If there is one important lesson you can learn as social scientists it is this: historical events never appear in isolation, but instead, are connected to previous events. In this Assignment you will develop a 6-point timelinethat shows how the counterculture movements and issues of equality were intertwined to define the 1960s. Give the timeline a descriptive title. Use footnotes or endnotes to fully describe the reason for including each item.
Submitting your Timeline
Save your timeline in a location and with a name that you will remember. When you are ready to submit it, click on the Dropbox and complete the steps below:
- Click the link that says “Submit an Assignment.”
- In the “Submit to Basket” menu, select Unit 6: Assignment.
- In the “Comments” field, include at least the title of your timeline.
- Click the “Add Attachments” button.
- Follow the steps listed to attach your timeline.
- To view your graded work, come back to the Dropbox or go to the Gradebook after your instructor has evaluated it.
Make sure that you save a copy of your submitted assignment
GENDER POWER POINT PRESENTATION – SCRIPT
Hello everyone! In this unit we will be looking at the various gender movements that came about during the 60s. Before we can do so, though, it is important that we have a clear understanding of what is meant by “gender” and how perceptions of gender impact our lives in profound ways.
For centuries, people have been intrigued with the question of what is human about human nature. How much of people’s characteristics comes from “nature” (heredity) and how much from “nuture” (the social environment; contact with others).
When we consider how females and males differ, the first thing that usually comes to mind is sex, the biological characteristics that distinguish males and females. Primary sex characteristics consist of a vagina or a penis and other organs relate to production. Secondary sex characteristics arc the physical distinctions between males and females that are not directly connected with reproduction. These characteristics become clearly evident at puberty when males develop more muscles and a lower voice. And gain more body hair and height, while females develop breasts and form more fatty tissue and broader hips.
Gender, in contrast, is a social, not a biological characteristic. Gender consists of –whatever behaviors and attitudes a group considers proper for its males and females. Consequently, gender varies from one society to another. Whereas sex refers to male or female, gender refers to masculinity or femininity. In short, you inherit your sex, but you learn your gender as you are socialized into the behaviors and attitudes your culture asserts are appropriate for your sex.
The sociological significance of gender is that it is a device by which society control its members. Gender sorts us, on the basis of sex, into different life experiences. It opens an. Loses doors to property, power, and even prestige. Like social class, gender is a structural feature of society.
To channel our behavior—including our thinking and emotions- along expected avenues, society also uses gender socialization. By expecting different attitudes and behaviors from us because we are male or female, the human group nudges “boys and girls in separate directions in life. This foundation of contrasting attitudes and behaviors is so thorough that, as adults, most of us act, think, and even feel according to our cultures guidelines of what is appropriate for our sex.
Our parents are the first significant others who teach us our role in this fundamental symbolic division of the world. Sometimes they do so consciously, perhaps by bringing into play pink and blue, colors that have no meaning in themselves but that are now associated with gender. Our parents own gender orientations have become embedded so firmly that they do most of this teaching without being aware of what they are doing.
Parents, especially fathers, encourage in children what they perceive to be gender-appropriate behaviors, fostering more independence, and competitiveness. This may result in more aggression in sons and more emotional expressiveness and gentleness in daughters.
These lessons continue throughout childhood. On the basis of their sex, children are given different kinds of toys. Boys are more likely to get guns and “action figures’ that destroy enemies. Girls are more likely to get dolls and jewelry. Some parents try to choose “gender neutral” toys, but kids know what is popular, and they feel left out if they don’t have what the other kids have. The significance of toys in gender socialization can be summarized this way: Almost all parents would be upset if someone gave their son Barbie dolls.
-Another way parents communicate gender expectations is through the household chores they assign to sons and daughters. Although some parents today resist assigning chores along traditionally gendered lines, girls are still more likely to be responsible for domestic duties such as cleaning and cooking, and boys are still more likely to be responsible for chores such as taking out the garbage, outdoor work, painting, and simple repairs.
Sociologists stress how this sorting process that begins in the family is reinforced as the child is exposed to other aspects of society. Of those other influences, one of the most powerful is the peer group, individuals of roughly the same age who are linked by common interests. Examples of peer groups are friends, classmates, and ‘the kids in the neighborhood.
Other agents of socialization include the media, the neighborhood, religion, the school, sports, and more.
Within our culture, one primary way to classify social life is through gender roles. Women are still regarded as caretakers (Wood, 1994b), and they are expected to provide most of the care for infants, elderly relatives, and others who are sick or disabled. If a child is sick, the mother is generally expected to take time from work or other activities to care for the child (Cancian & Oliker, 2000). If parents or in-laws need help, it is the daughter or daughter-in-law who is expected to, and who generally does, provide the help, regardless of the costs to her personal and professional life (Wood 1994b), Even in work outside the home, cultural views of femininity are evident. Women remain disproportionately represented in service and clerical jobs, whereas men are moved into executive positions in for-profit sectors of the economy. Women are still asked to take care of social activities on the job, but men in equivalent positions are seldom expected to do this.
Men are still regarded as the primary breadwinners for families. Men are still regarded as the heads of families even when their wives earn more money than they do. Men, more often than women, are seen as leaders and given opportunities to lead. Further, the work that men do is more highly regarded by society than is the work assigned to women.
Growing up masculine means that one is socially compelled to be successful, aggressive, sexual, self-reliant and not effeminate. To grow up feminine means that you have to be concerned with your appearance, be sensitive and caring, be a superwoman and learn to live with negative treatment by others.
There are several psychological theories as to why we form gender. The first of these is Cognitive Development Theory.
Cognitive development theory assumes that children play active roles in developing their gender identities. ^Researchers claim that children pick models to teach themselves competency in masculine or feminine behavior.
Gender constancy is the understanding that one is either male or female. Gender constancy appears to develop by age three or earlier (Dubois, Serbin, &C Derbyshire, 1998; Warm, 2000). Once gender constancy is established, children become motivated to learn how to be competent in the sex and gender assigned to them (Levy, 1998). Boys and girls identify, learn and enact on behaviors and attitudes that others consider masculine and feminine.
Same-sex models become extremely important as gauges by which young children figure out what behaviors, attitudes, and feelings go with their gender. Mothers and fathers are children’s first role models.
As children mature, they seek role models to guide them in “becoming competent at masculinity and femininity”. At young ages, boys learn that aggressiveness is masculine and leads to popularity (Good, 2000). Girls learn that it’s feminine to dress up, put on makeup, and do other things to be physically attractive (Franzoi & Koehler, 1998). Children quickly figure out gender roles.
Developed by Walter Mischel (1966) and others social learning theory claims that individuals learn to be masculine and feminine primarily by imitating others and getting responses from others to their behaviors. Children imitate the communication they see on television, films, and DVDs, as well as the communication of parents, teachers, siblings, and others. At first, young children are likely to mimic almost anything. However, people around them will reward only some of children’s behaviors, and the behaviors that are reinforced tend to be repeated. Thus, social learning suggests that others’ communication teaches boys and girls which behaviors are appropriate for them
Because children prefer rewards to punishments and neutral responses, they are likely to develop gendered patterns of behavior that others approve. As parents and others reward girls for what is considered feminine and discourage behaviors and attitudes that are masculine, they shape little girls into femininity. Similarly, as parents communicate approval to boys for behaving in masculine ways and curb them for acting feminine—for instance, for crying – they influence little boys to become masculine.
Let us now take a look at how sociologists view gender.
From a functionalist perspective, traditional gender roles would be functional for the family and for society as a whole. As you recall, functionalist theorists try to determine the functions, or uses, of the main ways in which society is organized.
Beginning in the 1940s and continuing through the 1950s, numerous sociologists employed the functionalist approach to explain aspects of the ways social groups, including families were organized. The foremost practitioner of functionalism in sociology was Talcott Parsons, whose theoretical writings profoundly influenced other sociologists.
Robert Bales, a colleague of Parsons, conducted a series of experiments with small groups, in which they were observed discussing how to go about some task. Bales claimed that in each group, one person emerged as the “instrumental” leader who led the group discussion about how to accomplish the task they had been assigned. A different person emerged as the “expressive” or “socio-emotional” leader who kept up the group’s spirit with warm, supportive remarks and jokes. This general tendency of small groups to divide the leadership tasks between two people, according to Bales, was functional in the sense that the coexistence of both kinds of leadership contributed to the performance by the group.
Parsons and Bales then leaped to the assumption that since the family was a small group, it was functional for one adult member to specialize in instrumental leadership and for the other to specialize in expressive leadership. Lo and behold, that was how the middle-class 1950s family was organized. The husband, they –wrote, was the instrumental leader because his labor provided the financial support for the family; and the stay-at-home wife was the expressive leader because she provided emotional support to her husband and children. Consequently, Par- sons and Bales argued that the breadwinner-homemaker family was well organized to fulfill the tasks that society assigned to it: providing the material goods necessary for a decent living, providing emotional support to adults, and raising children.
Also important is the distinctive perspective of symbolic interaction theory. The major figure in symbolic interaction theory was philosopher George Herbert Mead, who taught at the University of Chicago early in the twentieth century. Among all animals, only human beings, the symbolic interactionists point out, do not merely react instinctively to what others of their species do but rather interpret what others do. We interpret symbols—gestures, words, appearances—whose meanings we have come to understand. This interpretation occurs in situations in which we interact with someone. It is this process of the interpretation of symbols during social interaction that the symbolic interactionists study. Some symbols are so clear and uniform that I interpretation is straightforward; thus, we all know that the traffic officer’s raised hand, palm lacing the driver, means stop. But some symbols are harder to interpret. Symbols involving differences between women and men, it has been argued recently, are particularly problematic and in need of continual affirmation. For example, husbands who don’t want to change their babies’ diapers may make a grand display of fumbling at the changing table when called upon by their wives, thus exhibiting their male “inferiority” at the task. The interactionist perspective is also useful in analyzing situations where family relations seem less institutionalized, less set in concrete—such as in newly formed stepfamilies or dual-career marriages.lt helps sensitize us to the ways in which people create shared understandings of how family members should act toward one another These shared understandings become the bases of the social roles people play in families—spouse, parent, breadwinner, homemaker, child, and so forth.
Whereas functionalism focuses on stability and cooperation among members of a group conflict theory focuses on inequality, power, and social change. Conflict theorists study how individuals, or groups of individuals, come to dominate others and the circumstances under which those who are dominated are able to reduce or eliminate the disadvantages they face. When analyzing the family, conflict theorists see men as more powerful and women as less powerful. For example, Randall Collins states that male dominance rests on two sources of coercion: physical force and control of economic resources. In societies in which men’s use of physical force is curtailed by the state or by custom, men cannot be as dominant; nor can they be as dominant in societies in which women produce valuable goods and services outside the household. Conflict theorists have a much less favorable view of the 1950s family than did Parsons because of what they see as women’s domination by men, due, in large part, to women’s lack of economic resources.
- click here for more information on this paper
Feminist theory is a perspective developed f to better understand, and to transform, inequalities between women and men. The central concept in feminist theory is gender, which is usually defined as the social and cultural characteristics that distinguish women and men in a society Feminist theorists argue that nearly all the gender differences we see in the roles of women and men are of cultural origin and have been socially constructed. By socially constructed, they mean arising not from biological differences but rather from culturally accepted rules, from relationships of power and authority, and from differences in economic opportunities. For example, the culture might include a rule that women should not work outside the home (as was the case among the American middle class from the mid-nineteenth to the mid- twentieth centuries). Or the opportunities for women might be limited to jobs that tend to pay less than comparable jobs in which most workers are men.
Moreover, feminist theorists assert that these cultural differences are constructed in ways that maintain the power of men over women. For instance, feminist theorists criticize the idea that the breadwinner-home- maker family provided an exchange that was equally beneficial to women and men. Rather, they note that women’s direct access to money through paid employment was restricted in this type of family, which maintained women’s dependence on men. They also note that men’s relationships with their children were often limited. The cultural belief that “women’s place is in the home” and the lower wages paid to women employed outside the home compelled married women to give up the idea of paid employment. Under these constraints, their best strategy may indeed have been to trade household services for a male income; but it was a forced choice set up by a social system that favored men.
Gender inequality is not some accidental hit-or-miss affair. Rather, the institutions of each society work together to maintain the group s particular forms of inequality. Customs, often venerated throughout history, both justify and maintain these arrangements.
Around the world, gender is the primary division between people. Every society sets up barriers to provide unequal access to property, power, and prestige on —the basis of sex. The barriers always favor men-as-a-group. After reviewing the historical record, historian and feminist Gerda Lerner (1986) concluded that there is not a single society known where women-as-a-group have decision-making power over men (as a group). Consequently sociologists classify females as a minority group. Because females outnumber males, you may find this strange. The term minority group applies, however, because it refers to people who are discriminated against on the basis of physical or cultural characteristics, regardless of their numbers.
Almost 1 billion adults around the world cannot read; two-thirds are women (UNESCO 2006)
- click here for more information on this paper
Around the world, women lack equal access to national decision making. Except for Rwanda (at 49 percent), no national legislature of any country has as many women as men. In some countries, such as Kuwait and Papua New Guinea, the total is only 1 percent. In the United Arab Emirates, women still can’t vote, but, then, neither can men. In most nations, women hold about 15 percent of the seats in parliaments and congress.
In every nation, women average less pay than men. In the United States, full-time working women average only 70 percent of what men make. In some countries, women make much less than this.
Across the country, research has shown that women are twice as likely to die from a heart attack as are men. Physicians do not take the chest pains of their women patients as seriously as they take the complaints of their men patients. The physicians are ten times more likely to give men exercise stress tests and radioactive heart scans. They also send men to surgery on the basis of abnormal stress tests but wait until women show clear-cut symptoms of heart disease before sending them to surgery. Patients who have surgery after the disease is more advanced are less likely to survive. Also, male doctors are much more likely to recommend completely hysterectomies to women past childbearing years than are female doctors when alternative measures could be used. The feeling is that women don’t “need” these body parts anyway.
In education, too, a glimpse of the past sheds light on the present. Until 1832, women –were not allowed to attend college with men. When women were admitted—first at Oberlin College in Ohio—they had to remain silent at public assemblies, do the men students’ laundry, clean their rooms, and serve them their meals. Educators thought that women were less qualified for higher education because their female organs dominated their minds. Referring to menstruation, Harvard University’s Dr. Edward Clarke, expressed the dominant sentiment this way:
A girl upon whom Nature, for a limited period and for a definite purpose, imposes so great a physiological task, will not have as much power left for the tasks of school, as the boy of whom Nature requires less at the corresponding epoch.
Like out-of-fashion clothing, such ideas were discarded, and women entered college in growing numbers. By 1900, one third of college students were women. The change has been so extensive that 57 percent of today’s college students are women. Women also earn 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees and 39 percent of all master s degrees.
If we probe beneath the surface, however, we still find old practices. Women’s sports, for example, are usually considered less important than men’s sports. And whenever I attend a high school or college football or basketball, I still see a group of slender girls in short, brightly colored skirts jumping into the air and wildly cheering the boys—but there is no such group of boys leading organized cheers for the girls when they play their sports.
Then there is the matter gender tracking; that is, degrees tend to follow gender, which reinforces male—female distinctions. Here are two extremes: Men earn 94 percent of the associate degrees in the “masculine” field of construction trades, hue women are awarded 89 percent of the associate degrees in the feminine field of library science. Because gender socialization gives men and women different orientations to life, they enter college with sender- linked aspirations. It is their socialization—not some presumed innate characteristics- that channels men and women into different educational paths.
Gender inequality in everyday life is still very prominent. In general, a higher value is placed on things considered masculine, for masculinity symbolizes strength and success. In contrast, femininity is devalued, for it is perceived as representing weakness and lack of accomplishment.
Sociologist Samuel Stouffer headed a research team that produced The American Soldier (1949), a classic study of World War II combat soldiers. To motivate their men, officers used feminine terms as insults. . If a man showed less-than expected courage or endurance, an officer might say, “Whatsa matter. Bud—got lace on your drawers?” A generation later, as they trained soldiers to fight in Vietnam, officers still used accusations of femininity to motivate their men, Drill sergeants would mock their troops by saying, “Can’t hack it, little girls?” The practice continues. Male soldiers who show hesitation during maneuvers are mocked by others, who call them girls.
As insignificant as it may seem, you may have noticed that men are more likely than women to interrupt conversations. Some sociologists note that talk between a man and a woman is often more like talk between a boss and an employee than between social equals. This has profound significance.
Finally we have gender inequality and discrimination in the workplace. One of the chief characteristics of the U.S. workforce is a steady growth in the nu, of women who work for wages outside the home. In 1890 about one of every five paid workers was a woman. By 1940, this ratio had grown to one of four; by 1960 to one of three; and today it is almost one of two. The projections are that the ratio will remain 55 percent men and 45 percent women for the next few years.
-After college, you might like to take a few years off, travel around Europe, sail the oceans, or maybe sit on a beach in some South American paradise and drink pina coladas. But chances are, you are going to go to work instead. Since you have to work, how would you like to earn an extra $1,100,000 on your job? If this sounds appealing, listen up. I’m going to reveal how you can make an extra $2,300 a month between the ages of 25 and 65.
Is this hard to do? Actually, it is simple for some, but impossible for others. All you have to do is be born a male and graduate from college. If we compare full-time workers, based on current differences in earnings this is how much more .money the average male college graduate can expect to earn over the course of his career. Hardly any single factor pinpoints gender discrimination better than this total. The pay gap shows up at all levels of education.
Finally, we have sexual harassment and violence against women. Sexual harassment, the unwelcome attention at work or at school, which may affect a person’s job or school performance or create a hostile environment – was not recognized as a problem until the 1970s. Before this, women considered unwanted sexual comments, touches, looks, and pressure to have sex to be a personal matter. Central to sexual harassment is the abuse of power.
To see how far we have come, it is useful to see where w used to be. In early U.S. society, the second-class status of women was taken for granted. A husband and wife were legally one person—him. Women could not vote, buy property in their own name, make legal contracts, or serve on juries. How could things have changed so much in the last century that these examples sound like fiction?
A central lesson of conflict theory is that power yields privilege; like a magnet, power draws society’s best resources to the elite. Because men tenaciously held onto their privileges and used social institutions to maintain their position, basic rights for women came only through prolonged and bitter struggle.
- click here for more information on this paper
Feminism—the view that biology is not destiny and that stratification by gender is wrong and should be resisted—met with strong opposition, both by men who had privilege to lose and bv women who accepted their status as morally correct. In 1894, for example Jeannette Gilder said that women should not have the right to vote because “Politics is too public, too wearing and too unfitted to the nature of women.”
During the First Wave of the women’s movement, Feminists, then known as suffragists, struggled against such views. In 1916, they founded the National Women’s Party and in 1917 they began to picket the White House. His first wave of the women’s movement had a radical branch that wanted to reform all the institutions of society and a conservative branch whose concern was to win the vote for women. The conservative branch dominated, and after the right to vote was won in 1920, the movement basically dissolved. The victory of the suffragettes did not change the patterns of gender stratification.
In 1929 with the crash of the stock market and the Great Depression, people turned their thoughts to basic survival. Following close after, we had World War II and as we saw in the beginning of the term, women were brought into the workplace to take the place of the men fighting overseas. With the men returning home, they moved back into the workplace forcing the women back into the home.
In the 1950s, the women’s movement was dormant. Though many women worked outside the home, women still tended to be limited to roles that were either subordinate to those of men or part of an entirely separate sphere of “women’s work.”
As we shall be seeing during this unit, the second wave began in the 1960s. Sociologist Janet Chafetz points out that up to this time most women thought of work as a temporary activity intended to fill the rime between completing school and getting married. As more women took jobs and began to regard them as careers, however, they began to compare their working conditions with those of men. This shift in their reference group changed the way women viewed their conditions at work. The result was a second wave of protest against gender inequalities. The goals of this second wave (which continues today) are broad, ranging from raising women’s pay to changing policies on violence against women.
Many feel that a third wave of feminism is emerging. Three main aspects are apparent. The first is a greater focus on the problems of women in the Least Industrialized Nations. The second is a criticism of the values that dominate work and society. Some feminists argue that competition, toughness, calloused emotions, and independence represent “male qualities and need to be replaced with cooperation, connection, openness, and interdependence. A third aspect is the removal of impediments to women’s love and sexual pleasure. As this third wave develops, we can assume that it, too, will have its liberal and conservative branches.
I hope that you have enjoyed this presentation on gender and hope that it will broaden your understanding of why the Women’s Movement developed during the 60s. The remainder of the presentation is a visual timeline of the women’s movement as well as the gay and lesbian rights movement which also began to develop in the late 1960s. I hope you find it enlightening.
As always, if you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to ask your instructor.
(No audio for the remainder of the presentation)
- Cherlin, A. (2008). Public & private families (5 Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Henslin, J. (2008). Sociology: A down-to-earth approach (9 ed). New York:
- Kendall, D. (2007). Sociology in our times (6 ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
- Kornblum, W. (2008). Sociology in a changing world (8 ed). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth
- Wood, J. (2009). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture. Boston: