You are on page 1of 9

Taylor Brooks

Dr. Anderson

SOC 254

11/12/18

The Intersection of Social Constructs: How Race Impacts the Dominant Gender Ideology

Social constructions, or ideas and concepts created by people and widely accepted by

people, provide the very foundation for human interactions. Some constructs were built with the

intent to be binary, such as gender. Others are vital for our society to function, like government.

There are social constructs that we as humans are not all that great at, take monogamy, for

example. There are even constructs that serve as a means of classification and have the ability to

negatively impact a person’s health, socio-economic status, education, and essentially every facet

of their well-being, such as race. Through the singular analysis of these concepts a better

understanding of how constructs such as gender, race, or government impact the lives of

everyday individuals. Constructs, however, are not singular in nature, they are interconnected

and influence each other in a cyclical manner, begging for further examination to determine the

impact of their interplay.

In the United States, social constructions like the ones listed above are deeply ingrained

in society. The concepts of gender and race, however, have a strong history of

interconnectedness and impact every single person within the country. The combination of the

dominant gender ideology in the United States and the country’s vast racist history has given

way to a variety of race-specific gender stereotypes. Davis and Greenstein believe “there is some

evidence for racial and ethnic differences in gender ideology,” but that they stem more so from
“the intersection of sex and social class” as opposed to gender and race. The following

argumentative essay aims to show the inextricable linkage between race and gender, examining

major historical events; socio-economic issues; and the dominant gender ideology that plagues

U.S. society. By investigating major political constructions like slavery, Jim Crow laws, the U.S.

education system, and socio-economic status patterns, these stereotypes can be unearthed and the

true discriminatory impact of these stereotypes can be addressed and improved.

In order to examine the interplay between race and the dominant gender ideology, a basic

understanding of what gender is, and the stereotypes associated with the construct, is essential.

Gender, according to Phillips, is defined as “the roles and expectations attributed to men and

women in a given society.” The dominant gender ideology provides the justification for norms

society has learned to associate with the different genders, making gender a social construct, not

biological.

On the other hand, there is ideology. Simply put, ideology is synonymous with a

stereotype. However, the dominant gender ideology in the United States is much more

multifaceted than a single stereotype. Davis and Greenstein define gender ideology as being a

representation of “the underlying concept of an individual’s level of support for a division of

paid work and family responsibilities that is based on the notion of separate spheres.” In this

case, gender ideology is the belief that work and familial responsibilities differ between genders;

gender ideology is not the stereotype on its own, but the support, embodiment, and reinforcement

of that stereotype.

Now that the concept of gender ideology has been established, it is important to conduct a

historical analysis to understand how the dominant gender ideology came about and how a

history plagued with racism created a racial division of gender stereotypes. Various cultural
values dating back to the very conception of the United States helped establish, develop, and

maintain the dominant gender ideology. One structure that had a particularly large impact on

these roles were the multiple arrangements of the U.S. economy. When goods were made at

home – in a pre-market, farm economy – women experienced much more equality. Though men

and women completed different jobs, women still had laborious tasks like food and clothing

preparation and food preservation to ensure the family’s basic survival. In contrast, there came

the post-farm, market economy which meant that fewer goods were made at home and more

products were bought in the marketplace. This economic shift occurred around the American

Revolution and created a shift in women’s work as well. Women went from laborious tasks to a

concentration in the home and on domesticity (O’Malley, 2004).

Keeping in mind the interplay of race, the above analysis only considers the economic

role of white women in the United States. Even before America broke free of British bondage

with the winning of the Revolutionary War, systemic racism plagued the 13 colonies. During the

late 18th century, the foundation of racism in America was established with the construction of

this “novel understanding” of freedom (Sesay Jr., 2016). According to Sesay, the novel

understanding of freedom was that the status of a person was determined by the situation – race –

into which they were born. This, according to Sesay, meant that “the status into which a person

was born ultimately underlay and circumscribed their capacity to shape their environment and

their future.” Simply put, race became the determinant factor of one’s ability to impact the world

and achieve their full potential. This way of understanding led to the creation of institutional

constructions throughout the entirety of U.S. history. Societal and political inventions such as

slavery, Indian boarding schools, and Jim Crow Laws did not only have substantial impacts on
people of color, they also helped establish different gender stereotypes across the various races

inhabiting the country.

In continuing this historical analysis, the conception of the various racial gender identities

becomes much more clear. Desmond and Emirbayer explain how impactful the constructions

above are on racial gender identities. For example, the establishment of slavery ultimately gave

way to the stereotype of the “black matriarch.” Ironically enough, once slaves were emancipated,

women of color lost a kind of gender equality that they experienced through the system of

slavery. Women who once “worked alongside black men, picking cotton, harvesting rice, and

swinging axes,” were now pushed into the home and held there under another form of

oppression, the patriarchy (Desmond & Emirbayer, 2016). Now viewed and treated as unequal to

their black, male counterparts, black women were forced into the home and the role of the “black

matriarch” was born.

Another example comes further down the U.S. timeline, dealing with the enactment of

Jim Crow laws and how they helped establish a stereotype that still impacts black men today.

Instituted in 1914 in every southern state and most northern cities, Jim Crow laws increased

racial tension and distaste between blacks and whites in the United States (“Jim Crow Era -

Timeline - Jim Crow Museum - Ferris State University,” n.d.). By enacting racially charged

legislation, the government granted whites the ability to further oppress and discriminate blacks.

Lynch mobs were established to “control and confine nonwhites and African Americans in

particular,” according to Desmond and Emirbayer. Lynch mobs played an important role in

creating the black male stereotypes of “brute,” “criminal,” and “thug.” Members of these mobs –

white men – would apply their own definition of rape to black men, citing rape when an African

American refused to take their hat off in front of a white woman or appeared to be too “uppity.”
The lynch mob thrived on this misconstrued and fabricated fear that black men were “violent

lecherous predators.” This fear only escalated during reconstruction and is still perpetuated in

today’s society; to this day the perception of the “black male rapist” is still thriving among white

men and women (Desmond & Emirbayer, 2016).

Throughout the course of U.S. history, racist institutional practices took a variety of

different shapes depending on the racial group the policy was targeting. Unlike the dehumanizing

and animalistic practices of slavery and Jim Crow laws, U.S. lawmakers took a different

approach with Native Americans. It became a matter of assimilation, as whites instituted a

number of measures to modernize, normalize, and “Americanize” Native Americans. In order to

ensure the assimilation of these people, education became the primary tool through which whites

could ensure Native Americans became “civilized.” American Indian children were forced from

their homes, families, and cultures, and sent to boarding schools run by Christian missionaries

and the federal government. Through this practice, Native American children were “thoroughly

indoctrinated into whiteness,” meaning their primary culture was stripped and replaced with the

Anglo-American way of life – white gender stereotypes and all (Desmond & Emirbayer, 2016).

The unfortunate reality is that a vast majority of American Indians and their culture were wiped

at the hands of whites during the early part of the United States’ youth. Regardless, the small

number of Native Americans that did survive and continued living were essentially forced to

assimilate to the dominant gender ideology established by whites in order to ensure their

livelihood.

Now that the conception of these various racial gender stereotypes has been discussed,

the next step in examining this topic is determining how big of an influence race has on gender

ideology. One way in which this influence can be measured is by analyzing gender identity
patterns in children. According to Corby, Hodges, and Perry, gender identity is made up of five

components, but one component, in particular, can be used to determine a child’s likelihood to

conform to the gender stereotypes associated with their races. This component is familial and

social pressure for gender conformity from parents, peers, or even the media (Corby, Hodges, &

Perry, 2007). The likelihood of a white, black, or Hispanic child to conform to the gender

stereotypes is important to recognize because it suggests that there might be stricter, less lenient

stereotypes which children are expected to adhere to depending on their race. Corby, Perry, and

Hodges conducted a study on whether there were racial differences in how much children

adjusted their gender identity toward the dominant ideology. They ultimately found that black

and Hispanic children “reported more pressure for gender conformity than white children did.

This relates to differences in gender stereotypes because it suggests that there are strict

disparities between male and female gender roles, particularly among people of color. The

conductors of this study admitted there were multiple forces at play and many reasons as to why

minority children tended to feel more pressure to conform. However, it was suggested that black

and Hispanic children might feel this pressure because the influence of concepts like the

patriarchy or subservience might be greater within certain racial groups, suggesting racially

influence gender stereotypes (Corby, Hodges, & Perry, 2007).

The race-based gender stereotypes detailed above suggest a correlation between U.S.

history and its effect on the dominant gender ideology. What those examples fail to do, however,

is show how strong the correlation is. To truly understand the magnitude of these various gender

ideologies, it is important to recognize contextual differences across a national condition, take

employment, for example. According to Kane, “gendered patterns of labor force experience vary

tremendously by class, but overall differences are evident by race/ethnicity as well.” Exemplified
by different employment experiences among females, Kane found three very distinct patterns for

white, African American, and Hispanic women respectively. White women historically have

“lower levels of labor force participation” and are typically more economically dependent;

African American women tend to be more independent financially, but have a harder time

finding full-time employment and “are much more likely to support families alone;” and

Hispanic women tend to be the most financially dependent on men and experience higher rates

of unemployment and poverty (Kane, 2000).

These differences in employment patterns have pushed scholars towards the expectation

that people of color typically have “more traditional gender-related attitudes than do whites.”

This includes attitudes like male dominance among Hispanics or African Americans being less

concerned about gender inequality (Kane, 2000). Kane states that with the analysis of role-

related attitudes, “it becomes clear that there are consistent variations in… gender-related

attitudes.” This suggests that one’s race has great potential to influence their probability of

conforming to various gender ideologies, dominant or not.

In a similar fashion, Kane found support for race-based gender stereotypes by exploring

racial patterns within family experiences. Patterns similar to those discovered in work experience

appeared in a familial context as well. Regardless of race, Kane found a “long tradition of male

dominance” within white, Hispanic, and African American families alike. The differences

between these races, however, arise from the severity of this tradition. Within African American

families, Kane suggests gender roles tend to take a more egalitarian form as a result of the lasting

legacy of slavery. This relates back to the idea that African Americans we treated equally as

slaves, regardless of their gender. In Hispanic households, this concept of machoism among

Hispanic men contributes to the reassertion of masculine power in a family setting. Some experts
have argued that the family is the site of gendered inequalities, enforcing and reinforcing these

roles of women and young girls. While the family has the capability to reinforce these roles,

Kane also mentions that the familial context can also be “a site of resistance to racial and ethnic

oppression rather than primarily a site of gendered inequalities.”

As previously stated, the variance in racial job experiences and familial patterns have

pushed some scholars towards the notion that “people of color hold more traditional gender-

related attitudes than do whites” (Kane, 2000). Simply put, there are differences in how certain

races view, internalize and adopt gender roles and gender-related attitudes. Unfortunately,

according to Kane, these variations – for the most part – take a speculative form. This is due to

the fact that racial variance within gender-related attitudes has yet to receive extensive attention

and study in academic research. Despite this lack of research, connections can still be made

between gender roles, differing racial attitudes towards the dominant gender ideology, and our

country’s oppressive history towards women as a whole. Whether examining social constructions

like gender, government, monogamy, or race, it is important to recall the various racist

institutional practices that have plagued the United States to see how they interact with all facets

of society. Though little research has been done surrounding gender roles and their variance

between races, the few studies highlighted in this essay shows a strong likelihood of race-based

gender roles being present in our society as seen through racial stereotypes and the likelihood of

women and young girls to conform to the dominant gender ideology.


Works Cited

Corby, B. C., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (2007). Gender Identity and Adjustment in Black,

Hispanic, and White Preadolescents. Developmental Psychology; Washington, 43(1), 261.

https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.loras.edu/10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.261

Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender Ideology: Components, Predictors, and

Consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105.

Desmond, M., & Emirbayer, M. (2016). Race in America. W. W. Norton & Company.

Jim Crow Era - Timeline - Jim Crow Museum - Ferris State University. (n.d.). Retrieved November

12, 2018, from https://ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/timeline/jimcrow.htm

Kane, E. W. (2000). Racial and Ethnic Variations in Gender-Relation Attitudes. Annual Review of

Sociology, 26, 419.

O’Malley, M. (2004). Exploring U.S. History | women and equality. Retrieved October 29, 2018,

from http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/19thcentury/womenandequality/index.php

Phillips, S. P. (2005). Defining and measuring gender: A social determinant of health whose time has

come. International Journal for Equity in Health, 4, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-4-11

Sesay Jr., C. (2016, December 7). The American Revolution, Race, and the Failed Beginning of a

Nation – AAIHS. Retrieved November 11, 2018, from https://www.aaihs.org/the-american-

revolution-race-and-the-failed-beginning-of-a-nation/

You might also like