Theory

Feminist Theory is an international peer reviewed journal that provides a forum for critical analysis and constructive debate within feminism. Feminist Theory is genuinely interdisciplinary and reflects the diversity of feminism, incorporating perspectives from across the broad spectrum of the humanities and social sciences and the full range of feminist political and theoretical stances.

Gender roles refer to the set of social and behavioral norms that are considered to be socially appropriate for individuals of a specific sex in the context of a specific culture, which differ widely between cultures and over time. There are differences of opinion as to whether observed gender differences in behavior and personality characteristics are, at least in part, due to cultural or social factors, and therefore, the product of socialization experiences, or to what extent gender differences are due to biological and physiological differences.[1] Views on gender-based differentiation in the workplace and in interpersonal relationships have often undergone profound changes as a result of feminist and/or economic influences, but there are still considerable differences in gender roles in almost all societies. It is also true that in times of necessity, such as during a war or other emergency, women are permitted to perform functions which in "normal" times would be considered a male role, or vice versa. Gender has several definitions. It usually refers to a set of characteristics that are considered to distinguish between male and female, reflect one's biological sex, or reflect one's gender identity. Gender identity is the gender(s), or lack thereof, a person self-identifies as; it is not necessarily based on biological sex, either real or perceived, and it is distinct from sexual orientation. It is one's internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman (or a boy or girl).[2] There are two main genders: masculine (male), or feminine (female), although some cultures acknowledge more genders. Androgyny, for example, has been proposed as a third gender.[3] Some societies have more than five genders,[4] and some non-Western societies have three genders man, woman and third gender.[5] Gender expression refers to the external manifestation of one's gender identity, through "masculine," "feminine," or gender-variant or gender neutral behavior, clothing, hairstyles, or body characteristics.[2]

Contents
[hide]

1 Gender role theory o 1.1 Social construction of gender difference 2 Talcott Parsons' view 3 Socialization o 3.1 Homogenization vs. ethnoconvergence difference 4 Anthropology and evolution 5 Changing roles 6 Culture o 6.1 Religion 7 Marriage 8 Communication o 8.1 Communication and gender cultures o 8.2 Communication styles 9 Gender stereotypes o 9.1 Communication and sexual desire

10 Transgenderism 11 Feminism 12 Terminology 13 Sexual orientation o 13.1 The role of ideology in enculturation 14 Criminal justice o 14.1 In prison 15 See also 16 References 17 External links

[edit] Gender role theory

Gender role theory posits that boys and girls learn the appropriate behavior and attitudes from the family and overall culture they grow up with, and so non-physical gender differences are a product of socialization. Social role theory proposes that the social structure is the underlying force for the gender differences. Social role theory proposes that the sex-differentiated behavior is driven by the division of labor between two sexes within a society. Division of labor creates gender roles, which in turn, lead to gendered social behavior. The physical specialization of the sexes (Eagly et al., 2004) is considered to be the distal cause of gender roles. Mens unique physical advantages in terms of body size and upper body strength provided them an edge over women in those social activities that demanded such physical attributes such as hunting, herding and warfare. On the other hand, womens biological capacity for reproduction and child-bearing is proposed to explain their limited involvement in other social activities. Such divided activity arrangement for the purpose of achieving activity-efficiency led to the division of labor between sexes. Social role theorists have explicitly stressed that the labor division is not narrowly defined as that between paid employment and domestic activities, rather, is conceptualized to include all activities performed within a society that are necessary for its existence and sustainability. The characteristics of the activities performed by men and women became people's perceptions and beliefs of the dispositional attributes of men or women themselves. Through the process of correspondent inference (Gilbert, 1998), division of labor led to gender roles, or gender stereotype. Ultimately, people expect men and women who occupy certain position to behave according to these attributes. These socially constructed gender roles are considered to be hierarchical and characterized as a male-advantaged gender hierarchy (Wood & Eagly, 2002). The activities men were involved in were often those that provided them with more access to or control of resources and decision making power, rendering men not only superior dispositional attributes via correspondence bias (Gilbert, 1998), but also higher status and authority as society progressed. The particular pattern of the labor division within a certain society is a dynamic process and determined by its specific economical and cultural characteristics. For instance, in an industrial economy, the emphasis on physical strength in social activities becomes less compared with that in a less advanced economy. In a low birth rate society, women will be less confined to reproductive activities and thus more likely to be involved in a wide range of social activities. The beliefs that people hold about the sexes are derived from observations of

the role performances of men and women and thus reflect the sexual division of labor and gender hierarchy of the society (Eagly et al., 2000). The consequences of gender roles and stereotypes are sex-typed social behavior (Eagly et al., 2004) because roles and stereotypes are both socially shared descriptive norms and prescriptive norms. Gender roles provide guides to normative behaviors that are typical, ought-to-be and thus likely effective for each sex within certain social context. Gender roles also depict ideal, should-be, and thus desirable behaviors for men and women who are occupying a particular position or involving in certain social activities. Put is another way, men and women, as social beings, strive to belong and seek for approval by complying and conforming to the social and cultural norms within their society. The conformity to social norms not only shapes the pattern, but also maintains the very existence of sex-typed social behavior (Eagly et al., 2004). In summary, social role theory treats these differing distributions of women and men into roles as the primary origin of sex-differentiated social behavior, their impact on behavior is mediated by psychological and social processes (Eagly, 1997), including developmental and socialization processes, as well as by processes involved in social interaction (e.g., expectancy confirmation) and self-regulation (Eagly et al., 2004).

[edit] Social construction of gender difference

This[who?] perspective proposes that gender difference is socially constructed (see Social construction of gender difference). Social constructionism of gender moves away from socialization as the origin of gender differences; people do not merely internalize gender roles as they grow up but they respond to changing norms in society.[6] Children learn to categorize themselves by gender very early on in life. A part of this is learning how to display and perform gendered identities as masculine or feminine. Boys learn to manipulate their physical and social environment through physical strength or other skills, while girls learn to present themselves as objects to be viewed.[7] Children monitor their own and others gendered behavior. Gender-segregated children's activities creates the appearance that gender differences in behavior reflect an essential nature of male and female behavior.[8] Judith Butler,[9] in works such as Gender Trouble and Undoing Gender, contends that being female is not "natural" and that it appears natural only through repeated performances of gender; these performances in turn, reproduce and define the traditional categories of sex and/or gender. A social constructionist view looks beyond categories and examines the intersections of multiple identities, the blurring of the boundaries of essentialist categories. This is especially true with regards to categories of male and female that are typically viewed by others as binary and opposites of each other. By deconstructing categories of gender, the value placed on masculine traits and behaviors disappears. However, the elimination of categories makes it difficult to make any comparisons between the genders or to argue and fight against male domination.

[edit] Talcott Parsons' view

Working in the United States, Talcott Parsons[10] developed a model of the nuclear family in 1955, which at that place and time was the prevalent family structure. It compared a strictly traditional view of gender roles (from an industrial-age American perspective) to a more liberal view.

The Parsons model was used to contrast and illustrate extreme positions on gender roles. Model A describes total separation of male and female roles, while Model B describes the complete dissolution of gender roles.[11] (The examples are based on the context of the culture and infrastructure of the United States.) Model A Total role segregation Model B Total integration of roles Gender-specific education; high Co-educative schools, same content of professional qualification is important classes for girls and boys, same Education only for the man qualification for men and women. The workplace is not the primary area For women, career is just as important of women; career and professional as for men; equal professional Profession advancement is deemed unimportant opportunities for men and women are for women necessary. Housekeeping and child care are the primary functions of the woman; All housework is done by both parties Housework participation of the man in these to the marriage in equal shares. functions is only partially wanted. In case of conflict, man has the last Neither partner dominates; solutions do say, for example in choosing the not always follow the principle of Decision place to live, choice of school for finding a concerted decision; status quo making children, buying decisions is maintained if disagreement occurs. Woman takes care of the largest part of these functions; she educates Man and woman share these functions Child care and education children and cares for them in every equally. way However, these extreme positions are rarely found in reality; actual behavior of individuals is usually somewhere between these poles. The most common 'model' followed in real life in the United States and Britain is the 'model of double burden' (See Gender roles and feminism below).[citation needed] According to the interactionist approach, roles (including gender roles) are not fixed, but are constantly negotiated between individuals. In North America and southern South America, this is the most common approach among families whose business is agriculture. Gender roles can influence all kinds of behaviors, such as choice of clothing, choice of work and personal relationships, e.g., parental status (See also Sociology of fatherhood).

[edit] Socialization

Roundhouse wipers at lunch, Chicago & North Western Railroad, 1943. Women took on men's jobs during World War II in the USA and elsewhere. The process through which the individual learns and accepts roles is called socialization. Socialization works by encouraging wanted and discouraging unwanted behavior. These sanctions by agents of socialization such as the family, schools, and the media make it clear to the child what is expected of the child by society. Mostly, accepted behavior is not produced by outright reforming coercion from an accepted social system. In some other cases, various forms of coercion have been used to acquire a desired response or function.

[edit] Homogenization vs. ethnoconvergence difference

It is claimed[by whom?] that even in monolingual, industrial societies like much of urban North America, some individuals do cling to a "modernized" primordial identity, apart from others and with this a more diverse gender role is recognized or developed. Some intellectuals, such as Michael Ignatieff, argue that convergence of a general culture does not directly entail a similar convergence in ethnic, social and self identities. This can become evident in social situations, where people divide into separate groups by gender roles and cultural alignments, despite being of an identical "super-ethnicity", such as nationality.

Changing norms of socialization: Louis XV in 1712, wearing the customary clothes of unbreeched boys, would be considered "cross-dressed" in the 21st century. Within each smaller ethnicity, individuals may tend to see it perfectly justified to assimilate with other cultures including sexuality and some others view assimilation as wrong and incorrect for their culture or institution. This common theme, representing dualist opinions of ethnoconvergence itself, within a single ethnic or common values groups is often manifested in issues of sexual partners and matrimony, employment preferences, etc. These varied opinions of ethnoconvergence represent themselves in a spectrum; assimilation, homogenization, acculturation, gender identities and cultural compromise are commonly used terms for ethnoconvergence which flavor the issues to a bias. Often it is in a secular, multi-ethnic environment that cultural concerns are both minimalized and exacerbated; Ethnic prides are boasted, hierarchy is created ("center" culture versus "periphery") but on the other hand, they will still share a common "culture", and common language and behaviors. Often the elderly, more conservative-in-association of a clan, tend to

reject cross-cultural associations, and participate in ethnically similar community-oriented activities.

[edit] Anthropology and evolution

The idea that differences in gender roles originate in differences in biology has found support in parts of the scientific community. 19th-century anthropology sometimes used descriptions of the imagined life of paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies for evolutionary explanations for gender differences. For example, those accounts maintain that the need to take care of offspring may have limited the females' freedom to hunt and assume positions of power. More recently, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have explained those differences in social roles by treating them as adaptations. This approach, too, is considered controversial. Due to the influence of (among others) Simone de Beauvoir's feminist works and Michel Foucault's reflections on sexuality, the idea that gender was unrelated to sex gained ground during the 1980s, especially in sociology and cultural anthropology. This view claims that a person could therefore be born with male genitals but still be of feminine gender. In 1987, R.W. Connell did extensive research on whether there are any connections between biology and gender role[12] and concluded that there were none. However, there continues to be debate on the subject. Simon Baron-Cohen, a Cambridge Univ. professor of psychology and psychiatry, claims that "the female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, while the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems." Dr. Sandra Lipsitz Bem is a psychologist who developed the gender schema theory to explain how individuals come to use gender as an organizing category in all aspects of their life. It is based on the combination of aspects of the social learning theory and the cognitivedevelopment theory of sex role acquisition. In 1971, she created the Bem Sex Role Inventory to measure how well you fit into your traditional gender role by characterizing your personality as masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated. She believed that through gender-schematic processing, a person spontaneously sorts attributes and behaviors into masculine and feminine categories. Therefore, an individual processes information and regulate their behavior based on whatever definitions of femininity and masculinity their culture provides.[13] The current trend in Western societies toward men and women sharing similar occupations, responsibilities and jobs suggests that the sex one is born with does not directly determine one's abilities[citation needed]. While there are differences in average capabilities of various kinds (E.g. physical strength) between the sexes[citation needed], the capabilities of some members of one sex will fall within the range of capabilities needed for tasks conventionally assigned to the other sex. In addition, research at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center has also shown that gender roles may be biological among primates. Yerkes researchers studied the interactions of 11 male and 23 female Rhesus monkeys with human toys, both wheeled and plush. The males played mostly with the wheeled toys while the females played with both types equally.[14] Psychologist Kim Wallen has, however, warned against overinterpeting the results as the color and size of the toys may also be factors in the monkey's behavior.[15]

[edit] Changing roles

A person's gender role is composed of several elements and can be expressed through clothing, behaviour, choice of work, personal relationships and other factors. These elements are not concrete and have evolved through time (for example women's trousers). Traditionally only feminine and masculine gender roles existed, however, over time many different acceptable male or female gender roles have emerged. An individual can either identify themselves with a subculture or social group which results in them having diverse gender roles. Historically, for example, eunuchs had a different gender role because their biology was changed.

A woman publicly witnessing at a Quaker meeting seemed an extraordinary feature of the Religious Society of Friends, worth recording for a wider public. Engraving by Bernard Picart, ca 1723. Androgyny, a term denoting the display of both male and female behaviour, also exists. Many terms have been developed to portray sets of behaviors arising in this context. The masculine gender role in the West has become more malleable since the 1950s. One example is the "sensitive new age guy", which could be described as a traditional male gender role with a more typically "female" empathy and associated emotional responses. Another is the metrosexual, a male who adopts or claims to be born with similarly "female" grooming habits. Some have argued that such new roles are merely rebelling against tradition more so than forming a distinct role. However, traditions regarding male and female appearance have never been concrete, and men in other eras have been equally interested with their appearance. The popular conceptualization of homosexual men, which has become more accepted in recent decades, has traditionally been more androgynous or effeminate, though in actuality homosexual men can also be masculine and even exhibit machismo characteristics. One could argue that since many homosexual men and women fall into one gender role or another or are androgynous, that gender roles are not strictly determined by a person's physical sex. Whether or not this phenomenon is due to social or biological reasons is debated. Many homosexual people find the traditional gender roles to be very restrictive, especially during childhood. Also, the phenomenon of intersex people, which has become more publicly accepted, has caused much debate on the subject of gender roles. Many intersexual people identify with the opposite sex, while others are more androgynous. Some see this as a threat to traditional gender roles, while others see it as a sign that these roles are a social construct, and that a change in gender roles will be liberating.

According to sociology research, traditional feminine gender roles have become less relevant in Western society since industrialization started[citation needed]. For example, the clich that women do not follow a career is obsolete in many Western societies. On the other hand, the media sometimes portrays women who adopt an extremely classical role as a subculture. Women take on many roles that were traditionally reserved for men, as well as behaviors and fashions, which may cause pressure on many men to be more masculine and thus confined within an even smaller gender role, while other men react against this pressure. For example, men's fashions have become more restrictive than in other eras, while women's fashions have become more broad. One consequence of social unrest during the Vietnam War era was that men began to let their hair grow to a length that had previously (within recent history) been considered appropriate only for women. Somewhat earlier, women had begun to cut their hair to lengths previously considered appropriate only to men. Some famous people known for their androgynous appearances in the 20th century include Brett Anderson, Gladys Bentley, David Bowie, Pete Burns, Boy George, Norman Iceberg, k.d. lang, Annie Lennox, Jaye Davidson, Marilyn Manson, Freddie Mercury, Marlene Dietrich, Mylne Farmer, Gackt, Mana (musician), Michael Jackson, Grace Jones, Marc Bolan, Brian Molko, Julia Sweeney (as Pat), Genesis P-Orridge, Prince and Kristen McMenamy.

[edit] Culture

The world turned upside down, by Israhel van Meckenem the Younger. The wife is holding the sceptre and the man is spinning. Ideas of appropriate behavior according to gender vary among cultures and era, although some aspects receive more widespread attention than others. R.W. Connell in Men, Masculinities and Feminism claims: "There are cultures where it has been normal, not exceptional, for men to have homosexual relations. There have been periods in 'Western' history when the modern convention that men suppress displays of emotion did not apply at all, when men were demonstrative about their feeling for their friends. Mateship in the Australian outback last century is a case in point."

Other aspects, however, may differ markedly with time and place. In the Middle Ages, women were commonly associated with roles related to medicine and healing.[16] Due to the rise of witch-hunts across Europe and the institutionalization of medicine, these roles eventually came to be monopolized by men.[16] In the last few decades, however, these roles have become largely gender-neutral in Western society.[17] The elements of convention or tradition seem to play a dominant role in deciding which occupations fit in with which gender roles. In the United States, physicians have traditionally been men, and the few people who defied that expectation received a special job description: "woman doctor". Similarly, there were special terms like "male nurse", "woman lawyer", "lady barber", "male secretary," etc. But in the former Soviet Union countries, medical doctors are predominantly women, and in Germany and Taiwan it is very common for all of the barbers in a barber shop to be women. Also, throughout history, some jobs that have been typically male or female have switched genders. For example, clerical jobs used to be considered a men's jobs, but when several women began filling men's job positions due to World War II, clerical jobs quickly became dominated by women. It became more feminized, and women workers became known as "typewriters" or "secretaries". There are many other jobs that have switched gender roles. Many jobs are continually evolving as far as being dominated by women or men. In Western society, people whose gender appears masculine are sometimes ridiculed for exhibiting what the society regards as a woman's gender role[citation needed]. For instance, someone with a masculine voice, a five o'clock shadow (or a fuller beard), an Adam's apple, etc., wearing a woman's dress and high heels, carrying a purse, etc., would most likely draw ridicule or other unfriendly attention in ordinary social contexts (the stage and screen excepted[18]). It is seen by some in that society that such a gender role for a man is not acceptable.[19] The traditions of a particular culture often direct that certain career choices and lifestyles are appropriate to men, and other career choices and lifestyles are appropriate to women. In recent years, many people have strongly challenged the social forces that would prevent people from taking on non-traditional gender roles, such as women becoming fighter pilots or men becoming stay-at-home fathers. Men who defy or fail to fulfill their expected gender role are often called effeminate. In modern western societies, women who fail to fulfill their expected gender roles frequently receive only minor criticism for doing so.[citation needed]

[edit] Religion
Some Conservative Christian congregations enforce the rule set forth in 1 Corinthians 11:4 and 5 that, in praying or prophesying, no man should cover his head, but that every woman should cover hers. I Corinthians, 11:14 and 15 indicates that it is inappropriate for a man to wear his hair long, and good for a woman to wear her hair long.

[edit] Marriage
In the USA, single men are greatly outnumbered by single women at a ratio of 100 single women to every 86 single men,[20] though never-married men over age 15 outnumber women by a 5:4 ratio (33.9% to 27.3%) according to the 2006 US Census American

Community Survey. This very much depends on age group, with 118 single men per 100 single women in their 20s, versus 33 single men to 100 single women over 65.[21] The numbers are different in other countries. For example, China has many more young men than young women, and this disparity is expected to increase.[22] In regions with recent conflict such as Chechnya, women may greatly outnumber men. In a cross-cultural study by David Buss, men and women were asked to rank certain traits in order of importance in a long-term partner. Both men and women ranked "kindness" and "intelligence" as the two most important factors. Men valued beauty and youth more highly than women, while women valued financial and social status more highly than men.[23]

[edit] Communication
Masculine and feminine cultures and individuals generally differ in how they communicate with others. For example, feminine people tend to self-disclose more often than masculine people, and in more intimate details. Likewise, feminine people tend to communicate more affection, and with greater intimacy and confidence than masculine people. Generally speaking, feminine people communicate more and prioritize communication more than masculine. Traditionally, masculine people and feminine people communicate with people of their own gender in different ways. Masculine people form friendships with other masculine people based on common interests, while feminine people build friendships with other feminine people based on mutual support. However, both genders initiate opposite-gender friendships based on the same factors. These factors include proximity, acceptance, effort, communication, common interests, affection and novelty. Context is very important when determining how we communicate with others. It is important to understand what script it is appropriate to use in each respective relationship. Specifically, understanding how affection is communicated in a given context is extremely important. For example, masculine people expect competition in their friendships. They avoid communicating weakness and vulnerability. They avoid communicating personal and emotional concerns. Masculine people tend to communicate affection by including their friends in activities and exchanging favors. Masculine people tend to communicate with each other shoulder-to-shoulder (e.g. watching sports on a television).[citation needed] In contrast, feminine people do not mind communicating weakness and vulnerability. In fact, they seek out friendships more in these times. For this reason, feminine people often feel closer to their friends than masculine people do. Feminine people tend to value their friends for listening and communicating non-critically, communicating support, communicating feelings of enhances self-esteem, communicating validation, offering comfort and contributing to personal growth. Feminine people tend to communicate with each other face-to-face (e.g. meeting together to talk over lunch). Communicating with a friend of the opposite gender is often difficult because of the fundamentally different scripts that masculine people and feminine people use in their friendships. Another challenge in these relationships is that masculine people associate

physical contact with communicating sexual desire more than feminine people. Masculine people also desire sex in their opposite-gender relationships more than feminine people. This presents serious challenges in cross-gender friendship communication. In order to overcome these challenges, the two parties must communicate openly about the boundaries of the relationship.

[edit] Communication and gender cultures

A communication culture is a group of people with an existing set of norms regarding how they communicate with each other. These cultures can be categorized as masculine or feminine. Other communication cultures include African Americans, older people, Indian Native Americans, gay men, lesbians, and people with disabilities.[24] Gender cultures are primarily created and sustained by interaction with others. Through communication we learn about what qualities and activities our culture prescribes to our sex. While it is commonly believed that our sex is the root source of differences and how we relate and communicate to others, it is actually gender that plays a larger role.[24] Whole cultures can be broken down into masculine and feminine, each differing in how they get along with others through different styles of communication. Julia T. Wood's studies explain that "communication produces and reproduces cultural definitions of masculinity and femininity."[24] Masculine and feminine cultures differ dramatically in when, how and why they use communication

[edit] Communication styles

Deborah Tannens studies found these gender differences in communication styles (where men more generally refers to masculine people, and women correspondingly refers to feminine people):[25]

Men tend to talk more than women in public situations, but women tend to talk more than men at home. Women are more inclined to face each other and make eye contact when talking, while men are more likely to look away from each other. Men tend to jump from topic to topic, but women tend to talk at length about one topic. When listening, women make more noises such as mm-hmm and uh-huh, while men are more likely to listen silently. Women are inclined to express agreement and support, while men are more inclined to debate.

The studies also reported that in general both genders communicated in similar ways. Critics, including Suzette Haden Elgin, have suggested that Tannen's findings may apply more to women of certain specific cultural and economic groups than to women in general. Although it is widely believed that women speak far more words than men, this is actually not the case. Julia T. Wood[24] describes how "differences between gender cultures infuse communication." These differences begin at childhood. Maltz and Brokers[26] research showed that the games children play contribute to socializing children into

masculine and feminine cultures. For example, girls playing house promotes personal relationships, and playing house does not necessarily have fixed rules or objectives. Boys, however, tended to play more competitive team sports with different goals and strategies. These differences as children make women operate from assumptions about communication and use rules for communication that differ significantly from those endorsed by most men. Wood produced the following theories regarding gender communication:

Misunderstandings stem from differing interaction styles Men and women have different ways of showing support, interest and caring Men and women often perceive the same message in different ways Women tend to see communication more as a way to connect and enhance the sense of closeness in the relationship Men see communication more as a way to accomplish objectives Women give more response cues and nonverbal cues to indicate interest and build a relationship Men use feedback to signal actual agreement and disagreement For women, "ums" "uh-huhs" and "yeses" simply mean they are showing interest and being responsive For men, these same responses indicate is agreement or disagreement with what is being communicated For women, talking is the primary way to become closer to another person For men, shared goals and accomplishing tasks is the primary way to become close to another person Men are more likely to express caring by doing something concrete for or doing something together with another person Women can avoid being hurt by men by realizing how men communicate caring Men can avoid being hurt by women by realizing how women communicate caring Women who want to express caring to men can do so more effectively by doing something for them or doing something with them Men who want to express caring to women can do so more effectively by verbally communicating that they care Men emphasize independence and are therefore less likely to ask for help in accomplishing an objective Men are much less likely to ask for directions when they are lost than women Men desire to maintain autonomy and to not appear weak or incompetent Women develop identity within relationships more than men Women seek out and welcome relationships with others more than men Men tend to think that relationships jeopardize their independence For women, relationships are a constant source of interest, attention and communication For men, relationships are not as central The term "Talking about us" means very different things to men and women Men feel that there is no need to talk about a relationship that is going well Women feel that a relationship is going well as long as they are talking about it Women can avoid being hurt by realizing that men don't necessarily feel the need to talk about a relationship that is going well Men can help improve communication in a relationship by applying the rules of feminine communication

Women can help improve communication in a relationship by applying the rules of masculine communication Just as Western communication rules wouldn't necessarily apply in an Asian culture, masculine rules wouldn't necessarily apply in a feminine culture, and vice versa. Finally, Wood describes how different genders can communicate to one another and provides six suggestions to do so. 1. Individuals should suspend judgment. When a person finds his or herself confused in a cross-gender conversation, he or she should resist the tendency to judge and instead explore what is happening and how that person and their partner might better understand each other. 2. Recognize the validity of different communication styles. Feminine tendency to emphasize relationships, feelings and responsiveness does not reflect inability to adhere to masculine rules for competing any more than masculine stress on instrumental outcomes is a failure to follow feminine rules for sensitivity to others. Wood says that it is inappropriate to apply a single criterion - either masculine or feminine - to both genders' communication. Instead, people must realize that different goals, priorities and standards pertain to each. 3. Provide translation cues. Following the previous suggestions helps individuals realize that men and women tend to learn different rules for interaction and that it makes sense to think about helping the other gender translate your communication. This is especially important because there is no reason why one gender should automatically understand the rules that are not part of his or her gender culture. 4. Seek translation cues. Interactions can also be improved by seeking translation cues from others. Taking constructive approaches to interactions can help improve the opposite gender culture's reaction. 5. Enlarge your own communication style. By studying other culture's communication we learn not only about other cultures, but also about ourselves. Being open to learning and growing can enlarge one's own communication skills by incorporating aspects of communication emphasized in other cultures. According to Wood, individuals socialized into masculinity could learn a great deal from feminine culture about how to support friends. Likewise, feminine cultures could expand the ways they experience intimacy by appreciating "closeness in doing" that is a masculine specialty. 6. Wood reiterates again, as her sixth suggestion, that individuals should suspend judgment. This concept is incredibly important because judgment is such a part of Western culture that it is difficult not to evaluate and critique others and defend our own positions. While gender cultures are busy judging other gender cultures and defending themselves, they are making no headway in communicating effectively. So, suspending judgment is the first and last principle for effective cross-gender communication.

[edit] Gender stereotypes

See also: stereotypes Stereotypes create expectations regarding emotional expression and emotional reaction. Many studies find that emotional stereotypes and the display of emotions "correspond to actual gender differences in experiencing emotion and expression."[1] Stereotypes generally dictate how and by whom and when it is socially acceptable to display an emotion. Reacting in a stereotype-consistent manner may result in social approval while reacting in a stereotype-inconsistent manner could result in disapproval. It should be noted that what is socially acceptable varies substantially over time and between local cultures and subcultures. According to Niedenthal et al.:[2]

Women are more emotionally expressive. Women are more emotionally responsive. Women are more empathetic. Women are more sensitive to others' feelings. Women are more obsessed with having children. Women express their feelings without constraint, except for the emotion of anger. Women pay more attention to body language. Women judge emotions from nonverbal communication better than men do. Women express more love, fear, and sadness. Women laugh, gaze, and smile more. Women anticipate negative consequences for expressing anger and aggression.

Men are more obsessed with sex. Men are overwhelmed by women's expressions of emotion. Men express more anger. Men are stoic. Men show emotion to communicate dominance.

Virginia Woolf, in the 1920s, made the point: "It is obvious that the values of women differ very often from the values which have been made by the other sex. Yet it is the masculine values that prevail" (A Room of One's Own, N.Y. 1929, p. 76). Sixty years later, psychologist Carol Gilligan was to take up the point, and use it to show that psychological tests of maturity have generally been based on masculine parameters, and so tended to show that women were less 'mature'. She countered this in her ground-breaking work, In a Different Voice, (Harvard University Press, 1982), holding that maturity in women is shown in terms of different, but equally important, human values.

[edit] Communication and sexual desire

Mets, et al.[27] explain that sexual desire is linked to emotions and communicative expression. Communication is central in expressing sexual desire and "complicated emotional states," and is also the "mechanism for negotiating the relationship implications of sexual activity and emotional meanings." Gender differences appear to exist in communicating sexual desire. For example, masculine people are generally perceived to be more interested in sex than feminine people, and research suggests that masculine people are more likely than feminine people to express their sexual interest. This can be attributed to masculine people being less inhibited by social norms for expressing their desire, being more aware of their sexual desire or succumbing to the expectation of their gender culture. When feminine people employ tactics to show their sexual desire, they are typically more indirect in nature. Various studies show different communication strategies with a feminine person refusing a masculine person's sexual interest. Some research, like that of Murnen,[28] show that when feminine people offer refusals, the refusals are verbal and typically direct. When masculine people do not comply with this refusal, feminine people offer stronger and more direct refusals. However, research from Perper and Weis[29] showed that rejection includes acts of avoidance, creating distractions, making excuses, departure, hinting, arguments to delay, etc. These differences in refusal communication techniques are just one example of the importance of communicative competence for both masculine and feminine gender cultures.

[edit] Transgenderism
Main article: Transgender As long as a person's perceived physiological sex is consistent with that person's gender identity, the gender role of a person is so much a matter of course in a stable society that people rarely even think of it. Only in cases where an individual has a gender role that is inconsistent with his or her sex will the matter draw attention. Some people mix gender roles to form a personally comfortable androgynous combination or violate the scheme of gender roles completely, regardless of their physiological sex. People who are transgender have a gender identity or expression that differs from the sex which they were assigned at birth.[2] The Preamble of The Yogyakarta Principles cite the idea of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women that "States must take measures to seek to eliminate prejudices and customs based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of one sex or on stereotyped roles for men and women." for the rights of transgender people.

[edit] Feminism
Main article: Feminism

For approximately the last 100 years women have been fighting for the same rights as men (especially around the turn from 19th to 20th century with the struggle for women's suffrage and in the 1960s with second-wave feminism and radical feminism) and were able to make changes to the traditionally accepted feminine gender role. However, most feminists today say there is still work to be done. Numerous studies and statistics show that even though the situation for women has improved during the last century, discrimination is still widespread: women earn an average of 77 cents to every one dollar men earn ("The Shriver Report", 2009), occupy lower-ranking job positions than men, and do most of the housekeeping work.[30] There are several reasons for the wage disparity. Studies have indicated that many jobs that were traditionally perceived as "masculine" usually have longer hours, necessitate long periods of exposure to the elements, are higher risk, and require a fair amount of physical strength[citation needed]. A recent (October 2009) report from the Center for American Progress, "The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything" tells us that women now make up 48% of the US workforce and "mothers are breadwinners or cobreadwinners in a majority of families" (63.3%, see figure 2, page 19 of the Executive Summary of The Shriver Report).[31] A recent article in The New York Times indicated that gender roles are still prevalent in many upscale restaurants. A restaurant's decor and menu typically play into which gender frequents which restaurant. Whereas Cru, a restaurant in New York's, Greenwich Village, "decorated in clubby brown tones and distinguished by a wine list that lets high rollers rack up breathtaking bills," attracts more men than women, places like Mario Batali's, Otto, serves more women than men, as a result that the restaurant has been "designed to be more approachable, with less swagger." Servers of both men and women at the same table still often go with the assumption that the male is the go-to person, as far as who receives the check and makes the wine decisions, but this appears to be a trend that is being used with more caution, especially with groups of younger people. Restaurants that used to cater to more men or women are now also trying to change their decor in the hopes of attracting broader equity.[32]

[edit] Terminology
Note that many people consider some or all of the following terms to have negative connotations.

A male adopting (or who is perceived as adopting) a female gender role might be described as effeminate, foppish, or sissy. Even more pejorative terms include mollycoddled, milksop, sop, mamma's boy, namby-pamby, pansy, frufru, girlie-boy, girlie-man, and nancy boy. A female adopting (or who is perceived as adopting) a male role might be described as butch, a dyke, a tomboy, or as an amazon (See amazon feminism). More pejorative terms include battleaxe.

[edit] Sexual orientation

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2010) Wikinews has related news: RuPaul speaks about society and the state of drag as performance art The demographics of sexual orientation in any population is difficult to establish with reasonable accuracy. However, some surveys suggest that a greater proportion of men than women report that they are exclusively homosexual, whereas more women than men report being bisexual.[33] Studies have suggested that heterosexual men are only aroused by images of women, whereas some women who claim to be heterosexual are aroused by images of both men and women.[34] However, different methods are required to measure arousal for the anatomy of a man versus that of a woman. Traditional gender roles include male attraction to females, and vice versa. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people, among others, usually don't conform to these expectations. An active conflict over the cultural acceptability of nonheterosexuality rages worldwide. (See Societal attitudes towards homosexuality.) The belief or assumption that heterosexual relationships and acts are "normal" is described largely by the opponents of this viewpoint as heterosexism or in queer theory, heteronormativity. Gender identity and sexual orientation are two separate aspects of individual identity, although they are often mistakenly conflated in the media.[2] Perhaps it is an attempt to reconcile this conflict that leads to a common assumption that one same-sex partner assumes a pseudo-male gender role and the other assumes a pseudo-female role. For a gay male relationship, this might lead to the assumption that the "wife" handled domestic chores, was the receptive sexual partner during sex, adopted effeminate mannerisms, and perhaps even dressed in women's clothing. This assumption is flawed, as many homosexual couples tend to have more equal roles, and the effeminate behavior of some gay men is usually not adopted consciously, and is often more subtle.[citation needed] Feminine or masculine behaviors in some homosexual people might be a product of the socialization process, adopted unconsciously due to stronger identification with the opposite sex during development. The role of both this process and the role of biology is debated. The existence of these separate identities (dominant masculine vs. more passive feminine), where present, can establish the dynamics of the relationship, according to the heterosexual patterns; this is not always the case, especially in relationships with less clearly defined sexual/identity roles. A related assumption is that all androphilic people, including gay men, should or do adopt feminine mannerisms and other gender-role elements, and that all gynophilic people, including lesbians, should or do adopt masculine mannerisms and other gender-

role elements; it is unclear how bisexuality fits into this framework, but it can be assumed they have a tendency towards both gender roles as they do in sexuality, towards both sexes. However, this idea is based on generalizations of homosexual people, which tend to be biased, as feminine gays and masculine lesbians are more widely visible than masculine gays or feminine lesbians. Some same-sex domestic partners also challenge traditional gender roles in their division of household responsibilities. Cohabitating couples with same-sex partners are typically egalitarian when they assign domestic chores[35] . Sometimes these couples assign traditional female responsibilities to one partner and traditional male responsibilities to the other, but non-traditional divisions of labor are also quite common. Gender roles within homosexual relationships are more flexible.[36] For instance, cleaning and cooking, traditionally both female responsibilities, might be assigned to different people. Carrington (1999) observed the daily home lives of 52 gay and lesbian couples and found that the length of the work week and level of earning power substantially affected the assignment of housework, regardless of gender or sexuality.[37] Cross-dressing is often restricted to festive occasions, though people of all sexual orientations routinely engage in various types of cross-dressing either as a fashion statement or for entertainment. Distinctive styles of dress, however, are commonly seen in gay and lesbian circles. These fashions sometimes emulate the traditional styles of the opposite gender (For example, lesbians who wear t-shirts and boots instead of skirts and dresses, or gay men who wear clothing with traditionally feminine elements, including displays of jewelry or coloration), but others do not. Fashion choices also do not necessarily align with other elements of gender identity. Some fashion and behavioral elements in gay and lesbian culture are novel, and do not really correspond to any traditional gender roles, such as rainbow jewelry or the gay techno/dance music subculture. In addition to the stereotypically effeminate one, another significant gay male subculture is homomasculinity, emphasizing certain traditionally masculine or hypermasculine traits. (See Sexuality and gender identity-based cultures) The term dyke, commonly used to mean lesbian, sometimes carries associations of a butch or masculine identity, and the variant bulldyke certainly does. Other gender-role-charged lesbian terms include lipstick lesbian, chapstick lesbian, and Stone Femme. "Butch," "femme," and novel elements are also seen in various lesbian subcultures. External social pressures may lead some people to adopt a persona which is perceived as more appropriate for a heterosexual (For instance, in an intolerant work environment) or homosexual (for instance, in a same-sex dating environment), while maintaining a somewhat different identity in other, more private circumstances. The acceptance of new gender roles in Western societies, however, is rising.[38] However, during childhood and adolescence, gender identities which differ from the norm are often the cause of ridicule and ostracism, which often results in psychological problems. Some are able to disguise their differences, but others are not. Even though much of society has become more tolerant, gender roles are still very prevalent in the emotionally charged world of

children and teenagers, which makes life very difficult for those who differ from the established norms. See also: Straight acting

[edit] The role of ideology in enculturation

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (May 2008) This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (July 2008) High levels of agreement on the characteristics different cultures to males and females reflects consensus in gender role ideology. The Netherlands, Germany, Finland, England and Italy are among the most egalitarian modern societies concerning gender roles, whereas the most traditional roles are found in Nigeria, Pakistan, India, Japan, and Malaysia.[39] Men and women cross-culturally rate the ideal self as more masculine than their self.[40] Women in nomadic, high-foodaccumulator cultures are more likely to have their work honored and respected than those in sedentary, agricultural societies.[41] US females are more conforming to others than are males.[citation needed] Men use more rational-appearing aggression than women, while women use more social manipulation than men do.[42] This is related to, but not solely determined by, age and hormones though some researchers would suggest that women are not necessarily less aggressive than men but tend to show their aggression in more subtle and less overt ways (Bjorkqvist et al. 1994, Hines and Saudino 2003). Male aggression may be a "gender marking" issue breaking away from the instruction of the mother during adolescence. Native American gender roles depend on the cultural history of the tribe.[43]

[edit] Criminal justice

A number of studies conducted since the mid-90s have found direct correlation between a female criminals ability to conform to gender role stereotypes, particularly murder committed in self-defense, and the severity of their sentencing.[44][45][46][47]

[edit] In prison
This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)

The following tendencies have been observed in U.S. prisons - not internationally. Gender roles in male prisons go further than the "Don't drop the soap"-joke. The truth is that some prisoners, either by choice or by force, take on strict 'female roles' according to prison set guidelines. For instance, a 'female' in prison is seen as timid, submissive, passive, and a means of sexual pleasure. When entering the prison environment some inmates "turn out" on their own free will, meaning they actively pursue the 'female role' in prison to gain some form of social power and/or prestige. Other, unlucky inmates, are forced to partake in 'female role' activities through coercion; the most common means being physical abuse. The inmates that are forced to "turn out" are commonly referred to as "punks". Other terms used to describe 'female' inmates are "girls", "kids", and "gumps". Some of the labels may be used as a means of describing one's ascribed status. For example, a "kid" is one that is usually dominated by their owner, or "daddy". The "daddy" is usually one with a high social status and prestige within the prison (E.g. gang leader). The "female" gender role is constructed through the mirror image of what the inmates perceive as a male. For instance, inmates view men as having strength, power, prestige, and an unyielding personality. However, the inmates don't refer to the female guards, who have power and prestige over the inmates, as males. The female guards are commonly referred to as "dykes", "ditch lickers", and lesbians. These roles are also assumed in female prisons.[48] Women who enter prison society often voluntarily enter into lesbianism, as a means of protection from gangs or stronger females. In doing so, they will take on the submissive role to a dominant female in exchange for that dominating female keeping them safe. Those who do not enter voluntarily into lesbianism might at one time or another be group raped, to introduce them into that circle, and sometimes they will be referred to as sheep, meaning anyone can have them. It is to avoid that status that most female inmates choose a mate, or allow themselves to be chosen as a mate, which can make them available to only a minimal number of partners during their incarceration, as opposed to a large number. So, in a sense, an inmate undergoes a "female role" in the prison system either by choice or by yielding to excessive coercion, and it is that yielding that terms the once male inmates as "females", and which identifies the stronger females in a female prison system as "males".[48]

Communicating gender

Contents
Preface 1 DOING GENDER Doing and Displaying Gender Gender in Cross-Disciplinary Perspective The World of Words: Communicating Gender Through Language Language: Loaded Weapon or Broken Tool? Multiple Jeopardy: Gender, Race, and Class Exercises and Discussion Questions Annotated Bibliography and Suggestions for Further Reading 2 BOYS WILL BE BOYS? In the First Person Masculine The Female Eunuch: The Second Sex? Sex and Gender: What's the Difference? Thank God I Am Not a Woman Changing the Subject Genes, Gender, and Social Policy: The Difference That Difference Makes Exercises and Discussion Questions Annotated Bibliography and Suggestions for Further Reading 3 WHAT'S GENDER GOT TO DO WITH GRAMMAR? A Brief Herstory of Gender in Grammar xi 1 1 6 15 20 23 28 29 31 33 35 41 49 53 57 61 62 65

CHAPTER 1 Doing Gender

Language is part of man's nature, he did not create it. We are always inclined to imagine naively that there was some period in the beginning when a fully evolved man discovered someone else like him, equally evolved, and between the two of them language gradually took shape. This is pure fiction. We can never reach man separated from language, and we can never see him inventing it. We can never reach man reduced to himself, and thinking up ways of conceptualizing the existence of someone else. What we find in the world are men endowed with speech, speaking to other men, and language gives the clue to the very definition of man. ( Benveniste, 1971, p. 224)

DOING AND DISPLAYING GENDER

Our biological sex is determined at birth by factors beyond our control, yet being born male or female is probably the most important feature of our lives. The first question generally asked about a new born baby is whether it is a boy or girl, just as the first thing we notice when we see someone for the first time is whether the person is male or female. Almost every official form we fill out requires us to say whether we are male or female. Physical appearance, dress, behavior, and language provide some of the most important means of identifying ourselves daily to others as male or female. When we see a baby dressed in pink with a frilly bonnet, we conclude it must be a girl. Even though unisex fashions have made gender boundaries increasingly less rigid, gender is still one of the most visible human traits; 80% of U.S. 2-year-olds can readily distinguish males from females on the basis of purely cultural cues like hairstyle and clothing.

These clues are gender displays or indexes, whose surface manifestations may alter culturally and historically. Such displays may also be intertwined with and reinforced by other distinctions--for example, titles like Miss or Mrs., which mark someone not only as female, but also as single or married, or by different items of clothing worn by girls/boys, or married/unmarried women. Among the Bedouins of the Egyptian western desert, for example, married women wear black veils and red belts, whereas unmarried girls wear kerchiefs on their heads and around their waists. Gender is thus an inherently communicative process. Not only do we communicate gender in these ways, but we also "do it" with our words. Because we construct and enact gender largely through discourse, this book is about the crucial role of language in particular and communication more generally in doing gender and displaying ourselves as gendered beings. If we hear someone talking about children named Tommy and Jimmy, we assume they are boys. When we read about scientists in the newspapers, most of us still have mental images of men, even though there are now many women scientists. When we hear someone describe a color as "baby blue," "carnation pink," "lavender," or "mauve," we imagine the speaker to be a woman rather than a man. When most people read a newspaper headline Doctor seduced patient, they assume the doctor is male and the patient, female (see chap. 4 for further analysis). When you read the opening epigraph to this chapter about language being part of "man's nature," did you think of women being included or excluded? Did "man" create language? The use of the term man instead of a more gender-neutral term such as human(s), humanity, people, and so on obscures women's contributions to language and its evolution. Yet even seemingly gender-neutral terms such as person, member of society, and so forth are often still interpreted as masculine by default, as in this example from sociolinguist William Labov ( 1972a, p. xiii), where he urged linguists to turn their attention to studying "language as it is used in everyday life by members of the social order, that vehicle of communication in which they argue with their wives, joke with their friends, and deceive their enemies." Nowadays, such usage would be called "sexist" and many publishing houses have specific guidelines telling authors how to avoid language that either excludes women or stereotypes them in negative ways. These are conscious choices we as language users can make, and thanks to several decades of feminist reform, decisions not to make them increasingly stand out. During O. J. Simpson's trial in Los Angeles the courtroom paused to consider whether a male defense attorney was being sexist when he accused a female prosecuting attorney of acting "hysterical" (see chap. 2). Conversely, to accuse a male of hysteria (or being a wimp), as the press did George Bush in his unsuccessful campaign for reelection to the presidency in 1992, was to suggest he was effeminate and therefore unfit for the office. In many areas of public life so-called "gender-neutral" language now prevails. University departments now have chairpersons or chairs, and some restaurants have waitpersons or waitrons (see chap. 10). Challenging naming practices symbolic of male possession and dominance of women, such as titles like Mrs./Miss, are part of women's linguistic revolt. The claim that language is sexist is by no means new. In 1895 Elizabeth Cady Stanton rewrote the Bible to highlight the unjust ways in which women were spoken and written about. Nearly a hundred years later Dale Spender ( 1980a) brought the association between language and patriarchy to the media's attention with the claim that language is man-made. Similarly, Robin Lakoff's ( 1975) arguments about the political implications of what she called "women's language" put the study of women and language on the map. Lakoff showed how language served to keep women in their place. Women inherit their subordinate place as each new generation inherits sexist words. Dictionaries, grammars, and even artificial languages

have been made primarily by men. What if language were "woman-made" instead of man-made? (See chap. 10 for discussion of feminist dictionaries.) There is still no agreement on the question of whether language is sexist, and if so, wherein the origins of its sexism lie, or on the directions reform should take. Languages may vary in terms of the amount and type of sexism they display, which implies they will require different types of reform. Although English-speaking feminists have paid critical attention to language, it has been at the very heart of the French feminist debate. If the world is constructed and given meaning through language and language is "man-made," then our history, philosophy, government, laws, and religion are products of a male way of perceiving and organizing the world. Because this knowledge has been transmitted for centuries, it appears "natural," "objective," a "master" discourse beyond question. Language thus holds the key to challenging and changing male hegemony. If women's oppression has deep linguistic roots, then any and all representations, whether of women, men, or any other group, are embedded first in language, and then in politics, culture, economics, history, and so on. This is at least one interpretation I make of Donna Haraway ( 1991, p. 3) claim that "grammar is politics by other means." Howard Bloch ( 1991, p. 4) pointed to the central role of language when he said, "misogyny is a way of speaking about, as distinct from doing something to women." Within the approach I take here, I would claim, unlike Bloch, that speaking about as well as to women in a misogynistic way is equivalent to doing something harmful to them. The harm done does not need to be physical, but can arise from the creation of a hostile verbal environment. Indeed, this view now receives support from legal definitions of the term sexual harassment (see chaps. 7 and 8). In a 1984 report on women in the courts Robert N. Wilentz, then Chief Justice of New Jersey, noted: -3There's no room for the funny joke and the not-so-funny joke, there's no room for conscious, inadvertent, sophisticated, clumsy, or any other kind of gender bias, and there's certainly no room for gender bias that affects substantive rights. There's no room because it hurts and it insults. It hurts . . . psychologically and economically. (cited in Troemel-Ploetz, 1991, pp. 455456) Yet we needn't speak in words in order to do harm. A popular perfume advertisement showed a woman wearing a miniskirt and high heels (and presumably also the fragrance being advertised). The caption read: "Make a statement without saying a word." The proverbial expression about a picture being worth a thousand words applies here. The ad glamorizes the woman as a sexual object, suggesting her availability, and how her attractiveness can be enhanced if she but wears the right perfume. The ad also conveys the message that a woman's appearance and her scent communicate her sexual intent. She does not need to say anything: Her consent is implied in the way she dresses and the perfume she is being urged to put on. She has "asked for it" without saying anything (see chaps. 8 and 9). In focusing attention on gender as a dynamic process that people index, do, display, communicate, or perform, gender itself has become a verb. This active view of gender is also consistent with bell hooks's preference for talking about "women's movement" (or "feminist movement") without the definite article, rather than "the women's movement," to emphasize activity and becoming rather than static being. Likewise, Judith Butler's ( 1993) notion of performance is central to the idea of gender as something we do (see chap. 2). Both talk and actions can be gendered. Although we sometimes think of communication in a narrow sense as being focused on language in its spoken, written, or even signed forms, my approach in this

book takes a much broader view. Conversations, newspapers, television, advertisements, scientific and academic journals, literature, popular music, and movies are all forms of communication that send messages about as well as shape our understandings of gender. They are in effect all languages or discourses of gender involving more than words; they may include gestures or "body language," images, and ways of dressing. When we see or hear gender being indexed or displayed through any channel of communication, our stereotypes may be activated. Gender stereotypes are sets of beliefs about the attributes of men or women, such as that men are stronger and more aggressive, women are passive, talk more than men, and so on. Stereotypes are often associated with and not easily separated from other salient variables such as race, class, culture, age, context, and so forth. Stereotypes about how men and women speak reveal insights into our attitudes about what men and women are like or what we think they are supposed to be like. Perceived gender differences are often the result of these stereotypes about such differences, rather than the -4-