The following reading is a compilation of paragraphs from an article written by Cecilia

Ridgeway, a professor of social sciences at Stanford University. She focused her research on

social hierarchy and gender stratification. In this article you should be looking for her

explanation of how gender affects employment and how women are treated in the workforce.

Look for her list of reason that gender status affects the work place. Keep your eye out for terms

that describe types of gender inequality. Think of ways that you could change the way you think

about gender status.

Key words:

Actors- refers to individuals that are studied in the research

Macro- used to describe analyzing something from a societal or cultural level

Salient- most notable or important

Socioeconomic- relating to or concerned with the social and economic factors

Gender Hierarchy- when one gender is seen as superior over the other.

Gender stratification- refers to men’s and women’s unequal access to power, prestige, and

property.

Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering

Employment

How can we explain the persistence of gender hierarchy in our society over major

historical transformations in its socio-economic base? A system that advantages men over

women in material resources, power, status, and authority (i.e., gender hierarchy) has continued

in one form or another despite profound structural changes such as industrialization and the

movement of production out of the household, women's accelerated movement into the labor

force after World War II, and, most recently, women's entry into male-dominated occupations

(Hartmann 1976; Reskin and Roos 1990). What accounts for the chameleon-like ability of

gender hierarchy to reassert itself in new forms when its old structural forms erode?

Although there is no single answer, part of the solution may lie in the way gender

stratification is mediated by interactional processes that are largely taken for granted. In this

paper I argue that interactional gender mechanisms can operate as an "invisible hand" that

rewrites gender inequality into new socioeconomic arrangements as they replace the prior

socioeconomic bases for gender hierarchy.

I focus on interactional mechanisms that mediate gender inequality in paid employment.

Employment is one of two interdependent structural foundations on which our present system of

gender hierarchy appears to rest; the other is the household division of labor. Some efforts have

been made to understand the interactional mediation of the latter (Berk 1985; Risman 1987), but

few for the former. A substantial research industry has sought to explain the persistence of wage

inequality and sex segregated jobs. Key processes identified include statistical discrimination,

internal labor markets, and the rendering of labor queues into gender queues, but explanations

remain incomplete (England 1992; Reskin and Roos 1990). An analysis of mediating

interactional mechanisms may improve our answers to several stubborn questions including the

reasons for unrelenting gender-labeling of jobs despite occupational change, how employers'

apparent preferences for male workers persist even under competitive market pressures, why

women's work is devalued, whether and how people act in their gender interests in employment

matters, and why women workers accept lower wages than equivalent men.

Like race or class, gender is a multilevel system of differences and disadvantages that

includes socioeconomic arrangements and widely held cultural beliefs at the macro level, ways

of behaving in relation to others at the interactional level, and acquired traits and identities at the

individual level. Interactional processes contribute to all forms of inequality, but there are several

reasons for suspecting that they are especially important in gender inequality. First, our system of

sex categorization divides the population into two groups of roughly equal size, creating the

maximum structural likelihood of a high rate of interaction between men and women (Blau and

Schwarz 1984). Sex categorization crosscuts almost all other divisions in the population,

including kin and households, and forces regular cross-sex interaction on virtually everyone. In

addition, there is growing evidence that our cultural system of gender difference relies heavily on

interaction. What Deaux and Kite (1987) call the "now you see them, now you don't" nature of

sex differences in behavior suggests that they are situationally and thus interactionally based, as

many gender theorists now argue (Deaux and Major 1987; Eagly 1987; West and Zimmerman

1987).

I argue that gender becomes an important component of interactional processes because

the problems of organizing interaction evoke cultural schemas that reinforce continual sex

categorization. Sex categorization is the process by which actors classify one another as male or

female, supposedly on the basis of physical sex criteria, but more commonly on the basis of

personal presentation (e.g., clothing, hairstyles) that the audience presumes stands for these sex

criteria (West and Zimmerman 1987). As ethnomethodologists have demonstrated, this process

is almost entirely socially constructed despite its apparent "naturalness" (Goffman 1977; Kessler

and McKenna 1978). Sex categorization in interaction, in turn, can activate a number of gender

processes that may recreate gender hierarchy in the organizational and resource-distributing

processes that the interaction mediates. I focus on two of these processes-status processes and

biased referential processes-that are especially relevant for employment inequality. After de-

scribing the interactional gender mechanisms, I discuss the role they play in mediating the

persistence of gender inequality in employment.

Gender Status and Behavior

By continually reinforcing sex/gender as a system of presumed difference, interaction creates a

salient distinction that can easily become a basis for inequality. Gender status beliefs are one

form of inequality: These are widely held cultural beliefs that evaluate one sex as generally

superior and diffusely more competent than the other. When status beliefs form, they become an

important component of gender stereotypes that is also effectively salient (affecting expectations

and behavior) in mixed-sex and gender-relevant situations (Carli 1991; Ridgeway 1993). It is

well documented that currently accepted gender stereotypes incorporate assumptions of men's

greater status value; that is, men's traits are generally viewed as more valuable than women's, and

men are diffusely judged as more competent (Broverman et al. 1972; Deaux and Kite 1987;

Eagly 1987).

Although other elements of gender stereotypes probably are also important, I focus here

on status beliefs because they are directly relevant to inequality. Gender status beliefs have three

types of effects on goal- oriented interaction that affect employment inequality. First, when

effectively salient, they cause both men and women to implicitly expect (or expect that others

will expect) greater competence from men than from women, all other things being equal. These

expectations tend to become self-fulfilling, shaping men's and women's assertiveness and

confidence, their judgments of each other's competence, their actual performance, and their

influence in the situation (Carli 1991; Miller and Turnbull 1986; Pugh and Wahrman 1983;

Ridgeway 1993).

Second, activated gender status beliefs create expectations for rewards that reflect an

actor's relative status and expected performance and thus favor men over equivalent women

(Berger, Fisek, Norman, and Wagner 1985). These reward expectations often acquire the

normative, moral quality of a "right" to rewards corresponding to one's status relative to others

who are different in status-relevant ways (Berger et al. 1985; Cook 1975). When gender status is

effectively salient, men may react negatively if they are placed on the same reward level as a

similar woman and may experience this situation as an implicit status threat.

Third, because gender status beliefs advantage men over women who are otherwise their

equals, men, on average, have less interest in attending to information that undermines

expectations based on gender status. Cognition research suggests that people are "good enough"

perceivers; the extent to which they move beyond initial categorizations, incorporate inconsistent

information, and develop complex, individuated impressions of the other is mediated by their

motives in the situation (Fiske 1992; Fiske and Neuberg 1990). In interaction, men are less likely

to notice, and more likely to discount if they do notice, information about self or other that might

diminish or eliminate the effects of gender status beliefs on expectations for competence and

rewards.

Gender Stereotypes, Salience, and Behaviors

If the cultural construction of sex as a simplified, prior categorization system is related to

its uses in interaction, then the cultural development of gender stereotypes is likely; these

describe what behaviors can be expected from a person of a given category. Given the basis of

automatic sex categorization in interactional contrasts, it is likely that whatever specific content

is attached to a sex category, it will be organized around polarized traits that differentiate men

from women (Deaux and Kite 1987).

In work settings institutional identities are likely to reside in the foreground for actors.

Evidence indicates, however, that even when other identities are the most powerful determinants

of behavior in a situation, cultural gender stereotypes become effectively salient (i.e., sufficiently

salient to measurably modify actors' expectations and behavior) under at least two conditions:

when the interactants differ in sex category, and when gender is relevant to the purposes or the

social context of the interaction (Berger et al. 1977; Cota and Dion 1986; Deaux and Ma- jor

1987). Indeed, gender may shape behavior most commonly as an effectively salient background

identity that acts in combination with more situationally salient foreground identities and

modifies their performance.

Even when initially they are not effectively salient, gender stereotypes are primed by ac-

tors' sex categorization of one another so that they are easily triggered, or made salient, by events

in interaction (Bargh 1989; Deaux and Major 1987). This is especially likely because of the

diffuse nature of gender stereotypes, which allows them to be construed as relevant to many

situations. For these reasons and because of the high rate of mixed-sex interaction, the conditions

in which gender stereotypes become salient enough to perceptively modify behavior and

judgments are a large subset of all situations.

Employment inequality is also preserved, some observers have concluded, by men acting

to maintain their advantages over women (Acker 1989; Bridges and Nelson 1989; Reskin 1988;

Stone 1995). How does this actually play out? Part of the answer is structural: The interests of

those in more powerful positions in employment organizations are represented more forcefully

than the interests of the less powerful, who are more likely to be women (Bridges and Nelson

1989). But writers suggest that more is involved.

Women periodically may sense that something prejudicial is happening to them, but they

may be frustrated in their efforts to act effectively against it. They will be vulnerable to "role

encapsulation," whereby others define them in their work identities in implicitly gendered terms

that limit their effectiveness as actors in their own interests (Kanter 1977). In their analysis of the

Washington State pay system, for instance, Bridges and Nelson (1989:645) found that women

employees were disadvantaged not only because they had fewer representatives in pay-setting

processes, but also because the actors and groups that traditionally represented women (e.g., the

Nurses Association) were viewed as "passive and ineffective" on pay issues. Interactional gender

mechanisms contribute to the situational construction of women in the workplace as

stereotypically more "passive and ineffective" than many men in pursuing their interests.

Ridgeway, C. L. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering

employment. American Sociological Review, 218-235.

Women and Men in Film: Gender Inequality Among Writers in a Culture of Industry

Read. Pg. 248-256, conclusion on pg. 265-267, pdf attatched.

This article is written by William and Denise Bielby, a husband and wife team who have

dedicated their research to pop culture and the sociological workings therein. This article is the

second article that focuses on gender inequality in video media. While reading this look for their

explanation of why this happens in media. Does it match why you think this happens in media?

What can be done to stop this cycle?

Gender Inequality in Film - An Infographic. (2013). Retrieved June 07, 2016, from

https://www.nyfa.edu/film-school-blog/gender-inequality-in-film/

The below article, written by the New York Times focuses on how Sweden is handling gender

inequality in film. Make sure to notice the reference to the Bechdel Test and how it is used. Try

to think of ways that this could be implemented in the US, and what effect it might have.

Sweden’s Plan to Bring Gender Equality to the Movies

Four Swedish movie theaters touched off a heated debate across Stockholm last month --

and in the English-language media this morning -- with the announcement that they plan to begin

publicly labeling films that pass the so-called “Bechdel test." The metric gauges whether a film

meets a bare minimum standard for developed female characters.

The initiative is called “A-märkt,” and its promoters are encouraging theaters to stamp its

“A” logo on the movie posters and pre-roll screens of any film that (1) has at least two female

characters who (2) talk to each other (3) about something other than men. The “A” stands for

both “approved” and “Allison,” the name of the American cartoonist who came up with the test.

A surprisingly (or maybe not surprisingly) high proportion of films fail this test.

A-märkt started off as a small, grassroots effort by four trendy Stockholm theaters. But in

the weeks since it was first reported, it has grown into a veritable movement, covered in a dozen

newspaper columns and earning the endorsements of Equalisters, Women in Television and Film

and a popular cable movie channel and, controversially, the blessing of Anna Serner, who

presides over Sweden’s state-funded film institute. Serner reportedly defended the rating to

Sweden’s public television network, SVT, and said that she sees the system as an "instrument of

film policy."

That comment has apparently ruffled feathers in the Swedish film community, where

critics have argued that the Bechdel test is a “blunt instrument” and that the government should

avoid any hint of regulating the content of films.

The Swedish government has long pursued policies to reduce gender inequality. That has

extended to many areas of Swedish society, one of which has certainly been the arts.

In the past, the Swedish government has directed the Swedish Film Institute to divide

funding equally between female and male applicants -- which is significant, given that the

institute funds four-fifths of Swedish movies. The institute, which runs an entire program on

gender equality in film, also polices its distributions for gender bias and publishes regular reports

on the results. In 2012, only 32 percent of state-funded features were produced by women -- a

high number by Hollywood standards, but one the institute has still promised to improve. It will

get some help from the Ministry of Culture, which earmarked funds for a multi-year initiative on

young women in film after a 2010 report found that few of them succeeded.

These are, of course, just a very small sample of the many programs Sweden dedicates to

gender equality. The country has 480 days of paid parental leave, strict anti-discrimination

legislation and a multimillion-kronor annual budget for programs on female entrepreneurship,

women’s health and gender education in primary schools. Sweden even has aMinister for Gender

Equality.

There’s lots of evidence to suggest that these policies work, too: According to the World

Economic Forum’s 2013 gender gap report, Sweden is the world’s fourth-most gender-equal

country, scoring particularly high marks on women’s education and on economic and political

representation.

For the record, a number of films, both in Swedish and English, do pass the Bechdel test.

The women’s group Equalisters compiled a list of them in October. Organizers also

recommend “Monica Z,” “Vi är bäst” and “Hotell,” which are in theaters now.

Dewey, C. (2015, November 6). Sweden's Plan to Bring Gender Equality to the Movies. The

Washington Post. Retrieved June 5, 2016, from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/11/06/swedens-plan-to-

bring-gender-equality-to-the-movies/

The following article penned by Jennifer Lawrence follows the Sony hack that released the

information of the top paid actors and actresses along with some controversial emails that

Lawrence references. While reading this take note of the tone, is she disappointed, sad,

frustrated? Think about what gender inequality factors are at play and whether or not they are

typical due to what the research shows.

Jennifer Lawrence, “Why do I Make Less than my Co-Stars?”

*contains explicit and possibly offensive language*

When Lena first brought up the idea of Lenny to me, I was excited. Excited to speak

to Lena, who I think is a genius, and excited to start thinking about what to complain about

(that's not what she pitched me, it's just what I'm gonna do). When it comes to the subject of

feminism, I've remained ever-so-slightly quiet. I don't like joining conversations that feel

like they're "trending." I'm even the asshole who didn't do anything about the ice-bucket

challenge — which was saving lives — because it started to feel more like a "trend" than a

cause. I should have written a check, but I fucking forgot, okay? I'm not perfect. But with a

lot of talk comes change, so I want to be honest and open and, fingers crossed, not piss

anyone off.

It's hard for me to speak about my experience as a working woman because I can

safely say my problems aren't exactly relatable. When the Sony hack happened and I found

out how much less I was being paid than the lucky people with dicks, I didn't get mad at

Sony. I got mad at myself. I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early. I didn't want to

keep fighting over millions of dollars that, frankly, due to two franchises, I don't need. (I

told you it wasn't relatable, don't hate me).

But if I'm honest with myself, I would be lying if I didn't say there was an element of

wanting to be liked that influenced my decision to close the deal without a real fight. I didn't

want to seem "difficult" or "spoiled." At the time, that seemed like a fine idea, until I saw

the payroll on the Internet and realized every man I was working with definitely didn't

worry about being "difficult" or "spoiled." This could be a young-person thing. It could be a

personality thing. I'm sure it's both. But this is an element of my personality that I've been

working against for years, and based on the statistics, I don't think I'm the only woman with

this issue. Are we socially conditioned to behave this way? We've only been able to vote for

what, 90 years? I'm seriously asking — my phone is on the counter and I'm on the couch, so

a calculator is obviously out of the question. Could there still be a lingering habit of trying

to express our opinions in a certain way that doesn't "offend" or "scare" men?

A few weeks ago at work, I spoke my mind and gave my opinion in a clear and no-

bullshit way; no aggression, just blunt. The man I was working with (actually, he was

working for me) said, "Whoa! We're all on the same team here!" As if I was yelling at him. I

was so shocked because nothing that I said was personal, offensive, or, to be honest, wrong.

All I hear and see all day are men speaking their opinions, and I give mine in the same exact

manner, and you would have thought I had said something offensive.

I'm over trying to find the "adorable" way to state my opinion and still be likable!

Fuck that. I don't think I've ever worked for a man in charge who spent time contemplating

what angle he should use to have his voice heard. It's just heard. Jeremy Renner, Christian

Bale, and Bradley Cooper all fought and succeeded in negotiating powerful deals for

themselves. If anything, I'm sure they were commended for being fierce and tactical, while I

was busy worrying about coming across as a brat and not getting my fair share. Again, this

might have NOTHING to do with my vagina, but I wasn't completely wrong when another

leaked Sony email revealed a producer referring to a fellow lead actress in a negotiation as a

"spoiled brat." For some reason, I just can't picture someone saying that about a man.

Jennifer Lawrence is an Academy Award–winning actress.

Lawrence, J. (2015, October 14). Jennifer Lawrence: "Why do I make less than my co-stars?"

Lenny. Retrieved June 5, 2016, from http://www.lennyletter.com/work/a147/jennifer-

lawrence-why-do-i-make-less-than-my-male-costars/