In this chapter, we give a micro-level, social psychological account of how the gender beliefs evoked by sex categorization reinforce and recreate gender inequality. We argue that social interactions are framed by gender because people instantaneously and unconsciously sex categorize each other, evoking cultural beliefs about men and women. While these cultural beliefs help actors navigate social interaction, using gender as a primary frame for making sense of others brings cultural understandings of gender into all social interactions. This causes men to have more status and influence in small, goal-oriented groups, thereby advantaging them and recreating existing gender inequality in settings that vary from the workplace to the home. Because of our reliance on gender as a primary frame for understanding others, cultural beliefs about gender are rewritten on to new activities, causing gender inequality to persist in the face of societal change. Despite the increasing number of social interactions that occur online and mounting challenges to the gender binary, we argue that these processes will continue in the future unless conscious effort is made to disrupt them. We conclude with suggestions on how future research can illuminate tools to interrupt the effects of the gender frame.
KeywordsGender beliefs Interaction Status Sex categorization
We would like to thank Jon Overton for his diligent and thorough work as a research assistant.
- Allum, J. R., & Okahana, H. (2015). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 2004 to 2014. Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools. http://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/E_and_D_2014_report_final.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- American Civil Liberties Union. (2017). Non-discrimination laws: State by state information. https://www.aclu.org/map/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- Anderson, C., & Willer, R. (2014). Do status hierarchies benefit groups? A bounded functionalist account of status. In J. T. Cheng, J. L. Tracy, & Cameron Anderson (Eds.), The psychology of social status (pp. 47–70). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Anti Violence Project. (2013). Hate violence against transgender communities. http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/ncavp_transhvfactsheet.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2017.
- Berger, J., & Webster, M., Jr. (2006). Expectations, status, and behavior. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 268–300). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Boring, A., Ottoboni, K., & Stark, P. B. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. Science Open. http://dx.doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1.
- Bursztyn, L., Fujiwara, T., & Pallais, A. (2017). ‘Acting wife’: Marriage market incentives and labor market investments. NBER Working Paper No. 23043. http://www.nber.org/papers/w23043. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- Charles, M., & Grusky, D. (2004). Occupational ghettos: The worldwide segregation of women and men. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Chwe, M. S. (2001). Rational ritual: Culture, coordination, and common knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. (1999). The continuum model: Ten years later. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 231–254). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Fogarty, A. C. K. (2015). Gender ambiguity in the workplace: Trans and genderqueer discrimination (Ph.D. dissertation). Stanford University, Stanford.Google Scholar
- Gee, B., Peck, D., & Wong, J. (2015). Hidden in plain sight: Asian American leaders in Silicon Valley. Charleston, SC: The Ascend Foundation. http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ascendleadership.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Research/HiddenInPlainSight_Paper_042.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2017.
- Hegewisch, A., & Hartmann, H. (2014). Occupational segregation and the gender wage gap: A job half done. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/occupational-segregation-and-the-gender-wage-gap-a-job-half-done. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- Hogg, M. A. (2003). Intergroup relations. In J. D. DeLamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 479–502). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
- Huber, J. (2007). On the origins of gender inequality. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
- Human Rights Campaign. (2017). Workplace discrimination laws and policies. http://www.hrc.org/resources/Workplace-Discrimination-Policies-Laws-and-Legislation. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- Linza, N., & Neljesjö, C. (2012, November 30). M/M interview with Kent Bergsma. Manner of Man Magazine. http://mannerofman.blogspot.com/2012/11/mm-interview-with-kent-bergsma.html. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- Lopez, M. H., & Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2014). Women’s college enrollment gains leave men behind. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/06/womens-college-enrollment-gains-leave-men-behind/. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- McBee, T. P. (2015, October 29). Caitlyn Jenner, trans champion: “Maybe this is why God put me on earth”. Glamour. http://www.glamour.com/story/caitlyn-jenner. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Fast facts. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=27. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- Newman, G. (2016, April 13). Why my videogame chooses your character’s race and gender for you. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/13/videogame-chooses-character-race-gender-rust. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- Perrin, A. (2015). Social media usage: 2005–2015. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/08/social-networking-usage-2005-2015/. Accessed January 16, 2017.
- Ridgeway, C. L., & Fisk, S. R. (2012). Class rules, status dynamics, and “gateway” interactions. In S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 131–151). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Ridgeway, C. L., & Nakagawa, S. (2014). Status. In J. D. McLeod, E. J. Lawler, & M. Schwalbe (Eds.), Handbook of the social psychology of inequality (pp. 3–25). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Rinallo, D. (2011). Metro/fashion/tribes of men: Negotiating the boundaries of men’s legitimate consumption. In B. Cova, R. Kozinets, & A. Shankar (Eds.), Consumer tribes (pp. 76–92). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Schneider, D. J. (2004). The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Stryker, S., & Vryan, K. D. (2003). The symbolic interactionist frame. In J. DeLamater (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 3–28). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar