Women, Minorities, Media and the 21st Century

Katherine Peirce-Burleson

• Publisher: Sentia Publishing
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9780990877158
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: History of Education

About The Author

Katherine Peirce-Burleson is Professor of journalism at Texas State University in San Marcos, TX. She teaches research methods on the undergraduate and graduate levels, media and society on the graduate level, copy editing for undergraduates and gender, race and media to both undergraduates and graduate students. She has taught at Texas State since 1988 and developed the undergraduate course in gender, race and media in 1992. She has published articles and presented papers on the subject since the 1980s. She has looked at gender differences among child characters in prime-time television, stereotyped messages in teen magazines and whether or not advertising spokes - characters have to be male to please audiences (they do not). Dr. Peirce-Burleson earned her B.A. and M.A. degrees from Florida State University and her Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin. Before joining Texas State University, she taught at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

About The Book

It is a book about gender, race and media from a social science perspective. It is grounded in gender-role-acquisition theory, feminist theory and racial identity theory. It includes discussion of socialization forces other than media and chapters devoted to the coverage of women and minorities in various media and the experience of women and minorities working in media. The text is aimed at upper-level undergraduates and graduate students.

Chapter One - Gender-role Acquisition

Stereotypes

Boys play football and girls play with dolls. Boys are good at math and girls are good at reading. Boys are loud, obnoxious and aggressive and girls are quiet, passive and nurturing. Boys solve their problems with their fists while girls solve problems with their brains. Or so the gender stereotypes go. A stereotype is a classification of a group of people based on a shared characteristic, which might be birthplace or residence than gender: “All Italians are in the Mafia,” “All Texans have oil wells and ranches, “All Asians are brilliant.” Stereotypes are rooted in reality, somewhere in a distant past or dark place. While it is true that some Italians are in the Mafia and some boys are better at math than some girls, it is not true of all Italians or all boys. Unless information to the contrary is provided, however, the stereotype will be passed on to and believed by others.

The pervasiveness of stereotypes can be seen in the response to one female college student upon finding out that another student was one quarter Japanese: “Oh good, you can program my electronics!” The stereotypes will be harmful in varying degrees. While the part-Japanese student was more amused than harmed, that is not the case with a young Hispanic denied employment because the employer believes that all Hispanics are lazy or with a little boy who is taunted because he plays with dolls. A young girl who sees her mother cooking, cleaning and sewing and her father mowing the grass and building things in the garage is going to assume that that is the way things should be and her options will be limited. Counter-stereotypical images, such as watching Dad cook dinner, will send an entirely different message to the child.

Gender-Role Theories

Children understand from an early age that males and females are different. How they come to understand this is the subject of many debates. Sociobiologists will argue that gender roles are innate and do not have to be learned or understood and that men are better suited for certain roles while women are better suited for others. They believe that certain activities or character traits are universally associated with women and others with men and that the activities and traits are genetically programmed. They will argue that men are inherently aggressive and assertive and women are inherently passive and docile. There are those who say that testosterone is responsible for competitiveness and aggressiveness, which is why boys prefer competitive and active sports and games and girls, lacking testosterone, prefer quiet sedentary activities. Were the sociobiologists correct in their assessment of gender-role acquisition, it would be good news for those hoping to maintain the status quo. Patriarchal society, in which men reap most of the benefits, make the rules and earn the largest salaries, is, therefore, genetic destiny. Divisions of labor are biologically preordained. Women’s second-class status is simply the way things are. While there are certainly anatomical differences between males and females, the biological explanation does not explain all of the differences between them. If it did, men would exhibit “masculine” traits and women “feminine” traits across time and cultures. This is not the case.

Consider, for example, the Iroquois Indians of northern North America and Canada. Traditional Iroquois culture believed women and men to be equal contributors to the survival of their community. While labor was divided, neither men’s work nor women’s work was deemed more important. Men prepared the fields while women planted and tended crops and harvested. Women gathered wild foods and were responsible for domestic tasks and childcare. Men hunted, fished and traded. Both men and women helped form public policy. Contributions of all were highly valued, socially recognized and rewarded (Bonvillain, 1998).

Then in the late 18^th century, the establishment of reservations led to a shift in economic roles and a decline in women’s status. Canadian and American officials suggested that men take over the farming tasks and women the domestic tasks. They began teaching the men new farming techniques. They refused to negotiate with women. They ignored women’s opinions and suggested men do the same. Women were disenfranchised when the previous system of having clan mothers choose the chiefs was replaced by an election system that did not include the women. The men had succumbed to the pressure and rewards from the colonial powers (Bonvillain, 1998).

The story of the Iroquois illustrates that gender roles are learned rather than innate, that patriarchal society is not genetic destiny, and that women’s roles can be – and have been – as valued as those of men. If gender roles are not determined biologically but are in fact learned, it is through the socialization process that we learn them. Socialization is the process by which people learn how to live in the world. Arnett (1995) believes there are three goals central to the socialization process: 1) impulse control, including the development of a conscious; 2) role preparation and performance, including occupational roles, gender roles and roles in institutions such as marriage and parenthood; and 3) the cultivation of sources of meaning: What is important, what is to be valued and what is to be lived for. Socialization, then, is learning how to live productively in different types of communities and gender-role socialization is learning how to live in the world as a male or as a female. Various theories attempt to explain how gender-socialization works.

Psychoanalytic theory stresses biological factors and parental identification and is based on Freud’s view that sex-role development proceeded from the anatomical sex difference to identification with the same-sex parent to adoption of sex-typed behaviors (Basow, 1986). Psychoanalytic theorists believe that gender identity develops as an infant internalizes other people. If the child’s mother is kind, caring and nurturing, the child will become those things as well. Children who are lovingly nurtured will incorporate their mother’s view into their sense of self and regard themselves as valuable (Wood, 1997). Until age four, when they learn to discriminate between male and female genitalia, all children identify with the mother as primary caretaker. Then boys, perceiving female genitalia to be the result of castration, will begin to identify with their fathers (Boudreau, 1986). There is little support for traditional psychoanalytic theory and its concept of anatomy as destiny, but there are those who believe that psychodynamic principles are the primary shapers of gender identity (Basow, 1986).

Social learning theory, as proposed by Mischel, sees gender identity as the result of children’s learning that certain behaviors have consequences that vary for each gender and they will learn to perform these behaviors with different frequency. Children learn differences in parental expectations concerning sex-appropriate behavior (Mischel, 1966). Children then learn their proper gender roles through differential treatment, rewards and punishments and observational learning and modeling. Social learning theory assumes that children will imitate same-sex behavior and views the child as relatively passive in the learning process, neither of which is supported by research (Basow, 1986).

Cognitive developmental theory, unlike social learning theory, assumes that children play an active role in developing their identities (Wood, 1997; Basow, 1986). As outlined by Kohlberg (1966), cognitive development stresses the active nature of the child’s thought as he organizes his role perceptions and role learnings about his basic conceptions of his body and his world. Children do not have a firm gender identity until about age 5 when they begin valuing same-sex behaviors and attitudes and devaluing other-sex behaviors and attitudes (Basow, 1986). Kohlberg’s views differ from Mischel’s in that social learning theory says that a child wants rewards, is rewarded and, therefore, wants to be a boy/girl. Cognitive-developmental theory says the child is a boy/girl and wants to do boy/girl things and, therefore, the opportunity to do boy/girl things is rewarding (Kohlberg, 1966). Support for this theory comes from studies that found that children do value their own sex more highly than the opposite sex; however, Kohlberg used only males in his studies.

Other theorists have attempted to combine the best of the aforementioned theories in order to create a more meaningful theory. Bem’s gender schema theory includes elements of social learning and cognitive-developmental theories as well as the importance of cultural factors. Children learn gender roles by observing male and female differences in their culture. They learn the content of the roles and that the differences they have observed are important (Basow, 1986). Meadian role theory, based on George Herbert Mead’s work and social learning theory, starts with the premise that infants are different from adults because they do not have the traits that separate adults from animals, a self concept, role taking ability, role prescriptions and language. Social interaction will give the infant a start on developing these traits (Boudreau, 1986). As parents interact with children, they tell the children who they are by labeling them and the children internalize others’ views of them (Wood, 1997). This if children are told they are cute, soft and gentle, they will believe they are these things. If they are told they are strong, tough and bold, these are the things they will believe. Stereotypical, or traditional, socialization will have parents telling little girls they are the former and little boys they are the latter.

Devotees of the social constructionist model believe that gender varies fro culture to culture and within a culture over time, that gender is both historical and comparative (Kimmel and Messner, 1998). Gender is actively constructed and constructed both ideologically in the beliefs people have about gender characteristics and behaviorally in the activities they do and the way they do them (Walker, 1992). Liao and Cai (1995) combine social-learning theory and the situational hypothesis, which looks at life situations as important in attitude formation and behavior patterns. Anyone who lives in a less traditional situation will have less traditional gender roles.

Whether we subscribe to one theory or another about gender-role acquisition, it is clear that there is a specific set of culturally sanctioned roles for females and another for males. This has been true throughout history and for all cultures although roles are different for different cultures and different times. Our view of the world is what Berger and Luckman term a socially constructed reality and is dependent upon the norms of a culture for a particular time period (Boudreau, 1986).

While American society has relaxed its rules in recent years about what is acceptable female and male behavior, it is still a patriarchal society in which men’s traits, behaviors and activities are considered superior to women’s and better rewarded. Therefore, a female participating in a male activity is not looked down upon – although she may be held back by those not wanting her to participate – but a male participating in a female activity is strongly encouraged to do otherwise, most often by other males who tend to reinforce traditional gender roles more often than females. This is the case whether the male is a 3-year-old wanting to play with dolls or a 20-year-old wanting to be a nurse instead of a doctor. The socialization of children into traditional gender roles has not been eradicated, particularly for males, despite attempts, particularly by feminists, since the second wave of the feminist movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Although changes have taken place in the intervening years, those of the “superior” gender do not want to lose their positions of power. And so lingers the idea that biology is destiny, that women are good at certain things, such as raising children and cleaning houses, and men are good at others things – most other things – and women are the weaker sex and must be protected and cared for. Typically, women’s roles are limited and limiting while men’s roles are neither. While parents may not subscribe to the notion of traditional socialization, a child learning to live in the world is influenced first by parents and then by peers, schools, churches and the media. Because most of this book is an analysis of the media’s contribution to gender-role socialization and stereotyping, we shall look now at the other socialization forces.

Socialization Forces

Family

From the moment they are born, girls are treated differently from boys, despite arguments from parents that they do not treat their girl children differently from their boy children and despite arguments that there is no difference between male and female infants. That gender of child does influence parental behaviors and attitudes have been documented in many studies. Rubin, Provenzano and Luria (1974) asked parents of newborns to describe the physical attributes of their children. Baby girls were perceived to be softer, finer featured, smaller, more inattentive and more beautiful than their baby boys. Bedrooms are similar: decorated with pink and filled with dolls or decorated in blue and filled with sports equipment, tools and vehicles.

Gender distinctions are not lost on children who prefer not to play with children who play with opposite sex toys and who will work actively to make such children conform to proper gender roles. Not only do parents and peers encourage sex-appropriate activities, but toy stores encourage it as well. Susan Douglas (1998) describes a Toy ‘R’ Us as a gender house of horrors: shocking pink aisles filled with princess playsets for girls and black and battleship grey aisles filled with swords and bazookas and other toys of destruction for boys. Little has changed in the intervening years. Debbie Sterling, interviewed in the Austin-American Statesman in December, 2014, went to a toy store, sure that manufacturers were now making construction sets for girls along the lines of the construction sets for boys that she had played with as a child. No, they were not. Sterling found the same pink and blue aisles and segregated products that had always been the foundation of toy stores. A Stanford engineer, Sterling set out to make science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) toys for girls. She is now not the only one developing STEM toys for girls. Lego, for example, has done so as well. These designers did, in developing their products, discover gender differences. Girls like to develop stories with their building while boys simply build. So some of the products include storybooks instead of instruction books that go with the boys’ toys.

Children are assigned different chores, with the daughter helping her mother in the kitchen and the son doing yard work with his father. They both learn that male activities are the preferred activities and male traits are the preferred traits. They learn whose work is respected and valued in society. These messages are so strong that even when presented with different messages, children revert back to stereotyped choices (Haslett, Geis & Carter, 1992).

In addition to traits, behaviors and activities of children, it is important to look at the relationships children have with their parents, particularly with their mother, who is usually the primary caregiver. Chodorow (1978) theorized that boys and girls develop different emotional relationships with their mothers. Boys, because they are not the same gender, have to separate themselves from their mothers and in doing so, develop a different gender identity from that of their mothers. Girls can maintain an emotional bond with their mothers. Support for her theory comes from Rosen and Brigham (1984) who found that girls did not express negative feelings toward their mothers as often as boys did, and scored higher on dependency feelings than did boys. Beneson, Morash and Petrakos (1998) found that girls were physically closer to their mothers, engaged in more mutual eye contact and were rated higher on enjoyment during a play session.

Schools

Because children spend much of their formative years in school, the educational system can be a powerful socialization force. Schools emphasize gender differences when they line students up by gender, compete against each other, use separate bathrooms and take separate physical education classes and when they are addressed as boys and girls. These gender divisions will not hurt children; however, if stereotypes regarding ability and personality traits are reinforced, permanent damage may be done. Stereotypes about gender differences in school include the ideas that boys are better than girls at math and science and girls are better than boys at reading and writing, that girls are quiet and obedient while boys are loud and cannot sit still, and that boys are leaders and girls followers. If schools are encouraging and reinforcing these stereotypes, the research will tell us. Some of it does.

It has long been assumed that schools were tailor-made for girls. After all, the quiet, obedient docile girls had the traits teachers...

Table of contents

• Chapter One - Gender-role Acquisition
• Chapter Two - Women, Work and the Second Wave of the Feminist Movement
• Chapter Three - Gender, Race and Newspapers
• Chapter Four - Women’s Magazines from the 18th Century to the 21st
• Chapter Five - That’s Entertainment - Television
• Student paper #1 - The “Ideal” Body
• Student paper #2 - Sexist Advertising