Literature Review: Gender Roles

                                                  Literature Review: Gender Roles

                                                                   Introduction

           Gender roles are an essential sociocultural issue, and as such, it is vital to analyse the available scholarships to gain further comprehension of the issue. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to analyse the ideas of other scholars on this topic, identifying the commonalities and differences in their thoughts. Luckily, this field is vastly covered in literature, highlighting the importance of discussing this matter. The review is sectioned according to this study’s research questions that include; “How are children and teenagers at puberty affected by gender roles?”  “What roles are played by gender roles in parenting?” and “What are the roles that religion plays in masculinity Vs. femininity and how people get gendered?”. Therefore, this review contributes to the existing studies by adding to the existing scholarly knowledge of gender roles and how they influence children and teenagers and parenting, as well as the influence of religion on masculinity and femininity.

1. The Influence of Gender Roles on Children and Teenagers at Puberty

              The influence of gender roles on children and pubescent boys and girls can be explained by the theories of gender identity and stereotyping, which are described by Halim and Ruble (2010). Halim and Ruble (2010) claim that the cognitive-developmental theory asserts that cognitive structures are changed with age, thereby contributing to adolescents' gender identity (Halim & Ruble, 2010). Therefore, this theory shifts the blame off culture and society and places it upon the changes brought by age on cognitive development. However, the authors’ analysis of parental and sociocultural influences points to society and culture as critical enforcers of gender identity and stereotypes (Halim & Ruble, 2010). On the contrary, other theories such as essentialism propose that certain traits are innately stable and present at a person’s birth. From this theory, biology is blamed for people’s gender confirmations, where gender is believed to give an individual their identities. However, regardless of the existence of different theories attempting to explain how gender roles influence children and adolescents, sociocultural influences are blamed mostly for developing gender stereotypes.

           In research by Martin and Ruble (2013), the authors establish that children gain their gender concepts at the very beginning of their life into adolescence. Based on the self-socialization theory, these authors suggest that children actively search for information about the meaning of gender and behave based on their understanding of the concept. This theory is also discussed by Halim and Ruble (2010), who, in addition to having the same idea of the theory’s meaning, claim that it presents children as “gender detectives.” Martin and Ruble (2013) also discuss sex segregation and how it begins in childhood and develops into and across adolescence. As the authors note, sex segregation is so pervasive that girls and boys have grown up in diverse cultures. Sex segregation, therefore, is attributed as a primary contributor to the occurrence and prevalence of differences in gender identity noted among children and as they develop into adolescents.

           One of the impacts of gender roles in children and adolescents is that it affects their play choices and who they interact with. According to Martin and Ruble (2013), one of the factors that determine a child’s choice of play is determined by the children who are available to play. In this sense, their choices of who to play with can be influenced by the other child’s gender (Martin & Ruble, 2013). Besides, a child’s choices of what to play with are impacted by gender roles. This point is proven in the literature by Halim and Ruble (2010), who, in their exploration of parental and sociocultural influences, gave an example of how parents’ feedback contributes to the development of gender identity in children. In their example, Halim and Ruble (2013) showed that parents who gave negative feedback to cross-gendered toys but more positive on same-gendered toys were more likely to have children who could distinguish between boys and girls earlier than normal. These views can be supported by the work done by Early Childhood National Centers (2015), who claim that children usually select toys that are consistent with their physical gender. The authors go ahead and describe the development of gender identity for children across various age groups in childhood. As The Early Childhood National Centers (2015) present, at infancy, children identify gender based on their observations of the activities, behaviors, and physical appearances of grownups. Across ages 18-24 months, children begin to identify gender and begin to understand more deeply the meaning of being a boy or a girl at ages 3-4 years. At ages 5-6, children become more “rigid” in their thinking (Early Childhood National Centers, 2015). However, as they grow older, this rigidity declines as they develop stronger moral senses of what is considered right and fair.

          Gender roles affect children and teenagers by influencing their perception of what is acceptable. Discussing the gender differences in depression, Priess et al. (2009) found that adolescents usually subscribe to culturally sanctioned gender roles. To Priess et al. (2009), this conformation can be termed simply as “gender intensification.” In a longitudinal study, these authors focused on determining whether stereotypes varied among boys and girls as they progressed into adolescence. The study results were affirmative, seeing that the authors found that at ages 11, 13, and 15, girls were more feminine than boys (Priess et al., 2009). However, the authors also found no evidence that gender intensification increased with progression into adolescence. Other researchers like Perry and Pauletti (2011) support the suggestion by Priess et al. (2009) that adolescents do get influenced by expectations of gender roles. However, while Priess et al. (2009) focus on gender intensification, Perry and Pauletti (2011) focus on how gender affects relationships between adolescent girls and boys. Perry and Pauletti (2011) summarize six areas where gender differences can be noted among teenagers. They include; abilities and interests, self-concept, social relationships, aggression, and depression. Interestingly, Perry and Pauletti (2011) identify depression as an area that is influenced by gender roles and which differs among boys and girls, seeing that Priess et al. (2009) make a similar point. Indeed, both Priess et al. (2009) and Perry and Pauletti (2011) affirm that girls are more prone to depression than boys. A possible explanation for this difference is that while masculinity is negatively linked to depression, femininity is positively correlated to it (Priess et al., 2009). According to Priess et al. (2009), such is the case because while femininity encourages an overly emotional stress response, the opposite is true for masculinity since it concerns self-esteem and self-efficacy.

              The thoughts presented in the study by Blum et al. (2017) can explain the findings by Priess et al. (2009) and Perry and Pauletti (2011) in regards to masculinity and femininity and their influence on teenagers. This is especially true when considering these authors’ discussion of the hegemonic myth. According to the hegemonic myth, as elaborated by Blum et al. (2017), "There is a global set of forces from schools, parents, media, and peers themselves that reinforce the hegemonic myth that girls are vulnerable and that boys are strong and independent” (p.53). This statement describes the same thing discussed by Priess et al. (2009) regarding the role of gender roles in influencing teenagers' responses to stress, where boys conform to masculine expectations while girls respond emotionally as is expected of them. Therefore, from Perry and Pauletti (2011), Priess et al. (2017), and Blum et al. (2017), it is established those gender roles influence adolescents by determining their responses to stress, consequently differentiating the prevalence of depression among boys and girls.

           Another interesting point is given by Blum et al. (2017) regarding the cultural and social stereotypes towards the sex and sexuality of boys and girls. As Blum et al. (2017) establish, the world sees pubertal boys as predators. On the contrary, girls are perceived as probable victims and targets, implying that they need protection from boys owing to their labeling as embodiments of sexuality and sex. As such, sexual segregation is evident among this group, seeing that girls are encouraged to, for instance, sit in certain ways, wear certain clothes and avoid others, and even refrain from talking to boys. In this case, Blum et al. (2017) describe the unfortunate ways through which society compounds certain sex and sexually relates stereotypes about the nature of each gender. Such practices contribute to the internalization of these norms, which as Blum et al. (2017) note, impacts girls more than it does boys.

1. Gender Roles in Parenting

           Gender roles impact how people parent their children. Discussing gender differences in children with aggression, Endendijk et al. (2017) discuss the social role theory and its relationship to gender stereotypes and identity formation. The social role theory specifies that existing divisions of gender reasons are the cause for gender differences (Endendijk et al., 2017). Endendijk et al. (2017) suggest that the current gender roles result in stereotypes concerning how men and women should behave. Regarding the contribution of gender roles to parenting, Endendijk et al. (2017) claim that society expects mothers and fathers to employ different parenting approaches that are consistent with the divergent gender roles linked to boys and girls. Therefore, differential treatment is expected of parents to their children since society expects them to impact onto their children's values that are connected to their gender. Leaper (2014) discusses parents' socialization of gender and his thoughts are similar to those of Endendijk et al. (2017), particularly concerning parents’ differential treatment of boys and girls. According to Leaper (2014), parents show preferential treatment for boys when allocating their limited resources such as finance, contrary to girls who are treated less favorably in such instances. Preferential treatment also occurs when parents buy gifts for their children. In such cases, parents impart knowledge on gender roles to their children by buying gifts that confirm sociocultural stereotypes. A Leaper (2014) notes sons have gifted action figures, your cars, and sports equipment, contrary to girls whose toys comprise kitchen sets and dolls. From this research, it was also found that parents can encourage stereotypical gender identities just by describing what is acceptable. Such descriptive stereotypes encourage gender stereotypes, and parents are often unaware of them.

             In the gender schema theory discussed by Endendijk et al. (2017), it is established that parents' attitudes, notions, and attitudes contribute to their parenting practices. The main idea behind this theory is that the parent's stereotypes impact the child's behaviors and gender. In this sense, if a parent’s perspective of gender is more traditional, they will most likely impart similar attitudes to their children (Endendijk et al., 2017). The opposite is also true, where parents with counterstereotypical ideals are likely to encourage behavior that deviates from “normal” gender expectations. Such claims are present in the literature by Arbiol and Labial (2019), who examine parenting styles and gender roles. From their research, Arbiol and Labial (2019) assert that children display their roles according to what they have learned from their parents. These authors contribute to the claims made by Endendijk et al. (2017) by specifying that parenting styles are a reflection of their beliefs. For instance, an authoritarian parent and a permissive parent will have different impacts on their children. In authoritative parenting, the child has to follow the standards set by their parents and cannot express their thoughts in fear of punitive measures (Arbiol & Labial, 2019). On the other hand, a permissive parent allows the child’s contribution. According to Arbiol and Labial (2019), parenting styles impact the child’s role in society. From this example, it is implied that a permissive parent is more willing to be flexible and accommodate the child’s thoughts on gender roles, thereby allowing freedom from stereotypical norms. On the contrary, an authoritarian parent is presented as inflexible, implying that a child’s gender roles have to confirm with their parents' standards.

            Endendijk et al. (2017) also discuss parental styles as a product of gender roles, though the authors term this factor as parental control strategies. However, their discussion is different from the research by Arbiol and Labial (2019) in that Endendijk et al. (2017) talk about parents’ physical control strategies rather than the types of parenting styles employed by people to impact their children’s behavior. For instance, Endendijk et al. (2017) note that parents use physical and harsh control measures on boys than they do girls. Such actions lead to more aggression among boys than girls who adopt their parents' behaviors (Endendijk et al., 2017). Therefore, from this research and that by Arbiol and Labial (2019), one can say that parental styles of controlling their children influence children’s perspective of gender.

             Gender roles influence parenting by impacting the division of household labor. Halpern (2014) conducted a longitudinal study to determine parents’ gender ideology and gendered behavior as predictors of children's gender-role attitudes. From this study, it was established that gender roles impact parenting by influencing the division of household labor (Halpern, 2014). Halpern (2014) postulates that heterosexual couples usually demonstrate common distinct patterns. In this case, women are more associated with household labor than men. Unlike women, men tend to concentrate more on paid employment. These differences in the division of household labor send particular messages to children, who, according to Martin and Ruble (2013), learn things from a very early age. Halpern (2014) also claims that childcare division also reflects that this duty is a woman’s role since women tend to work in this area more than men. As such, from these studies, it is established that gender roles influence parenting styles, just as well as the latter influences the former.

1. The Influence of Religion on Masculinity and Femininity and how People Get Gendered

          Leszczynska and Zielinska (2016) comment on religion and gender, claiming that gender is often taken as a historical and descriptive concept, whereby it is used to illustrate specific life experiences. In a multidimensional analysis of gender and religion, Leszczynska and Zielinska (2016) establish that the differences between men and women regarding religion are most evident in individual dimensions. On this note, the authors explore common theories related to gender roles. One of the gender roles discussed in this research is the essentialist tradition that specifies that biological traits associated with a person's sex explain religiosity differences among women and men. This discussion of the essentialist theory is different from the one presented by Halim and Ruble (2010) since the latter focuses on the gender roles and how it influences children and teenagers. From this theory, Leszczynska and Zielinska (2016) suggest that women are more religious than men because they are more emotional and more connected to nature than men. However, the research by Leszczynska and Zielinska (2016) does not show the connection between religion and gender role, contrary to Klingorova and Havlicek (2015), who found that gender inequality is higher in areas with higher religiosity. Klingorova and Havlicek (2015) explain that such is the case because highly religious people welcome the authority of their religious leaders, who in lots of cases promote patriarchy. These findings were based on the exploratory quantitative analysis conducted by Klingorova and Havlicek (2015), who aimed at assessing religion and gender inequality. Their study also reveals that women were more publicly visible in more secular states, unlike in highly religious societies where patriarchy is supported.

            Miller and Stark (2002) maintain the same thoughts as those by Klingorova and Havlicek (2015) in their study that attempts to answer whether socialization can be saved. Miller and Stark (2002) affirm that differential religiousness contributes to differential socialization, promoting gender differences. Their study aimed at determining whether it was true that gender roles and inequality are perpetuated in religion. Similar to Klingorova and Havlicek (2015), Miller and Stark (2002) posit that it is a fact that women are more religious than men. However, as Milled and Stark (2002) assert, this fact is often underestimated. From this literature, it is claimed that traditional gender roles result in more religiousness and religious teachings that advocate for these roles, thereby concurring with Klingorova and Havlicek (2015) on the matter.

           Christianity and Islam are the world's most practices religions, and as such, their impacts on gender roles are just as vast. Hashim (1999) discusses Islam as one of the major religions and how to reconcile it with feminism. According to Hashim (1999), feminists believe that religion is simply another cause for women's subjugation, evidencing their claims from the subordinative description of women in religious texts. Besides, feminists claim that religion is one way through which men's dominance in society is supported, thereby presenting similar issues as those addressed by Klingorova and Havlicek (2015) and Miller and Stark (2002). However, as Hashim (1999) notes, most Muslims disregard such claims, citing that the Quran advocates for the rights of both genders. The author also claims that most Muslims defend the Quran and Islam by highlighting that the roles and rights specified in this religion and holy text are based on the strengths and weaknesses of each sex (Hashim, 1999). Hashim (1999) also adds that feminists do not include Islam's importance to women, which might explain why they are so engaged with this religion. Nonetheless, the author affirms that the Quran has often been interpreted from a patriarchal perspective, which explains the gender inequality that is often condemned by feminists. According to Hashim (1999), it is difficult for Muslims to adopt feminists' beliefs because it is challenging to forsake the beliefs they have subscribed to in their entire lives.

          Bagheri (2012) conducted a qualitative study of religion, gender role beliefs, and culture in the lives of Muslim men. Therefore, though his research has similar objectives to those by Hashim (1999), their focus groups are different. While Hashim (1999) analyzes women as the main subjects of his study, Bagheri (2012) discusses Muslim men and their gender role beliefs. In his research, Bagheri (2012) suggests that Islam is commonly perceived as an inherently misogynistic religion. Similar to Hashim (1999), Bagheri (2012) asserts that make superiority is linked to Islam more than in any other major religion. However, this research presents an interesting view that lacks in work by Hashim (1999). According to Bagheri (2012), media often misrepresents masculinity in Islam and Islamic countries. This research suggests that stereotypes and discrimination in the US are major hurdles that Muslim men have to deal with. Irrespective of this difference in assertions between Hashim (1999) and Bagheri (2012), a similarity is maintained in that both researchers claim that Islam impacts how men and women are treated and how they treat each other.

            Christianity is also a reflection of the impact of religion on gender roles and identity and masculinity Vs. Femininity. In her article, Walker (1999) claims that Churches perceive human nature as a danger to women. The author argues that Christianity is often used to deny women of their rights and control of their own bodies by, for instance, strongly prohibiting abortion. This example is also provided by Raday (2003), who also discusses how Christianity influences culture and gender. Nevertheless, the information offered in the research by Raday (2003) is quite hopeful because the author posits that in recent years, Christian denominations have illustrated a strong willingness to get rid of their traditional patriarchal rules by, for instance, allowing women more opportunities for religious offices. On this topic, Walker (1999) had similar thoughts concerning the changing leadership structures in churches, though the author notes that Christian leadership roles vastly remain in men's hands. However, things are not so positive in Islam, seeing that the religion remains closely linked to its roots (Raday, 2003). Still, as Walker (1999) affirms, women continue to demand liberation from a religious-based perspective.

                                                          Summary

             This review has immersed itself in exploring the scholarly thoughts on the impacts of gender roles on parenting and childhood and teenagehood, as well as the role of religion in masculinity and femininity. Most of the researchers maintain similar thoughts concerning the impact of gender roles on children and adolescents, though they explore different theories and ways through which this impact is felt. Gender roles affect parenting styles and physical control strategies, besides influencing the kind of lessons and values that parents teach their children. Finally, research indicates that religion affects gender roles, though not good because the institution is said to advocate for a patriarchal system.

                                                               References

Arbiol, J. & Labial, M.R. (2019). Parenting Styles and Gender Roles. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jennifer-Arbiol/publication/334362408_Parenting_Styles_and_Gender_Roles/links/5d25917aa6fdcc2462d07304/Parenting-Styles-and-Gender-Roles

Bagheri, E. (2012). A qualitative investigation of religion, gender role beliefs, and culture in the lives of a select group of Muslim men. Available at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3562&context=etd

Halpern, H. P., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2017). Parents’ gender ideology and gendered behavior as predictors of children’s gender-role attitudes: A longitudinal exploration. Sex roles, 74(11-12), 527-542. Available at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=masters_theses_2

Blum, R. W., Mmari, K., & Moreau, C. (2017). It begins at 10: How gender expectations shape early adolescence around the world. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(4), S3-S4. Available at: https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(17)30355-5/pdf

Early Childhood National Centers. (2015). Healthy Gender Development and Young Children: A Guide for Early Childhood Programs and Professionals. Available at: https://depts.washington.edu/dbpeds/healthy-gender-development.pdf

Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., van der Pol, L. D., van Berkel, S. R., Hallers‐Haalboom, E. T., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., & Mesman, J. (2017). Gender differences in child aggression: Relations with gender‐differentiated parenting and parents’ gender‐role stereotypes. Child development, 88(1), 299-316. Available at: https://cybermedlife.eu/attachments/article/5151/Gender%20Differences%20in%20Child%20Aggression%20-%20Relations%20With%20Gender%E2%80%90Differentiated%20Parenting%20and%20Parents%E2%80%99%20Gender%E2%80%90Role%20Stereotypes.pdf

Halim, M. L., & Ruble, D. (2010). Gender identity and stereotyping in early and middle childhood. In Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 495-525). Springer, New York, NY. Available at: http://web.csulb.edu/~mhalim/pub/Halim_Ruble_2010_Gender_identity_stereotyping_handbook_chapter.pdf

Hashim, I. (1999). Reconciling Islam and feminism. Gender & Development, 7(1), 7-14. Available at: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/121147/bk-gender-religion-spiritual-010198-en.pdf?sequence=1#page=9

Klingorova, K., & Havlíček, T. (2015). Religion and gender inequality: The status of women in the societies of world religions. Moravian Geographical Reports, 23(2), 2-11. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1050.5020&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Leaper, C. (2007). Parent’s Socialization of Gender in Children. Available at:  https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/gender-early-socialization/according-experts/parents-socialization-gender-children

Leszczyńska, K., & Zielińska, K. (2016). Gender in religion? Religion in gender?: commentary on theory and research on gender and religion. Studia Humanistyczne AGH, 15(3). Available at: https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/bitstream/handle/item/35923/leszczynska_zielinska_gender_in_religion_2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Patterns of gender development. Annual review of psychology, 61, 353-381. Available at:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3747736/

Miller, A. S., & Stark, R. (2002). Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved?. American journal of sociology, 107(6), 1399-1423. Available at:  http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/stark_gender.pdf

Perry, D. G., & Pauletti, R. E. (2011). Gender and adolescent development. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 61-74. Available at: https://library.pcw.gov.ph/sites/default/files/gender%20and%20adolescent%20development.pdf

Raday, F. (2003). Culture, religion, and gender. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 1(4), 663-715. Available at:  https://academic.oup.com/icon/article-pdf/1/4/663/2353024/010663.pdf

Walker, B. (1999). Christianity, development, and women's liberation. Gender & Development, 7(1), 15-22. Available at: http://bibliobase.sermais.pt:8008/BiblioNET/Upload/PDF9/006949.pdf#page=72