Gender stratification is described as a social ranking whereby men typically hold higher statuses compared to women. Throughout history around the world, women have always taken a “back seat” in most fundamental issues affecting people. Essentially, men have more social and physical power and status contrasted to women particularly in the public arena. Men have a tendency of being more violent and aggressive than women, and hence they fight wars. Similarly, boys are often necessitated to achieve proof of masculinity through the indulgence of strenuous efforts (Huffman et.al, 2015). As a result, most men hold public office, create rules and laws and define the society. In other cases, some feminists argue that they also control women.
Even though in the recent decades' significant steps toward gender equality has been made, there is still much to be done if gender stratification is to be eliminated in the US. For example, in the past, American women were not permitted to vote, own property, serve on a jury, and testify in court until this century. Male dominance in all societies across the globe has been labeled as patriarchy (Huffman et.al, 2015). Men and women are still not equal in social and economic aspects. To start with, men earn more money compared to women who have the same levels of education. Due to gender stratification, women are often propelled to careers such as teaching elementary schools which are less prestigious and less paid than “male careers.”
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Gender stratification often leads to gender inequality in various sectors such as education, politics, and the workplace. Sexism, discrimination or prejudice is rampant in these sectors. Basic to sexism is the notion that men are superior compared to women. Sexism has caused negative impacts on women. Some women have avoided pursuing successful careers which are typically seen as masculine. Perhaps the most obvious reason why they avoid pursuing such careers is to avoid a social impression whereby they are seen as less desirable as mothers and spouses and at times “feminine.” Additionally, women are expected to bear more burdens of housework and childcare even when both partners are working (Huffman et.al, 2015).
Gender stratification has caused women to feel that they are inferior to men and at times they rate themselves poorly. Phillip Goldberg conducted a study in 1968, where female college students were requested to rate scholarly articles which were supposedly written by Joan T. McKay or John T. McKay. They read the same articles and at the end the college female students who thought that a male author wrote the article was high compared to those who thought that the author was a female (Huffman et.al, 2015). Moreover, other researchers have observed that men resumes are often rated higher compared to the women’s. Consequently, women tend to have lower self-esteem believing that they cannot perform better than men in the workplace and other aspects of life. As indicated by Phillip Goldberg, women tend to rate themselves lower and feel that they are inferior to men.
Furthermore loss of productivity is experienced among women in the workplaces. People who are discriminated often experience adverse repercussions such as the lack of morale and desolation in the workplaces or at home . Hence women fail to be productive due to the notion that men are superior and they can perform better in their responsibilities. They become less motivated in achieving the set goals and objectives in the workplace, and their self-esteem becomes a problem too (Huffman et.al, 2015). As a result, they start feeling resentment, and they cannot respond appropriately to other employees. Women who are hot-tempered may also be involved in destructive behaviors such as destruction of property. Ultimately such women are required to seek treatment before it becomes a severe disorder such as mental illness. In such cases, the companies will start experiencing losses because of low productivity.
Distinctions between Race and Ethnicity
Most of the people often think that race and ethnicity mean one and the same thing but they are totally different.
Race
The race is referred as cultural characteristics, phenotypes or biological distinctions that are believed to be the foundation of the formation of racial groups. Race often models our beliefs and attitudes about other people. It also shapes how people view themselves, how they behave and also with whom we interact. People learn to value other observable features such as eye features, skin color and even the shape and sizes of the noses (Markus, 2008). However, race categorization has evolved over the year in the US history. For instance, in the 1700s the country was seen to be comprised of only three groups namely white, slaves and the rest. During this time, the Native Americans were not recognized as a unique group. The concept “black’ was identified in the 1900s, and it has become predominant up to now (Markus, 2008). A certain group of individuals' such as the African Americans are believed to have the same genealogy and hence they came from a similar geographic setting based on their skin colors.
Unfortunately, these perspectives cause people to narrow expectation about how a certain group member should think or act. This is referred as stereotyping which is described as an unfounded behavioral expectation of certain group of people. For instance, the African Americans are commonly believed to be professional athletes and entertainers. These expectations have been overgeneralized despite anecdotal evidence or personal experiences that link these expectations. Another instance is the case of Asian Americans whereby they are viewed as scientists contrasting other jobs such as farmworkers and this is a notion that has stuck in many peoples’ minds (Markus, 2008). Stereotyping is rooted from prejudice in which a negative opinion that is formed with the lack of relevant facts or knowledge about an individual or a group. As a result, it contributes to the unfair treatment of people referred to as discrimination and eventually leading to racism.
Ethnicity
Ethnicity is referred as a shared heritage that is characterized by common features such as language, culture, religion and nationality that distinguishes one group from another. The US is considered to be among the top nations in the world that are ethnically diverse. In ethnicity, race and cultural differences are major factors that define this term. For instance in China one can find people who belong to the same race but have different dialects and cultures, in such cases, they belong to different ethnicities, but they are of the same race (Markus, 2008). Additionally, a Japanese American can consider himself to be of East Asian or Japanese race but if he fails to observe any of the customs or practices of the ancestors’, one might not recognize that ethnicity and hence he can identify himself as an American. The US has different ethnic groups from all over the world but for a member to fit in a certain ethnic group he/she must conform to all or some of the practices and beliefs. Arabs are also an example of ethnic groups but they differ regarding matters of religion because they adhere to Islam, Christians, or atheism.
Joseph Kahl and Dennis Gilbert Social Class Ladder
Kahl and Gilbert's social model is based on individuals’ access to property, power, education and prestige. The top class order is composed of the capitalist class. The members of the capitalist class make up 1% of the population and they go to prestigious universities. They comprise of heirs, investors and some top executives who earn at least $1.000.000 or more. The second class is known as the upper-class middle which is characterized by college-educated individuals, and they possess advanced degrees. The members of this group world are upper-class managers and professionals who earn at least $125,000 and more per year (Johnson, 2013). They make up 15% of the total population. The third group is known as the lower middle class who features college graduates and high school graduates who work in lower managerial, semi-professional and craft positions. These individuals make up 34% of the populations, and their earnings are about $60,000 a year
. The fourth class is known as the working class featuring high school graduates who have been employed as clerical and factory workers. They are also employed in low paying retail crafts and sales, and they earn approximately $35, 000 yearly. They make up 30 % of the total population (Johnson, 2013). The fifth class is known as the working poor who have attendance certificates as well as the high school dropouts. These individuals are service workers, laborers and low paid salespersons. They earn approximately $17,000 annually, and they make up 16% of the populations. Finally, the last class is known as the underclass, and they have the same education attainment as the working poor. However, they are jobless, have part-time jobs or they are on welfare. These individuals make less than $10,000 per year, and they comprise of 4% of the total population.
Income and wealth are not distributed evenly in the US, and a huge gap exists between the richest and the poorest. The top 20% of the total populations takes half of the country income 50.3% whereas bottoms 20% of the people only get about 3.4% of the country income. An elite group comprising of the top wealthiest individuals have extraordinary social, political and economic power in the US (Johnson, 2013). On the other hand, the poorest people confront tremendous hardships as they lack ways to afford even the basic needs of life. Well-paying jobs demand more education and thoughts and it provides greater autonomy compared to jobs that demand less education which comprises of more physical power. A chart demonstrating occupational prestige indicates that college professors, lawyers, and physicians possess some of the most prominent positions whereas the factory workers, gas station attendant, and bill collectors have the least prestigious positions.
The social classes have a huge impact on the mental and physical state of the people. Additionally, they also have adverse impacts on family education, religion, politics, and education especially on the people from the lower social classes. Individuals who are in the lower social class have a high likelihood of dying before they reach the expected age. Additionally, they also have a high likelihood of smoking, using drugs, eating more fat and indulging in the excessive drinking of alcohol (Johnson, 2013). They also have a tendency of being involved in violent crimes, high infidelity rates, practice unsafe sex practices, high rates of STDS, high divorce rate, high rate of childbirths born out of wedlock and they exercise less.
In the US, the government created a standard grounded in family size and income to measure poverty degree. The poor are unevenly distributed in the US particularly in the south and the Native Americans, Latinos and African Americans have been noted as the predominant group that has a high level of poverty and less education attainment (Johnson, 2013). Most of the children who grow up in such conductions are adversely affected, and they have a high tendency also to be poor. Statistics of children in abject poverty are shockingly high single –parent homes.
How Marriage and Family are viewed from Sociological Perspectives
The Symbolic–Functionalist Perspective
The symbolic–functionalist perspective argues that symbols and details that occur every day should be considered. This is because the symbols have to mean and they affect how people interact with each other. Based on their perspective, individuals attach meaning to certain symbols, and that marriage is different. Therefore basing marriage on symbol interactionism, symbols in marriages include wedding vows, bands, white bridal dress, rings, wedding cakes, music, flowers and a church ceremony. The American society has attached meaning to such symbols, but individuals have their opinions about the meaning of the symbols. For instance one of the partners may view the circular wedding rings symbolizing unending love, but the other may see them as financial expenses (Bengtson & Allen, 2009).
Faulty communication can lead to differences in views and opinions by the same symbols and events. When it comes to family, the symbolic functionalists also see it as a different concept from one relationship to the other. There can be families whereby spouses feel subjugated by the other. Verbal conversations whereby words function as the symbols making of subjective interpretation of the symbol is more evident (Bengtson & Allen, 2009). The words are meant to have a particular meaning from the sender and hopefully the same meaning is interpreted by the receiver. In the family case, certain conversations may be interpreted differently from one family to the other and hence the meaning will also be different.
The Functionalist Perspectives
The functionalist perspectives claim that the society interacts through a process that consists of interdependence. Based on their arguments the functionalist argues that the society comes into agreement with what will be promoted for the greater good and the purposes of promoting this good. The functionalist perspectives believe that the well-being of marriage and family is backed by institutions such as the community, schools, government and religious programs (Bengtson & Allen, 2009). The government offers education to the families’ children, and in turn, the family pays taxes so that the state or the government can use to keep the cycle running.
Therefore, the family relies on the school to assist children in growing up so that they can have good jobs in future and the cycle begins as they will be able to raise and support their families. As a result, the children observe the law, pay taxes and eventually support the government or the state. If all goes well, these sections of the society generate stability, productivity, and order (Bengtson & Allen, 2009). However, if it fails the sections of the society must adjust to recapture a new stability, order, and productivity. For instance, during a financial downturn characterized by high unemployment rates and inflation, social program are cut or trimmed. The schools provide fewer programs while the families tighten their financial incomes and hence a new social order, productivity and stability occur.
The Conflict Perspective
The conflict perspective explores the conflicted, negative, and unstable aspect of the society. Unlike the functionalists who promote status quo and evade societal change, the conflict theorist confronts the status quo and promote societal change even if it means social revolutions. They believe that opulent and influential individuals push societal order on the weak and the poor (Bengtson & Allen, 2009). They argue that the social conflict in the society is strictly based on economics. Today the conflict theorists claim that the social conflict that exists between groups can potentially lead to inequality such as racial, gender, political, economic, and religious disparities.
These unequal clusters of people often have differing agendas and values resulting in a competition against each other. The constant competition amid these groups is the basis for the ever-changing aspects of society. Therefore in connection to marriage and family domain, the conflict theorists claim that they are different concerning their economic, political and religious differences which make them be in constant competition (Bengtson & Allen, 2009). For instance, there are people who support and promote gay relationships and the other group which abhors such relationships.
References
Bengtson, V. L., & Allen, K. R. (2009). The life course perspective applied to families over time. In Sourcebook of family theories and methods . Springer US.
Huffman, M. L., Cohen, P. N., & Pearlman, J. (2010). Engendering change: Organizational dynamics and workplace gender desegregation. Administrative Science Quarterly , 55 (2), 255-277.
Johnson, L. A. (2013). Social Stratification. Biblical Theology Bulletin : Journal of Bible and Culture , 43 (3), 155-168.
Markus, H. R. (2008). Pride, prejudice, and ambivalence: toward a unified theory of race and ethnicity. American Psychologist , 63 (8), 651.
