladesh ’, Population and Development Review , 7.

Chen, M. (1992). ‘A Matter of Survival: Women's Right to Work in India and Bangladesh’, in this volume.

Coale, A. J. ( 1991 ). ‘ Excess Female Mortality and the Balance of the Sexes in the Population: An Estimate of the Number of “Missing Females”  ’, Population and Development Review , 17.

Crocker, D. A. ( 1991 a ). ‘ Toward Development Ethics ’, World Development , 19.

—— (1991 b ). ‘Functioning and Capability: The Foundations of Sen's Development Ethics’, IDEA Montclair Workshop, mimeographed, Colorado State University.

Drèze, J., and Sen, A. ( 1989 ). Hunger and Public Action . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Dworkin, R. ( 1981 ). ‘ What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare’, and ‘What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources ’, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 10.

Gibbard, A. ( 1979 ). ‘ Disparate Goods and Rawls's Difference Principle: A Social Choice Theoretic Treatment ’, Theory and Decision , 11.

Griffin, J. ( 1982 ). ‘Modern Utilitarianism’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie , 36.

—— ( 1986 ). Well‐being . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Griffin, K., and Knight, J. (eds.) ( 1989 ). ‘ Human Development in the 1980s and Beyond ’, Journal of Development Planning , 19 (special number).

Harriss, B., and Watson, E. ( 1987 ). ‘The Sex Ratio in South Asia’, in J. H. Momson and J. Townsend (eds.), Geography of Gender in the Third World . London: Butler and Tanner.

Hart, H. L. A. ( 1973 ). ‘ Rawls on Liberty and Its Priority ’, University of Chicago Law Review , 40.

Kant, I. ( 1785 ). Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Ethics . English trans. T. K. Abbott. London: Longman, 1907.

Klasen, S. ( 1994 ). ‘ Missing Women Reconsidered ’, World Development , forthcoming.

Kynch, J., and Sen, A. K. ( 1983 ). ‘ Indian Women: Well‐Being and Survival ’, Cambridge Journal of Economics , 7.

Laden, T. (1991). ‘Freedom, Preference and Objectivity: Women and the Capability Approach,’ mimeographed, Harvard University.

Lundberg, S., and Pollak, R. A. ( 1994 ). ‘ Noncooperative Bargaining Models of Marriage ’, American Economic Review , 84.

Manser, M., and Brown, M. ( 1980 ). ‘ Marriage and Household Decision Making: A Bargaining Analysis ’, International Economic Review , 21.

Nash, J. F. ( 1950 ). ‘ The Bargaining Problem ’, Econometrica , 18.

Nozick, R. ( 1974 ). Anarchy, State and Utopia . Oxford: Blackwell.

Nussbaum, M. C. ( 1988 a ). ‘ Nature, Function, and Capability; Aristotle on Political Distribution ’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy , suppl. vol.

—— ( 1988 b ). ‘ Non‐Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach ’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 13; revised version in Nussbaum and Sen (1993). 10.1111/j.1475-4975.1988.tb00111.x

—— and Sen, A. K. (eds.) ( 1993 ). The Quality of Life . Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/0198287976.001.0001

Okin, S. M. ( 1987 ). ‘ Justice and Gender ’, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 16.

—— ( 1989 ). Justice, Gender and Family . New York: Basic Books.

Plott, C. ( 1978 ). ‘Rawls' Theory of Justice: An Impossibility Result’, in H. Gottinger and W. Leinfellner (eds.), Decision Theory and Social Ethics . Dordrecht: Reidel.

Putnam, H. ( 1987 ). The Many Faces of Realism . La Salle: Open Court.

—— (1991). ‘Objectivity and the Science–Ethics Distinction’, in Nussbaum and Sen (1993).

Putnam, R. A. (1992). ‘Why Not a Feminist Theory of Justice?’, in this volume.

Rawls, J. ( 1958 ). ‘ Justice as Fairness ’, Philosophical Review , 67.

—— ( 1971 ). A Theory of Justice . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

—— ( 1985 ). ‘ Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical ’, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 14.

—— ( 1987 ). ‘ The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus ’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 7.

—— ( 1988 a ). ‘ Priority of Right and Ideas of the Good ’, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 17.

—— (1988 b ). ‘Reply to Sen’, mimeographed, Harvard University.

—— ( 1993 ). Political Liberalism . New York: Columbia University Press.

—— et al. ( 1987 ). Liberty, Equality and Law , S. McMurrin, ed. Cambridge, and Salt Lake City: Cambridge University Press, and University of Utah Press.

Sen, A. K. ( 1970 ). Collective Choice and Social Welfare . San Francisco: Holden‐Day. Republished Amsterdam: North‐Holland, 1979.

—— ( 1985 a ). ‘ Well‐being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984 ’, Journal of Philosophy , 82.

—— ( 1985 b ). Commodities and Capabilities . Amsterdam: North‐Holland.

—— (1989). ‘Women's Survival as a Development Problem’, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences , 43; shortened version in The New York Review of Books , Christmas, 1990.

—— ( 1990 a ). ‘ Welfare, Freedom and Social Choice: A Reply ’, Recherches Economiques de Louvain , 56.

—— ( 1990 b ). ‘ Justice: Means versus Freedoms ’, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 19.

—— (1990 c ). ‘Gender and Cooperative Conflicts’, in Tinker (1990).

—— ( 1991 a ). ‘ Welfare, Preference and Freedom ’, Journal of Econometrics , 50.

—— (1991 b ). ‘On Indexing Primary Goods and Capabilities’, mimeographed, Harvard University.

—— ( 1992 a ). Inequality Reexamined . Oxford, and Cambridge, Mass.: Clarendon Press, and Harvard University Press.

—— ( 1992 b ). ‘ Missing Women ’, British Medical journal , 304.

—— (1993). ‘Well‐being and Capability’, in Nussbaum and Sen (1993).

Tinker, I. ( 1990 ). Persistent Inequalities . New York: Oxford University Press.

A revised version of a paper presented at the WIDER conference on Human Capabilities: Women, Men and Equality, in Helsinki, August 1991. In revising the paper. I have benefited from the comments of David Crocker, Jonathan Glover, Martha Nussbaum, and Ruth‐Anna Putnam.

See Sen ( 1989 ; 1992 b ). See also Coale ( 1991 ); Klasen ( 1994 ) for other bases of estimates, and Harriss and Watson ( 1987 ) for a general discussion of the underlying issues.

I have tried to discuss the available evidence in Sen ( 1990 c ); and also in my joint work with Jean Drèze; Drèze and Sen ( 1989 ), ch. 4. See also Boserup ( 1970 ); Lincoln Chen et al. ( 1981 ); Kynch and Sen ( 1983 ); Sen ( 1985 b ).

Indeed, sometimes even social analysts tend to treat the absence of any perceived sense of unjust inequality as ‘proof’ that any suggestion of real conflict is mistaken—‘an import of foreign ideas into the harmony of traditional rural living’. For a critique of this tradition of interpretation, see Kynch and Sen ( 1983 ) and Sen ( 1990 c ).

For a characterization and analysis of ‘co‐operative conflicts’, see Sen ( 1990 c ). This is an extension of what Nash ( 1950 ) called ‘the bargaining problem’.

In this paper I am concerned specifically with the situation in the ‘Third World’, but I believe that the problem of gender inequality even in the economically advanced countries of Europe and North America can be better understood by bringing in conceptions of justice and legitimacy as determinants of individual behaviour.

It is sometimes thought that the ‘desire‐fulfilment’ theory of utility is radically different from a ‘mental metric’ approach, since it examines the extent of fulfilment of what is desired, and the objects of desire are not themselves mental magnitudes: for this and related arguments see Griffin ( 1982 ; 1986 ). But the utilitarian formula requires interpersonally comparable cardinal utilities, and this demands comparisons of intensities of desires for different objects, by different people. Thus, in effect, the dependence on mental metrics is extensive also in the desire‐fulfilment formulation of utilitarian calculus.

On this see Kynch and Sen ( 1983 ). It is, of course, a different issue as to how these ‘objective’ matters relate to human perceptions generally (including those of professional doctors), and I am not addressing here the foundational question of objective–subjective divisions. On that issue, see Hilary Putnam ( 1987 ; 1991 ).

Relativism raises many different types of issues. There are questions of cultural relativism, which are sometimes invoked to dispute criticisms of traditional societies. There is also the question of a separate ‘feminist’ approach to justice. These is, in that context, the methodological problem as to whether the advantages of men and women in a theory of justice can be judged in the ‘same’ standards. On these matters and also on their bearing on theories of justice, see Okin ( 1987 ; 1989 ), Nussbaum ( 1988 a ; 1988 b ) and Ruth Anna Putnam ( 1992 ).

I am referring particularly to the use of ‘the original position’ in Rawls ( 1958 ; 1971 ). See also Rawls ( 1985 ; 1993 ). In his later presentations Rawls has integrated the reasoning based on ‘the original position’ with a constructivist programme inspired by Kant ( 1785 ).

Equality is valued in Rawls's first principle (demanding ‘equal liberty’) as well as the second (of which the Difference Principle particularly brings out the concern with the worse off members of the society). The special concern with liberty, which is a part of the first principle, is also an attractive feature of justice, even though the lexicographic priority that liberty gets over other human concerns can be disputed. On this see Hart ( 1973 ).

I have discussed this issue in Sen ( 1980 ; 1990 b ; 1992 a ).

On related matters see Putnam ( 1992 ).

On this see Sen ( 1980 ; 1985 a ; 1985 b ; 1993 ). For an excellent review of discussions relating to this perspective, see Crocker ( 1991 b ). See also Griffin and Knight ( 1989 ), Crocker ( 1991 a ), and Anand and Ravallion ( 1993 ).

On some technical issues in evaluating freedom, see Sen ( 1990 a ; 1991 a ; 1992 a ). It is important to emphasize that the freedom to choose from alternative actions has to be seen not just in terms of permissible possibilities, but with adequate note of the psychological constraints that may make a person (e.g., a housewife in a traditional family) desist from taking steps that she could, in principle, freely take. On this and related issues, see Laden ( 1991 ).

A distinction made between ‘agency objectives’ in general and ‘well‐being objectives’ in particular is relevant here. The capability to function is closely related to well‐being objectives but the approach (of which this outlook is a part) encourages us to look beyond this space when we are concerned with a person's ‘agency freedoms’ (see Sen, 1985 a ).

See also Crocker ( 1991 b ).

This is discussed particularly in Sen ( 1992 a ).

On this see Sen ( 1970 ; 1990 b ; 1992 a ).

On that problem see Plott ( 1978 ); Gibbard ( 1979 ); Blair ( 1988 ) and Sen ( 1991 b ).

One of the most important fields of investigation in this context is the role of the freedom to accept remunerative employment on the part of women. On this see Sen ( 1990 c ) and Martha Chen ( 1992 ).

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

5.4 Applying Theory to Wage Inequality

As we learned early in this chapter, sociological theories help to explain complex human behaviors, social phenomena, and social structures. Let’s consider how each theoretical perspective introduced in the previous section might explain the gender wage gap. In 2021, full-time working women made 83 cents to every dollar earned by men, meaning the gender wage gap is 17 percent (Women’s Bureau Dept. of Labor, 2021). This gap is even more pronounced for Black and Hispanic women.

We need to examine each woman’s experience in the workforce, and we should also understand intersectionality, or how each person’s experience is affected by race/ethnicity, social class, age, etc. We then want to scrutinize the structures and processes that shape these experiences. To establish a more comprehensive analytical framework, we can apply the three main sociological perspectives/paradigms to better understand the socioeconomic phenomenon of the gender wage gap.

5.4.1 Conflict Theory and Wage Inequality

Conflict theorists influenced by the theories of Karl Marx might analyze how the bourgeoisie, the elite, use the wage gap to perpetuate an unequal system. And also how the wage gap is successful in keeping the working classes divided. Females, as a minority group, are paid less so that the dominant group (men) can maintain a greater share of status and power. The United States is an advanced capitalist society, so by paying some workers less than others (and all workers less than the actual value of their labor), those at the top increase their wealth, while the workers are led to believe they too can join the bourgeoisie if they work hard enough.

5.4.2 Structural Functionalism and Wage Inequality

Structural functionalists might look at how values and norms shape societal notions of success in the workforce and how these established values and norms reinforce the division of labor and gender inequality. For functionalists, when roles are clearly established, social solidarity increases. When large numbers of women began to enter the workforce starting in World War II due to labor needs, they were paid less. Employers argued that this was a necessary cost-saving measure during wartime. When women began to collectively demand “equal pay for equal work” in the 1960s, formal norms (laws) had to be passed for this to occur. As we have seen over the past 60 years, values do not always keep up with changing norms and vice versa.

5.4.3 Symbolic Interactionism and Wage Inequality

Interactionists would likely examine how meaning is produced and negotiated in social interactions and how that meaning is then translated into wage inequality. A woman who displays certain behaviors that are generally conceived of as being appropriate for leadership (i.e., strong, opinionated, concise) might be perceived as “bossy” or “difficult to work with.” In contrast, a man with the same behaviors would be perceived as someone ready for a leadership position. This type of meaning-making, which is heavily gendered through generational cycles of socialization, contributes to the wage gap at the micro-sociological level.

Let’s look at each of these perspectives again as they apply more broadly to gender through watching this 6-minute video about the wage gap (figure 5.5).

Figure 5.5. Is the Gender Pay Gap Real? [Youtube] . Watch this vlog from John Green to learn about some of the latest research on the topic.

5.4.4 Looking Through the Lens: Gender Theories

Watch this video and think about the discussion of each of the three paradigms and then how they relate to gender (figure 5.6).

Figure 5.6. Crash Course in Sociology: Theories of Gender [Youtube] . Standard YouTube license.

• Many tend to view the social world through one or two of the main paradigms, which one(s) connected to you the most? Why?
• What experiences did you think of when watching this?
• Do you think that these theories can explain your experiences with gender in our society?
• Was anything missing from the theories that you would add as an observer?

5.4.5 Licenses and Attributions for Applying Theory to Wage Inequality

“Applying Theory to Wage Inequality” is adapted from “Theoretical Perspectives on Gender” by Sarah Hoiland and Lumen Learning , Introduction to Sociology , which is licensed under CC BY 4.0 . Modifications: Added introductory paragraphs, edited for relevance.

Figure 5.5. “ Is the Gender Pay Gap Real? ” by Vlogbrothers is licensed under the Standard YouTube License .

All other content in “Applying Theory to Wage Inequality” by Heidi Esbensen is licensed under CC BY 4.0 .

Figure 5.6. Crash Course in Sociology: Theories of Gender. Standard YouTube license.

“Learning Through The Lens: Gender Theories” by Dana L. Pertermann is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Sociology of Gender Copyright © by Heidi Esbensen. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

11.3: Sociological Perspectives on Gender Stratification

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 57086

The Functionalist Perspective

The functionalist perspective of gender roles suggests that gender roles exist to maximize social efficiency.

Learning Objectives

Describe gender inequality from the view of the functionalist perspective

• The functionalist perspective sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation and broadly focuses on the social structures that shape society as a whole.
• This theory suggests that gender inequalities exist as an efficient way to create a division of labor, or as a social system in which a particular segment of the population is clearly responsible for certain acts of labor and another segment is clearly responsible for other labor acts.
• The feminist movement takes the position that functionalism neglects the suppression of women within the family structure.
• functionalist perspective of gender inequality : A theory that suggests that gender inequalities exist as an efficient way to create a division of labor, or a social system in which a particular segment of the population is clearly responsible for certain acts of labor and another segment is clearly responsible for other labor acts.
• The Functionalist Perspective : A broad social theory that sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability.
• Division of labor : A division of labour is the dividing and specializing of cooperative labour into specifically circumscribed tasks and roles.

The functionalist perspective sees society as a complex system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. This approach looks at society through a macro-level orientation, which is a broad focus on the social structures that shape society as a whole, and looks at both social structure and social functions. Functionalism addresses society as a whole in terms of the function of its constituent elements, namely: norms, customs, traditions, and institutions. A common analogy, popularized by Herbert Spencer, presents these parts of society as “organs” that work toward the proper functioning of the “body” as a whole.

The functionalist perspective of gender inequality was most robustly articulated in the 1940s and 1950s, and largely developed by Talcott Parsons’ model of the nuclear family. This theory suggests that gender inequalities exist as an efficient way to create a division of labor, or as a social system in which particular segments are clearly responsible for certain, respective acts of labor. The division of labor works to maximize resources and efficiency. A structural functionalist view of gender inequality applies the division of labor to view predefined gender roles as complementary: women take care of the home while men provide for the family. Thus gender, like other social institutions, contributes to the stability of society as a whole.

In sociological research, functional prerequisites are the basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, and money) that an individual requires to live above the poverty line. Functional prerequisites may also refer to the factors that allow a society to maintain social order. According to structural functionalists, gender serves to maintain social order by providing and ensuring the stability of such functional prerequisites.

This view has been criticized for reifying, rather than reflecting, gender roles. While gender roles, according to the functionalist perspective, are beneficial in that they contribute to stable social relations, many argue that gender roles are discriminatory and should not be upheld. The feminist movement, which was on the rise at the same time that functionalism began to decline, takes the position that functionalism neglects the suppression of women within the family structure.

The Conflict Perspective

Conflict theory suggests that men, as the dominant gender, subordinate women in order to maintain power and privilege in society.

Describe gender from the view of the conflict perpective

• Conflict theory asserts that social problems occur when dominant groups mistreat subordinate ones, and thus advocates for a balance of power between genders.
• Frederich Engels compared the family structure to the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, suggesting that women had less power than men in the household because they were dependent on them for wages.
• Men, like any other group with a power or wealth advantage in Conflict Theory, fought to maintain their control over resources (in this case, political and economic power). Conflict between the two groups caused things like the Women’s Suffrage Movement and was responsible for social change.
• subordinate : To make subservient.
• dominant : Ruling; governing; prevailing; controlling.
• proletariat : the working class or lower class
• dominant group : a sociological category that holds the majority of authority and power over other social groups

According to conflict theory, society is defined by a struggle for dominance among social groups that compete for scarce resources. In the context of gender, conflict theory argues that gender is best understood as men attempting to maintain power and privilege to the detriment of women. Therefore, men can be seen as the dominant group and women as the subordinate group. While certain gender roles may have been appropriate in a hunter-gatherer society, conflict theorists argue that the only reason these roles persist is because the dominant group naturally works to maintain their power and status. According to conflict theory, social problems are created when dominant groups exploit or oppress subordinate groups. Therefore, their approach is normative in that it prescribes changes to the power structure, advocating a balance of power between genders.

In most cultures, men have historically held most of the world’s resources. Until relatively recently, women in Western cultures could not vote or hold property, making them entirely dependent on men. Men, like any other group with a power or wealth advantage, fought to maintain their control over resources (in this case, political and economic power). Conflict between the two groups caused things like the Women’s Suffrage Movement and was responsible for social change.

Friedrich Engels, a German sociologist, studied family structure and gender roles from a Marxist perspective. Engels suggested that the same owner-worker relationship seen in the labor force could also be seen in the household, with women assuming the role of the proletariat. This was due to women’s dependence on men for the attainment of wages. Contemporary conflict theorists suggest that when women become wage earners, they gain power in the family structure and create more democratic arrangements in the home, although they may still carry the majority of the domestic burden.

The Interactionist Perspective

From a symbolic interactionist perspective, gender is produced and reinforced through daily interactions and the use of symbols.

Describe gender from the view of the interactionalist perspective

• Scholars of interactionism study how individuals act within society and believe that meaning is produced through interactions.
• According to interactionists, gender stratification exists because people act toward each other on the basis of the meanings they have for each other, and that these meanings are derived from social interaction.
• According to Cooley’s concept of the “looking-glass self,” an individual’s understanding of their gender role is based on how society perceives them. Thus, if society views a man as masculine, he will also perceive himself to be masculine.
• “Doing gender” is the notion that masculinity and feminity are performed gender identities. Gender is something we do or perform, not something we are.
• femininity : the sum of all attributes that convey (or are perceived to convey) womanhood
• masculinity : the degree or property of being masculine or manly; manliness
• Charles H. Cooley : an early twentieth century sociologist who developed the idea of the “looking-glass self”

Interactionism

In sociology, interactionism is a theoretical perspective that understands social processes (such as conflict, cooperation, identity formation) as emerging from human interaction. Scholars of this perspective study how individuals act within society, and believe that meaning is produced through the interactions of individuals. According to interactionists, gender stratification exists because people act toward each other on the basis of the meanings they have for one another. Interactionists believe that these meanings are derived through social interaction, and that these meanings are managed and transformed through an interpretive process that people use to make sense of, and handle, the objects that constitute their social worlds.

Goffman and Control

Social interaction is a face-to-face process that consists of actions, reactions, and mutual adaptation between two or more individuals. The goal of social interaction is to communicate with others. Social interaction includes all language, including body language and mannerisms. Erving Goffman, one of the forefathers of this theoretical perspective, emphasized the importance of control in social interactions. According to Goffman, during an interaction, individuals will attempt to control the behavior of the other participants, in order to attain needed information, and in order to control the perception of one’s own image. If the interaction is in danger of ending before an individual wants it to, it can be conserved through several steps. One conversational partner can conform to the expectations of the other, he or she can ignore certain incidents, or he or she can solve apparent problems.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism aims to understand human behavior by analyzing the critical role of symbols in human interaction. This is certainly relevant to the discussion of masculinity and femininity, because the characteristics and practices of both are socially constructed, reproduced, and reinforced through daily interactions. Imagine, for example, that you walk into a bank, hoping to get a small loan for school, a home, or a small business venture. If you meet with a male loan officer, you might state your case logically, listing all of the hard numbers that make you a qualified applicant for the loan. This type of approach would appeal to the analytical characteristics typically associated with masculinity. If you meet with a female loan officer, on the other hand, you might make an emotional appeal, by stating your positive social intentions. This type of approach would appeal to the sensitive and relational characteristics typically associated with femininity.

Gender as Performance

The meanings attached to symbols are socially created and fluid, instead of natural and static. Because of this, we act and react to symbols based on their current assigned meanings. Both masculinity and feminity are performed gender identities, in the sense that gender is something we do or perform, not something we are . In response to this phenomena, the sociologist Charles H. Cooley’s developed the theory of the “looking-glass self” (1902). In this theory, Cooley argued that an individual’s perception of himself or herself is based primarily how society views him or her. In the context of gender, if society perceives a man as masculine, that man will consider himself as masculine. Thus, when people perform tasks or possess characteristics based on the gender role assigned to them, they are said to be doing gender (rather than “being” gender), a notion first coined by West and Zimmerman (1987). West & Zimmerman emphasized that gender is maintained through accountability. Men and women are expected to perform their gender to the point that it is naturalized, and thus, their status depends on their performance.

The Feminist Perspective

Feminist theory analyzes gender stratification through the intersection of gender, race, and class.

Explain gender stratification from the feminist perspective

• Gender stratification occurs when gender differences give men greater privilege and power over women, transgender and gender-non-conforming people.
• Feminist theory uses the conflict approach to examine the reinforcement of gender roles and inequalities, highlighting the role of patriarchy in maintaining the oppression of women.
• Feminism focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion of male supremacy.
• Intersectionality suggests that various forms of oppression– such as racism, classism, and sexism — are interrelated to form a system of oppression in which various forms of discrimination intersect. The theory was first highlighted by Kimberlé Krenshaw.
• Intersectionality suggests that various biological, social, and cultural categories– including gender, race, class, and ethnicity — interact and contribute towards systematic social inequality. Therefore, various forms of oppression do not act independently but are interrelated.
• Mary Ann Weathers drew attention to the ways in which white women face a different form of discrimination than working class women of color, who additionally must fight racism and class oppression.
• patriarchy : The dominance of men in social or cultural systems.
• Intersectionality : The idea that various biological, social, and cultural categories– including gender, race, class, and ethnicity– interact and contribute towards systematic social inequality.
• conflict theory : A social science perspective that holds that stratification is dysfunctional and harmful in society, with inequality perpetuated because it benefits the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor.

In sociology, social stratification occurs when differences lead to greater status, power, or privilege for some groups over others. Simply put, it is a system by which society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. Members of society are socially stratified on many levels, including socio-economic status, race, class, ethnicity, religion, ability status, and gender. Gender stratification occurs when gender differences give men greater privilege and power over women, transgender, and gender-non-conforming people.

Feminist theory is the extension of feminism into theoretical or philosophical discourse. It aims to understand the nature of gender inequality, and examines women’s social roles, experiences, and interests. While generally providing a critique of social relations, much of feminist theory also focuses on analyzing gender inequality and the promotion of women’s interests.

Feminist theory uses the conflict approach to examine the reinforcement of gender roles and inequalities. Conflict theory posits that stratification is dysfunctional and harmful in society, with inequality perpetuated because it benefits the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor. Radical feminism, in particular, evaluates the role of the patriarchy in perpetuating male dominance. In patriarchal societies, the male’s perspective and contributions are considered more valuable, resulting in the silencing and marginalization of the woman. Feminism focuses on the theory of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion of male supremacy.

The feminist perspective of gender stratification more recently takes into account intersectionality, a feminist sociological theory first highlighted by feminist-sociologist Kimberlé Crenshaw. Intersectionality suggests that various biological, social and cultural categories, including gender, race, class and ethnicity, interact and contribute towards systematic social inequality. Therefore, various forms of oppression, such as racism or sexism, do not act independently of one another; instead these forms of oppression are interrelated, forming a system of oppression that reflects the “intersection” of multiple forms of discrimination. In light of this theory, the oppression and marginalization of women is thus shaped not only by gender, but by other factors such as race and class.

Mary Ann Weathers demonstrates intersectionality in action in “An Argument for Black Women’s Liberation as a Revolutionary Force.” In this publication, Weathers reveals that in the twentieth century, working-class women of color embodied the notion of intersectionality. The first and second waves of the feminist movement were primarily driven by white women, who did not adequately represent the feminist movement as a whole. It was– and continues to be– important to recognize that white women faced a different form of discrimination than working class women of color, who not only had to deal with sexism, but also fought against racism and class oppression.

Contributors and Attributions

• Curation and Revision. by : Boundless.com. CC BY-SA

CC licensed content, Specific attribution

• Structural functionalism. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_functionalism%23Theory)
• Introduction to Sociology/Gender. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikibooks via en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Gender%23Structural_Functionalism)
• Gender role. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role%23Talcott_Parsons.27_view)
• Functional prerequisites. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_prerequisites)
• Division of labor. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Division%20of%20labor)
• functionalist perspective of gender inequality. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/functionalist%20perspective%20of%20gender%20inequality)
• The Functionalist Perspective. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/The%20Functionalist%20Perspective)
• All sizes | India on the road, a female constructor, India, 2001 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!. ( CC BY ; Flickr via http://www.flickr.com/photos/rahul3/2245024409/sizes/m/in/photostream/ )
• OpenStax College, Introduction to Sociology. September 17, 2013. ( CC BY ; OpenStax CNX via cnx.org/content/m42871/latest/?collection=col11407/1.2)
• Introduction to Sociology/Gender. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikibooks via en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Sociology/Gender%23Conflict_Theory)
• Boundless. ( CC BY-SA ; Boundless Learning via www.boundless.com//sociology/definition/dominant-group)
• dominant. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/dominant)
• subordinate. ( CC BY-SA ; Wiktionary via en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subordinate)
• proletariat. ( CC BY-SA ; Wiktionary via http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/proletariat )
• VictorianPostcard. ( Public Domain ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VictorianPostcard.jpg)
• Interactionism. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactionism)
• Sociology of gender. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_gender)
• masculinity. ( CC BY-SA ; Wiktionary via en.wiktionary.org/wiki/masculinity)
• femininity. ( CC BY-SA ; Wiktionary via en.wiktionary.org/wiki/femininity)
• Charles H. Cooley. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles%20H.%20Cooley)
• All sizes | lacie 15s | Flickr - Photo Sharing!. ( CC BY ; Flickr via http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigmikeyeah/7206542972/sizes/m/in/photostream/ )
• Intersectionality. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality)
• Feminist theory. ( CC BY-SA ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory%23Intersections_of_Race.2C_Class.2C_and_Gender)
• patriarchy. ( CC BY-SA ; Wiktionary via en.wiktionary.org/wiki/patriarchy)
• Boundless. ( CC BY-SA ; Boundless Learning via www.boundless.com//sociology/definition/conflict-theory)
• Gleiche Rechte Gleiche Pflichten, social democrat party poster 1919. ( Public Domain ; Wikipedia via en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gleiche_Rechte_Gleiche_Pflichten,_social_democrat_party_poster_1919.jpg)

Theories of gender inequality

Cite this chapter.

• Mark Kirby  

Part of the book series: Skills-Based Sociology ((SBS))

300 Accesses

2 Citations

By the end of this chapter you should:

be aware of a wide range of sociological theories on gender inequality;

be able to distinguish between three broad approaches to the question of gender inequality, namely sex and gender socialisation models, structural theories of patriarchy and sex and gender formation approaches;

have a critical understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach;

be aware of the variety of theories contained within each broad approach;

have practised structured exam questions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1999 Mark Kirby

About this chapter

Kirby, M. (1999). Theories of gender inequality. In: Stratification and Differentiation. Skills-Based Sociology. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14233-0_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-14233-0_7

Publisher Name : Palgrave, London

Print ISBN : 978-0-333-67191-7

Online ISBN : 978-1-349-14233-0

eBook Packages : Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies Collection Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research