2A. Sex and Gender

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following.

• Differentiate between sex and gender.

• Compare and contrast the biological characteristics of males and females.

• Define gender socialization.

• Define gender roles.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SEX AND GENDER?

When it comes to significant social factors in the world, sex and gender top the list. Sex is one’s biological classification as male or female and is set into motion at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. Sex can be precisely defined at the genetic level with XX being female and XY being male. Believe it or not, there are very few sex differences based on biological factors. Even though male and female are said to be opposite sexes, biologically there is no opposite sex. Look at Table 1 below to see sex differences. For the sake of argument, ignore the reproductive differences and you basically see taller, stronger, and faster males. The real difference is the reproductive body parts, their function, and corresponding hormones. The average U.S. woman has about two children in her lifetime. She also experiences a monthly menstrual cycle. Other than that and a few more related issues listed in Table 1, reproductive roles are a minor difference in the overall daily lives of women, yet so very much importance has been placed on these differences throughout history.

Table 1: Known Biological Sex Differences.

We have much more in common than differences. In Table 2 you see a vast list of similarities common to both men and women. Every major system of the human body functions in very similar ways to the point that health guidelines, disease prevention and maintenance, and even organ transplants are very similar and guided under a large umbrella of shared guidelines. True, there are medical specialists in treating men and women, but again the similarities outweigh the differences. Today you probably ate breakfast, took a shower, walked in the sunlight, sweated, slept, used the bathroom, was exposed to germs and pathogens, grew more hair and longer fingernails, exerted your muscles to the point that they became stronger, and felt and managed stress. So did every man and woman you know and in very similar ways.

Answer this question, which sex has Estrogen, Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Luteinizing Hormone, Prolactin, mammary glands, nipples, and even Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (at times)? Yes, you probably guessed correctly. Both males and females have all these hormones, plus many others including testosterone.

List of Known Biological Sex Similarities.

• Digestive System

• Respiratory System

• Circulatory System

• Lymphatic System

• Urinary System

• Musculoskeletal System

• Nervous System

• Endocrine System

• Sensory System-5

• Immune System

• Integumentary System- Skin, Hair, and Nails

• Excretory System

Not only are males and females very similar, but science has shown that we truly are more female than male in biological terms. So, why the big debate of the battle of the sexes? Perhaps it’s because of the impact of gender (the cultural definition of what it means to be a man or a woman). Gender is culturally-based and varies in a thousand subtle ways across the many diverse cultures of the world. Gender has been shaped by political, religious, philosophical, language, tradition and other cultural forces for many years. Gender roles are also socially and culturally-based and are that set of norms that are attached to a specific gender. Gender identity is our personal internal sense of our own maleness or femaleness. Every society has a slightly different view of what it means to be male/masculine and female/feminine. Masculine traits are those we associate with being male, such as aggressiveness, directness, independence, objectiveness, and leadership. Feminine traits are being talkative, submissive, nurturing, emotional, and illogical. Androgyny is when a person shares both masculine and feminine traits. They fit their behavior to the situation.

To this day, in most countries of the world women are still oppressed and denied access to opportunities more than men and boys. This can be seen through many diverse historical documents. When reading these documents, we can see that the most common theme of how women were historically oppressed in the world’s societies is the omission of the reality that women are and always should have been legally, biologically, economically, and spiritually equal with men. The second most common theme is the assumption that women were somehow broken versions of men (Patton, 1898).

Biology has disproved the belief that women are broken versions of men. In fact, the 23rd chromosome looks like XX in females and XY in males and the Y looks more like an X with a missing leg than a Y. Ironically, science has shown that males are broken or variant versions of females and the more X traits males have the better their health and longevity.

DEBUNKING MYTHS ABOUT WOMEN

In Table 1 you saw how females carry the lion’s share of the biological reproduction of the human race. Since history assumed that women were impaired because of their reproductive roles (men were not), societies have defined much of these reproductive traits as hindrances to activities.

For example, in an old home health guide from the year 1898, the country’s best physicians had very inaccurate information and knowledge about the human body and how it worked (Patton, 1898). Interestingly, pregnancy was considered “normal” within most circumstances while menstruation was seen as a type of disease process that had to be treated (back then and today most physicians were men). The guide refers to menstrual problems as being “unnatural” and that they are normal only if “painless” and thus the patient should be treated rather than the “disease.” Indeed from a male scientific perspective in 1898, females and their natural reproductive cycles were problematic.

To the author of the guide, females were more fragile and vulnerable and should be treated more carefully than males especially during puberty. Patton states, “The fact is that the girl has a much greater physical and a more intense mental development to accomplish than the boy…” As for public education, he states that “The boy can do it; the girl can—sometimes…” He attributes most of the female sexual and reproductive problems to public school which is a by-product of “women’s rights.”

He’d probably be stunned to see modern medicine’s discoveries today. In our day, women are not defined as being inferior in comparison to men. But, in 1898, a physician (source of authority and scientific knowledge) had no reservations about stating the cultural norm in print, that women were considered broken in contrast to men.

Gender Socialization is the shaping of individual behavior and perceptions in such a way that the individual conforms to the socially prescribed expectations for males and females. One has to wonder what might have been different if all women were born into societies that valued their uniqueness and similarities in comparison to men. How much further might civilizations have progressed? It is wise to avoid the exclusion of any category of people—based on biological or other traits—from full participation in the development of knowledge and progress in society. In the history of the world, such wisdom has been ignored far too often.

GENDER ROLES AS A SOCIAL FORCE

One can better understand the historical oppression of women by considering three social factors throughout the world’s history: religion, tradition, and labor-based economic supply and demand. In almost all of the world’s major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and many others) very clear distinctions have been made about gender roles which are socialized expectations of what is normal, desirable, acceptable, and conforming for males and females in specific jobs or positions in groups and organizations over the life course. These gender roles have very specific meanings for the daily lives and activities of males and females who live under the religious cultures in nations throughout history and even in our day. The Book of Leviticus in the Judeao-Christian Old Testament has many biological rituals based specifically on womens’ hygiene (Adams, 2000). No modern-day scientific support for these religious rituals on female’s health nor on their reproduction has been found. These were religious codes of conduct, not biologically-based scientifically beneficial codes.

Many ancient writings in religions refer to the flaws of females, their reproductive disadvantages, their temperament, and the rules that should govern them in the religious community. Many current religious doctrines have transformed as society’s values of gender equality have emerged.

The point is that throughout history, religions were a dominant social force in many nations and the religious doctrines, like the cultural values, often placed women in a subjugated role to men and a number of different levels.

The second social force is tradition. Traditions can be and have been very harsh toward women. Table 3 shows a scale of the outcomes of oppression toward women that have and currently do exist somewhere in the world. Even though the average woman outlives the average man by three years worldwide and seven years in developed countries, there are still a few countries where cultural and social oppression literally translates into shorter life expectancies for women (Niger, Zambia, Botswana and Namibia have lower death rates for women while Kenya, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, and Micronesia have a tie between men and women’s life expectancy).

Some cultural traditions are so harsh that females are biologically trumped by males from a variety of inequalities; withholding nutrition, abandoning wives and daughters, abuse, neglect, violence, refugee status, diseases, and complications of childbirth unsupported by the government. If you study this online by looking at the Population Reference Bureau’s many links and reports, you will find a worldwide concerted effort to persuade government, religious, and cultural leaders to shift their focus and efforts to nurture and protect females (Population Reference Bureau, n.d.-a). Progress has already been made to some degree, but much change is still warranted because life, health and well-being are at stake for billions of women worldwide.

• Death from cultural and social oppression (Various Countries)

• Sexual and other forms of slavery (Western Africa and Thailand)

• Maternal deaths (Sub-Saharan Africa and developing nations)

• Female Genital Mutilation (Mid- Africa, about 120 million victims)

• Rape and sexual abuse (South Africa and United States are worst countries)

• Wage disparity (worldwide)

• No/low education for females (various degrees in most countries of the world)

• Denial of access to jobs and careers (many developing nations)

• Mandatory covering of females’ bodies head to toe (Traditional countries, Muslim nations)

• Public demeaning of women (still practiced, public and private)

One of the most repugnant traditions in our world has been and still is the sale of children and women into sexual and other forms of slavery. Countless civilizations that are still influential in our modern thought and tradition have sold girls and women the same way one might sell a horse or cow. It’s estimated by a variety of organizations and sources that about one million women are currently forced into the sex slavery industry (boys are also sold and bought into slavery). India, Western Africa, and Thailand are some of the most notorious regions for this atrocity. Governments fail at two levels in the sexual slavery trade first, they allow it to occur as in the case of Thailand where it’s a major draw of male tourists and second, they fail to police sexual slavery which is criminal and often connected to organized crime. The consequences to these girls and women are harsh at every level of human existence and are often connected to the spread of HIV and other communicable diseases.

Although pregnancy is not a disease, it carries with it many health risks when governments fail to provide resources to expecting mothers before, during, and after delivery of their baby. Maternal Death is the death of a pregnant woman resulting from pregnancy, delivery, or recovery complications. Maternal deaths number in the hundreds of thousands and are estimated by the United Nations to be around ½ million per year worldwide (United Nations, n.d.). Typically, very little medical attention is required to prevent infection, mediate complications, and assist in complications to mothers. To answer this problem one must approach it at the larger social level with government, health care systems, economy, family, and other institutional efforts. The Population Reference Bureau puts a woman’s risk of dying from maternal causes at 1 in 92 worldwide with it being as low as 1 in 6,000 in developed countries and as high as 1 in 22 for the least developed regions of the world (Population Reference Bureau, n.d.-b). The PRB reports “little improvement in maternal Mortality in developing countries.

Female Genital Mutilation is the traditional cutting, circumcision, and removal of most or all external genitalia of women for the end result of closing off some or part of the vagina until such time that the woman is married and cut open. In some traditions, there are religious underpinnings. In others, there are customs and rituals that have been passed down. In no way does the main body of any world religion condone or mandate this practice—many countries where this takes place are predominantly Muslim—yet local traditions have corrupted the purer form of the religion and its beliefs and female genital mutilation predates Islam (United Nations, 2008). An analogy can be drawn from the Taliban, which was extreme in comparison to most Muslims worldwide and which literally practiced homicide toward its females to enforce conformity. It should also be explained that there are no medical therapeutic benefits from female genital mutilation. Quite the contrary, there are many adverse medical consequences that result from it including pain, difficulty in childbirth, illness, and even death.

Many human rights groups, the United Nations, scientists, advocates, the United States, the World Health Organization, and other organizations have made aggressive efforts to influence the cessation of this practice worldwide. But, progress has come very slowly. Part of the problem is that women often perform the ritual and carry on the tradition as it was perpetrated upon them. In other words, many cases have women preparing the next generation for it and at times performing it on them.

The mandatory covering of females’ bodies head to toe has been opposed by some and applauded by others. Christians, Hindus, and many other religious groups have the practice of covering or veiling in their histories. As fundamentalist Muslim nations and cultures have returned to their much more traditional way of life, hijab which is the Arabic word that means to cover or veil has become more common. Often hijab means modest and private in the day-to-day interpretations of the practice. For some countries it is a personal choice, while for others it becomes a crime not to comply. The former Taliban, punished such a crime with death (they also punished formal schooling of females and the use of makeup by death).

Many women’s rights groups have brought public attention to this trend, not so much because the mandated covering of females is that oppressive, but because the veiling and covering is symbolic of the religious, traditional, and labor-forced patterns of oppression that have caused so many problems for women and continue to do so today.

The public demeaning of women has been acceptable throughout various cultures because publicly demeaning members of society who are privately devalued and or considered flawed fits the reality of most day-to-day interactions. Misogyny is the physical or verbal abuse and mistreatment of women. Verbal misogyny is unacceptable in public in most Western Nations today. As was mentioned above, most of the world's historical leaders assumed that women were not as valuable as men and it has been a few decades since changes have begun. Yet, an even more sinister assumption today is that women were the totality of their reproductive role, or Sex=Gender (Biology=Culture). If this were true then women would ultimately just be breeders of the species, rather than valued human beings they are throughout the world today.

RAPE

Rape is not the same as sex. Rape is violence and is dangerous, destructive, and more likely to happen in the United States than in most other countries of the world. There are 195 countries in the world today. The U.S. typically is among the worst five percent in terms of rape (yes, that means 95% of the world’s countries are safer for women than the U.S.). Consecutive studies performed by the United Nations Surveys on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems confirm that South Africa is the most dangerous, crime-ridden nation on the planet in all crimes including rape (United Nations, 2008).

The world’s histories with very few exceptions have recorded the pattern of sexually abusing boys, girls, and women. Slavery, conquest of war, kidnapping, assault, and other circumstances are the context of these violent practices. Online there is a Website at www.rainn.org which is a tremendous resources for knowledge and information especially about rape, assault, incest and issues relating to the United States. The United Nations reported that, “Women aged 15-44 are more at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, motor accidents, war and malaria,” according to World Bank data (White, n.d.). The UN calls for a criminal Justice System response and for increased prioritization and awareness. Anything might help since almost every country of the world is struggling to prevent sexual violence and rape against its females.

OPPORTUNITIES

Wage disparity between males and females is both traditional and labor-based economic supply and demand. Statistics show past and current discrepancies in lower pay for women. Diane White made a 1997 presentation to the United Nations General Assembly stating that “Today the wage disparity gap cost American women $250,000 over the course of their lives (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.-a).” Indeed, evidence supports her claim that women are paid less in comparison to men and their accumulated losses add up to staggering figures. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2008 that U.S. women earn 77 cents for every U.S. man’s $1 (The World’s Women 2005, n.d.). They also reported that in some places like Washington DC and in certain fields (like computers and mathematics) women earn as much as 98 cents per a man’s $1. At the worldwide level “As employees, women are still seeking equal pay with men. Closing the gap between women’s and men’s pay continues to be a major challenge in most parts of the world.”(Progress and Statistics, n.d.) The report also discussed the fact that about 60 countries have begun to keep statistics on informal (unpaid) work by women. Needless to say, even though measuring paid and unpaid work of women is not as accurate as needed for world considerations, “Women contribute to development not only through remunerated work but also through a great deal of unremunerated work.”(The World’s Women 2005, n.d.)

Why the lower wages for women? The traditional definition of the reproductive roles of women as being broken, diseased, or flawed is part of the answer of wage disparity. The idea that reproductive roles interfere with the continuity of the workplace and the idea that women cannot be depended on plays heavily into the maltreatment of women. The argument can be made that traditional and economic factors have led to the existing patterns of paying women less for their same education, experience, and efforts compared to men.

Efforts to provide formal education to females worldwide have escalated over the last few decades. The 2002 Kids Count International Data Sheet estimated rates as low as 11 percent of females in primary school in Somalia (Progress and Statistics, n.d.). A 1993 World Bank report made it very clear that females throughout the world were being neglected in receiving their formal education when compared to males (Population Reference Bureau, 2008). In 1998, another example is found in efforts specific to Africa via the Forum of African Women Educationalists which focuses on governmental policies and practices for female education across the continent (Subbarao & Raney, 1993). Literally hundreds of studies have since focused on other regions around and below the equator where education levels for females are much lower.

In 1999, it was reported by UNICEF that 1 billion people would never learn to read as children with 130 million school aged children (73 million girls) without access to basic education (2008). Another UNICEF 2008 report clearly identifies the importance of educating girls who grow up to be mothers because of the tremendous odds that those educated mothers will ensure that their children are also formally educated (UNICEF, n.d.-b). In its statistical tables it shows that Somalia is now up to 22 percent for boys and girls in primary schools, yet in most countries females are still less likely to be educated (UNICEF, n.d.-c). The main point from UNICEF and many other formal reports is that higher formal education for females is associated with life, health, protection from crime and sexual exploitation, and countless other benefits, especially to females in the poorer regions of the world. In the United States, most females and males attend some form of formal education. After high school, many go to college. Even though the U.S. numbers of 18 to 24 year old men are higher than women (UNICEF, n.d.-a), women are more likely to attend college based on percentages (57%).

A projection from the National Center for Education Statistics projects a continuing trend up and through the year 2016 where about 58% of U.S. college students will be female (USA Today, 2005). By 2016 about 60% of graduated students will be females (nces.ed.gov, n.d.). These numbers reflect a strong and concerted push toward equality of opportunity for females in formal education that does date back over a century. The challenge is to avoid defining progress for U.S. females in public and private education as having been made at the expense of males. That’s much too simplistic.

They also reflect a change in the culture of breadwinning and the adult roles of males. Males and/or females who don’t pursue a college degree will make less money than those who did. To make sense of this trend, many males have been identified as having a prolonged adolescence (even into their 30’s); video game playing mentality; and a live with your parents indefinitely strategy until their shot at the labor force has passed them by. Others have pointed out the higher rates of learning disabilities in K-12, the relatively low percentage of K-5 teachers who are males, and the higher rate of male dropouts. Still others blame attention deficit and hyperactivity as part of the problem. Here is a true statement about education in the U.S.

Higher education=higher pay=higher social prestige=higher income=higher quality of life.

Many countries of the world have neutralized the traditional, religious, and labor-force based biases against women and have moved to a merit-based system. In the U.S. progress has come more slowly. Physicians are some of the brightest and best paid specialists in the world. Salaries tend to begin in the $100,000 range and can easily reach $500,000 depending on the specialty. Prior to 1970 most physicians were white and male, but things are slowly changing. Table 4 shows the trends between 1970 and 2006.

Table 2: Percentage of Physicians who are Male and Female.

(allied-physicians.com, n.d.)

The upward trend shows a concerted effort to provide equal opportunity for females and males. Engineers have also seen a concerted effort to facilitate females into the profession. The Society of Women Engineers is a non-profit organization which helps support and recognize women as engineers (American Medical Association, n.d.). Figure 2 shows how computer-based careers are seeing striking gains in some areas for women who will be hired competitively based on merit. The same cannot be said for doctoral level employment in the more prestigious fields. Figure 3 shows 2005 estimates from the U.S. National Science Foundation. The first six fields are the highest paying fields to work in while social and psychological sciences are among the least paying. Women clearly dominate Psychology and nearly tie in social sciences and biology. True, at the doctoral level pay is higher than at the masters and bachelors levels, but the difference in engineering and psychology is remarkable at every level of education (Society of Women Engineers, n.d.).

RESEARCH ON GENDER

An early pioneer is an anthropologist named Margaret Mead (1901-1978). Dr. Mead earned her Ph.D. under the direction of some of the best anthropologists of her day. But, she was a woman in a mostly male-dominated academic field. She is an example of someone who successfully challenged the sexist and misogynistic notions established in academics at the time.

Mead’s work entitled, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) became a major seminal work in the women’s liberation movement and thereby in the redefinition of women in many Western Societies. Her observations of gender in three tribes; the Arapesh, the Mundugumor, and the Tchambuli created a national discussion which led many to reconsider the established Sex=Gender assumption. In these tribes she found the following. In the Arapesh both men and women displayed what we typically call feminine traits sensitivity, cooperation, and low levels of aggression. In the Mundugumor both men and women were insensitive, uncooperative, and very aggressive. These were typical masculine traits at the time. In contrast to most societies the Tchambuli women were aggressive, rational, and capable and were also socially dominant while the men were passive, assuming artistic and leisure roles.

Figure 3. Women in High Tech Jobs (Hammond & Cheney, 2018).

Figure 4: United States Doctorates Conferred By Characteristics of Recipients, 2005 (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.).

Why then, Mead argued, if our reproductive roles determined our cultural and social opportunities were the gender definitions varied and unique among less civilized peoples? Were we not less civilized ourselves at one point in history and have we not progressed on a similar path the tribal people take? Could it be that tradition (culture) was the stronger social force rather than biology?

Mead’s work and her public influence helped to establish the belief that biology is only a part of the Sex and Gender question (albeit an important part). Mead established that Sex does not equal Gender. But, even with the harshest criticism launched against her works, her critics supported and even inadvertently reinforced the idea that biology shapes but cultures are more salient in how women and men are treated by those with power.

Misogyny is easier to perpetrate if one assumes the weakness, biological frailty, and perhaps even diminished capacity that women were claimed to have had. For example, Andrew Clay Silverstein was a nationally successful comedian. His career ended abruptly because of his harsh sexist themes which were being performed in an age of clarity and understanding about gender values. Mr. Clay failed to recognize the social change which surrounded him. We often overlook the change and the continuing problems ourselves.

Professional and volunteer organizations have made concerted efforts to raise awareness of the English language and its demeaning language toward females. English as a derivative of German has many linguistic biases against women, non-whites, poor, and non-royalty. Raising awareness and discussing the assumptions within English or any other language has been part of the social transformation toward cultural and biological fairness and equality. If we understand how the words we use influence the culture we live in and how the value of that culture influences the way we treat one another, then we begin to see the importance of language on the quality of life.

The quality of life for women is of importance at many different levels in the world. As you’ve read through this chapter, you have probably noticed that much is yet to be accomplished worldwide. The United States has seen much progress. But, other nations continually rank the “world’s best nation for women.” Many European countries far outrank the U.S. for quality of Women’s lives. In Fact, in 2008 the U.S. ranked number 27th (U. S. Census Bureau, 2008, p. 786).

The Global Gender Gap Index was developed to measure the quality of life for women between countries. It measures the gap between males and females in objective statistics that focus on equality. There are four pillars in the index: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment, and health and survival using 14 indicators from each country's national statistics. From 1998-2006, there was a reported net improvement for all countries (European Countries Top Places for Women to Live, 2008).

When one considers the day-to-day lives of women in these national statistics, and perhaps more importantly in their personal lives, the concept of what women do as their contribution to the function of society becomes important. Instrumental tasks are goal directed activities which link the family to the surrounding society, geared toward obtaining resources. This includes economic work, breadwinning, and other resource-based efforts. Expressive tasks are tasks that pertain to the creation and maintenance of a set of positive, supportive, emotional relationships within the family unit. This includes relationships, nurturing, and social connections needed in the family and society. Today, women do both and typically do them well.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution both males and females combined their local economic efforts in homemaking. Most of these efforts were cottage industry-type where families used their children’s labor to make products they needed from soap, thread, fabric, butter, and many other products.

When the factory model of production emerged in Western civilizations, the breadwinner and homemaker became more distinct. Breadwinner is a parent or spouse who earns wages outside of the home and uses them to support the family. Homemaker is typically a woman who occupies her life with mothering, housekeeping, and being a wife while depending heavily on the breadwinner.

WHAT ABOUT MEN?

In the past two decades a social movement referred to as The Men’s Movement has emerged. The Men’s Movement is a broad effort across societies and the world to improve the quality of life and family-related rights of men. Since the Industrial Revolution, men have been emotionally exiled from their families and close relationships. They have become the human piece of the factory machinery (or computer technology in our day) that forced them to disconnect from their most intimate relationships and to become money-acquisition units rather than emotionally powerful pillars of their families.

Many in this line of thought attribute higher suicide rates, death rates, accident rates, substance abuse problems, and other challenges in the lives of modern men directly to the broad social process of post-industrial breadwinning. Not only did the Industrial Revolution’s changes hurt men, but the current masculine role is viewed by many as being oppressive to men, women, and children. Today a man is more likely to kill or be killed, to abuse, and to oppress others. Some of the issues of concern for those in the Men’s Movement include life and health challenges, emotional isolation, post-divorce and separation father’s rights, false sexual or physical abuse allegations, early education challenges for boys, declining college attendance, protection from domestic abuse, man-hating or bashing, lack of support for fatherhood, and paternal rights and abortion.

The list of concerns displays the quality of life issues mixed in with specific legal and civil rights concerns. Men’s Movement sympathizers would most likely promote or support equality of rights for men and women. They are aware of the Male supremacy model, where males erroneously believe that men are superior in all aspects of life and that they should excel in everything they do. They also concern themselves with the sexual objectification of women, where men learn to view women as objects of sexual consumption rather than as a whole person. Male bashing is the verbal abuse and use of pejorative and derogatory language about men.

These and other concerns are not being aggressively supported throughout the world as are the women’s rights and suffrage efforts discussed above. Most of the Men’s Movement efforts are in Western Societies, India, and a handful of others.

Figure 5 shows the transition in family gender roles over the course of the Industrial Revolution through to Post World War II. Families in Pre-Industrial Europe and the U.S. were subsistence-based; meaning they spent much of their daily lives working to prepare food and other goods on a year-round basis. Men, women, children, and other family and friends succeeded because they all contributed to the collective good of the family economy.

Figure 5. The Western Family Pre- Post, and Post-WWII, especially for the United States.

The Industrial Revolution created the roles of breadwinners and homemakers. After the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, women continued their subsistence work and remained homemakers while men continued in their breadwinning roles. After World War II, there was a social structural change where women began assuming the breadwinner role and became more and more common among the ranks of paid employees, especially beginning in the 1960s-1980s. They had managed to remain homemakers, but men had not moved into the homemaking role to the same degree that women had moved into the breadwinning role. This creates a strong level of burden and expectation for U.S. women who find themselves continuing to work outside the home for pay and inside the home for their informal domestic roles.

Men often find a closer bond to their wife, children, and other family members when they engage in domestic homemaking roles. Mundane family work is the activity that facilitates ongoing attachments and bonds among those who participate in it together.

Many couples today already share homemaking roles, just out of practical and functional need. They often find the co-homemaking/breadwinning role to be defined in a few typical styles. First, is the tourist husband style. The tourist husband is a visitor to the homemaking role who contributes the occasional assistance to his wife as a courtesy—much like a tourist might offer occasional assistance to their host. He often believes himself to be very generous since it is hers and not his role. Second, is the assistant homemaker where the husband looks to his wife for direction and for instruction on how to “help” her out in her homemaking role. Like one of the children, housework and homemaking tasks are the mother/wife’s job and he helps if called upon.

Finally, there is the co-homemaker husband who never “helps” his wife with homemaking tasks, but assumes that she and he equally share their breadwinning and homemaking responsibilities. The Co-homemaker husband is most likely to bond with his children, understand the daily joys and sorrows of all his individual family members, and feel a strong connection to his home and family (something Men’s Movement advocates lament having lost).

2B. Dating and Partner Selection

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following.

• Apply the filtering theory of mate selection

• Define propinquity

• Differentiate between homogamous and heterogamous characteristics

• Define exogamy

• Apply the Social Exchange Theory to mate selection

Sixty years ago if you were of marrying age, you’d most likely select someone based on how your parents felt about it, how healthy the person appeared to be, how good and moral their character appeared to be and how stable their economic resources appeared to be. Today we search for soul mates. Look around you in the classroom. How many potential mates are sitting there? In other words, how many single females or males are there in the same classroom? Now of those, how many would you be attracted to as a date and how many can you tell just by watching them that you’d probably never date? These are the types of questions and answers we consider when we study dating and mate selection.

Dating as we know it developed in the 20th century. It is a practice in which people meet and participate in activities together in order to get to know each other. Prior to dating, courting was common in the United States. Courting, which involved strong rules and customs, evolved into dating due to wide-spread use of the automobile after the Industrial Revolution. Automobiles enabled young people to have more freedom. After the Industrial Revolution, with the change from agriculture and farming to support families to factory work, love, rather than necessity, became the basis for marital relationships. Today, dating is more casual than ever, taking on many forms (couple, group, online, etc.)

In the United States there are millions of people between the ages of 18-24 (18-24 is considered prime dating and mate selection ages). The U.S. Statistical Abstracts estimates that 9.5% of the U.S. population or about 15,675,000 males and 15,037,000 females are in this age group (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.-b). Those numbers should be very similar after the 2010 Census data are analyzed which takes several years after collection. Does that mean that you could have 15 million potential mates out there somewhere? Yes, potentially, yet no in realistic terms. You see, it would take more time than any mortal has in his life to ever interact with that many people. Besides dating and mate selection is not about volume it’s about quality and intimacy in the relationship. When we see people we filter them as either being in or out of our pool of eligibles.

Filtering is the process of identifying those we interact with as either being in or out of our pool of people we might consider to be a date or mate. There are many filters we use. One is physical appearance. We might include some because of tattoos and piercing or exclude some for the exact same physical traits. We might include some because they know someone we know or exclude the same people because they are total strangers. Figure 6 shows the basic date and mate selection principles that play into our filtering processes (This inverted pyramid metaphorically represents a filter that a liquid might be poured through to refine it; e.g., coffee filter).

Propinquity is the geographic closeness experienced by potential dates and mates. It’s the proximity you might experience by living in the same dorms or apartment buildings; going to the same university or college; working in the same place of employment; or belonging to the same religious group. Proximity is crucial because the more you see one another or interact directly or indirectly with one another, the more likely you see each other as mates.

Attraction and the evaluation of physical appearance is subjective and is defined differently for each individual. Truly, what one person finds as attractive is not what others find to be attractive. There are a few biological, psychological, and social-emotional aspects of appearance that tend to make an individual more attractive to more people. These include slightly above average desirable traits and symmetry in facial features.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.) the average man in the United States is five feet ten inches tall and weighs about 177 pounds. The average woman is about five feet four inches tall and weighs about 144 pounds. Did you just compare yourself? Most of us tend to compare ourselves to averages or to others we know. That’s how we come to define our personal level of attractiveness. This is important to understand that we subjectively judge ourselves as being more or less attractive; because we often limit our dating pool of eligibles to those we think are in our same category of beauty.

If you are six feet tall as a man or five feet eight inches as a woman, then you are slightly above average in height. For men, if they have manly facial features (strong chin and jaw and somewhat prominent brow), some upper body musculature, and a slim waist then they’d have more universally desirable traits. For women larger eyes, softer facial features and chin, fuller lips, and an hour-glass figure facilitate more universally desirable traits.

So, here is the million dollar question “What if I don’t have these universally desirable traits? Am I excluded from the date and mate selection market?” No. There is a principle that has been found to be the most powerful predictor of how we make our dating and mating selection choices—homogamy.

Homogamy is the tendency for dates, mates, and spouses to pair off with someone of similar attraction, background, interests, and needs. This is typically true for most couples. They find and pair off with persons of similarity more than difference. Birds of a feather flock together, but you also have probably heard that opposites attract. Some couples seem to be a vast set of contradictions, but researchers tend to find patterns that indicate that homogamy in a relationship can be indirectly supportive of a long-term relationship quality because it facilitates less disagreements and disconnections of routines in the daily life of a couple. We filter homogamously and even to the point that we tend to marry someone like our parents. Here’s why; people from similar economic classes, ethnicities, religions, political persuasions, and lifestyles tend to hang out with others like themselves. Our mates resemble our parents more because we resemble our parents and we tend to look for others like ourselves.

Heterogamy is the dating or pairing of individuals with differences in traits. All of us pair off with heterogamous and homogamous individuals with emphasis more on the latter than the former. Over time, after commitments are made, couples often develop more homogamy. Some develop similar mannerisms, finish each other’s sentences, dress alike, develop mutually common hobbies and interests and parent together.

One of the most influential psychologists in the 1950-1960s was Abraham Maslow and his famous Pyramid of the Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow, 1943).

Figure 7: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow Hierarchy, n.d.)

Maslow’s pyramid has been taught in high schools and colleges for decades. Maslow sheds light on how and why we pick the person we pick when choosing a date or mate by focusing on how they meet our needs as a date, mate, or spouse. Persons from dysfunctional homes where children were not nurtured nor supported through childhood would likely be attracted to someone who provides that unfulfilled nurturing need they still have. Persons from homes where they were nurtured, supported, and sustained in their individual growth and development would likely be attracted to someone who promises growth and support in intellectual, aesthetic, or self-actualization (becoming fully who our individual potential allows us to become) areas of life. It may sound selfish at first glance but we really do date and mate on the basis of what we get out of it, or how our needs are met.

THEORIES OF MATE SELECTION

The Social Exchange Theory and its rational choice formula clarify the selection process even further. We strive to maximize rewards and minimize costs in our choices of a mate.

Rewards – Costs = Choice

When we interact with potential dates and mates we run a mental balance sheet in our heads. She might think, “He’s tall, confident, funny, and friends with my friends.” As she talks a bit more she might say, “But, he chews tobacco, only wants to party, and just flirted with another woman while we were talking.” The entire time we interact with potential dates and mates we evaluate them on their appearance, disposition, goals and aspirations, and other traits. This while simultaneously remembering how we rate and evaluate ourselves. Rarely do we seek out the best looking person at the party unless we define ourselves as an even match for him or her. More often we rank and rate ourselves compared to others and as we size up and evaluate potentials we define the overall exchange rationally or in an economic context where we try to maximize our rewards while minimizing our losses.

The overall evaluation of the deal also depends to a great extent on how well we feel matched on racial and ethnic traits, religious background, social economic class, and age similarities. The complexity of the date and mate selection process includes many obvious and some more subtle processes that you can understand for yourself. If you are single you can apply them to the date and mate selection processes you currently pursue.

Bernard Murstein wrote articles in the early 1970s where he tested his Stimulus-Value-Role Theory of marital choice (Haas, 1977; Murstein, 1972). To Murstein, the exchange is mutual and dependent upon the subjective attractions and the subjective assets and liabilities each individual brings to the relationship. The stimulus is the trait (usually physical) that draws your attention to the person. After time is spent together dating or hanging out, values (notions of what is desirable or undesirable) are compared for compatibility and an evaluation of the maximization of rewards while minimization of costs is calculated. If after time and relational compatibility supports it, the pair may choose to take roles (being a boyfriend, a wife, etc.) which typically include exclusive dating, cohabitation, engagement, or marriage. Figure 2 shows how the Stimulus-Values-Role Theory might overlap with a couple’s development of intimacy over increased time and increased interaction.

How do strangers transition from not even knowing one another to eventually cohabiting or marrying together? From the very first encounter, two strangers begin a process that either excludes one another as potential dates or mates or includes them and begins the process of establishing intimacy. Intimacy is the mutual feeling of acceptance, trust, and connection to another person, even with the understanding of personal faults of the individual. In other words, intimacy is the ability to become close to one another, to accept one another as is, and eventually to feel accepted by the other. Intimacy is not sexual intercourse, although sexual intercourse may be one of many expressions of intimacy. When two strangers meet they have a stimulus that alerts one or both to take notice of the other.

Judith Wallerstein’s (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1995) book discusses a story where one woman was on a date with a guy and overheard another man laughing like Santa Claus might laugh. She asked her date to introduce her and that began the relationship which would become her decades-long marriage to the Santa Claus laughing guy. Many people discuss some subtle connection that just felt safe, like a reunion with a long lost friend when they first met one another. In the stimulus stage some motivation at the physical, social, emotional, intellectual or spiritual level sparks interests and the interaction begins. Over time and with increased interaction, two people may make that journey of values comparisons and contrasts which inevitably includes or excludes the other. The more time and interaction that is accompanied by increased trust and acceptance of one’s self and the other, the more the intimacy and probability of a long-term relationship.

Figure 8: Depiction of Stimulus-Value-Role Theory

Even though Figure 8 shows that a smooth line of increasing intimacy can occur, it does not always occur so smoothly or so predictably. As the couple reaches a place where a bond has developed they establish patterns of commitment and loyalty which initiates the roles listed in Figure 8. The list of roles is listed in increasing order of level of commitment yet does not indicate any kind of predictable stages the couple would be expected to pursue. In other words, some couples may take the relationship only as far as exclusive dating which is the mutual agreement to exclude others from dating either individual in the relationship. Another couple may eventually cohabit or marry.

It should be mentioned that what you’d look for in a date is often different from what you might look for in a spouse. Dates are temporary adventures where good looks, fun personality, entertainment capacity, and even your social status by being seen in public with him or her are considered important. Dates are short-term and can be singular events or a few events. Many college students who have dated more than once develop “A Thing” or a relationship noticed by the individuals and their friends as either beginning or having at least started, but not quite having a defined destination. These couples eventually hold a DTR. A DTR means a moment where the two individuals “Define the Relationship” openly to determine if both want to include each other in a specific goal-directed destination (i.e., exclusive dating) or if it’s better for everyone if the relationship ends.

Many of those living in the United States share common mainstream cultural traits, regardless of ancestral heritage or ethnic background, date and mate selection occurs for nearly all members of society. Figure 9 shows a list of cultural and ethnic background traits that influence how the inclusion and exclusion decisions are made, depending on how similar or different each individual defines themselves to be in relation to the other. Many who teach relationship skills in cross-cultural or trans-racial relationships focus on the similarity principle.

Figure 9: Cultural and Ethnic Background Traits

The similarity principle states that the more similar two people perceive themselves to be, the more likely their relationship will continue and succeed. Notice the word, perceive, because actual similarities are not as critical as an individual’s belief that there are common characteristics. Also, certain individuals value one background trait over others. They may be more willing to overlook or ignore differences in traits which are not as similar.

In the Movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the Greek-American woman who was the main character meets a strikingly handsome professional man from a different ethnic background. Much of the difficulty she had in including him as a mate was her perception that her cultural and family background was unattractive and could not be desirable to potential mates. He was deeply attracted to her family because it filled his need for family connection, tradition, and support. He learned the Greek culture and adopted her family as his surrogate family.

In real life, most don’t make such profound concessions when choosing a mate. The relationship is less likely to develop if there are few or no common traits and more likely if there are more common traits, especially in the areas of commonality that the individuals define as being very important.

Dating often turns into exclusive or boyfriend-girlfriend type relationships. These relationships are crucial in the lives of young adults because they allow each other to gain experience in the daily routines of intimate relationships. They don’t always develop into long-term relationships, but practicing in healthy relationships is far more valuable than the grieving from breaking up.

THE FIVE RULES OF DATE AND MATE SELECTION

There are some rules that can be summarized about how we include dates or mates in our pool of eligibles. Figure 4 shows that rule #1 is exogamy. Exogamy is the tendency to pair off with or marry someone outside of your own familial groups.

Figure 4: Five Rules of Date and Mate Selection

Rule #2 is to find someone who is compatible and who meets your needs while you can meet his/hers. 

Rule #3 is find someone who is a “good find” or maximizes your rewards while minimizing your costs.

Rule #4 is to maximize homogamy and look for commonalities that will smooth out the daily adjustments of the relationship. It is doubtful you’d ever find a perfect match on all of these traits, but make sure you find a good match of complementary personality traits and background characteristics.

Rule# 5 is very important. You must learn to discern trouble and danger in a date or mate. Intimate violence is the worst and most deadly violence especially for women. Their dates, mates, spouses, and life partners are more likely to cause them violent harm than will any other category of relationship in their lives. Figure 5 (below) provides some criteria to identify as red flags, warning signs, or danger signs.

The risky and dangerous traits you might see in a potential date or mate can be early warning signals to raise red flags. In fairness, the presence of any one of these may just indicate a bad day. Some potential dates and mates are predatorial. That means they search for types of people they can manipulate and control and try to pair off with them. The presence of a few of these could raise your suspicions enough to become a savvy shopper, discriminating consumer, or even a detective of danger signs. Remember, that when dating and selecting a mate, overcautious discernment is justified.

Most people never experience the extreme dangers of dating. For most it’s more of an emotional risk than a safety risk. Many chose to marry and do so more often in the warmer months of the year than in the other months. When relationships form and engagements are made and agreed upon, an entire social experience is initiated where new social roles and networks begin to unfold. Engaged people announce their plans to family and friends and by so doing initiate a few processes within the social community of each fiancé. Announcements of the engagement begin the process of exclusion of others. All other potential suitors and dates are excluded from the pool of eligibles while exclusive monogamy begins in almost every aspect of the couple’s lives. She often wears a ring that can value anywhere from $2 to 10,000 dollars. That ring deters most because it symbolizes her agreement to marry her fiancé. The couple often formalizes their wedding plans in the newspaper, mailed out invitations to the reception, and or online announcements. In-laws are people you become related to by virtue of marrying into your fiancé’s family network. It has been said that you get in-laws and out-laws when you marry. Not all in-laws will get along with the couple as well as might be wished.

The creation of extended kin ties is crucial to a successful engagement. To some degree in-laws are expected to at least be compatible with the new family member (fiancé) and if possible in another degree to establish close relational bonds. Engagement also signifies to the couple the ultimate direction of their courtship. Marriage and the merging of social networks, belongings, monies, physical intimacy, rights, children, and many other things becomes the focus. Engagement provides the couple with opportunities to practice being married, in many different aspects of the relationship.

Most engagements result in marriage, but some end in a breaking up event where the marriage is canceled. Sometimes couples realize that they were not as compatible as they originally thought themselves to be. Sometimes, they are geographically separated by various circumstances and find that their commitment did not withstand the test of time and space. Other times in-laws and extended family incompatibilities work against the marriage. And finally sometimes, people just fall out of love or lose interest.

For those who are searching for a spouse the market is an uneven playing field. The United States has what social scientists call a marriage squeeze. A marriage squeeze is a demographic imbalance in the number of males to females among those considered to be of marrying ages. There is also a phenomenon called the marriage gradient. The marriage gradient is the tendency for women to marry a man slightly older and slightly taller while men tend to marry a woman slightly more attractive.

Based on the U.S. Census there are about 15,675,000 males and 15,037,000 females aged 18 to 24. That boils down to 638,000 extra males in the marriage market 18 to 24 years old. Since women tend to want to marry a man slightly older, the marriage market is squeezed because there are too few females for all the available males.

China and India have tremendous problems with their marriage squeeze issues. Because of sex-selection abortion, cultural preferences for males, female infanticide, and cultural definitions as female children being a burden rather than a source of joy and rejoicing they are missing tens of millions of females in these populations. For example, in 2001 India had 35 million extra men nationwide (Population Reference Bureau, 2001). In 2003 China was reported to also have about 35 million extra men (Population Reference Bureau, 2003).

References

Adams, A. M. (2000). Is God a respecter of persons? : Another look at the purity laws in Leviticus [BYU]. BYU Library Holdings.

allied-physicians.com. (n.d.). Table 4. Percentage of Physicians who are Male and Female. Allied-Physicians.Com. http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary_surveys/physician-salaries.htm

American Medical Association. (n.d.). Table 1-Physicians By Gender (Excludes Students). AMA. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12912.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/

DeGenova, M. K., Stinnett, N., & Stinnett, N. M. (2011). Intimate relationships, marriages & families (8th ed). McGraw-Hill.

European countries top places for women to live. (2008, November 23). The Nation. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Entertainment/23-Nov-2008/European-countries-top-places-for-women-to-live/1

Haas, L. J. (1977). Who Will Marry Whom? Theories and Research in Marital Choice. Family Process, 16(3), 375–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1977.369_8.x

Hammond, R., & Cheney, P. (2018). 7. 6. Sex and Gender. In B. Pelz (Ed.), Marriage, Intimate Relationships and Families. https://library.achievingthedream.org/herkimermarriageandfamily/chapter/6-sex-and-gender/#b00-0000

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346

Maslow hierarchy. (n.d.). iStock. https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image-film?phrase=maslow+hierarchy

Murstein, B. I. (1972). Physical attractiveness and marital choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032394

nces.ed.gov. (n.d.). Projections of Education Statistics to 2016. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2016/sec2c.asp

Patton, R. W. (1898). The Book of Health A Practical Family Physician.

Population Reference Bureau. (n.d.-a). PRB. PRB. https://www.prb.org/

Population Reference Bureau. (n.d.-b). World Population Data Sheet 2008. PRB. http://www.prb.org/pdf08/08WPDS_Eng.pdf

Population Reference Bureau. (2008). Childrenwallchartfinal. PRB. http://www.prb.org/pdf/childrenwallchartfinal.pdf

Population Reference Bureau. (2001). Census Results Mixed for Indias Women and Girls. PRB. http://www.prb.org/Articles/2001/2001CensusResultsMixedforIndiasWomenandGirls.aspx

Population Reference Bureau. (2003). Shortage of Girls in China. PRB. http://www.prb.org/Reports/2003/ShortageofGirlsinChina.aspx

Progress and Statistics. (n.d.). http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/ww2005_pub/English /WW2005_chpt_4_Work_BW.pdf

Society of Women Engineers. (n.d.). Who we are A catalyst for change for women. SWE. http://societyofwomenengineers.swe.org/index.php

Subbarao, K., & Raney, L. (1993). Social gains from female education: A cross-national study. The World Bank.

The World’s Women 2005. (n.d.). UNstats.Org. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from UNstats.org

U. S. Census Bureau. (2008). Table 786: “Doctorates Conferred By Characteristics of Recipients: 2005.” http://www.census.gov/compendia.statab/tables/08s0786.pdf

UNICEF. (n.d.-a). Table 1. http://www.unicef.org/sowc08/docs/sowc08_table_1.pdf

UNICEF. (n.d.-b). Unicef. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://www.unicef.org/sowc99/

UNICEF. (n.d.-c). http://www.unicef.org/sowc08/docs/sowc08.pdf

United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/

United Nations. (2008, February). UNite To End Violence Against Women. United Nations. http://www.un.org/women/endviolence/docs/VAW.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.-a). American Community Survey. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.-b). United States Census Bureau. http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Entertainment/23-Nov-2008/European-countries-top-places-for-women-to-live/1

U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Figure 2. United States Doctorates Conferred By Characteristics of Recipients, 2005. U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved December 8, 2008, from http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/hitech02.htm

USA Today. (2005, October 19). College Gender Gap Widens: 57% are Women. USA Today Paper. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-10-19-male-college-cover_x.htm

Wallerstein, J. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1995). The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts. Houghton Mifflin.

White, D. (n.d.). Womenwatch. Retrieved December 5, 2008, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/statements/Diane%20White.pdf

(2008, December 8). Un.Org. http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/114sped3.htm