Gender, Families, and Social Policy

  • Jennifer RandlesEmail author
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)


This chapter summarizes the state of research and theory on how social policies related to family life in the United States reflect and reinforce the gender structure. First, I discuss how feminist theories of social policy explain how gender ideologies and inequalities influence the policy-making process and policy implementation. I then summarize theorizing on dominant gender paradigms of policy and how they have shaped family members’ abilities to utilize and benefit from social provisions. Contemporary U.S. family policies reinforce the gender structure largely through legislation that still assumes a married male breadwinner/female caregiver family model. I offer critiques of each paradigm and discuss how gendered assumptions of family life embedded in social policies limit our political abilities to help family members balance their care and paid work responsibilities. This discussion highlights how policies perpetuate the gender structure by not accounting for women’s and men’s overall different socioeconomic and political positions, especially as they intersect with class and race inequalities. This pretext of gender neutrality is a policy problem that points to necessary directions for future research by gender scholars, particularly empirical and theoretical work on the gendered and heteronormative effects of social policies.


Gender Policy Family Marriage 


  1. Abramovitz, M. (1996). Regulating the lives of women: Social welfare from Colonial times to the present. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  2. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albiston, C. R. (2010). Institutional inequality and the mobilization of the Family and Medical Leave Act: Rights on leave. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berdahl, J. L., & Moon, S. H. (2013). Workplace mistreatment of middle class workers based on sex, parenthood, and caregiving. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 341–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berk, S. F. (1985). The gender factory. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blair-Loy, M. (2003). Competing devotions: Career and family among women executives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66(2), 204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cherlin, A. J. (2009). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, P. (2016). Welfare reform attitudes and single mothers’ employment after 20 years. Council for Contemporary Families Briefing Paper. Accessed January 23, 2017.
  11. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history: From obedience to intimacy, or how love conquered marriage. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  14. Correll, S., Bernard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cott, N. (2000). Public vows: A history of marriage and the nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Edin, K. J., & Shaefer, H. L. (2015). $2.00 a day: Living on almost nothing in America. Boston: Mariner.Google Scholar
  17. Eichler, M. (1997). Family shifts: Families, policies, and gender equality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Folbre, N. (2008). Valuing children: Rethinking the economics of the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gavanas, A. (2004). Fatherhood politics in the United States: Masculinity, sexuality, race, and marriage. Urbana, IL: Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gerson, K. (2010). The unfinished revolution: Coming of age in a new era of gender, work, and family. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Halpern-Meekin, S., Edin, K., Tach, L., & Sykes, J. (2015). It’s not like I’m poor: How working families make ends meet in a post-welfare world. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hays, S. (2003). Flat broke with children: Women in the age of welfare reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hegewisch, A., & DuMonthier, A. (2016). The gender wage gap 2015: Annual earnings differences by gender, race, and ethnicity. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Accessed November 6, 2016.
  24. Hegewisch, A., & Gornick, J. C. (2011). The impact of work-family policies on women’s employment: A review of research from OECD countries. Community, Work, and Family, 14(2), 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hochschild, A. R., with Machung, A. ([1989] 2012). The second shift: Working families and the revolution at home (Revised ed.). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  26. Hodges, M. J., & Budig, M. J. (2010). Who gets the daddy bonus? Organizational hegemonic masculinity and the impact of fatherhood on earnings. Gender & Society, 24(6), 717–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, C. M., Duerst-Lahti, G., & Norton, N. H. (2007). Creating gender: The sexual politics of welfare policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  28. Killewald, A. (2013). A reconsideration of the fatherhood premium: Marriage, residence, biology, and the wages of fathers. American Sociological Review, 78(1), 96–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LaRossa, R. (1997). The modernization of fatherhood: A social and political history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of gender. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Luker, K. (1984). Abortion and the politics of motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  32. MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. MacKinnon, C. A. (2005). Women’s lives, men’s laws. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Noonan, M. (2013). The impact of social policy on the gendered division of housework. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5(2), 124–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Connor, J. S., Orloff, A. S., & Shaver, S. (1999). States, markets, families: Gender, liberalism and social policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and the welfare state. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orloff, A. S., & Palier, B. (2009). The power of gender perspectives: Feminist influence on policy paradigms, social science, and social politics. Social Politics, 16(4), 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Palakow, V. (2007). Who cares for our children?: The child care crisis in the other America. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Patten, E. (2016). Racial, gender wage gaps persist in U.S. despite some progress. Pew Research Center. Accessed January 25, 2017.
  40. Pedulla, D. S., & Thébaud, S. (2015). Can we finish the revolution?: Gender, work-family ideals, and institutional constraint. American Sociological Review, 80(1), 116–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prohaska, A., & Zipp, J. F. (2011). Gender inequality and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Journal of Family Issues, 32(11), 1425–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Randles, J. M. (2016). Redefining the marital power struggle through relationship skills: How United States marriage education programs challenge and reinforce gender inequality. Gender & Society, 30(2), 240–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Randles, J. M. (2017). Proposing prosperity?: Marriage education policy and inequality in America. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Randles, J., & Woodward, K. (2018). Learning to labor, love, and live: Shaping the “good neoliberal citizen” in state work and marriage programs. Sociological Perspectives, 61(1), 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reese, E. (2005). Backlash against welfare mothers: Past and present. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ridgeway, C. L. (2011). Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Risman, B. J. (1998). Gender vertigo: American families in transition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Roberts, D. (1998). Killing the Black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  49. Rossin-Slater, M., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2013). The effects of California’s paid family leave program on mothers’ leave-taking and subsequent labor market outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(2), 224–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sullivan, O. (2004). Changing gender practices within the household: A theoretical perspective. Gender & Society, 18(2), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thébaud, S., & Pedulla, D. S. (2016). Masculinity and the stalled revolution: How gender ideologies and norms shape young men’s responses to work-family policies. Gender & Society, 30(4), 590–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. United States Congress. (1996). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. (Public Law 104-193). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  54. United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2014). Average monthly subsidy paid to provider by age group and care type. Office of Child Care. Accessed January 24, 2017.
  55. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2016). Child care: Access to subsidies and strategies to manage demand vary across states. GAO-17-60 Report to Congressional Committees. Accessed January 24, 2017.
  56. Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wood, R. G., Moore, Q., Clarkwest, A., & Killewald, A. (2014). The long-term effects of Building Strong Families: A program for unmarried parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(2), 446–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zagorsky, J. L. (2017). Divergent trends in US maternity and paternity leave, 1994–2015. American Journal of Public Health. Accessed January 26, 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State University, FresnoFresnoUSA

Personalised recommendations