When did gender roles start
Gender Roles: What Are They?
Written by Julian Selemin
Medically Reviewed by Poonam Sachdev on June 27, 2022
In this Article
- What Are Gender Roles?
- What Causes Gender Roles?
- What Are Some Modern Examples of Gender Roles in Society?
- How Do I Overcome Stereotypes?
Gender roles are stereotypes regarding attitudes, attributes, and actions imposed on men and women based on gender. These kinds of preconceptions are usually harmful to society — yet, understanding what they are and their history is crucial to overcoming them.
Here’s what you need to know.
What Are Gender Roles?
Gender stereotypes are a set of preconceptions regarding the role of a certain gender in society. These characteristics are then attributed to every person of that gender, often causing individuals harm and distress. Gender roles perpetuate inequality and greatly affect minorities that may not be in a position to reject these stereotypes.
Although at first glance many of these gender stereotypes may not seem harmful, they often cause damage anyways. For example, a common stereotype is that women should be nurturing mothers and caregivers. While this may not sound too bad, it can lead to women being excessively burdened with social responsibilities.
Other common gender roles are much more hurtful and discriminatory, such as men having sexual ownership over their wives. Naturally, these aggressive stereotypes have been getting less and less prevalent— yet, they are still common in certain parts of the world.
Whether a specific stereotype is aggressive or not at first glance, they all cause similar amounts of damage in the long run. Gender role-related consequences can show up in many ways — for example, often, little girls are deprived of going to school due to their gender. Other, similar gender-related problems often affect hospitals and workplaces.
Yet, arguably the biggest problem with gender roles comes in the form of gender-based violence.
Attacks on women can be motivated by sexual or ideological reasonings, but many of them stem from hurtful gender roles and stereotypes.
What Causes Gender Roles?
Experts often discuss the origin of gender roles — while many attribute them to biological factors, others point out that it all comes from sociological aspects. Whatever may be the case, it’s clear that gender roles as we know them today mostly originated during the Victorian era.
The Victorian era, which comprises most of the 19th century, was characterized by strong ideas regarding the roles of each gender in society. Mostly, men were expected to present themselves in public spheres, such as politics and business. Women were expected to stay at home, taking care of the private sphere.
While not all women and men abided by these stereotypes, the majority of them did, meaning that those who didn’t were seen in a bad light. For example, the term “New Woman” was often used to insult women who fought for their right to higher education and voting.
Eventually, different areas across all continents started rejecting colonialism, embracing new ideas regarding gender roles in society. Because pre-colonialist societies often had men and women working together, the new Victorian ideology was strongly rejected. This way, many movements came together, merging political and economic claims, along with gender-related ideas.
Another key element in the history of gender stereotyping is Marxism, which is the cornerstone of many postmodern philosophies. Marx, in his theory, saw all humans as equal, without regard for gender or class.
Along with nationalism, which also embraced new gender roles, these phenomena came together and gradually toppled Victorian gender stereotypes. For example, figures such as Lady Liberty came to represent, partly, the proposed new freedom for women.
However, this battle wasn’t entirely successful. Gender stereotyping is still prevalent across modern societies, as Victorian gender roles haven’t fully disappeared yet.
What Are Some Modern Examples of Gender Roles in Society?
Gender roles vary greatly depending on where you live, as stereotypes differ among countries and cultures. However, there are a few general guidelines you can keep in mind. These are some of the most common gender stereotypes.
Women in the kitchen. One of the most common and hurtful stereotypes is that women should be the ones taking care of the cooking. For example, while men are expected to leave the house to work a job, women are expected to welcome them back with prepared meals.
Domestic chores. In the same vein, some societies also expect women to take care of most of the chores related to the household. Because they should be the ones staying at home, things like cleaning, taking care of the kids, and similar tasks fall to them.
Masculinity. The idea of masculinity is a stereotype imposed on men, as they are expected to be strong, muscular, and tall.
Personality-wise, this stereotype dictates that men should de dominant and aggressive, never leaving room for more measured or sensible thoughts.
Work and aspirations. Men are often expected to occupy hard and public jobs, while women are thought of as being more suited for nurturing jobs. For example, one might think of men as pilots or doctors, while women may be expected to be nurses or teachers.
Naturally, this isn’t a full list of the stereotypes. Plus, depending on where you live, some of these may not even seem prevalent at all. Yet, these are common stereotypes that have survived the Victorian era, despite the many battles for gender-related freedoms.
How Do I Overcome Stereotypes?
Overcoming the gender roles assigned to you can be a difficult task — yet, it’s an important step to avoid feeling oppressed by these topics. Speaking out at work when you notice discrimination and sharing your story can be helpful both for you and the victims.
If you find yourself unable to accomplish that, supporting campaigns that share these ideas is a great way to help.
One of the most important aspects of overcoming gender roles is education. Children are sensitive to ideas such as stereotypes, so it’s crucial to make them understand, through teaching and playing, that women and men are equal.
As a parent, you can try to:
- Let your child play with any toy regardless of the assigned gender for that activity — trucks, for example, are commonly thought of as a boys-only thing but can be enjoyed by girls as well.
- Assign chores equally among your children — for example, try letting your son cook and let your daughter help you with fixing something.
- Join your children for an activity that’s not usually associated with your gender — if you’re a man, you could try getting your nails done with your daughter.
- Give an example of how to deal with gender stereotypes — many people are used to not giving respect to an authority figure if she’s a woman, so try giving the opposite example.
It’s normal to feel like these changes aren’t making a difference — however, in the long run, all of these attitudes matter. Through a constant battle against gender roles, society may one day be able to break free of harmful stereotypes imposed on both men and women.
A Simple Way to Understand the Origin of Gender Roles
As evidenced by the infamous Google Memo debacle a few years ago, there is much confusion in our society regarding the best way to think about gender similarities and differences. From the vantage point of the unified theory, people are generally using only two “vectors” in thinking about sex and gender, when the reality is that we need three.
The two vectors are the so-called "biological" and "social" forces. The biological generally refers to the genetic, physiological, evolutionary, and hormonal “nature” dimension, whereas societal roles, norms, ideals, and expectations for how men and women ought to act form the "social force" dimension.
What is missing in this analysis is a clear understanding of the human mental architecture that is neither a purely "biological" nor "social" force.
A recent article in the American Psychologist on gender stereotypes makes the problem clear. Alice Eagly and colleagues examined the gender stereotypes of people in the United State from 1946 to 2018.
Specifically, Eagly et al. examined perceptions of men and women on agency, which the authors define as the tendency to “orient toward the self and one’s own mastery and goal attainment (e.g., ambitious, assertive, competitive),” and communion, which the authors define as the tendency to orient toward the “other and their well-being (e.g., compassionate, warm, expressive).” The authors note: “Communion prevails in the female stereotype, and agency in the male stereotype.”
Consistent with my point above about "biology" versus "society," the Eagly article explains that there are two primary ways of understanding why people tend to see men as more agentic and women more communal.
They state: “Although some people ascribe such trait essences to biology, others instead ascribe them to socialization and social position in society” (Rangel & Keller, 2011).
The article does not explore human mental architecture, nor core mental relational tendencies, like attachment style. For the article, the authors examined stereotypes on agency and communion over 50+ years in the U.S. They also included a third construct, competency (i.e., the extent to which men or women were perceived as the generally more or less competent or intelligent). What did they find?
Over the years, women were seen as increasingly more competent, such that they now are rated as the more competent and intelligent group. We should note that this is an interesting and somewhat counterintuitive finding, given the claims by some that modern society is pervasively sexist. I agree with Eagly et al.'s interpretation of this finding, which is that as women have been given the freedom to attain and have now regularly outpaced men in things like educational attainment, people are evaluating their general competence accordingly.
Our primary focus here is on the agency and communion variables. Given the remarkable change in attitudes toward gender in the last 50 years, and the huge societal push to see men and women as having no essential (i.e., nonsocially constructed) differences, and all the work to challenge gender stereotypes and move away from a socially constructed gender binary, it seems to me that a basic, straightforward prediction would be that the differences between the stereotypes that people have about men being more agentic and women being more communal would be expected to go way down.
After all, if we are awakening to the idea that the gender identity binary is simply a function of the social construction of reality, then shouldn't our newfound freedom allow us to be unshackled from these primitive notions and allow people to toss off the shell of rules imposed upon them by society?
What did the study find? A massive convergence, stemming from enlightenment about the true nature of gender as a social construction? Not at all.
In fact, they found basically the opposite.
The perceived differences between men and women increased over the years. Women are now seen as even more communal, whereas men generally stayed the same on their perceived agentic advantage. This means that the perceived distance between the key personality features of the two genders is now even greater than 50 years ago.
In the words of the authors: “In sum, U.S. poll data show that it is only in competence that gender equality has come to dominate people’s thinking about women and men. For qualities of personality, the past 73 years have produced an accentuated stereotype of women as the more communal sex, with men retaining their agency advantage."
The authors used tortured logic to try to defend their social role construction view that “gender stereotypes stem from people’s direct and indirect observations of women and men in their social roles.” Although clearly social roles play a huge part in how people experience their gender and sexuality, from the vantage point of the unified theory, it is not the primary origin/source of the gender differences (see here, here, and here for analyses of gender from this perspective).
So what is the source of the gender differences in agency and communion? On aggregate, human males and females have different relational tendencies.
Just as the description of agency suggests, on average men tend to be more “self-over-other” oriented, whereas on average women are more “other-over-self” (i.e., communal). (Hopefully, readers will be clear that aggregate claims of population-level differences are different than claims about specific individuals).
This is not hard to understand when we map the human relationship system using the "Influence Matrix." The Influence Matrix says that humans have an intuitive mental architecture that (pre-verbally) guides their perceptual-motivational-emotional ways of being the world in relation to others.
Specifically, we humans automatically and intuitively map our place in the “social influence matrix.” That is, we are constantly tracking self-in-relation-to-other, and use that to act accordingly. Here is the map.
The Influence Matrix
Source: Gregg Henriques
The idea is that folks perceive self-in-relation-to-other on these dimensions.
We track first our "relational value and social influence," which is the black line. And we also track our relative power (dominance-submission), love (affiliation-hostility), and freedom (autonomy-dependency).
How we see ourselves in relation to others on these process dimensions plays a guiding role in navigating the social world. It is important to note that basically all scholars of the human condition agree that humans are social animals and that they care about things like attachment and love and status and power.
And it is generally agreed that these drives are not socially constructed, but are at the core of our structure and existed long before modern society. From this vantage point, it is a function of our mental structure rather than our "socialization" that gives rise to patterns like the fact that if we don't experience high relational value in our development, then we are much more likely to get depressed (see here).
Directly relevant to the issue at hand, we see the Influence Matrix includes two “self-other” quadrants, one of which is the upper left corner and the other is the lower right.
The upper left is “self over other” and emphasizes the poles of dominance, autonomy (i.e., independent goal attainment), and hostility. The lower right, aka the “other over self,” quadrant emphasizes affiliation, dependence (i.e., longing for connection and need for approval), and submissive deference to others.
In other words, the Influence Matrix clearly maps the core representations of the central features of "agency" and "communion."
It is essential that we recognize that this human mental architecture existed long before the social construction of reality (which is perhaps only 50,000 to 150,000 years old), and is certainly much older than ideas about what is socially justifiable for how men and women should act in the 21st century.
The Matrix goes back to a time when we were primates rather than persons; thus we are talking about tens of millions of years. The Influence Matrix analysis directly accounts for the counterintuitive finding from the Eagly article and provides a frame that explains why gender stereotypes are so "robust" (to use their word).
To begin with, the Matrix explains in a direct and straightforward way why there are “self-over-other” and “other-over-self” tendencies and archetypes in the first place. Notice, this says nothing about males/masculinity or females/femininity per se. It simply says something about the mental architecture needed to navigate the social world. However, we can then use basic logic to understand why, on aggregate, males/men tend toward the former and females/women the latter.
For example, long before we were humans, females were giving birth and taking care of their young. Is it any surprise at all that their architecture would be more relationally oriented? My point is that we can analyze the general relational features of being a male and female human primate and see that males tend to lean relatively more toward self-over-other, whereas females tend to lean toward other-over-self.
This analysis means that Eagly et al have the explanatory sequence backward. Rather than social roles driving the perception of difference, it is clear from this analysis that the mental architecture is prior, and is the primary driver of the personality differences and people's perception of them.
As such, the Matrix helps explain other "counterintuitive" findings about gender role/job preferences, like the Nordic gender-equity paradox, which is the finding that greater gender equity in social roles and expectations is associated with greater (not lesser) divergence in things like employment preferences.
The real point is that our society is painfully confused in its understanding of sex and gender differences (and similarities!). A core reason for our confusion is we have an unhelpful "biology" versus "sociology" binary—as if these are the only two forces, and we need to choose either one or the other.
Of course, in the real world, forces are interacting all over the place. Moreover, there are "mental" forces that are neither "biological" nor "social." Rather, we need a clear analysis of the animal-mental dimension of complexity, which as the Tree of Knowledge shows us, is its own plane of complex adaptive behavior and is different from both the "Cell-Life" biological plane and "Person-Culture" societal plane.
By mapping the mental architecture of the human relationship system, the Influence Matrix fills in the missing piece of the puzzle. With it, perhaps we can achieve more light and less heat on this polarizing issue.
How gender roles are changing: Irina Tartakovskaya explains
When will Russia have a woman president? Is it possible to get rid of sexism? How are the roles of men and women changing in the family and at work? As part of a joint project between InLiberty and Afisha, Ekaterina Dementieva, editor-in-chief of Afisha Daily, spoke with sociologist Irina Tartakovskaya.
Dementieva. Today I have the role of an ignorant but very inquisitive non-specialist, and I cannot help but ask a question about Trump's victory (the conversation took place on the day the results of the US presidential election were announced. - Note ed. ). One point of view is: Trump is sexist, horror, it's a shame and disgrace, progressive gender politics will roll back.
Tartakovskaya. Trump's sexism cost him some female votes, but as we can see, nothing fundamental happened. They chose a Republican president because there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the rule of the Democrats. I think the motives of the voters were pragmatic. Will it stop the development of gender relations that we can observe today in the United States? Unlikely. The President of the United States is a very influential politician, but not necessarily a sex symbol and role model. nine0003
Dementieva. Until last night, Hillary's victory seemed to be a settled matter. In Russia, can you imagine a strong presidential candidate in the horizon of 10 years - a woman? If at all it is possible to present any candidate other than the one already known to us.
Tartakovskaya. This is a very important clarification. In order to present a woman as a presidential candidate, one must first imagine a political competition in which new or perhaps well-known, but not so influential figures will emerge.
This is the first condition. In general, before a woman was seriously considered as a candidate for the US presidency, for several decades there were female heads of the State Department, for example, Condoleezza Rice. If there were more such major players in Russia and people in general with political independence and political influence in principle, a woman could be considered. There is nothing in Russian society that could make this assumption absurd and impossible. nine0003
Dementieva. We have women politicians - or at least women in positions of responsibility. There is Elvira Nabiullina - I don’t know if she can be called a politician, but, of course, Irina Yarovaya can be called a politician. There is also a powerful minister, Olga Golodets, and the new Olga Vasilyeva. There is an ambitious politician Oksana Dmitrieva, there is a bright figure - Maria Zakharova. Maybe our government is more progressive than business?
Tartakovskaya .
Firstly, women in the government are still a clearly expressed minority, and secondly, Golodets and Vasilyeva represent industries that are traditionally associated with female labor. Most of the employees of the pedagogical corps are women, medicine is the same. Nabiullina is a slightly different case. nine0003
In fact, there are still few women in the government - despite the fact that they basically make up more than half of the population of Russia, and their level of education is still higher than that of men. This is a Russian specificity that appeared in Soviet times.
When it comes to business, the picture is also changing there. Now everything is focused on efficiency. If a person successfully occupies a certain position, then it does not matter whether it is a man or a woman. As one respondent in my study put it: “Let it be at least it, as long as it drags work.” Of course, the glass ceiling still exists, but it is loosened. nine0003
Dementieva .
What companies did you study? Are these some well-known brands whose products we use every day?
Tartakovskaya . I was interested in women - middle managers, although there were also several top managers and members of the board of directors. These are Russian and Western companies that are present not only in Moscow, but also in provincial cities. I wanted to get the big picture.
I asked both women and men because I was interested in men who are in the same social status as the control group, how they got to life like this, how they chose their profession, how they combine it with other aspects of life, with family first of all, with private life (working conditions - a very long working day, business trips, a high degree of return, competition). nine0003
What did you find out? Women who made a career existed back in Soviet times, in the 90s, etc. Then they had to make excuses all the time for devoting so much time to work and career, and talk about whether this was going to the detriment of the family.
In interviews given by various public figures, this could often be heard. Ella Pamfilova, when she was still a minister, said: "I still iron my husband's shirts." It was important to say it.
In the last 7–10 years, the situation began to change. The young women I spoke to who have reached high positions in business no longer experience this feeling of guilt. They normally relate to the fact that a nanny takes care of the child, they expect their husband to participate in private life, they are highly career motivated. nine0003
Dementieva. Does this have some purely Marxist explanation? Roughly speaking, if you receive 10 thousand euros a month, then you are not so ashamed.
Tartakovskaya. 10 thousand euros is, of course, very good. Now a fairly pragmatic civilization, and the possession of resources is a plus in any case, including for the partner of a girl with such a salary. But at the same time, gender culture itself is changing.
The concept of female success is changing, which previously for many women was associated primarily with the family, with what is called female self-realization. Now more and more it is the definition of success in the same sense as it is expected of men: a career, the ability to influence events, the possession of resources. A woman who has all this is now no longer perceived as a rare case, she is perceived as a successful, bright woman, an attractive example. nine0003
Dementieva. I would like not only to protect women in their striving for success, but also to support men in the absence of such striving. After all, there are probably a lot of men who do not want to achieve anything superhuman, but dream of pouring coffee or selling vinyl records, but then playing the notorious tennis with their children every day, and not on Sundays.
Tartakovskaya. Modern society is still more or less merciless towards such men. This is a very important topic, because the norm of masculinity is very rigid.
In this sense, in the modern world, the number of acceptable, attractive models of female behavior is much greater than that of male ones. If a woman pursues a career that is considered traditionally masculine, she is at least respected, and if she retains certain traits of traditional femininity, she is admired. If a man makes a career or other life choices that are traditionally considered feminine, he will not cause either respect or admiration - moreover, he will be subjected to quite strong psychological pressure, including - with a high degree of probability - from his wife or partner . Most women are not ready to accept freedom of choice, gender equality in this aspect. nine0003
Dementieva. Many of us come from the October and in general from the 20th century, a very tough time of world wars, communist repressions, prison culture, kid culture, etc. This is what we jumped into early capitalism with. What kind of people were we then? Is it possible to compare us with the current 15-18-year-olds, who seem to be much easier and more pleasant people?
Tartakovskaya.
Here we need to start from the Soviet era, because the gender relations that we have now are to a large extent the product of a targeted gender policy of the state. Sociologists Elena Zdravomyslova and Anna Temkina wrote a very good program work about this at one time. The main model of behavior, the gender contract, as sociologists call it, is the working mother. She must have children. As you know, abortion was banned for a long time in Soviet times, and now this topic is being raised again. The woman had to work. She had to deal with both. nine0003
And what side of life will be the main one, it was not she who decided herself, but the social cell in which she found herself at the moment. If society needed working hands, then all mothers worked, maternity leave was very short. At the beginning of the Soviet project, there was such an idea that children were sent to a nursery almost immediately, motherhood was very politicized. There was a very interesting Soviet magazine “Protection of Motherhood and Childhood”, where they wrote a bunch of political articles: they say that the first word for children who are born in our country is not “mother”, but “Lenin”.
nine0003
Dementieva. Decree is a very interesting topic that the new Russian capitalism deals with in its own way. It is believed that in Russia soft legislation, the employer must pay one and a half years of maternity leave. That is why girls who come to a new company are asked: “Are you 23, when are you going to give birth?” If someone says that in a year, she is answered that she is not in their company. There is a state that offers the employer to pay for this long maternity leave. There is an employer who does not want to do this - accordingly, does not hire a girl. It turns out some kind of vicious circle: everyone suffers, but the girl is the most. nine0003
Tartakovskaya. This is also a question of legislation, although gender equality is constitutionally enshrined in Russia and labor legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, but there are no real legislative mechanisms that would guarantee the implementation of the ILO convention, etc.
The special law on gender equality, which was developed by the previous parliament, has not been adopted in Russia, although it has been adopted in all CIS countries. A man can go on maternity leave under Russian law and receive money for it. There is a law on employees with parental responsibilities. nine0003
Dementieva. Do many people use it?
Tartakovskaya. Few, these are individual percentages. The simplest reason is that, as a rule, men's earnings are higher than women's, and stopping the career of the main breadwinner is simply unprofitable for the family. On the other hand, the child needs to be taken care of, and the mother is more competent in this regard. Girls are brought up to have these competencies, or at least they are expected to be better at it. Of course, stereotypes also play a role. Saying “I am a man and will be on maternity leave” is a courageous act so far. nine0003
Paternity also changes. Now there is a much greater degree of involvement of men in relationships with children, many are present at childbirth, take part in the lives of children from an early age, this is a value for them, an important emotional resource.
From here, there are a few steps to being on maternity leave, if it is more convenient for the family.
Dementieva. Russian traditionalist deputies like to cite Scandinavia as an example, where many take maternity leave, while women continue to work. And they usually talk about it in the sense: “Why are you looking at the West, where women open doors for themselves and pay in a restaurant. Do you want that too?" At the same time, it is always silent that, in addition to doors and restaurants, there are completely different compensations, for the sake of which I am personally ready not only for a door and a restaurant, but also for many other things. Could you explain what an equally cynical but more enlightened European employer is doing to uphold women's rights? nine0003
Tartakovskaya. If we are talking about the Scandinavian countries, there, despite the cynicism of employers, there is still very strong social legislation. This is the role of the state, the role of society, which actively influences this state.
These maternity leaves and certain pressure, encouragement for men to go on these holidays too. In the Scandinavian states, there is some idea of what kind of relationship is right, these are egalitarian relations, these are relations connected by great attention to children and good conditions for them. In addition, there are excellent children's and preschool institutions, that is, a lot of things are invested both in children and in fair, comfortable social relations. This is an element of the welfare policy. nine0003
Dementieva. Which labor relations problem do you think will be more serious in the coming years? Is it harder for women to find a job than men, or will it be harder for both women and men to find a job after age 45 or 50?
Tartakovskaya. Unless there is some serious conservative turnaround, age discrimination will be stronger than gender discrimination. Although this situation is changing. In the 2000s, and especially in the 1990s, people over 40 were perceived as unpromising - of both sexes.
This devaluation of a worker, a person over a certain age, occurred critically early. Now it has become better - again, because there are not enough specialists, nevertheless, there is such a trend. nine0003
Dementieva. Are there other areas where women are simply reluctant to take - I'm not talking about very hard physical labor now?
Tartakovskaya. There are fewer of them. The army is the simplest traditional field, hyper-masculine, and it remains so to a greater extent, although in some capacity women have always worked in this military machine.
Dementieva . Evgenia Vasilyeva, for example.
Tartakovskaya. Yes. There is some infiltration of women there. Not so long ago, I flew on a plane where the crew commander was a woman, also a very unusual phenomenon. I even remember the name, Tatyana Romanova, she landed the plane perfectly. nine0003
But with men who would be engaged in women's professions, everything is worse, society is not ready to accept them.
Babysitters, for example, are not very sure that there will be many such families who will be delighted if a young man comes, they will immediately begin to suspect him of something: at least in incompetence, at most in something worse. On the other hand, traditionally women's professional fields are always less paid, they are still less prestigious, so there is not much point for men to strive there either. nine0003
Dementieva . Just like in the army.
Tartakovskaya. It happens differently in the army, you can make a career in the army, there is a good social package, pension. What makes the army attractive to men is not only masculinity, not only the opportunity to show oneself as a real man, but also pragmatic motives.
Dementieva. There is a thing that has always surprised me. On the Internet, the main argument is: "A woman can never be equal to a man, because she is weaker, runs slower, etc." Okay, the physical parameters are different, although with the current level of fitness service, I would not be surprised if this changes in 20 years.
But there is another argument about psychological characteristics. Most often, this means that a woman is not so calm, more emotional. nine0003
Tartakovskaya. First, there are many men who react emotionally to various situations at work. On the other hand, it's not necessarily a bad thing. Research in the corporate world shows that there is an individual style of communication. It may differ for women and men, but both women and men make a certain resource out of it. In the same way, it is stereotypically believed that a woman can be a better communicator - this is a moot point. The point is not that someone is inclined, due to their upbringing or according to the models that are accepted in society, to express emotions more freely, the question is how to manage these emotions. This may well be to the benefit of the case, this is not necessarily a problem. nine0003
Dementieva. From the point of view of feminism, is it correct to condemn a man who left a family with children, or should I say that it doesn’t matter, a woman is her own mistress, can she get out?
Tartakovskaya.
This is always a case question. Relationships and situations are very different. Speaking in the most general terms, what is the point here? There are common children in the family, the responsibility for which is borne by both parents. They must somehow agree that after the people parted, the responsibility for raising children still lies with both parents. nine0003
Dementieva. Again, women also cannot infringe on men's rights to see their children, as is often the case in Russia?
Tartakovskaya. They shouldn't do that. In a number of countries, there is legislation that obliges men who have left the family to pay alimony not only in favor of children, but also in favor of their wife, for example, if the children are already adults, based on the fact that, while taking care of children, a woman may have sacrificed her career. Each case is considered separately. There is no such law in Russia. nine0003
Dementieva.
Now let's go to the very bottom. The bottom is old-fashioned radio stations like Humor.fm, where half of the jokes, rather vile ones, are about the fact that women are clumsy, loud, shrill clumsies, but "all the same, women, we love you." If you look at the VKontakte memes, which are also vile in many cases, there are no such stupid jokes. I have a feeling that today's children and teenagers don't joke so much about a stupid wife anymore. Why does Russian humor, which is especially popular with taxi drivers, who are shouted at by the dispatcher, exploit the gender issue in such a way? nine0003
Tartakovskaya. VKontakte is a very large field, you can find a lot there, including a lot of vile jokes. But what is the important difference? It's one thing when this program is staged, it focuses on being liked: its authors try to find those forms that are familiar to those who listen to it. In real life, people communicate differently. In social networks, real people communicate with each other, nothing will make them endure those jokes that they do not want to endure.
A person who jokes unsuccessfully will receive such feedback that it will not seem enough. There is a kind of survival environment there, which forms those forms of communication that are closer to real life - in contrast to what is specially broadcast in some media forms. nine0003
Dementieva. That is, if the Comedy Club humorist were to seriously write this on his Facebook, then he would immediately be pecked at by a diverse community of his friends and not friends?
Tartakovskaya. Most likely, yes. And strangers who would come to him there. When you get an answer, it always brings you back to real life.
Dementieva. It's 2016 and we're still seeing articles in "How to Tame Him Forever" magazines or invitations to "How to Breed Him to Make Million Gifts" courses. Why is it still popular? nine0003
Tartakovskaya. This manipulation is a very big topic in gender relations. Manipulation is the power of the weak.
When resources are unevenly distributed, then the person who has fewer resources develops a certain strategy to improve his life chances in order to live better. Observing public morals, one can come to the conclusion that it is more difficult to earn some amount of money by competition and a fair fight than to find a partner who will earn money for you and share it with you. nine0003
No one gives away resources for nothing either. Because they do something good to you, they expect you to do something good too, and it’s not a fact that you will agree. This is an unhealthy relationship message that creates a lot of the gender tension we see in Russia. We have a very high divorce rate, one of the highest in the world, with more than every second marriage ending in divorce. The mutual dissatisfaction of representatives of the genders with each other is obvious. I think that communication through manipulation plays a big role in this. nine0003
The next lecture as part of the I Can Speak project (historian Andrey Zorin will talk about how Russian emotional culture has changed) will take place on December 8.
You can register here.
Gender for dummies - short course
Gender for Dummies - A Short Course | Colta.ruApril 8, 2016Colta SpecialsGender
202900
Masculinity for Dummies: Final Lecture Masculinity for Dummies: Modern Fatherhood Masculinity for Dummies: Working Class Men Masculinity for Dummies: Male Homosexuality Masculinity for Dummies: Men, Relationships and Sex Masculinity for Dummies: Let's Talk About Violence Masculinity for Dummies: How to Become Men Masculinity: What Does It Mean Today? Gender for dummies: what is fatherhoodGender for dummies: violenceGender for dummies: what is masculinityGender for dummies: feminism in Russia and in the world
COLTA.
RU presents a new project - we hope that it will be the beginning of a large and meaningful conversation about subjects that the Russian society prefers not to notice or misunderstand.
How to recognize sexism and not fall into it yourself? How to find your own "-ism" and learn how to navigate in today's gender diversity? What is this “gender” anyway? About this and much more - a short course "Gender for Dummies", where the best Russian experts, researchers and practitioners, sociologists and demographers, experts in the fields of gender equality, the rights and duties of men and women understand our internal contradictions. nine0008
Our first expert is Elena Zdravomyslova, sociologist, professor at the European University at St. Petersburg, co-director of the gender studies program.
What is gender?
Patriarchy
How are gender roles formed?
Conservative turn
Conservative turn (continued)
What is gender?
Back to list
Gender is a foreign word, it has Latin roots.
And it came to the Russian language from the English language. In English it sounds "djende". This word is introduced into the sciences, and the first person to do this is the psychiatrist, psychologist and psychoanalyst Stoller. He is 1968 writes a book called " Gender and sex" . He proposes to precisely separate the biological characteristics of a person, his sexual characteristics (what in English will be called sex ) and gender - that which is socially organized and socially constructed. He does it in the 68th year. In fact, researchers use this term even earlier, but it was Stoller who got this idea, he is the discoverer of this term. This term is actively beginning to be used by feminist researchers, researchers of women's experience, in gender studies. nine0003
Research became known as gender, from the word "jende". Because, in fact, their focus is on the study of socially constructed relationships, groups defined by gender.
That's what gender is. The term “gender” first appeared in Russia at the very end of the 1980s. Gender in English is a grammatical gender. In Russian there is also a grammatical category of gender. And why not then use the category of gender, explaining the social organization of relations between the sexes? It was very important to designate this range of research interests through a term that is not associated with other obscure and misleading phenomena and discursive formations. Therefore, "gender". nine0003
Researchers and ordinary people sensitive to this issue began to discuss issues of gender discrimination. And then the category “gender” turned out to be very capacious, important and appropriate. Because this discrimination, of course, is connected with social and political processes. And we must name the people who especially made such a significant step in this direction. This is the Moscow Center for Gender Studies, founded in 1989. It was created at the Academy of Sciences, at the Institute of Population, at the Institute of Demography.
And so the core of the human was a few researchers who had previously been involved in feminism and gender studies. But it was their personal interest, as it were, institutionally it was not formalized in any way. These are Anastasia Posadskaya, Natalya Zakharova, Natalya Mikhailovna Rimashevskaya, who was at the head of this. These researchers have raised the question of the real structural barriers to gender equality. nine0003
And then there were special political opportunities for gender studies to be a fairly autonomous area of this knowledge. What's the matter? The fact is that Russia in the late 80s and early 90s demonstrates political will, integration into international academic processes. After the UN adopted a declaration in Beijing in 1985, signed by Russia, on the fight against all forms of discrimination against women, a number of steps had to be taken in accordance with the signed declaration. Because this declaration assumed actions at the political level. One of these steps is a green light for researchers on gender discrimination and inequality.
nine0003
Patriarchy
Back to list
Patriarchy is a social system, a social structure in which women are the object of oppression, exploitation and find themselves in a subordinate position. A scholar like Sylvia Wolby — I'm talking about her because I share this point of view — divides patriarchy into public and private. Here is a private patriarchy, it basically realizes itself as a system of subjugation of women in the sphere of family life, in the sphere of private life. And the bearer of the will, the subject of this submission is a separate concrete man. Father, husband. And you can always say: who is the oppressor of the wife? Her husband. Patriarchy is becoming personalized. nine0003
But not in public patriarchy. In a public patriarchy, it is very difficult to name this individual bearer of oppression, exploitation and domination. It is the structure itself, it is the social order itself. In fact, not only women, but also men are oppressed by patriarchy.
The very fact that there is a rigid idea about their roles. And this public patriarchy, that is, patriarchy in the public sphere: in the sphere of employment, in the sphere of politics, in cultural representation - that is, in those pictures that representations of masculinity and femininity tell us - this patriarchy operates differently. It does not exclude women completely. He includes them - please, take your positions at work, in politics - but includes them on certain conditions. segregating. We'll make you deputy prime minister, but you'll be in charge of health care. nine0003
Patriarchy can, of course, be defined as a mechanism for the oppression of women. But if we shift the optics, we will see that this is also a mechanism for the oppression of men. Because he presses and divides. Prescribes and segregates. If a man does not fit into the dominance matrix prescribed by society, “Be a hunter! Be a rapist! Be the breadwinner! - then he will be reputed to be unfit, a loser, a fake man.
When discussing gender relations in Russia, the thesis about women's power is often heard. This discussion of women's power, discussion of it, of course, somehow obscures the issue of gender inequality. Or phrase it differently. In fact, what kind of patriarchy can we talk about? What kind of feminism are we talking about? Women do have resources because they work. And not only because of this, but because they have their own special female power. And such discussions are typical not only for our society. Recently, even in the literature, a genre has appeared that researchers call "stervology". These are various collections, instructions, specific home building, guides to action, written by psychologists, who discuss how women can manipulate men. And in this category of “bitch”, where almost obscene (profanity) vocabulary (in any case, this term is clearly not of an encouraging nature), two images of a woman are, as it were, integrated into one. On the one hand, a woman who dishonestly achieves her goals uses power illegally.
On the other hand, it is still a subject, has its own goals, knows how to defend and promote them. But she does it in a dishonest way. Uses the so-called female power. nine0003
We propose, together with my colleague Anna Temkina and other researchers, to say that such women's power is the power of the weak. This power of manipulators, it is, of course, associated with prescribed roles. And what is this female power? This is the power of seduction, this is the power of intrigue. This is a power that is not recognized as a real struggle for their rights. It's just using your position to control this poor man. The man is the head and the woman is the neck. This power finds its use only because the patriarchy works. That women lack normal resources. Then, being real subjects, they resort to these most illegitimate methods. This is the power of the weak. And insofar as a woman is not allowed to compete on an equal footing with a man for some significant benefits, she begins to use these undercover tactics in order to achieve her goals.
The conclusion is this: the power of the weak exists. And women's power as such, as the power of manipulators, as the power of intriguers - it exists as the power of the weak. If there is no exclusionary and segregating patriarchy, then there will be no power for the weak. nine0003
How are gender roles formed?
Go to list
State mechanisms, legal, political and ideological, work to use socially organized differences between the sexes to their advantage. And they promote certain ideologies about what roles men should have, what roles women should have. The state acts, one might say, normatively and morally. It prescribes laws and in this sense can construct masculinity and femininity in different ways. nine0003
Gender patterns, how we will live as men and women, of course, is of interest to everyone. But people don't always know them. And they are of course related to the specific context you are in. People are not always sensitive to gender injustice.
Or gender inequality. Because they learn certain ideas about male and female roles. They assimilate old, archaic ideas that are moralized. Let's take an example. There is an idea that a woman, by her nature, can take care of the weak and sick much better than a man. By nature, she is capable of caring. She is empathic, soft, warm, feminine. This is the essence of femininity. If the model of correct femininity is constructed in this way, then it is opposed to ideas of correct masculinity. The man is seen as incapable of this empathy, incapable of this empathy and care. Only, perhaps, forced to do it. Such rigid ideas about masculinity and femininity, about male and female roles, in fact, limit the possibilities of choice and the degree of human freedom. Beliefs in right masculinity and right femininity operate as barriers to gender equality. nine0003
In our gender order, the long history of women's social participation in paid work is evident. We are professional women. And in this sense, in principle, we are quite high in terms of the gender equality index, in terms of the way women work, Russia is very close to Europe.
In Russia, there is a rather long tradition, rooted practices that have been reproduced for many generations, of combining paid work with family concerns. In this sense, a woman is a strategically very active subject in our country, she knows how to combine domestic roles and the roles of a working person. We have a lack of social support for this balance of roles. And government support. Although in recent years the state has been making efforts to support the combination of roles for women. But we have a clear gender imbalance in that a man is not sufficiently emancipated and not sufficiently included in household chores. And this makes us very different from the countries of Western Europe, where gender equality in the domestic sphere has found its practical expression to a much greater extent. A man takes parental leave, no one considers this some kind of special feat or oddity. Society is sensitive to the fact that we have problems with male gender to a greater extent than female gender, if we speak in the category of gender equality.
Because in order to ensure gender equality, it is necessary that men also be able to cross the border of the roles that are assigned to them. nine0003
The second major difference is our heterosexual matrix. This is completely obvious. If Western Europe has a policy of inclusiveness (inclusion) in relation to people with same-sex sexual orientation, then Russia takes a completely different position in this regard. She believes that this kind of openness is unacceptable. In this she is completely conservative. And this conservatism is an openly declared position of the Russian legislation, Russian ideology and mass media. nine0003
Gender issues are sensitive to different age groups. Let's just say, to different stages of a person's life path. Society and the state are extremely actively discussing gender imbalances in reproductive age. And it keeps talking about whether more nurseries are needed, whether to build a perinatal center. Or extend maternity leave to men. Of course, there is resistance to these trends.
But, in any case, it is problematized. However, if we talk about people who are at a different stage in their lives, for example, at the pre-retirement or retirement age, we will see that they face a completely different, but gender-specific problem. We can call it the problem or the Sandwich Generation Syndrome. What does this mean? You know what a sandwich is, it's a sandwich. A person who finds himself in a "sandwich" position is in a state of pressure between two types of obligations. At least two, maybe more. Squeezed between these two commitments. The children have just grown up, and you seem to have achieved everything in the workplace, and then your parents or grandparents started to get sick. And this new challenge completely takes a person by surprise. Because the state helps much less in caring for the elderly than in caring for children. This is already the end of life, this is not a productive class or social category. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure their survival. How the family will cope with the care and care of infirm older relatives is her family business.
And this is again a gender question: whose business is it? Who will provide direct, manual, immediate care for a sick elderly person whose condition is very fragile? And, of course, this is again a professional being who is professionally socialized as capable of caring. nine0003
Conservative turn
Back to list
I would like to start by saying that in general, gender issues in Russian society attracted the attention of only a very narrow circle of activists and researchers for quite a long time. In general, there was no mass interest in this issue. And suddenly there were changes, gender issues began to be politicized, and very strongly. It starts around the mid 2000s. That is, this is the second term of President Putin. He announces that Russia is facing a demographic problem. Outlines three strategies for its solution. And he claims that one of the ways to solve the demographic crisis in Russia is to increase childbearing. And it is necessary to encourage women to give birth to children.
nine0003
The maternity capital law is being promoted and adopted very quickly. When it turns out: give birth to a second child, help the citizens of Russia solve a very important demographic issue, this child will be three years old, and the woman will receive the so-called maternity capital . Public discussions began: can a certain amount really serve as an incentive for a reproductive decision, how to formulate what are the real consequences of this law. Feminist criticism was voiced because it was about maternity capital. Pretty soon it began to be called family capital. But in real practice, this money can actually be received by a woman. They also discussed the purposes for which maternity capital can be spent. As we know, according to the law, there were originally only three such goals. This is a solution to the housing issue, the pension savings of the mother and the education of children. This Procrustean bed of three purposes for the use of this money turned out to be extremely narrow.
The attitude of the state towards citizens is, on the one hand, paternalistic, and on the other hand, tightly controlling - “We know what you need to spend money on. And you will adapt yourself with your needs, ”the Soviet models reproduced. Although the amount is quite large, the more it was indexed. From 2007 to 2016, the maternity capital program has been running. And it is clear that it may not solve the problem of the demographic crisis, but it improves the situation of families to a certain extent. Families are counting on her. And, in general, this measure for the first time problematizes gender. nine0003
The second moment is related to the introduction of some amendments to the law on reproductive rights. The fact is that we have mass initiatives that call for a radical revision of the very liberal abortion law . Or completely ban it. There is a mobilization of conservatives, who are generally called pro-lifers. These are those who, when discussing the issue of reproductive rights, are categorically against women having reproductive rights at all.
These conservatives who want radically to ban abortion are not getting their way. But changes in the legislation on abortion are taking place, and in part these amendments lead to its tightening. This is the second point, so to speak, of the politicization of gender. Because there the question arises whether a woman has the right to dispose of her body or whether she should be banned from doing it altogether. Or she should do it only with the consent of her man, partner, and so on. nine0003
The third issue related to conservative mobilization concerns Juvenile Justice Act . Quite a difficult discussion. The fact is that Russia had to sign the law on juvenile justice. Conservatives are strongly opposed to this law. For two reasons. On the one hand, they say they have a liberal argument. It lies in the fact that if the state interferes in private life, then this is a space for corruption, intervention and pressure. And limits parental rights. On the other hand, under the same mute, no measures are being taken at all to alleviate the situation of children who find themselves in places of detention and who are prosecuted by law.
They say that the family should decide everything. “The family should have clearly defined roles. What are the rights of a child?!” After all, the law on juvenile justice is based on the rights of the child. “No child rights! Only the rights of the father and the rights of the mother!” Here is the model of the traditional family. And this is also such a conservative offensive, so as not to use the word "collision". nine0003
Next we talk about Gender Equality Act . In order to really really fight discrimination, it was necessary to pass a law on gender equality with certain wordings through parliament. This is international law. This law is blocked, it is not accepted. Why? Because conservatives oppose the gender category. And this is a rather curious moment for us. They say that "gender" is a foreign term, borrowed. Moreover, advocates of the gender approach argue that the models and roles of masculinity and femininity, male and female behavior are socially constructed.
And if they are socially constructed, they can be changed. You can choose them. They are not prescribed either by the state, or by biology, or by religious dogmas. And if so, then by using the category of “gender” in legislative acts, we are thereby pursuing a policy of choosing sexual orientation and gender roles. nine0003
Conservative turn (continued)
Go to list
Who are these conservatives?
First of all, there are public initiatives . These public initiatives are various organizations that seem to have been created independently of the support of state structures. Indeed, there are people who actively believe in both God-givenness and the naturalness of the established roles based on gender. They have strong support from ROC , the Russian Orthodox Church. They have strong support in one of the segments of political elites . That is why, in fact, they turn out to be quite a serious force in society and in public discourse.
I didn't name another legislative initiative related to the law prohibiting propaganda of homosexuality . This law, which caused discussion, was nevertheless adopted at the federal level. It is, of course, exclusive, repressive. It is a powerful affirmation of the heterosexual matrix. Thus, we see this is a manifestation of conservative positions in the legal field, in the discursive field. And in one of the president's speeches, the conservative ideology was called the ideology of the Russian political establishment. That is, this conservatism, which manifests itself in the promotion of the values of the patriarchal family, the rigid heterosexual matrix, the idea of gender roles, is the ideology that claims hegemony, that is, domination. Because everyone who speaks against it will be regarded as dissidents. Or as those who disagree or those who do not fit into the mainstream of this ideology, which constantly refers us to traditional values, to Russian culture, to Orthodox, to Christian values.
nine0003
And of course there is resistance to this conservative wave. But at the level of everyday life, when people simply ignore all this and find ways to solve the problems they face on their own. Ignoring the ideological offensive of the conservatives. On the other hand, there is feminist mobilization. She is still small. Maybe not even feminist, but towards gender equality. When people single out and problematize and discuss and so on. Therefore, it seems to me that we live in a society where the complete domination of conservatives simply cannot be realized technologically. Borders cannot be closed, nor discourse can be fully censored. Therefore, I am inclined to consider the conservative turn as one of the cycles of political development, political dynamics, which will sooner or later be replaced by another wave. But conservatives are quite strong in our society, which again refers to the fact that our gender order is largely preserved as traditional and patriarchal. With a stable idea of models of masculinity and femininity, with the justification of gender boundaries by natural, biological or even religious factors.
nine0003
Material prepared by Irina Kosterina
Idea Idea: Irina Kosterina
Coordinator and Logist: Julia Ostrovskaya
Director: Dmitry Vakulin
Operator: Kirill Begishev
Installation: Irina Savina
Illustrations: Elena Zamina
What is family policy?
Who needs motherhood and why?
What is sexual identity? nine0006
What is feminism?
What is masculinity?
What is violence?
What is paternity?
How do gender norms work in the North Caucasus?
Did you like the material? Help the site!
Test
Angels and Ghosts of the "Other Space"
Do you know the heroes of the main Russian festival of new music?
news
March 11, 2022
14:52 COLTA.
RU blocked in Russia
March 3, 2022
17:48 "Rain" temporarily stops broadcasting
17:18 The Union of Journalists of Karelia complained about Roskomnadzor to the Prosecutor General's Office
16:32 Sergey Abashin left the Association of Ethnologists and Anthropologists of Russia
15:36 The Prosecutor General's Office called participation in anti-war rallies extremism
All news
Related topics
Gender for dummies: what is fatherhood
Gender for Dummies: Violence
Gender for dummies: what is masculinity
All materials related to
nine0190 New in Colta SpecialsMost Read
Editorial COLTA
128766
Culture during "war operations"
119020
Polyphonic witnesses of the end and beginning.
Essays by Ganna Komar
67220
Branches
12465
The arrival of father Alexander Men and the late Soviet intelligentsia
25019
Letter to dad
9559
Olivia Plender. "History of the Kingdom of Beasts"
15034
What can you see at the Tele-Springboard Exhibition?
13097
How the era of stagnation became the "golden age" of children's television in the USSR
nine484
How Cheburashka went across the sea, or Something about the Swedish children's culture of the 70s
18691
Lermontov.
Uranium footprint
15022
TV springboard: from children's television to contemporary art and literature
9790
Today online
Around the horizontalIlya Budraitskis: “An important thing in the experience of dissidents was a serious attitude to other people's ideas”
A conversation about the useful lessons of Soviet dissidence, about the conflict between the ethics of persuasion and the ethics of responsibility, and why people who support SVO should not be treated like robots or zombies
Dec 14 20224896
Around the horizontalSvetlana Barsukova: "The stupidity of the law is often extinguished by the wisdom of practical actions"
A well-known sociologist about the huge repertoire of informal practices in Russia (from the system of bribes to neighborly mutual assistance), about the collective reaction to times of crisis and why even in the most ethically dangerous areas one can find common sense and benefit nine0003
December 5, 20227007
Around the horizontalGrigory Yudin about the past and future of the protest.
Big talk What becomes the basis for mass protest? What are its starting conditions? What prejudices and mistakes threaten him? Does protest need decentralization? And how to evaluate its success?
December 1, 202220552
Around horizontalGert Lovink: "Web 3 is really a new beast"
Will Web 3.0 be able to handle the freeing of the global web from large platforms? What is gained, what is lost, and, in general, is this reform so revolutionary? Mitya Lebedev spoke with a well-known media theorist
November 29, 202210864
Around the horizontal"How to maintain the complexity of relationships and support each other when you can't hug each other?" nine0007
Horizontal communities in wartime—between ruptures, isolation, loss of soil, and gain of soil.
A conversation between two representatives of cultural initiatives - Elena Ishchenko, who left Russia, and an activist who remained in Russia, who speaks on condition of anonymity
November 4, 202218162
Around the horizontalHow to make money for self-organized communities nine0002 A guide to old (and working) and brand new features
October 25, 202218594
Around horizontal"Community is a superpower"
How new expats come together to help themselves and others
September 29, 202218341
Around horizontalJust below radar
Introduction to self-organization.
