TR 11:00
Gender Stereotypes
Throughout American society, the battle of the sexes has roared for years, centuries even. People attribute certain characteristics to each gender and create ideal personas set for both males and females. But to what degree are these set personas valid? What is the basis for these stereotypes?
Men and women have constantly faced the issue of stereotypes pertaining to gender. Men are considered somewhat as authority figures and convey the ultimate masculinity. Women are of opposing stereotypes as they are associated with being the homemaker and accessories to men. Most attempt to defy these stereotypes and prove them to be inaccurate. This is evident in women especially in the 20th century. Within America, a majority of women have fought for a sense of equality among men and to prove themselves to be just as physically able and intellectual. Women’s suffrage is a strong example. During this struggle for equality, women exercised the idea that they can perform as efficiently as men in the workplace and in politics. Even throughout the Progressive Era, women faced the issue of protective laws which dictated the maximum amount of hours they could work and established a minimum wage strictly pertaining to their gender. “To ERA [Equal Rights Amendment] supporters, sex-specific protective laws defined women as weak and dependent, classified them with minors as wards of the state, limited them to low-level jobs, curtailed their earning capacity, and penalized the ambitious --- those who competed with men for work.”[i] This excerpt directly reflects the degree to which the women’s stereotype was stressed upon the gender and the intolerance women exerted.
Although seen more prominently within women, men, too, have struggled to deny the stereotype they face. Within the modern era, men have become more accustomed with femininity in itself. It is becoming widely accepted for a man to be seen as flamboyant and to possess more womanly qualities in the aspect of personality, dress, and mentality. For example, a stronger percentage of men have been seen in occupations such as nursing opposed to being doctors. Even within the media such as the cinema, it is more acceptable now for male actors to cry in their roles which in previous years would have been looked upon with heavy disapproval by society. People fight these stereotypes out of a claim for individuality. Many deny being told who they are or how they must be, although even still, research shows that people will contradict these ideas and retreat to gender stereotypes out of defense. Some women may even refuse laborious work and refute this decision with their being a woman. All of these factors lead to one question: who is truly at fault for gender stereotypes?
It is evident, in some sense, that women have been suppressed by men. Women were of the latter to receive voting rights and a position within the workplace. In this aspect, it would appear that women had no choice but to attain to this overwhelming stereotype but to what degree can one really avoid placing blame among the women themselves? The dilemma faced between the sexes is not a question of superiority, although some people have attributed it to this, but a question of the stereotypes’ origin in nature. What portion is rather self-imposed?
It is seen in many circumstances that men and women tend to hold to their stereotypes of masculinity and femininity when making decisions. This finds its roots within natural instinct and confidence levels. Although both men and women deny being held within a set category, research reveals they rather revert to gender stereotypes by the way they form and construct their decisions. These decisions immediately reflect their natural interests. These interests wholly originate from their own personal concerns stemming from their degree of masculinity and femininity.
During the time period of obtaining rights for women, they attempted to be seen as equals to men. By the term “equals,” they were not exactly proving that they could think like men, but that they may be just as efficient within the workplace and positions of authority. Within the government itself, women brought about concerns that more related to the nature of their own gender. In Eleanor Roosevelt’s essay, “Women in Politics,” she states, “During the last twenty years, government has been taking increasing cognizance of humanitarian questions, things that deal with the happiness of human beings, such as health, education, security. There is nothing, of course, to prove that this is entirely because of the women’s interest, and yet I think it is significant that this change has come about during the period when women have been exercising their franchise.”[ii] This suggests the idea that women have increased concerns related to the better of the people which undoubtedly ties to the stereotype of women being the caretakers.
One cannot deny their own innate instincts. They derive from the nature of the person themselves and because men and women are of obvious different nature, these instincts will vary. Roosevelt identifies that the concerns previously mentioned are “undoubtedly tied up with women’s biological functions.”[iii] Women are the mothers of all. They bring about the children and are attributed a natural love for them. This love can be rather expanded as women are more sensitive to the nature of life and are given an overall concern for all human beings. The maternal instinct within women heavily influences their decisions as seen within many government reforms following women’s rights. While women are granted the maternal instinct of love and sensitivity to humanity, men rather first develop pride which must eventually evolve into love and devotion. Men approach challenges initially with their pride in mind compared to women who are directed by their heartfelt nature.[iv]
During the Progressive Era, the City Club of Chicago, composed of only male figures, and the Women’s City Club of Chicago faced many challenges in reforms as a result of this opposition in nature. Different instincts produce different interests. As men identify their interests through their innate pride, it is understandable that they would lean towards a business related view. Maureen Flanagan, a professor of history at Michigan State University, states that when it came to the dilemma of how to collect and dispose of garbage, the women “favored both municipal control over and incineration of garbage on the grounds that they would maximize the healthiness of the urban environment.” They “told the men of the City Club that it was wrong to think of garbage removal as a business rather than a question of health and sanitation” as they had, in fact, been approaching the situation.[v] The men made their decisions based on economical standards and followed paths that would prove beneficial in their own personal and government interests. The women believed trash collection should be focused on the better of the people. They believed it should be evolved out of the people's convenience, affordability, and health standards.
The Women’s City Club of Chicago also followed this form of thinking when educational reforms were called to attention. They “also supported vocational education but of a different type and for different means and ends [than that of the men]. These women used no rhetoric about the productivity and advancement of industrial society. They were concerned instead with the fate of the individual child within the school and industrial work systems.”[vi] This instance supports the idea that women’s decisions stem from their maternal instinct. A male’s natural role is to protect the well being of their person and family. A male is territorial. In the circumstances of the time period of the City Club of Chicago, this role has not necessarily changed but has assimilated within the conditions currently standing. Out of nature, the men were looking towards the betterment of their own status. The place of government was their sense of territory and so their decisions derived out of business and economics with intentions to benefit government.
Differences in decision-making among genders not only involve the origination of these decisions, but the way decisions are asserted. Through research over gender-based differences regarding economics such as retirement assess allocation, Kathleen Arano, an assistant professor of economics at Fort Hays State University, states, “our estimates imply that women faculty are more risk aversive than their male spouse”[vii] meaning they are more conservative in their decisions. Men are less risk aversive which can be again associated with their natural instinct of pride. This pride leads to a slight sense of superiority which adds to their confidence when making decisions. “Women tend to have less work experience than men”[viii] leading to a shrinking confidence in the decisions they make. This has been attributed to them as a result of the stereotypical roles of men and women. Men are the provider and women tend to their household duties. Therefore, the workplace is generally more foreign to women than men leading to a sense of uncertainty. This lesser sense of familiarity with the economic environment leads to their inability to fully explore the works of economics. They invest less of their wealth in risky assets. In married households, the roles allocated to each spouse could be another reason for this. The husband typically holds the responsibility of addressing factors as such.
It is also seen that within economical decision-making, social mood is a strong factor that shapes these decisions for men and women. Ling-Ling Chang, a professor at the National Chiao Tung University in Taiwan, explains, “Women, in general, are more risk aversive, more pessimistic, and have less investment confidence than men.”[ix] Women’s emotions provide a stronger influence upon their own person compared to men which directly ties the logic in these findings. “When it comes to decision making, women tend to take more factors into consideration than men do before taking any action.”[x] Men survey factors less before making a decision as a result of their natural pride. It does not appear as a necessity from their perspective because their pride provides some internal justification in their actions.
Chang states, “When the predicted decision outcome is positive, there is a greater possibility for women to underestimate upcoming opportunities. Voelz (1985) believed that an individual’s risk attitude was affected by his/her social role; men are more confident than women in risk evaluation and decision making, and are sometimes overconfident. Lenney (1977) pointed out that confidence levels in men and women depend on how individuals think after making a decision. If the certainty level is low and the outcome is vague, women will tend to underestimate their own capabilities.”[xi] Women underestimate their abilities out of consequence of their appointed stance in society. As they have been suppressed and stereotyped as unable to make a typical man’s decisions, they are given the characteristic of second guessing themselves and lacking confidence. Strangely enough, as a result of their stereotype, women are furthering the justification of that stereotype. It is rather a counteractive and counterproductive process.
Also, “women react more intensely when feeling threatened or frightened; when emotions are heightened by social pressure, attitude about and actions associated with risky decisions are more conservative than those of men in similar situations.”[xii] This reinforces the female stereotype of being weaker in some sense and the male figure is attributed a more dominant and stereotypical masculinity.
It is seen that although many attempt to stray from the gender stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, people unconsciously stand within a category when making decisions. One cannot deny the natural force of instinct within the gender themselves. Research ultimately reveals that nature triumphs will regardless of one’s determination.
Works Cited Page
[i] Woloch, Nancy. Muller v. Oregon: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Series in History and Culture, 1990. Print, 58.
[ii] Polenberg, Richard. "Eleanor Roosevelt: Women in Politics." The Era of Franklin D. Roosevelt 1933-1945: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Series in History and Culture, 2000. Print, 104.
[iii] Polenberg, 106.
[iv] Polenberg, 106.
[v] Maureen Flanagan. “Gender and Urban Political Reform: The City Club and the Woman’s City Club of Chicago in the Progressive Era,” in Who Were the Progressives?, ed. Glenda Gilmore. New York: Bedford Books, 2002. Print, 201-202.
[vi] Flanagan, 203.
[vii] Arano, Kathleen; Parker, Carl; Terry, Rory. Gender-based Risk Aversion and Retirement Asset Allocation. Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2010. Print, 147.
[viii] Arano, 147.
[ix] Chang, Ling-Ling. "Gender differences in Optimism: evidence from Yahoo Kimo Taiwan’s Business News Poll Centre." Social Behavior and Personality. Taiwan: Society for Personality Research, 2010. Print, 61.
[x] Chang, 62.
[xi] Chang, 62.
[xii] Chang, 63.
