Final Research Paper

iStockphoto

Chapter Outline

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Distinguish between sex and gender.

2. Distinguish the various ways of defining sex.

3. List some of the common sexual differences in humans.

4. Discuss cultural differences that have existed in gender roles.

5. Explain the concept of third and fourth genders.

6. Discuss the relationships between gender, power, and honor.

7. Analyze and explain the causes of gender inequality.

8. Discuss the nature of sexual orientation and cultural responses to homosexuality.

Gender and Culture 5

5.1 Sex and Gender

• Sexual Differences • Gender

5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

• Socialization of Gender Differences • Common Gender Patterns in the Division of

Labor • Gender Roles and Subsistence

5.3 Supernumerary Genders

• Two Spirits • The Hijra

5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

• The Politics of Gender Stratification • Patriarchy • The Causes of Gender Inequality

5.5 Sexual Orientation

• Sexual Orientation, Biology, and Socialization • Homophobia

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 119 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Sex and Gender

This chapter focuses attention on gender, the social roles that are assigned and learned based on cultural concepts about the nature of sex differences, and their place in social life. In all cultures, gender roles have differed to some degree, but the differences have not always entailed differences in access to social honor and power. This chapter will discuss the difference between biological sex and socially learned gender roles, the conditions on which access to honor and power become differenti- ated by gender, the diversity of male and female roles in the world’s many cultures, and the existence of cultures in which there are more than two culturally identified genders. The biological nature and social roles that pertain to sexual orientation will also be discussed.

5.1 Sex and Gender

The word “sex” is often used as a synonym for “gender” by the public, but anthro-pologists give different meanings to each word. The term sex refers to biological distinctions such as the chromosomal, hormonal, or physical differences between males and females. Gender defines the social statuses and roles into which people are socialized based on cultural concepts about the sexes. In this chapter, we will look at some of the complexities of both sex and gender.

Sexual Differences Humans are biological creatures as well as cultural beings. Biologically, most humans are either male or female. Females and males differ biologically in various ways. Chro- mosomally, women have two X chromosomes, and men have an X and a Y. Because only males carry the Y chromosome, the sex of a child is determined by whether it received an X or a Y chromosome from its father.

Males and females differ in both their primary sexual characteristics, such as genitals and reproductive organs, and the secondary sexual characteristics that develop during puberty, such as breasts in females and low-pitched voices and a broad distribution of body hair in males. Anatomically, males in the human species are, on average, slightly larger than females, a characteristic known as sexual dimorphism. The sexes also gener- ally differ in how strength is manifested. Males typically are able to exert higher levels of energy for short periods, while females tend to have greater endurance and are generally hardier. This distinction can be noticed at all stages of development. For instance, females seem to have a naturally higher life expectancy, although this is counteracted in many societies by social conditions that increase women’s mortality rates. In anthropology, the term sex is reserved for these kinds of biological distinctions.

It should be noted that while most individuals are male or female, this dichotomy fails to capture the actual range of sexual variation within our species. Specifically, there is a vari- ety of types of intersexed persons: individuals whose physical characteristics include both male and female sex traits. About 1% of live births involve some degree of sexual ambigu- ity. The differences fall along a continuum from individuals in whom most of the female characteristics may be present along with a few of the male characteristics to individuals in whom most of the male characteristics are present along with a few of the female traits.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 120 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.1 Sex and Gender

Classic hermaphroditism is a particular case in which both male reproductive anatomy (e.g., a penis and testicles) and female reproductive anatomy (e.g., a vagina and ovaries) are present. There are also individuals in whom no reproductive anatomy develops at all. Intersexed persons may also differ in physiological aspects that do not correspond with their chromosomally defined sex. For instance, there are individuals who, despite having both an X and a Y chromosome (the pattern usually found in males), have a genetic muta- tion that causes their bodies to develop with female rather than male characteristics.

Gender Gender is a social identity that consists of the social roles a person is expected to play because of his or her sex. Whereas we are born with sexual characteristics, our gender is something we must learn. All cultures recognize the existence of at least two genders: Females are typically socialized into the roles that lead them to have a social identity as

“women,” while males learn men’s roles to become “men.” However, there are cultures (discussed below) that recognize at least one additional set of gender roles.

It is not surprising that the aver- age differences between males and females figure into gender stereo- types, preconceived ideas about how women and men differ in their personality traits, behavioral skills, and predispositions. However, it is a mistake to believe that biology is the cause of gender differences. In the first place, biological differences are average distinctions between males and females as groups, but there is a range of individual differences

within both sexes, and they overlap more than they differ in most characteristics. Thus, some males may have greater endurance than most females, and some females may be able to exert more strength than most males. If biology caused gender differences, then they too would be merely statistical averages between what males and females did socially. But gender differences do not simply arise out of our personal predispositions to play various roles. Rather, gender stereotypes are cultural guidelines that tell us how we are expected to act. It is our culture’s gender stereotypes, not biology, that most directly channel us into our different gender roles. Sometimes gender stereotypes become so important that people refuse to acknowledge that individuals of one sex are capable of playing roles usu- ally expected of members of the other sex. Rigid enforcement of gender stereotypes that prevents individuals from playing roles that are not typically assigned to their own sex is called sexism.

As is true of other kinds of stereotypes, gender stereotypes can be wrong and stifling to those whose characteristics do not fit them, but they sometimes reflect common (though not universal) differences between the sexes. Some studies have pointed to typical

Digital Vision/Thinkstock Culture defines masculine behavior, and that definition can vary among and within cultures.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 121 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

psychological differences between the sexes that conform to some traditional Western ste- reotypes. For instance, Beatrice Whiting and John Whiting (1975) carried out an in-depth study of children in six different societies, where they found a number of psychological characteristics that cross-cut cultural boundaries. For instance, boys and girls both showed dependence, but expressed it in different ways: Girls tended to seek help and contact, while boys sought attention and approval. They found no differences between boys and girls in seeking and offering friendship to others, and they found that girls behaved as actively as boys. Some differences in the behavior of boys and girls in the six societies, however, were also discovered. Boys played more aggressively and in larger groups than girls did, and older boys were more likely to respond to aggression with aggression. Twenty-five years later, another team of researchers studying children in four different cultures reached related conclusions with regard to aggression. The boys they observed exhibited aggres- sive behaviors in about 10% of their interactions with their peers, whereas the girls did so in only 6% of their interactions. This was a small but statistically significant difference (Munroe et al., 2000). Thus, there appear to be some general psychological characteristics that distinguish the sexes even in childhood and even across cultures. The way in which gender stereotypes can become problematic, then, is when they are treated as mandates or as necessarily valid for every individual, and when the alleged attributes of one sex are socially privileged over the attributes of the other sex.

5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

Gender is culturally defined, and there are significant differences from culture to culture in the specific roles of men and women. What is thought of as masculine or feminine behavior in one culture may not be thought of in the same way in another culture. Such differences are influenced by many factors such as environmental resources, economics, kinship, politics, and religion. In this section, we will explore diversity within gender.

Socialization of Gender Differences Anthropologists have noted that in every society there are socialization practices through which children learn what it takes to be a male or female participant in their society. Socialization can occur both directly (e.g., parents teaching their children how to behave in certain circumstances) and indirectly (e.g., children observing what other adults and children do). There is much at stake in socialization practices. For example, the “incom- plete” socialization of children can be problematic: In some societies, people fear child soldiers or street children because they are said to be unsocialized and thus immoral and threatening to the status quo (Honwana, 2007; Kovats-Bernat, 2006).

In 1950, the well-known anthropologist Margaret Mead did fieldwork among three New Guinea societies in which people are socialized into gender roles that are quite different from the typical roles we find in North America. Her descriptions of the Arapesh, Mundu- gumor, and Tschambuli (now called the Chambri) make it clear that how people think about being masculine or feminine is highly variable and determined by culture rather than by any absolute dictates of biology. Although there were gender role differences among the Arapesh, no basic temperamental differences were thought to exist between

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 122 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

males and females. Neither men nor women were believed to be driven by spontaneous sexuality, and violence, though tolerated, was not linked to either sex. Men were expected to be gentle, unacquisitive, and cooperative. Women were taught to accept anything out of the ordinary without curiosity. From childhood on, they were actively discouraged from asking questions about anything unusual and from engaging in speculative thought, which was encouraged in boys.

The people of a not-too-distant tribe from the Arapesh, the Mundugumor, were quite different in their attitudes about the sexes. The Mundugumor were headhunters and cannibals, and the life of a male was character- ized by fighting and the competitive acquisition of women through war- fare. They assumed that there was a natural hostility between members of the same sex. As a result, inheritance of most property crossed sex bound- aries with each generation from father to daughter and from mother to son. Compatibly with their way of life, both males and females were raised to have violent social person- alities and to place no value on sen- suality. For instance, breast-feeding of infants was done in a utilitarian way, with no hint of pleasure; nursing was carried out only to give the baby food and never to comfort it from fright or pain.

Finally, the Chambri, a third nearby group, did distinguish personality differences between men and women, although their expectations differed radically from role expectations of men and women in North America. The Chambri preferred marriages in which a man had many wives. Ancestry was traced through the men of the family. Men owned the houses and the land and officially “owned” their wives. But in practice, women held the main power in society. It was they who made most of the economic decisions, and they took the initiative in social life. For instance, Chambri women were socialized to be sexually aggressive, while the men were not.

Despite the great differences in their beliefs about gender, the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Chambri tribes lived within a hundred miles from one another. Such extremely contrast- ing examples demonstrate that the personalities of men and women in any one society are not unambiguous manifestations of inherent characteristics that are fixed by nature. Rather, they are manifestations of each society’s culturally patterned role expectations— expectations that are fostered through child socialization and throughout one’s adult life.

Common Gender Patterns in the Division of Labor In spite of differences in how gender roles may be structured, there is a pattern to differences in roles that are commonly assigned to women and men. A cross-cultural

Monkey Business/Thinkstock Gender socialization begins at a very early age. Boys are often encouraged to be outgoing, while girls are told to be more restrained.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 123 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

study by Murdock and Provost (1973) revealed that throughout the world, males are almost always responsible for hunting large land and sea animals and game birds, and for trapping smaller animals. They are usually expected to fish, to herd large animals, to collect wild honey, and to clear the land and prepare it for planting. Women are usually involved in gathering wild plant foods. Other food production activities, such as collect- ing shellfish; caring for small animals; milking animals; and planting, tending, and har- vesting crops, are not consistently assigned to either men or women. As a matter of fact, such tasks are often roles of either gender. Men usually butcher animals, while women most often cook; prepare vegetable foods, drinks, and dairy products; launder; carry water; and collect fuel. Preserving meat or fish for future use may be done by either men or women or by both.

The common division of labor that Murdock and Provost reported for getting and prepar- ing food most often associates men with work that requires strength or rapid bursts of energy and women with work in which lower levels of strength are required for longer periods. This pattern seems to apply to other areas of work as well. For instance, men typically do woodworking, including felling trees, preparing wood, and building boats. They also are almost always the ones who mine and quarry stone, smelt ores, and work with bone, horn, and shell. Men usually build houses and make nets and ropes. On the other hand, spinning yarn is almost always done by women. Either or both genders pre- pare skins and make leather products, baskets, mats, clothing, or pottery. Whyte (1978) has added to Murdock and Provost’s list by noting that it is almost always men who are involved in warfare and who hold most positions of political leadership. Weisner and Gal- limore (1977) have noted that childcare is usually carried out by women.

According to J. K. Brown (1970), two other biological factors besides strength and metabo- lism also have an influence on gender roles: pregnancy and lactation. Since women of childbearing age in most parts of the world spend about half of their time either preg- nant or nursing children, it is easy to see why women’s roles usually include most of the childcare responsibilities as well as other duties that can be carried out while pregnant or tending children. By contrast, men’s roles include many activities that take them away from home for long periods, or activities that, although done near the home, must be done without the interruption that childcare would involve. In addition, many male activities, such as hunting large game, would be dangerous to children. While these things do not preclude possibilities such as leaving children in the care of someone else while a woman hunts, such practices are less cost effective than a gendered division of labor in which men are the primary hunters while women typically perform work that can be done while also being involved in childcare. It is the social efficiency of this gendered division of labor— not a mandate of biology itself—that has resulted in this pattern becoming typical of soci- eties in which hunting is important.

The common gender differences in tasks that seem unrelated to either strength or child- care may simply be secondary effects of tasks that can be explained in these ways. For instance, men’s involvement in making musical instruments is probably influenced by their other work with wood, just as their work at making nets and ropes may arise from the common use of these tools in activities such as fishing, trapping, and smelting. Although men’s prominence in warfare may be related to their typically greater size and proportion of muscle to body weight, it is also true that many of men’s roles, such as hunting and fishing, take them away from home to locations where strangers are more

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 124 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.2 Diversity in Male and Female Roles

likely to be encountered and where conflict is more likely to arise. The weapons of war are also typically the same kinds of tools that men are accustomed to using in activities such as hunting. In small-scale societies, the association of men with warfare most certainly increases their likelihood of entering positions of political leadership where decisions are made about matters such as relations with neighboring groups of potential enemies. In sum, the predominant role of men in warfare cannot be explained as simply a result of bio- logical differences such as an innately greater tendency toward violence in males. Social circumstances, not just biology, clearly play a role.

Gender Roles and Subsistence A look at the broad range of human cultures shows clearly that the U.S. division of labor in which men are seen as “providers” who provide and control food and other resources, while

women focus on the household, is far from inevitable. This is made appar- ent by studies of gender and subsis- tence. For example, Lee and DeVore’s famous book Man the Hunter (1968a) construed hunting as exclusively the role of men. However, the book has since been criticized for focusing on hunting as the major form of subsis- tence and for its narrow definition of hunting, which emphasized the killing of large aquatic and land ani- mals. By contrast, others have shown that even if women “hunt” less, they still make significant contributions to subsistence and food production (Jarvenpa & Brumbach, 2006) by, for example, processing the meat after the kill (Gifford-Gonzalez, 1993). In fact, women in some foraging societ- ies contribute as much as 80% of the

calories their families eat (Service, 1962; Lee & DeVore, 1968b; Tanaka, 1977). However, on average, women’s subsistence production in all foraging societies represents about 28% of the family’s food. Women’s subsistence contribution tends to be larger than that in societ- ies that practice horticulture or agriculture without irrigation. Peggy Sanday (1973) has reported that women produce from about 33% to about 45% of the subsistence in such societies. Moreover, in parts of Africa, small subsistence farmers are mostly women, who play key role in agricultural production, raising livestock, and processing food. In the Congo, agricultural activities are dominated by women, who produce over 80% of the food crops. In Morocco, over half of women are active in agriculture, and the proportion of total agriculture work carried out by women is 45%, while men carry out about 42%, and children carry out about 14%. Overall, in Africa, women’s contribution to production of food crops range from 30% (Sudan) to 80% (Congo) (FAO, 1995).

However, more complex forms of food production technology, such as irrigation-based agriculture, are associated with heavy labor. The subsistence contribution of women is

Randy Olson/National Geographic Stock Foraging societies often divide roles by sex, with the men hunting and the women gathering. Here, a Mbuti Pygmy hunter with spear and rolled up net for snaring game hunts for dinner.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 125 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.3 Supernumerary Genders

low in societies that practice intensive agriculture and, in particular, it is low where irri- gation is part of the agricultural work. Although industrialized technology reduces the amount of physical labor women must perform well below the levels that are common in agrarian societies, the process of becoming industrialized involves increased poverty and deprivation among women in the lower social classes and rural women.

5.3 Supernumerary Genders

Although all cultures recognize at least two genders, there are some cultures in which supernumerary genders—third or fourth genders—exist. These typi- cally involve a change of the usual association of men’s roles with the male sex and of women’s roles with the female sex. Two examples of third and fourth genders are the North American Indian Two Spirits (formerly known as berdache) and the hijra of India.

Two Spirits A number of indigenous North Amer- ican societies had a social status that has come to be known as a Two Spirits (formerly called a berdache in anthropological literature): a female, male, or intersexed person who had adopted gender roles that mixed the characteristics of the two other genders. Two Spirits were particularly common among men of Plains Indians tribes where warfare was an almost sacred preoccupation and where the male role placed strong emphasis on demonstrations of pride, bravery, and daring. This led some early anthropologists to erroneously interpret the Two Spirits role as a cultural alternative for men who lacked the skill for or interest in the aggressive pursuits of the traditional male role (Hoebel, 1949). They assumed that such a man might instead opt for the life of a Two Spirits by adopting the dress, work, and mannerisms of a woman. More recent research suggests that this interpretation reflects colonial gender constructs rather than indigenous models and oversimplifies a complex and highly variable social reality. Most individuals who became Two Spirits did so not to avoid unpleasant aspects of their assigned gender roles but to resolve their gender dysphoria, or profound sense of mismatch between their birth sex and their gender identity. In his survey of the literature and his own research among the Lakota, Walter Williams (1992, 2010) found that most Native Ameri- can societies with Two Spirits provide some sort of social or spiritual acknowledgement or legitimation of their gender role.

Eye Ubiquitous/SuperStock The hijra are considered genderless but perform roles of both genders.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 126 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.3 Supernumerary Genders

Far from being ridiculed or shunned by other members of their community, Two Spirits held a sacred status in many Native American societies. Often they played important cer- emonial roles, and in some cases all shamans were required to be Two Spirits. A female who became a Two Spirits actually moved up the status hierarchy and might achieve wealth and social prominence by doing so, as the change allowed her to participate in what were considered the more advantageous male pursuits such as trade. A Two Spirits “man” might marry and even rear children by having another man impregnate his wife, or a Two Spirits “woman” might hire another woman as a surrogate mother. For an illus- tration see Figure 5.1.

The Hijra Serena Nanda (1985, 1990) has described the hijra, a socially recognized third gender in India. The hijra, most of whom live in cities in north India, are regarded as neither male nor female, but their roles include elements of both. Like the Two Spirits of the North Ameri- can Indians, the hijra gender also includes religious roles. As devotees of the Mother God- dess Bahuchara Mata, the hijra are expected to undergo a surgical removal of their exter- nal genitalia and to live an asexual life. Their sexual abstinence is believed to be a source of sacredness that allows the hijra to give blessings of fertility, prosperity, and health or to cause infertility through their curses. The hijra perform as musicians and dancers at chris- tenings and at weddings. In these roles, the hijra are spiritually identified with the Hindu god Shiva, who also plays the roles of singer, dancer, eunuch, and transvestite. However, much like the Native American Two Spirits, colonial influences have transformed the hijra gender role and degraded the status of hijras in modern Indian society. Hijras still perform many important social and religious functions, but outside of those contexts they face ridi- cule, discrimination, and sometimes violence. Some remain on good terms with their fam- ilies, while others have been ostracized. Most live in communal hijra households headed by senior hijras called gurus. Earning a living can be extremely difficult for a hijra, leading many to resort to panhandling and prostitution to generate income, much of which they must hand over to their hijra guru to support the household.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 127 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

Figure 5.1: The hijras and their patron goddess

Hijras worship the Hindu goddess Bahuchara Mata. She was from the Charan family, where the custom was to kill oneself rather than surrender to the enemy. Legend has it that she and her sisters were on a journey when their caravan was attacked by Bapiya. Seeing this Bahuchara and her sisters cut their breasts off and cursed Bapiya to impotency. The curse was only lifted when he worshipped Bahuchara Mata by dressing and acting like a woman.

5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

Studies by feminist anthropologists have revealed some important new insights into the causes of inequality between women and men. Many societies that anthropolo-gists have studied have social organizations that include gender stratification, an ordering of men and women that involves different access to social power and pres- tige. Sanday (1974) has suggested four measures of the social power of women’s rank: (1) female control of material things such as land, produce, and crafts outside the domes- tic unit; (2) demand for women’s produce outside the family unit locally or in external markets; (3) women’s right to participate in the political process in a way that influences policy affecting those outside their domestic unit; and (4) the presence of female solidar- ity groups that protect women’s political or economic interests. She found that women’s rank, evaluated by these measures, varied considerably from society to society, and that when women’s economic contribution to subsistence was very high or very low com- pared to men’s, women’s power tended to be low. Most of the roles Sanday associates

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 128 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

with women’s status and power are in the public rather than domestic sphere. Louise Lamphere (2001) explored the distinction between the public and domestic sphere and found that its importance is greatly diminished in foraging and horticultural societies, where many domestic activities are collective or cooperative and most take place in public or communal spaces. Like Sanday, she found that it is in this middle range, where men and women cooperated in subsistence production and contributed more or less equally to the economy, that women’s social power was greatest. This suggests that economic dependency functions to perpetuate low levels of power for women, but when women become the major economic mainstay of families, men tend to find other spheres for exert- ing their social power.

Other researchers have found that women enjoy relatively high status in societies that trace descent through females and have a matrilocal postmarital residence pattern (Friedl, 1975; Martin & Voorhis, 1975; Peletz, 1988). Blackwood’s (2000) research in the Minangka- bau villages of Sumatra suggests that this is partly due to the support woman receive from their kinswomen and partly to the greater control they have over property. Men in this type of society are removed from their own kin groups, which weakens their power base by loosening their ties to their kinsmen. In societies that trace descent through men and have a patrilocal postmarital residence pattern, men’s ties with their male kinfolk are much stronger. These types of arrangements are often associated with external trade and warfare. Under such circumstances, men have greater power and honor, and women have significantly lower status. However, even in societies with patrilineal descent and patrilocal residence, social mechanisms sometimes exist that enhance women’s power and influence. Among the Igbo of Nigeria, for example, women control market exchanges of the fruits of their own and their husbands’ labor. As a result, they enjoy higher status than typical of women in horticultural societies with patrilineal descent and patrilocal postmarital residence (Njoku, 1990). Toyin Falola (1995) found that Yoruba women, like their Igbo neighbors, derive considerable power and influence from their market trading activities, despite the patrilineal/patrilocal emphasis in their society.

The Politics of Gender Stratification Although examples such as those above illustrate that gender equality is possible, most societies in the world customarily provide men with greater access than women to posi- tions of social and economic power and honor, especially in the public arena outside the domestic setting. Egalitarian societies are most common among the socially less complex, nonindustrialized societies of the world; yet even in such societies, men and women may have distinct social roles and be treated slightly differently. Nevertheless, most human beings live in nonegalitarian societies in which differences between men and women in social power and honor tend to be more pronounced. The social organization of such societies often includes gender stratification. When there is no significant gender stratifi- cation, men and women are more or less equal in the deference and respect they receive and in their abilities to influence political decision making. Gender equality can exist even when women do not normally hold political offices. However, where gender stratification is significant, women’s social power or honor, or both, are low. Sanday (1981) examined a cross-cultural sample of societies for which information was available on male aggression against women and women’s access to economic and political power. She found that male aggression toward women and lack of access for women to either economic or political power was characteristic of 28% of the societies she studied. In 32% of the societies, there was gender equality in which male aggression against women was absent, and women

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 129 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

had access to both economic and political power. In the remaining 40%, there were two patterns: one in which male aggression coexisted with women’s access to economic and/ or political power and another in which male aggression was absent, and females had access to economic power but not political power.

In the United States, positions of political leadership are not equally held by women and men, although there certainly have been changes in that direction since women won the vote nationally in 1920. In 2013, women represent 18% of the House of Representatives and 20% of the Senate. Women represent a somewhat higher percentage of state legisla- tures, the nationwide figure being 24.5%. However, only five states, or 10%, had women governors. So, both nationally and at the state level, women’s perspectives are under- represented, including on legislation regarding gender issues such as marriage, divorce, abortion, and contraception. These figures were in keeping with the worldwide average. Data compiled by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in February 2013 revealed that 20.4% of all national-level parliamentarians were women. The Nordic countries had the highest number of women lawmakers at 42%, and the Pacific countries (12.7%) and Arab states (15.7%) had the lowest. The number across the Americas was 23.9%, and across Europe (excluding the Nordic countries) it was 21.9% (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2013).

Marriage and Divorce Rights In a number of countries, arranged marriages are still practiced. For example, in some Islamic countries, where marriage is treated as a legal matter controlled by families, daughters may have little influence on the spousal choice made by their fathers, and divorce is the sole prerogative of the husband. Where marriage is legally treated as a contractual relationship that government sanctions between the spouses themselves, mar- riage law may not necessarily view marriage as an equal partnership. This is particularly true where the marriage of young girls to adult males is permitted by law. For instance, according to Yara Jarallah (2008), about 40% of Nepalese girls are married by age 14. Fifty of the world’s 200 countries currently permit men to legally marry more than one woman. A dozen other countries, in which such marriages are not performed, recognize them if they were performed in other countries.

Spousal and Partner Violence While physical abuse by partners, both in and out of marriage, is the most common form of violence against women worldwide, there are many other sources of physical harm that commonly impact women more than men. For example, Mitra Das (1989) has docu- mented the rise in frequency of dowry-related wife burnings in parts of India. Decades ago, dowries in India were gifts that a woman received from her parents when she mar- ried. Now, the dowry gifts are paid to her in-laws, who many times perceive them to be inadequate, instead of to the bride. Dowry deaths allow the family to acquire another dowry when the husband remarries. These incidences, often caused by setting fire to a kerosene-doused woman, are described as “kitchen accidents.” Das argues that dowry deaths developed because of the economic changes that resulted from industrialization, which has particularly affected lower-income families, for whom large dowries have become increasingly important. More recently, some anthropologists have questioned Das’s assumptions that industrialization and modernization caused the rise of dowry deaths. Oldenburg (2002) examines instead how British colonialism led to massive social and economic changes, resulting in the devaluation of women vis-à-vis men. In particular, British policies gave men more control over land and property, leaving women with little

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 130 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

control over economic resources and converting dowry from a women-centered “safety net” to a “noose” controlled by in-laws.

Despite the passage of the Prohibition of Dowry Act in 1961, the category of “dowry death” has become more well known and pervasive since the 1980s, when there were approximately 400 dowry deaths. According to India’s National Crime Records Bureau, dowry deaths have been steadily increasing from about 4,648 dowry deaths in 1995 to about 8,391 dowry deaths in 2010, even though the payment of a dowry has been officially prohibited since 1961.

Reproductive Rights A right to control one’s own reproductive life is not universally recognized by law in state societies. It is limited in various ways in most of the countries of the world today. For instance, Mosher (1983) has documented the strong governmental role in limiting family size in the People’s Republic of China. Under a 1979 legal policy that limited each family to having only one child, women who become pregnant a second time have been put under strong pressure to terminate their pregnancies. In some instances women have been coerced into undergoing unwanted abortions as late as in the 7th month of preg- nancy. This policy was widely resisted in China, especially in rural areas where children were viewed as an economic asset. Since 1985, the state has allowed people in some rural areas to have two children, and during the 1980s nearly half of all births reported in these areas were second or later children (but three or more children can result in fines). Recently, there has been much speculation that the Chinese government would terminate its one-child policy for all citizens, but as of this writing, the policy has not been offi- cially changed, and the Chinese government continues to limit population growth in the world’s most populated country.

In Puerto Rico, Diana Russell and Nicole Van de Ven (1976) reported that during the 1960s, the government policy of controlling population growth had resulted in 35% of women of childbearing age being sterilized, in most cases without the use of the sterilization consent form required by law. Research indicated that 19.5% of these women reported health complications, and 10% reported that their relationships suffered as a result of their sterilization.

While some countries have imposed limitations on women’s reproductive rights, other governments have limited or denied women’s access to contraceptive information and abortion. For instance, such a policy took an extreme form in Romania under the regime of Nicolae Ceauçescu. Due to its concern about the nation’s low birth rate, the government practically mandated pregnancy, in the late 1960s. Romanian law forbade sexuality educa- tion, contraception, and abortion. Women who failed to conceive were fined a “celibacy tax” of up to 10% of their salaries, and pregnant women who miscarried were suspected of having had an abortion and were summoned for questioning. These policies ended in December 1989 when Ceauçescu was overthrown. Although the Romanian policies rep- resent an extreme, government efforts to increase population are still pursued in many countries, including the United States, through policies that restrict or deny family plan- ning services to women. Singapore, which has been experiencing a declining Native-born population and growing immigrant population, is providing financial and other incen- tives to encourage Singaporean families to have more children. Its objective is to increase its population from the current level of 5.3 million to 6.9 million by 2030 (Hodel, 2013).

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 131 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

Patriarchy A fundamental concept for understanding male dominance in gender-stratified societies is the idea of patriarchy, a form of society in which men customarily have greater access to social power and prestige than do women. The culture and customs of a patriarchal society assume that male privilege is normal, and both men and women in such societies may resist challenges to patriarchal institutions. Enculturation into a system of customs in which male privilege is the norm can make it difficult for members—both men and women—to perceive or acknowledge that some of their customs function in ways that disadvantage women.

One reason that gender stratification may be accepted as normal is that it is simply one part of a more pervasive system of social ranking in the societies in which it exists. Where gender stratification exists, the privileges of power and prestige are unequally divided in a variety of other ways as well: race, ethnic origins, religion, and various other social sta- tuses. Gender is but one of the many ways in which inequality can be manifested.

It should not be assumed that all gender stratification necessarily implies an extreme degree of female subordination. As with other forms of ranking, customary gender dif- ferences may be minor and without great emphasis on their importance, or there may be major disparities in the ranking of men and women with rigid enforcement of the distinc- tions. In extreme cases women may be stigmatized as inferior and spiritually dangerous to men, and rape, physical and psychological abuse, and other gendered abuses of power may function to perpetuate the subordination of women. Carole Sheffield (1987) described forms of “sexual intimidation” involving customs that employ violence against females and thereby help maintain male control and domination of females. Some forms of sexual intimidation, such as the physical and psychological abuse of women, are widely associ- ated with gender stratification, while others such as purdah, the sati, and footbinding (discussed later in this section) are forms that developed within specific cultural contexts.

Physical Abuse The physical abuse of women is a major worldwide problem. Such abuse—which ranges from beatings to rape—appears to be increasing in many countries. South Africa is believed to have one of the world’s highest rates of domestic violence; it is estimated that a woman is raped every 36 seconds there (Onyejekwe, 2004). In rural parts of Egypt, 80% of women report that beatings are quite common, according to the United Nations Population Fund (United Nations, 2008). Domestic abuse problems are also present in industrialized societ- ies. In the United States, for example, the Department of Justice reports that about 1.3 mil- lion women are physically assaulted by an intimate partner each year, and that one in four women will experience domestic violence over her lifetime (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Overall, gender-based violence is said to affect as many as one third of women world- wide, leaving many of them traumatized for life and constituting a serious human rights and public health problem, according to the Pan American Health Organization (2003). To address this problem, many countries have passed laws to define and prohibit domestic abuse. In addition, nongovernmental and women’s organizations have formed to support the victims. However, while it is tempting to see domestic violence as an individual prob- lem, located within households, anthropologists often link such violence to wider social and political transformations that can disrupt gender relations and families.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 132 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

Rape as Social Control In some societies, rape or the threat of rape has been used as a mechanism for controlling women’s behavior. For instance, Thomas Gregor (1982) described the Mehinaku of central Brazil, who segregated men and women and had a very strict division of labor by gender. The men’s house was a sacred place and a social club from which women were excluded. When women violated rules that forbade them from observing the sacred things of men, the Mehinaku used gang rape as punishment.

Among the Cheyenne Indians of the North American Plains, a wife who committed adultery could be punished by gang rape at the husband’s request. He could invite the 30 to 40 unmarried men who were members of his military association but not members of his wife’s clan to rape her. If she survived the ordeal, she was stigmatized for the rest of her life.

“Mass rape” is also a war crime. Hayden (2000) argues that, in the context of ethno- national conflicts, rape becomes a tool to separate a heterogeneous population, at the same time that the territory in which they live is also being divided. For example, during the 1990s’ “ethnic cleansing” war in Bosnia, an estimated 60,000 Bosnian Muslim women were raped. In this case, rape may have been a weapon of war aimed at making the vic- tims hate the aggressors. Mass rape, during wartime, can also be a form of political power, as Littlewood (1997) argues. It can be a way to punish and humiliate a specific community, and can even escalate to forms of genital mutilation directed at both women and men.

Footbinding Until the 1920s many Chinese families bound the feet of their young daughters very tightly to keep them small into adulthood, a trait that was regarded as beautiful, in a practice known as footbinding. According to Howard Levy (1966), this typically painful custom began within the upper class and demonstrated that a man should support a wife

who could not walk well enough to work. Small feet became symbols of aristocracy and beauty, so the prac- tice spread into the middle and even working classes. Normal feet, like those of farm women who had to work, were ridiculed as ugly. The process of binding involved extreme pain and led to permanent deforma- tion of the woman’s feet. The custom of footbinding was particularly dif- ficult for poorer women whose feet had been bound but who had to walk in spite of the pain because they had to work. In the late 1920s the Chinese government exerted tremendous pressure against its people to end the custom.

ClassicStock.com/SuperStock The patriarchic custom of footbinding made it difficult for Chinese women to work and walk.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 133 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

Sati Another example of sexual terrorism was the custom of the sati that was practiced in 19th-century India. A Hindu widow was expected to demonstrate her fidelity and love for her deceased husband by joining him on his funeral pyre. In traditional Hindu com- munities, the woman’s status was defined so intensely in terms of her relationship with a husband that a widow was not permitted to remarry. A widow’s sexual behavior would have dishonored her family. Her devotion to her husband, whom she should have loved and honored as a god, was expected to be so great that she would not have wished to survive without him. Mary Daly (1978) reported that since widows had no acceptable means of surviving, those who did not follow the custom of the sati were sometimes forced into the fire by their relatives. This practice has been officially banned since 1829, and the Indian government enacted a law in 1987 to make it illegal to coerce a woman to commit sati, to glorify sati, or to attempt to commit sati. Nevertheless, there are still some rare cases of it today.

Purdah Family honor is extremely important in many Islamic countries, and often deeply depends on the sexual purity of the female members of the family. That purity is ensured by the practice of purdah, or seclusion, in which women remain isolated from public view. Com- mon features of purdah are the restriction of women to the inner parts of the home when guests are present and the rule of women’s being veiled when outside the home. Viola- tions of the rules of purdah are severely punished in some countries that follow the cus- tom, as was the case in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and remains the case in some areas of the country today.

Even in areas where purdah is no longer strictly observed, a girl’s or a woman’s honor remains closely linked to her family’s honor and is safeguarded by her male kinfolk. Gideon M. Kressel (1981) analyzed societies where the murder of a sister or daughter is practiced to restore family honor when she has been publicly accused of consorting with a male. The act need not have included sexual intercourse. For instance, Kressel cites the example of a 13-year-old girl who was drowned after she had been berated by her brother when he caught her holding hands with a boy. The attacker is usually a brother but is also frequently the father. The victim is most often in her teens but may be a married woman. The homicide generally occurs after a public attack on the family’s honor that the family is unable to address by other means, such as arranging a marriage between the couple. An arranged union may be problematic, however. If the boy is of a lower-ranked lineage, the marriage may not be acceptable to the girl’s father, as it would lower the esteem of his lineage. Kressel believes that such homicides allow patrilineal kin groups to demonstrate their loyalty to the values of the society in which they are competing for social stand- ing. They enhance the family’s prestige and demonstrate the religious commitment of the attacker to societal values.

Female Genital Surgery In a number of societies, where male dominance over women is an important fact of life, the genitals of female children are surgically altered, a practice called female circumcision (also known as genital cutting, female genital mutilation). It occurs in at least 20 African countries, and in Oman, the Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, and among some Muslims

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 134 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

in Malaysia and Indonesia. Female circumcision differs from the circumcision of males in several ways. Female circumcision is a more radical procedure that typically involves either partial or full removal of the clitoris in order to modify a woman’s genitalia in ways that may be locally perceived as more beautiful and to eliminate the physiological pleasure of sexual intercourse. On the other hand, male circumcision does not involve the removal of the pleasure-sensitive part of the penis. While male circumcision is often performed on infants, female circumcision is more typically performed at a later age at which the process is easily remembered. Because of these differences, where female cir- cumcision has these characteristics and is associated with gender stratification, it is some- times referred to as “female genital mutilation” (particularly by critics of the practice) to highlight its role in perpetuating the subordination of women. In contrast to milder forms of female circumcision, the more dramatic nature of female genital mutilation function in support of the subordination of females, while male circumcision—even when it is pain- ful or performed on older male children—has no implication of subordination for males.

Hosken (1980) described the most common forms of female genital cutting, their effects, and the cultural settings in which they occur. One of these forms is infibulation—an operation performed mostly in childhood in which the sides of the vulva are closed over the vagina—is particularly common where the virginity of wives is important. Following infibulation, sexual intercourse is not possible until the barrier created by the operation is cut, usually by the husband. Deinfibulation is extremely painful. It can result in severe bleeding and can lead to tetanus and other infections that can damage the fallopian tubes and cause sterility. Deaths from medical complications are not uncommon.

Excision—removal of the pleasure-sensitive clitoris—is performed to reduce a woman’s sexual sensations and, thereby, her interest in sex. This is thought to increase her fidelity in marriage, especially in societies where polygyny (where men are permitted to have more than one wife, see chapter 6) is practiced, and legitimate opportunities for heterosexual intercourse are less common for wives than for husbands. Excision is sometimes thought to increase female fertility, so it is also practiced to ensure that a woman will have many children. The World Health Organization estimates that 140 million girls and women worldwide have undergone some form of genital cutting, including 101 million girls 10 years of age or older in Africa alone (WHO, 2013). Excision is practiced by Christian Copts in Egypt, as well as by Egyptian Moslems and by non-Moslem groups in the 26 African countries where it has been documented. Furthermore, although infibulation was not a traditional Western practice, excision was practiced by European and American surgeons into the 20th century as a supposed cure for masturbation and nymphomania, a negative label for sexual desire in females (Barker-Banfield, 1983).

Although the practice of female circumcision is still common, it has started to encoun- ter opposition in recent years by a growing number of African and European women who have become concerned especially about the medical dangers it can pose. Efforts by women acting through the United Nations have led a few heads of state to take a posi- tion against female circumcision. For instance, Thomas Sankara, former leader of Burkina Faso, spoke out against female circumcision before he was deposed in 1991. In the 1980s, Presidents Abdou Diouf of Senegal and Daniel arap Moi of Kenya also publicly opposed the practice. Yet female circumcision continues to have widespread support, not only because of the weight of tradition but also because, for many, the practice became a form of resistance to colonial interference.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 135 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

The Causes of Gender Inequality Various causes have been suggested for gender inequality. Prominent among these have been men’s role in warfare and the economic division of labor by gender.

Warfare Marvin Harris (1974) points out that the dominance of males in nonindustrialized societ- ies is likely when the male role in warfare is compatible with their day-to-day domina- tion of local community life. Thus, in societies that wage internal warfare (warfare that is primarily between neighboring communities that have the same language and cultures, see chapter 8), the aggressive role of males as warriors is carried over into their daily social roles as leaders of their local communities and families. In such societies, women are expected to play subordinated roles and are often treated as objects of barter between warriors. Devale and Harris (1976) have noted that internal warfare correlates with an unbalanced sex ratio in which there are fewer women than men, which results from the high value placed on sons in these warlike societies and is partly brought about by the practice of female infanticide. Because the sex ratio imbalance then makes it difficult for young men to find wives, a man’s desire to prove his valor in battle and thus obtain a wife can be a powerful psychological motive for participation in warfare.

The role of warfare in the subordination of women does not hold in external warfare, war- fare between distant groups who do not share the same culture. Like economic activities such as long-distance trade, external warfare removes men from their local communities for prolonged periods. The day-to-day economic and political life of local communities is then in the hands of women, and inheritance is typically handed down from mother to child. In societies in which the means of producing income are owned by the produc- ers themselves (e.g., animal husbandry or gardening), women often have high rank, and men’s aggressive warrior roles convey no special privileges on the men when they return home, as property is owned and inherited by women. This contrasts with the effect of war- fare in nation-states in which people typically produce their income by being employed by someone who owns the business one works for. Thus, during World War II, women moved into factory jobs previously held by men while those men were at war, but when the men returned, they replaced those female employees once again.

Economics and Gender Equality Lisette Josephides (1985) contends that male access to strategic resources is a primary factor in male dominance over women. Friedl (1975) has argued that the crucial issue in the control of economic goods is whether men have exclusive rights to decide how these goods will be used and distributed outside the domestic setting. For instance, the distri- bution of meat by hunters in foraging bands, the distribution of economic goods by “big men” in horticultural tribes who are responsible for encouraging economic productivity, or the predominance of men in managerial positions that control other employees’ salaries tend to be a source of male dominance when women do not also participate extensively in these roles. In societies where men monopolize these activities, women’s contribution to family income might equal or exceed that of men, but they are still likely to experi- ence subordination. In effect, male control over the extradomestic use of goods, including resources produced by women, becomes a means for “buying” higher status.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 136 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

In capitalist societies, gender roles and stereotypes may be perpetuated by the economic system. Heidi Hartmann (1976) argues that the indirect and impersonal mechanisms of con- trol that emerged with capitalism perpetuated male control over women by enforcing lower wages for women through job segregation, thereby creating pressure for women to marry. This not only advantages men both economically and domestically, but it also creates a vicious cycle of subordination for women. In a different way, new microcredit programs can also recreate gender inequalities. These programs, which have been implemented in some “developing” countries like Bangladesh and Paraguay, are poverty-alleviation efforts that aim to bring people (mostly women) into the fold of the capitalism by giving them small short-term loans to start small businesses. These programs favor women based on the belief that women are more likely than men to repay their loans and that women will use the money for the collective good of their households. However, while purportedly empower- ing for women, these programs also reinstate gender inequality by, for example, reinforcing stereotypes about women’s “natural” tendency to care for their families and reinforcing the traditional sexual division of labor (women who receive these loans are still expected to do the bulk of the unpaid household labor) (Isserles, 2003). Hence, new developments in global capitalism may not necessarily even the playing field for men and women.

These microcredit programs illustrate that economic power does not always translate into social power. Similarly, Sanday (1973) suggested that men’s absence from the local community for long-distance trade or for work- ing in distant towns may give women greater local control over important economic resources, but she also pointed out (1974) that women’s eco- nomic productivity is not necessarily reflected in greater social respect. For instance, according to Siegfried Fred- erick Nadel (1952), among the Nupe of Nigeria, women’s economic posi- tion is generally much better than their husbands’, but Nupe men fear and resent women openly. Nancy Tanner (1974) discussed the concept of matrifocality, a form of social sys- tem in which high female status is maintained by the absence of men and female control of food production. Matrifocality is common in matrilineal societies (see Chapter 6), but it may also occur in patrilineal societies. For instance, the Ibo of eastern Nigeria have a patrilineal society that follows a patrilocal residence rule at marriage. Ibo men enter polygynous marriages, but because they are involved in long-distance trading that keeps them away much of the time, each wife has her own house and garden and controls the products of her own labor. Marketing of surplus produce occurs locally, where the prices are set by a women’s organization. The autonomy that women’s economic independence promotes functions to keep women’s status high in this society even though inheritance of property is from father to son and wives live with their husband near his family.

Photodisc/Thinkstock In the early 20th century in the United States, women were often hired as factory workers because employers could pay women lower wages but get the same productivity as a male employee.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 137 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.4 Gender, Power, and Honor

The importance of women’s control over valued economic resources is illustrated in many western African societies, where women have very high social standing. Similarly, among the traditional Plains Indians of North America, prior to the White expansion into their homelands, male and female economic roles were very different. Men hunted the bison, an extremely important resource that provided not only food but also hides, sinew, and bones used to make many tools. However, in spite of men’s very aggressive roles when it came to intertribal warfare or the policing of village life, Plains women had very high status that derived, at least in part, from growing the plant foods that were the staples of the Plains diet. The beans and corn that they grew met people’s nutritional needs for pro- tein even when men brought in no meat from the hunt. Thus, Plains women owned and controlled a critical resource that freed them from economic dependence on men. These examples contrast with many New Guinea highlands women, whose work in the family gardens and in managing the care of the family pig herds was the basic source of food and wealth. Although women produced these goods, the property and produce were consid- ered to be owned by their husbands, so women lacked control over the fruits of their own labor and had a rather low social standing.

Mary Nelson (1989) suggests that social change in the roles of women can be a source of antagonism toward them by men. For instance, the Inquisition occurred in Europe during a time when women were entering new forms of employment. Hundreds of thousands of women, particularly those who were not following the traditional gender roles that made them dependent on men, were accused of witchcraft and put to death. Midwives and women who had inherited wealth, and other economically independent women were particularly vulnerable.

Modernization and globalization have impacted women’s status in complicated ways. Throughout southeastern Asia, for example, large numbers of young women have found new opportunities to make money in the textile and electronics industries. This has increased their status by increasing their labor force participation and ability to generate income. It has also removed them from the control of their male kinfolk. However, it is not as simple as that. The women’s newfound status has derived from low wages earned under poor working conditions with few benefits, and oftentimes the patriarchal control over their lives merely transferred from their male kinfolk to male work supervisors (Ong, 1983). Women in the horticultural societies of Africa, Asia, and South America have actu- ally experienced declining status because, as more intensive agricultural practices have been adopted and production has become increasingly geared to the global marketplace, control of land and production in those regions has become concentrated in the hands of individual men. And although women have tended to experience a rise in status and influence in socialist societies, in postsocialist societies they often experience declining status. After the break up of the former Soviet Union, for example, the status of women in Russia plunged as unemployed rose and the amount of money they earned relative to men declined. Their participation in the political process also dropped off.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 138 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.5 Sexual Orientation

5.5 Sexual Orientation

Our affective and erotic attraction to other persons based on their sex characteristics, traits perceived as “male” or “female” traits, is referred to as our sexual orienta-tion. The large majority of adult individuals appear to be primarily attracted to persons who are not of their own sex, but research suggests that perhaps 3–5% of people appear to have a lifelong sexual orientation toward members of their own sex.

Sexual Orientation, Biology, and Socialization Research has not yet unambiguously determined the relative contribution of biology and socialization to sexual orientation. Nevertheless, it is clear that, once established, sexual orienta- tion is not a readily malleable charac- teristic but seems rather firmly fixed for most individuals throughout their life course.

Homophobia Contrary to a popular misconcep- tion in the West, homosexuality is not universally stigmatized. Based on the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample of

186 societies, Crapo (1995) found that only 31% of people stigmatized homosexual behavior, while the remainder either considered homosexual experimentation to be a normal devel- opmental phase of preadult life (38%), accepted committed adult same-sex relationships as an alternative form of marriage (18%), or even required same-sex relationships among all males during a period that preceded their being permitted to marry heterosexually (12%).

The word homophobia was coined by a New York psychotherapist, George Weinberg, in 1967, to refer to a pattern of irrational fear, revulsion, and distrust of homosexuals that was sometimes translated into hostility and even rage toward them. He had noted this pattern of irrational feelings in a number of his patients. The homophobic feelings of his patients were irrational in the sense that they were not grounded in experiences with real persons who are sexually oriented toward their own sex and were not based on any real danger posed to the persons with these prejudices. Like racial prejudices, they were typi- cally justified by inaccurate stereotypes about the stigmatized group. In fact, persons who are homophobically prejudiced are less likely to report that they know any gay or lesbian persons than are those who are not homophobic. Homophobic feelings and their associ- ated beliefs are also irrational in the sense that they are very resistant to change based on factual information that contradicts the false beliefs with which they justify their feelings. Finally, the irrationality of homophobia manifests in the ability to entertain mutually con- tradictory positions about homosexuality. For instance, the same person who asserts that homosexuality is terribly disgusting to “normal people” may also compare homosexual- ity to a contagious disease that readily spreads from one person to another or ask, “What if everyone became homosexual?”

John Warburton Lee/SuperStock Sex and gender can be exhibited in various ways. In this beauty pageant in Thailand, boys compete as females in a Kathoey (ladyboy) pageant.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 139 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.5 Sexual Orientation

Homophobia and Sexism Where does homophobia come from, and how can it become so pervasive that it repre- sents a typical blind spot for members of society? Psychiatrist Gregory Lehne (1976) sug- gests that childrearing customs—not psychopathology—are the source of our customary homophobia. He noted that homophobia begins at an early age—long before the children involved actually know the meaning of words like “homosexual,” and it arises in the context of peer socialization about what it means to be masculine or feminine. The pro- cess involves an implicit threat of being rejected by others of one’s own sex for not being appropriately masculine or feminine. For instance in American society, a 5-year-old boy who is less aggressive than his peers may be labeled as a “sissy.” The insult treats “girls” as a symbolic “out group”—that is, as somehow inferior to “boys.” The anxiety of being seen as feminine functions to pressure nonconforming boys toward conforming to mascu- line roles. Later in life, terms like “sissy” are merged with words like “queer,” “fairy,” and “fag”—terms that shift the “out group” from females to sexual orientation. By adopting homophobic thinking, males can affirm their own masculinity instead of feeling anxiety about inadequacy. That is, homophobia replaces personal anxiety about the adequacy of one’s own handling of gender roles with antipathy towards an out group. And this antipa- thy develops early enough that those who experience it may have little idea about what the words “homosexual” or “gay” actually mean. Indeed, gay men commonly report that they themselves were homophobic before they identified themselves as “gay.” Lehne’s model demonstrates a link between homophobia and sexism. It also explains why false stereotypes about the “effeminacy” of homosexual males are such a pervasive element of homophobic thinking in the United States and why the false stereotypes about homosexu- als are so resistant to change. The stereotypes permit believers to feel better about them- selves as men and as members of their heterosexual reference group.

This gender-socialization model of homophobia also explains why the strong emotions of homophobia are not based on actual experience with homosexual persons. The process of developing homophobic prejudices begins long before children have developed a real understanding of sexuality or the real reference group of gay people. So the use of terms that denote gay males as pejorative challenges a boy’s acceptability to his peers, and all of the emotional loadings of those pejorative terms carry over as stigma against real gay persons. All of the feelings are magnified during the period of adolescence when sexual- ity begins to become something of real relevance and when secondary sexual characteris- tics begin to develop. The social anxieties that accompany adolescent biological changes aggravate the social anxieties and escalate the effects of homophobia. This model also explains why homophobia is a developmental experience among males who later identify themselves as “gay” as well as among heterosexually oriented persons.

The link between homophobia and sexism (and related customs that involved maintain- ing social hierarchies) was recognized as early as in the 1970s when Schur (1972) and Dunbar et al. (1973) found that those most prejudiced against homosexuals strongly sup- ported traditional gender roles and were authoritarian and conservative in their social attitudes (e.g., opposition to civil rights for women, blacks, and other minorities). In related research, A. P. MacDonald (1974) found that lack of support for equality between the sexes correlates very highly with homophobia.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 140 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.5 Sexual Orientation

Homophobia and Heterosexism Homophobia and sexism are related to a third social characteristic, heterosexism—the often unspoken assumption within a society’s customs and institutions that all members of society are heterosexual. From a heterosexist perspective, if a woman is not socially involved in a relationship with a man, she is not fully a woman: Whether celibate or lesbian, she is seen as “queer.” If she is independent and aggressive about her life, she is called a “dyke,” regardless of sexual preference. Such labels have been used to keep straight women in their place and to keep persons with a lesbian sexual orientation in the closet. Since the assertion of a homosexual or lesbian identity inherently challenges both heterosexism and male supremacy, it is met with strong opposition that rejects the acceptability of such self-definitions. Because adopting the public social roles and identity of “gay” or “lesbian” is a challenge to the status quo, these statuses are resisted by society at large. Gays and lesbians who assert their right to a public nonheterosexual identity are said to be “flaunting their sexuality,” while public displays of heterosexual affection are often openly accepted as normal. The maintenance of heterosexism and male social domi- nance requires that homosexuality remains a stigmatized, socially unacceptable category. Thus, anyone who is interested in or who defends the rights of homosexuals is assumed to be a homosexual.

An interesting byproduct of the heterosexist defining of women’s sexuality in terms of service to heterosexual male desire is that lesbian behavior is not necessarily tabooed. In fact, lesbian behavior is a standard feature in pornographic entertainment that caters to heterosexual male tastes. Instead of treating lesbian behavior as a threat, this inclusion of sex between women within heterosexual pornography co-opts it into the system of patriarchy. Similarly, in traditional polygynous societies, “harem lesbianism” (between co-wives) was very often acceptable, as it did not challenge the patriarchal authority of the husbands. Thus, some very homophobic males may focus solely on demonizing male homosexuality while ignoring lesbianism as a topic. This ability to co-opt the symbolism of lesbianism into the system of heterosexism explains, in part, why male homosexuality specifically is the more common focus of political discussions of homosexuality in which male homosexuals are stereotyped as promiscuous and a threat to “family values” while lesbianism may be ignored. A similar pattern occurs in childhood, where a certain degree of “tomboyishness” may be tolerated in girls, but the challenge of “sissy,” among boys is a stronger insult. This is not to say that lesbianism is never the object of homophobic intol- erance but that it is less likely to be in contexts that do not directly challenge the system of heterosexism. However, in settings such as the military or, in some corporate settings, where male heterosexuality is symbolically linked to male status competition, the failure of women to respond sexually to male advances is a direct challenge to the system, and the coercive uses of epithets such as “dyke” or “lesbian” to punish women for not playing the expected heterosexually subordinate roles does occur.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 141 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Section 5.5 Sexual Orientation

Same Sex Marriage: A Current U.S. Political Issue

Within the traditional U.S. heterosexist outlook, marriage was simply assumed to be a union between a man and a woman. Today, the question of granting legal marriage equality to gay and lesbian cou- ples has become a political issue both at the national and state levels. Civil marriage automatically extends a large number of legal benefits to couples whom government recognizes as legally married. These include spouses being recognized legally as next of kin (which itself entails a large number of other legal and contractual rights, such as the right to make funeral decisions for a deceased spouse, visitation rights in hospitals and the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, insurance benefits for a spouse’s children, and inheritance rights) as well as various governmentally recognized rights such as the right to file income taxes as couples. These and hundreds of other legal rights that come with civil marriage make the issue of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples an important one for those couples for whom they are not currently available.

The politics of same sex marriage have been hotly contested since 1993, when the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled that under the state constitution, denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples was an unconstitutional form of sex discrimination. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court that had originally been dismissed to consider arguments whether there was a compelling state interest in permitting this discrimination. Eventually, in 1996, the Circuit Court eventually found in favor of the plaintiff couples, but during the same 3 years, state legislature became embroiled in a debate about changing the state constitution so that the legislature was authorized to limit marriage rights to two- sex couples. Eventually, this was done, but a new legal category of civil unions was then created that as of January, 1, 2012, included many of the same rights of marriage for other couples.

In 1996, the U. S. Legislature passed the DOMA (“Defense of Marriage”) Act that prevents the fed- eral government from recognizing same-sex couples as married. One major effect of this is that gay and lesbian couples will remain unable to file their federal taxes as married couples, although they may file their state taxes that way if they reside and are married in a state that accepts same-sex marriages. Similarly, they do not have access to other federal benefits normally available to spouses pertaining to such things as Medicaid, veteran’s benefits, inheritance benefits, or immigration law.

On the state level, the majority of states have banned recognition of same-sex marriage. The debates regarding this have been quite contentious. For instance, in 2008 the California legislature legalized same-sex marriages, but this was then overturned in a public vote (Proposition 8), and this was fol- lowed by litigation that challenges the constitutionality of the ban.

Currently, Washington, DC; Massachusetts; Connecticut; Iowa; Vermont; New Hampshire; New York; Maine; Maryland; and Washington have legalized same-sex marriage, although these marriages are not recognized in other states. Five other states—Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—recognize same-sex civil unions; and California, Nevada, and Oregon have created civil “part- nership” options for same-sex couples. Neither civil unions nor domestic partnerships offer all of the legal benefits of civil marriage.

The issue of same-sex marriage is likely to remain one of public, legislative, and court debate for some time to come.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 142 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Key Terms

berdache See Two Spirits.

female circumcision Surgical alteration of female genitals including both minor alterations similar to those in male circum- cision and more radical forms that have no male counterparts (see also female genital mutilation, infibulation, and excision).

gender A social identity that consists of the roles persons are expected to play because of their sex.

gender stereotypes Preconceived ideas about how women and men differ in their personality traits, behavioral skills, and predispositions.

gender stratification An ordering of men and women that involves different access to social power and prestige.

genital cutting See female circumcision.

Chapter Summary 1. Sexism functions to maintain gendered differences in social roles. 2. Gender is a social and cultural identity that consists of roles a person is expected

to play because of his or her sex. 3. There is great cross-cultural variety in how the genders are perceived. 4. The presence or absence of male dominance is influenced by a society’s kinship

system, the nature of its warfare, and its economic customs. 5. Religion provides supernatural support for society’s gender-role traditions and

portrays gender differences in the symbolism of its creation stories. 6. Some societies have more than two gender categories.

Discussion Questions 1. Explain the difference between sex and gender. 2. Discuss the nature of sex differences. 3. Explain why sex differences do not directly produce two contrasting sets of gen-

der roles. 4. What are gender stereotypes, and what problems can they pose for individuals? 5. What is gender stratification? 6. List Sanday’s four measures of gender stratification. 7. Outline the causes of gender inequality. 8. Why is it appropriate to define statuses such as the Two Spirits (berdache) as a

gender? 9. What similarities exist between the gender roles of Two Spirits and hijras? How

might these similarities be explained? 10. What are the characteristics of homophobia, and how may it be grounded in

early gender socialization?

Key Terms

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 143 5/23/13 2:27 PM

CHAPTER 5Key Terms

heterosexism The often unspoken assumption within a society’s customs and institutions that all members of society are heterosexual.

homophobia A pattern of irrational fear, revulsion, and distrust of homosexuals that is sometimes translated into hostility and even rage toward them.

infibulation Surgical closing of the female vulva over the vagina.

intersexed persons Individuals whose physical characteristics include both male and female traits.

matrifocal societies Societies in which the primary solidarity relations involve women.

patriarchy A form of society in which access to social power and prestige is unequally distributed by gender to men.

purdah The seclusion of women from public view.

sex Biological distinctions such as the chromosomal, hormonal, or physical dif- ferences between males and females.

sexism Rigid enforcement of gender stereotypes that prevents individuals from playing roles that are not those assigned to their own sex.

sexual dimorphism The phenomena whereby males are, on average, physiolog- ically slightly larger than females.

sexual orientation Affective and erotic attraction to other persons based on their sex characteristics and traits perceived as “male” or “female” traits.

supernumerary genders Third or fourth genders that have roles that are distinct from the two genders that are typically assigned to males and females.

Two Spirits Among Native American societies, a female, male, or hermaphro- dite who had adopted gender role that mixed the characteristics of the two other genders.

cra80793_05_c05_119-144.indd 144 5/23/13 2:27 PM