White 1

Kelly A. White

Student ID #218692930

EDUC 165 – Sex Role Stereotyping in American Education

20 February 2016

Gender Socialization of Women in the Workforce

From early English settlement in America to today’s modern society, personal and

professional development has always been a huge struggle for women. Their fight to attend

college and enter the workforce—and to keep their wartime jobs when men returned home—

were merely stepping stones toward the hard-fought battles for equality that are still being waged

today. Public figures like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, journalist Gloria Steinem,

entrepreneur and philanthropist Oprah Winfrey, and a handful of other famous women have

proven that the brass ring is, in fact, attainable. However, statistics still show that females are

drastically underrepresented in leadership positions of every field, including business, politics,

healthcare, engineering, and entertainment (Warner, 2014). Despite some advancement toward

gender equity over the past century, traditional societal expectations are still firmly in place: men

should be the main financial providers, while women remain responsible for household tasks and

raising children. Adhering to clichéd viewpoints from so long ago—and refusing to acknowledge

the changing wants, needs, and capabilities of over half the U.S. population—not only

undervalues women but also strengthens the glass ceiling that continues to stifle their

opportunities in the workplace.

At one time, men and women were both valued for their contributions to family and

community, but as men started traveling for work, their trading skills and earning potential began
 White 2

to overshadow the domestic duties their wives provided at home. According to O’Kelly and

Carney (1986), women were expected to tend to the needs of their husbands and families above

all else, “consciously prepar[ing] their children, especially their sons, to become obedient,

diligent responsible workers…aid[ing] them in obtaining necessary education skills to be more

productive and valuable employees” (p. 123). In doing so, men were free to pursue employment

and make strides in a workforce that had no place for women. When America shifted from its

agricultural roots to industrialization, men found their place in the factories and manufacturing

centers; meanwhile, women and children were left picking up the slack at home. Some believed

that these conventional gender roles were appropriate, as men’s work was too tough for

submissive, frail women—and many still hold steadfast to these beliefs today. In fact, Wood

(2009) says that cultures determine roles for men and women and that “in Western society,

gender is…tied to the social order as a whole” (p. 118–119). He also states that children quickly

develop their own personal perspectives based upon parental and societal influences (including

those regarding gender identity), which can have lasting effects on entire generations. After all, if

children perceive that men are admired for their strength and hard-working aptitude, and that

women are better suited as gentle nurturers, they will complacently fall into these roles

practically from birth.

Not until the division of social classes in the early to mid-1800s were those traditional

gender roles somewhat shaken; women were viewed as more than wives and mothers and valued

for their influence outside the home. Opportunities in manufacturing and industry further split

wealthy landowners from poverty-stricken field workers, and a middle class emerged for the first

time in America’s history (Roth, 2011). Whereas men were once the educated elite, women were

now being schooled as teachers to fill the growing demand. Colleges expanded and admitted
 White 3

women, albeit with restrictions to courses, extracurricular activities, and even building access

(McCormick, 2006). Access to education, and thereby, opportunities for professional

development, produced a contrasting argument to the customary views regarding gender roles—

women were just as capable and deserved the same privileges afforded to their male

counterparts. Early activists arose from the middle and working classes, with women “involved

in union or feminist causes…concerned with working conditions and job security” (O’Kelly &

Carney, 1986, p. 141). Suffragettes and other civil rights advocates diligently fought for equality;

they believed women—and all Americans—deserved representation in education, politics, and

the workforce. These women gained attention and media coverage for their radical views, likely

because those in opposition felt threatened and worried that men would be marginalized if

women were equal. That threat to masculinity still exists today; Blakemore, Berenbaum, and

Liben (2009) contend that, although stereotypical images in the media have transformed to

include more capable females, men are still not presented in nurturing or domestic (i.e.,

women’s) roles. Likewise, men still comprise the vast majority of power positions in

Washington and around the globe, even though women make up more than half the workforce

(Warner, 2014).

Despite the progress gained by the suffrage movement, the long, difficult struggle to

eliminate gender disparities continues today. For decades, men and boys were educated and then

valued for their financial contributions to their own households as well as to society. At the same

time, women were left clinging to whatever was permitted them—mostly careers as assistants,

secretaries, and teachers—earning much less than men and unable to climb the ranks. In the

1960s and 1970s, however, Congress mandated equal rights for women in both the workplace

and academia. The Equal Pay Act “prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in wages and
 White 4

fringe benefits by any employer in the United States,” while Title IX “prohibited discrimination

on the basis of sex against students and employees of a school receiving federal assistance”

(McCormick, 2006, pp. 19–20). In addition to these landmark legislative acts, Roe V. Wade and

The Women’s Educational Equity Act helped to advance women’s rights further than in the

decades prior. Yet, regardless of these laws, women are still shackled by the societal assumptions

that professional advancement is a motivating factor only for men. Lips (1989) reports that “a

common gender stereotype is that women are less motivated than are men by the need for

achievement, but research has not supported this notion. What research does suggest is that

women…are faced with pressures to balance their achievement needs against their desire for

relationships, and for marriage and family” (p. 208). Unfortunately, women cannot successfully

mesh careers with families to create work-life balance if today’s standards and expectations are

that professionals, especially leaders, remain available day and night at a moment’s notice. As

Slaughter (2012) argues, “The present system is based on a society that no longer exists.” Add to

the struggle that society still refuses to recognize women’s occupations as comparable in

importance to men’s—household and family demands still require more sacrifices from wives

than husbands (Lips, 1989)—and women will constantly be racing to catch up or just give up

altogether.

It seems, contrary to what young girls are told, women cannot have it all; hundreds of

years later, they still must choose between raising families and rising to power. Men, however,

continue to dominate the professional world regardless of their family obligations. What message

does this contradiction send to young children? What will motivate young girls to strive for

success if no female role models can be found? Girls need to see themselves represented by

powerful women with wide-ranging opportunities, in order to elevate their goals and successfully
 White 5

compete with men in their fields. Otherwise, their dreams will be stifled and career choices

limited, based on nothing more than cultural norms they had no part in creating. If society can

adapt to new ways of thinking and acknowledge the value and significance in female leadership,

perhaps women can break the glass ceiling after all.

 White 6

References

Blakemore, J.E., Berenbaum, S.A., & Liben, L.S. (2009). The media as an agent of gender

development. In Gender development. (pp. 339–364). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Lips, H. (1989). Gender-role socialization: Lessons in femininity. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A

feminist perspective. (pp. 197–216). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

McCormick, T. (2006). Strong women teachers: Their struggles and strategies for gender equity.

In D. Sadker & E. Silber (Eds.), Gender in the classroom. (pp. 1–31). Mahwah, NJ: L.

Erlbaum Associates.

O’Kelly, C., & Carney, L.S. (1986). Capital industrialist society. In Women and men in society.

(2nd ed., pp. 121–181). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Roth, M. (2011, November 20). The historic roots of the middle class: Industrial expansion in

1800s led to new social divisions. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved from

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2011/11/20/The-historic-roots-of-the-middle-

class/stories/201111200308

Slaughter, A. (2012, June 13). Why women still can’t have it all. The Atlantic. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-

all/309020/

Warner, J. (2014, Mrach 7). Fact sheet: The women’s leadership gap: Women’s leadership by the

numbers. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2014/03/07/85457/fact-sheet-

the-womens-leadership-gap/

Wood, J. (2009). Theoretical approaches to gender development. In Gendered lives:

Communication, gender, and culture. (pp. 48–60). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.