Gendered Influences on Nonverbal Communication
|
This chapter is devoted to gender as a master theme. As is the case in chapters Six, Seven and Eight, many of the concepts developed or explored in chapters One, Two, Three and Four are woven into the chapters in this section of the book.
Gender is one's personal sense of maleness or femaleness. Cultural, sociological and psychological processes influence gender. Clearly men and women differ biologically, one from the other, and they are socialized differently, both factors influencing their nonverbal communication. A considerable body of research has focused on their differences; many popular books and discussion programs focus on their differences as well. For example some researchers have been interested in feminism and psychoanalysis (Chodorow, 1989); others are concerned that gender concepts are misstated, mismeasured (Tavris, 1992). Scholars are re-thinking and redefining gender (Rakow, 1986). But, it is clear that gender studies are on the rise; it is a popular topic in the media as well.
Competition seems to exist between researchers who espouse an essentialist model versus those who espouse an interactionist model. Essentialism suggests that differences between the genders are located in a relatively fixed, stable inner core while interactionists believe that gender is dynamic and somehat modifiable, depending on the context.
Some confusion exists between the meanings of the word sex and gender. In this text, as in many, sex is regarded as a biological term describing male and female body characteristics at birth. Genetic and biological processes unfold in the creation of sex. Gender, on the other hand, is a learned identity created in socialization. Gender describes a more fluid condition than does sex. Although biological factors influence the development of gender, it does not determine gender, although there is an interaction between biological, psychological and social processes.
From an SI perspective humans, whether male or female, enact nonverbal behaviors based on their identities, the identities themselves being constructed by humans. It has been suggested that gender is an arrangement between the sexes, a type of institutional reflexivity. Nonverbal communication establishes a sense of relationship between people (Wood, 1994), Yet, the reader must remember that identity and gender are terms that describe a complexity of concepts; males and females learn to play multiple roles, some of which are played the same way by both genders; others are performed by one gender and not the other.
Gender is a fixed category. Gender is created in communication; it does not exist as a fixed, essentialist category, separate from growth processes. Mead believed that people were actors, not reactors, although they respond to influences. Humans go through stages, such as the preparatory, play and game stages. People gradually integrate themselves over time, achieving identity, whether male or female (Pearson,1988).
All males are alike; all females are alike. Although humans share interpersonal, social and cultural contents intersubjectively, each individual is unique because of the special experiences of that individual.
Sex and gender are the same concepts. Sex is a biological phenomenon while gender is a socially constructed phenomenon. However, there is an interaction between sex and gender. Women may bear children; men can fertilize the egg.
Perceptions of gender are always accurate. Men may condemn a behavior that they see women doing but approve of it when they see or hear men doing it. Swearing is one example. Perceptions may be stereotyped. For example, it is believed that females do not make good managers, but recent research suggests that they do very well in management positions.
Males and females have the same access to opportunities. The "man-thing" has meant that there is a male bias in society, which provides males with more opportunities than it does females, especially when the females are ethnic minorities. This problem is slowly eroding.
Gender is a simple concept. Actually the self is complex and multiple, as James, Mead, Jung, Gergen and others have discussed.
Research shows that sex hormones may sex-type the brain, thereby influencing body identification creating a biological biasing effect.(1) Just how this may play out is not clear. It is obvious that both sexes can perform similar biological functions and activities, such as coitus and the intake and digestion of food. They differ about menstruation, levels of testosterone, and other physical factors, men being generally larger in body size than women. The male and female sexual parts differ substantially; as humans mature, their genetic differences generally become even more distinct and clear, especially with the onset of puberty and early adolescence. Older people may complain about loss of sex drive and cognitive acuity but even this process occurs differently in the sexes.
Some research suggests that the male-female sexual distinctions present a false dichotomy because to an extent each sex resides in both male or female bodies (Hargreaves & Colley, 1987). As the study of genes continues it may reveal the extent to which humans are "hardwired" or shaped by the XX or XY genetic patterns.
Socially, of course, humans symbolize their physical identity; they gradually become genderized. Smaller at birth and throughout most of their lives, females adjust to the implied power difference associated with size. Both genders adjust to body changes. For example, male and female children start out with a similar larynx, but gradually, the male develops a huskier voice. The innate ability of the female to produce eggs to be fertilized by the male influences how women relate to children and to family members. X and Y chromosomes affect deeply how the sexual male and female will develop. According to some research, men are more susceptible to physical problems than are women throughout the stages of life, as their earlier death rate suggests. However, the aging process presents a different sets of problems for each sex; researchers have suggested that older age is a woman's problem, as will be discussed in Chapter Seven.
Chronobiology, mentioned earlier, is a newly emerging field of study; it reveals that men, like women, have hormonal cycles that influence behavior. Men from 39-70 years of age, having higher levels of testosterone, also appear to have increased levels of aggression (Coon,1994). In lower order male animals, the presence of androgens has been linked to aggressiveness as well. For example, studies show that hens, when fed testosterone in an early stage of their development, acquire male-like features, such as the comb and the wattles; they act more like roosters than like hens. One might ask whether pronounced levels of testosterone in the human male leads to agonistic behavior (Maccoby, 1998), an aggressiveness that attentuates later in life. Does the comparatively lower level of testosterone in the female lead to a more compliant, nurturant nonverbal style than men display? Maccoby suggests that the male agonistic style of nonverbal behavior is learned early and that it is carried throughout life in some measure, modified over time. Social behaviors overlay physical processes.
The ability of women to to conceive and menstruate influences their behavior considerably. Even their body temperatures change in circadian and monthly cycles. The study of circadian rhythms in both males and females is receiving more attention in modern research. Perhaps the body changes from morning to evening influencing behaviors, as popularly believed.
It is known that pheromones(2) are tied into the mating habits of lower order animals, differing substantially from species to species (Wilson, 1992). The way in which these odors attract the sexes vary considerably, but both sexes may mark their territory. Whether humans have pheromones that attract both sexes is less clear, although research continues. Americans are fond of covering up their body odors with perfumes.
Framing the Attractiveness Syndrome
What is attractive in one society may not be attractive in another. In the United States, a cursory examination of the ways that people try to be attractive yields a compelling picture. For example, many women are constantly thinking about losing weight (Wooley & Wooley, 1984). Studies reveal the majority of the female subjects reported that losing weight was more important to them than having success in work or love. Dieting starts among women as early as fourth and fifth grades; in High School, most women are concerned about their weight (Woods, 1994).
In a youth conscious society, where the concepts of the ideal male and female physical specimens are played up, it is no surprise that both males and females are preoccupied with weight loss and muscle toning, however unhealthy the process may be. Indeed, there seems to be a relationship between body image and self-esteem. Some women diet to increase their self-confidence, thinking that they will be more feminine if they are thin. This norm is constantly reinforced by the media, where having the "perfect abs" is played up to both genders. In comparison to white women, African-American women may be less concerned with weight, dieting or being thin. Perhaps they have a more realistic view of losing weight (Molloy, 1998). Some evidence suggests that many Black females believe that the slightly heavier body is more attractive than is a thin one.
Genetic fitness is an adaptive evolutionary concept, the fit animal being more adaptable than the nonfit. Genetically fit males, whether human or of other species, can mate again and again with different females. Male seals, for example, are harem masters and male roosters copulate with many hens (Barash & Lipton, 1997). In humans, polygamy has occasionally been practiced in the United States, a monogamist country, but polyandry is often the norm in other countries. Beliefs and customs determine how the sexual drive of men and women is to be channeled. Demographic pressures and patterns bear on sexual practices.
Men are sexually aroused more quickly than are women. This fact, combined with the tendency for men to have more physical power than women have may explain the existence of porn, prostitution and other shunned social activites, mostly male interests (Barash & Lipton, 1997). Evolutionists suggest that sexual differences influence social differences. For example, women generally desire to have a loving and comfortable environment; is this due to their genetic make-up? Do men tend to be less concerned about a loving environment due to their easily aroused sexual tendencies and their aggressiveness? (Symonds, 1979). It has been said in a popular vein, that for men, "sex sometimes results in intimacy; for women, intimacy sometimes results in sex".
Physical attractiveness and beauty exist in the human mind, but they do not put food on the table. Nevertheless, physical attractiveness is necessary for human reproduction. In other words, it acts as a catalyst inspiring a male to copulate with a female. Physical beauty makes humans attractive to one another. It is interesting that delinquents, people who are in trouble with the law, tend to have less attractive bodies. There is an interaction between physical shape and social expectations, as this example shows (Jones, 1996). As noted in the last chapter, shorter boys tend to be held back in school in Australia.
Cultural norms vary across cultures; it is not surprising that different cultures produce different attraction displays (Jankowiak, 1993). Perhaps there are few universal standards of sexual attractiveness (Buss, 1989). Indeed, in the arrangment of marriages, there may be little focus on attractiveness. When choice, not arrangement is involved, research suggests that women tend to choose men who are skillful, who have prowess; men tend to choose women who are beautiful. This appears to be a universal tendency (Buss, 1989). The understanding of what is skillful or attractive, of course, varies by culture.
Research suggests that men in the United States prefer big eyes, full lips, small noses in women, but women may not share in those predispositions. Brazilian men seem to like big butts and small breasts; darkness in skin color is problematic in Brazil (Jones, 1996). It is clear from an evolutionary and ethological view that sexual attractiveness is important to sexual copulation. Culture interacts with biology in producing offspring.
The use of recent imaging technologies reveals the complexity of the human brain, and, to an extent shows how males and females differ. A popular belief is that males and females have significant lateral differences, each sex tending to use different sides of the brain. Early research suggested that males tended to use the left side of the brain because it is associated with linear, logical and analytic thinking, while women, who tend to have more developed right lobes, tend to be more holistic, imaginative and intuitive than are men. Recent research suggests, however, that pronounced laterality may not characterize the differences; rather, the areas of the brain associated with selected activities, such as language and spatial concepts, largely determine how the sexes use the brain, with women tending to use more of the brain (LeDoux, 1996) Some research suggests that the neuronal structure of the languaging portion of the brain is more dense in females, possibly leading to greater verbal dexterity in women. PET scan technology can trace the flow of blood in the brain as various tasks are performed, indicating that long awaited answers to questions about the localization of activities in the brain are forthcoming.
The baby is born with the human sensorium intact, yet the various senses grow in variously staged patterns. For example, the neonate responds to touch and can detect the odor and taste of its mother's milk. Given sour things to taste, the very young child will pucker, perhaps even cry; the ability to taste is well developed from birth. The child's eyes, however, require more time to become focused and the child's ability to grasp, to reach and to touch is only gradually developed (Morris, 1992).
As young people become adults the body changes. Women tend to have a higher sweat threshold than do men, men sweating more quickly under the same conditions. The dermal response to cold is quicker for women than it is for men and they seem to be more sensitive to pressures put on various body parts. Although it may be a learned phenomenon, females tend be more expressive about feeling pain than are men. Men are often taught to suffer pain in silence, which may account for the differences (Baker, 1987).
Men seem to be better at detecting pure tones up to about age 30 but males show some loss, due perhaps, to differential noise at the place of work. It has been shown that women may suffer some change in hearing ability due to changes in estrogens and progesterone levels.
Taste abilities vary between the sexes as well, but there may be confounding effects due to socialization and cultural influences. For example, women tend to have lower thresholds for sweet, sour and salty tastes and higher thresholds than men do for sucrose, and sodium chloride. Pregnant women prefer stronger concentrates of sweet, sour, bitter and salty than do men (Baker, 1987).
The results of the smell study performed by National Geographic, discussed in Chapter Two, suggested that women differ from men in several ways both within cultures and across cultures. Again, the confounding effects of social expectations, of culture, make it unclear whether physical or cultural differences are at play. Different cultures emphasize different smell and taste codes so one might expect the ability to smell to be affected.
The importance of these studies to a symbolic interactionist approach to nonverbal communication may seem unclear to the reader. The SI approach suggests that humans interpret and give meaning to physical and social events in their lives. Biological differences may lead to social practices; for example, men buy women chocolates when they are courting them. This long honored practice signals the relationship between biology, or taste, and social practice.
Framing the Male Sexual Life Cycle
In a popular book about the changes that males go through over their life span, their growth patterns have been described in sexual terms:
The author concludes that the male menopause begins in the fifties or sixties; there is some lapse in virility and vitality (Sheehy,1998). Sheehy's analysis applies to men in the United States.
Gender is a concept complex in meaning, more complex than the concepts of sex and it changes over time (Woods, 1994). As mentioned, in the Great Chain of Being theory, now considered mythical, women and Blacks were not considered as high on the hierarchal chain as were white males. The best human model was the white, European male. (Schiebingen, 1993).To this day, by and large, women are excluded from doing science, although the situation is improving. (Deegan, 1991) The fully developed human was a white male; women were thought to be a deviation from the norm.
Humans define themselves in multiple ways. However, it is only in recent years that women have been able to define themselves without male interference. In many societies, even today, a female's relationship to a male is one of subservience; women may even be owned by men, sometimes taken as slaves. The predominance of male power still exists in many countries. The establishment of women's rights and ensuing affirmative action in the United States created more favorable conditions. Women can now effectively resist the "ale thing" although egalitarianism is not complete.
The concept of gender is broadly open, affording many options for individual interpretation of self. When behaviors are rigidly typed as male or female, they are usually typed in error. Gendered behaviors are learned and flexible. Contexts vary and the ways in which gendered behaviors are manifest in varied contexts is a matter of self construal. For example, black women in academia must make sense of the context. They face different influences than do white women, who themselves may face uncertainties that males do not (Kotthoff & Wodak, 1997). Patterned behaviors, often based on stereotypes, still prevail between the genders, as the following illustrates.
Framing the Stereotyped Gendered Voice
Gender is sensed, not merely by how the voice sounds, but by an integration of the senses, a multi-channeling process (Hall, 1985). The human voice, male and female, has been heavily stereotyped. For example, when a male person is "breathy" he is believed to be young and artistic; if a female's voice is breathy, she is thought to be feminine and pretty, but shallow. If the male voice is tense, he is thought to be older, unyielding and cantankerous; if a female's voice is tense, she is thought to be emotional, high strung and less intelligent. If the male voice has a higher pitch and is highly varied, he is thought to be dynamic and feminine; if a female's voice is higher pitched, she is thought to be more dynamic and extroverted (Knapp & Hall, 1992).
In research that is supposedly free of stereotypes, it is suggested that women's speech fosters connections, support, closeness and understanding, while the male speech patterns tend to establish status, independence and control. Women tend toward inclusiveness in their speech and men toward dominance (Gilligan, 1982;Woods, 1994) which can lead to misunderstandings between the genders.
In a rapidly changing world, it is hard to determine what is stereotypical and what is not, but there are research findings that appear to be solid. For example, to resolve conflicts in games it is shown that girls tend to end the game, while boys elaborate the rules to end the dispute. Girls, it appears, learn to cooperate; boys learn to compete. Girls play in smaller, more intimate pairs, often in private places, while boys seek out competition (Arliss & Borisoff, 1993).
As people make choices, make sense of their lives and act out behaviors in context, they become socialized and oversocialized both directly and indirectly. Imitation and modeling are features of this socialization, concepts that are useful throughout life (Maccoby,1998). Each person becomes male or female or something in-between, with a wrinkle or two. In short, there is an arbitrariness to the construction of gender (Smith,1992). The socialization of gender is not a linear, exact process; there is unevenness.
Clearly, women and men think in genderized terms. Society contains thoughts and themes about gender and gender roles may seem somewhat fixed and inflexible. For example, guns are used more by males and dolls are used more by females, but these are not fixed behaviors; they are learned, malleable and flexible. The colors pink and blue have been associated with females and males at birth; these illustrations suggest that there is relative stability in the ways that humans perceive the place of gender.
Males and females tend to express themselves differently. Males tend to use more dominant, commanding gestures and movements, to take up more space than do females, to mask their emotions, and to smile for different reasons than do women. Women tend to wear a smile, as part of the expectation that they be pleasant (Richmond & McCroskey, 1992). Women are said to be "rapport" builders and men are "report" givers, or knowledge experts, alluding to popular stereotypes. Women appear to display their emotions more readily than do men. Women seem to be able to give and interpret nonverbal messages better than men can (Stewart, Cooper & Friedly,1986).
Thus far the discussion has focused on gender differences. But, is gendered behavior really extremely bipolar or does it exist at various points on a range? Various analyses of gender differences seem to be overdrawn, there being fewer differences between males and females than there are similarities (Andersen, 1998; Canary and Hause,1993; Wilkins and Andersen, 1991). Various metanalyses suggest that gender is best interpreted as a point on a range, each gender able to occupy most of those points. It is best to discuss differences as tendencies rather than as absolute differences.
As discussed, the gendered body is not a fixed corpus; rather, each culture establishes metaphors for the body, which are taken into account by individuals in order to make sense of self. Body metaphors and themes are found in all cultures. For example, in oral societies, men were associated with the sun and energy; females were associated with the mysterious moon. Men were thought to be rational and women intuitive (Lips & Colwill, 1978). Women were considered mysterious because of menstruation, birth and lactation, leading to darkness, irrationality, the moon and magic.
All societies distinguish between males and females, although some may have a middle category, such as the berdache of the Cheyenne tribe or the mahu of the Tahitians. The guiding ideals differ from culture to culture but there are similarities between cultures. Some scholars believe that culture provides a veneer covering an essential universality of gender dimorphism (Barash, 1997). All male primates produce semen and all females give birth, but variations in behavior occur after that. Humans engage in the love making process, full of symbolic meaning, unlike non-humans who simply mate without symbolization. The ability to symbolize and to give meaning to maleness and femaleness distinguishes humans from lower order animals. Indeed, in humans, the genders seem to require each other (Smith,1992) as the legend of Adam and Eve suggests.
In traditional cultures, it would appear that gender roles are fairly clear; in modern American society, there appears to be a blurring of the roles, high speed change being the norm. Some cultures place more value on the birth of the male than on the female, as in India and China. In China, where population pressures have led to the control of how many children are permitted, the birth of the male is referred to as the birth of the Little Emperor. Other cultures emphasize the more powerful role of females, as in the Tchambuli tribe. For example, as Margaret Mead showed, in the Tchambuli society, women do the fishing and control the economic life of the community; they also take the initiative in courting and sex activities between the sexes (Mead, 1935). The cultural pattern is different from that found in the United States, where men traditionally are supposed to be the initiators, the breadwinners and so on. Again this role is becoming blurred, as post-modernists indicate.
In the United States females tend to be drawn to fields of employment that involve sensitivity, an example being Social Work or Early Childhood Education. These differences, however, are due to socialization, to choices made throughout life, as people make sense of who they are. They may also reflect power and relational differences, males generally having more economic and political power than do women. Unlike the experience of the male in the Tchambuli society, men in the Western world tend to be competitive in everyday life while females tend to use compromise strategies (Turner & Sterk, 1994). Men tend to act self-sufficiently, emphasizing work as the major theme in their lives; women tend to enact interdependent attachment styles. Women tend to be more reflexive and inward; men appear to be more outward and non-reflexive. Again, these tendencies are not to be rigidly interpreted.
Despite their perceived differences, it is usually in the union of the gendered bodies that a sense of wholeness is achieved, as in the story of Adam and Eve or of Yin and Yang in Taoism, where male and female are brought together to form a middle way. To get genders, Plato said, Zeus decided to cut all beings in two. The word gender comes from genus, which means race or kind, seemingly having little to do with biological sex.
Unlike many other cultures, in the United States the child is put out of the bedroom at the start, into her or his own bedroom, weaned by age one. As mentioned, the gendered labeling process begins when the child is dressed in pink or blue. Pink, of course, is associated with softness and blue is associated with rougher things. Gradually gender differences become apparent. Girls, for example, tend to be closer to their mothers, touching and receiving touch more than do males. From the start, the personal space bubbles are smaller for girls than they are for boys. Girls tend to learn language faster than boys and perhaps they learn to use nonverbal displays faster than boys. For example, the stereotypical limp wrist found among ages in females is displayed at about age five.
Children, of course, must learn how to speak, act and present themselves appropriately. By about the age of five in American life, children begin to know who they are; they have begun to understand the varied meanings behind gender and what it means to be masculine or feminine (Wood, 1994). Gender constancy begins to appear. In short, young children begin to develop working theories about who they are. They begin to create gender scripts as they mature.
Framing Early Attachment and Segregation
Gradually, boys and girls become segregated in their social lives. A chronological table of change suggests that about 1-2 years, young children are attached to mother and they have fun with their father; at about age 12-24 months, children start to exhibit same sex preferences and at about 30 months, most children spend most of the time with same-sex others (Fagot, 1991), given a choice. By about age 4-5, boys affiliate with the same sex. For girls, same sex affiliation seems fairly developed by age three. Mixed play continues for both sexes, however.
By about age five, elaborated play involves pretending, such as playing doctor or nurse. Sequential scripts are created and followed. These basic patterns seem to occur in Africa, India, the Phillippines and Mexico as well. By ages 6-10, three quarters of time is spent with the same sex, which seems to be a pattern that may be universal. At about ages 8-11, same sex preference peaks, perhaps even cross-cultually. Slowly, the child learns what genderization means through these self-segregating behaviors (Fagot, 1991).
The culture of play is co-constructed. Playstyles are taught by parents just as lower order animal parents teach their young to chase, to exhibit playful biting and so on. Boys may get access to a group by shoving and girls by verbal bargaining and negotiation. Boys will ram bikes and act with rough and tumble, shooting one another and playing dead, which can lead to anger and agonistic behaviors. Fighting seems to be done by boys; girls seem to take turns more than do boys. Females tend to aggress by alienating others or interfering with friendships (Maccoby, 1998). Boy themes tend to be heroic using guns and swords and girl themes tend to be nurturant emphasizing family interactions, such as parenting. Boys do not usually watch girl movies, but girls watch both girl and boy movies. Boys tend to use imperatives in their speech and girls tend to emphasize social relationships. Boys separate from mothers more quickly than do girls. Again, these are to be interpreted as tendencies. The roles that are played by each gender are interchangeable and inflexible, although even today a girl may be thought of as being a tomboy when she acts like a boy and a boy may be labeled a sissy when he acts like a girl(Maccoby, 1998).
One must be careful to stay away from stereotypical thinking. On the other hand, it is clear that children develop genderized patterns and tendencies. In middle childhood discourse, girls tend to display anger indirectly, compromising when possible, but boys tend to be assertive, daring others, playing scaredy cat, calling others stupid, sissy or faggot. Boys tend to be more direct and they tend to establish boundaries more quickly. Girls talk more than do boys, except when talking to boys. Indeed, mothers talk more to girls than they do to their boys.
Girls learn to think that boys are mean and noisy while boys may think that girls cry too much. Some cross-gendering occurs but gender segregation continues. Borderwork, or cross-gendering occurs early on, at about ages 5-6, but boys are likely to tease girls when they like them. Contact appears to be accidental and incidental and, of course, at that age, courting is denied. Thus, children acquire a fund of gender knowledge, in a type of self-socialization, and they are motivated to act in accordance with genderized expectations, stereotypical or not, feeling confident that they belong to a group of likeminded children (Maccoby, 1998).
Gender constancy, which occurs at about age 6 or 7 years, is in the forefront in later ages. Children know their role expectations and the cultural norms for their genders. Gender metaphors, perhaps stereotypical, have developed, with boys being rough and girls being soft, boys being angry and girls being happy. It is suggested by research that girls tend to suppress themselves in adolescence, beginning to disguise the self (Gilligan, 1982), perhaps fearing the loss of connectedness, trying to fit in. Perhaps they develop a politeness bias.
All people present themselves to others in interaction and they act out their sense of self, their symbolic face, in the presentations.
Framing a Feminine Presentation
Women learned to discipline their bodies well before they began their professional lives; for example, women learn to throw a ball like a girl, they learn to sit, stand, walk and tilt their heads, to gesture and to carry objects, like a girl. It is argued here that young girls are far more constrained than are males through socialization. They must learn to be fragile and to comport themselves along stricter lines. These behaviors follow women into the work world, where various issues are presented. As one woman describes projecting a presence in the professional work place, she must learn to "turn on a switch", shining in front of an audience, usually a male audience (Trethewey, 1999). The female presentation style in the professional workplace has had but a few years to be embellished, given the relatively quiescent role of women in America, historically. Females in the United States, as in other societies, have had a muted voice (Gilligan, 1982).
A popular view of males and females might go as follows: There are Don Juans and there are Carmens; there is an Adonis complex and there is a Jennifer complex. People imitate television heroes and follow trendy fashions. Women learn to flirt, to be sexy and provocative in their apparel, perhaps searching for strong and prestigious men; men seem to want young and beautiful women and present themselves accordingly. The media, of course, play up these stereotypical notions so powerfully that popular culture influences the body presentations of individuals.
Research suggests a different train of thought. For example, women tend to develop a sense of identity through connectedness with others. Their sense of self comes from building and maintaining relationships, not through differentiation and separation. Women are empowered by their participation and development of others (Belenky, 1984). They are connected knowers who have the ability to think maternally. Women tend to have a caring ethic. Work, thought and feelings are bound together by this ethic (Ruddick, 1989)
Malehood is defined differently in different societies and cultures. In some cultures, the achievment of malehood is a prize to be won, involving sanctions, trials of endurance and various ritualistic practices (Gilmore, 1990). In the United States, malehood is almost taken for granted, whereas in Latin countries, one learns the macho ethic, as in Cuba (4). It is reported that in the Truk Islands men do daring deep sea diving for sharks, youth fight in weekend brawls, drink excessively and seek sexual conquests. Laceration, whipping contests and physical abuses are inflicted on males to determine their inner strength in some countries. Flinching under pain is a sign of weakness. (Gilmore, 1990). Thus body flagellation is still important in the islands.
The role of the hero is important to the socialization of the male in the United States. Freud drew out the characteristics of Moses as a hero and Otto Rank placed stress on myth and the birth of the hero; Jung believed that heroes were archtypal (Cohen, 1990). The stereotype of the male is that he is young and aggressive, sexually powerful and able to solve confrontational problems. Heroes solved the Oedipal Riddle and cut the Gordian Knot. These ideas, of course, are tied to the past but thematically consistent with the present.
Perhaps in the modern Western world there are competing models for manhood (Elster,1986). Instead of throwing javelins and rescuing damsels in distress, the modern anti-hero theoretically gives peace a chance, listens and is sensitive to others (Orenstein, 1987). If aggression is inherent in the male system it appears to be withering or taking on new forms. The emerging anti-hero tends to be androgynous.
Perhaps the demands of modern society call forth not a ruggedness in mentality but a caringness in the workplace, a sensitivity to others, unlike the demands on manhood in rural America. What seems clear is that the polarized ideas of maleness and femaleness seem to be blending in the middle, androgynously (Bem, 1993). Women may be learning to be more assertive; males may be learning to be more sensitive. At least some scholars believe this to be an ideal. Yet, it is males by and large who engage in acts of violence, in high schools, on the internet and in the family.
Gender enculturation lens theory suggests that gender is embedded into our discourse in such a way as to influence a child to think in male and female terms (Bem, 1993). However, because communication about gender is usually tacit, a child may not actually know what the options are. A fish is not aware of the water in which it swims!
As mentioned, some scholarship about gender rests on an essentialist perspective. That is, the researchers approach gender as though it is an entity with a fixed core, a fixed set of traits and characteristics, relatively unbending and unchanging over the course of a lifetime. Other scholars and researchers take a dynamic, situational approach. That is, they realize that under some conditions, males and females will act one way; under others, they will act differently. These different assumptions make a difference in how comparative gender research is performed (Anderson, 1998).
Varieties of research tools are used to indicate how people think about gender. A high score on both the male and female BSRI gender tool indicates that one is favorably disposed to androgynous conceptualizations of behavior. Research suggests that females who score better on the male portion of the BSRI may increase their chances of being effective leaders, although there may be fewer advantages for American males. Assertiveness, typically thought to be a male characteristic, may be learned by females. Males may become more sensitive (Coon, 1994). Yet, it seems clear that androcentrism, the emphasis upon male dominance, is still a major factor in the United States. (Bem, 1993). Perceived as a social problem, the remedy is to focus on the concept of androgyny, as some researchers suggest.
But male and female differences should not be overdrawn. As one example, there seems to be no solid evidence to indicate that there are strong categorical speech differences between the genders. Popular stereotypes of gender differences may actually influence research making the differences more pronounced than they are (Rakow,1998). However, if the following frame accurately describes the early conceptualization of males and females, there appear to have been very wide differences between them.
Framing Gender Stereotypes
In early American society, females were defined as submissive, less competitive, excitable, more emotional than men and so on. If women showed assertiveness or behaviors like those of men, they were considered mentally unstable. They were said to exhibit hysterical personalities. Indeed women reported more emotional problems, sought more psychiatric help and went to the hospital more frequently than did males. Femininity was correlated with high anxiety, low self-esteem and low social acceptance. Following stereotypical thinking, perhaps women unwittingly followed the prophecy, getting sick and acting as lesser beings!
Gender is asymmetrically powered in American society and throughout the world. In many ways, males do not have to earn their status, at least in comparison to females (Wood, 1994); That is, in the United States and elsewhere as well, males enjoy a privileged status. Even when holding hands, it appears that the male hand is on the top of the females (Chappell, Basso, DeCola, Hossack, Keubler, Marm, Reed, Webster and Yoggev, Aug. 1998). Males and females are born into societies that reflect dimensions, such as gendered power. Gender is played out in matriarchal societies differently than it is in patriarchal ones. For example, in Libya, a patriarchal society, women are permitted only enough space in their garment to peer out with one eye.
In the modern United States, the power base has typically reflected the "man principle" (Kothoff & Wodak, 1997), indicating that, traditionally, males in the United States held power. The modern concept of the "glass ceiling" indicates that while women know about upper echelons of power and may aspire to getting upper level jobs, they are not empowered to do so. The face of America's workplace is changing but there may be forces of resistance that work against women, particularly if they are women of color, in a matrix of domination. There are efforts to get beyond the glass ceiling by females, but it appears that the problem is different for women of color. It has been suggested that women of color are "twice struck", having to deal with being female in a male dominated society and with being colored in a white dominated society.
Power is patterned in specific behaviors, such as in verbal interruption patterns shown below. Theoretically, because males have more power in American society than do females, men are free to interrupt them in conversations, whether it be in the workplace, on television or in everyday situations. Recent research suggests, however, that this phenomenon may be overdrawn as noted below.
Framing Gendered Interruption Patterns
In a society in which males are dominant, where they hold power, it has been assumed in some research that they will feel free to interrupt females in various social circumstances. This analysis, however. appears to be too simplistic. A meta-analysis of studies on interruptions shows that a number of situational factors must be taken into account, such as the number of persons in the situation, their genders, and their relationships to one another.
When the type of activity is taken into account, gender differences in interruptive patterns disappear. For example, when girls and females choose expressive activities, they tend to act in an affiliative manner; conversely, when boys and men select task-oriented activities, they may be more assertive, acting in an instrumental manner. In sum, the essentialist model of gender differences, which suggests that there are ongoing differences between the genders that lie at the core of gender does not help explain interruption as well as a contextualist-interactive model does. (Anderson, 1998).
Indeed, gender asymmetry, by implication power asymmetry, is weak in many circumstances, as the following description shows. The theory is that higher status people will touch lower status people more readily than the reverse case. But, in this study, higher status people tended to touch lower status people, initiating affectionate touches on the shoulders or arms, while lower status individuals tended to touch higher status individuals in more formal ways, such as in handshakes. Gender asymmetry seems to be weak, although males tended to initiate touch more than females (Hall, 1996). This research suggests that it is the status, not the gender, that leads to differential touching behaviors. Touching, of course, in this context, is assumed to be associated with power, status and power being closely associated. The studies cited above, of course, are mere tips of the iceberg. Power is institutionalized and patterned in the United States, favoring white males, as it has for decades. It is now changing as the following frame shows.
Framing Women as Managers
It is reported that women make better managers than do men because they tend to be skilled in more areas that are required in management. For example, women tend to be more collaborative in their decision making than are men; women are socialized to cooperate and collaborate, while men tend to use an autocratic style. Two thousand, four hundred and eighty two managers at all levels from more than 400 organizations in 19 states were used in the study (APA Monitor, Sep. 1999).
Few people would argue that American society is not changing, although many may argue that it is changing for the worse. Whatever the values of the individual, the ways in which gendered roles are played out in contemporary America are vastly different today, compared to the past. From the farms to the factory during the Second World War to full participation in all levels of non-professional and professional work, women are born into a new world, which increases their opportunities.
As mentioned, family sizes and family patterns are shifting radically and the roles of females are shifting along with them. For many Americans, the large, extended families of the past are gone; replacing those families are the new versions that range from the nuclear family to the laissez faire family. One parent families are becoming common. Multiple marriages which include children from two or more past marriages are not uncommon. In short, male and female parenting roles are changed dramatically in many situations.
The glass ceiling in the workplace has been broken, if not shattered, and women are now able to do what men have done in power positions before them, which is to be able to climb to the top. In modern times, women can be the Secretary of State, Senators or CEOs without raising eyebrows or being labeled bitches. In short, one is witnessing a shift in power distribution between the sexes. Affirmative action helped both minorities and women enter the economic mainstream.
The idea of subcultures, perhaps a demeaning term to ethnic minorities because it can imply inferiority, is being replaced by the term co-culture, a less demeaning term. Obviously, the social system does not operate perfectly, but it is substantially more open to women and minorities than it has been in the past. Of course there are serious problems remaining.
Those who are defined as ethnic, especially women, are "twice-struck"; that is, they have been traditionally disprivileged and disempowered in the United States because of their gender. Black, Cuban, Chinese and Native American males have been disprivileged, as well, but females of color have been doubly disprivileged because of color and gender. The themes of gender and ethnicity entertwine to strike these members twice (Orbe,1998).
The aged in American society are sometimes considered victims of ageism, which is rooted in stereotypical notions about older people. aging has been called a 'woman's problem' in that she has enjoyed fewer opportunities in the past than males have and continues to be more dependent on others as she ages. Often outliving their male partners. women face more uncertain futures as they age, according to this view. Ethnicity and aging are discussed in chapters six and seven.
Television has joined the family dinner table. Children may eat their dinner in front of the television set, munching on fast foods, picked up by their working parents who often chose the fast way to have dinner. There has been a dramatic shift in the perceived and enacted roles of the contemporary parent in America. "Soccer moms" and "latchkey kids" are buzzwords attesting to the shift. Moms may be the sole breadwinner and television and the internet may be the babysitters!
The media, especially television, are powerful socializing agents, influencing the playing out of gender in American society. Whether it is a program on MTV, a channel emphasing music and displaying sexual fantasy apparently designed to appeal to young ethnic people, or programs that promote religious messages, one finds in television a shaping lens. The image of the "perfect" male and the "perfect" female are constantly promoted by the media and by advertisers who want to sell products. As mentioned, there are few ugly people on television!
It is popular to promote gender differences on television and in books where stereotyped concepts like the Mars-Venus relationship are simplistically proclaimed. Talk shows play up, often in very negative and demeaning ways, the problems that men and women have with each other. Less obvious an influence on gender identitiy is the internet. Nevertheless, the digital divide influences the gendered, the aged and members of ethnic groups differentially; access to the use of the internet varies by gender, ethnicity and age. This topic will be addressed in Chapter Eight.
It is clear that relationships are created, that whatever differences there are between the genders come into play in relationships, whether they are intimate or friendship based. Relationships are symbolic babies! Nonverbal behavior is deeply involved in relationships. Body orientations in particular are involved (Remland, Jones, & Brinkman, 1995; Scheflen, 1965).
Relationships are coded; that is, there are underlying assumptions that are made about the nature of the relationship. People who are able to observe and listen empathically, are perhaps more adept at creating healthy relationships. To the extent that males exert control or focus on independence; to the extent that women want to have relationship talk, these conditions can act to produce "ships passing in the night". Males and females frequently talk past each other in these kinds of relationships (Tannen, 1990). Empathic listening, difficult to achieve, helps create a balance. People of both genders have needs for self-esteem and affection.
People construct meanings for their relationships. For example, they may describe their partners as sexual, intelligent or attractive, easy, difficult or otherwise. In an intimate relationship when a person says "I love you", it calls up all of the meanings that the other party has for love, which vary considerably, based on the experiences of the person. Past baggages and successes are often brought to a new intimate relationship, influencing the character of the relationship. People do not "fall" in love as much as they "construct" a loving relationship, but when negative past baggage is brought to the relationship, both parties are challenged. Self reflection, of course, is a key to understanding; it is in this meta-process that humans confirm or deny themselves. Self-monitoring is a way to follow the relational process (Wood, 1995).
A number of scholars have focused on relational development and the processes associated with it (Duck, 1992; Knapp & Vangelisti, 1992; Rubin, 1965, 1980; Wood, 1995) and a variety of theories exist. The SI approach suggests that humans construct their relationships, although it is not a linear process;indeed, it may be a recursive process. That is, people arrive at one point and then return to another before moving ahead. One behavior is contingent upon another. The values of American society, of course, frame the meaning of relationships. Because females have been described as relationship experts, it has been suggested that a female yardstick measures the success of the relationship. Males, raised to be somewhat independent, may not so easily enter into self-disclosing aspects of relationships.
Framing Romantic Myths
In youth, people hear stories about Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and snow White, all sweet and pure maidens who find themselves in predicaments, to be rescued by a strong, handsome prince. She waits passively for the active prince. This old-fashioned stereotype seems to have its counterpart in modern America. During adolescence, the modern young lady may fantasize about true lasting love, about meeting the right man. Boys, on the other hand, tend to emphasize conquest and sexuality and, when asked how they did on the first date, they may respond, bragging about their sexual success (Arliss & Borisoff, 1993).
Sometimes there are perceptual differences that are built into relationships. For example, it has been suggested that females are 'defined' in American societies mostly by males; that is, men refer to women as having PMS, or premenstrual syndrome, affecting their behavior, but the males do not refer to themselves as having HTS, or hypertestosterone syndrome, suggesting an imbalance in the way that genders are perceived. It is a common perception as well that women are by nature better, sweeter, kinder, more loving and more peaceful than men? Myths about genders abound (Tavris, 1992). It appears, as well, that females in the United States are held to a higher level of expectation about being attractive than are males (Eakins and Eakins, 1978).
Gendered encounters are daily occurrences. Sexual encounters, on the other hand, depending on the culture, are often hidden occurrences. In the United States sexual encounters, formerly hidden from view, are now more explicit and open. In more traditional times, it was considered inappropriate to discuss sexual matters openly. Indeed, before 1900, upright piano legs were covered prudently. The values and morals of highly structured Calvinistic and Victorian America called for privacy in sexual matters. Today, however, it is not uncommon to find research about sexual encounters (Grammer, Kruck & Magnusson, 1998). In short, just as researchers focus on the sexual and reproductive habits of lower order animals, they focus on the behaviors of human couples in sexual action. As any internet user knows, explicit sexual activities may be found on a number of sites. Sexual and romantic encounters are the stuff of television programs. Americans have gone through a gendered, sexual revolution.
There may be a tendency for people to think that relationships just happen. Of course, they involve considerable work and they are processual, as the following suggests.
Framing Evolution and Process in Relationships
Relationships evolve. That is, people must be in some way attracted to one another; they must explore and reduce uncertainty about one another; there must be an evolving commitment to the relationship; and, the relationship must be sustained in routinized patterns.
Even when relationships dissolve or come apart there are phases of that dissolution. Sometimes conflict is involved; at other times negotiation occurs; in all cases there is the final stage of grave dressing that is required, putting an end to the symbolic baby.
Males and females differ in their perceptions of relationships. Indeed there may be tension between the views. Females tend to emphasize rapport, emotional contexts and process; males tend to control their emotions and to think episodically. Men tend to "do" things or to control them. This affects their relationships (Wood, 1995).
Given the difficulties encountered by couples in modern societies, scholars have focused on problems in relationships. Gottman, for example, believes that he can predict whether a marriage will succeed or fail by analyzing the communicative patterns of the couples (Gottman, 1979). A number of scholars have focused on the nature of love (Lee, 1988). Various love styles have been described. Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania and Agape are words used to describe a range of styles, from physically falling in love at first sight to ethically putting the partner's welfare above all else (Wood, 1995). In short, relationships are created in many different forms. All of them are forms of behavior. The mother-child relationship differs substantially from the father-child relationship, as does the relationship between the mother and the father. Relationships are defined and constructed. They can take multiple forms.
Overarching themes find their way into relationships. For example, it is not common for a President of a large corporation to interact with workers low on the pay scale. The common bond is missing. There must be a meeting of the minds, a middle way, a fertile ground from which the seeds of a relationship sprout. A social nexus of some type is the glue of relationships. Power, gender, sex, age, ethnicity, time, occupation and so on may play roles in relationships, setting the conditions for relationships to flourish or disallowing meaningful contact.
Further, they involve a type of work; that is, love, a word thrown about like a commodity for purchase, involves hard work to construct and maintain. The word love, so often confused with romantic thoughts, is essentially an enacted development, not one that is thrust upon a person. There may be love at first sight, but it is merely a glimpse of what is to come. Relationships have a history and a future path; they change and are modified. Often, they take as much effort to leave them as they require to maintain them. Whatever the level of the relationship, the partners must perform and nourish the relationship; otherwise, it dissipates (Duck, 1992) Relationships are, in the final analysis, social products, symbolic babies.
Interestingly, 85 percent of all valentines are purchased by females (Tavris, 1992), which may indicate that in romantic relationships, it is the woman's influence that is paramount. Friendship and romance are different aspects of negotiated relationships but it appears that love, or romance, is feminized in many ways. Friendship, perhaps, is more spiritual and romance is more sexual, comparing one to the other. Sexual behaviors have been researched by symbolic interactionists (Longmore, 1998; Prus, 1996). Although sex need not be part of love, it usually is. It is also part of prostitution, where intimacy is not a prerequisite to engage in sex. Romantic love, it would seem can only exist between two people who have meaningfully defined their ongoing relationship because it involves deep emotions that are brought out one by the other, not to be shared.In the western world love emphasizes romance distinguishing it from relationships that are socially arranged, as are found in many parts of the world.
Framing Older Courtship Rituals
Near mid-century, the courtship patterns were distinctive. Calling them quasi- courtship cues, Scheflen, a psychiatrist, classified courtship cue behavior into the following behavioral system. As an example of courtship readiness one wants to reduce eye bagginess and belly bulge and stand erectly. As examples of preening behavior, one wants to fix the makeup, arrange the clothes, look in a mirror, perhaps leave the top button open on shirts and blouses and so on. As examples of positional cues, one wants to sit in such a way as to be able to talk with the opposite sex. Arms, legs and bodies must be arranged so that it is difficult for others to intervene; actions of appeal or invitation must be taken, which include flirting, gazing, exposing the thigh, showing wrist or palm, or flexing muscles (Scheflen,1965).
The older courtship style does not quite fit the modern approach. It is said that young Americans are a microwave generation; nothing seems to last very long. Instant everything seems to be the norm. Romantic liaisons may be quickly created and abandoned almost as quickly, both parties expecting an endpoint, such as when they graduate from college.
Perhaps females are more easily hurt in romantic relationships because it is they who tend to more readily expose their feelings than men do or because males may be threatened by intimate disclosures (Wood, 1994). Men may want to act rather than talk about feelings (Tannen, 1990). As mentioned, some scholars suggest that romance is governed by a female ruler or yardstick; that is, females are more naturally disposed to building rapport and to sharing their emotions.
Research suggests that the strength of romantic relationships including marriages is a direct reflection of the type of communicative attention that each party gives the other. In short, romantic relationships can display "relational health" or they can be ragged and hurtful to the parties involved. There is a semantic difficulty in the way romance is described. The word love is used in a general way to cover all manner of relationships, including same-sex relationships. But people couple together for a variety of reasons, ranging from the need for security to the need for sex; the word love may be used to describe any relationship. Arranged marriages, common in many countries, may not even include the notion of romance; rather they are arranged for socio-economic reasons, to bind together members of social groups.
Intimate cross-gender relationships proceed in stages, although not in linear fashion. That is, some relationships may dive into a deeper stage, not waiting for a full-blossoming of the intimacy to take place, there being no commitment to permanency. In the more thoroughly gendered romantic relationship the emotions are engaged very deeply and a level reached in which both genders commit themselves exclusively to the relationship.
In the commited, dyadic cross-gender relationship, the voices of the past emerge. Thus, each gender brings scripted and schematized ideas into what she or he thinks the relationship is or should be; each person brings both the positive and negative baggage of other past relationships into the present; each person brings parental views into the relationship. In short, many voices are "heard" in romantic relationships. Together, the gendered couple create a symbolic baby, their shared version of the relationship, taking on a life of its own.
Theorists from the games school of thought, suggest that each party has a game strategy in mind. Thus, the male may play daddy and the female may play the role of the mother or even the helpless one. She may play the role of the knowledgeable relational expert and he may play the role of the dumb jock. Both, however, play multiple roles. Their relationship may become somewhat pathological and co-dependent, or it may become mature and growth-oriented.
Cultures define male-female relationships in highly varied ways(3). In some present day cultures, such as Iraq, couples are attached only by parental permission. Polygamous relationships are encouraged in many cultures, not based on romantic love; concubinage still exists in many societies; females are treated as owned goods. Even in the United States, the emergence of femalehood is relatively recent, the process continuing today. Relationships are deeply influenced by socio-cultural processes.
Modern romantic relationships are subject to many influences and social constraints. To be a permanently coupled "item" is more and more difficult in American society, as statistics reveal. Perhaps these statistics reflect the problems involved in the achievement of identity in a highly changeable, mediated society (Gergen, 1991).
Recent movements have influenced gendered power relationships in the United States. NOW, the National Organization for Women, has given females a new voice. For example, in Roe v. Wade, women won the right to control their bodies, to decide about issues related to their reproductive health. At the present time, debates continue about Roe v. Wade, as it does about Affirmative Action, both affecting men and women in white and other ethnic groups. Since the 1980's, journals devoted to masculine, or male concepts and behaviors have emerged. On the one hand, various magazines encourage males to become more sensitive; on the other hand, they have encouraged them to become "real", more manly, as in the past. Similarly, magazines and programs exist that encourage women to become body builders; others want women to become more feminine. In short, gender roles are being redefined, sometimes blurred.
In violent relationships it appears that males are the ones who use their power against their partner more than the other way around. Indeed, the courts many times seem to blame the victim of rape, often a female, as much as they blame the rapist, a process that would seem to reinforce the status quo (Tavris, 1992). It appears that the law expects a woman to behave like a man; in other words, she should try to defend herself as men would. But, of course, there is a difference between consent and coercion. Some scholars see the male rape bias as an extension of earlier times when women were considered the property of men; even reasonable standards of justice seem to be biased in favor of men (Tavris, 1992). Recently, the New York Times (May 12, 2001, online) reported that Dartmouth expelled a fraternity because members of that fraternity described in their newsletter patented date rape techniques, even deriding some of the women who had sex with the fraternity members.
Acts of violence cut across age, class and ethnic groups. It is estimated that 28 percent, perhaps as much as 50 percent of women, experience some form of violent abuse, physical or verbal from their partners (Wood, 1992). Less than five percent of abusive actions are done by women. It would appear that American ideals, linking the male psyche to aggression, strength and control, influence how men act in violent male-female relationships (Wood,1992).
A number of myths about violence prevail. For example, contrary to common thought, violence can happen in any relationship; both males and females inflict violence on their partners; violence need not be cyclical and alcohol need not be involved. (Marshall & Vitanza, 1994). The SI approach to violence suggests that people do what makes sense to them, based on how they have framed the situation, usually influenced by how they have behaved in the past. The enactment of violence, of course, is an extreme form of the use of power, one that inhibits personal and interactive growth. Some males use their power mindlessly forcing sex in a relationship. Females who tolerate this behavior and others like it, have been described as co-dependent; that is, they unwittingly take part in the action.
It is no accident that females are more likely to be teachers in the early grades and that college professors are more likely to be males. The societal expectations have clearly favored males in the sciences and social sciences (Deegan, 1991; Schiebingen, 1993). As discussed above, women have been described as nurturant, as moral, as caring. Men have been thought to be rational and logical.These facts reflect the dominant male paradigm that has historically shaped economic and schooling patterns in the United States. In the case of women in the lower levels, the nurturant style of females seems to play a role.
Gradually, there is a perceptible shift occurring. Women are entering fields like engineering and biology and men are entering early grade school teaching, although it is a slow process. Indeed, the American Bar Association reports that in the academic year 2001-02, females will outnumber males in law schools, a fact which, researchers say, will change the way the law is perceived and practiced.(The New York Times, March 26, 2001) The "woman thing" is being dealt with by law schools.
Even in the stories that female teachers read to their children, it has been reported that males are key actors in the stories by more than three to one (Wood, 1992), and that women tend to be invisible. Experiments performed by researchers in colleges and universities usually include freshmen and sophomores, mostly males, at least in the sciences. Perhaps a male standard is thereby created. Such studies are not easily extrapolated to the whole population. Indeed, it is reported that males are given more attention throughout the educational process from start to finish (Wood, 1992).
In short, it is only in very recent American history that women have been taken seriously in the professional marketplace. Like females, it is often the case that members of ethnic groups, have been invisible in the schooling system. This brief sketch of nonverbal gender patterns in schooling cannot tell the complete story, one that is complex; nevertheless it points out how a major American institution is genderized and ethnicized. Affirmative Action programs and Equal Opportunity laws address some of the problems of imbalance and Universities and other schooling institutions are increasingly sensitive to gendered imbalances. Courses that focus on women's studies are now promoted as are male studies. The picture is not as bleak as it was in the past although, clearly, there is work to be done to fulfill the concept of egalitarianism.
The role of the media as an influence in gendered America will be discussed in chapter Eight. In this section, pointed references are made to how the media, especially television, shape and play up gendered representations. Most, if not all Americans own television sets or are exposed to television, It is the rare person who has not seen a movie or read a magazine. Children view television several hours in a day, and it appears that Black children may view it more than do Whites (Wood, 1992). Incredibly, many adolescents may have spent more time in front of the television set than they have spent in formal schooling. Televison saturates the American life (Gergen, 1991).
As in the profession of college teaching, television has been the male domain. Few women produce programs or serve as anchors on television newscasts (Gitlin, 1983) although this is changing. Black women, in particular, are underserved. It is the Black males who are more likely to end up on television, often as weather announcers, but occasionally as newscasters. Older males and females rarely appear as main figures on television, although ads may be devoted to them.
Television and other print media often portray males and females stereotypically. Children's television shows usually show males as dominant and aggressive, rewarded for their behaviors (Wood, 1992). Movies that promote the aggressive male may be on the increase. The "sensitive" male is rarely portrayed. Regarding women, television promotes them as both younger and thinner than everyday life reveals them to be; often they are represented as dependent upon men or as passive (Wood, 1992). In short, females and males are often portrayed on television programs from a base that is unrealistic. Increasingly, television, film, radio and print media are adapting themselves to new patterns in American culture as will be discussed in Chapter Eight.
Sex and gender have been considered as separate, but interacting concepts. Sexuality refers to biological processes. The biological female differs in many ways from the biological male. Neuronal and sensate processes distinguish the female from the male. Gender is the sense of self that one creates through socialization. Gendered identities are complex; people enact multiple roles as they engage others in interaction. Although some scholars prefer to think of gender in essentialist terms, the emphasis here is upon the social construction of gender. Gender is a dynamic concept; there is no essential, fixed core to identity although there is stability, or gender constancy.
Gendered relationships are created but they are heavily influenced by master themes, such as ethnicity, age, occupation and status in society. Power is often a factor in the relationship. Social codes influence the creation of relationships. Relationships may be defined in multiple ways. Gender plays itself out in the workplace. Although the male bias, the male thing, still seems to be fairly pervasive in American society, it is clear that changes are being made. Traditional patterns of gendered behavior are changing.
In the next chapter, we turn to the concept of ethnicity and how nonverbal communication is influenced by this deep background variable.
Questions for Thought and Discussion
Arliss, L. P., & Borisoff, D. J. (1993). Women and Men Communicating: Challenges and Changes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Deegan, M. J. (Ed.) (1991). Women in Sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Gilmore, D. (1990). Manhood in the Making. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Henley, N. M. (1977). Body Politics: Power, Sex and Nonverbal Communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Tavris, C. (1992). The Mismeasurement of Woman. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Wood, J. T. (1994). Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender and Culture. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
| Previous: Chapter 4 | Table of Contents | Next: Chapter 6 |