Gender Inequality is Still a Huge Issue

Throughout history, men have always been perceived as the dominant gender compared to women. Up until recently, men were the ones going to work while the women stayed home. They did not have hardly any rights, while having to stay home to handle raising the children and keeping up with household chores. Not only that, but women also got constantly abused by their husbands while they got away with it. While in today’s society, things have changed drastically, gender inequality is still a huge issue.

The idea of gender itself seems simple at first look, however many aspects come into play. These aspects are sex, gender, and gender roles. When speaking about the issues women in particular face, these aspects are significantly important. Sex is the biological way of understanding the difference between men and women. However, gender is a social behavior that is learned which then creates gender roles.
Therefore, gender inequality is defined as giving people different types of opportunities just because of their differences when it comes to their gender. Despite the fact that society has made significant progress and is unmistakably further developed than it was at any point in the past, it is still “old school” with regards to considering how people ought to be dealt with when it comes to gender inequality. Realist speculations characterize gender inequality disparity because of how people are tied to the financial structure of society. They think that a woman’s job as a mother and spouse are debased by society and deny access to very regarded public chances. Gender inequality is certainly something that society regularly underestimates; it is not acknowledged and appears to be so ordinary in the public eye. These distinctions frequently appear to be imperceptible to most despite the fact that it occurs in regular day to day existence. In everything from business, education, governmental issues, and the media without individuals monitoring it.

Structural functionalists place that things such as gender roles emerge from the need to build up a division of work that will help keep everything running smooth in the family setting and associatively add to the soundness of society. In this view, young ladies and young men are shown distinctive ways to deal with life. Young men are instructed to have goals and a lot of them at that, to concentrate on errands, and to be worried for the relationship of the family to outside societal structures. Young ladies, then again, are educated to express their feelings and to search for and respond to the feelings of others. From multiple points of view, the functionalist viewpoint of gender inequality is a result of its occasions, portraying the substances gender roles and disparities of the 1950s however not clarifying them.
Nonetheless, the functionalist point of view is less valuable for portraying the substances of gender in the postindustrial age, in which numerous women work outside the home, men can remain with their children at home, and everybody assists with daily chores. However, extensive research is required to be able to grasp a superior comprehension of gender inequality in twenty-first-century society and how the changing necessities of the postindustrial age influence these roles and how they keep society stable.

A theorist from the structural functionalist perspective might ask questions such as: “Even though gender inequality is perceived as an issue more times than not, can it be a helpful aspect too society? Can gender inequality be one of the reasons why there is still social order in today’s society between men and women in the workplace? How about in politics? Or even at home situations? Do you think it would be different in a good or bad way if the gender roles were completely reversed?” These are just some questions that could be asked by a theorist from the structural functionalist perspective on gender inequality.

As indicated by conflict theory, society is characterized by a battle for strength among social groups that go after rare assets. With regards to gender, conflict theory contends that gender is best comprehended as men endeavoring to keep up power and benefit to the impediment of women. Thus, men can be viewed as the prevailing sex and women as the subordinate sex. Even though some gender roles may have been suitable in a past society, conflict scholars contend that the main reason these roles persevere is on the grounds that the dominance of one group over another normally works to keep up their status.

Conflict theorists would say social issues are made when the dominate group abuses or mistreats the subordinate group. Thus, their methodology is regularizing in that it recommends changes to the power structure, pushing an equalization between men and women. In history’s past, men have truly held a large portion of the world’s assets. Up until the nineteen hundred’s, women were not allowed to vote or own land, making them altogether reliant on men. Men, similar to some other group with an influence or power advantage, battled to keep up their authority over assets (for this situation, political and monetary influence). Strife between men and women caused social change because this lead to the Women’s Suffrage Movement.

Some questions a theorist from the social conflict perspective would ask are: “Is gender inequality part of the perfect American dream? Is this a reason gender roles are still in today’s society? What would gender inequality look like in today’s society if the Women’s Suffrage Movement never happened? Would it be better or worse than it was back then? How would men react if the gender roles were reversed? How would society be in today’s world if women were the dominant gender?” These are just a few of the questions a theorist from the social conflict perspective could ask about gender inequality.

Symbolic interactionism is the idea to comprehend human conduct by examining the basic role of symbolistic interactions in humans. Basically, everyone in society treats others on how they interact with other individuals. This is something that has changed multiple times throughout history. It can also change again, many more times depending on how interactions between individuals change. This is absolutely important to the topic of manliness and womanliness, on the grounds that the attributes and practices of both are socially developed, imitated, and fortified through day by day cooperation.

For instance, say that an individual goes into a bank, wanting to get a small loan for something. Maybe for school or a house. If the individual were to meet with a male, they may express their case consistently, listing the majority of the hard numbers that make them a good candidate for the loan. This kind of methodology would interest the systematic attributes ordinarily connected with males and masculinity. In the event that this individual meet with a female for the loan, they may try to dig into the more emotional side to achieve their goal. This would speak to the softer, more emotional social qualities regularly connected with women or femininity. Even so, this theory does not take into account the good and bad, but seeing gender as something that that provides day to day relationships with other individuals.

Some questions a theorist would ask from the symbolic interactionist perspective would be: “Do people make their social reality amid everyday interactions? Is gender a part of individual execution? Does gender help as to shape all connections of individuals in day by day life?” These are some questions a theorist would ask from a symbolic interactionist perspective on gender inequality.

Overall, when it comes to gender inequality, it is best understood by using multiple theoretical lenses; such as, the structural functionalist perspective, the social conflict perspective, and of course, the symbolic interactionist perspective.

Did you like this example?

435

23