Elite discourses of sex, gender, and sexuality

Foucault (1980): there are multiple ways of understanding any social phenomenon. Those understandings emerge from different
locations of power. When particular understandings emerge from positions of authority, those understandings become elite
discourses and are widely accepted. And it is through socialization, elite discourses become so deeply ingrained that many people
have difficulty even imagining alternative possibilities.

Elite discourses: sex and gender, and sexuality: being born female or male affects every facet of a person’s life, but female and male
do not refer to gender, but point to sex, this distinction is one between social forces and biological forces.

Sex: biology, which in the Euro Canadian culture has traditionally been equated with the dualism of female/male; we often refer to
the opposite sex. Sex is determined at the moment of conception and is followed by the development of primary and secondary sex
characteristics.

Gender: describes the social world, the expected and actual thoughts, feelings, and behaviours associated with a particular sex,
within a certain culture, at a given point in history. It is socially determined through socialization processes in the context of cultural
norms. Because sex is based on dualism, gender is presumed to be as well, the thoughts, feelings, and behaviours associated with
being a female are labelled femininity (kindness, sensitivity, loyalty )while those associated with males are labelled masculinity
(action, aggression, independence).

Homosexuality: attraction to the members of the same sex.

Heterosexuality: attraction to the members of the opposite sex.

Both these terms are dependent on the view of sex as consisting of only two legitimate sexes (male, female), the belief that sex can
or should be equated with the gender, and then with sexuality, has become an elite discourse to the extent that it is difficult for
many people to even imagine other ways of thinking about the issue or organizing their lives.

Moving outside of each discourses

Think of sex is not in terms of dualism but rather as a spectrum. There is a wide range of physical sex differences, just as there are a
multitude of possible combinations of primary, secondary, and chromosomal characteristics.

Intersexed: when a person’s sex characteristics do not neatly fit into the dualism of male/female.

Although sex is a biological reality, the recognition of two, and only to legitimate sexes is a social construction, one that emerges
from social processes, not just biology.

Research on Euro Canadian culture points to the socially constructed nature of gender. For instance: it was with industrialization that
the female role came to be that of the nurturing parent and homemaker, the creator of a haven in a heartless world (Lasch 1977).

At the time, employment legislation began to remove children and women from workplaces, making the private world of families
and public world of paid employment increasing separate. Men = public sphere, women and children = private sphere. Social
concerns about the perceived moral damages of an urban world were growing, because men spent most of their days in the public
sphere, they were considered especially vulnerable to those perceived dangers. It was important that when they return home in the
evening they entered an environment that were recharge their physical health, psychological well-being, and moral strength.
Because women were largely relegated to homes, femininity came to be associated with qualities that would enabled the creation of
this heaven. Women were to ensure that every aspect of the home contributed to a nurturing environment. Mass media and
popular culture told them exactly how to achieve this goal ( housekeeping manuals, guidebooks for women), contributing to the
emergence of what is known as cult of domesticity.

This industrialized version of the ideal female homemaker applied only to the lives of middle-class women, working-class women
continued to be workers and income earners for many decades to come.

During the same era, male role came to emphasize the characteristics we now view as representing traditional masculinity (David
and brannon 1976):

- The big wheel: compete for success and achievements.

- The sturdy oak: be stable, tough, and in control at all times.
- Give them hell: be dominant and aggressive.
- No sissy stuff: avoid anything associated with femininity, such as emotions (other than anger) or sexual attraction to men.

Sexuality = socially constructed: sexual desires and acts may exist throughout the world, but the meanings attributed to those
desires and acts, and the way they are treated emerge from social processes. Discourses based on of the heterosexual/homosexual
dualism are being replaced by a greater recognition of the spectrum of sexuality, bisexuality: attraction to both male and female.

The socially constructed nature of sexualities is also apparent in the distinctions we draw among desires, behaviours, and identity.
Simon and Gagnon (1970): point out that each of us has our own sexual script: the framework that we use to understand our own
sexuality and that guides us in our sexual lives.

Our sexual scripts have three distinct parts: intrapsychic scripts: private world of our fantasies and desires, not all of which you will
necessarily act upon in life. Interpersonal scripts: emerge from our interactions with others – what we have learned from certain
people in our lives about appropriate or inappropriate sexuality. Cultural scenarios: reflect the broader cultural norms.

Sometimes the three components may correspond nicely: you may have certain sexual desires, you may have enacted those desires
in past relationships with positive results, and you may know that cultural norms define these desires and activities as acceptable.

In other cases: social norms, what we learn from our relationships, and or our personal desires may conflict. Past relationship you
may have learned that a certain desire is better left in the realm of fantasy rather than put into action. Through socialization, you
may have learned that cultural norms define that desire as unacceptable or even through cultural norms may support the desire, you
know that your family members, friends, or intimate partner may disapprove.

Elite discourses of sex, gender, and sexualities have traditionally been based on dualisms (male/female, masculinity/femininity,
heterosexual/homosexual) and those dualisms have been equated with one another, so that females are presumed to be both
feminine and sexually attracted to men; similarly, males are presumed to be masculine and sexually attracted women.

You can see that these dualisms are not real, but their consequences are, being identified as male or female affects almost every
aspect of our lives, and individuals who fall outside of each discourses face significant stigmatization.

Through the efforts of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (individuals who identify themselves with another sex, and seek to
live their lives on that basis) movement, significant changes have come about. But in many ways society continues to be
heteronormative (characterized by the view that heterosexuality is the expected or preferred sexual orientation).

Gender: the consequences of having been born male or female

David and Myra Sadker: when the responses of children, adolescents, and young adults were brought together, we see that from a
young age people believe that the implications of having been born a particular sex extend to all facets of life. Sociological research
supports that assumption. Gender norms result in different educational experiences, different occupational expenses, different
economic experiences, and different family experiences.

Different educational experiences

The different educational experiences of females and males begin in the classrooms of young children. David and Myra Sadker found
that boys and girls sitting in the same classroom are receiving very different education. Because of the pragmatic demands of the
classroom and gender stereotypes, even the best teachers may inadvertently treat boys and girls differently. Through understated
practices, boys are drawn to the forefront of the classroom, while girls slipped quietly into the background. Boys are encouraged to
figure out how to solve problems on their own, while girls have their problem solved for them.

What type of attention is it that males and female students receive?: Four forms that teacher feedback on student’s work can take:
(a) praise: whereby the teacher highlights an aspect of work that has been done well; (B) remediation: when the teacher gives
direction that enables the student to solve problems; (C) criticism: often is critique about something that has been done wrong; and
(D) acceptance: a brief acknowledgement.

David and Myra Sadker found: boys receive more of every type of response, but especially remediation, which many people would
say is the form of feedback that best facilitates learning. Boys having difficulty with an assignment = encourage them to figure out for
themselves. Girls = likely to show them how to solve it.
Yet despite the greater attention that boys receive in school, girls are more likely to excel.

Girls = achieve higher overall grades and get higher scores on standardized reading tests. More likely to pursue post-secondary
education and graduate.

Boys = are more likely to be disciplined, more vocal in classroom, teachers perception of their behaviour are often incorrect;
teachers perceive boys as hyper, aggressive, even though behavioural scores do not support those perceptions. As a result, boys are
more likely to be identified by their teachers as having a learning disability, more likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability.

It appears that schools are short changing girls, yet when we consider the gendered differences in student achievement, it appears
that it may be boys were being shortchanged. Sadker: steers us away from either or mentality: stating that it is time we understood
that gender bias and stereotypes are persistent problems for both males and females. It is not one or the other gender that is the
problem, gender bias is the problem.

What is it that boys and girls ultimately learn in classrooms?

Both learn math, science, social studies and other subjects. Female students are at an advantage when it comes to mastering this
material. McMullin(2004): highlights the importance of looking beyond sex and gender when analysing student achievement,
pointing out that a child’s social economic status is far more significant predictor of academic success than whether that child is male
or female.

Students are also exposed to a hidden curriculum, whereby they learn what being a male or female means in our society.

Boys: by being drawn to the forefront of classroom life and encouraged to solve their own problems, they develop problem-solving
skills and independence as well as the assertive competition that is part of the boys world. Dark side to these lessons: no one is going
to solve their problems for them, they are on their own in this world, and they must be tough, strong, and independent.

Girls: learn passivity, silence, and dependents, but at the same time, they are learning that they can rely on others when they faced
difficulties in life.

Subtle differences in the treatment of male and female students continue in the post-secondary environment as well. The gendering
of post-secondary education is also evident in the areas of study that women and men pursue. Women: most countries in the world,
women are overrepresented in the humanities and social sciences, men are overrepresented in stem programs in science,
technology, engineering, mathematics, and computer science.

Stem programs, why are women not enrolling in these programs?

This pattern is a result of a lack of female interest in math, which in large part is influenced by gender/math stereotypes harboured
by the adult in children’s lives. Parents and teachers continue to perceive their sons or male students as inherently more logical and
skilled at math than their daughters or female students. The stereotypes are maintained even in the face of contradictory evidence,
and in the explanations parents offer for their children success in math; male success = natural mathematical abilities, female
success = effort. Over time girls were tracked with adults who hold the stereotypes may show a declining interest in math, while
boys entrust in math is facilitated. As a result: because girls were less interested in math, they would put less effort into their math
classes and thereby retain lower marks in math. However, standardized tests reveal that any small gender differences in
mathematical abilities that may have existed in the past have disappeared.

Hango (2013): found that among university graduates, males with lower levels of mathematical ability in secondary school were
actually more likely to enrol in stem programs in university than females with higher levels of ability.

One analysis of first-year university students found that stereotypes are central to the segregation of males in science programs and
females in social sciences and humanities. Stereotypes can take on two forms: explicit and implicit. Explicit: stereotypes are those
that people are consciously aware of holding. Implicit: stereotypes are those that people are not conscious of. Implicit stereotypes
operate at a subconscious level, remain outside an individual’s control and may have even greater impact. They are measured by the
implicit Association test, individual must quickly group words together as they flashed on a computer screen; have much faster
reaction time when a series of words reflects a stereotype.

Lane et al. (2012): found that those students who held implicit stereotypes associating males with science and females with social
sciences and humanities, intended to enrol in programs of study accordingly. They also point out that, within the sciences, males and
female students tend to be segregated in different fields of study; for example: males are overrepresented in engineering and
computer science, and females are overrepresented in biology and nursing. She proposes: there is not just a gendered
science/humanities divide in programs of study, but also in care/technical divide. Implicit attitudes: associating females with caring
and people skills, and males with technical prowess are more likely to enrolling in fields of study in a way that maintains gender
segregation.

Why does it matter?

Gender segregation in programs of study matters because it emerges from and reinforces broader stereotypes, that maintain elite
discourses of sex, gender, and sexuality and their consequences. Some areas of study are more directly marketable, meaning that
employment directly related to one’s area of study may be more certain. Second, occupations related to some areas of study are
more highly paid than others.

Different occupational experiences

Arriving in part from different areas of post-secondary study are divergent occupational experiences. It was in the 1960s that women
began moving into the labour force in large numbers. Forces contributed to this: broader economic shifts caused inflation to rise
more rapidly than people’s wages, meaning it was increasingly difficult for families to survive on only one income. The second wave
of women’s movement emerged, which emphasized other aspects of equality such as occupational and economic equality. Within
this broader context of economic changes and the women’s movement, more and more women became breadwinners as well.

Men and women tend to be segregated into different types of occupations. Uppal and LaRochelle-Cote (2014): analysed patterns of
male and female employment in Canada for those aged 25 to 34. These people have completed any post secondary education most
recently and are embarking on their careers, as results they are considered predictive of future trends in occupational segregation.

2011:3 most common occupation for female University graduates: Elementary and kindergarten teacher, registered nurse, and
secondary school teacher. Men: computer programmer or interactive media developer, financial auditor/accountant, and secondary
school teacher. 21% were in the top three occupations, only 11% of men - Men occupy a wider range of jobs than women do.
Additionally, there is a greater gender segregation among those without a university degree.

Magnitude of occupational segregation is measured using the segregation Index: provides the percentage of men and or women
who would have to switch occupations in order for there to be an equal balance of men and women in all occupations. 2011:
segregation Index for those without a university degree was 52, and contrast the segregation Index for University graduates was 39.

Past few decades, declining occupational sex segregation, with a growing number of people choosing to enter nontraditional
occupations. Most of these shifts have been the result of women entering male-dominated fields, because occupations and male-
dominated fields tend to be higher paid and feature more independence and authority; women entering those occupations have
something to gain, while men entry field on it occupations would have something to lose. But, easier for women to enter
nontraditional occupations than men do, in that the boundaries of gendered norms are somewhat more fluid for women than men.

Slaaten and Gabrys (2014): found that boys are more likely to experience gay -related name calling, most commonly when they are
perceived as violating norms of masculinity.

Even though it is easier for women to enter male-dominated fields, it is less likely that they will rise to the top of their fields and hold
positions of authority. Women who enter nontraditional careers are at risk of experiencing workplace harassment.

Different economic experiences

when looking at the engendering of economic experiences, what stands out most is the ratio of female to male learning. Annual
income, the earnings differential is 67%, for every dollar that a man earns, women earn $.67.

What accounts for this ongoing wage gap?

Emerges from sex segregation in areas of post-secondary

study and subsequent career choices. Male-dominated areas = higher wages. Greater proportion of women employed in jobs that
are lower paid and lower in status. Also less likely to enter supervisory and management positions, and especially senior
management positions, which receive greater remuneration. On average, women work fewer hours per day in paid employment
than men, and are more likely to have temporary absences from the labour force in response to childbirth and child raising, mothers
earn approximately 12% less than women without children.

Educational choices and career patterns account for less than half the earnings differential, means much of the gap is unexplained
and open to alternative explanations. Such as the, devaluation of women’s work. Historically, the type of work that women were
restricted to were less respected and thus received lower remuneration, presumed that women’s incomes were “peripheral” to
family life; men’s income had to be sufficient to support a family, women’s income was thought to be only for the little extras. Those
early wages served as a foundation for subsequent wage increases over the decades, and in this way income differential between
men and women were maintained. Some other explanation highlight discrimination within the labour force, assumption about the
way that family obligations will affect women’s job commitment and career patterns influence hiring and promotion practices. The
different educational, occupational, and economic experience of women and men are intertwined with their family experiences.

Different family experiences

The significance of sex and gender within families begins before people or even born. Once a child is born, gendered perceptions and
treatment begin almost immediately, setting the stage for the gendering that individuals will later experience educationally,
occupationally, and economically.

Gendered perceptions of infants are then translated into behaviours, such that parents subsequently treat their sons and daughters
differently. Goldberg and Lewis (1969): found that when mothers brought their six month old infant into a child observation lab,
mothers of girls kept their infants closer and spoke with them more often than did mothers of boys. When mothers then brought
their children in seven months later, the room was set up in an interesting way. A waist high barrier divided the room almost
completely in half, small gap at one end of the barrier that allowed people to move from one side to the other. The toddlers were
placed on one side of the barrier, the mothers on the other side, the mothers then waved in order to capture their child attention,
being separated from their mothers and the toy resulted in many of the toddlers becoming upset. The little girl started to cry,
mothers were likely to pick them up and bring them to the other side. Little boys were encouraged to make their way to the gap at
the end of the barrier to find their own way to the other side.

Patterns found in classrooms are also found in families, more noise, aggression, and assertiveness is tolerated in boys than in girls,
parents give sons more attention when they are being loud, and daughters more tension when they’re being quiet. The strict
boundaries that surround male gender roles in postsecondary education and occupation also found in families as well, sons are more
likely to be punished for gender inappropriate behaviour, and parents interact with their children using a narrower range of toys
with boys relative to girls. In families, children are also exposed to gender stereotyped colours in their clothing and bedroom the
core and are provided with gender stereotypes toys.

Gendered experiences of families began with childhood socialization and continue through to adulthood, with the gendered
differences in the household division of labour.

Arlie Hochaschild: second shift, where an women would put in a full day in the workplace and then come home and have to put
another shift of domestic labour.

When men and women who contribute equally to domestic labour, the nature of their tasks remain gendered. The gendered nature
of family experiences in adulthood interacts with occupational and economic experiences. Because of family responsibilities, women
are more likely to choose jobs with fewer hours and or greater flexibility, both of which typically mean lower earnings.

Functionalist theories

Talcott parsons (1902 – 1979): best known for addressing gender role differentiation and the household division of labour from a
functionalist perspective. Described two functions of the family: socialization of children and the socialization of adult personalities,
that are important for the well-being of both individuals and society. Gendered task differentiation is one ways these functions are
fulfilled.

Proposed that males are responsible for instrumental tasks that connect the family to the outside world (financial support), while
females are responsible for the expressive tasks necessary for the internal world of the family (nurturing children). As long as these
tasks are differentiated by gender, families can ensure that everything that needs to get done Will get done, if tasks were not
differentiated on this basis, time would be wasted, with each family member trying to figure out what he or she should be doing.
Conflict theories

Traced gender inequality to capitalist economic systems. Friedrich Engles (1884), suggested that the transition from feudalism to
capitalism resulted in patriarchy. Just as male workers were subordinated by their employers, women and children were
subordinated by adult men, children gained power as they grow up, but women remained subordinated throughout their lives.
Engles contended that female subordination in families would end if women entered paid employment. Today conflict theories are
commonly used in an analysis of gendered violence, especially within intimate relationships.

Interactionist theories

Focus on how we come to understand gender and develop our own gender identity. Through our interactions with significant others,
our development of a sense of the generalized other, and the power of the looking glass self, we come to know what we are female
or male. Through childhood experiences in our families and our classrooms, we come to understand that males and females are
supposed to act in certain ways, develop particular interests, enter specific types of occupations, and hold certain roles within
families. on the basis of this knowledge, we do gender in our everyday lives.

Erving Goffman (1979): conducted a classical analysis of gender differentiation from an interactionist perspective. Explored how
gender differentiation is reproduced in social interactions through gender displays. Which includes everything from putting on
makeup and selecting clothes to wear, to positions in which we place our bodies, to the appropriate use of separate public
restrooms for men and women. Gender displays are based on codes of gender: the norms governing acceptable appearances and
behaviours for males and females. They rest on and reinforce dualisms of sex, gender, and sexuality. Also maintain male dominance
and independence, and female passivity and subordination.

Feminist theories

Germaine Greer (2007): argued that the women’s movement has gone astray. Criticizes it for emphasizing equality, which in practice
has led to women trying to become like men. Male characteristics and experiences are to be left behind. Instead of equality, she
argued that women must attain liberation, wherein they become free to define themselves and their inspirations from a distinctly
female perspective.

Sheila Jerffreys (2014): moving beyond dualisms of sex and gender, contended that the notion of transgender does not move beyond
those dualisms but instead reinforces them and maintains notions of essential differences between the sexes. The need to label
individuals who do not conform to the discourses that equate male bodies with masculinity and female bodies with femininity means
that those discourses maintain their power in society. She called for a post gender society, in which a person whose body is of a
particular sex would be able to adopt any appearance, attitude, behaviour, or characteristic and no longer have a distinctive label
attached.

Liberal feminist theories: claim that the inequalities in education, occupation, economics, and families are the result of differential
opportunities. By reducing forces that restrict opportunities for women and men will be able to pursue life trajectories that fits their
interests and skills as individuals rather than as sexes and inequality will be reduced.

Marxist feminists: tie the oppression of women to capitalism; overthrowing capitalism and eliminating private property would end
there subordination and the different educational, occupational, economic, and family experiences that women and men currently
have.

Cultural feminists: support dualistic assumptions about sex and gender and posit that men and women are inherently different;
women are peaceful, nurturing, and more in touch with their nature, while men are more aggressive and competitive. Qualities
cannot change, what can change is that female abilities and values are given venues for expression, such as the old women centred
activities and organizations.

Other types of feminist theories (race/ethnicity/imperialism/post colonial feminist theories): argue that we can’t speak of women as
a general category, that the educational, occupational, economic, and family experiences of women of different races, ethnic groups,
and classes have very little in common with one another.Third wave feminists are critical of earlier forms of feminism, which
relegated lesbian, bisexual, and transgender women, women of colour, working class and poor women, and women of the
developing world to the margins of the feminist movement. There reject the notion that all women can be grouped together, and
instead recognizes the diversity of gendered experiences based on race, ethnicity, class, sexuality and various other social
characteristics.