Gender as Structure

    The article Gender as Structure, discusses the different theories that developed over time to define and explain gender stratification. The author argues that the biological and the learning-gender- during-childhood approaches only partly explain gender stratification in today's American society. She insists that gender definition is more a structural issue, defined by the informal limits and expectations of society and its institutions and that individuals, even though they are convinced that the prevalent kind of gender division and differentiation is not fair, end up 'doing gender' in order to fit in to facilitate the passing of their own roles and behaviors in society, family and workplace.
Barbara Risman offers plenty of examples for her theory. She explains that even the equal-salary wife will still consider house and children to be more of her duty than her husband’s; while society and environment will actively and subconsciously support this view by penalizing her -not her husband- for a cluttered, unorganized household, or a sloppily dressed husband and children. Women are until today lacking the networking support in male dominated or even mixed gender work environments. This exclusion often results in a slower career path and less wage for the same job. Risman mentions that men are able to take over the nurturing role in a family, but will only do so, if no female member is available to it.

    Structural gender inequalities are even more prevalent for women, who find themselves as the sole nurturing part and only provider for themselves and their children. Women do step up and meet the requirements of this task, but because of the constraints of their situation, they tend to be considered limited by a different degree of availability and commitment in their workplace; serving two organizations - family and workplace as the sole representative - takes a toll on both sides.
I just happened to read an interesting article about this in Al Jazeera lately titled "Mothers are not opting out, they are out of options" (Aug. 19, 2013;  http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/201381615448464851.html).  The author Sarah Kendzior suggests the following: ' The irony of American motherhood is that the politician and corporations, who hold power do have a choice in how they treat mothers and their children. Yet they act as if they are held hostages to intractable policies and market forces, excusing the incompetence and corporate malfeasance that drain our households dry. Mothers can emulate them and treat "choice" as an individual burden - or we can work together and push for accountability and reform. This option is not easy. But we are used to that.' It is telling that Kendzior points the responsibility to the workplace, specifying that there is no "war of motherhood, but a war of money", the struggle is about financial means to sustain a family in difficult economic times. As much as I agree that businesses are under the limitation of requirements for success and profit, it is obvious that these core targets are often used as an excuse to circumvent the effort of a fairer work environment, more adapted to the needs of its female players. Equality was a catchphrase that might have worked well in the beginning when disenfranchised masses of women had nothing but to gain through a movement granting them the same rights (and burdens) as the male participants of the game. However, time has shown that this has not resolved the entire problem. Women are more burdened these days, but did fail to achieve the same status or consideration as their male counterparts, because 'equal' does in no way cater to their needs. Women are in a fundamentally different situation than men, and therefore deserve and need other changes in society that cater to their needs specifically. There have been examples for creating women friendly work environments in other cultures that cater to the women's' needs without cutting short their pay as a result of considering them less available or less committed to their jobs. A greater acceptance and understanding within the society is either preexistent or occurs after these measures have been taken, as in the example of Sweden or Denmark, which offers affordable child care on the workplace and generous parental leave, or Egypt, where women have family friendly work hours and their jobs are reserved during extended parental leaves. Other countries have similar models.

    However, as much as workforce is a decisive location in Western culture, where a person's value is defined through the amount of her pay check and the value of her possessions and assets, a re-orientation in gender-stratification can only happen in thorough re-evaluation of typical female roles and occupations like motherhood, childrearing and house making. As long as these occupations are undervalued (because they tend to cost instead of acquire financial means), and their long term benefit for the society as a whole is denied or trivialized, the social change of perspective will always limb behind the institutional one and might hinder it in the long term.
The article "Mommy Tax' reinforces this reality. Concerning equal education and equal job-opportunities, maybe even equal pay, a young woman without child can claim that gender equality has been achieved. This comes to a sudden end though, once she becomes a mother. Immediately she will be categorized as part of the ‘unreliable and under-committed’ work force of those, who have 'other priorities in life'.

    The author explores the cost of motherhood, the’ mommy tax’, which she concludes is the amount of lost wages over a woman's life time for having a child; she puts the amount for lower middle to middle class at $600.000 to far over a 1 million dollars. What is very interesting is that she -opposed to the usual practice - calculates the amount a woman makes of a man's dollar, by including the female workforce that does not work (like men) all year round and full time, but considers the reality of many mothers, who have to settle for one or several part time jobs; her result is that in this case women make just 60 cents off a man's dollar. She particularly points to the weak paternal leave regulations in the United States and to how they consequently affect together with part-time work for a certain period of time to make time for child rearing and family care the income gap between male and female colleagues in an academic setting, where she detects a gap up to 40%. She also explains that the inequality that workers face as part-time workers versus full-time workers in terms of pay can be as high as 40%, while about 65% of mothers are compelled to work in part-time jobs because of their situation. As solutions, the author, Ann Crittenden, suggests similar benefits, like those European women receive in countries like Scandinavia and France, or those received at some point by American veterans of the army as well as laws dedicated to prevent women from slipping into the lower pay-category of part-time work for the same job she did before on a full-time level pay. But it is questionable if these laws will hold up in reality without causing them unemployment. Government handouts exist, but are not targeting mothers in particular. So the ultimate solution to women’s dilemma is to 'be a man', to embrace her rights to equality by embracing the life style of a man, without children. This reality so far, according to the author has forced a quarter of her generation to deny themselves the natural privilege of motherhood in a society where being a mother has become nothing else but a calculation of lost profit and a careful balancing act on the edge of poverty.

    Another example that plays into gender inequality that continued to exist in the 'age of equality' is the article on the subject of the decline of the date in favor of hook-ups. From the male perspective, being able to take women out for dates, instead of having to earn approval of the of the woman in question, who was in the past to be courted in her home under the watchful eyes of her relatives, was clearly a gain. He did have less levels of 'testing' to go through and had only to convince the woman at his side, instead of being subject of approval by others, who in the ideal case had the woman's interest at heart. Now, the date, which was the period of acceptance through the woman of the man, is becoming largely replaced by casual non-binding encounters with sexual context, which once more leaves the women's interest, her sexual satisfaction, behind the male's one. While we cannot deny the risk she is taking by these practices, be it the risk to become pregnant without a committed partner or the risk of contracting stds (as the risk of oral sex is on the side of the one performing it, and the statistics point to the fact that this is the woman in most cases), what is especially problematic, is that she also takes the risk of damaging her reputation, as what ‘She’ does is in no way considered equal to what ‘He’ does. So under the pretext of equality, inequality is again a blatant reality.

    Another phenomena of seeming equality is addressed in "Drink like a Guy', a study about the binge drinking habits and the underlying motivations of female undergraduate students. An increasing part of these students appear to involve in heavy alcohol consume in order to gain a certain status within the male groups they like to hang out with. This part of the female campus population developed drinking strategies and alcohol tolerance levels to be able to do ‘as the guys do’, but for different reasons. While their male counterparts drink to prove their masculinity, strength and endurance, these girls drink, because they are looking for a sense of belonging and approval for their ability to 'have fun with. They thereby ignore the health risks, which are found to be relatively higher for women, as well as the dangers of abuse in a heterosexual context. By being deceived into thinking that heavy drinking for women is widely acceptable and appreciated in their group of male peers, these women might look like there is a sense of equality in the social acceptance of alcohol abuse. However, it rapidly becomes clear that the girl does not want to be a guy, but uses the preference of the male members of the group for a girl, who can drink like him, to achieve a particular closeness to and recognition by the male members, which positions her seemingly above the 'girly girls'.
This article made me cringe for several reasons, first because of the alcohol consumption that in itself is nothing worth of an achievement, as it is something that can not involve any gain, but only loss for all those involved. Secondly, it is seemingly ridiculous, that women would aspire equality in such a destructive habit, and would accept to be followers, instead of opposing this obviously bad habit. Thirdly, looking closely at the motives and apparent gains that these women pursue versus the dangers they expose themselves to willingly for the gain of some male recognition makes them look mentally and emotionally dependent on male approval; because in the end, what kind of advantage are we talking about here? The advantage to be in a position to hang out with a bunch of drunks and eventually possibly being chosen as a girlfriend over a ‘girly girl’ for some time?! As much as I can understand the underlying motivations for this behavior, it ultimately is a sign of weakness, not of strength. If women are ready to follow any kind of behavior for the sake of being liked by men, the behavior in this case of the female part is weakening her identity and social status, not causing her to grow stronger or independent.