Advertisement

Gender Inequality in Families

  • Michele AdamsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

Gender inequality permeates society at all levels and in the context of most social institutions. One institution in which gender inequality remains resistant to change is the family. Over time, various theories have examined the causes of gender inequality generally, including biology, sex roles, and “doing gender,” each of which has also been applied to gender inequality in the family. Critiques of these approaches include their over-determinism, inability to grapple with gender inequality at macro social levels, and failure to theorize about change. The gender as structure approach looks at gender across multiple levels of social reality simultaneously. This dynamic, multi-faceted theoretical approach can be used to address gender inequality in families to the extent that we are able to take advantage of its complexity. After looking at, and critiquing, various historical approaches to gender inequality, this chapter notes that the gender as structure approach is best suited to examine gender inequality in families today, which are themselves characterized by dynamic fluidity and complexity, and to offer potential avenues for altering that inequality.

Keywords

Gender Family Inequality 

References

  1. Adams, M. (2016). Review of feminism & popular culture: Investigating the postfeminist mystique. Gender & Society, 30(3), 552–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthony, D. (2014). In the name of the father: Compulsion, tradition, and law in the lost history of women’s surnames. The Journal Jurisprudence, 25, 59–95.Google Scholar
  3. Basch, N. (1986). The emerging legal history of women in the United States: Property, divorce, and the constitution. Signs, 12(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory: The apportionment of work in American households. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bingham, P. (1824). The law of infancy and coverture.Google Scholar
  6. Blackstone, S. W. (1765). Commentaries on the laws of England (Vol. I).Google Scholar
  7. Bose, C. E. (1987). Dual spheres. In B. B. Hess & M. M. Ferree (Eds.), Analyzing gender: A handbook of social science research (pp. 267–285). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Cahill, S. E. (1989). Fashioning males and females: Appearance management and the social reproduction of gender. Symbolic Interaction, 12(2), 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheu, M. (2012). Now and then: How coverture ideology informs the rhetoric of abortion. Texas Journal of Women & the Law, 22(1), 113–130.Google Scholar
  10. Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1203–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coltrane, S. (2010). Gender theory and household labor. Sex Roles, 63, 791–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coltrane, S., & Adams, M. (1997). Children and gender. In T. Arendell (Ed.), Contemporary parenting: Challenges & issues (pp. 219–253). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Coontz, S. (2011). A strange stirring: The feminine mystique and American women at the dawn of the 1960s. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. (1946). Women workers in ten war production areas and their postwar employment plans, Bulletin 209. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  16. Deutsch, F. M. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender and Society, 21(1), 106–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Devault, M. (1991). Feeding the family: The social organization of caring as gendered work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dill, B. T. (1988). Our mothers’ grief: Racial ethnic women and the maintenance of families. Journal of Family History, 13(4), 415–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and Society, 24(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ferree, M. M. (2010). Filling the glass: Gender perspectives on families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  22. Geller, J. (2001). Here comes the bride: Women, weddings, and the marriage mystique. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.Google Scholar
  23. Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Greenstein, T. (1996). Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: Effects on marital quality. Social Forces, 74, 1029–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartog, H. (2000). Man and wife in America: A history. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hochschild, A., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  28. Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender and Society, 3(2), 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lachance-Grzela, M., & Bouchard, G. (2010). Why do women do the lion’s share of housework? A decade of research. Sex Roles, 63, 767–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Laslett, B., & Brenner, J. (1989). Gender and social reproduction: Historical perspectives. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Legerski, E. M., & Cornwall, M. (2010). Working-class job loss, gender, and the negotiation of household labor. Gender and Society, 24(4), 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lennon, M. C., & Rosenfield, S. (1994). Relative fairness and the division of housework: The importance of options. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 506–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lerner, G. (1986). The creation of patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lorber, J. (1993). Believing is seeing: Biology as destiny”. Gender and Society, 7(4), 568–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. MacKinnon, C. A. (1990). Legal perspectives on sexual difference. In D. L. Rhode (Ed.), Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference (pp. 213–225). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Martos, J., & Hégy, P. (Eds.). (1998). Equal at the creation: Sexism, society, and Christian thought. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  38. Munford, R., & Waters, M. (2014). Feminism and popular culture: Investigating the postfeminist mystique. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Parsons, J. M. (2016). When convenience is inconvenient: ‘Healthy’ family foodways and the persistent intersectionalities of gender and class. Journal of Gender Studies, 25(4), 382–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parsons, T. (1940). An analytical approach to the theory of social stratification. American Journal of Sociology, 45(6), 841–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pedulla, D. S., & Thébaut, S. (2015). Can we finish the revolution? Gender, work-family ideals, and institutional constraint. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 116–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pratto, F., & Hegarty, P. (2000). The political psychology of reproductive strategies. Psychological Science, 11(1), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Randles, J. M. (2016). Redefining the marital power struggle through relationship skills: How U.S. marriage education programs challenge and reproduce gender inequality. Gender and Society, 30(2), 240–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rhode, D. (1990). Theoretical perspectives on sexual difference. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Risman, B. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Risman, B. (2004). Gender as social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender and Society, 18(4), 429–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Risman, B. (2011). Gender as structure or trump card? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3, 18–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Risman, B. J., & Davis, G. (2013). From sex roles to gender structure. Current Sociology Review, 61(5–6), 733–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sheff, E. (2014). The polyamorists next door: Inside multiple-partner relationships and families. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Spigel, L. (1992). Make room for tv: Television and the family ideal in postwar America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sullivan, O. (2013). What do we learn about gender by analyzing housework separately from child care? Some considerations from time-use evidence. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tichenor, V. (1999). Status and income as gendered resources: The case of marital power. Journal of Marriage & Family, 61, 638–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tichenor, V. (2005). Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles, 53(3/4), 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Udry, J. R. (2000). Biological limits of gender construction. American Sociological Review, 65(3), 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Welter, B. (1966). The cult of true womanhood: 1820–1860. American Quarterly, 18(2), 151–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society, 23(1), 112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA

Personalised recommendations