Why does gender bias occur

We need both the masculine and the feminine differing world views. By reiterating this as a positive, we may be able to learn to value these differences as essential to succeed for a well functioning society—and yes, for our survival. These are not hard and fast behaviors for all; they are tendencies that need to be recognized and valued.

Gender and race bias work in various combinations depending on the century and the culture. We are back in the playground and the pervasive threat of girls winning. Author and internationally known business consultant and keynote speaker. News U. Politics Joe Biden Congress Extremism. Special Projects Highline. HuffPost Personal Video Horoscopes. Follow Us. Terms Privacy Policy. How society determines the differences and value of men vs.

These types of mindsets prop up gender inequality and delay significant change. Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. Here are 10 causes of gender inequality: 1. Uneven access to education Around the world, women still have less access to education than men. Lack of employment equality Only 6 countries in the world give women the same legal work rights as men.

Subscribe to our newsletter! By continuing, you accept the privacy policy. You may also like. Second approach. We start by identifying the principal causal frameworks used in the papers. That is, we figure out what they suggest are the conditions or processes that have the most important influence over the outcomes.

Then, we organize these causal frameworks in a sensible order, taking into account which are entirely different and which might be variations of a similar theme, and which are competing versus complementary. For each of these, after summarizing the causal logic of the framework, we show how it has been used by these authors, describing the range of outcomes the framework is supposed to determine and how it has such effects. Note that regardless which way we organize our analysis of competing causal arguments, it can be valuable to think about not only what is considered by the authors being examine, but also which theoretical questions and which causal frameworks seem relevant but absent.

Please reread the " Basics of Causal Descriptions " on the starting point for describing a causal analysis. Bringing it together.

In short, our aim is to produce a critical overview of the principal causal arguments concerning the family and gender inequality, starting with the ideas present in the common readings for this week. To do this effectively, we need to identify all the relevant causal arguments, deduce the logical structure of each causal argument and determine how to present that clearly even if the original source is inconsistent or ambiguous , detect how the causal arguments from different sources relate to each other and present them in a way that makes those relations clear, and, where possible, summarize the important analytical strengths and weaknesses of each argument or facet to an argument.

Beth Anne Shelton, Daphne John. Kathleen Gerson. Raley, Marybeth J. Mattingly, Suzanne M. Documenting Change From to Journal of Marriage and Family , Davis, S. Greenstein and J. American Journal of Sociology, 93 : Joann Vanek.

Valerie Kincade Oppenheimer. Soares, Bruno L. To investigate how essentialist arguments work, we will examine how different kinds of essentialist arguments might be applied to explain some aspect of gender inequality, in contrast to a non-essentialist argument. We aim to see both the attraction of essentialist arguments and the possibilities for alternatives. Select one form or facet of gender inequality that you will try to explain for this task. This instance or aspect of gender inequality should be sufficiently important, widespread, and enduring or recurring to merit thoughtful theory and explanation.

It should also be narrow or specific enough that the goal of explaining it is plausible. For example, the facet might be that wives commonly defer to husbands.

For the selected type or aspect of gender inequality, you will suggest five alternative explanations, each one representing a different approach to explaining such social phenomena. The explanations should be succinct but clear. They should also be plausible to the extent that a reasonable person might make such an argument. Plausible does not mean true, of course. Rather, we are trying to imagine an argument that would seem plausible to people who are advocates for each of the perspectives.

The five types of explanation. Attempt to devise the best explanations you can for the relevant facet of inequality from each of the following perspectives.

Explanations may be categorized in many ways. The five perspectives defined here are meant to engage different responses to the problem of essentialism. Direct biological - Devise an explanation claiming that some biological difference between the sexes produces the relevant aspect of inequality by making women and men act differently. For example, an argument might be that men are stronger than women so men dominate women as a simple result of superior strength. More complex biological explanations might be derived from evolutionary psychology.

This type of explanation is usually purely essentialist. Note that this type of explanation can be divided further into those relying on real biological differences and those imputing fictional biological differences. Let us stress biological differences that are at least potentially real here, leaving the fictitious ones for below.

Indirect biological - Formulate an explanation claiming some biological difference does not directly produce the inequality, but the biological difference has important effects or implications of some sort, and those effects that make likely or unavoidable the emergence or persistence of the selected aspect of gender inequality.

For example, someone might argue that women's child bearing makes them anxious about the welfare of their children, and that anxiety makes them feel weak and in want of a protector, leading them to defer to husbands. Or, others might suggest that women's biologically induced child rearing orientation encourages both women and men to make men responsible for warfare, and that men's resulting skill at combat, their possession of weapons, and men's organization around mutual defense leaves wives typically in their husbands' control.

The key for this type of explanation is that the relevant biological differences do not directly cause the gender inequality being explained, but have effects on social behavior and social organization that lead to gender inequality. These types of explanations have essentialist origins in a biological difference, but the explanation as a whole may invoke mediating causal influences that reduce the essentialist quality, sometimes greatly.

Non-biological sex difference - Suggest how some socially constructed difference between women and men — one that is neither biological nor a direct result of biological differences — initiates or preserves the aspect of gender inequality being explained. This will usually be an enduring individual characteristic a difference that people carry with them, not a difference in their circumstances. For example, one might claim that women are fearful and dependent because of socialization processes that have no biological basis , and this psychological condition induces wives to defer to their husbands.

Or, one might argue that childhood sports available only to boys result in a higher competitive drive that accounts for adult men's greater success in business. This type of explanation claims a real difference exists between women and men in the society or social context where the inequality being explained occurs; the relevant sex difference need not exist in all or any other society or social context , but this difference is a social construction. This type of explanation often becomes redundantly circular: each aspect of inequality exists as a result of inequality, and that overall inequality is constituted by the various aspects.

Fictitious sex difference - An imputed sex difference that does not really exist is claimed to play a significant role in producing the selected facet of gender inequality. For example, someone might suggest that although women have no better capacity for child rearing, people commonly assume they do because women bear children, and that this false expectation produces a division of labor and power favoring men.

This type of explanation focuses on the consequences of beliefs, relying on the observation that beliefs can organize behavior even if they are false beliefs. While such fictitious differences are commonly assumed to be biological, they need not be. Causes independent of sex differentiation - A causal process that does not involve any difference between the sexes is argued to produce the inequality being considered.

This role differentiation can then result in spouse inequality, as an indirect and unintended consequence. This category includes highly diverse explanations, the one critical similarity among them being that they do not rely on a sex difference in their central causal argument. It may be worth noting that one reason explanations based on sex differences including all the preceding perspectives are more common is that formulating a plausible analysis that forgoes the mechanism of sex differences is often a hard task.

Note, in this task we are aiming to produce explanations that those advocating each of the above types of explanation would think are reasonable. It is often hardest to conceive good explanations from the points of view we find unconvincing or unappealing, but the capacity to do this is a valuable skill. The point of this exercise is to examine how it is possible to devise a range of alternative causal explanations of gender inequality stressing some mechanism of sex differences, while developing alternative theories that do not rely on sex differences is rather hard.

The difference arguments run the full range from being directly and fully biological to relying on non-biological or fictitious differences in indirect ways. The arguments that exclude not only biology but all dependence on sex differences commonly derive from another theoretical approach, such as functionalism or conflict theories. The challenge with these approaches is not only to make the immediate causal process eschew differences, but to avoid relying on sex differences one or two steps earlier in the causal chain.

Uri Gneezy, Kenneth L. Leonard, And John A. Douglas Schrock, Michael Schwalbe. Eagly, A. American Psychologist, 54, Valian, V. Brooklyn Law Review, 65, Clopton, Nancy A. Psychology of Women Quarterly, Mar93, Vol. Nancy Chodorow. Nussbaum, M. The Professor Of Parody [J. The New Republic v. Martha C. Focusing on heterosexual behavior, it appears that men seek to have sex with women much more than women seek to have it with men, relative both to how often they have sex and with how many partners.

Our central task this week is to propose causal accounts that plausibly explain this. Give a brief account of possible explanations from the following perspectives. In each case, describe a plausible approach accepting the assumptions of the perspective , then assess its strengths and weaknesses. Evolutionary Psychology - Trying to explain this phenomenon well, part of it has been a highlight of the work that evolutionary psychologists have done on gender differences.

Provide an appropriate brief explanation of this sort, identify the fundamental assumptions it requires. Also, consider the evidence and what might be important shortcomings.

Indirect biological - Formulate an explanation claiming some biological difference does not directly produce the inequality, but the biological difference has important effects or implications of some sort, and those effects that make likely or unavoidable the emergence and persistence of this sexuality difference.

Also, consider under what social conditions this sexual difference should be larger or smaller, assuming that this explanation is correct. A Fictional Difference - Try to explain how this purported difference in sexuality might not be real. This includes explaining why the fictional belief in this difference would arise and become prevalent. Secondary effect of gender inequality - Consider how this difference can arise as a result of gender inequality.

Examine what social conditions must be true for this causal sequence to occur. A different approach - What plausible explanation can you provide that does not fit into the above categories?

Can you provide reasoning or evidence to show that one of the explanations is better than the others? In short, our aim is to construct and assess alternative basic causal arguments seeking to understand a widely accepted difference in the sexuality of women and men. In each case, try to be clear about the logic of the causal argument.

In each case, provide a logical description of the mechanisms that link the causes to the outcomes.

Alternative Analytical Task [ignore] The general analytical problem. Our central task this week is to propose a causal account that plausibly explains the relationship between one aspect of sexuality and gender inequality. Everyone who analyzes gender inequality considers sexuality important, but they have highly varied ideas about what matters and why.

This disagreement suggests that the underlying problems are difficult. We cannot hope to solve them in this brief effort. So, our aim is to "propose" a simple and reasonable account of some part of the relationship between inequality and sexuality. We are not trying to develop a full, professional analysis.

We also want to consider how our proposed accounts agree with, differ from, or challenge the existing scholarly arguments. Again, our goal here is limited.

The aim is to give a reasonable first sense of how the proposed account fits or does not fit. Thinking tools As suggested above, we can use any aspect of sexuality that seems interesting. However, it may help if the selected facet of sexuality: has a relationship to gender inequality that at least some writers think is important. Which way it is important is wide open. The role of the chosen sexuality characteristic relative to gender inequality may be cause, effect, catalyst, or whatever else seems causally relevant.

These may be part of the common readings, any of the other readings recommended here, or another legitimate source. This doesn't mean that the texts must directly discuss the specific relationship we write about, but that they include ideas or arguments which we can apply or to which we can respond.

A basic approach to the task presentation might have the following three parts: First, we lay out the causal, explanatory problem. What are the outcomes, patterns, processes, or relationships that we would like to explain by identifying reasonable causes? And why is this important enough to merit attention? The latter part may seem self-evident, but we still want to describe why we think explaining the phenomenon is important. Second, we provide the causal analysis.

We want to be as complete as possible within reasonable space limits. And, we want to be clear, simple, and direct. Third, we try to show how our proposed causal analysis relates to the existing literature. For our purposes, we can limit ourselves to considering a couple theories or perspectives that would support or compliment our approach and a couple that would be likely to question our proposed causal analysis. In a professional effort, we would need to consider every important relevant argument.

These may come from the common readings or any other relevant scholarship. When discussing those who might disagree, we want to be as specific as possible about what criticism we would expect from each of these "opponents" and how we might respond. In short, our aim is to construct a basic causal argument seeking to understand how some aspect of sexuality is related to gender inequality, and to assess how that causal argument relates to the existing literature as represented in our readings.

Crawford, M. The Journal of Sex Research v. Waskul, Phillip Vannini, Desiree Wiesen. Johnson and Lois A. Nicole Constable. Journal of Sex Research, 40 1 , [doi: Part 1 Feb. Brown, Robert C. Lever, J. Does Size Matter? Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 7 3 , Analytical Task : Try to develop a reasonable explanation for why women do not engage in sexual harassment or sexual violence at rates similar to those of men. Here, our strategy is to reverse the usual way people approach the problem of gender violence, aiming to explain the suppressed rates for women rather than the elevated rates for men.

In addition to the reading materials, consider carefully the pointers below in the sections on Thinking Tools and Well Formed Causal Arguments In short , taking into account the pointers below and the ideas in the materials we have read up to this point, you want to develop a reasonable explanation why women do not engage in harassment or violence toward men at the rates that men do toward women.

Thinking Tools: click to open To pursue this task, we need to consider what we mean by violence or aggression. When people refer to the patterns of violence between women and men in modern societies , they are usually referring to several kinds of aggressive behavior, particularly: 1 sexual violence especially rape , 2 sexual harassment, and 3 intimate partner violence which includes wife battering.

These three categories implicitly distinguish patterns of aggression based on several criteria: 1 the degree to which the aggressive acts involve sexuality, 2 the severity of the aggressive acts, and 3 the existing relationship between the relevant men and women. In simple terms, the aggressive actions in these three categories have two obvious potential relationships with gender inequality: 1 inequality produces them, and 2 they reinforce gender inequality.

That fear is crucial. The fear of violence is commonly a more prevalent and effective mechanism of control than the experience of violence.

Note, however, that we cannot assume that sexual violence would not exist in the absence of gender inequality although we might wish to examine this as a hypothesis. We know, for example, that partner violence occurs in gay male and lesbian couples at rates comparable to those of heterosexual couples. To put it differently, we have good evidence for inferring that gender inequality is a contributory cause for sexual violence, but not for the claim that it is a necessary cause.

Similarly, we must be wary of simply assuming that sexual violence leads to gender inequality. To simplify our task, we will set aside the question of intimate partner violence and focus on the other two kinds mentioned above, sexual violence and sexual harassment.

So, our goal is to explain why women, seemingly, indulge less often in sexual violence and harassment toward men than the reverse. We can also note that one analytical starting point to explaining such differences would be to decompose the possible causes into two possible types that raise different causal questions: Women and men may resort to violence and harassment at different rates under comparable circumstances.

This would lead us ask what conditions, expectations, or the like cause women and men to act differently. Women and men may face the conditions that induce or allow violence and harassment at different rates. This would lead us to ask how and why women and men find themselves at different rates in circumstances that promote aggression toward the other sex.

Remember that you can restrict the scope of your analysis. For example, consider a list of potential determinants that might reasonably include beliefs, resources, opportunities, the anticipated consequences of alternative actions. Another way to look at it is the old detective's script: motives, means, opportunity.

The key here is to avoid randomly attaching yourself to one or two possible causes, just because they happen to be what you first think about. You want to think seriously about what you might have neglected.

It is often useful to start this kind of analytic reasoning concretely, concentrating on circumstances we know best. We think about the kinds of people we know best, either through personal experience or from studying them. We ask ourselves why the women in these circumstances or groups do not engage in sexual harassment or sexual violence toward men as much as do men toward women.

If we can gain an explanatory foothold in these familiar circumstances, we have a starting point for developing a more general explanation. Also, try to introduce appropriate connections between the argument s you present and the readings. Consider not only the common readings from this week, but also past readings and optional ones from this week that seem particularly relevant. The causal arguments should try to conform to the standards for a good causal argument that we have read about and discussed.

Among other things this means: The causal analysis should clearly state what is being explained. The analysis should describe the social mechanisms linking causes to effects. It should show what happens in the world that produces the outcomes, what kinds of people or organizations behave in manner, what circumstances arise that induce the relevant behavior, and so forth. This may be abstract at the level of the causal model. The analysis should consider why the decisive causes exist and take the form that they do.

That is, the causal analysis should push back at least one step past the causes being invoked to ask what causes them. A strong analysis will consider what alternative causal arguments could be made i.

A thorough causal analysis will recognize that other causal models might be considered plausible, and try to compare the causal model being promoted to the alternatives. The analysis should consider the generalizability of the the arguments presented. It should consider to what periods, places, types of societies, parts of society, kinds of social relationships or interactions do the arguments apply? Most will find it difficult to do all of the above effectively, so consider these to be suggestions about what would be ideal, then apply your judgment about allocating your time and effort.

Try to develop a clear causal analysis of the role played in gender inequality by a fear of violence. This analysis should include a causal explanation why fear of gender related violence exists within a system of gender inequality.

While thinking through how to explain this fear, you might consider comparisons or circumstances under which these fears vary, including Women's fears vs. In what ways do fears of violence influence the behavior of women or the relationships between women and men? Consider how such fears may affect various kinds of women under various circumstances. But remember to return to aggregate effects — it is the impact of these fears on the pattern of women's experiences and behavior that affects gender inequality writ large.

Breaking gender stereotypes means that we need to allow all members of society the freedom to choose the roles most suited to them. Collect data on your organization to reveal the true picture. Find out the gender balance among all applicants compared to successful applicants. Look at the gender balance in your short lists. Examine performance reviews by gender and role to see if there is gender bias occurring at that level e.

The data will help you figure out where to concentrate your efforts. Systemic change. The only way we will create meaningful change is to create systems designed to eliminate bias. For example, ensuring there is gender balance when shortlisting candidates.

Or assessing candidates in a gender-blind way assuming, of course, that the pool of applicants is gender-balanced — if it is not, then removing gender from CVs might only exacerbate the existing imbalance. Governmental policy is one of the most powerful systemic ways of creating change. Those men became more involved fathers and equal partners, thus challenging gender stereotypes. But you do not have to be a government policy maker to make a difference. One of my personal favorite examples of overcoming gender bias in the workplace comes from a manager who noticed that, on her male-dominated team, the women never spoke up during team meetings.

To solve the problem, she introduced a rule that every time a man speaks, another man cannot speak again until a woman has spoken. At first the meetings were awkward, with men bursting to interrupt and women wondering what to say.