Stairs. Entry group. Materials. Doors. Locks. Design

This book was first published in 2003. It was the first domestic textbook, with the help of which university teachers conducted practical and seminar classes in the process of reading courses on gender psychology and other gender-oriented disciplines. The following circumstances contributed to the appearance of the 2nd edition of the Workshop on Gender Psychology. Firstly, the 1st edition was generally positively evaluated by teachers and was in demand among professionals interested in gender issues. However, the authors also received some critical comments related to the content of some developments. Therefore, there was a need to adjust and refine a number of topics.

Another circumstance that prompted the authors to prepare the 2nd edition of the workshop was the increase in knowledge in the field of gender studies. Over the past five years, new scientific and educational-methodical works have been published; many gender specialists have defended doctoral and master's theses; the circle of those interested in gender issues has significantly expanded, not only at the level scientific research but also in the field of practical applications of theoretical knowledge. Consequently, the content of the workshop needed to be supplemented and updated, taking into account the current level of development of domestic and foreign gender psychology.

This edition of the workshop on gender psychology differs significantly from its first version. Although the total number of texts has not changed, 15 methodological developments are completely new, while the rest have been updated and supplemented in the theoretical and practical parts.

New methodological developments are devoted to very relevant topics that were not previously included in the workshop due to the lack of methodological development. These topics reveal such issues as the role of feminism in the development of gender studies in psychology, the gender aspect of parenthood, the role of fiction in the upbringing of children and adults, etc. The problem of sexuality from the standpoint of a gender approach is widely represented, and such a relevant topic for the gender direction is also discussed, like domestic violence.

The composition of the authors of the workshop has also changed, almost a third of them are new authors. Some teachers could not take part in the work on the new edition due to various circumstances, but the main composition of the authors remained the same. Eight new authors contributed to the 2nd edition of the workshop.

Remained unchanged general concept workshop, which is defined, as in the previous edition, the ideas of a gender approach.

has not changed and general structure workshop, which includes four sections: "Introduction to Gender Psychology", "Gender Socialization", "Gender Characteristics of the Personality", "Applied Aspects of Gender Psychology". These sections in general terms reflect the current structure of gender psychology as a scientific field of knowledge and academic discipline.

The first section deals with the most general issues of gender psychology: the content of the concept of "gender", everyday gender representations, psychophysiological and psychological differences between the sexes, psychological characteristics of gender groups, the role of feminism in the development of gender studies.

The second section presents methodological developments of practical classes that will help students to understand the ways and mechanisms of influence of the main institutions of socialization (family, school, fiction) on the formation of gender attitudes, stereotypes, and ideas among participants in the socialization process.

The third section of the workshop helps to reveal the content of such key topics of gender psychology as gender stereotypes, gender roles, gender attitudes and prejudices of the individual, gender identity. Special attention given to such personality characteristics as gender competence.

The fourth section presents works that consider gender issues in its practical application.

The structure of each methodological development has been preserved, which includes the following parts: introductory remarks, objectives of the lesson, equipment, work order, control questions to test students' knowledge, a list of references and applications. All forms of conducting classes belong to the group of interactive teaching methods.

I would like to thank all those who expressed their assessments and critical judgments about the content of methodological developments in the workshop.

The authors hope that the revised and supplemented workshop will be useful both for teachers and students, and for everyone who is interested in psychology, and will also contribute to the development of a gender direction in psychological science.

I. Kletsina

The division of people into men and women is the central setting of how we perceive ourselves and those around us. At the ordinary level of reasoning, many are convinced that the psychological differences between men and women are associated with the genetic, anatomical and physiological characteristics of the male and female body. However, the fact of the bodily dissimilarity of men and women does not mean that it is from here that all the observed differences between them, including psychological ones, come from. After all, biological differences also have a sociocultural context that determines which personal and behavioral characteristics at a given time and in a given society are expected from a man, and which from a woman, which characteristics are considered important for a man, and which for a woman. And how we perceive biological differences between the sexes is also determined by cultural factors.

As the French historian T. Laker points out, in Europe until the 17th century. the basic distinguishing features of the concepts of "man" and "woman" were considered the social status of the individual and the socio-cultural roles performed by him, and not anatomical and physiological features. The bodily dissimilarity of men and women was not questioned, but people saw the essence of the differences between them by no means in biology. For a long time in European culture there was a same-sex model of a person, described by the ancient philosopher-physician Galen in the 2nd century BC. n. e. According to this model, the woman's body was considered as a biologically imperfect male body. In the Galenian scheme of structural and morphological correspondences of the reproductive organs, the female body has exactly the same genital organs as the male. The only difference between them was seen in the fact that in a woman, due to “insufficient vital energy”, these organs are located inside, while in a man they are located outside. Female genitalia until the 1700s did not have their own name. For their designation, the terms denoting the male genital organs were used, and only the context determined which body - male or female - in question. Actually, gender differences were fixed not by ontological, but by sociological categories. The natural body was considered as subordinate to the social existence of man, because the corporeal was considered a temporary, unstable formation, performing only auxiliary functions in human life.

The worldview shifts in the European consciousness that occurred during the Renaissance changed the view of the role of the body in human life. It began to be considered the only real, objectively existing characteristic of an individual - as opposed to the conventionality and arbitrariness of social definitions of various human qualities, including sexual ones. If in ancient and medieval Europe the psychological and social differences between men and women were correlated with differences in their social status, then after the 17th century. the roots of social and psychological differences began to be seen in the anatomy of men and women. More precisely, in a woman's ability to bear children and the physiological processes associated with it: menstruation, lactation, hormonal changes, etc. Thus, by the 19th century. the question of sexual differences between men and women was replaced by the question of the reproductive functions of the body, which ultimately led to the emergence in European culture of a bisexual model of man, in which male and female were two antagonistic poles. The new model made it possible to consider socially determined sexual differences in personality behavior as biologically determined, arising on the basis of unequal anatomical, cellular structure, endocrine, psychophysiological and other bodily functions. Thus, in the European consciousness, the idea was established that the sex of a person is a biological phenomenon and that there are only two sexes in a person.

Gender studies were born under the influence of the feminist movement of the second wave (60s of the XX century), which discovered the problem of inequality of opportunities based on sex in the formal legal equality of the sexes. The struggle for social equality at the beginning of the 21st century is, among other things, to ensure that human capabilities are determined as little as possible by the factor of sex. When this problem was solved at the legislative level, it turned out that the actual inequality on the basis of sex, however, remained in all spheres of life. This is what caused the emergence of the second wave of the feminist movement.

Gender studies have led to the realization that the problem of inequality is much deeper than it seemed; that it rests on the reproduction of inequality of opportunity. The role of culture, popular stereotypes, the bias of science in shaping ideas about female and male, about courage and femininity and their role in creating barriers to women and men was rethought. Gender studies study the dynamics of changes in male and female roles in society and culture, develop a promising strategy for achieving actual equality of opportunities for women and men.

Gender psychology is a field of psychological knowledge that studies the characteristics of gender identity that determine the social behavior of people depending on their gender. The emphasis in psychological research in this field of knowledge is on a comparative study of the personal characteristics of male and female people.

Gender psychology is a field of scientific knowledge that has been formed on the basis of and at the intersection of such psychological disciplines as differential psychology and developmental psychology. The basis of gender psychology was: a section of differential psychology - the psychology of sex and a section of developmental psychology - the psychosocial development of the personality (the aspect that is determined by the gender of the individual). These sections of psychological science determined the basic structure of gender psychology, which is represented by two main blocks of information: the psychology of gender differences (the main topic of the section on the psychology of sex) and gender socialization. The section on the psychology of gender differences examines the entire spectrum of psychological differences between males and females, these are differences in the cognitive, motivational, emotional, behavioral and other areas of personality. At the same time, the conceptual apparatus traditional for psychology is used, those psychological concepts are used, with the help of which the structure of the personality is revealed.

In domestic psychology in the 70-90s of the XX century, the conditionality of personality development by gender and gender role was studied by A.G. Asmolov, A.I. Belkin, D.N. Isaev, I.S. Kon, V.E. Kagan, I.I. Lunin, T.I. Yufereva and others. In their studies of various aspects of the formation of a personality, it was noted that organic development in itself does not yet make a person a man or a woman in the socio-psychological and personal sense and must be supplemented for this by a “psychological sex”, which “manifests itself in various features of the social behaviors associated with sexual dimorphism. However, the development of the problems of the psychological gender of a person in domestic psychology was represented by single studies that did not develop into a conceptual direction for the development of this phenomenon.

In the early 1990s, the term "gender" came into the Russian humanities as a tracing-paper from the English-language term "gender", in connection with which, in the next two decades, research on gender problems in Russia gained steady popularity. At the same time, the introduction of a new term in the psychology of personality has led to certain problems associated with the correlation of the already existing and the new, "gender" terminology. Most domestic researchers in this situation took the position of simply replacing the previously used in relation to social and personal manifestations of the terms "sex" and "gender-role" with the more fashionable term "gender".

At the same time, one can observe attempts to transfer and rethink foreign gender terminology in line with domestic methodological approaches in personality psychology. As a result, in our opinion, there is a displacement and loss of methodologically productive constructs in understanding the systemic mechanisms of personal development, which is the concept of "personal psychological sex", which has no exact analogue in foreign gender psychology. In connection with the indicated situation, it seems important to analyze and generalize ideas about the essence, mechanisms and functions of individual components of the psychological sex in the development of the personality, correlate the understanding of the psychological gender of the personality with foreign theories of the gender constructs of the personality and determine its position in the system of modern gender studies.

The classics of gender psychology (S. Bem, M. Kimmel, K. West and D. Zimerman and many others) consider "gender" as one of the basic dimensions of the social structure of society, which, together with other socio-demographic and cultural characteristics (race , class, age) organizes the social system, reflecting on the nature of personality development. Thus, "gender" can be interpreted both very broadly, denoting a division based on gender and cultural symbols, social institutions, the labor market, personality identification models, and narrowly, emphasizing the difference between the social and biological sex of an individual. In this sense, psychological sex, if it is defined as a characteristic of "... the personality and behavior of a person from the point of view of masculinity-femininity - a set of features that distinguish men and women, phylogenetically given properties of the psyche, formed under the influence of social factors", is one of the components broader concept of gender.

However, in our opinion, an essential feature of domestic research was the tendency to consider psychological gender in the light of a systematic approach, implying the interaction of biological and social influences on its development. In the traditions of domestic psychology, the gender of a developing personality is considered as "...a complex multi-level structure, including genetic sex, gonadal sex, hormonal sex, morphological (somatic) sex, civil sex, upbringing gender and psychological gender." In this complex of components, multi-level components of gender, which are formed at different stages of individual development and are determined by a hierarchical system of mechanisms, psychological gender is one of the components. It is itself a complex, hierarchical organized system components, interconnected both with the components of the sex system and with the systemic organization of the personality. In this regard, A.V. Alekseeva expresses the opinion that in order to effectively study the psychological sex of a person as a complex quality, it is necessary to develop a unified approach to understanding the conditions for its formation, which would take into account the entire system of factors - both biological and social - their mutual influence in the multifaceted process of personality formation.

The understanding of the psychological gender of a person differs from the understanding of a gender personality in the theory of gender schematization by S. Bem. It also cannot be reduced directly to the understanding of masculinity and femininity as two complementary or independent personality structures in the concepts of androgyny.

According to the theory of gender schema, the "gender identity" is formed as a result of the assimilation of gender polarization in culture, the so-called "gender lenses", and, "... once these lenses are assimilated, they predispose the child, and later the adult, to form their identity in accordance with with lenses. A gender personality is the result of the transformation of "cultural into natural", "gender into natural", which "...occurs due to the unconscious transfer of the lenses of culture into the psyche of the individual, into her consciousness." Given that "... a gender personality is something more than an individual set of feminine or masculine traits; it is at the same time a way of perceiving a reality that reproduces these traits again and again throughout the entire cycle of existence of the "I" of the structure, the source of its education are exclusively social, cultural constructs.

In turn, psychological sex is understood as a system of hierarchically organized elements (formations) determined in varying degrees biological, socio-cultural and psychological (personal) factors. The abstract allocation of these multi-level elements is based on the identified cases of violations of the psychological sex of different etiologies and depths. At the same time, the regularity is clearly manifested that specific violations of higher hierarchical levels of psychological sex suggest normal development previous levels.

Gender is a rather complex concept, since it reveals the diverse content of the phenomenon. In the scientific literature, it is used in several meanings: gender as a socio-role and cultural interpretation of personality traits and behavior patterns of men and women, in contrast to biological ones; gender as the acquisition of sociality by individuals born in the biological categories of female or male; gender as a policy of equal rights and opportunities for men and women, as well as activities to create mechanisms for its implementation. In all these meanings, gender is studied in the system of scientific "gender studies".

Gender studies - a direction of scientific activity and its social organization, aimed at studying the place, role, activity, will and self-realization of men and women in the variable historical conditions of social life of a certain era.

The result of gender studies was the creation of a modern gender theory, i.e. systems of scientific views on the relationship and status of women and men, their social life and life experience, the acquisition and implementation of their social role characteristics and characteristics.

The concept of "gender studies" is often identified in scientific practice with "feminist" or "women's" studies. The concept of "research of women's problems" is also often used. In fact, the object of gender research is not a woman, but the whole range of social interactions between the sexes, based on the inter-gender stratification of society. Central to the field of gender studies is the study of differences and similarities in the social behavior of articles. The subject of gender analysis is both sexes, their relationships with each other, their interrelationships and mutual determinations with social systems of different levels. Based on this, the gender approach can be used in the study of both female and male models of gender identification and self-realization.

A number of stages can be distinguished in the history of the development of the problem of sexual psychological differences. For example, I. Kohn, referring to Carol Jacklin's periodization, identifies four stages:

1. The first quarter of the twentieth century. The few studies of the psychological characteristics of men and women are subsumed under the heading "psychology of sex", and gender is often identified with sexuality.

2. The second quarter of the twentieth century. The "psychology of sex" was replaced by the "psychology of sex differences", which no longer boiled down to sexuality, but for the most part were considered given by nature.

3. Third quarter of the twentieth century. This term is changing to a softer one - "differences associated with sex." The range of studied mental phenomena has expanded, and the influence of biological determinism has weakened.

4. The end of the twentieth century. - the beginning of the XIII century. They have come to be called "gender differences" which may not have a biological basis at all.

The gender approach itself, in the presence of semantic variability of the concept of "gender", may include certain specific features of the theoretical perspective, which indicates the debatability and diversity of gender studies, leading to ambiguous decisions. Thus, the gender-sensitive approach (Girdman, 1991) focuses on individual differences and on the difference in the views of men and women in determining status equality between them. The gender-neutral approach insists on the recognition of gender equality, while the differences are recognized as insignificant and do not allow value definitions. The gender-stereotyped approach recognizes differences but denies equality between the sexes. Women and men must cultivate gender differences, and, in this system of relations, a woman must always demand protection and support from her husband.

Gender science is relatively young, and therefore the interpretation of the very concept of "gender" is still problematic. First of all, gender acts as a system containing:

knowledge system;

The gender system of society;

Gender practices.

As a system of knowledge, gender is a complex of socio-philosophical, sociological, political science, psychological, cultural and other theories that analyze the development of male and female identities and subjectivity, the position of women and men in society, the system of male dominance, the formation of normative relations between "male" and "female". "in a particular culture.

The gender system of society is a set of interrelated institutions and organizations with the help of which relationships between women and men are built socially, ideologically and organizationally, society's attitude to gender issues, real gender inequality or equality is formed, gains are made, real assertion and guarantees of rights, freedoms and duties women and men are provided with real opportunities for their self-realization in accordance with the achieved level of gender culture.

Gender as a system of practice covers all forms of practical work on gender transformation. These include the practice of emancipationism as an entry into the environment of the male-dominant system, the participation of both sexes as equals in decision-making, in the formation of gender strategies and their respective policies, and the creation of gender law. This practice has developed on a national and international scale.

In the framework of this work, we will adhere to the definition proposed by I.S. Kletsina, who understands gender as "a specific set of cultural characteristics that determine the social behavior of women and men, their relationships with each other. Gender, therefore, refers not just to women or men, but to the relationships between them, and to the way of social construction of these relations, that is, to how society "builds" these relations and the interaction of the sexes in society. Next, we must turn to the consideration of the basic concepts of gender psychology: sexual self-awareness, gender identity, psychological gender, etc.

The main stages in the development of gender studies in psychology can be briefly described as follows (Ivanova, 2001). Initially, they were carried out as part of the study of individual differences, while masculinity and femininity were tried to be measured, like any other individual differences. Then they tried to understand them as the most important personality traits, and the family was considered as the environment within which the socialization of boys and girls takes place and they acquire social roles based on established cultural stereotypes. In the 1970s, by introducing the concept of "androgyny" (denoting a successful combination of both traditionally male and traditionally female psychological qualities) and developing the appropriate methodological apparatus, S. Bem was able to empirically demonstrate that masculinity and femininity are two independent, but not opposite constructs.

The next step was the development of ideas about gender as a scheme or concept introduced by culture, which is an affective-cognitive structure that is created to streamline individual experience and to organize behavior. More and more, gender began to be viewed as a social category, and it began to be approached as a process, a dynamic and situationally determined characteristic, and not as a static trait or quality. Currently, more and more psychologists dealing with gender issues consider gender as a social category.

In general, gender studies in psychology have touched upon almost all the main areas of interest in psychological science: cognitive, emotional spheres, problems of socialization, interpersonal interactions and social relations.

Unlike the psychology of sex, gender psychology studies not just the psychological characteristics of men and women; the focus of attention here, first of all, are those features of personality development that are caused by the phenomena of sexual differentiation and stratification. This approach gives great importance also to the analysis of psychological mechanisms that allow men and women to neutralize the influence of differentiating and stratifying factors on the processes of self-realization (Kletsina, 2003).

In the psychology of sex, female and male roles are declaratively recognized as equivalent, although different in content. The initial basis here is the recognition of the biological determinism of roles, the innate nature of the male or female principle. When analyzing the determinants of sex differences, both biological and sociocultural factors are considered here, but the role of the latter is reduced to the design of features and characteristics predetermined by nature.

In gender psychology, when analyzing the problems of gender differentiation, the hierarchy of roles, statuses, and positions of men and women is emphasized. The issues of inequality, discrimination, sexism are actively discussed here. Studies of the determination of social behavior give priority to sociocultural factors.

The following sections are distinguished in the structure of gender psychology:

– psychology of gender differences;

– gender socialization;

– gender characteristics of the personality;

– psychology of gender relations.

When studying gender differences, such issues as the nature of differences, their assessment and dynamics, the impact of gender differences on the individual life path of men and women, on the possibilities of their self-realization are considered.

The key problems in the study of gender socialization are the psychosocial aspects of personality development as a representative of a certain sex at all stages of the life cycle, the correspondence of their gender development to historical, cultural and social contexts.

When studying gender characteristics, the identity of men and women and its components are considered: ideas, stereotypes, attitudes associated with gender differentiation, stratification and hierarchization. Particular attention is paid here to the study of productive strategies and tactics of behavior of men and women, which allows to overcome traditional gender stereotypes, as well as to the analysis of patterns and mechanisms for changing existing and developing new gender stereotypes.

The psychology of gender relations section studies the issues of communication and interaction between representatives of different sexes. Traditional gender stereotypes and ideas encourage men and women as subjects of inter-gender interaction to form a model of behavior in which relationships are characterized by asymmetry, which manifests itself in dominance and dependence. From the standpoint of gender analysis, it is important to understand the need for and patterns of formation of other models of inter-gender interaction.

Each of the sections of gender psychology is associated with traditional psychological disciplines. The psychology of gender differences is associated with differential psychology, gender socialization with developmental psychology, the study of gender characteristics is based on personality psychology, and the psychology of gender relations is based on social psychology.

The methodological basis for gender research in the field of psychology, as well as for gender-oriented research in other areas of science, is gender theory. According to the fundamental position of gender theory, almost all the traditionally considered "natural" differences between the sexes have not a biological, but a social basis. These differences are constructed in society under the influence of social institutions that represent traditional ideas about the roles of men and women in society, about masculinity and femininity, which are the basic categories of gender studies (see Section 1.7.3.1).

In traditional culture, ideas about masculinity and femininity are sharply differentiated and constructed according to the principle of binary opposition. In addition, these categories are built hierarchically with the dominant role of masculinity. Thus, gender differentiation is the basis of the power system in traditional culture. The gender approach seeks to give not just a description of the features of the status, roles and other aspects of the life of men and women, but also an analysis of the power and dominance that it asserts in society through gender differentiation (Voronina, 2000).

The gender approach is a methodology for analyzing the gender characteristics of a person and the psychological aspects of intersexual relations. He studies the consequences of sexual differentiation and hierarchy (male dominance and female subordination) in the relationship between men and women and in the process of their individual life path. This methodology makes it possible to move away from the point of view of the predetermination of male and female characteristics, roles, statuses and rigid fixation of gender role models of behavior; it shows the ways of development and self-realization of a person free from traditional gender stereotypes.

The main tasks of gender psychology are primarily related to its institutionalization as a field of scientific knowledge and academic discipline. That is, this is the desire to clearly define the subject of research, specify the directions of development, substantiate adequate methodological techniques and principles of research, and accumulate relevant data. The specific tasks of the research are the analysis of those changes in the system of gender-role representations that are caused by the transformations of society. Research in gender psychology reveals the mechanisms of constructing gender identity in different temporal and sociocultural contexts, and also substantiates the possibility of changing the identity of men and women in the current situation.

As already mentioned, the differences between gender psychology and the psychology of sex are determined by various theoretical and methodological foundations. Firstly, these are other scientific paradigms for studying the problems of gender and intersexual relations, and secondly, these are other models of psychological sex.

The theoretical and methodological basis of the psychology of sex is the biodeterministic paradigm, and gender studies in psychology are based on the social constructivist paradigm.

In accordance with the biodeterministic approach, the gender characteristics of a person are determined by biological, natural factors. Biodeterminism goes back to the idea of ​​determinism, to the idea of ​​the connection and interdependence of phenomena, where the laws of nature played an important role. In the concept of biodeterminism, natural factors are considered as immutable.

A striking example of the biodeterministic concept is the evolutionary theory of V.A. Geodakyan (1989) (see section 1.3). Proponents of the gender approach consider this theory to be reductionist (because complex forms of male and female behavior are reduced to a biological imperative), sexist (gender characteristics are reduced to sexual characteristics), ahistorical (gender characteristics appear to be more or less the same throughout history), and politically conservative (it is used for the ideological justification and justification of gender inequality and male dominance) (Kon, 2002).

The theory of sex roles by T. Parsons (see section 1.4), which illustrates the theoretical constructions of structural functionalism, can also be attributed to the number of biodeterministic concepts. As already mentioned, this concept emphasized the positive function of differentiation of sex roles in the family. An expressive role is needed to maintain the internal balance in the family, this is the role of a housewife; the instrumental role is to regulate relations between the family and other social structures, this is the role of the breadwinner.

Biodeterministic concepts make it possible to substantiate traditional models of gender relations, but at the same time they have limited possibilities for analyzing the forms of gender relations in new sociocultural conditions, as well as for explaining such phenomena as transsexualism, hermaphroditism and other non-standard forms of manifestations of gender identity.

Appearance in the 80s. The last century of gender studies as an interdisciplinary research practice has contributed to the development of new theoretical structures that allow us to analyze a wide range of gender issues, and in particular gender inequality, abandoning biodeterminism. The social constructivist paradigm has acquired the status of the main methodology of gender studies. L. Tuttle's "Encyclopedia of Feminism", published in 1986, defines social constructivism as "the notion that the status of a woman and the seemingly natural difference between male and female do not have a biological origin, but rather are a way of interpreting the biological, legitimate in given society” (Tuttle, 1986). Sex roles are constructed, so that the thesis of Simone de Beauvoir “you are not born a woman, you become a woman” (which can also be said about a man) has become a symbol of faith in this direction. Thus, there is no female or male essence, biology is not the fate of either man or woman. Everything masculine and feminine, young and old, is created in different contexts, has different faces, is filled with different content and different meanings.

Within the framework of this theory, gender is understood as an organized model of social relations between men and women, which determines the nature of their relations not only in interpersonal interaction, but also in the main social institutions (Zdravomyslova, Temkina, 1999).

The theory of social construction of gender is based on two postulates: 1) gender is constructed by such factors as socialization, division of labor, system of gender roles, family, means mass media; 2) gender is also built by the individuals themselves - at the level of consciousness (i.e., gender identification), accepting the norms set by society and adjusting to them (clothes, appearance, behavior, etc.) (Berger, Lukman, 1995).

There are at least three sociological theories that served as sources for the formation of the social constructivist trend in gender studies (Zdravomyslova, Temkina, 1998).

The first such source is the social constructivist approach of P. Berger and T. Luckman, which has become widespread since 1966, after the publication of their book The Social Construction of Reality (Berger, Luckman, 1995). According to them, social reality is both objective and subjective. It meets the requirements of objectivity, since it does not depend on the individual, and it can be considered as subjective, because the individual himself creates it. The authors develop the main ideas of the sociology of knowledge formulated by M. Scheler (Scheler, 1960), and, following K. Mannheim, extend the area of ​​the sociology of knowledge to the world of everyday life (Mannheim, 1994). The origin of the social order becomes the subject of the sociology of knowledge. Feminist followers of the social construction of gender have a similar problem. Gender is the everyday world of interaction between male and female, embodied in practices, ideas, mores; it is a systemic characteristic of the social order that cannot be abandoned; it is constantly reproduced both in the structures of consciousness and in the structures of action. The task of the researcher is to find out how the male and female are created in social interaction, in what areas and how it is maintained and reproduced.

The idea of ​​the social construction of gender differs significantly from the theory of gender socialization developed within the framework of the sex-role approach of T. Parsons, R. Bales and M. Komarovsky (Parsons, 1949; Parsons, Bales, 1955; Komarovsky, 1950). At the center of the sex-role theory of socialization is the process of learning and interiorization of cultural and normative standards that stabilize society. Learning involves assimilation and reproduction existing norms. Such a theory is based on the idea of ​​personality as a relatively passive entity that perceives and assimilates cultural reality, but does not create it itself.

The first difference between the theory of gender construction and the traditional theory of gender socialization lies in the idea of ​​the activity of the learning subject. The idea of ​​design emphasizes the active nature of the assimilation of experience. The subject creates gender rules and builds gender relations, and not only assimilates them and reproduces them. Of course, he is able to reproduce them, but, on the other hand, he is also able to destroy them. The very idea of ​​creation, construction implies the possibility of changing the social structure. That is, on the one hand, gender relations are objective, because a person perceives them as an external reality, but, on the other hand, they are subjective, since they are constructed daily, every minute, here and now.

The second difference lies in the fact that gender relations are understood not just as complementary differences, but as constructed relations of inequality, within which men occupy dominant positions. The point is not only that in the family and in society, men play an instrumental role, and women an expressive one (Parsons, Bales, 1955), but that the performance of prescribed and learned roles implies inequality of opportunity, advantages of men in the public sphere, displacement women into the private sphere. At the same time, the private sphere itself is less significant, less prestigious, and even subjected to repression in Western society of the modern period. Gender hierarchies are reproduced at the level of social interaction. The fact of “reproduction of gender” (“doing gender”) becomes obvious only in the event of a communication failure, a breakdown of established patterns of behavior.

The second source of the socio-constructivist paradigm of the gender approach is the ethnomethodological research of G. Garfinkel (Garfinkel, 1967). His concepts reflect the analysis of the case of transsexualism Agnes (Garfinkel, 1967). Born (or born) with male genitalia, Agnes was raised as a boy until the age of eighteen. At the age of 18, when sexual preferences and body image led to an identity crisis, she changed her identity and decided to become a woman. She interpreted the presence of male genitalia as a mistake of nature. This "mistake", according to Agnes, is confirmed by the fact that everywhere she was mistaken for a woman and her sexual preferences were those of a heterosexual woman. The change of identity leads to the fact that Agnes completely changes her lifestyle: she leaves her parental home and city, changes her appearance - haircut, clothes, name. After some time, Agnes convinces the surgeons that she needs to undergo an operation to change the genitals. After surgical reconstruction of the genitals, she develops sexual partner male. In connection with the change in the biological sex, she faces a vital task - to become a real woman. It is very important for her that she is never exposed - this is the key to her recognition in society. The new “young woman” must solve this problem without “innate certificates” of femininity, without initially having female genital organs, without going through the school of female experience, which she knows only partially, since it is largely invisible in the matter of human relationships. In fulfilling this task, Agnes carries out constant actions to create and confirm a new gender identity. It is this strategy of becoming a woman that becomes the subject of Garfinkel's analysis.

The case of Agnes, analyzed from a feminist perspective, allows a new understanding of what sex is. In order to find out how gender is created, constructed and controlled within the social order, researchers distinguish three main concepts: biological sex, gender attribution (categorization) and gender (West and Zimmerman, 1997).

Biological sex is a set of biological characteristics that are only a prerequisite for assigning an individual to one or another biological sex. Categorization, or the attribution of gender, has a social origin. The presence or absence of the corresponding primary sexual characteristics does not guarantee that a person will be assigned to a particular gender category. Agnes consciously constructs her own gender, taking into account the gender-based categorization mechanisms that operate in everyday life. She is busy trying to convince society of her feminine identity. Garfinkel calls Agnes a methodologist-practitioner and a true sociologist, because, getting into the problematic situation of gender failure, she begins to realize the mechanisms of "creating" social order. Her experience, recorded and analyzed by Garfinkel and his research group, leads to the understanding that the social order rests on the difference between male and female, i.e. it is gendered.

The difference between sex, categorization based on sex and gender allow researchers to go beyond the interpretation of sex as a biological given. Gender is conceived as the result of everyday interactions that require constant fulfillment and confirmation; it is not achieved once and for all as a permanent status, but is constantly created and reproduced in communicative situations. At the same time, this "cultural reproduction" is hidden and presented as a manifestation of some biological essence. However, in a situation of communication failure, the very fact of "construction" and its mechanisms become obvious.

Building on Garfinkel's theory, Macken and Kessler argue that "male" and "female" are cultural events, products of what they call the "gender attribution process" (Women's Studies Encyclopedia, 1991). To "create" gender thus means to create differences between boys and girls, men and women, differences that are not natural, essential or biological. The gender identity of an individual is something that a person constantly determines in the process of interacting with other people.

Considering early gender socialization, that is, the practice of assigning a particular sex and gender—and the resulting acceptance of a gender identity (“I am a boy,” “I am a girl”), Mackena and Kessler note that gender categorization is not voluntary. and does not depend on internal choice, but is coercive. The adoption of a certain gender identity by a child "turns on" the process of self-regulation, including the formation of motivation and psychological traits, and monitoring, that is, control over one's own behavior and the behavior of others in accordance with the matrix of gender identity.

By analyzing the division of labor, researchers explore and show how it produces and perpetuates a gender division, gender itself (Women's Studies Encyclopedia, 1991). Gender is a powerful device that produces, reproduces and legitimizes the choices and boundaries prescribed by the gender category. Understanding how gender is created in a social situation makes it possible to clarify the mechanism for maintaining the social structure at the level of people's interaction and to identify those mechanisms of social control that ensure its existence.

When the social production of gender becomes the subject of research, they usually study how gender is constructed through the institutions of socialization, division of labor, family, and mass media. The main topics are gender roles and gender stereotypes, gender identity, problems of gender stratification and inequality.

Previously, it was believed that the gender constant is formed in a child by the age of five, and then only enriched with relevant experience, reproduced and strengthened. The gender constant becomes a personal attribute that is fixed early and remains unchanged and inalienable. In this sense, the gender constant can be likened to biological sex. It is difficult to argue that gender is "created" if it is reached by the age of five and does not change thereafter. Garfinkel showed that sex and gender are distinguished as assigned and achieved status, and this led to a new definition of these concepts. A significant influence on their reinterpretation was the discussion of the problems of homosexuals and transsexuals, as well as data from biological studies. Phenomena that were previously perceived as anomalies, diseases, perversions, are considered in postmodern discourse as variants of the norm. New facts lead feminist authors to the conclusion that not only roles, but also the very belonging to the sex is attributed to individuals in the process of interaction. Their main thesis is that gender is also a social construct. How the category of belonging to the sex is constituted in this or that context can be understood only by analyzing the mechanisms of work of this or that culture. From this it becomes clear that gender relations are constructs of the culture within which they operate. Or, in other words, the work of culture to assign gender is called gender.

Thus, gender is a system of interpersonal interaction through which the idea of ​​male and female as the basic categories of the social order is created, approved, confirmed and reproduced (West, Zimmerman, 1997).

And finally, it is worth highlighting the third theoretical direction that influenced the theory of social construction. It answers the question of the conceptualization of the contexts in which the basic categories of male and female are created. This is the sociological (dramatic) interactionism of I. Goffman (Goffman, 1976, 1977).

Arguing that gender is created every moment, here and now, researchers come to the conclusion that in order to understand this process, it is necessary to turn to the analysis of the microcontext of social interaction. Within this approach, gender is viewed as the result of social interaction and, at the same time, its source.

Gender manifests itself as the basic relation of the social order. To comprehend the process of building this social order in specific situation interpersonal interaction, Hoffmann introduces the concept of gender display.

A person is assigned to a certain gender on the basis of a variety of information that meets conventional rules. Name, appearance, voice timbre, manner of speech and movements, style of expressing feelings - all these multiple manifestations are a gender display that allows you to identify the interlocutor as a man or a woman.

Gender display - a variant of the identity display, a socially determined variety of manifestations of gender at the level of interpersonal communication; it is the main mechanism for creating gender in face-to-face interaction. Interpersonal communication in a particular situation is accompanied by a background process of assigning the interlocutor to the category of men or women, i.e., the process of categorization based on gender. Gender assignment, or categorization, is an inevitable basic practice of everyday interaction. Usually it is an unconscious, non-reflective background of communication. The very possibility of sexual categorization provides communicative trust. To be a man or a woman and to show it means to be a socially competent person who is trustworthy and fits into the communication practices accepted in this culture.

Using the concept of gender display, supporters of social constructivism, following Hoffmann, argue that manifestations of gender cannot be reduced to the performance of gender roles, that gender identity cannot be canceled or changed, like a dress or a role in a play. Gender display is a variety of representations and manifestations of male and female in interpersonal interaction. The gender display is not universal - it is determined by culture and power relations. Different societies, social groups and even different social situations require different conventional forms of gender display.

Hoffman believes that the gender display acts as a "seed" in the situation of interpersonal communication. The demonstration of gender precedes and completes the main communication, acting as a switching mechanism. The question of how gender display relates to the context of effective communication has given rise to the notions of accountability and explainability. The process of communication involves implicit assumptions, or conditions of interaction. When a person enters into communication, he demonstrates himself by communicating some information that contributes to the formation of a "communication bridge" - a relationship of basic trust. When starting a conversation, the communicator presents himself as a trustworthy person. At the same time, the reproduction of the dichotomy of male and female in the gender display guarantees the preservation of the social and interactive order. As soon as the display goes beyond accountability, ceases to fit into generally accepted norms, its performer finds himself in a situation of “gender failure”.

Feminist constructivists K. Zimmerman and D. West believe that Hoffman underestimates the “penetrating power” of gender and show that the gender display works not only at the moments of switching activities, but permeates all levels of interaction (West, Zimmerman, 1997).

There are still few domestic psychological studies carried out within the framework of the social constructivist direction. As an example, we can cite the studies of M.V. Burakova (2000), N.K. Radina (1999), L.N. Ozhigova (1998, 2000), G.V. Turkish (1998).

Gender is a social gender that determines the characteristics of personal and group behavior.

gender stereotype is an emotionally colored and simplified image of a woman and a man.

There are three types of stereotypes. The first is related to the consolidation of professional and family roles. The second is with femininity and masculinity. And the third stereotypical group is associated with differences (gender) in labor content.

Men and women are always assigned a specific style of behavior. "Feminine" is considered sinful, bodily, negative, childbearing, sensual, secondary. "Male" is compared with something positive, cultural, dominant, dominating.

Concerning labor activity, then stereotypes have established their own rules in it. A man is closer to leading and creative work. For a woman - serving labor (an activity that is expressive in nature).

Let's touch on male and female family roles. There is an opinion that a man should not (be that as it may) be fully involved in family affairs, since this is a woman's duty.

Gender differences between men and women

Brain

It's no longer a secret that due to brain differences in the brain, men and women are noticeably different.

Women often “play” with hints and often do not understand why men ask to speak in detail and clearly about everything. The fact is that the male half of humanity has a better developed right hemisphere. This dominance suggests that they are used to taking all words literally and not looking for hidden meanings in them.

But the male brain is three hundred and twenty grams heavier than the female. Men are proud of this fact.

The degree of female mental endowment is three and a half percent higher than male (despite the fact that the average intelligence score (120) is the same for both men and women).

Communication

Differences in communication are visible from an early age. Girls are always more talkative than their peers - boys. In general, women are twice as sociable as men.

Do an experiment and you will see that this is true.

Women even speak their own thoughts. They always want to speak. The men meditate silently.

Males mostly talk with friends solely on business or in order to make a "beer" company.

Women never get tired of talking. They always find a reason for it. And if the ladies are silent for a long time, then something has happened to them.

Behavior

Men cry, but only when they get drunk at those moments when they are sure that no one sees their condition.

Women often speak out about their experiences, plans and ideas. Men have to “pull their tongues” in order to learn from them at least some of the details of a particular case (case, plan, and so on).

Conflict resolution

It has been found that women cope with emotional problems more easily than with family conflicts.

During the height of the conflict, men are focused on the very subject, through the fault of which the quarrel broke out. Women remember all their past mistakes, sins. They are more guided by someone else's opinion. What explains this behaviour? High degree of conformity.

Health

Revisit the old cartoon about Carlson. He has such a phrase: “I am the sickest person in the world!”. It was not said in vain, as it very well (accurately) characterizes the bulk of men.

Women have their own history. They try not to whine, not to talk about illnesses and bad health. They do everything to appear stronger than they are in the eyes of men.

Women often trust self-medication, folk remedies and techniques. Men choose the clinic and hospital corridors because they are sure that they have chosen the safest path.

Men get sick more often than women. Because they are used to being taken care of. If they are not given due attention, then they begin to resent, scandalize, scream and get nervous. Such elements of behavior exacerbate the diseases that men have.

Habit

Women can give up all habits if required. It is much more difficult for men to part with what they are used to. Sometimes they refer to excuses like: "I'm so used to it, I'm sorry!". Women expect changes from men, but more often they do not wait for them.

The habit of eating is a male habit. Men rarely understand those women who "turn on" willpower and adhere to all sorts of dietary prescriptions.

Hobbies, hobbies

Sports, gambling, cars, motorcycles are considered purely male hobbies. Embroidery, dancing, cooking are considered women's hobbies. The modern world has made it so that the edges of hobbies are “erased”. After all, there are men who love to cook. By the way, it is proved that men are the best cooks!

Love

A man rarely confesses his love, putting the deepest sincerity into words. He is not built like a woman. Male representatives have romantic impulses, but men are not able to stay in a romantic atmosphere all the time.

Women refuse to understand this because they love flowers, sweets, beautiful music, surprises, unexpected gifts.

Sex

Many men are in no hurry to tie the knot, because they are afraid that their “halves” will quickly lose all their sexuality.

Women are in a hurry to get married because they are seized by the fear of loneliness and "uselessness". In order to become the wife of a loved one, they fulfill all male sexual whims and whims, often imitating an orgasm.

You may now be surprised but the fact remains: a man perceives sexual acts (relationships) as an opportunity for self-affirmation and self-actualization.

For women, sex is a confirmation of deep feelings. For men - satisfaction of needs and obtaining "natural" pleasure.

Burn Sean Megan
Gender psychology. (Secrets of psychology)
St. Petersburg: prime-EVROZNAK, 2001. - 320 p.

This book is devoted to the study of the psychology of sex (gender). A psychologist, sociologist, teacher, social scientist will find in this book a unique research material on the sources of gender socialization, on the formation of gender norms, social and gender roles, will get acquainted with such concepts as normative and informational pressure, aggression, conformity, gender stereotypes, the norm of success, the norm of antifemininity, etc.
The reader who is interested in modern scientific psychology will receive answers to such questions: “Why should the distribution of family responsibilities change?”, “Who is better at what: women or men?”, “What are the restrictions imposed by the traditional roles of women and men?”, “ Why are women generally paid less? etc.
This book has no analogues in the domestic literature on psychology, opening up to the reader the sphere of research of man and society that is relevant for all mankind.

CONTENT
ABOUT THE AUTHOR.............................. 10
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................. 11
FOREWORD TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION........ 12
EDITOR'S FOREWORD.............................. 14
foreword.............................. 18
INTRODUCTION ........................21
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER.......... 21
PROBLEMS OF UNIFORMITY.............................. 23
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON GENDER..... 25
GENDER VERSUS GENDER .......................... 26
HOW THIS BOOK IS ORGANIZED............... 27
Chapter 1
GENDER DIFFERENCES AND SOCIALIZATION.................................. 29
SOCIAL NORMS AND GENDER DIFFERENCES .............................................. 31
The Role of Regulatory Pressure...................... 32
Homosexuality as a violation
The role of information pressure........ 38
Conformity is the economy of thought....... 40
Submission to gender norms: compliance, approval or identification? ........... 40
DIFFERENTIAL SOCIALIZATION ........ 45
Differential Gain and Differential Emulation....................... 47
Out-of-family sources of gender-role socialization .............................................. 52
A television......................................
Faceism ........................................
Language........................................
Toys.........................................
ANDROGYNY .......................................
Benefit.....................................
Polo-role questionnaire by Sandra Boehm.............
Controversy over the Sandra Boehm Inventory and the concept of androgyny..................................................................
CONCLUDING REMARKS..............................
SUMMARY...........................................
Chapter 2
RESEARCH ON GENDER DIFFERENCES 83
METAANALYSIS .............................................. 86
GENDER DIFFERENCES IN MATHEMATICAL ABILITIES .............................. 90
Findings of explorers.............................. 90
Why in higher educational institution Achievement of men and women begins to differ .............................. 94
EMPATHY AND EXPRESSION....................................... 100
Empathy ........................................ 102
Theory of social roles .............................. 104
Emotionality.............................. 106
STUDIES ON SOME OTHER GENDER DIFFERENCES.. 109
Aggression.............................. 109
Conformity and susceptibility to influence............. 112"
Altruism.............................. 115
CONCLUDING REMARKS.............................................. 116
SUMMARY................................................. .120
Chapter 3
THE LIMITS OF THE TRADITIONAL FEMALE ROLE
HOMEMAKER..............
WORKING WOMAN ..............................
Domestic work and the working woman..........
Differences in wages between men and women
Explanations of pay differences ..............................................
Equity Theory and Women's Responses to Wage Inequalities .............................................. 138
THE LOW STATUS OF WOMEN IN ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR LACK OF POWER
Women's Influence in Organizations: The Glass Ceiling ..... 142
Explanations of the "glass ceiling" phenomenon ............... 143
CONCLUDING REMARKS.............................. 157
SUMMARY................................................. .160
Chapter 4
THE LIMITS OF THE TRADITIONAL MALE ROLE
WHY YOU SHOULD STUDY THE MALE ROLE
MALE GENDER ROLE AND REGULATIONS INCLUDED IN IT
Success/status rate
Hardness rate
Norm of physical hardness
Norm of mental hardness
Norm of emotional hardness
Norm of anti-femininity
VOLTAGE, STRESS AND CONFLICT OF THE MALE GENDER ROLE
CONCLUDING REMARKS
SUMMARY
Chapter 5
GENDER AS A SOCIAL CATEGORY
SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE
SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE OF GENDER
Gender stereotypes as schemes that control the process of information processing
Origin of gender schemas
Memorability of information corresponding to the gender scheme
How Gender Schemes Contribute to Illusory Correlation
Gender stereotypes and self-fulfilling prophecies... .216
GENDER CATEGORIZATION: PARTIAL ATTITUDE TO OWN AND OUTSIDE GROUPS.................................................................. 219
Sources of Gender Prejudice ..........................................................220
Normal categorization processes .......... 221
Gender segregation..............................................222
The need for self-esteem ..........................................224
Social Identity Theory...............................225
THE PARADOX OF SOCIAL IDENTITY..................................228
CONCLUDING REMARKS..............................232
SUMMARY................................................. .236
Chapter 6
GENDER IN DIFFERENT CULTURES .............................. 238
PANCULTURAL GENDER SIMILARITIES..................................240
The division of labor due to sex .................241
Gender stereotyping ............................... .243
Differential Gender Socialization....................... .249
Lower Status and Lesser Power of Women............253
CROSS-CULTURAL GENDER-ROLE IDEOLOGIES....... .257
CONCLUDING REMARKS...............................................258
SUMMARY................................................. .265
Chapter 7
CHANGING GENDER ROLES.............................. 267
CHANGING THE SETTINGS.............................................. .268
MANUFACTURING CHANGES...............................................269
Increasing Work-Family Compatibility............................269
Production policy of family support.......................270
Increasing Gender Diversity in Organizations...... .272
CHANGES IN THE HOUSE.......................................280
Why the distribution of household responsibilities should change” .............................................. 280
Domestic duties as a case of inconsistencies between attitudes and behavior
Justice and differentiation of domestic duties. . 287
CHANGING THE BEHAVIOR OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS ......... .290
CHANGING MISTAKE BEHAVIORS ABOUT GENDER................293
Misconceptions about gender ........................... 294
Misconception I: Gender Differences Are Huge.........294
Misconception 2: Gender differences are caused by fundamental biological differences between the sexes... . 295
Misconception 3: Biological Gender Differences Cause Men and Women to Be Better Adapted to Different Social Roles
False Proposition 4: The genders are separate but equal.298
Misconception 5: Traditional gender roles serve the purpose of meeting societal needs to the fullest.......298
How can these misconceptions be changed? ..... .301
CONCLUDING REMARKS..............................302
SUMMARY................................................. .303
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................. 306

ABOUT THE AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sean Megan Byrne is an associate professor of psychology at the California Polytechnic Institute, where she teaches social psychology, environmental psychology, research methodology, and group dynamics. In 1988, she received her doctorate in social psychology from the Clermont School of Graduate Studies. She is a specialist in the field of applied social psychology, dealing with issues of socio-psychological principles for resolving social problems, private environmental problems, intergroup conflicts. Her current research work focuses on the factors that contribute to the maintenance of traditional gender norms, as well as the dynamics of social identification in the struggle for equality and the negative reaction that this struggle often causes in society.
Prime-EVROZNAK publishing house thanks E.P. Korablin, the scientific editor of this book, who, despite the acute shortage of time, oversaw the translation. The publishing house also expresses its gratitude to the editor Dmitry Gippius, who, despite the abundance of difficulties in the translation process, showed great responsibility, patience and talent and made the text worthy of the attention of a discerning reader.
The employees of "prime-EUROZNAK" express their deep gratitude to the artist Alexander Zudin (http://www.cartoon.ru), whose drawings not only defuse the atmosphere of scientific presentation of the material, but also, like sandpaper, remove the coating of bias, the “rust” of linear thinking and one-sidedness. The editors deliberately skipped some very bold caricatures of this artist in support of the idea, because in science (especially in psychology) there is always a place for doubt, alternative opinion and further search.
As always, the editors are especially grateful to you, dear reader, for choosing this book to learn the secrets and mysteries of human behavior!
We are convinced that the series of books "Secrets of Psychology" will become a source of modern and useful psychological information for you.
FOREWORD TO THE RUSSIAN EDITION
Sean Byrne's book Social Psychology of Gender was first translated into Russian and touches on very topical issues related to gender socialization. The fact is that, as evidenced by studies in various scientific fields and directions, understanding the life of human society is impossible without recognizing the existence of stereotypes of masculinity and femininity, reflecting differences in the purpose and psyche of men and women. In psychology, when studying the problems of development and formation of personality, the factor of sexual dimorphism, according to B.G. Ananiev, should be attributed to the constant characteristics of the ontogenetic evolution of man. The gender approach in social psychology focuses on the study of the social (rather than biological) aspects of gender and role differentiation based on gender, which takes place in various socio-cultural social systems.
Currently, gender studies are being carried out quite widely all over the world, including (in the last ten years) in Russia. In a certain sense, attention to the issues of gender socialization is a product of feminist ideas that are rapidly spreading throughout the world. The results of research in the field of gender socialization clearly lead to the conclusion that the characteristics of male and female sex-role identification are specifically reflected in the position of a person in society, his personal and professional destiny. In this sense, they are very important in reflecting the processes taking place in the modern world, the main direction of development of which is the increasing humanization and increasing relevance of the spiritual development of the individual.
Sean Byrne's book is devoted to the consideration of gender from the standpoint of social psychology and is of undoubted interest precisely because of the relevance of the issues under consideration, especially since in our country the study of this problem is just beginning.
The book is interesting in that it contains a significant amount of factual data obtained as a result of research conducted in the United States.
Some of the author's conclusions are controversial, but, despite this, this work will certainly be useful for Russian specialists for a comparative and broader analysis of gender characteristics in connection with cultural and social differences.
I would like to believe that the science and practice of our life, thanks to the mutual exchange of such experience, will be significantly enriched and will serve to integrate our efforts to improve the world in which we live and achieve prosperity and well-being.
The book may be of interest not only to specialists, but to all those who are interested in improving the quality of their own and social life.
The book is written in an accessible language, interestingly designed and illustrated, and therefore can serve as a popular manual for a wide range of readers interested in the problems of gender psychology.
E.P. Ship, head. Department of Psychological Assistance of the Psychological and Pedagogical Faculty of the Russian State Pedagogical University. A.I. Herzen
EDITOR'S FOREWORD
Very often a person creates images of other people for himself, based not on what they really are and what they do, but on assumptions about what these people should be and what they should do, or on their own desires to see this person as how you want to see it. Recently, interest in the dangers of this kind of stereotyping has increased significantly in social psychology. Society has realized that such a social stereotype is extremely conditional and reveals its inferiority. Therefore, it is at least illogical to ignore the existence of the phenomenon of gender differences, and conducting research on this issue should be considered justified and essential.
Some of my students are developing tools for creating a holistic, multifaceted image of a person, as opposed to widespread methods that try to see only individual traits and characteristics in a person.
But are we really capable of freeing ourselves from generally accepted rules, cultural programs instilled in us by the social environment in which we live? And in particular, how free or dependent are we on whether we are a woman or a man, and therefore on the psychology of gender, on those socio-psychological characteristics of our sex that dominate it?
As one of the possible answers, I will offer you the results of an experiment I conducted recently. It was attended by students studying psychology, distinguished by a fairly high intelligence and poise in judgments.
The experiment was as follows. The subjects were asked to imagine themselves as the parents of the child they were "holding" in their arms. Half of the students were asked to choose a child's name from a list containing three female names, and the other half - choose a name from three male ones. (Students in each group were in the dark about what choice was offered to their fellows from the other group.) Suddenly, a bearded stranger appeared in the audience where the subjects were with a very bright and beautiful musical box containing inside a funny clown who suddenly jumped out . The child in the hands of the students carefully “watched” how the uncle winds up the toy and “listened” to its soothing melody. But then the moment came when the music stopped abruptly and the clown jumped out of the box.
After the incident, each “parent” was asked the following question: “What was your child’s reaction to what was happening?”
From their list of response options, the majority chose “shocked,” regardless of the gender of their child. But the most interesting thing happened when these "parent-student" indicated the subsequent reaction of their baby. An order of magnitude more girls than boys rated their child's reaction as "fear", while more boys than girls saw "curiosity" in their baby's eyes!
What is the psychological and behavioral meaning of these various emotional responses? Fear leads to suffering, denial, attachment to safe objects, flight, non-confrontation. What about curiosity? It manifests itself in excitement, striving for something new and unknown, and is often accompanied by an involuntary movement forward.
Since in fact the reaction, both of them, was invented, it can be concluded that some of the personal representations of the subjects, which guided them during the experiment, are classified on the basis of their sex (gender) differences, which, in turn, will certainly affect the entire their life in general. Thus, the newly-minted “parents”, having defined the emotional reactions of their “children” in different ways, have thus proved that they share the fundamental prejudices of the same gender stereotyping, which was discussed a little higher and which still constitutes the essence of sex, be it female or male.
Similar stereotypes that have developed over the centuries are supported by literary works from the “Help Yourself” genre. What is worth in this sense is the recent bestseller "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus", which has gained popularity with tens of millions of readers (its circulation is measured in millions) and proclaims that men and women are creatures with different planets speaking in different languages! And all we need to do in order to live in peace and harmony is to realize and accept this “fact” and master the system of relationships offered by the book!
Television also mercilessly exploits the theme of differences between men and women, producing many television shows on this topic. The authors of such programs prefer to deliberately ignore the huge amount of facts confirmed by scientific research that tell us that men and women still have more similarities than differences. Apparently, society and the media are interested in perpetuating the myth of the existence in the world of creatures that are dissimilar in appearance and have essential differences. Thus, more and more arguments for political, economic, religious and social divisions arise and are supported, in which a man acts as a ruler and patron, and a woman is forced to take the position of a patient martyr.
A systematic, objective study is needed to clarify this problem. Sean Byrne wrote just such a book, which significantly enriched the understanding of the role and significance of the socio-psychological differences between men and women. The book is written in an extremely accessible, engaging language. Based in his research on indisputable facts, the author of the book with great professionalism focuses the reader's attention on the power of social norms and cultural traditions that exert their incessant pressure on a person's consciousness and shape his views, opinions, behavior, and sometimes his lifestyle.
Sean Byrne is trying to find a way that will help a person get rid of the restrictions that the traditional stereotype of thinking imposes on the behavior and psychology of a man and a woman, and which are essentially only a conditional belonging to one sex or another. Freedom from such prejudices will give a person the opportunity to gain mental and physical health and the ability to enjoy the fullness of life.
Finally, let me dwell on one more point concerning the peculiarities of the psychology of men and women. General psychology for a long time ignored gender as a basic aspect of human nature, not only not exploring it, but not even mentioning it as a debatable issue. Social psychology, in turn, for a long time refused to recognize gender as an integral part of one of the strongest dialectical contradictions that determine the interaction of people in society.
Sean Byrne takes on the difficult task of making up for the lack of serious socio-psychological analysis in modern science. Her book can undoubtedly be attributed to a number of other outstanding studies in social psychology.
At the time of writing the preface on February 14, 1995, it occurred to me that this is Valentine's Day, Valentine's Day.
And maybe this is really a real test for “All-conquering Love”, because true Love, whether it is directed at a child, or at a person of the opposite sex, or at its parents, does not know any restrictions and conventions inherent in the human consciousness “there” , in that world of society, which is far from the True, living according to the laws of the Heart and Love. Why shouldn't a person be freed forever from all prejudices and undead, guided only by these good and wise laws?
Phil Zimbardo, science editor
FOREWORD
The study of the psychology of men and women and their differences from each other is directly related not only to the individual as such, but also to society as a whole.
How much should a woman earn and how much should a man earn? Who should babysit the kids and who should move up the corporate ladder? How should household chores be divided? And isn't the posing of such questions a testament to the insolubility of these problems, primarily for those people who are concerned about them?
Issues related to the characteristics of the sex of a person and his psychological differences have recently been among the most actively discussed in society. After all, you must admit that the role of men and women in the social environment is undergoing significant changes today. But how global should these changes be?
This problem worries the minds of many modern social psychologists who foresee a reassessment of "gender" values. Disputes, disputes, controversy flare up among scientists in various areas of gender psychology.
How significant, regular and justified are the differences in opinions, judgments, actions of "male" and "female" groups at the socio-psychological level? Are these differences largely the result of a fundamental biological difference between a man and a woman, or are they due to a greater extent to the culture that dominates the society, determines its views and dictates its own laws and rules accordingly?
In this book, I will try to answer such questions, based on a detailed study of experimental data.
We will talk about the existence of political, economic, religious and social divisions between a man and a woman, based on the traditional antithesis: a man is a master, a woman is a patient martyr. In addition, we will consider the question of what role social norms play in creating and maintaining all sorts of justifications for the existence of these gender differences.
The authors of numerous popular publications present us with their views on the problem of differences in the psychology of men and women, but the vast majority of these books are based mainly on the personal impressions of the author and nothing more. This book is based on a thorough analysis of numerous scientific studies. Moreover, it can be seen as a guide to the complex and confusing "terrain" of numerous gender experiments, hypotheses and theories. This book may well become a good source of research topics or serve as a bibliographic reference for university professors.
I also note that this book, moreover, is addressed to students of professional social psychology. It analyzes in detail many issues of modern social psychology relating to the characteristics of male and female sexes in the context of gender issues.
Despite the fact that the book contains a fairly large amount of research material, I tried to create a text that is accessible to the reader, which would promote introspection and develop critical thinking. Therefore, this book, I hope, will be read with pleasure by an ordinary person who is simply interested in the problem of the difference between male and female psychology.

The support given to me by my son Kane was an invaluable help in the work on the book. In addition, I am grateful for the conversations with my friends Carol Stanton, Tel Stoltz, Alison Conrad, Lois Scriven, Norma Fitgon, Bobbet Biller, David Carr, and students at the California State polytechnic university in San Luis Obispo, which helped me find some of the research material. I also thank my mother, Jane Byrne.
Special thanks go to Kimberly Veitch, Justine Proberg, Janet Boyton, Katie O'Neal, Akila Mikeson, Roger Biltz and Brian Nosek.
I am also grateful to all the researchers whose names appear on the pages of this publication - their outstanding work has made my path in working on the book less difficult.
I owe much of my courage to editors Mykol Hamilton, David Myers, Ann Weber, and Philip Zimbardo.
I do not want to hide the fact that I received some interesting ideas from anonymous editors.
Finally, I'd like to thank McGraw-Hill's Andrew Poy, who once innocently asked me if I'd ever considered writing a book.

INTRODUCTION
Social psychology of gender. Uniformity problems. Critical Reflections on Gender. Dal versus gender. How this book is organized.

Gender
In psychology, a socio-biological characteristic, with the help of which people define the concepts of "man" and "woman". Because sex is a biological category, social psychologists often refer to those gender differences that are biologically based as "sex."

One day, artist Nicole Hollander drew this little comic: two characters with frost-red ears stand outside on the coldest day of the year. One says: “Why do I need a hat, I don’t care about the cold.” Second: “I don’t wear a hat, it ruins my whole hairdo.” Which one is a boy and which one is a girl? I do not think that you, the reader, find it difficult to answer. After all, each of these phrases reflects the generally accepted gender stereotype. This book explores the socio-psychological nature of gender roles and stereotypes. But our self-esteem, and the perception of others, and the choice of profession, and, ultimately, all our behavior depend on them.
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF GENDER
Social psychology is the science that studies how society influences the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of an individual. And its subsection, the social psychology of gender, deals with the study of social norms that determine how an individual, group, or entire cultural community responds to gender differences. Perhaps, in no other area of ​​social psychology there are such striking examples of the paralyzing power of conformity, the inability to move away from the roles imposed by society and the principles of information processing inherent in the human mind.
Conformity
The tendency to change one's behavior or beliefs as a result of real or perceived group pressure.
Prejudice
An unjustifiably negative attitude towards a certain group and its individual members.
Discrimination
Unjustified negative behavior towards a certain group and its individual members.
Self-esteem
A comprehensive assessment by a person of himself, or self-esteem.
Gender role
A set of expected patterns of behavior (norms) for men and women.
Stereotype
Opinion about the personal qualities of a group of people. Stereotypes can be overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information
The social psychology of gender is the broadest field for studying attitudes, prejudices, discrimination, social perception(social perception) and self-perception (self-perception), self-esteem, the emergence of social roles and norms.

Today the situation has developed in such a way that almost any socio-psychological study of gender is very politicized, the role of science here is rather not to study the world, but to promote the principle of gender equality. However, this is natural, because the social psychology of gender largely coincides with the goals of the feminist movement , although the latter is more concerned with the political, economic and social equality of men and women (Hyde, 1991).
Lott noted that social psychology intersects with gender studies anyway, since "to study the conditions that shape and maintain social behavior is to study how culture constructs gender" (Lott, 1991, p. 506).
However, studying stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination, until the end of the 1960s and 1970s, social psychology practically ignored gender relations and did not even consider women as a discriminated social group.
Gender studies got off the ground only when a new generation came into science - a whole galaxy of women inspired by the feminist movement who worked in social psychology research programs for graduates. They experienced first hand what it means to be a minority: even just to get the opportunity to participate in these programs and it was a huge effort - because they were not men.
There are several approaches to describing the social psychology of gender. In this book, I have used concepts from both social psychology and other fields of science, such as developmental psychology, to create a coherent socio-psychological picture of gender.
PROBLEMS OF UNIFORMITY
Experimental method
A research strategy in which the experimenter manipulates one or more independent variables under careful control and observes how these manipulations affect another (dependent) variable.
Independent variable
Experimental factor manipulated by the researcher.
Dependent variable
A mutable variable that gets its name from the fact that it can depend on manipulations of the independent variable.
Until the 1970s most of the experiments conducted by social psychologists were united by the fact that the subjects were only senior students, white men. Of course, they outnumbered the colleges and, accordingly, were more accessible for research. In addition, it was important to study the behavior of white men, since it was from them that the social elite was formed. White males also made up the majority of social psychologists at that time, and perhaps they simply selected for research people with whom they felt most comfortable, just like themselves.
In the experimental method used by social psychologists, an extremely important role was played by control (experimental control): all factors, except for the one of interest in this study (the independent variable), had to have a constant value.
When groups that differed from each other only on the independent variable showed a difference in some type of social behavior (the dependent variable), the experimenter concluded that this was a consequence of a change in the independent variable. Gender and ethnicity were treated as nuisance variables. To prevent their influence from confounding the results, only white males were used in all experimental groups (McHugh, Koeske & Frieze, 1986). Today, this type of control is still widely used, but both men and women are taken as subjects, and gender is usually analyzed as an additional independent variable.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the subjects continue to be students and college students, who differ little from each other in age, culture, social status, ethnicity.
This limitation of the field of research remains an unresolved problem for social psychology, and in particular for the social psychology of gender.
Although a number of works have been published by psychologists in the last few years on the intersection of cultures, none of them, as far as I remember, contains a section on cross-cultural gender psychology. I have devoted one chapter to cross-cultural aspects of gender, and also included a small study on the psychology of gender in various American subcultures in the book.
CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON GENDER
The data of social psychology are always more reliable than the philistine ideas about human society, which are based on the mere common sense and are often distorted by our expectations and existing beliefs. The claims you will find in this book are based on the results of numerous studies of human behavior, and the vast majority of the factual material has previously been published in the specialized literature. Full details of sources are given in the bibliography. I strongly recommend that you read in detail those of them that say things that contradict your ideas about men and women.
Experience shows that we tend to misinterpret statistics (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). It must be remembered that although there are exceptions to most of the "rules" regarding human behavior, in general, these rules remain true. When psychologists say that, according to the study, women do almost all the housework, even if they are employed full-time, one must be aware that there are exceptions. But even if you know something that contradicts the conclusion made in the study, this does not mean that the conclusion is generally wrong. It is also important to understand that when psychologists talk about significantly different groups, they use statistical methods to determine this, and not just come to this conclusion by carefully considering each group.
Ten years ago, when my introduction to the psychology of gender was just beginning, I didn't think much about these issues. Since then, I have studied hundreds of reports on gender studies. Now, on the basis of all this, I am convinced that gender differences are created within society, traditional gender roles limit both men and women, and because of our information processing strategies, we perceive gender differences to be much more extensive than they really are. deed. But beware of taking my word for it, as well as immediately rejecting my words if you think I'm wrong. Read this book and seriously consider your own position before dismissing my arguments. Try to present your objections in the form of clear arguments, and best of all, find good experimental support for your opinion. Even if you don't agree with my point of view by the end of the book, I sincerely hope that it will make you think critically about tender issues.
GENDER VERSUS GENDER
As you read this book, you will of course notice that I constantly use the word "tender" instead of the word "sex." Psychologists prefer to use the term "gender" to emphasize that many of the differences between men and women are created by culture, while the word "gender" implies that all differences are a direct consequence of biological sex (Gentile, 1993; Unger & Crawford, 1993). In addition, the word "gender" allows for greater clarity in some cases; for example, if I called this book The Social Psychology of Sex, the reader might get the wrong idea about its content. However, there are times when the word "gender" is more appropriate.
Do (Deaux, 1985, 1993) indicated that the word "gender" should be used to describe demographic categories (eg, "What is your gender?" is acceptable on a questionnaire). However, when inferences are made about the nature of masculinity or femininity, she recommends using the word "gender."
Unger (1988) noted that sex definition usually includes traits that are directly related to biological sex, while gender implies those aspects of masculine and feminine, the causes of which are not yet known. The problem, she says, is that causation is not always clear and can be caused by both biological and social factors. The issue of terminology has not yet been resolved by scientists, so it is customary for authors to determine their choice from the very beginning. In this book, I follow Do's advice and use the term "sex" only as a demographic category based on biological gender. In other cases, I used the term "gender", reflecting the socially determined nature of male and female.

If we include the chromosome set, hormones and the structure of the genitals in the concept of biological sex, then in fact there are more than two sexes (Unger, 1988).

HOW THIS BOOK IS ORGANIZED
The first chapter shows that many of the gender differences that we used to think of as biological are actually caused by social norms. It also discusses the processes by which we learn "correct" gender-role behavior and the motives that make us adhere to this behavior.
The second chapter will deal with the study of gender differences in the manifestation of mathematical abilities, emotions, etc. These distinctions, traditionally studied by social psychologists, are not nearly as comprehensive as we would like to be led to believe. public opinion, and from year to year continue to decline. And if we consider social norms and socializing actions in detail, then a significant part of the remaining differences will become clear.
The third chapter deals with the restrictions imposed by traditional gender roles on women, and the fourth deals with the restrictions placed on men. I have found that thinking about these limitations and the nature of gender roles encourages people to pay attention to how gender roles affect their own lives and try to change it for the better.
The fifth chapter describes gender as a social category. Some of the psychological mechanisms that are the basis for creating gender stereotypes and how they prevent society from changing will be considered.
The sixth chapter is devoted to the perception of gender in different cultures. The vast majority of research on gender has been conducted by psychologists on Euro-Americans from the United States, while cross-cultural analysis provides an opportunity to study the role of culture in creating gender differences.
The seventh and final chapter discusses changes in gender roles, areas where such changes have already taken place, obstacles standing in the way of change, and ways in which the necessary changes can be brought about.

Culture
Concepts, attitudes, customs and behaviors common to a large group of people and transmitted from generation to generation.

Chapter 1
GENDER AND SOCIALIZATION
Why women aren't born to shop and men aren't biologically built to believe in the laundry fairy

Social norms and gender differences. The role of regulatory pressure. Homosexuality as a violation of gender norms. The role of information pressure. Conformity is the economy of thought. Submission to gender norms: compliance, approval or identification? differential socialization. Differential amplification and differential imitation. Out-of-family sources of gender-role socialization. Androgyny. Benefit. Polo-role questionnaire by Sandra Boehm. The controversy over the Sandra Behm questionnaire and the concept of androgyny. Final remarks. Summary

Humorous variety monologues are often based on the differences between men and women. For example, Elaine Boozler once said, “I know how to get women on the attack. Just let them know that the guys on the other side say they look fat in their uniforms." Another humorist, Dave Barry, remarked: “A modern man knows that he must be a sensitive and caring partner for a woman, so he radically changes his lifestyle. For example, he remembers to take dirty handkerchiefs out of his pockets before leaving his trousers on the floor - for the laundry fairy ”(Valu, 1991). If we decide to change the gender of the characters in these jokes, they don't make sense at all: the jokes work because they reflect our culture's notions of differences between men and women.
Most people believe that gender differences in behavior and social roles caused by biological differences between the sexes. For the average person, gender differences appear to be the result of natural forces rather than nurture. Social psychologists admit the existence of a number of biological differences between men and women, but are confident that they cannot explain gender differences, and that biological differences between the sexes have a rather weak effect on behavior. The purpose of this chapter is to show that we owe much of our gender differences to culture and socialization rather than to innate differences between men and women.”
Let's start with my son Ken. He has short bangs, and behind - a long "tail", which reaches the boy to the middle of the back. Ken is adamant about the hairstyle and sometimes says: "Without my tail, I would not look like myself." Meanwhile, Ken's tail created a whole bunch of social problems for him. All the time he went to kindergarten, then first and second grade (at the time of this writing he is already in the second), Ken from time to time returned home upset and reported: “So-and-so says that I looks like a girl." In addition, Ken plays with the tomboy girls and is criticized by many boys for being "too nice to girls". From the way these things were said, it became clear to him that both his hairstyle and his behavior towards girls were unacceptable to most other children. Such social disapproval is often enough to force a child to change his behavior to meet social expectations for his gender.
When Ken first encountered this in kindergarten, he asked me why boys and girls should wear different clothes and play different games. Imagine that Ken asks you about it. Perhaps you will answer: “Well, that’s the way it is, and if you don’t want to be laughed at or considered strange, then you probably have to do it like everyone else.” In other words, you will inform Ken that there are indeed different norms for women and men, and in order to gain the approval of society, a person is better off following them.
SOCIAL NORMS AND GENDER DIFFERENCES
Social norms are the basic rules that determine the behavior of a person in society. According to social psychologists, the explanation for many gender differences should be sought not in hormones and chromosomes, but in social norms that attribute to us different types of behavior, attitudes and interests in accordance with biological sex. Sets of norms containing generalized information about the qualities inherent in each of the sexes are called sex or gender roles. Some of these social norms are introduced into the consciousness through television and popular literature, a number of others we receive directly, for example, experiencing disapproval from society when we deviate from the expected gender-role behavior.
The notion that a significant part of our behavior is directly dependent on social norms and social context has long been accepted by science. I even think that this is the greatest achievement of social psychology.
Eagle (1987) suggested that gender stereotypes are, in essence, social norms. This means that we all have ideas that men and women have certain sets of specific qualities and behaviors, that the vast majority of people adhere to the same point of view, and that we are usually aware of what kind of behavior is considered correct for representatives of that or other gender. Social psychologists believe that the two main reasons why we try to meet gender expectations are normative and informational pressure [These terms were introduced by Deutsch and Gerard (Deutsch and Gerald) in 1955].
THE ROLE OF REGULATORY PRESSURE
The term “normative pressure” describes the mechanism by which a person is forced to adapt to social or group expectations (social norms) so that society does not reject him. Regulatory pressure is very important in our commitment to gender roles.
A number of studies have shown that gender-inappropriate behavior is particularly damaging to popularity among boys (Bemdt & Heller, 1986; Huston, 1983; Martin, 1990) and that parents react negatively to their children's gender-based play (Fagot, 1978; Langlois & Downs, 1980).
Unfortunately, the role of normative pressure in the desire to conform to gender roles has so far been little studied in adults. One study (O'Leary & Donoghue, 1978) found that college students find it acceptable when a person behaves like a person of the opposite sex, but the results of two other studies showed that gender-inappropriate behavior led to a decrease in popularity (Bemdt & Heller , 1986; Tilby & Kalin, 1980).
Reflecting on the role of regulatory pressure in people's desire to conform to gender roles, I invariably think of an acquaintance named Cliff. When I was in college, I worked as a waitress, and Cliff and I ended up on the same shift. At that time, he plunged headlong into the study of gender roles and decided, as an experiment, to break one or two gender norms. He began using pink nail polish and lipstick, and later sometimes served customers wearing a skirt. We tracked how his appearance reflected on the tip. As soon as Cliff violated gender norms regarding clothing, he immediately received a smaller tip as punishment. At times, the administration even interfered, which demanded that he wear trousers and use less makeup.
Do you believe that you face social punishments for deviating from your gender role? Have you ever had difficulty trying to violate your gender role? Many women are afraid that they might be considered too aggressive (and called a "bitch"), and men are afraid that if they are too attentive to their partner, then their friends will begin to consider them "slobbers". Remember how many disparaging words exist that are used in relation to one of the genders and reflect the difference in norms for men and women.
The punishment for refusing to follow gender roles can be severe. Ayatollah Khomeini, the ruler of Iran from 1979 until the mid-1980s, repealed all laws giving women any rights and sentenced to death a total of 20,000 women who did not follow strict rules governing their dress and behavior (French, 1992). Under ultra-Orthodox Judaism (which most Jews do not practice), women who refuse sex to their husbands or neglect to do housework can be divorced without their consent and deprived of all rights to children. Hasidic men attacked a group of pilgrims led by a female Torah-bearing rabbi who wanted to worship in front of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem - Hasidim believe that women are not allowed to wear shawls intended for religious ceremonies, and even touch the Torah. More than 20 million women worldwide have had their genital mutilated as a result of clitoridectomy and other surgeries designed to preserve their virginity or permanently destroy the possibility of orgasm.
Clitorodectomy
A surgical operation consisting in the removal of the clitoris and labia minora. To prevent defloration, the labia minora is sometimes sewn together in the patient in childhood, and cut out immediately before the wedding ceremony.
Despite the terrible pain and long-term physiological problems that accompany such manipulations, this practice continues to exist, because a man will not marry a girl who is not mutilated, and a girl must marry in order to survive (French, 1992). If a woman wants to receive support in her society, then she must go through this disfiguring rite. In religious communities throughout the United States, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints, women are forced to follow traditional gender roles under threat of excommunication. And in some Protestant communities, women who doubt the need for blind submission to men are visited by a categorically minded pastor who dissuades them by showing passages in the Bible confirming the subordination of women.
HOMOSEXUALITY AS A GENDER VIOLATION
The importance of gender norms in modern American society and the consequences of not complying with them are well illustrated by the inherent reaction of many people to manifestations of homosexuality. For example, the organizers of the traditional parade in honor of St. Patrick in Boston in 1994 chose to cancel the parade altogether rather than comply with a court order that allowed gays to take part in it. From a very early age, society teaches that we must marry a member of the opposite sex, have children with him and learn a special kind of role relationship regarding the other gender. People who do not have children do not marry, as well as those who are romantically and/or sexually involved with a person of their own gender, are often viewed as gender role violators and subject to severe social coercion.
For many, homosexuality appears to be the greatest possible violation of gender norms. Kite and Deaux (1987) and Taylor (Tauyug, 1983) found that heterosexual stereotypes of homosexuals reflect "sexual inversion theory" which assumes that homosexuals are similar to heterosexuals of the opposite sex.

Theory of sexual inversion (Inversion theory of sexuality)
The assumption that a homosexual is similar to a heterosexual of the opposite sex. The propensity to behave in the opposite gender role is considered within the framework of this theory as a sign of homosexuality.

However, research shows that such views are far from reality (Peplau & Gordon, 1983; Taylor, 1983; Viss & Bum, 1992). For example, one of the generally accepted stereotypes regarding homosexual relationships is that one partner plays the traditional male role, and the other the female one. But research indicates that in most gay and lesbian couples, both partners earn money and share household chores equally (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek, 1993; Peplau & Gordon, 1983). People with traditional sex-role attitudes tend to have a worse attitude towards homosexuals (Black & Stevenson, 1984; Dew, 1985; Herek, 1984; Holtzen & Agresti, 1990; Krulevitz & Nash, 1980). Presumably, those who highly value traditional gender roles view homosexuals poorly because they see them as people who shirk their biological sex role (Taylor, 1983).
There is a heavy price to pay for breaking social norms. For homosexuals, this can take the form of physical abuse, discrimination in employment, severing personal relationships, derogatory nicknames and ridicule. For almost the entire history of the United States, homosexual behavior has been legally punishable, and there is still no equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals under the law. Thus, in Bauer v. Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court held that the fundamental right to immunity privacy does not cover the private area of ​​consensual homosexual behavior. Leonard (1991) describes many trials in which homosexuality was treated as a crime.
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders only in 1974. Psychologists now believe that if homosexuals have mental health problems, it is often necessary to attribute this to a secretive existence that they are forced to lead due to the disapproving attitude of society (Cain, 1991). (This does not mean that homosexuals have worse mental health outcomes than the rest of the population - the research does not support such a conclusion; it is only an assertion that some of the problems that homosexuals face are rooted in disapproval of society.)
Researchers note that when a person who recognizes himself as gay understands what kind of conflict he is in with the ideals of society, this leads to serious frustration (Hellwege et al., 1988; Thompson, 1992). Knowing that homosexuality is unacceptable puts such a person in front of a very difficult choice: to admit to people his otherness or hide it. Recognition can lead to stress, tension in relationships with loved ones, separation from them, loss of work (Cain, 1991), separation from children.
Concealing your own homosexuality is associated with no less effort and stress. The environment of secrecy creates the feeling that you are dishonest, and the fact that an important part of your own identity is hidden makes it impossible to develop trusting personal relationships with people (Cain, 1991).
The potential danger of public harassment is the most important condition for whether a gay will “go out” to other people or live a secret life. Several studies have found that preoccupation with possible rejection by society is a major driver of hiding (Franke & Leary, 1991). Being homosexual in a radically heterosexual society is so difficult that, in response to the claim that homosexuality is their own choice, some gays object that they would never become homosexual if they really had the opportunity to choose: it is too difficult in a society that does not support them (Fairchild & Hayward, 1989).
Gender role deviations are often seen by people as evidence of homosexuality. Yet boys in the United States as early as the fourth grade use terms like "faggot" and "faggot" when they want to insult low-status peers (Thome & Luna, 1986). A number of studies (Deaux & Lewis, 1984; Storms et al., 1981) have found that people are more likely to perceive those with opposite gender traits as homosexual. The desire to avoid this shameful label partly explains the passive obedience to gender roles.
Researchers have shown that the strong association between gender defiance and homosexuality has been a major barrier to any change in societal attitudes towards gender roles (Phelan, 1993; Silber, 1990). Heterosexual men can be especially negative about gays because they have more deeply absorbed traditional roles and the deviation from the male role for them is associated with homosexuality rather than the deviation from the female role (Morin & Garfinkle, 1978; Whitely, 1990).
Of course, gays should "come out of hiding" simply to reduce the number of homosexual stereotypes in society (Viss & Bum, 1992). But there is no doubt that such people should carefully choose whether to confess their homosexuality at all, and if so, to whom. Our society is still rife with significant anti-gay prejudice, and gay people very often experience the negative social consequences of deviating from their gender roles.
THE ROLE OF INFORMATION PRESSURE
Informational pressure is caused by the fact that, expanding our knowledge about ourselves and about the world, trying to understand what position should be taken in certain social issues, we largely rely not on our own experience, but on information provided by others. (Smith, 1982). In other words, sometimes we submit not just because we fear the judgment of society, but because, without the guidance of others, we really don't know what to think, feel, and do. In doing so, we turn to others for guidance and follow their example. We live in a civilization that was created by people and is incomprehensible without them. Based on this, we can say that relying on others to increase our knowledge of social issues and the world in which we exist, in general, promotes adaptation. Cialdini (Cialdini, 1993) noted the following feature: in order to determine what is right, we try to find out what others think is right, and we consider our behavior to be right only as long as we observe it from others (he called it social testing) .

Social proof
A person evaluates his behavior as correct while observing the same behavior in members of the reference group.

The same mechanisms operate in relation to gender roles: when we look around and see how men and women do different things, and hear how people around us and the media emphasize how big the gap between men and women is, we come to the conclusion that this is indeed the case, and we live up to these expectations. The idea that tenders should and do have a lot of differences is so ubiquitous in our culture that it's not surprising if we think it's true. Later in this chapter, we will discuss the many channels through which this information is received.
Information pressure coupled with normative coercion partly explains the power of gender norms to influence our behavior.
Aronson (1992) suggested that compliance with normative pressure is caused by our desire to please others, and submission to informational pressure is caused by our desire to be right.
CONFORMITY-ECONOMY OF THOUGHT
The human psyche tends to save time and effort. Similarly, the tendency to obey social norms actually saves thinking: all that is required of us in a certain social situation is to thoughtlessly demonstrate socially expected behavior. Robert Cialdini, in his 1993 book Influence, makes a fascinating argument about how social norms play a role in simplifying our lives and reducing the amount of necessary mental operations. This tendency, he noted, usually works in our favor. Perhaps we discover at an early age how much easier it is to live by social norms, and we learn to do so without much thought.This is often the case with gender norms.Most people accept them unconsciously, without even questioning them.
GENDER COMPLIANCE: COMPLIANCE, APPROVAL OR IDENTIFICATION?
Although in the vast majority of cases our reaction will be almost automatic conformity to social norms, there are undoubtedly situations when we do not want this. Social psychologists recognize that if people obey, it does not necessarily mean that they agree with the social contract. Sometimes we change our behavior to fit social norms, even if they are not really acceptable. This type of submission is called compliance (the desire to avoid social punishment and win social approval), and its basis is normative pressure.

Compliance
Type of obedience to social norms, when a person does not accept them, but brings his behavior in line with them in order to avoid punishment and gain social approval.
Approval, internalization (Acceptance)
Type of obedience to social norms, when a person fully agrees with them.
Identification
A type of obedience to social norms in which a person repeats the actions of a role model.

When Diana visits her grandmother, she encounters some inconvenience. For example, in this house it is customary that women serve dishes to men during dinner, take away their dirty dishes, and clean up. Diana does not consider it right, but she does it at her grandmother's house, because if she refuses, she will offend her relatives. At the table, Diana serves her husband, who accordingly plays along with her. Usually Diana's husband does not wait for women to serve him, but at his grandmother's house he obeys the norm, remaining seated instead of helping. This example illustrates an important sign of compliance: if there is no threat of punishment for non-compliance, then the behavior becomes different.
It often happens that internally we fully agree with the norms that we obey. This type of submission is called approval or internalization. When I was just a child, my mother almost completely served my father and carried out all his orders, saying that it should be so, because "men are more important than women." At the same time, she not only externally obeyed this norm, but also internally accepted it. Often it is the influence of information that we owe the fact that we accept social norms and behaviors that are not amenable to transformation due to the fact that a person unconditionally believes in them. However, when the situation of the social context changes (for example, if a woman starts earning money), then the person can also change. My mother has also changed and since then she no longer believes that “men are more important than women” and that women should do all the housework.
The third type of submission, called identification, occurs when we repeat the actions of role models simply because we want to be like them. An example is a boy who admires his traditionally masculine father and gradually absorbs most of his views. One of my students described how, as a child, she identified with the heroine of the television series Little House on the Prairie, who was called Mary: Before I started watching Little House on the Prairie, I could no doubt be called a tomboy. Things changed as soon as I started watching The Little House. I began to change everything, just to be like Mary. I never saw Mary in shorts or pants, she always wore a clean dress. Then I also started wearing dresses and tried to be neat so as not to get dirty. Mary studied diligently at school, the teacher loved her, and, looking at her, I also began to study diligently. I became more interested in housework. I saw Mary helping her mother, and under the influence of Mary, I also began to cook and set the table, even when I was not asked to do so. I helped my mother sort the laundry and made a habit of making the bed because I noticed that Mary's bed was always neatly made.
As Aronspn (1992) has pointed out, beliefs about identification can change if a new identification replaces a previous one (for example, you may begin to identify with a peer group more than with your father). By the way, the girl who in her childhood was so identified with the character of "Little House on the Prairie" some time later began to identify with her mother, a business woman.
Scientists do not yet know which of the processes more often causes people to obey gender roles: compliance, approval, or identification. Unfortunately, this topic is still little developed, but, according to several studies, both men and women express their adherence to gender stereotypes in public more than among close people (Eagly & Crawley, 1986; Eagly et al., 1981; Eisenberg & Lennon, 1983). It indicates compliance rather than approval or identification. Male-role research, which found that traditional masculinity received little approval and support (Bum & Laver, 1994; Thompson & Pleck, 1986), also points to the critical role of compliance in gender-role submission.
Normative and information pressure are by no means mutually exclusive. As Pleck et al. (1993b) argue, it is those who approve and accept traditional gender roles (more often as a result of media pressure) who are more likely to be socially stigmatized for violating them (normative pressure). And, conversely, the information that falls on a person from all sides about how well to submit to a gender role can lead to this submission even in the absence of approval. First of all, a person wants society to accept him.
People adhere to traditional gender roles to varying degrees. Kagan (Kagan, 1964) and Kohlberg (Kohlberg, 1966) noted that some people are highly conformable to the physiological norms for the corresponding sex - sex-typed (for example, extremely feminine women and extremely masculine men). They have a particularly strong motivation to keep all their behavior within the framework of gender-role standards. They suppress in themselves any behavior that can be regarded by others as unusual for gender. Frable (1989) found that such people were more willing to accept the gender rules that dictate proper behavior for men and women in a given culture. Different subgroups in the structure of society, as well as individuals, may differ in their degree of adherence to traditional gender roles. In some religious communities, conformity to traditional gender roles is generously encouraged, while in others more freedom is allowed. Jones and McNamara (1991) found that sincere believers (as opposed to those for whom religion was primarily a source of comfort) had more traditional values ​​about women. Personal differences and different abilities no less influence adherence to traditional gender roles. Thus, a mathematically gifted woman can continue her education in the exact sciences, although this is not welcomed by society, and a small, thin-boned man is unlikely to take up such a typically male sport as football.
Finally, some people have been in situations where their gender role deviance has caused a lot of stress, either because the punishment that followed was really harsh or because it seemed so because it happened during a period of personal discomfort. People with such critical experiences of gender socialization may want to conform to traditional gender roles because the negative experiences are especially strongly imprinted in their memory. (So ​​far, this is nothing more than a hypothesis; I have not seen a single study that would test it.) For example, one of my students told me that her father was given the name Michel at birth, and her uncle was named Nicole. When they grew up, it resulted in a funny situation. According to her, these are the two biggest machos she has ever seen in her life (by the way, they changed their names to "Michael" and "Nick"). It is possible that this adherence to the traditional male role was partly a reaction to the ridicule they were subjected to in childhood. Some of my students described how, by making themselves short haircut, they after a while did their best to fit the female role. Here is the story of one of them: I was eight years old. A carnival was planned at school, I both really wanted to go and was worried, and my mother said that she would let me go only if I did my hair. My father spared no expense and took me to his own barber for a fashionable haircut. But when I came to the carnival and met my mother there, she burst into tears and screamed terribly at my father for “letting the hairdresser cut the child.” And for another four weeks I was mistaken on the street for a boy at least once a day. It was then that I decided that I would never look like a boy again, grew long hair and began to wear only dresses. I was shocked when everyone in my senior year agreed that I was “likely to have ten children.”
DIFFERENTIAL SOCIALIZATION
From a social psychology perspective, gender is strongly influenced by both cultural norms that dictate what men and women should do, and social information that tells people how big the difference is between men and women. The theory of normative and informational pressure partly explains how we learn these norms and what makes us adhere to them. This chapter will discuss gender role socialization, the process by which we learn what is socially acceptable for both men and women. Although many of the ideas presented here are more developmental than social psychology, they have rightfully taken their place in the social psychology of gender.
Developmental psychologists use the term differential socialization to describe the process in which we teach men and women that there are things that are common to one and not to the other, depending on the gender of the learner.

Socialization
The process by which a person learns appropriate social behaviors, values, etc.

From the point of view of the cognitive-developmental theory of gender formulated by Kohlberg (Kohlberg, 1966), all information related to gender behavior is reflected in our minds in the form of gender schemas. They contain everything the person knows about gender. By focusing our attention on certain things, gender schemes affect the processing of information and, in addition, affect memory, since it is easier to remember information that fits into the framework of existing ideas. Developmental psychology focuses on gender schemas in children, while social psychologists are interested in gender schemas and their role in creating gender stereotypes in adults. The cognitive aspects of gender will be discussed extensively in Chapter 5. In Chapter 6, we will learn that differential socialization is a pan-cultural phenomenon: girls and boys in all cultures are socialized differently.
The beginnings of differential socialization can be seen even before the birth of a child. Why do you think future parents want to know who they will have - a boy or a girl? Why do people want to know too? (Why is everyone constantly asking a pregnant woman who she will have and who she wants - a boy or a girl?) These inquisitive minds are interested in the sex of the child only because, depending on gender, they imagine children differently. Parents want to know the sex of the child, because it will depend on what they will call him, what clothes, toys and jewelry they will buy, what they will do with him. A study (Shakin et al., 1985) conducted in suburban department stores found that 90% of children's clothing was typical of their gender in style or color. In Mexico, parents pierce the ears and hang earrings on their young daughters so that others will not be mistaken about the sex of the child. Elastic bands with bows are very popular in modern American culture for newborn girls. As will become clear as you read this book, gender is an extremely important social variable. And parents really do not want others to make a mistake about the sex of their children.
DIFFERENTIAL GAIN AND DIFFERENTIAL IMITATION
The two main mechanisms that effect differential socialization are differential reinforcement and differential imitation (Mischel, 1970). We talk about differential reinforcement when acceptable gender-role behavior is rewarded and unacceptable behavior is punished, provided that the reward or punishment of a person for certain behaviors, interests, etc. depends on his biological sex.
The reward often takes the form of public approval. Conversely, any deviation from the pattern of behavior that our culture considers appropriate for the gender role is in most cases punished by social disapproval. For example, a number of studies have shown that boys who, contrary to the norms, play not only with children of the same sex, are more subject to ridicule from their peers and are less popular among them than those who obey sex-role stereotypes (Bemdt & Heller, 1986; Steriker & Kurdek, 1982). Perry and his colleagues (Repu et al., 1989), observing schoolchildren from 4th to 7th grade, found that boys expected less censure from their parents for aggressive behavior than girls. Lytton and Romney (1991) compared, using statistical methods, the results of studies of parental differential socialization conducted from 1966 to 1986 and concluded that parents encourage their children to engage in typical gender activities.

Differential reinforcement
The process of socialization in which socially acceptable behavior is rewarded and unacceptable behavior is punished with social disapproval.

As early as 3 years old, children confidently identify themselves as male or female (this is called gender identification). At this time, children begin to notice that men and women try to look different, engage in different activities and be interested in different things. Often adults inadvertently stimulate gender identification by regularly mentioning the child's gender ("what a good boy/girl") or by telling children "a boy/girl shouldn't do that". By the age of 7, and often even at 3-4 years old, children reach gender constancy - the understanding that gender is constant and cannot be changed (Bern, 1989; Emmerich et al., 1977; Martin & Halverson, 1983 b) . Even before entering primary school, children show significant knowledge of gender differences in toys, clothing, activities, objects, and activities (Serbin et al., 1993).
As soon as gender identification is completed and the child begins to notice the differences that exist between men and women, he usually has an increased attention to role models that have the same gender as himself, driven by the desire to be the best boy or girl. In this process, which Kohlberg termed self-socialization in 1966, boys tend to imitate the behavior of men and girls the behavior of women. The phenomenon described is called differential modeling, and it is consistent with social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), which postulates that we can learn different types behavior by observing people and whether their actions are punished or encouraged. Most boys between the ages of two and three try to put on their mother's shoes, play with her cosmetics, paint their nails with varnish. However, when the process of gender identification is completed and the boys reach constancy, they understand that all these activities are for girls, and begin to imitate the behavior of men.
Differential imitation explains why women tend to enjoy shopping and preparing for the holidays, while men avoid it. While the child is growing, he sees that it is the woman who is engaged in such matters, and if the child is a girl, then this will interest her much more than if there was a boy in her place. The same applies to other housework, such as doing laundry. With the help of differential imitation, one can also explain the fact that men watch sports programs on TV more often than women.

Differential imitation (Differential modeling)
The process of socialization, during which a person chooses role models in a group corresponding to him in terms of generally accepted norms and begins to imitate their behavior.

According to Smetana and Letourneau (1984), there is good reason to believe that gender constancy encourages children to seek out social contacts in order to learn about gender-appropriate behavior. Bussey & Bandura (1992) found that young children's sex-role behavior is controlled from the outside, by social pressure, but then the child builds his own system of behavioral standards. After this has happened, the child begins to control the behavior, using the sanctions that he applies to himself. This pattern of behavior is described by the social cognitive theory of gender self-regulation.

Although children receive information from both genders (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), research has shown that they tend to reproduce behaviors that match their gender (Martin & Halverson, 1981, 1983a). Perry and Bussey (Repo & Bussey, 1979) found that children observe the frequency of activities in men's and women's behavior and then use the knowledge to shape their own behavior. It has been found that a child is more likely to imitate the behavior of an adult if he believes that this model accurately reflects the correct gender-role behavior. That is why the children of those who exhibit behavior that goes beyond gender role stereotypes may still perceive behaviors that are typical of their gender roles; observing other adults, they conclude that their parents' behavior is non-standard, so they do not imitate it.
Many have told me about people who dreamed of raising their child free from gender stereotypes, but as a result they got the complete opposite. Apparently, the point, they concluded, was that biological gender differences were stronger than attempts at parental socialization. However, it must be remembered that parents are not the only socializing figures for the child and not his only role models. We must not forget that gender-role socialization is a process that continues throughout human life, it reflects changing circumstances and new experiences. Throughout the life course, the whole system of what is associated with masculinity and femininity in a given culture is the material for constructing gender (Lott & Maluso, 1993).
Our culture, in a myriad of ways, conveys to everyone the message that men and women are different beings and should remain so. But without the help of social information, it is extremely difficult to dissociate in the confusing world around us and exist in it. Sometimes the mentioned information comes to us directly from others, but in culture there are special means for this purpose.
Ideas about the psychological type of men and women were absorbed into myths and religion, legends and written literature. Heroes and heroines, real or fictional, carry a set of stereotypes that make them potential contributors to male or female characteristics (Williams & Best, 1990a, p. 240).
OUTSIDE FAMILY SOURCES OF GENDER-ROLE SOCIALIZATION
Children's literature
Teachers, other children, parents of other children, books, relatives, toys and television - from all these sources, the child learns about behavior that is regarded by society as corresponding to one or another gender. Most of the research on sexism in children's literature has focused on the analysis of the content of the texts, and remained silent on its impact on behavior. However, experiments show that reading books containing gender stereotyping leads to an increase in the proportion of gender-typical behavior in children's play (Ashton, 1983).

Sexism
Individual biased attitudes and discriminatory behavior towards representatives of one sex or another; institutional practice (even if it is not motivated by prejudice), which is expressed in the fact that representatives of one sex or another are forced into a subordinate position.

Although recent research (see, for example, Purcell & Stewart, 1990) has shown that the descriptions of gender in books published since 1980 have changed considerably, libraries are still full of books from before this period. And they are usually dominated by male characters and women are portrayed exclusively as the keepers of the hearth, while men are given every opportunity (McDonald, 1989). These stories can instill in children that the world, except for the upbringing of children, belongs to men, and women play a subordinate role in it.
Crabb & Bielawski (1994) analyzed illustrations in children's books in the Caldecott Medal and honors series, published between 1937 and 1989, to identify changes in the gendering of items. These publications are in large numbers both on the shelves of bookstores and in libraries, so the authors considered that they adequately reflect the literature that American children are currently reading. Gender marking of an object gives us an idea of ​​who uses it more often - men or women. The importance of gender marking is because children observe the frequency with which certain actions are performed by men and women, and are more likely to imitate the behavior that they consider to be inherent in people of the same gender as them.
According to the results of the study, among the female characters, a significant quantitative advantage was on the side of those who were depicted with objects. Relating to the household (kitchen utensils, brooms, etc.), and this ratio has not changed for 53 years. Men were more likely to paint with tools (i.e. items used for work outside the home). And at the same time, the proportion of men drawn with household items in their hands has increased markedly. The results of this study make it clear that, with the exception of the increased number of boys drawn with household items in their hands, the depiction in children's books various kinds labor, correlated with a particular tender, has undergone minimal changes.
A television
Gerbner & Gross (1976) attributed to television a unique ability to change fundamental assumptions about the nature of social reality. It has this gift because it not only reflects the status quo, but exaggerates existing trends many times over, television images seem real, and people have access to wide use of television and the possibility of choice. Albert Bandura (Bandura, 1969) suggested that television could rival parents and teachers as a source of role models. Studies have shown that the media are very important in gender-role socialization, and an analysis of the information that comes to us through television channels has shown that television creates stereotypical, traditional images of men and women. One of my students wrote about the impact the television series The Brady Bunch had on her gender-role socialization. The series was first shown on ABC from 1969 to 1974, and is repeated from time to time on other channels,
When I was a kid, my favorite thing to do was watch reruns of the soap opera Brady over and over again. At that time, I knew for sure that my goal in life was to become a perfect wife like Carol Brady, have six or seven children, and let my husband take care of me. When I started college, that was still my goal. Actually, only in the last goal I seriously thought about a career and changed my specialization from home economics to psychology.
Signorelli (1989) analyzed weekly samples of television programs that had the best air time between 1969 and 1985 and found that 71% of the people who appeared on the screens and 69% of the main characters were male. Trend analysis revealed only minor changes in these proportions over a 16-year period. The women on TV were on average younger than the men; had a more attractive appearance and soft character; they were shown in the context of romantic interests, home, family; they were more likely to be the victim. Of the 10 married heroines, only three had any work outside the home (in real life more than half of married women work), and even if women did work, they were usually assigned to traditional female occupations. Men, on the other hand, not only appeared on the screen much more often, but also had a profession respected in society (lawyer, doctor) or labored in a specifically male field of activity, for example, as policemen. Atkin and colleagues exhaustively analyzed and described 555 television characters. Regarding the female roles, their report states: "The vast majority reflect male fantasies of a half-clothed fool who needs to be saved" (Atkinet aL, 1991, p. 679).
Vandeberg and Streckfuss (VandeBerg & Streckfuss, 1992) analyzed 116 television programs that aired at prime time in two weeks on one of the three major US television channels. According to their calculations, in none of these programs did the ratio of male and female roles exceed 2:1 (ie 65% of men and 35% of women). At the same time, they try to depict working women much less often as decision makers, approving the market policy of the corporation, performing socially and economically productive work. Moreover, the researchers noted that TV heroines who hold high-level leadership positions tend to inherit them from their husbands or relatives. Despite the fact that men are much more likely to appear on television and at the same time they are shown as stronger personalities compared to women, the images of men also leave much to be desired. Vandeberg and Streckfuss noticed that men are often portrayed as tough, self-centered, aggressive and competitive. Finally, they prefer to make men negative characters, while they tend to show women as sensitive and kind-hearted.
Davis (1991) analyzed all television programs that aired in the spring of 1987. He counted significantly more male characters than female characters (65% versus 35%). In addition, he found that adult women in general are significantly younger than adult men (by trying on 10 years), that a woman is four times more likely to be blonde than a man is blonde, and finally, women are four times more likely to be provocative. dressed than male characters.
According to Tavris (1992), Brett Silverstein's analysis of TV shows in the late 1980s showed that thin women made up 69% of television while only 17.5% of men. Davis (Etavis, 1991) opined that this is a portrait of a young, sexually attractive woman who, in many programs, is more of an ornament than a protagonist. Davis concludes that such a television image inspires us that a woman is appreciated while she is young and satisfies the culture's notions of beauty and femininity. Ask women you know what they think about this.
It is also worth dwelling on how men and women are portrayed in sports programs. Analyzing the results of the study of the male image in sports programs, Sabo and Jansen (Sabo & Jansen, 1992) came to the conclusion that in sports, men are shown as dominant, masculine, significant, while women are shown as controlled, feminine and devalued. In particular, they report that the sports media often reduces women to the level of a sex object (the infamous swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated is a prime example) and that 85 to 95 percent of the time the media devotes to sports is devoted to men's sports. Of the sports in which women participate, those that are more feminine, such as figure skating, are more fully covered in the media. If we analyze the content of the reports, the results are very revealing. Men's sports reporting is dominated by descriptions of physical strength and dominance, while women's sports often revolve around appearance, attractiveness, grace, and little to no mention of strength (Sabo & Jansen, 1992).

Content analysis
The method of systematized fixation and quantification of content units in the material under study, in particular, revealing random and non-random elements (Burlachuk L.F., Morozov S.M. Dictionary-reference book on psychodiagnostics. St. Petersburg: Peter, 1999).

Content analysis of television commercials showed that their creators, portraying men and women, also widely use gender stereotypes. Studies of this kind (Bretl & Cantor, 1988; Lovdal, 1989) have found that the dominant voice in advertising is always male, the vast majority of commercials featuring women advertise household products, and the range of activities for men in commercials is three times as wide. than for women. Bretle and Kantor calculated that the average American sees approximately 714 commercials per week. Strate (1992), after conducting a comprehensive analysis of beer advertising, came to the conclusion that such commercials exploit the traditional image of masculinity, indicating what exactly one must do (including drinking beer) to become a real man.
What do studies say about the changes that have taken place in the portrayal of gender on television? Atkin and his colleagues (Atkin et al., 1991) found that during the 1980s. there has been an increase in the number of women television presenters. Moreover, they pointed to the fact that most of the programs featuring deviant women were also produced by women. Moore (Moore, 1992) analyzed how the family was shown in programs that occupy the best time on the air grid. According to his data, in 1950, of all the shown mothers of families, there were only 3% working; by 1980 this figure had risen to 30%. After analyzing family television shows from 1950 to 1990, Moore concluded that the real change in the male role was greatly exaggerated by television, which shows a lot of single fathers and men who put family responsibilities before work.
Does television really affect people? Considering how much Americans are absorbing it, this is undoubtedly to be expected. On a per-family basis, daily TV screen time reaches over 7 hours, and students, by the time they finish their studies, spend more time in front of TV than in lectures (Davis, 1991).
According to Kimball (1986), television-watching children display many more gender-norm attitudes than their non-TV-watching peers. A number of other studies (see, for example, Cobb et al., 1982; McGhee & Frueh, 1980; Steeves, 1987) have found a positive correlation between being exposed to gender stereotyped media and becoming stereotypical perception, attitudes and behavior patterns. This, of course, is only about the presence of a relationship between the two phenomena, and it is possible that the effect in this case is the cause [researchers call this the directionality problem]). In other words, people with stereotypical attitudes may prefer programs that promote the same gender stereotypes. It is possible, however, that children who are allowed to watch such programs by their parents are more gender stereotyped than those whose parents do not, not because of the influence of television, but because of the attitude of their parents (researchers call this the problem of the third variable).

Attitude
A specific course of action that a person implements or wants to implement in a particular situation. Attitude includes a stimulus or situation, an interest (intense desire), a response, and an object.

Experimental studies (where "third" variables and directionality were controlled) have shown that TV models can influence a child's perception of gender. In an experiment by Ruble and colleagues (Ruble et al., 1981), a child played less with a neutral toy after watching a television commercial where a child of the opposite sex played with it. A related study by Cobb and others will be discussed later in this chapter.
In the experiments of Geis et al. (Geis et al., 1984), Jennings et al. (Jennings et al., 1980) found that watching commercials with pronounced gender stereotypes has a certain effect on the desire of the participants in the experiment for career growth, their attitude to the existing order of things and self-confidence. In particular, Jennings and his colleagues began their experiment by randomly selecting two groups of women. The role of the independent variable was the viewing of four television commercials recorded on videotape. The first group saw these videos in their original form, in which they were shown on television, i.e. portraying women in relation to men in traditional roles (housewife or sexual object). For example, one of the commercials shown in the experiment was an advertisement for Hungry Man frozen dinners, in which a greatly reduced woman serves an equally huge dish to the table of her giant husband. In another group, the same commercials were shown, only all the roles were played by actors of the opposite sex.
As an initial hypothesis, the researchers hypothesized that women who watched traditional videos would show less independence in judgment and less self-confidence (dependent variables) than women who saw role-reversal videos. To measure the level of independence of judgment, the researchers asked half of the subjects to take part in a dummy experiment that allegedly studied which cartoons people found funny. Participants had to rate the "gaiety" of 16 cartoons. While explaining the conditions, the experimenter pointed to a large board with a table drawn on it, which supposedly reflected the assessments of previous subjects, and told each participant that her answers would also be entered in the appropriate column. Women who watched the traditional commercials were much more influenced by these false ratings.
The other half of the subjects took part in a media opinion survey (also bogus, of course) that was undertaken to measure the impact of watching commercials on self-confidence. The participants were asked to say a 4-minute impromptu; a speech on one of two topics (optional): "dangerous and misleading television advertising" or "demonstration of violence in television programs." The experimenter, not knowing anything about which videos the subject watched, determined the level of confidence of the speaker by evaluating seven non-verbal indicators in behavior (eye movements, nervousness, etc.). Those of the women who watched traditional videos were significantly less confident than the rest of the participants in the experiment.
faceism
A number of studies show that men and women are portrayed in different social roles and activities, but there are even more subtle ways in which culture reinforces differences in perceptions of the sexes. Archer and his colleagues (Archer et al., 1983) found that in images of men and women, the face stands out to varying degrees, and called this phenomenon faceism (face-ism). In particular, they pointed to the fact that photographs in the press emphasize the face of a man and the body of a woman, since men are usually depicted on them from the neck and above, and women - in full growth. In all twenty countries where the study was conducted, the printed publications it was exactly like that. Nigro and his colleagues (Nigro et al., 1988) also calculated that in the 1970s and 1980s. in Time, Newsweek, Good Housekeeping and Ms magazines, the face was emphasized more in men than in women.

Face-ism
The tendency to emphasize the face and body in images of men and women to varying degrees. Photographs in the press usually emphasize the face of a man and the body of a woman, since men are usually depicted in them from the neck and above, and women - in full growth.

At first glance, it may seem that this fact does not matter much. However, as Archer rightly points out, the head and face are "the center of mental life - there is located intelligence, personality, identity and character" (Archer et al., 1983, p. 726), and thus it becomes clear that the media information associate these concepts more with men than with women. Moreover, experiments have shown that emphasizing an individual's face leads to the fact that the subjects evaluate his intelligence, ambitions and appearance more highly.
Language
The language we speak can also contribute to the stereotyping of men and women. Henley (1989) points out that the English language has a wide range of means to describe men and women differently, or more specifically, to depict women as petty, ordinary, or completely ignored. Why, for example, married woman there is a special name (Mrs.), but there is no similar name for a married man? What does it say? Isn't it about the fact that the marital status of a woman, unlike a man, affects how we should perceive her and how to communicate with her? Henley also mentions a study showing that there are 6 to 10 times more words that describe a woman from the bad side than words that can say bad about a man (remember how many ways there are to say about a woman that she is slutty) . These words contain information about the gender-appropriate behavior that is accepted in our culture.
Toys
There is every reason to believe that children's toys play a very important role in the process of differential socialization. According to research, toys and games help girls practice activities related to preparing for motherhood and housekeeping, develop communication and cooperation skills. The situation is quite different for boys: toys and games encourage them to invent, transform the world around them, help develop skills that will later form the basis of spatial and mathematical abilities, and encourage independent, competitive and leadership behavior (Block, 1979; Connor et al., 1978; Emmot, 1985; Miller, 1987; Peretti & Sydney, 1985; Pitcher & Schultz, 1983).
Go to the store and see what toys they sell. You will immediately see that most of them are specifically for either boys or girls. Toys for girls are immediately visible. Their packaging is usually made in pink or pastel colors, on the box there is an image of a girl, and in terms of meaning they are associated either with self-care (for example, toy cosmetics), or with taking care of a child (baby dolls), or with household chores (toy cosmetics). vacuum cleaners, small cookers, dishes, etc.). Toys for boys are in brightly colored boxes with the image of a playing boy, they are often associated with construction (various construction sets, blocks) or active activities (sports equipment, weapons, etc.). Miller (Milleg, 1987) showed that children's toys are still segregated by gender: of the 50 toys used in her study, 41 were identified by the participants as exclusively for boys or girls. Toys that the subjects stereotypically classified as girly were characterized by being home-related, such as tea sets, dolls, and soft toys. At the same time, the subjects included vehicles, balls, weapons, and building games among the boys' toys.
The gender identity of a toy is often indicated by its name or packaging. Suffice it to recall the pocket electronic game, which gained popularity under the name Game-Boy (One of the semantic parts of the name is the word "boy", can be translated as "Game for boys"). When my son was five years old, he became interested in the title: “Girls can play it, right?” “Of course,” I replied. “Well, then it should have been called Game-Child (the researcher’s son replaced the word “boy” in the name of the game with the word “child”) so that the girls knew that they could also be played with,” he said. The problem is not only that in the process of playing with gender-appropriate toys the child absorbs traditional sex roles, but also how this affects the skills that girls and boys acquire (Eccles, 1990). For example, according to Sprafkin (Sprafkin et al., 1983), toys such as blocks and puzzles, which are traditionally preferred by boys, are good for developing a child's visual-spatial skills. Etaugh and Liss (1992) found that children who received a "male" toy as a gift turned away from traditionally female activities, and those who were given a "female" toy did not want to do male activities. McClurg and Chaille (1987) found that boys and girls in the fifth, seventh, and ninth grades showed significant gains in spatial skills when they played space-type computer games. Besides. Linn (1985) concludes that boys are more likely than girls to play computer games.
Statistically, adults buy young children more gender-specific toys (Pomerieau et al., 1990; Thompson et al., 1988). For example, Bradbard (1985) found that among children aged 9-16 months, most boys received cars and space games as Christmas gifts, while girls received household items. It is quite natural of you to assume that this is a consequence of the fact that boys and girls prefer different toys and therefore ask for these as gifts. Indeed, Etoe and Lise's study found that girls want and ask for "female" toys, while boys want "male" toys. For example, my son Ken admits that he doesn’t like Barbie dolls very much, but his girlfriend Samantha just loves them. Ken never asked to buy him a Barbie, while Samantha begged for a Barbie or accessories for her at every opportunity. In other words, boys and girls seem to really prefer different toys. But is this preference "natural" or is it created by the social environment?
A number of studies (Bell & Carver, 1980; Culp et al., 1983; Seavey et al., 1975; Sidorovicz & Lunney, 1980) have shown that children's toy preferences begin to develop as adults. For example, in a study by Sidorovich and Lanny (1980), subjects interacted with a 10-month-old baby. Participants were randomly divided into three groups. One group was told that the child was a girl, another group was told that it was a boy, and a third group was told nothing at all about the child's gender. When communicating with a child, an adult had at his disposal three toys: a rubber ball, a doll, and a chewing ring. If we were to give boys and girls different toys based on the difference in their behavior, then we would expect the subjects to choose toys based on the infant's actual preference rather than the gender label they were given. However, this did not happen. As a result, the real gender of the child practically did not influence the choice of subjects, which cannot be said about the gender label. Of the group that thought it was a boy, 50% of men and 80% of women chose a soccer ball (20% of those who thought so chose a chewing ring for "boy"). In the group where the child was introduced as a girl, 72% of the women and 89% of the men chose the doll. Only 28% of women from this group offered the “girl” a ball, and none of the men did this.
Have you ever experienced negative reactions from your parents when you played games that are considered gender specific? When I was little, my friend's brother decided to play with us one day and offered to dress up in different costumes. The reaction of his parents was as if we had committed a serious crime. Indeed, researchers have found that parents generally respond more positively when their children, especially boys, play with sex-matched toys (Fagot, 1978; Fagot & Leinbach, 1989; Langlois & Downs, 1980; Martin, 1990). Even during preschool, children who do not play with gender-matched toys are more likely to be ignored or criticized by other children (Carter & McCloskey, 1984; Fagot, 1978). Etow and Lise (1992) found that girls and boys generally received gifts of the gender-traditional toys they wanted, but if they asked for a gender-nontraditional toy, they did not receive it. Research by Japanese psychologists has also shown that parents choose toys based on the gender of the child, and that the child's own choice can be influenced by manipulating the toy's gender label ( detailed description for studies see Shirakawa et al., 1992).
Even if parents and relatives do not deliberately offer various toys to boys and girls, children's preferences can be formed in the process of socialization of the Self and without their participation. Watch a children's TV program one evening or Sunday morning and you'll find that almost all toys are advertised as toys for boys or toys for girls (the average American child watches TV 4 hours a day). Don't forget that as soon as a child defines himself as male or female and notices that men and women prefer different things and activities, he begins to imitate models of the same gender with him. My son noticed early enough that boys don't play with dolls, although we didn't consciously tell him that. Once, while watching TV, he even said to me: “I would like such a toy for myself, but since only girls play with it in advertising, it means that it is only for girls.” He immediately realized that no one could forbid him to buy it, but said that he would be "uneasy" as the toy was considered only for girls.
A very clever study (Cobb et al., 1982) provided evidence to support the hypothesis that television models may influence young children's preference for certain toys. It was attended by children from 4 to 6 years old, each of whom was shown one of three videos, where the characters were dolls from the animated series Sesame Street, chosen at random. All three films began with a fragment showing a set of toys that both boys and girls played with on the TV screen. Further in the story, a boy doll and a girl doll discussed which gender these toys are more suitable for. In the first version of the movie, the dolls provided evidence that these toys were "for boys", in the second version the dolls agreed that the toys were more suitable for girls, and in the third version they could belong to both boys and girls equally. After watching the 20-minute film, the child was left in a room containing two sets of toys: one featured in the film, the other less popular with children than the first and rated as gender-neutral in another study. Both boys and girls most of the time played with test toys, not test toys, in the event that they were identified in the film as corresponding to their gender. Conversely, if the test toys were presented in the film as gender-appropriate, the children spent most of their time playing with the test toys, although they were, remember, less popular. In a nutshell, the findings suggest that gender-based toy preferences can be created by television models that indicate a toy's gender. Since the researchers only used sets of toys that had been experimentally proven to be gender-neutral in advance, and used the same toys on all three occasions, we have reason to believe that the preferences that emerged after watching the video are entirely due to the television models.
Toy manufacturers are showing increasing awareness of this issue. Mattel's "Talking Barbie" says, "Computers are fun," and even earlier she could say, "Math class is hard," but the American Association of University Women convinced Mattel that girls were given the wrong installation. There are toys that are considered suitable for both boys and girls, with pictures of a boy and a girl on the packaging. Just recently, I saw an advertisement in which a boy and a girl were enthusiastically playing with a toy washer and dryer. There are even special bricks for girls - distinguished by the fact that they are pink or lavender, and the box shows little girls building living rooms and kitchens.
Scarr and McCartney (1983) suggested that boys and girls initially have different innate predispositions, due to which they begin to prefer different toys over time, and that adult actions, which we refer to as differential socialization, are nothing more than a reaction to these "natural" differences. They called this thesis the evocative genotype environment effect. There are several studies whose results seem to support this hypothesis. So, Snow and his colleagues (Snow et al., 1983) found that fathers are less willing to give dolls to their one-year-old sons than to daughters of the same age, but even if a boy receives a doll from his father, he plays with it less than girls. . In another study, children showed greater interest in playing with toys typical of their gender, although there were no overt attempts on the part of parents to introduce them to such games (Caldera et al., 1989). Unfortunately, we cannot rule out the possibility that some degree of differential socialization has already taken place earlier and that its results have influenced the child's preferences. A number of studies show that the process of differential socialization begins in early childhood (BeU & Carver, 1980; Culp et al., 1983; Shaking al., 1975; Sidorowicz & Lunney, 1980). Another, no less plausible hypothesis; is that physiology creates individual differences in preferences, and if the latter correspond to the sexual role of the child, then they receive support, and if they do not correspond, then they do not receive support (especially for boys). For example, one study found that boys who were temperamentally prone to games less typical of their gender were more likely to be punished and judged (Bemdt & Heller, 1986; Fagot, 1978; Fagot & Leinbach, 1989; Langlois & Downs , 1980; Martin, 1990 Steriker & Kurdek, 1982).
The large percentage of tomboys among girls of our time also casts doubt on whether differences in play preferences between boys and girls are natural. A tomboy in this context is a girl with boyish tendencies who prefers to engage in traditionally male activities and play traditionally "male" toys, although this does not prevent some of them from also playing with girls and taking part in traditionally female games. In one study, 63% of 9th grade girls reported being tomboys, and in an adult sample, 51% of women reported being tomboys (Hyde et al., 1977). In a more recent study, over 50% of girls in grades 4, 6, 8, and 10 identified themselves as tomboys (Plumb & Cowan, 1984). Similarly, 50% of 193 women surveyed by Berne (Bum et al., 1994) at universities and community colleges said they were tomboys as children. Another interesting finding found in several studies (Bum et al., 1994; Plumb & Cowan, 1984) is that gender-incongruent behavior in girls decreases significantly during puberty. Hyde (1991) suggests that this phenomenon is based on the fact that the intensity of gender-role pressure increases during adolescence. In their study, Byrne and her colleagues asked women who claimed to have been tomboys as children, "Why did you stop being a tomboy?" Most of the responses received fell into the following four categories: social pressure from peers or high school students, social pressure from parents or other adults, desire to be attractive to boys, physical development. Perhaps the appearance of menstruation and bodily development make the "femininity" of the tomboy girl more visible, which encourages herself and others to increasingly apply feminine gender norms to her behavior.
ANDROGYNY
Benefit
In this chapter, we have looked at the process by which a person acquires a gender. Differential socialization can lead to the development of different psychological traits in men and women. For example, toys differentiated on the basis of conformity to one or another gender are capable of cultivating a caring attitude towards others in girls, and perseverance and a spirit of competition in boys. However, in real life, social norms and socialization do not create extremely masculine men and extremely feminine women. Psychologist Sandra Bern (1974) pointed out that masculinity and femininity are not opposed to each other, and a person can have both masculine and feminine traits. Moreover, Bem believes that it is even desirable to be androgynous, that is, to absorb the best of both sex roles.
Up until the 70s. manifestations of "masculine" traits in women and "feminine" traits in men have been a source of concern for psychologists. And among people far from psychology, this understanding is widespread even now, and it is because of it that people are confused when their children show the interests and behavior inherent in the opposite sex. However, studies do not support the position that deviation from gender-role standards entails psychological mismatch (O "Heron & Oriofsky, 1987, 1990). Indeed, according to Bem (Bem, 1974), mental health should not have a gender, and androgyny is positive androgyny has been associated with situational flexibility (i.e., the ability to be assertive or centered on the interests of others depending on the situation) (Bern, 1975; Vonk & Ashmore, 1993), high self-esteem (Mullis & McKinley, 1989 ; Oriofsky, 1977; Spence et al., 1975); achievement motivation (Spence & Helmrich, 1978); good parenting performance (Baumrind, 1982); subjective sense of well-being (Lubinski et al., 1981). In addition to these data Let us mention that Zammichieli and his colleagues (Zammichieli et al., 1988) found that in families where both spouses were androgynous, a higher level of marital satisfaction was revealed, than in families where one partner or both were gendered. In Ickes (1993) we find a discussion of a number of studies that indicate that relationships in which at least one of the partners is androgynous are more satisfying for both. However, a recent study showed that the degree of satisfaction with marriage depends, in particular, on the feminine qualities of one of the spouses - a man or a woman. This is explained by the fact that caring, guardianship, sensuality are identified with a feminine figure, and at the same time, they determine the quality of relationships (Ickes, 1993).
Polo-role questionnaire by Sandra Boehm
The Bem Gender Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) is the most widely used tool for measuring how an adult evaluates himself in terms of gender (Hargreaves, 1987). The questionnaire includes 60 adjectives, each of which the subject evaluates on a 7-point scale based on how accurately it characterizes him. Twenty adjectives from this list make up the scale of masculinity: masculine, analyzing, ambitious, aggressive, dominant, etc.; twenty more make up the scale of femininity: feminine, warm, loving, children, attentive to the needs of others, etc.; and the remaining twenty are neutral: envious, reliable, serious, self-conceited, tactful. The adjectives were selected based on what characteristics were considered gender-appropriate at the time the scale was created. This was done with the aim of defining the place of gender in a cultural context, and not in the personality of an individual (Bem, 1993). A person who scores high on both the masculinity and femininity scales is considered androgynous; someone who scores high on the femininity scale but low on the masculine scale is considered feminine; the same, whose score on the scale of masculinity is much higher than the results on the scale of femininity, is considered masculine. The term "undifferentiated" in this questionnaire refers to those who scored equally low on both the masculinity scale and the femininity scale. A gender-typed person is one whose self-definition and behavior matches what is considered gender-appropriate in his society.
There are a number of scientific papers that have examined the results of the BSRI in non-Euro-American groups. Interestingly, they often contradict generally accepted stereotypes. According to De Leon (1993), African Americans and Puerto Ricans, both men and women, are more androgynous than Euro-Americans. Two other studies have also shown that African American women score higher on androgyny than European American women (Binion, 1990; Dugger, 1988). This can be explained by historically high unemployment rates among black men and low wages for their work, as a result of which black women have taken a more confident position in the labor market compared to white women. The historical experience of African American women has led their concept of femininity to include self-confidence, physical strength, resourcefulness, and self-reliance (Dugger, 1988). In a 1983 study by Poo and Vazquez-Nuttall of college women, black students scored highest on a scale of masculinity, followed by Hispanic women, and then white women (for a study report, see Vazquez-Nuttall et al. , 1987). The same results were obtained by De Leon (De Leon, 1993).
Cranau et al (1982) found that Mexican women are the most feminine among immigrants who have assimilated the culture of American society, despite the fact that their behavior is becoming less and less feminine. However, Puerto Rican women living on the island, according to one recent study, were by no means more feminine than Puerto Rican women living in the United States (DeLeon, 1993). A comparison of BSRI scores in African American, Puerto Rican, and Euroamerican men showed that the highest percentage of feminine males and the lowest percentage of masculine males were found among Puerto Ricans. Puerto Rican men, on average, scored significantly higher on the femininity scale than men from the African American and Euro-American subgroups. De Leon cites the fact that Puerto Rican culture encourages family affection, caring for others, caring for children, traits that describe the feminine type in the BSRI. The listed studies point us to the role of culture in the creation of gender types, as well as to a clear lack of scientific work in this area. In Chapter 6, we will continue our discussion of the links between gender and culture.
Controversy over the Sandra Behm questionnaire and the concept of androgyny
The BSRI has been the subject of much academic controversy, much of it on complex methodological issues (Baldwin et al., 1986; Bern, 1979; Hargreaves et al., 1981; Kottke, 1988; Locksley & Colten, 1979; Lubinski et al., 1981; Marsh & Byme, 1991; Pedhazur & Tetenbaum, 1979; Spens & Helmrich, 1981; Taylor & Hall, 1982). Other existing measurement tools for androgyny include the Personal Attribute Questionnaire (PAQ) (Spens, Helmrich & Stapp, 1974); Sex-Rep Instrument (Baldwin et. al., 1986); ANDRO scale (Berzins et al., 1978); Scale of sex-role behavior (Oriofsky et al., 1982).
Even the very concept of androgyny has come under attack (Ashmore, 1990; Sedney, 1989). Behm herself (Bern, 1981, 1993) lamented that the concept of androgyny implies that some of the approved qualities are "male" and some "female", which is fundamentally contrary to our intention to reduce gender polarization. Many psychologists propose to completely abandon the terms "masculinity" and "femininity", which only reinforce gender differences and stereotypes (Betz, 1993). Spence and Helmrich (1981) suggested that instead of these terms, the following terms should be used: instrumentality, which reflects the ability to assert oneself and competence (key aspects of traditional masculinity), and expressiveness, representing qualities traditionally associated with femininity, for example, caring, attention to environment, emotional expressiveness and sensuality (Betz, 1993).
In his book (1993), Boehm admits that the concept of androgyny is far from the real state of affairs: based on it, changes must occur at the personal level, while in reality the elimination of gender inequality will inevitably require changes in the structure of social institutions. Another intractable problem lies in the possible loss of a positive social identity, which will entail a smoothing of the male-female dichotomy. In Chapter 5 we will see the benefits to our self-esteem of strongly identifying with our gender and emphasizing its differences from the opposite sex. Nevertheless, a world composed of people who are both instrumental and expressive seems enticing to me. I agree with Bem that androgyny, despite the problems hidden in it, provides an opportunity to build a picture of a utopia where a person does not need to give up those qualities and behaviors that his society considers inappropriate for gender. The importance of this concept also lies in the fact that it makes it possible to realize the same attractiveness of the qualities that are traditionally considered feminine, and the qualities that we are accustomed to consider masculine. This is especially important in light of the fact that masculine qualities are still trying to be presented as more normative and desirable (cf.: Bern, 1993; Miller et al., 1991; Tavris, 1992).
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter has discussed a range of issues related to the role of culture in creating gender, the variety of ways in which gender-related cultural norms are communicated, and the motivations that drive us to conform to culture's gender-role expectations. I am aware that you may still be resisting a non-biological understanding of the nature of gender differences. You may, for example, share the views of sociobiologists such as Wilson (E. O. Wilson, 1978).
According to sociobiologists, differences in the behavior of men and women formed naturally, or rather, such differences contributed to the survival of individuals, which led to an increase in their occurrence in the population. Indeed, it seems that the division of some types of labor according to gender at some point in history was important for survival. As Williams & Best (1986) rightly pointed out, a woman's freedom of movement was limited because she always needed to care for babies. Thus, since the woman was “locked in a cave,” it made sense for her to take on the rest of the cares associated with caring for children and housekeeping. In contrast, hunting and war required mobility and strength, making them respectively the pursuits of men.
It was also preferable for the group as a whole to have men rather than women do such dangerous jobs, since the loss of a large number of mothers threatened the entire group with extinction.
Buss and Barnes (Buss & Bames, 1986) and Kenrick et al. (Kenrick et al., 1990) suggested that traits such as male dominance and female caring might have arisen through natural selection and evolution. Following their biosocial or evolutionary view, males were selected for their traits associated with dominance and social status, and females for traits indicating high reproductive potential and ability to care for offspring. Again, it is assumed that such traits have a positive effect on the reproductive process and, therefore, begin to be more common in the population. A number of studies on couples' mate choice have shown, first, that women are more attracted to men who appear to be socially dominant, while men are more attracted to visually attractive and younger women, and second, that these differences occur across most cultures (Buss, 1989; Buss & Bames, 1986; Kenrick et al., 1990). The authors of these studies believed that these differences correspond to an evolutionary pattern in which males forage for food and protect offspring, while females give birth and raise them.
Unfortunately, at this stage in the development of scientific knowledge, we cannot provide direct evidence that such gender differences in the preferences of partners (as well as other differences in behavior and psychological qualities) are recorded in genetic code or depend on the hormonal background. Indeed, the research conducted by sociobiologists, which they constantly cite as support for the theory of naturally occurring gender differences, is flawed and thus provides us with dubious support for the sociobiological explanation of the nature of gender (for a critique of this research, see: Fausto-Steriing, 1985). Moreover, alternative explanations rely on fairly plausible consideration of the social sources of gender differences. For example, in a study by Kenrick (Kenrick et al., 1990), women rated their partner's ability to make money as more important than men. Obviously, this is based on the fact known to both men and women that a woman has fewer opportunities to earn money, and therefore they see a man as the main earner. The reason may also be social norms that inspire that the value of a man is largely determined by his ability to earn. Imagine how many little girls hear from their parents that they need to grow up quickly and find a rich groom. Is it possible that these norms evolved because, prior to the advent of artificial baby food and birth control in the mid-20th century, child care placed women in a position of dependence on men?
Let us assume that at one time the different behavior of men and women served the survival of the human individual. Does this mean that these differences are preserved in the genetic code? No, not at all. Indeed, it is quite possible that the mechanism that served to transmit these differences in heredity was of a social nature. Based on the fact that sex differences in the behavior of animals are instinctive, many conclude that the same is the case with humans. But we must not forget that our brain, unlike the weak brain of animals, leaves only a small part of behavior at the mercy of instincts, and much more is associated with learning. That is why people have successfully spread across the globe and show amazing diversity in behavior. The rapid (in a historical sense) change that women's roles have undergone in the last century testifies to the importance of culture in creating and destroying gender differences. These changes are more revolutionary than evolutionary. For example, how can biology explain the fact that over the years the gap in the performance of men and women in mathematical and spatial tasks has been narrowing? As Rosenthal and Rubin have said, these changes occur "faster than the gene moves" (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982, p. 711).
Myers (1990) pointed out another important counterargument regarding sociobiology and gender roles. We remember that for a sociobiologist, gender-role differences exist insofar as they contribute to the survival of individuals of a given species. However, Myers noted that this position can be easily refuted: indeed, if the gender roles were arranged differently, they would have contributed to the survival of individuals with no less success. For example, he wrote, strength and aggressiveness in women had every right to be preserved in the course of natural selection, since a strong and aggressive woman can better protect her children.
It should be noted that even if there was once a special meaning for a woman to focus on caring for children (first of all, she has mammary glands, and artificial feeding has only recently appeared), and for a man to be aggressive, this is far does not mean that such differences in behavior are still adaptive (that is, they contribute to the survival of individuals). Myers (1990) noted that the wisdom of evolution is the wisdom of the past, it tells us what behaviors were adaptive in the past, but cannot tell if these trends remain so today. Bem (Bern, 1993), objecting to sociobiologists, accused them of paying too little attention to the ability of a person to change his environment by cultural methods and, therefore, to change something in himself. She gave many examples in which culture and technology have freed man from what at first seemed to be significant biological limitations.
Modern society is information oriented, and therefore physical strength and aggressiveness are not very important for success in such a world (Kenrick, 1987). At the same time, most modern women are employed in some other work besides homework in order to have food, maintain an average standard of living, or fulfill themselves. Thus, the role of the sole guardian for her offspring is no longer adaptive for a woman. Now adaptive behavior will be an attempt to involve fathers as actively as possible in the upbringing of children. Hoffman and Hurst (1990) quite rightly saw the sad irony that, although in most modern societies the original reasons for the division of labor have long ceased to be convincing and not at all as obvious as before, everything continues to remain in place.
Although Freud once said, "Anatomy is destiny," we now know that a woman does not need to be the primary caretaker of a child, or even need to have children, and a man does not have to be aggressive at all costs. Of course, the fact that a woman has a uterus and mammary glands makes her more likely (compared to a man) to give birth and take care of babies. And the fact that a man is bigger and stronger makes us think that it is he, and not a woman, who is predisposed to physical aggression. However, as Degler (1990) rightly noted, even if a biological or evolutionary basis for human behavior exists, this does not mean that people must necessarily be in its undivided power. Sociobiologists, namely Wilson (E.O. Wilson, 1978) and Donald Symons (Donald Symons, 1985), expressed the idea that aggressive polygamous men turned out to be more resistant to natural selection factors, whose contribution to procreation ended in fertilization. But men can be monogamous, non-aggressive and caring. According to Degler (Degler, 1990), it is not evolution or natural selection, but we determine our own life values.
By no means, of course, are we trying to deny the role of the evolutionary past. Indeed, the strong influence that social context and culture have on our behavior may itself have roots in evolutionary processes. For example, it is possible that the tendency of people to form social units and be influenced by social information was distinguished by natural selection, since those people who existed in groups and paid sufficient attention to the behavior of others were more likely to survive. We are also far from denying the influence of physiology on human behavior. Indeed, there is strong evidence that up to 50% of a person's personality traits are transmitted genetically and that many mental disorders are rooted in physiology. However, biology is better at explaining inter-individual than inter-group (for example, ethnic or gender) differences. In short, biological aspects are of great importance, but there are things that play a much more important role in human behavior than biology. We will not advance towards understanding gender or reducing gender inequality until we understand the sociocultural contexts in which people live and work.
SUMMARY
Gender stereotypes often act as social norms. Regulatory and informational pressure forces us to obey gender norms. The effect of normative pressure is that we try to conform to gender roles in order to gain social approval and avoid social disapproval. We can talk about informational pressure when we begin to consider the tender norms correct, because we are under the influence of social information. We live in a culture where men tend to do some things and women do other things, where gender differences are considered natural; so we accept and follow gender norms.
Gender conformity can be observed in behavior but not in a belief system (compliance), or in both behavior and belief system (approval, internalization), or it can be determined by the desire to be like a peer or role model (identification). Individuals conform to traditional gender roles to varying degrees, with some being extremely polo-typified and strongly gender-role-compliant. The most likely to be gender-typed are those who have had the experience of a critical experience of gender socialization, when any deviation from the gender role inevitably entailed severe social consequences.
Through a process called differential socialization, we learn that a person, depending on his gender, will have different interests, behaviors and psychological qualities. Differential socialization uses two main mechanisms - differential reinforcement and differential imitation. Differential reinforcement is that men and women are rewarded or punished depending on their behavior, interests, etc. We begin to talk about differential imitation when the child finally determines his gender and begins to observe the behavior of role models of the same sex with special attention and imitate them.
Parents are not the only ones involved in the process of differential socialization. Information about the correct gender-role behavior is transmitted through children's literature, television and colloquial.
Research unequivocally points to the large contribution of these sources to the stereotypical perception of men and women.
Children's toys also play a certain role in the development of gender-typical skills and qualities. According to research, toys for boys are more likely to develop spatial and math skills, while toys for girls stimulate the development of housework and interpersonal skills. Among the toys that children ask for as a gift, most are typical of their gender, and researchers believe that these preferences are shaped by the social environment in early childhood.
Although there is a lot of scientific debate around how androgyny is measured, there is reason to believe that it is desirable for a modern person to have approximately an equal number of male and female traits.
Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists believe that the differences in the behavior of men and women were distinguished by natural selection, as they contributed to survival. However, even if such differences once contributed to the survival of the species, this does not mean that they are preserved in the genetic code, are relevant in the modern world, and that we should allow biological differences to impose moral values ​​on us.