Gender Culture and Socialization

Rita Mae Kelly

Society. it is said, is like “ ‘a gigantic Alcatraz,’ a prison of already constructed worker identity. definitions” (Berger and Luckman 1966;Farganis 1986). Humans enter into a world already shaped by gender, class, race, ethnicity, nationality, and existing sociopolitical economic systems. As Sondra Farganis (1986) notes:
One’s life is lived by learning from others-significant others, generalized others, agents of socialization-what
one must do to make it through the terrain of lived experience. Who one is-that is, the already existent class and status . . into which one is born-determines how the terrain is traversed almost a predictably as will one’s eye color or ear length or predisposition to a genetic probl dem such as Tay- Sachs or sickle cell anemia. One’s socially ascribed status is pre-set, “there,” a vise into which one’s particular self is placed and away from which one can move with varying degrees of ease. or difficulty.

Gender culture is a generic term for the variety of ways in which persons are shaped by socialized sex-role expectations and ways in which sex differences are manifested. Clearly, the meaning of being a man or woman, of being masculine or feminime has altered considerably in the 20th century. Up to the 1970's and the Women's Movement, male and female were strongly associated with bipolar notions of masculinity and femininity. In the 1970s androgyny became popular, the nition that the ideal person, particularly the ideal professional, was a person who shared the instrumental masculine self with the more expressive feminine self.

In the 1980s androgyny retreated in popularity among socialization experts and a more multiplistic and pluralistic approach to gender appeared. Concern existed that androgyny produced a “hollow identity” (Mednick 1988; Morawski 1987; Rita Mae Kelly Sarbin and Scheibe 1983). Ascribed roles were confused with and negated by attained roles. A female’s feminine identity was subsumed or totally absorbed by her worker identity. Many did not appreciate the loss of the “vive la difference” notion between the sexes. Homogeneity was not necessarily what was desired or what co stituted empirical reality. Nonetheless, the parallel between androgyny and liberal
equality retains appeal to many scholars, particularly liberal feminists, as well as to activists.

Although the terms of the debate change over time, consensus exists that sex and gender differences remain. Important questions are, which parts of the gender culture are malleable, and which ones are likely to be found unchangeable, due to biology or consistency in socialization processes?

Analyses of sex roles have focused on three basically different orientations: socia1 biology, social learning, and social cognition. Biological analyses rely heavily on the reproductive, physical, and hormonal differences between males and females. Social learning theories focus on how rewards and punishments shape sex- role behaviors. Social cognition theories identify cognitive “schemas” or “scripts” as the core of sex-role development. In recent
years the latter two theories have blended together in some ways (Kendrick 1987). Both stress that children learn an ill-defined, fuzzy set of sex-role schemas associated with their culture, which they then apply in their behavior and identity development. More recently, scholars have stressed the interaction among the organism, the environment, and cognition.

Biological Differences

Sex differences are associated with biological differences. Historically, it was widely believed that men and women differed sharply in intellectual and physical abilities, in addition to differing in reproductive capacities. For example, until the 1980s the stereotypical, as well as the “scientific” view, was that males were superior in their mathematical abilities, were more aggressive, and had greater visual-spatial acuity, while females possessed superior verbal ability (Maccoby and Jacklin 1974). Indeed, to be male or to be female was, for most practical purposes, to be classified into mutually exclusive categories.

By the 1990s most of these views had changed dramatically. Among scientists some consensus still exists that males more readily deal with algebra than females, but recent studies reveal no meaningful differences with regard to arithmetic or geometry (Powell 1988). In addition, - it is now recognized that girls tend to do as well as boys when they take math classes; the difference is that the girls opt out of taking such classes at much higher rates
than boys. By the time adulthood is attained, the percentage differences as well as the actual math abilities between the sexes are considerable (Anastasi 1985).

Males are also still thought to be more adept at selected aspects of visual-spatial ability, but it is no longer concluded that they have across-the-board superiority. Differences in verbal ability are now considered less significant (Powell 1988), although females still perform better than males at all ages in perceptual speed, the
ability “to perceive details quickly and accurately and to shift attention from one item to the next rapidly” (Hyde 1985). Some social development experts still see an overall female advantage in verbal ability and a male advantage in mathematical and visual-spatial ability (Grusec and Lytton 1988).

The gender difference found in visual- spatial ability has been projected to cognitive style in a way negative to women (Witkin 1964). From a series of experiments with a rod and a frame tilted at various angles, it was discovered that men made fewer errors than women in adjusting the rod to the true vertical without the frame. From this finding Witkin (1964) and his colleagues concluded that men had an independent cognitive style, whereas women had a field dependent style. As Hyde (1985, p. 196) notes, it would be just as accurate, perhaps more accurate, and certainly less pejorative to women, if the authors had concluded that “women are context-sensitive and men are context-in- sensitive.”

Although it is now thought that both men and women can be equally aggressive, it appears that different stimuli trigger the aggression. Men are more likely to initiate aggression and to respond to physical challenges whereas women are more likely to get angry because of unfair treatment (Powell 1988). Girls also appear to be more likely to take steps to avoid quarrels and to self-select out of high conflictldominance situations whereas boys are inclined to seek them out (Gilligan 1982). Reviews of multiple studies of sex differences in nurturance and aggres-
siveness reveal that females tend to be more nurturing as adults as well as during childhood, and that in a variety of cultures males are consistently found to be more aggressive, more physical, and more dominance- oriented (Grusec and Lytton 1988).

Other studies have found a link between nonverbal expressions of dominance and sexual attractiveness. “Dominant males were seen as more sexually attractive in three studies; no such relationship was found for females’’ (Kendrick 1987, p. 35).

In previous eras these differences- and many others-were thought to be biologically determined and unchangeable.
Today more confidence exists that educa- tion and socialization can provide indi- viduals with sufficient levels of skill, whether in mathemitics, verbl or analytical ability, to compete with members of either sex. . As the debate over Scholastic (SAT) scores makes clear, many achievement-related sex differences were created by the wording of tests, not by biolgical differences (Evangelauf 1989, Waters 1989). Moreover, it is now recognized that at least half of the top 1% highest IQs are female. The lack of public achievements by women are not the result of native ability. Explanations must be sought elsewhere.

Today, most sex differences are viewed as variations in degrees rather than dualistic opposites. Figure 1.1 illustrates the switch in thinking. The bell-shaped curves depicting male and female abilities over-lap considerably, indicating that on average, even when differences exist between the sexes, the differences do not signify mutually exclusive abilities or skills.

Even when one sex is thought to have an advantage (such as males are thought to have in algebra and coordination of most body movements), large numbers and percentages of women will still be superior to large numbers and percentages of men. Society is clearly better off using female talents than not using them and relying on less capable males. In addition, the variation in ability among males, even mathematical and visual-spatial ability, is substantially greater than the ability differences between maIes and females. Among females, less sharp extremes in ability and performance occur (Grusec and Lytton 1988). Group variations within each sex are sufficient to permit large numbers of women to compete on equal footing with large numbers of men. With
regard to major workplace issues, at any point of the bell-shaped curve (Figure 1. l), differences between men and women are less significant than differences among women themselves and among men themselves.

As new technologies enable individuals to perform tasks previously accomplished by manual labor, the traditionally male occupations that require physical strength, like the military, will increasingly rely on people trained to operate sophisticated machinery (Witherspoon 1988). Although women are demonstrating competence in meeting these changing needs (Laboda 1990), not all women are suited to all such physically demanding jobs. The gradual movement of women into such positions has, however, helped to break down myths suggesting that women are physically inferior.

Women’s migration into the military and law enforcement has accompanied an increasing support of women’s participation in sports. Women were barred from entering the original Olympic Games in 1896; they now compete in most events. Five women now serve on the International Olympic Committee. Additionally, small but growing numbers of women serve at every level of international sport (De Frantz 1988). This international competition has set a precendent for expanded participation in sports by women at all levels of the U.S. society. Title IX has also
opened opportunities on school athletic teams for women. Before the passage of this law, which limits discrimination against students, faculty, and staff in federally assisted education programs, women accounted for only 7% of inter- scholastic athletes, and no colleges offered women’s athletic scholarships. By 1982, women accounted for 35% of the inter- scholastic athletes, and by 1984, more than 10,000 athletic scholarships were offered to women (Bohlig 1988). Sociologist Susan Greendorfer has argued that, by playing in high school and college sports, men gain “an incredible advantage, because most workplaces are structured on a competitive model” (Bloch 1989, p. 138). Health magazine editor Gordon Bakoulis Bloch comments, “Sports have always
been part of the glue that has kept the old- boy network alive and kicking; now women can reap the same benefits from the contacts they make through sports” (1989, p. 138). American businesswomen not only have demonstrated an interest in playing and following professional sports, they have also found that sports talk can
open doors with new clients (Friedman 1989). This change in understanding of the nature of sex differences has opened important new workplace opportunities for women.

In the 1980s, even the assumption that only women can carry and nurse a child was being challenged, as efforts were made to enable men to have fetuses implanted in their abdomens and devices were developed to facilitate a baby sucking from the father. Test tube babies and genetic engineering in general have opened new doors for cross-sex behavior that once would have been considered absolutely impossible. Advances in reproductive
technology, especially in birth control and abortion, have also reduced the ease with which reproductive differences can be used to establish dichotomous, mutually exclusive differences between the sexes. Only the most naive or the most rigid believers in sex differences can still argue that biology is destiny and that, because of
physiological differences, males belong in one sphere of life and females in another.

Environmental Factors

Simone de Beauvoir once wrote that, “one is not born a woman, but rather becomes a woman” (1952, p. 301). We learn, we imitate, we identify. We are socialized by our parental family, school, religion, friends, peers, the mass media, and the organizations and people with whom we work. Gender differences in socialization that have relevance for career choices and success abound. These differences are thought to be particularly meaningful in
terms of shaping ambition, skill development, moral development, attitudes toward power, and behavioral/leadership styles.

The Family

Imitation of same-sex models, particularly parents, is recognized as central to the socialization process. Boys will tend to imitate their fathers or a favored older male, whereas girls will tend to imitate their mothers or a favored older female. If these parents act out and believe in the traditional sex-role stereotypes, they are likely to reward boys for being leaders, encouraging competitiveness, autonomy, aggressiveness, and independence, and to
discourage girls from similar behavior. Seeing that they are rewarded for being gentle, caring, nurturing, and supportive of others, girls respond increasingly in these ways until such behavior becomes habitual. To break out of this pattern is difficult.

In the 1980s, increasing numbers of parents chose a more egalitarian approach to child rearing, expecting girls as well as boys to be competitive in sports, to excel in math and science, to be independent, and to be leaders. In addition, as more and more mothers worked outside the home, it became increasingly likely that daughters would have as their mothers female role models who themselves had successful careers. Imitation of professional and managerial mothers facilitates similar career success in daughters, just as imitation of professional and managerial fathers facilitates similar career success in sons (Kelly and Boutilier 1988).

Ambition typically precedes achievement. Parents who hold egalitarian views about sex-roles tend to expect their daughters to perform well in school and to have high career aspirations. Yet, they also expect their daughters to use the family as a referent more than their sons. Beginning early in childhood, girl’s play is focused on
mimicking family life and responsibilities. In 1966 and in 1975, less than 6% of high school and college women did not intend to marry (Donelson 1977). Moreover, even in the 198Os, a majority of girls still gave “mother” or “wife” as their primary occupational goal; young boys seldom mentioned “father” or “husband as their career aspiration (Greenglass and Devins 1982).

Males also use the family as a referent. The outcome is different, however, be- cause their experience in an intact family is different. Men are assumed to need and/or deserve more leisure time and greater freedom from housework and other caretaking functions. Women are assumed to accept these family and nurturing responsibilities as central to their womanhood. These differences in orientation toward the family and the adult re-
sponsibility that women and men are expected to have within the family and in their roles as wife/husband, mother/father, daughter/son, and initiator or receiver of sexual interest strongly influence career opportunities in the workplace.

One consequence of the differential emphasis on family responsibilities is that, even in egalitarian family environments, girls more often than boys tend to opt for occupations more compatible with child care responsibilities, such as being an elementary rather than a university teacher, or being a nurse instead of a doctor, or being a science technician rather than a scientist or engineer. Societal patterns become norms to be followed rather than simply choices that other generations have made (Kendrick 1987).

To achieve one needs to be ambitious; to be ambitious means one must be motivated. Studies consistently show that “adult sex differences in cognitive abilities are motivational, and that motivational differences lead to different learning experiences” (Kendrick 1987, p. 24). This motivational difference is found to be related to the “reliably more persistent and single- minded pursuit of high levels of occupational achievement among males, but only
small differences in abilities” (Kendrick 1987, p. 24). It is also found to have significant influence on girls’ decisions to take or avoid mathematics in high school and college. Given that mathematics is the “critical filter” for jobs in the core economy and high-prestige professions, such as engineering, medicine, computer science, the
physical sciences, and business, it is vital to reverse the decision of girls not to take math (Sherman 1982). Gender equity and parity in career success will not occur if skills to compete are not obtained.

Studies of factors affecting career choices of females in the labor force indi- cate that entrepreneurs and managers
both:

. . . scored higher than did secretaries in achieving motivation, locus of control, internality, and sex role ‘masculinity.’ . . . Women owners had more parental models, both mothers and fathers, who had engaged in occupational ownership than did either the managers or secretaries. This suggests that very early experience may be significant in determining important career behaviors that are seen later in life. (Osipow 1987, p. 274)

Two studies in 1985 show that “the motivation influences of aspiration, mastery, and career commitment are significantly related to the background, personal, and environmental dimensions” (Osipow 1987, p. 273). H.S. Farmer (1985) finds,that the environmental changes are having a significant effect on girls’ career and achievement motivations, reflecting again the impact of the Women’s Movement and the demand for female labor. Farmer also found a change in boys; they are not anticipating playing a shared role in parenting as well as having a career. In the same study, girls were found to have higher career aspirations than boys.

The critical role of parents in sex-role development can hardly be overstated. Studies consistently show that both mothers and fathers impact their child’s sex-role identity and that fathers are much more likely to be traditional in the roles and behaviors they encourage. “The process of [sex-role] differentiation is attributed to the powerful socialization pressures of the family and society through differential reinforcement and the process of identification with the same sex parent” (Shepherd- Look 1982, p. 412). The power of parental sex-role expectations on themselves and their children can be seen in several findings: a baby dressed in pink and labeled a girl will be given dolls, labeled cuddly, weaker, smaller, softer, and more finely featured than a baby dressed in blue and
labeled a boy; and girls will be smiled at and parents will do things for them-rewarding them for dependent behavior. Boys, on the other hand, will be taught how to do a task and praised for their independence and ability. Fathers, in particular, are found to stress competence, task performance, achievement, careers, and occupational success for their sons, but to reinforce dependency behavior on parts of daughters (Shepherd-Look 1982). It is almost self-evident that parents who do not encourage achievement and career ambition for their daughters will be less likely to provide them with the financial, emotional, and other intellectual supports required to obtain the educational and other human capital to succeed. The professional mother becomes important here, not only as a role model, but also as the source that can ensure availability of such resources (Kelly and Boutilier 1988).

According to Nancy Chodorow (1978), early childhood socialization accounts for much of the difference in adult masculine and feminine characteristics. The difference stems from the way gender identity is formed for males and females. Females achieve gender identity in the ongoing relationship with their mother. They are taught relational and empathetic skills and their identity is forged within the family relationship. They must separate from their mothers in order to achieve a masculine identity, thus their individuation and self-concept are forged in relation to the larger world.

These differences in psychological development are thought to affect not only the way an individual perceives him or herself but also society's view of the individual. When societal expectations or role demands meet self-concept, the result is often individual confusion. this confusion is thought to be greter for females on the average than for males simply because their orientation to the larger world has been more limited (Chodorow 1978). By the same token, their self-image lacks individuation, as they view themselves functioning only in relationship to the whole. Female ethical concerns highlight relationship and understanding as a result relationship often takes precedence over achievement. Socialization literature stresses that females aare more cooperative, more empathic, and emphasize in interpersonal relationships much more than males - from childhood through advanced ages.. (Grusec and Lytton 1988) A consequence of this gender difference is tht when individual achievement is highlighteerd, women often experiece a higher sense of success anxiety when that achievement is perceived to be at the expense of another. Numerous observers argue that these differences in socialization lead to substantial differences in managerial and decision-making styles as adults.

From 1960 to 1988, the number of female-headed households (single or divorced) raisinng children alone more than trippled. More than one of five children live with only one parent (US Census Bureau 1989). Usually it is the father who is absent, raising the question, "Does a father's absence make a difference in a girl's sex-role development?" Studies show that no effect is found on preadolescent girls, but that effects do appear during adolescence. Girls without fathers showed anxiety and discomfort around males and tended to be more sexually precocious and “inappropriately aggressive” toward males (Shepherd-Look 1982). Girls from divorced families then to marry earlier, be pregnant when they marry and be less satisfied with their partner, ultimately leading to more divorces.

Birth order and social class

Birth order and social class have also been found to be important mediators of sex-role socialization and career success. (Basow 1980; Hess and Sussman 1984; Weitzman 1975). Birth order studies show that high achievers are more likely to be first born, only children or last born. For both sexed, family size, the number of and gender of siblings, relaations to parents, and socialclass interact with birth order to impact career success. In general, birth order is important because, as the first or only child (or the last), the child is more likely to receive financial resources and more attention, both of which are essential for success. Many female achievers have not only been first born, they also have had no brothers, suggesting that having no competition for such resources from males was critical (Crawford 1977; Lott 1973; Mednick, Tangri and Hoffman 1975). In the 1980s, as the average number of children declined to less than 2.0, such birth order concerns undoubtedly have less impact.

Studies of successful women in the 1970s debated whether achieving women were deviants or the products of an enriched environment (Almquist and Angrist 1971). Research supported the enrichment perspective. For example, all female presidents and vice presidents of U.S. businesses in a 1977 study of managerial women were first-born children who felt special as children, had parents with high educational levels, and a mother with a strong employment record with positive feelings toward her work (Hennig and Jardim 1977). Similar patterns were found among the very highest female political leaders (Kelly and Boutilier 1988).

Adolescence, Peers, and the Opposite Sex

Adolescence has been a critical point in the development of achievement and ambition for girls. Until reaching puberty, girls are encouraged to excel as much as boys. Then, in preparation for adulthood, which historically meant wifehood and motherhood, the stress switched to the adoption of feminine attitudes and behaviors. Academic excellence, achievement, and femininity have historically not been viewed as being compatible (Hyde 1985). The impact on self-concept has been considerable. For example, although gender differences are small in elementary school, by the eleventh and twelfth grades girls were found to be significantly more concerned with being liked and were more self-conscious, whereas boys were more concerned with achievement and competence (Rosenberg and Simmons 1975).

Numerous studies have found that sex roles mediate intellectual accomplishments and achievement aspirations (Shep- herd-Look 1982). Children, and adolescents in particular, strive to be consistent with their self-defined gender categorization. “Simply labeling a task as appropriate for either boys or girls has had the effect of increasing expectancy for success, appeal of the game, task persistence, quality of performance, and achievement level attained . . . when the task was sex-appropriate” (Shepherd-Look 1982, p. 425). Girls and women are consistently found to have higher success expectations and higher performance standards when the area of achievement was considered appropriate for females (Anderson 1988; Hoener 1969; Stein and Bailey 1973). In
addition, the females showing the greatest fear of achievement were those with the strongest traditional sex-role expectations (Shepherd-Look 1982). The fear of success syndrome appears to be a fear of inappropriate sex-role behavior (Deaux 1976).

If women are to be achievement oriented and successful in careers, the female sex role needs to be perceived as more compatible with achievement-oriented behaviors, and males need to become accepting of that behavior. These data draw attention to the importance of role models of the same sex, and highlight again why having a successful mother in a positive relationship with an adult male (spouse or significant other) is so critical to the self-
esteem and achievement aspirations of the daughter.

Another difficulty in developing female achievers concerns the dating game. Because girls mature at a faster rate than boys, they tend to seek and date older males who, because of their age, are more knowledgeable and more experienced. This differential establishes a pattern of deference and an assumption that men are more likely to be knowledgeable about the world than women (Hyde 1985). Historically, girls did not have the option of taking
the initiative in the dating game. Rather, they had to use their appearance and “feminine wiles” to attract males. One longitudinal study of fifth- and sixth-grade girls, begun in the 1930s, found that the more attractive girls had, as women, married the most well-to-do, successful men (Elder 1969). This demonstrated that, as late as the 1960s, “a woman’s status [was] determined by her appearance, a man’s by his achievements” (Hyde 1985, p. 163).

In the 1980's dating patterns changed, enabling girls to take initiative. Relationships came to be more emphasized than marriage. In 1970, 35% of all US women aged 20-24 had never married; by 1987, that percentage had risen to60.8% (US Bureau of census 1989). The reduced interest in early marriage reflected the pursuit of more education for young women and an effort to resist the contraints associated with the wife/mother role.

commercials create false gender expecta-

Television

Children in the United States watch an average of 20 hours or more of televisioneach week, and telerision plays a major role in most children’s lives before they learn to read and write (Morgan and Signorielli 1990). The content of television shows can shape viewers’ conception of gender roles (Durkin 1985), and television can have considerable impact on children’s perceptions of gender. The influence of TV on the development of children’s
gender identities raised concern in the 1970s (Dambrot, Reep and Bell 1988). One 1974 study of shows popular at the time found only 34 significant female characters, “and those were presented in very traditional female roles characterized by dependence and over-emotionalism. There was not a single instance in which a married woman worked outside the home”(Shepherd-Look 1982, p. 426)

Fortunately television shows have changed substantially over the last 15 years. Women in such shows as Murphy
Brown, The Cosby Show, and even StarTrek--The Next Generation express nontra ditional attitudes and pursue careers. Nevertheless, while the number of female main characters has significantly increased over the 1980s. women are still underrepresented. A 1989 study by Signorielli found that nearly 71% of prime time characters are men, while only 29% are women (Signorielli 1989). This study also revealed that women were more likel than men to be identified by their marital

Printed Matter

Children’s literature has historically been very male-centered. A 197 l study of the Caldecott Award winning books di covered that most stories were about boys, men, male animals, or male adventures (Nilsen 1971). A follow-up 1972 study found that males appeared in pictures 11 times more frequently than females and that “most of the women in picture books have status by virtue of their relationships to specific men-they are the wives of the
ried woman worked outside the home” kings, judges, adventurers, and explorers, But they themselves are not the rulers, judges, adventurers, and exporers. (Shepherd-Look 1982, p. 426).

Like television programming, children’s literature has also improved its portrayal of gender roles.
Follow up studies on the Caldecott Award winners in the 1980s found that, by 1985, the rtio of male to female characters had risen from a low of 78% males to 22% females in the period from 1971 to 1975 to 57% males to 43% females in the period from 1981 to 1985. (Doughtery and Engel 1987). The raatio of illustrations of men and owmen also improved from 75% males to 17% females in the period from 1976 to 1980 to 63% males to 37% females in the period from 1981 to 1985 (Doughtery and Engel 1987). Again, these statistics demonstrate that male bias continues to permeate the media socializing American children; however, this improvement can allow future business leaders to better appreciate women’s contributions. Gayle Kimball, a professor of women’s studies at California State University, Chico, notes that parents can help shape their children’s attitudes by screening books their children read (Kimball1988).

The Schools

Schools have been notorious for perpetuating the traditional sex-role stereotypes. Teachers consistently pay more attention to boys than girls. They also tend to reward males for independence and task performance and reward females for passivity and dependence behavior. By giving different feedback to each sex, they can instill a learned helplessness in girls (Dweck and Goetz 1977; Greenberg 1988). In the classroom setting, girls “receive less
teacher attention than boys, unless girls stay physically close to the teacher and lose needed opportunities for inventive and independent experiences.” Greenberg continues, “boys receive attention whether they stay near to or far from the teacher” (Greenberg 1988, p. 462).

Schools often have sex-typed tracking systems as well, with higher proportions of girls going into English, history, and the social sciences at the college preparatory track, and more males going into the physical sciences and math. In vocational areas, girls are channeled into home economics, typing, and bookkeeping, whereas
boys are channeled more into mechanical and technical courses.

Textbooks and tests also perpetuate traditional sex-roles. Even in 1990, women are rarely pictured as political leaders, scientists, and public achievers. An analysis of 24 best-selling teacher educatior, texts reveals that, as educators, teachers are not being made aware of the problem of sexism in the classroom. Of the 24 texts reviewed, 23 gave less than 1% of their space to the issue of sexism; one-third did not mention sexism at all; not a single text provided future teachers with curricular resources or strategies to counteract sexism in the classroom (Sadker and Sadker 1988). The content of textbooks for students gives the basic message that females are less important and less visible than males. In addition, educational achievement tests contain more male than female pronouns and references. Item content analysis of social science texts also revealed that the majority of the professors, doctors, presidents of companies, and members of professional teams, as well as famous persons in history, were male.
Moreover, most biographies were about men. When women or girls did appear, they were more often portrayed in passive roles and/or sterotyped occupations (Hahn and Bernard-Powers 1988).

Conclusion

The fact that changes in many of the historically more negative patterns of socialization for girls have occurred cannot be disputed. Yet remnants of the impact of these patterns on female aspirations and achievement potential remain. The women trying to move up the career ladder in the 1990s, who are now in their mid- thirties and forties, were socialized during a more traditional period. Studies of the female identity patterns of this age group
during adolescence revealed three different approaches: being traditional, anticipating no career and being a wife/mother; being achievement- and success-oriented for oneself with no intention of marrying or having children; and finally being bimodal and committed to both family and career, the “superwoman” of the 1980s (Dellas and Gaier 1975). As Hyde (1985) points out, none of these approaches really resolves the identity conflict between femininity and achievement. The first two each reject the other; the third attempts to be all things to all people. The women today who are in their fifties and sixties, who should de be at the top of their careers, were raised during an even more traditional period. Sex-role ideology and traditional sex-role development patterns hang heavy on the lives of both males and females playing the 1990s’ competitive game of “success.” We might need to await the 21st century to witness the development of more viable options.”

return to Issues reader