EAST WEST MINDANAO COLLEGE INC.

Kamasi, Ampatuan Maguindanao

Gender Inequalities

Princess Jhobie Celin G. Divinagracia

November 27, 2020

 Introduction

Although the world has seen great strides toward gender/sex equality, a wide gap still remains an

d unfortunately may be widening. The World Economic Forum  annually(WEF)evaluates the wo

rld’s

progress toward gender inequality in economic participation and opportunity, educational attain

ment, health and survival, and political empowerment. In their most recent report, gender inequal

ity continues to be a persistent problem, with the gender gap in economic participation/opportuni

ty; and health/survival actually widening rather than getting better. WEF most recently estimated 

that the overall global gender gap won’t be closed for another 100 years (compared to 83 years es

timated a year previously), and more specifically, the economic gender gap won’t be closed for a

nother 217 years.

Western European countries are estimated to be the closest to reaching gender equality at 61 

years, with Iceland, Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Ireland all ranked within the top 10 closest to 

gender equality. In North America, estimates indicate it may take 168 

years to close the overall gender gap, the longest of all the regions analyzed. The United States w

as ranked 49th overall, slipping four spots from previous years, though was comparatively ranke

d high for education (1st) and economic opportunity (19th). However, it fell way behind in politi

cal empowerment (96th) and health/survival of women (82nd). Although the references main

study states the country in America at also indicates a large comparison in Asia as long as the

gender inequality is present in the said area.

 Chapter II

Gender inequality is the social process by which men and women are not treated as equals. The

treatment may arise from distinctions regarding biology, psychology, or cultural norms. Some of

these distinctions are empirically-grounded while others appear to be socially constructed.

Gender inequality also affects non-binary people. Studies show the different lived experiences of

genders across many domains including education, life expectancy, personality, interests, family

life, careers, and political affiliations. Gender inequality is experienced differently across

different cultures.

Natural differences exist between the sexes based on biological and anatomic factors, mostly

differing reproductive roles. Biological differences

include chromosomes and hormonal differences. There is a natural difference also in the relative

physical strengths (on average) of the sexes, both in the lower body and more pronouncedly in

the upper-body, though this does not mean that any given man is stronger than any given woman.
[
 Men, on average, are taller, which provides both advantages and disadvantages. Women, on

average, live significantly longer than men, though it is not clear to what extent this is a

biological difference - see Life expectancy. Men have larger lung volumes and more circulating

blood cells and clotting factors, while women have more circulating white blood cells and

produce antibodies faster. Differences such as these are hypothesized to be an adaption allowing

for sexual specialization.

Prenatal hormone exposure influences extent one exhibits traditional masculine or feminine

behavior. Negligible differences between males and females exist in general intelligence. Men

are significantly more likely to take risks than women. Men are also more likely than women to
be aggressive, a trait influenced by prenatal and possibly current androgen exposure. It has been

theorized that these differences combined with physical differences are an adaption representing

sexual division of labor. A second theory proposes sex differences in intergroup aggression

represent adaptions in male aggression to allow for territory, resource and mate acquisition.

Females are (on average) more empathetic than males, though this does not mean that any given

woman is more empathetic than any given man. Men and women have better visuospatial and

verbal memory, respectively. These changes are influenced by the male sex

hormone testosterone, which increases visuospatial memory in both genders when administered.

From birth males and females are raised differently and experienced different environments

throughout their lives. In the eyes of society, gender has a huge role to play in many major

milestones or characteristics in life; like personality. Males and females are led on different paths

due to the influences of gender role expectations and gender role stereotypes before they are able

to choose their own. The colour blue is most commonly associated with boys and they get toys

like monster trucks or more sport related things to play with from the time that they are babies.

Girls are more commonly introduced to the colour pink, dolls, dresses, and playing house where

they are taking care of the dolls as if they were children. The norm of blue is for boys and pink is

for girls is cultural and has not always historically been around. These paths set by parents or

other adult figures in the child's life set them on certain paths. This leads to a difference in

personality, career paths, or relationships. Throughout life, males and females are seen as two

very different species who have very different personalities and should stay on separate paths.

Researcher Janet Hyde found that, although much research has traditionally focused on the

differences between the genders, they are actually more alike than different, which is a position

proposed by the gender similarities hypothesis.

Across the board, a number of industries are stratified across the genders. This is the result of a

variety of factors. These include differences in education choices, preferred job and industry,

work experience, number of hours worked, and breaks in employment (such as for bearing and

raising children). Men also typically go into higher paid and higher risk jobs when compared to

women. These factors result in 60% to 75% difference between men's and women's average

aggregate wages or salaries, depending on the source. Various explanations for the remaining

25% to 40% have been suggested, including women's lower willingness and ability to negotiate

salary and sexual discrimination. According to the European Commission direct discrimination

only explains a small part of gender wage differences.

In the United States, the average female's unadjusted annual salary has been cited as 78% of that

of the average male. However, multiple studies from OECD, AAUW, and the US Department of

Labor have found that pay rates between males and females varied by 5–6.6% or, females

earning 94 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts, when wages were adjusted to

different individual choices made by male and female workers in college major, occupation,

working hours, and maternal/parental leave. The remaining 6% of the gap has been speculated to

originate from deficiency in salary negotiating skills and sexual discrimination.

Human capital theories refer to the education, knowledge, training, experience, or skill of a

person which makes them potentially valuable to an employer. This has historically been

understood as a cause of the gendered wage gap but is no longer a predominant cause as women

and men in certain occupations tend to have similar education levels or other credentials. Even

when such characteristics of jobs and workers are controlled for, the presence of women within a

certain occupation leads to lower wages. This earnings discrimination is considered to be a part

of pollution theory. This theory suggests that jobs which are predominated by women offer lower

wages than do jobs simply because of the presence of women within the occupation. As women
enter an occupation, this reduces the amount of prestige associated with the job and men

subsequently leave these occupations. The entering of women into specific occupations suggests

that less competent workers have begun to be hired or that the occupation is becoming deskilled.

Men are reluctant to enter female-dominated occupations because of this and similarly resist the

entrance of women into male-dominated occupations.

The gendered income disparity can also be attributed in part to occupational segregation, where

groups of people are distributed across occupations according to ascribed characteristics; in this

case, gender. Occupational gender segregation can be understood to contain two components or

dimensions; horizontal segregation and vertical segregation. With horizontal segregation,

occupational sex segregation occurs as men and women are thought to possess different physical,

emotional, and mental capabilities. These different capabilities make the genders vary in the

types of jobs they are suited for. This can be specifically viewed with the gendered division

between manual and non-manual labor. With vertical segregation, occupational sex segregation

occurs as occupations are stratified according to the power, authority, income, and prestige

associated with the occupation and women are excluded from holding such jobs.

As women entered the workforce in larger numbers since the 1960s, occupations have become

segregated based on the amount femininity or masculinity presupposed to be associated with

each occupation. Census data suggests that while some occupations have become more gender

integrated (mail carriers, bartenders, bus drivers, and real estate agents), occupations including

teachers, nurses, secretaries, and librarians have become female-dominated while occupations

including architects, electrical engineers, and airplane pilots remain predominately male in

composition. Based on the census data, women occupy the service sector jobs at higher rates

than men. Women's overrepresentation in service sector jobs, as opposed to jobs that require
managerial work acts as a reinforcement of women and men into traditional gender roles that

causes gender inequalities.

“The gender wage gap is an indicator of women’s earnings compared with men’s. It is figured by

dividing the average annual earnings for women by the average annual earnings for men.”

(Higgins et al., 2014) Scholars disagree about how much of the male-female wage gap depends

on factors such as experience, education, occupation, and other job-relevant characteristics.

Sociologist Douglas Massey found that 41% remains unexplained, while CONSAD analysts

found that these factors explain between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of the raw wage gap. CONSAD

also noted that other factors such as benefits and overtime explain "additional portions of the raw

gender wage gap".

The glass ceiling effect is also considered a possible contributor to the gender wage gap or

income disparity. This effect suggests that gender provides significant disadvantages towards the

top of job hierarchies which become worse as a person's career goes on. The term glass ceiling

implies that invisible or artificial barriers exist which prevent women from advancing within

their jobs or receiving promotions. These barriers exist in spite of the achievements or

qualifications of the women and still exist when other characteristics that are job-relevant such as

experience, education, and abilities are controlled for. The inequality effects of the glass ceiling

are more prevalent within higher-powered or higher income occupations, with fewer women

holding these types of occupations. The glass ceiling effect also indicates the limited chances of

women for income raises and promotion or advancement to more prestigious positions or jobs.

As women are prevented by these artificial barriers, from either receiving job promotions or

income raises, the effects of the inequality of the glass ceiling increase over the course of a

woman's career.
Statistical discrimination is also cited as a cause for income disparities and gendered inequality

in the workplace. Statistical discrimination indicates the likelihood of employers to deny women

access to certain occupational tracks because women are more likely than men to leave their job

or the labor force when they become married or pregnant. Women are instead given positions

that dead-end or jobs that have very little mobility.

In developing countries such as the Dominican Republic, female entrepreneurs are statistically

more prone to failure in business. In the event of a business failure women often return to their

domestic lifestyle despite the absence of income. On the other hand, men tend to search for other

employment as the household is not a priority.

The gender earnings ratio suggests that there has been an increase in women's earnings

comparative to men. Men's plateau in earnings began after the 1970s, allowing for the increase in

women's wages to close the ratio between incomes. Despite the smaller ratio between men and

women's wages, disparity still exists. Census data suggests that women's earnings are 71 percent

of men's earnings in 1999.

The gendered wage gap varies in its width among different races. Whites comparatively have the

greatest wage gap between the genders. With whites, women earn 78% of the wages that white

men do. With African Americans, women earn 90% of the wages that African American men do.

There are some exceptions where women earn more than men: According to a survey on gender

pay inequality by the International Trade Union Confederation, female workers in the Gulf state

of Bahrain earn 40 percent more than male workers.[41]

In 2014, a report by the International Labor Organization (ILO) reveals the wage gap between

Cambodian women factory workers and other male counterparts. There was a US$25 monthly
pay difference conveying that women have a much lower power and being devalued not only at

home but also in the workplace.

Economic participation and opportunity-

Women are more likely than men to be living at or below poverty. In the US, 14% of women and 

27% of female led households (compared to 11% of men, 13% of male households) reported inc

omes that were below poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b). These gender disparities in poverty 

are a direct outcome of gender inequalities in economic participation and opportunity. Across the 

globe, many women remain economically dependent on men. Women are barred from owning la

nd and their control over household economic resources and spending is limited. Women are mor

e likely to be unemployed and more likely to work in positions in which they don’t get paid (e.g. 

contributing family worker). When they are employed, women are more likely than men to be co

ncentrated in industries and occupations with low wages, long hours, and no social protections (

United Nations Statistics Division, 2015). Women are less likely than men to hold management p

ositions. Indeed, women hold only 5.2% of CEO positions and 21.2% of board seats in S&P 500 

companies (Catalyst, 2018). In regard to wages, women earn between 70 and 90% of what a man 

earns in most countries (United Nations Statistics Division, 2015).

In the US, women represent 47% of the workforce (DeWolf, 2017) and own 11.6 million busines

ses (National Association of Women Business Owners, 2018). Women with children (under 18 

years) are the primary earners for 40% of households with children (DeWolf, 2017). Since 1996, 

women’s college attainment rates have outpaced men’s (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a). Yet, in reg

ards to pay, women in general still earn only 82% (median full-time, weekly earnings) compared 
to White men (Hegewisch & Williams-Baron, 2018). The gender wage gap is further complicate

d when race/ethnicity is considered; Asian women earn 93%, Hispanic women earn 62% and Bla

ck women 68% compared to White men. The Institute for Women’s Policy Research has estimat

ed the wage gap in the US in general is likely not to close until 2059; and in some states not until 

the 22nd Century (Anderson, Milli, & Kruvelis, 2017). For women of color, they will have to wa

it longer; 2124 for Black women, and 2233 for Hispanic women (Institute for Women’s Policy R

esearch, 2016).

Research has pointed to a number of factors to explain the gap, including the “motherhood penalt

y” (Budig & Hodges, 2010; Hartmann, et al., 2016), occupational segregation (Hegewisch, Phil, 

Liepmann, Hayes, & Hartmann, 2010), compensation negotiation (Mazei et al., 2015), entitleme

nt (O’Brien, Major, & Gilbert, 2012), the “glass ceiling” (Catalyst, 2018), the “glass cliff” (Mulc

ahy & Linehan, 2014), bias or discrimination in job advertisements/hiring (Gaucher, Friesen, & 

Kay, 2011), performance evaluations (Koch, D'Mello, & Sackett, 2015), workplace climate/haras

sment (Hegewisch, Phil, Deitch, & Murphy, 2011), and leadership stereotyping and role congruit

y (Catalyst, 2005; Eagly & Karau, 2002). Although improvements in women’s educational attain

ment, employment experience, and unions were important in closing the gender wage gap in earli

er years, industry segregation remains responsible for 50% of the wage gap seen today (Blau & 

Kahn, 2016).
Education-

Part of the explanation as to why industry gender segregation persists is that women remain

“underrepresented in Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs that are nontraditional for

their gender” (Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2013). Analyses show women are

concentrated in traditionally female and lower paying CTE programs in both secondary and

postsecondary educational settings. Further, women are still under-represented in science,

technology, engineering and math (STEM) programs. Although STEM fields are some of the

most in-demand and lucrative, women are less likely than men to pursue a college education in

these fields, and even less likely to pursue a graduate degree in STEM (Hill, Corbett, & Rose,

2010). Gender stereotypes and bias in education and the potentially hostile climate of academic

departments continue to deter women from these lucrative career opportunities.

Health and survival-

Worldwide, access to and use of contraceptives, family planning, reproductive and maternal heal
th is improving. However, poor access to information, early marriage, and lack of decision-
making power continue to increase women and girls’ exposure to sexually transmitted diseases, u
nwanted pregnancies and the risk of unsafe abortions (United Nations Statistics Division, 2015). 
In the US, teen pregnancy in youth 15–19 years old dropped 47% between 2007 and 2015 to 22.3 
births per 1000 (CDC, 2017a). Yet, the US rate is one of the highest among industrialized Nation
s (Sedgh, Finer, Bankole, Eilers, & Singh, 2015). Further, the teen pregnancy rate for Black and 
Hispanic teens is twice that of non-Hispanic White teens, and the rate for American Indian/Alask
a Native is one and a half times more than White teens (CDC, 2017a). Rates of STDs among you
th similarly reflect these ethnic disparities (CDC, 2017c). Therefore, it is important for sex educa
tors to develop more culturally responsive sexuality education practices (Szlachta & Champion, 
2020, this issue).
Women are constantly bombarded with media advertisements that sexualize their bodies, and me
dia images of extremely thin models with impossibly perfect hair and skin. The influence of med
ia, television, movies, etc. has led to increased prevalence of body dissatisfaction and eating diso
rders globally (Makino, Tsuboi, & Dennerstein, 2004). A major factor in the development of eati
ng disorders is the internalization of the thin Western beauty ideal (Stice, Gau, Rohde, & Shaw, 2
017). Research has shown that women and girls who are exposed to thin ideal models in the medi
a are more likely to feel dissatisfied with their own bodies (Grabe, Ward, & Hyde, 2008). This di
ssatisfaction can lead to dieting, negative affect, and eating disorder symptomology. Although hi
storically, the thin-ideal was primarily a White cultural phenomenon, women of color are increas
ingly held to White standards. Recent research with adolescents found that Asian American girls 
reported the highest levels of body dissatisfaction, and African American girls the least (Bucchia
neri et al. 2016). Further, acculturation and the resultant contact with Western beauty ideals, has 
been shown to shift the beauty standard for immigrant women, resulting in body dissatisfaction (
Thomas & Kleyman, 2020, this issue) and eating disorders (Stark-Wrobleski et al., 2005).

Violence toward women, including femicide, intimate partner violence (IPV), rape, and human tr
afficking, continues to impact women’s health worldwide (United Nations Statistics Division, 20
15). Women across the world experience physical, sexual, psychological and economic violence 
often leading to long-term physical, mental and emotional health problems. Violence and abuse a
lso make it difficult for women to pursue educational opportunities or to perform their jobs (Rige
r et al., 2000). Globally, IPV is the most common form of violence (United Nations Statistics Div
ision, 2015). Unfortunately, too often IPV ends in death. It is estimated that two-thirds of victims 
of intimate partner or family homicides are women.

In the US, homicide is one of the leading causes of death for women under the age of 45. Half of 

all female homicides is due to IPV (CDC, 2017b). In 35% of non-IPV cases, suspects were most 

often friends, family members, and acquaintances. For too many women, there are too many barr

iers and too few options of escape from the violence. And when women do seek help, it is often 

unavailable. After concluding their annual census, the National Network to End Domestic Violen

ce (2017) reported victims made nearly 12,000 requests for services (in 1 day) for programs that 

were unable to provide services because they didn’t have the resources.

Unfortunately, when women find no way out, they may resort to killing their abusive partners or 

family members (Leonard, 2002). Those who do are met with an unbending legal system, more s

uitable for adjudicating men’s behavior than women’s. Few courts readily take the woman’s hist

ory of victimization into account “either in establishing culpability or in sentencing” (Doyle, Kha

nna, & Grimstone, 2016). Many end up serving lengthy prison sentences (Field, Cherukuri, Kim
una, & Berg, 2017). Sichel, Javdani, Gordon, and Huynh (2020, this issue) in their examination o

f women’s violence, argue that it is important to understand the “context of gendered inequality” 

in order to understand women’s use of violence in response to patriarchal oppression.

Political empowerment-

Across the globe, women hold a minority of political and institutional decision-making positions. 

Gender norms and prejudices work to both reduce the number of female candidates (about 30% a

re women) and contribute to the obstacles faced by women in elections (United Nations Statistics 

Division, 2015). Although the number of women heads of state continues to grow, still only 38% 

of 146 nations have had a female leader for at least one year (Geiger & Kent, 2017). In 2017, wo

men were heads of state in only 15 countries. Additionally, women were a small percentage of ca

binet ministers (18.3% in 2017) and parliamentarians (22.8% in 2016) (United Nations Women, 

2017). The judiciary remains primarily male, especially in the higher levels (United Nations Stati

stics Division, 2015).

In the US, 31% of the population is white and male, yet White men hold 65% of all elected offic

es (Henderson, 2014b), including 70% of Congressional seats (Bump, 2017). Women are 51% of 

the population, yet hold only 19% of Congressional seats, and 21% of the Senate (Bump, 2017). 

It has been estimated that women won’t reach political parity in the US until 2121 (Henderson, 2

014a).
In the current issue, Grabe and Dutt (2020) describe and analyze a community intervention to de

crease the social inequalities in political participation in Nicaragua and show how community int

erventions can disrupt the traditional beliefs regarding gender, leading to higher levels of agency 

and political efficacy in women. This liberation psychology perspective can help empower wome

n in facilitating more political participation and decision-making among women.

Sichel et al. (2020) call for educating practitioners on the importance of ecological circumstances

, and a deeper understanding of violence from a woman’s perspective. The authors suggest that i

nterventions with women should focus on an exploration of the social functions of their violent b

ehavior and that practitioners need to attend to the “systemic forces of inequality,” and teach wo

men how to become civically engaged and advocate for themselves. This ties nicely to Grabe & 

Dutt (2020, this issue), who suggest using civic engagement to empower women. In their study, t

he use of community-based intervention models had a wider impact and brought about more mea

ningful participation. The authors suggest more longitudinal studies of community-based interve

ntions in civic engagement to investigate the long-term change and impact.

Family was highlighted in the current issue, and in particular, that of nontraditional family struct

ures. Leal et al. (2020) highlight the vulnerability of nontraditional families and disadvantages le

ading to lower social ties, etc. They suggest that creating community support and educational pro

grams for LGBT families is an important step in enhancing intergenerational solidarity. In the sa

me vain, Curme et al. (2020) highlight a call to action for greater public consciousness of nontrad

itional family biases in the adoption system. More specifically, to reduce social inequalities and d

iscrimination in adoption practices to benefit both potential parents and children in the adoption 

network. In total, the current issue highlights many of the social inequalities that disrupt or hinde
r women and sexual minorities in the social world and offers some solutions in the form of interv

entions, advocacy, and calls for further studies.

LGBTQ

Gender inequalites in employment, education, health/survival and political empowerment aren’t t

he only ways in which our society’s inability to transcend patriarchal ideologies impacts society. 

There continues to be persistent and pervasive discrimination against LGBTQ people, including 

housing discrimination (Friedman, et al., 2013; Johnson, Jackson, Arnette, & Koffman, 2005; La

uster & Easterbrook, 2011), workplace discrimination (Anastas, 2001; Fidas & Cooper, 2015; Ka

ttari, Whitfield, Walls, Langenderfer-Magruder, & Ramos, 2016; Pizer, Sears, Mallory & Hunter

, 2012), victimization (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012; Meyer, 2012), and the curtailment of basic hu

man rights such as marriage and family adoption. This discrimination often results in mental and 

physical health concerns (Pascoe & Richman, 2009; Mayer et al., 2008) and estrangement from f

amily members (Beeler & DiProva, 1999; Potoczniak, Crosbie-Burnett, & Saltzburg, 2009),

Research has shown that family acceptance of the LGBTQ individual is related to greater self-

esteem and social support, better health, and is important for the prevention of depression, suicid

e and other self-harm behaviors (Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010). Leal, Gato & 

Coimbra (2020, in current issue) investigated intergenerational (family) solidarity through the le

ns of LGBT and gender. Intergenerational solidarity was defined as the “mutual support between 

different family generations.” Although exploratory, some interesting trends found were that LG

BT individuals had lower levels of normative and affectual solidarity and higher levels of conflic
tual solidarity. This suggests that societal stigmas associated with LGBTQ may negatively impac

t family support and the benefits derived from such support.

The recent battles over gay/lesbian marriage and family adoption have fostered harsh rhetoric an

d intransigent negative beliefs regarding gay/lesbian families. These beliefs, in turn, may erode L

GBTQ families’ ability to flourish and function in their communities. Curme et al. (2020, in curr

ent issue) suggest that stereotypical beliefs of the traditional family potentially bias adoption plac

ements, thus leading to many children without homes. The authors investigated the effect of five 

different family structures (e.g. male/female, gay males, single males, etc.) on perceived adoptio

n outcomes. Their results showed that nontraditional family structures were perceived as a lower 

“fit” for a child, especially when single males were adopting. The effect was more pronounced w

hen social dominance orientation moderated the relationship, suggesting that individual beliefs in 

society as hierarchy attenuating (opposed to equality enhancing), play a role in enhancing adopti

on bias. Taken together, the research in this issue suggests that intergenerational solidarity is trad

itionally normative as far as family structure and gendered roles, which then supports biased perc

eptions of how good a fit adoptive parents may be for an adopted child.

It is clear a combination of personal, social, community, organizational, and political change will 

be needed to address the various ways in which gender discrimination impacts the health and wel

lness of individuals and communities. The research presented in this special issue of the Journal 

of Prevention and Intervention in the Community on gender inequalities offers a variety of persp

ectives on some of the current and lingering inequalities that exist for sexual and gendered minor

ities.

Some of the proposed solutions or proposed directions in the current issue offer insights into the 

holes in the current literature and potential programs and interventions that may help decrease so
me of these systematic inequalities. For example, Szlachta and Champion (2020) suggest that en

hancing cultural awareness for sexuality educators is an important step in working with students 

and/or clients, as normalcy differs through different cultural lenses, and suggest developing strate

gies in building cultural frameworks to avoid the stereotypes and biases. They argue that this is i

mportant even for those with advanced levels of intercultural competence. Building on ideas of “

normalcy,” Thomas and Kleyman (2020) highlight the need for education related to body stigma 

in all cultures for all genders, especially those with an ever-growing westernized media presence. 

Further, they suggest designing interventions to reduce body dissatisfaction and increase advocac

y efforts that foster changes in media's use of underweight models and image enhancing techniqu

es.

SUMMARY

Gender inequality in a society depend on its cultural beliefs about the nature and social value of

gender differences in competencies and traits. Such taken for granted beliefs allow actors to be

reliably categorized as men and women in all contexts and understood as more or less
appropriate candidates for different roles and positions in society. For such cultural beliefs to

persist, people's everyday interactions must be organized to support them. The empirical

evidence from North America suggests that unequal role and status relationships produce many

differences in interactional behavior that are commonly attributed to gender. Network research

suggests that most interactions between men and women actually occur within the structural

context of unequal role or status relations (see Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin 1999). These points

together may account for the fact that people perceive gender differences to be pervasive in

interaction, while studies of actual interaction show few behavioral differences between men and

women of equal status and power. Small group interaction is an arena in which the appearance of

gender differences is continually constructed through power and status relations and identity

marking in the socio emotional realm.

Theory and research on gender and interaction have focused on the way cultural beliefs about

gender and structural roles shape interaction in ways that confirm the cultural beliefs. New

approaches investigate the ways that interactional processes may perpetuate or undermine gender

inequality in a society as that society undergoes economic change. If the cultural beliefs about

gender that shape interaction change more slowly than economic arrangements, people

interacting in gendered ways may rewrite gender inequality into newly emerging forms of

socioeconomic organization in society. On the other hand, rapidly changing socioeconomic

conditions may change the constraints on interaction between men and women in many contexts

so that people's experiences undermine consensual beliefs about gender and alter them over time.

Most human societies exhibit some degree of gender inequality, but there is enormous variation

in its nature and manifestations. In some societies, women face only mild or moderate constraints

on functioning as socially and economically autonomous persons in the public life of the

community; in others, women are largely subordinate to males. This has implications for any
old-age support parents can expect from daughters, which, in turn, affects the aspirations of

couples regarding the sex of their children. In most regions of the world, parents express a

preference for a gender-balanced family with, perhaps, mild preferences for children of a

particular gender. However, in some regions parents exhibit a significant degree of son

preference. These preferences manifest themselves in decision making at the margin in many

ways ranging from investing more in educating sons to the extreme outcome of excess mortality

among daughters.

To understand why some societies have strong son preference while others do not, we need to

examine the gap between sons' and daughters' ability to contribute to the physical, emotional,

and financial well-being of their parental household as this is the unit primarily responsible for

making and implementing decisions about childbearing and childrearing. This gap is determined

largely by kinship systems, which specify clearly defined roles for different categories of family

members. In most societies, it is possible for women to maintain mutually supportive relations

with their parental household even after marriage, making for little difference in the value of

girls and boys to their parents. However, in other societies women's links with their parental

household are largely severed at marriage and sons are enjoined to care for their parents making

it clearly more attractive for parents to rear sons instead of daughters. Gender-appropriate roles

are also decided, to a lesser extent, by other norms such as religious beliefs and injunctions,

which can, for example, discourage women from participating in the labor market and thus

reduce their ability to help their parents financially.

In this entry we review the broad features of family systems in different cultural regions of the

developing world to describe how far daughters are in a position to contribute to parental well-

being both in absolute terms, and relative to what is expected from sons. We then explore how
these sex preferences are reflected quantitatively in survey data on family-building desires and in

measures of excess female child mortality.

References

-Comprable Worth/by Paola England/ London Shrine, Great Britani 1986/ pp371-390

-Sex Gender and Society/by Ann Oakley/ 7st Texas 1879/ pp78-92 (Gender Inequality towards

Big Society)
-https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Sociology/Book

%3A_Sociology_(Barkan)/08%3A_Gender_and_Gender_Inequality/8.S

%3A_Gender_and_Gender_Inequality_(Summary)

- https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/gender-inequalities-past-issues-and-future-

possibilities/

- https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01400/full