Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3173685?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Signs
Psychoanalytic Theory
The first psychologist to ask how male and female are transmuted
into masculine and feminine was Freud. Accordingly, in the past virtually
598
3. E.g., Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology
of Gender (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978); Gayle Rubin, "The Traffic
Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex," in Toward an Anthropology of Women, ed.
Rayna Reiter (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975), pp. 157-210.
4. Lawrence Kohlberg, "A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Children's Sex-Rol
Concepts and Attitudes," in The Development of Sex Differences, ed. Eleanor E. Maccoby
(Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1966), pp. 82-173; Maureen J. McConagh
"Gender Permanence and the Genital Basis of Gender: Stages in the Development
Constancy of Gender Identity," Child Development 50, no. 4 (December 1979): 1223-26
5. Eleanor E. Maccoby and Carol N. Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1974).
Although social learning theory can account for the young child's
acquiring a number of particular behaviors that are stereotyped by the
culture as sex appropriate, it treats the child as the relatively passiv
recipient of environmental forces rather than as an active agent striving
to organize and thereby to comprehend the social world. This view of
the passive child is inconsistent with the common observation that chil-
dren themselves frequently construct and enforce their own version o
society's gender rules. It is also inconsistent with the fact that the flexibil-
ity with which children interpret society's gender rules varies predictabl
with age. In one study, for example, 73 percent of the four-year-olds
and 80 percent of the nine-year-olds believed-quite flexibly-that there
should be no sexual restrictions on one's choice of occupation. Between
those ages, however, children held more rigid opinions, with the middle
children being the least flexible of all. Thus, only 33 percent of th
five-year-olds, 10 percent of the six-year-olds, 11 percent of the seven
year-olds, and 44 percent of the eight-year-olds believed there should be
no sexual restrictions on one's choice of occupation.7
This particular developmental pattern is not unique to the child'
interpretation of gender rules. Even in a domain as far removed from
gender as syntax, children first learn certain correct grammatical form
through reinforcement and modeling. As they get a bit older, however
they begin to construct their own grammatical rules on the basis of wha
they hear spoken around them, and they are able only later still to allow
6. Walte- Mischel, "Sex-'yping and Socialization," in Carmichael's Manual of Child
Psychology, ed. Paul H. Mussen, 2 vols. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1970), 2:3-72.
7. William Damon, The Social World of the Child (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977).
Cognitive-Developmental Theory
Gender-schematic Processing
Psychological Review 88, no. 4 (July 1981): 354-64; and "Gender Schema Theory a
Self-Schema Theory Compared: A Comment on Markus, Crane, Bernstein, and Silad
'Self-Schemas and Gender,' "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43, no. 6 (Decem
1982): 1192-94.
opment 51, no. 1 (March 1980): 11-18; Richard Lippa, "Androgyny, Sex Typing, and the
Perception of Masculinity-Femininity in Handwriting,"Journal of Research in Personality 11,
no. 1 (March 1977): 21-37; Hazel Markus et al., "Self-Schemas and Gender," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 42, no. 1 (January 1982): 38-50; Shelley E. Taylor and
Hsiao-Ti Falcone, "Cognitive Bases of Stereotyping: The Relationship between Categori-
zation and Prejudice," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 8, no. 3 (September 1982):
426-32.
Gender schema theory predicts and the results of this study confirm
that sex-typed subjects are significantly faster than non-sex-typed sub-
jects when endorsing sex-appropriate attributes and when rejecting
sex-inappropriate attributes. These results suggest that when deciding
whether a particular attribute is or is not self-descriptive, sex-typed indi-
viduals do not bother to go through a time-consuming process of re-
cruiting behavioral evidence from memory and judging whether the
evidence warrants an affirmative answer-which is presumably what
non-sex-typed individuals do. Rather, sex-typed individuals "look up"
the attribute in the gender schema. If the attribute is sex appropriate,
they quickly say yes; if the attribute is sex inappropriate, they quickly say
no. Occasionally, of course, even sex-typed individuals must admit to
possessing an attribute that is sex inappropriate or to lacking an attribute
that is sex appropriate. On these occasions, they are significantly slower
than non-sex-typed individuals. This pattern of rapid delivery of
gender-consistent self-descriptions and slow delivery of gender-
20. Stephanie Waxman, What Is a Girl? What Is a Boy? (Culver City, Calif.: Peac
1976).
parents will not and should not be satisfied to pretend that they t
ideas-particularly those about gender-are equally valid. A
point, they will feel compelled to declare that the view of wome
men conveyed by fairy tales, by the mass media-and by the nex
neighbors-is not only different, but wrong. It is time to tea
children about sexism.
Moreover, it is only by giving children a sexism schema, a coheren
and organized understanding of the historical roots and the con-
temporaneous consequences of sex discrimination, that they will truly b
able to comprehend why the sexes appear to be so different in ou
society: why, for example, there has never been a female president of th
United States; why fathers do not stay home with their children; and
why so many people believe these sex differences to be the natural con
sequence of biology. The child who has developed a readiness to encode
and to organize information in terms of an evolving sexism schema is
child who is prepared to oppose actively the gender-related constraints
that those with a gender schema will inevitably seek to impose.
The development of a sexism schema is nicely illustrated by our
daughter Emily's response to Norma Klein's book Girls Can Be Anything.2
One of the characters is Adam Sobel, who insists that "girls are always
nurses and boys are always doctors" and that "girls can't be pilots, . . .
they have to be stewardesses." After reading this book, our daughter,
then age four, spontaneously began to label with contempt anyone who
voiced stereotyped beliefs about gender an "Adam Sobel." Adam Sob
thus became for her the nucleus of an envolving sexism schema,
schema that enables her now to perceive-and also to become morall
outraged by and to oppose-whatever sex discrimination she meets in
daily life.
As feminist parents, we wish it could have been possible to raise our
children with neither a gender schema nor a sexism schema. At this
historical moment, however, that is not an option. Rather we must
choose either to have our children become gender schematic and hence
sex typed, or to have our children become sexism schematic and hence
feminists. We have chosen the latter.
L. Ber, Wendy Martyna, and Carol Watson, "Sex-Typing and Androgyny: Further Ex
plorations of the Expressive Domain," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34, no.
(November 1976): 1016-23; Sandra L. Bern, "Beyond Androgyny: Some Presumptuous
Pr-escl-iptions for a Liberated Sexual Identity," in The Futu-e of Women: Issues in Psychology
ed. Julia Sherman and Florence Denmark (New York: Psychological Dimensions, Inc.,
1978), pp. 1-23; Sandra L. Bern and Ellen Lenney, "Sex-Typing and the Avoidance
Cross-Sex Behavior,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 33, no. 1 (Janua-y 1976)
48-54.