MODULE 3: Gender Roles & Stereotypes

MASCULINITY & FEMINITY IN RELIGIOUS CONTEXT

• Women’s generally greater level of religiosity has been observed by scholars for decades; it has shown
up in surveys going back as far as the 1930s.
• But not until the 1980s did academics begin a concerted effort to find an explanation for the
phenomenon. Initially, some scholars assumed women were universally more religious across all
religions and cultures. This assumption was likely reinforced by the early concentration on patterns of
religious behavior in predominantly European and North American countries with large Christian
populations. Gradually, however, as studies paid increasing attention to other faiths and countries,
different patterns of gender differences were detected. Researchers began to find that while women
generally were more religious than men, this was not always the case.
• More than three decades of research have yielded a large quantity of data and a greater appreciation for
the complexities of the relationship between gender and religion – complexities reflected in the data
presented in this report. But a definitive, empirically based explanation of why women generally tend to
be more religious than men remains elusive. Indeed, as two experts recently wrote, this widely observed
pattern is still “a genuine scientific puzzle.” The religious gender gap and the explanations generally
fall into three broad categories: nature, nurture or a combination of both.
Nature explains it
Under the “nature” umbrella are theories that variously attribute gender differences in religious commitment to
physical or physiological causes such as hormones, genes or biological predispositions. For example, Baylor
University sociologist Rodney Stark postulates that men’s physiology – specifically their generally higher levels
of testosterone – accounts for gender differences in religion. His argument rests on what he views as increasing
evidence that testosterone is associated with men’s greater propensity to take risks, which he argues is why men
are less religious than women. By inference, women are more religious because they have less risk-promoting
testosterone. Stark’s theory elaborates on an earlier thesis introduced by sociologists John P. Hoffman of
Brigham Young University and the late Alan S. Miller. They noted that men appear to have a greater innate
tendency to take risks, and therefore are more willing than women to gamble that they will not face punishment
in the afterlife. As a result, men are less religious. Since women are generally more risk-averse, this theory
posits, they turn to religion to avoid eternal punishment or to secure a place in heaven. Unlike Stark, Hoffman
and Miller do not assign a specific source for men’s greater willingness to take risks. Baylor University’s Matt
Bradshaw and Christopher G. Ellison of the University of Texas at San Antonio argue for more exploration of
genetic factors. Some studies of biological influences on religious life, they write, suggest that “genetic
differences account for roughly a third of the variation” among individuals in various aspects of personal
religious devotion. While the two sociologists recognize a role for social and environmental influences, they
contend that “biological predispositions remain a viable, and untested, explanation for gender differences in
religiosity. Still within the nature framework, Jeremy Freese of Northwestern University and James D.
Montgomery of the University of Wisconsin postulate that psychological differences could throw light on
gender differences in religiosity. They advocate for more research into which psychological aspects are most
influential on religious devotion and how differences are shaped by genes and social environments. In
particular, they would like to see more investigation into how personality traits typically associated with
“femininity” and “masculinity” relate to gender differences in religiosity. As an example of this type of
research, they point to a 1991 study by Edward H. Thompson Jr., who surveyed the religiosity of 358 American
undergraduates who had completed self-profiles using stereotypical feminine and masculine personality traits.
Thompson found that “religiousness is influenced more by a ‘feminine’ outlook than by being female.
Nurture explains it
In the nurture category are theories that seek to explain the religious gender gap by such factors as socialization
into traditional gender roles, lower rates of female workforce participation and national economic structures.
University of Aberdeen’s Marta Trzebiatowska and Steve Bruce, for example, contend that “nothing in the
biological make-up of men and women … explains the gendered difference in religiosity.” These differences,
the two sociologists write, are better explained by “an amalgam of different social facts” that include women’s
dominant role in childbirth and death, which keeps women “closer to religion than men.” Another factor they
cite is men’s pressure on women to be religious as a way to control female sexuality. But the dominant reason
for the gender gap, in the view of Trzebiatowska and Bruce, is the “time lag” in the way secularization in
modern times has affected men and women. Men’s pre-eminent roles in the workforce and public life meant
they “were generally affected earlier than women by the secularizing forces that reduced the plausibility of
religious beliefs and turned religious rectitude from a necessary condition for citizenship into a personal
preference,” the two write. As women become more like men in activities outside the home, they theorize,
women also may become more similar in levels of religiousness. Indeed, the authors speculate that the religious
gender gap may eventually disappear entirely, as gender roles become more alike and gender equality becomes
more commonplace: “Enough women are now free of the social roles that coincidentally brought them into the
orbit of organized religion to destroy the web of expectations that disposed them to be more favorable, as a
class, to religion.”
In a related vein, researchers have looked at how women’s place in society, especially their rates of workforce
participation, might affect their religious commitment. Based on 1983 data from Australia, sociologist David de
Vaus of the Australian Institute of Family Studies and political scientist Ian McAllister of Australian National
University report that lower rates of female labor force participation “are the major cause” of women’s greater
religious commitment. Indeed, they find that full-time female workers are not only less religious than women
who do not work, but also display a religious orientation similar to men. Work outside the home, the two
hypothesize, could provide “sociopsychological benefits” otherwise gotten from religion and “makes religion
less important and less relevant for some people.”
A somewhat different interpretation for working women’s lower religious commitment emerges from recent
studies in the U.S. by Indiana University Bloomington sociologist Landon Schnabel. He suggests that women in
the labor force, particularly those in high-paying, fulltime jobs, are less religious because they receive less
social validation and affirmation from religious congregations compared with women who follow more gender-
typical roles and expectations. Sociologist Linda Woodhead of Lancaster University theorizes that as Christian
women in Europe and North America increasingly entered the labor force starting in the 1960s, they felt the
need to create more independent, career-oriented identities separate from or alongside their identities as
homemakers.
But since most traditional forms of Christianity did not support working women’s new identities, women’s
overall religiosity decreased. “In this complex project of completely refashioning identity, traditional forms of
religion are more likely to prove a hindrance to women than a help,” Woodhead writes. Social scientists David
Voas, Siobhan McAndrew and Ingrid Storm, who are at the University College London and the Universities of
Bristol and Manchester, respectively, argue that in Europe, the gender gap decreases (but does not disappear)
with modernization. But they contend that the narrowing gap is due more to rising national income per capita
than to secularization or growing gender equality. As women gain more security through economic
development, “the appeal of religious commitment fades,” they write, adding that “it is also possible that with
economic growth, women’s values converge with those of men in terms of secularity and rationality.” Their
theory dovetails with that of Harvard University’s Pippa Norris and University of Michigan’s Ronald Inglehart,
both political scientists, who propose that differences in “existential security” best explain the religious gender
gap. “Women often give higher priority to religion not because of their sex per se, but because they usually
experience less security in their lives,” being more vulnerable than men to the hardships of “poverty, debt, poor
health, old age and lack of physical safety,” they write. For this reason, “women give higher priority to security
– and religion,” which “provides a sense of safety and well- being.”
A synthesis
The nature versus nurture debate is not likely to be settled anytime soon. The “nature” theories that focus on
physical, biological or genetic differences between men and women have not found a measurable factor that has
been definitively linked to greater religiosity. And the “nurture” theories that pinpoint social factors as the
principle mechanism in explaining the religious gender gap all face a problem: Despite the vast social changes
and gender role transformations of recent decades, the religious gender gap persists in many societies. As a
result, contemporary scholars of religion seem increasingly to be converging on a consensus that the religious
gender gap most likely arises from a complicated mix of multiple factors. As one scholar put it, “greater insight
into gender differences in religiousness lies … in the acceptance of complexity.”
GENDER STUDIES AND RELIGION
The complex controversies surrounding the meaning of both prove that we are dealing here not only with
definitional minefields or merely academic matters but with issues of advocacy, personal commitment, ethical
engagement, and fundamental choices about the nature of one's life and society. Many religious teachings and
practices, especially scriptural statements, religious rites, beliefs, theological doctrines, institutional offices, and
authority structures, are closely intertwined with and patterned by gender differences, even when gender
remains officially unacknowledged and is deemed invisible (to untrained eyes).
The existing social and religious arrangements are considered "natural" or normatively prescribed by sacred
scriptures and other religious teachings, handed down by tradition from the ancestors or "God-given," and thus
unalterable. It is only since the Enlightenment and the onset of modernity that the existing gender arrangements
of traditional societies and religious institutions have been radically called into question, leading to the
emergence of the modern women's movement.
The first wave of this women's movement, from the late eighteenth through the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, forms an essential part of the great transformations of modernity. Increasingly, historical studies
provide new evidence that the motivation for women seeking greater freedom, equality, and participation in all
areas of society, including religion, did not stem from secular philosophical and political developments alone
but was also rooted in biblical teaching, shared by Jews and Christians, that women and men are created in the
image of God. This was reinterpreted in a new, strongly egalitarian way, never understood in this manner in the
past (Børresen, 1995). Theological (Religious) ideas impacted women reformers far more than has hitherto been
acknowledged; that applies even to so radical a thinker as Mary Wollstonecraft (Taylor, 2003), and similarly
radical theological reflections can be found in the writings of Florence Nightingale (Webb, 2002).
Nineteenth-century Europe and America witnessed the parallel development of women's organized social and
political movements and, at the same time, the expansion of their religious activities, opening up new religious
roles for women. The religious roots of the struggle for women's rights (Morgan, 2002; Zink-Sawyer, 2003) and
the complex historical dynamic operating between religious faith and feminist consciousness are increasingly
receiving more attention. Existing studies have so far focused mainly on women in Christianity and Judaism,
with a growing focus on Islam as well. But a great deal more comparative research is needed to show the
strength of motivation arising from concurrent secular and religious commitments of women from many
different religious traditions engaged in working to abolish the traditional social and religious constraints of
women's lives. The second wave of the women's movement, which emerged during the latter part of the
twentieth century, took a strongly self-reflexive, theoretical, and critical turn, expressing itself in militant
feminist theory and politics and celebrating "global sisterhood." Feminism aims to overcome the universal
oppression of women and to achieve their full humanity, so that women can speak with their own voices, from
their own experience, their own subjectivity, agency, and autonomy—all terms that by now have become
thoroughly theorized but also further problematized.
Some argue that these concepts of autonomous subjectivity are themselves derived from the inherently
androcentric, liberal worldview of post Enlightenment Western thought and that they cannot be applied
universally across boundaries of gender, culture, race, and class, but always function pluralistically. There also
exists a third wave feminism, sometimes referred to as "postfeminism," not meaning the end of feminism but
accepting a multiplicity of feminisms, linked to theoretical reflections on femininities as well as masculinities.
A more self-critical theorizing developed under the influence of psychoanalysis, poststructuralism,
postmodernism, and postcolonialism, which also affected the development of gender studies that, in turn, had
evolved out of women's and feminist studies. Feminist epistemology and theory as well as practical feminist
strategies have opened up new experiences and questions that bear on gender relations in terms of both women
and men. To work for greater gender justice, however understood, requires profound social, political, economic,
religious, and cultural transformation for both sexes. At a practical level, therefore, gender studies impact on
education and politics, on social work and care, on development work, on ecological and peace issues, on the
media, and on academic scholarship. Like religious studies, gender studies are characterized by a pluralistic
methodology and complex multidisciplinarity. It might even be more appropriate to speak of transdisciplinarity,
because gender patterns are so pervasive in their potential implications that they transcend traditional
disciplinary boundaries. Gender studies have also a strong international orientation, and while recognizing
existing social, racial, ethnic, and sexual diversities as well as many individual nuances, their central insights
are immensely important and relevant across traditional national, cultural, and religious boundaries. The basic
ideas of women, feminist, and gender studies first emerged in Western societies; by now they have become
globally diffused and have also been considerably transformed in their intellectual and practical applications to
a wide range of social and religious issues within very diverse local contexts around the world. The
development of women's studies in religion thus counteracts the deficiency and partiality of scholarship by
retrieving women's forgotten histories and buried voices, their unacknowledged experiences hidden in the
official histories of the past. Critical feminist theories were developed, based on the specificity and difference of
women's experience, leading to endless debates, especially as some forms of "cultural feminism" claimed that
women's experience is not only different from men's but morally and perhaps even spiritually superior to that of
men, a theme that goes back at least as far as the Romantics. Critical gender studies in religion have
conclusively demonstrated that there are no gender neutral phenomena. Everything is subtly, and often
invisibly, patterned by a gender dynamic operating in language, thought, experience, and institutions.
Traditional religiously defined and socially prescribed gender roles, if rigidly enforced, can become
dehumanizing prisons, even though anthropological, historical, and comparative studies provide overwhelming
evidence that gender roles are also remarkably fluid across different religions and cultures. Women's and men's
studies in religion are both marked by critical and constructive approaches. There is the question of what
remains usable of the past when religious texts and histories are reread from a critical gender perspective. The
impact of gender analysis, coupled with an ethical commitment to gender justice, will lead to a deconstruction
as well as a reconstruction of religious traditions and practices.
GLOBAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT
Culture influences thinking, language and human behavior. The social environment, in which individuals are
born and live, shapes their attitudinal, emotional and behavioral reactions and the perceptions about what is
happening around. The same applies in the case of assigned/assumed roles in society based on gender. Cultural
dimensions that reflect differences in gender roles, but also elements related to the ethics of sexual difference
were highlighted by many researchers. Gender culture, reflects “society’s understanding of what is possible,
proper, and perverse in gender-linked behavior” (p. 2). In other words, each society generates its own standards
for gender-linked behavior. Because the majority of research that has been conducted and examined and
interprets gender—the roles of women and men in society—in similar terms, it might be interesting to step
outside our cultural view and consider how gender is construed in a few different cultures around the world.
Argument
Cultural determinism is a reality developed by many theories explaining default assimilation of socio-cultural
values of individuals and their influence on attitudes, mentalities, perceptions and their behaviours. Obviously,
the levels of culture are multiple, and each level has influence to some extent. In general, what comes from the
national culture is considered to have the strongest influence, but there are cultural dominants with origin in
ethnicity, religion, social class, age, gender, education - training, etc. We say "in general" because quite a few
phenomena occur currently, that cannot be associated or cannot necessarily be associated with the national
culture, even if they indicate the importance of a common cultural background for the members of a group that
make up a community (including a virtual one). Other levels of culture or combinations of values set their
fundament and jointly activities, one of them being determined by the belonging to a particular gender. Issues
underlying political decisions, including those relating to discrimination on various criteria become of interest
in the context of economic and socio-cultural changes (based largely on an unprecedented evolution of IT). In
the same context there are discussions about gender discrimination and the role of women in society. Numerous
projects, programs, directives, international, European and national regulations, and also militant groups draw
attention to these phenomena, many of them having their origin in the literature that has treated the role of
sexual difference over the years and addressed issues relating to ethics differences somehow brought into
attention by the political interest.
Culture and role differences between sexes
Western studies distinguish between gender and sex. These terms are not synonymous; they serve to delineate
anatomical and cultural differences between men and women. Significant differences are highlighted below:
• sex is a biological concept, gender is a social construct;
• gender is determined by genetics and biology, gender is produced / reproduced by society;
• sex is permanent, gender varies over time and across cultures; sex is an individual ownership, gender is
a social and relational quality.
Companies create gender meanings communicated through structures and cultural practices. Social
prescriptions embedded in personal identity, make individuals become of a certain type (Anghel, 2010, apud
Onea, 2014).
Communication of role differences
Firstly, we draw attention to the importance of communication in the transmission of gender role, starting right
from the meaning given to culture by the anthropologist Hall (1984), the father of intercultural communication:
"Culture is communication and communication is culture". Role differences between sexes (culturally
determined) are a product of communication, but at the same time, they influence communication (we may
speak about a circular causality). Communication shapes the lives of individuals. Attitudes, mentalities,
positions towards action and generated solutions are transmitted by communication. All these influence human
behaviours and behaviours that have moral consequences. Therefore, communication involves moral
responsibility (Mulvaney, 1994). In fact, communication (verbal, nonverbal, implicit, explicit) is the process
that teaches us to be male or female, that means to behave accordingly to the gender. From childhood we have
learnt different linguistic practices, culturally associated with gender behaviours. “One is not born, but rather
becomes, a woman” said Simone de Beauvoir (2006/1949), appreciating the role of culture and thereby of
communication in shaping the role of women in society, and the ensuing consequences. Religious, mythical,
philosophical and political discourses transmit us values and norms about our roles based on gender:
permissions - what do (can do) a man / woman, prohibitions – what cannot or should not be done by a man /
woman, how it should be done etc. Some communication behaviours acceptable for boys / men are considered
completely inappropriate for girls / women. In this way, differences in the manner of learning the language use
and actual use occur. Therefore, the language itself reflects the social role: for women, communication is the
essence of a relationship through the transfer of emotions and feelings, firstly; for men, communication is a
form in which they exercise control, keep or demonstrate independence, improve their status, generally by
transmission of information (data and facts presented in an analytical manner). Consequently, communication
models (conversational style, linguistic strategies, conversational ritual, nonverbal behaviour, manner of use of
space and time) differ between sexes (Mulvaney, 1994, Hofstede et al., 2012).
Role differences and discrimination
In the following lines, we intent to highlight that role differences should not be associated with discrimination.
As there is a natural normality that makes differences at biological level, there is also a cultural normality,
which is linked by what is naturally in a certain culture. That leads to differences in the assumption and
assignment of gender roles. Basically, gender discrimination reflects "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or
preference based on gender [...] which has as purpose or effect the restriction and exclusion of recognition,
usage or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms or rights recognized by law, in equality conditions,
in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life" (Law no. 324/2006). Role differences
between sexes can be seen as manifestations of values and norms of a social contract. Researchers have
revealed dimensions of cultural specificity that reflects these gender differences stated by culture. For example,
masculinity-femininity dimension reflects the degree of interchange ability of gender roles in society (this
dimension, linked to differences in socialization of children in relation to aggression - children learn to avoid
aggression in feminine countries, while they learn how to defend themselves in masculine countries, is also
linguistically manifested. Thus, "a society is considered a masculine one if the gender emotional roles differ
clearly: men should be authoritarian, harsh and focused on material success, while women should be modest,
gentle and concerned with quality of life. A society is considered a feminine one if the gender emotional roles
overlap: both men and women must prove modesty, gentleness and concern for quality of life“ (Hofstede et al.,
2012, p. 141). Assignment of social roles based on gender is a consequence of cultural-religious interpretations
and historical and environmental factors (Hofstede et al., 2012).
Ethics of sexual difference
We ask ourselves, as a natural consequence of the above ideas, if there are cultural premises of discrimination
and if masculinity/femininity dimension can provide guidance on this topic. We understand from the definition
of this dimension that we find larger differences between the roles of the two sexes in countries characterized by
masculinity, leading to the stronger perception of gender discrimination in countries characterized by
femininity, in which blurred differences lead to a poor perception of gender inequality (this dimension is
presented as an example, particularly to highlight the differences between femininity and feminism; cultural
premises of discrimination are related to the whole context reflected by sociocultural mentalities as well as
economic and political ideologies). It would be risky to consider the values involved by this cultural dimension
as defining and determining the discrimination. The issues involved by the ethics of sexual difference must be
considered in a particular context. Differences in cultural allocation / assumption of gender roles do not
automatically reflect "inequality" or "discrimination". The latter one involves the violation of human rights, and
of free will. Cultural assumption of a gender emotional role and its manifestation without the feeling of
constraint or limitation (raising children especially by mothers, for example, in some masculinity societies
where fathers are more concerned with the procurement of necessary resources) are aspects that can be placed
in the category of discrimination (this social contract should not be considered a "natural" one. Only this
perspective can become dangerous because it involves stability and rigidity of gender roles, regardless of the
will of the individual and the situation).
Moreover, the same situation can be viewed differently by people of different cultures. For example, some
westerners classify as discriminatory the Oriental practices relating to behaviour and traditional clothing of
women. It often turns out that these women care about preserving their customs and traditions in a much greater
extent than we think and that they actually require / impose themselves these "restrictions" (limitations for
outsiders, normality for insiders). It should be taken into consideration the changes that occur (technological,
cultural, economic, demographic, political ones, etc.), with direct influence on the content of gender roles and
its dynamics. It should not be considered that these changes imply inadaptability because of the traditional roles,
but also discrimination, if this situation occurs on the framework of imposing what is "established for
centuries". Obviously, we cannot deny the relationship between culture and discrimination, as we cannot
diminish the importance of the phenomenon itself. Issues of ethics of sexual difference were closely related to
religion and they were subject of interrogations of philosophers from antiquity to present. Feminism, as a
doctrine that aims women's empowerment, freedom from any subordination or dominant masculine models,
enhancement of female identity, of her genuine core, revealed numerous problems, including inequality of
power between sexes, the subordinate position of women in family and society, undervaluation of its role in
social stratification and employment (Melchiorre et al., 2004). Turning to religion, we must recognize its role in
emphasizing gender inequalities (for example, in most Christian religions divinity takes the image of a man,
women generally cannot serve as a priest; in the Christian Bible written by men, women use only 1.1% of the
total number of words) which reflects the low representation of women's contributions; in the same context
women should obey to men and be quiet in church etc.). We must also recognize the privileges met by women
at certain times, but at the same time we must balance the phenomena breadth. For example, the Vestals in
ancient Rome were honoured and involved in affairs of state (it is true that happened only after extremely tough
compliance requirements, whose breach was death). Feminism, in its positive form (we must admit there are
exaggerations, too) seeks equality and draws attention to socio-cultural perception that women are wrongly
included in the category of "the Other One", "the Object" and characterized in relation to the man, who is "the
Subject," "the Absolute". Although most primitive societies founds duality of "the Same One" and "the Other
One" (day-night, sun-moon, good-evil, yin-yang etc.), there is no connection regarding the origin and the
gender division (Melchiorre et al., 2004 Beauvoir, 1949/2006).
In fact, it should be seen as a complementarity, and this is also emphasized by Irigaray (2010) in a
deconstructivist discourse, who drew attention to the need of resettle the culture by closing “the Other One” to
“the Other One”, "without ever reduce one to the other one". Basically, specific characteristics should be
considered, such as: the ability to give birth, the relationship with the nature, diffuse sexuality and pacifism
(Melchiorre et al., 2004). Differences between men and women at genetic or cultural level highlight natural
specific aspects (men are competitive, assertive, daring, make visual and auditory associations, while women
have superior emotional intelligence, networking capacity and abstract thinking) or cultural specific aspects (for
women it’s more important what they are, while for men it's more important what they do) which do not justify
at all the value differences (Stănculescu, 2009, Hofstede et al., 2012). Being physically or mentality different
does not mean to be superior or inferior; that’s exactly what feminism is trying to explain. We may notice a
difference in the moral development of women and men, in the sense that values as fairness and equality matter
more for man; in this case we may talk about a "morality of justice". Women value more the protection from
pain, which rather characterizes a "moral responsibility" (Gilligan, apud Melchiore et al., 2004). The notice is
valid for the observed cultures; we cannot generalize because there are differences between cultures as
masculinity femininity dimension reveals.
Issues of ethics of sexual difference could be solved by guaranteeing the identity of people in their singularity,
through legislative measures that provide equivalent rights for both genders, based on respect for their
differences (Irigaray, 2010). Another aspect of the presented subject refers to the feminine approach in the
context of feminist ideology. Equality does not mean assigning masculine features to woman, but recognition of
specific features, feminine ones, as attributes considered as they are, without undervaluing comparisons.
Feminism is not inconsistent with femininity, but this highlights it, valorises it and explains its profound
significance, stressing the need of its development in a framework that does not limit women’s freedoms and
rights.
Gender stereotypes
Differentiation leads also to inequality by provided stereotypes. In general, gender stereotypes (provided mostly
by the representatives of the opposite sex) devalue woman, who is regarded as being inferior to man, without
capacity to reason, as it appears in Aristotle or Jacque Rousseau works. They associate her with passivity,
renunciation, structural weakness / fragility or lack of virtues, as opposed to masculine traits seen as positive
ones (apud Melchiorre et al., 2004). While man says and does "meaningful" things, woman is "fluid, ambiguous
and open" (Pârvu, 2005). Both religious sources and ancient philosophy, and especially the mentality of the
Middle Ages (mirrored in many papers), were the basis for creating social representations and gender
stereotypes. What it’s interesting, these aspects were even internalized by the fair sex, as Bordieu noted: man /
woman distinction is not so much a biological fact, as a social construct, women themselves helping
unconsciously-bodily-postural to the dominance of men. Women internalized it no more, no less than adopting
even the thinking categories of those who dominate them (Ghiu, in Bordieu, 2003). Basically, woman appears
as a reflection of the man, being unable to decide her own destiny (Lung, 2007). Old mentalities, we may say,
but with reverberations in present. In order to overcome them, an "alive and detached thinking, a quitting, a
non-ecologic, nor a possessive one" is needed. (Irigaray, 2010).
CONCLUSION
Human behaviour is subject to a double determinism, a biological and a cultural one. This is particularly visible
when looking at the comparisons that are made between sexes / genders. These differences are communicated
and reflected through communication. Cultural dimensions reflect specific aspects of the two genders. Although
differences should be seen in terms of complementarity, we notice that binary thinking, modelled along social
evolution, accommodates positive and negative perception, leading to an unequal relationship between the
compared terms, in the detriment of women. Culture, through the generated representations and stereotypes,
perpetuates this damaging way of thinking and further shares this unbalanced vision, to which feminism
responds with solutions demonstrating the need of dialectical thinking. She should not be accepted, but
respected for its uniqueness. To accept has its note of inferiority. "She" is very valuable by herself, not in
comparison with "Him". Issues of ethics of sexual difference can be solved by creating and strengthening an
adequate legal framework with the condition of mentality change. The possibility of achieving these aspects
depends on the socio-political context, in which cultural features have an important role, which may / may not
favour this approach.
EFFECTS OF STEREOTYPES AND ROLES
What Is a Stereotype?
When you think of the classic image of the 1950s American housewife, what comes to mind? Odds are good
that she's wearing a dress, has perfect hair and makeup, and might even be cooking or serving a meal. Of
course, it's entirely unrealistic to imagine that every American housewife of the '50s looked this way,
particularly after managing a house and taking care of children all day, so why is it that this is the classic
image? The answer to that question has a lot to do with the media and the ways in which gender stereotypes are
portrayed. A stereotype is a schema or set of beliefs about a certain group of people. Gender-role stereotypes are
the features we assign to men & women in our society, not due to biological sex but due to social roles that men
& women hold. Gender roles in society means how we’re expected to act, speak, dress, groom, and conduct
ourselves based upon our assigned sex. For example, girls and women are generally expected to dress in
typically feminine ways and be polite, accommodating, and nurturing. Men are generally expected to be strong,
aggressive, and bold.

There are four basic kinds of gender stereotypes:

• Personality traits — For example, women are often expected to be accommodating and emotional, while
men are usually expected to be selfconfident and aggressive.
• Domestic behaviours — For example, some people expect that women will take care of the children,
cook, and clean the home, while men take care of finances, work on the car, and do the home repairs.
• Occupations — Some people are quick to assume that teachers and nurses are women, and that pilots,
doctors, and engineers are men.
• Physical appearance — For example, women are expected to be thin and graceful, while men are
expected to be tall and muscular. Men and women are also expected to dress and groom in ways that are
stereotypical to their gender (men wearing pants and short hairstyles, women wearing dresses and make-
up.
Gender identity is an often-talked about topic. Through both traditional and social media, society is becoming
more aware of new ideas about gender roles. But how much do young people hold onto gender norms, and how
does that feed into the picture of their well-being? Tough boys and caring girls. To get an idea of the
expectations that young people have of gender roles and stereotypes, our researchers asked children about the
kind of attributes they thought their friends would say is the most important. For both boys and girls, ‘being
good-looking’ is the standout characteristic. For girls, this is particularly notable at a huge 44%, with ‘being
caring’ the next most common at 30%. When it comes to boys, ‘being good-looking’ gained 32% of selections,
with ‘being funny’ a close second at 23%. Almost 1 in 8 of the young people interviewed said that ‘being
tough’ is important in boys, compared to just 3% in girls.
What's the harm in stereotypes?
These findings show that many young people are living in highly gendered environments, and place emphasis
on traditional male or female stereotypes in their everyday lives. This is shown to have a clear impact on young
people’s well-being as a whole. Children who chose ‘being tough’ as the most important trait for boys, or
‘having good clothes’ as the most important trait for girls, are shown to have the lowest wellbeing across the
group. In fact, across the whole study it was found that children whose friendship group emphasises traditional
gender roles and stereotypes have lower well-being than others.
Perpetuating behaviours
The pressure of gender stereotypes is underlined by a child’s environment - in particular, the prevalence of
comments about young people’s appearance at school.
One secondary school-aged girl comments: ‘I feel judged all the time based on what I wear. It’s like girls are
expected to fulfil certain ridiculous expectations.’ 95% of young people say they have heard jokes or comments
being made about other people’s bodies or looks ‘sometimes’, ‘often’ or ‘all the time’. This in turn has a
negative effect particularly on girls’ well-being. There is a saddening trend that the more a girl is exposed to
these kind of jokes or comments, the more unhappy they are with their appearance. ‘Girls get told to look a
certain way and if you don’t you get told you are ugly, fat and flat chested and that makes you not feel good
enough for anyone.’ A stereotype is a very simple understanding of what a person or thing is or should be. The
word comes from an early form of commercial printing in which blocks of text were printed using a metal
template capable of printing multiple pages from a single plate. Like stereophonic sound takes a single source of
music and reproduces it exactly through many different channels, stereotype printing uses a single template to
reproduce a printed page exactly the same each time. When applied to people, a stereotype is like a template
that can be reproduced and will look or act the same as the template. Whether or not we know it, we all use
stereotypes to simplify the otherwise complex things that we encounter every day. In contrast, children who
chose the relatively gender-neutral trait, ‘working hard at school’, as the most important attribute have the
highest well-being.

Gender Stereotypes in the Media

The media plays an important role in how stereotypes are formed because people tend to use the media as a
benchmark for their own appearance, behavior, and understanding of the world around them. This can be
particularly problematic when it comes to how we understand the incredibly complex and nuanced concept of
gender. The classic housewife portrayed in shows like Father Knows Best or Leave it to Beaver was expected to
look her best at all times and be subservient to her husband. This stereotype limited the social role of women to
wife and mother, hardly ever acknowledging that women could be anything else. Though strong in the 1950s,
gender stereotypes in the media have been an element of every decade, including the present. For instance, print
and television advertisements use gender stereotypes extensively, largely because those ads have a certain
audience. This is most obvious with children, who are an important demographic for advertisers. When you see
commercials advertising children's toys, more often than not you're going to see girls playing dress-up or with
dolls, while boys play with trucks or action figures. These ads are operating on old stereotypes and cultural
norms that tell us boys play with masculine toys, like trucks, while girls like more feminine toys, like dolls.
Participation and influence of women in the media
Studies have found that although the number of women working in the media has been increasing globally, the
top positions (producers, executives, chief editors and publishers) are still very male dominated (White, 2009).
This disparity is particularly evident in Africa, where cultural impediments to women fulfilling the role of
journalist remain (e.g. travelling away from home, evening work and covering issues such as politics and sports
which are considered to fall within the masculine domain) (Myers, 2009). The Global Media Monitoring Project
(GMMP) reports that throughout the world, female journalists are more likely to be assigned ‘soft’ subjects
such as family, lifestyle, fashion and arts. The ‘hard’ news, politics and the economy, is much less likely to be
written or covered by women.
 The level of participation and influence of
women in the media also has implications for media content: female media professionals are more likely to
reflect other women’s needs and perspectives than their male colleagues. It is important to acknowledge,
however, that not all women working in the media will be gender aware and prone to cover women’s needs and
perspectives; and it is not impossible for men to effectively cover gender issues. Recent research from 18
disparate countries shows that male and female journalists’ attitudes do not differ significantly (Hanitzsch &
Hanusch, 2012). Nonetheless, the presence of women on the radio, television and in print is more likely to
provide positive role models for women and girls, to gain the confidence of women as sources and interviewees,
and to attract a female audience.
Media content and portrayal of men and women in the media
Fair gender portrayal in the media should be a professional and ethical aspiration, similar to respect for
accuracy, fairness and honesty (White, 2009). Yet, unbalanced gender portrayal is widespread. The Global
Media Monitoring Project finds that women are more likely than men to be featured as victims in news stories
and to be identified according to family status. Women are also far less likely than men to be featured in the
world’s news headlines, and to be relied upon as ‘spokespeople’ or as ‘experts’. Certain categories of women,
such as the poor, older women, or those belonging to ethnic minorities, are even less visible. Stereotypes are
also prevalent in every day media. Women are often portrayed solely as homemakers and carers of the family,
dependent on men, or as objects of male attention. Stories by female reporters are more likely to challenge
stereotypes than those filed by male reporters (Gallagher et al., 2010). As such, there is a link between the
participation of women in the media and improvements in the representation of women. (Objectification, Face-
ism phenomenon, Stereotyping commercials /Movies) Men are also subjected to stereotyping in the media.
They are typically characterised as powerful and dominant. There is little room for alternative visions of
masculinity. The media tends to demean men in caring or domestic roles, or those who oppose violence. Such
portrayals can influence perceptions in terms of what society may expect from men and women, but also what
they may expect from themselves. They promote an unbalanced vision of the roles of women and men in
society. Attention needs to be paid to identifying and addressing these various gender imbalances and gaps in
the media. The European Commission (2010) recommends, for example, that there should be a set expectation
of gender parity on expert panels on television or radio and the creation of a thematic database of women to be
interviewed and used as experts by media professionals. In addition, conscious efforts should be made to
portray women and men in non-stereotypical situations.
Gender stereotypes tend to disproportionately affect women and girls, but that doesn't mean that men and boys
aren't affected. For example, a common joke on many sitcoms or comedic films is the sensitive or crying man.
This joke often works because of how we understand gender roles. A gender role refers to the collective
standards and expectations that guide the behavior of men and women in society. In simple terms, gender roles
are society's way of telling us what is and isn't acceptable for men and women. As a stereotype, men have
historically been portrayed as strong and stoic, which is why, even in the present, jokes about sensitive or
emotional men often effectively amuse. Those characters violate gender roles and stereotypes Gender
Expression and Social Constructs. Gender stereotypes portrayed in the media have a strong influence on how
men and women behave, but they also have considerable influence on our understandings of gender expression.
It's important to keep in mind that biological sex (male/female) is different from a person's gender expression,
which refers to the way that individuals demonstrate the gender with which they identify. For example,
assuming that they are fully clothed, how do you know whether someone is a man or a woman? Chances are
you look at the clothes they're wearing, how they style their hair, whether or not they're wearing makeup, and so
on. These signs usually tell you whether someone is a man or woman, but they don't necessarily tell you
whether they are male or female. This is a relatively new and very complex concept that can be difficult to wrap
your head around, especially when the expectations of gender seem to be changing all the time. The reason that
this changes is because gender is a cultural construct, which is defined as the characteristics and signs that
societies attach to certain ideas. Stereotypes and cultural constructs are kind of like a cycle in which one
continuously informs the other. In the case of the media, these two concepts work together to tell us how men
and women are supposed to appear and conduct themselves. This is best illustrated in the many current reality
shows about fashion design or models. In many ways, these shows reflect a reality that is heavily informed by
stereotypes about feminine and masculine beauty. Despite being unattainable for most people, they reinforce
standards for beauty and establish signs and symbols that help viewers interpret gender expression, which they
are then likely to apply in the real world.