The headline read, “$3.2M Awarded in Harassment Suit against Ex-Judge.” A federal jury in Houston, Texas, granted $3.2 million to three women, all county employees, who had accused a former judge of sexual harassment. According to reports, their lawsuit detailed instances where the judge had “hugged, groped, kissed and fondled them and had emailed them sexually explicit photographs.” Despite county officials’ awareness of the judge’s behavior, they allegedly disregarded it. The judge had resigned from his position three years prior, having pleaded no contest to several misdemeanor assault charges related to his interactions with multiple women. His sole criminal penalty was a fine of less than $3,000 (Tolson 2011).

Following the announcement of the verdict, the plaintiffs’ attorney expressed pride in the outcome on, emphasizing the message it sends to public officials, “I am very proud of this verdict, and hope it sends a message to all public officials that they are not above the law and should think twice before abusing power.” One of the plaintiffs recounted the experience of being harassed by the judge, expressing feelings of isolation, powerlessness, and fear, “I felt alone, I felt small, I felt like he was the most powerful man in Brazoria County. I felt like there was nothing I could do. I felt scared.” Despite these sentiments, she found solace in the jury’s decision and the solidarity of other women who spoke out against the judge’s misconduct: “You don’t have to go through it alone. You can stand up for yourself” (Tolson 2011).

The contemporary women’s rights movement, originating in the late 1960s, has brought significant changes to American society over the past fifty years. However, as highlighted by this news story concerning sexual harassment, it underscores the ongoing need for further progress. Despite notable advancements for women since the 1960s, gender inequality remains pervasive and takes various forms. This module explores the primary manifestations of gender inequality and examines the underlying reasons for its persistence. Additionally, it outlines several steps that our society should undertake to promote gender equality. Our exploration commences with a critical examination of the concepts of sex and gender.

Understanding Sex & Gender

Although the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably, they actually refer to distinct aspects of identity within any society. Sex denotes the anatomical and biological disparities between females and males, established at conception and continuing to develop throughout childhood and adolescence. Females typically possess two X chromosomes, while males have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. This genetic contrast gives rise to other biological distinctions. Initially, the genitals that boys and girls develop in the womb, and subsequently identified at birth by medical professionals or parents, serve as primary sex characteristics. Secondary sex characteristics, emerging during puberty, arise from hormonal variations between the sexes. Boys commonly experience deepening voices, increased body hair, and muscle growth due to heightened testosterone levels. Conversely, girls undergo breast development, hip widening, and menstruation, as nature prepares them for potential pregnancy and childbirth. These fundamental biological differences, for better or worse, often influence societal perceptions of femininity and masculinity, a topic we explore next.

If sex is understood as a biological concept, then gender represents a social construct. It encompasses the social and cultural distinctions that a society assigns to individuals based on their biological sex. Gender roles, a related concept, delineate a society’s anticipations regarding the behaviors and attitudes of individuals according to their gender. In this context, akin to the discussion on race, gender is recognized as a social construction. How individuals perceive and behave as either females or males isn’t predetermined by biology but rather influenced by societal expectations associated with their sex. Throughout our development, we internalize these expectations as we form our gender identity—the beliefs we hold about ourselves as females or males.

These societal expectations are encapsulated in the notions of femininity and masculinity. Femininity encompasses the cultural expectations placed upon girls and women, whereas masculinity pertains to the expectations applied to boys and men. A familiar nursery rhyme succinctly encapsulates these two sets of traits:

What are little boys made of?

Snips and snails,

And puppy dog tails,

That’s what little boys are made of.

What are little girls made of?

Sugar and spice,

And everything nice,

That’s what little girls are made of.

As suggested by this rhyme, traditional perceptions of femininity and masculinity underscore fundamental differences between females and males, essentially viewing them as distinct aspects of human existence. Traditionally, femininity encompasses a range of adjectives, both positive and negative, attributed to women: gentle, sensitive, nurturing, delicate, graceful, cooperative, decorative, dependent, emotional, passive, and weak. Similarly, traditional masculinity embodies a set of adjectives, again encompassing both positive and negative attributes, ascribed to men in society: strong, assertive, brave, active, independent, intelligent, competitive, insensitive, unemotional, and aggressive.

While these traits may sound like stereotypes of females and males in contemporary society, they do reflect real differences in attitudes and behaviors between women and men (Aulette and Wittner 2011). For instance, women tend to cry more frequently than men, while men exhibit higher levels of physical violence. Women often assume greater responsibility for childcare, smile more frequently, and are more inclined to discuss personal matters in conversations with each other. Men, on the other hand, are more prone to cursing and spitting.

The differences in behavior and attitudes between females and males prompt critical questions about their origins. Do these differences arise primarily from biological variances between the sexes, or do they stem from cultural expectations and the distinct socialization processes experienced by each gender? These questions are pivotal, as they inquire whether disparities between boys and girls, as well as women and men, are more influenced by biology or by society.

Biological explanations

Several biological explanations for gender roles are posited, with two prominent ones discussed here. One explanation stems from the field of evolutionary psychology (Buss 2012), proposing an evolutionary foundation for traditional gender roles. Scholars advocating this perspective argue in prehistoric societies, two primary social roles existed – hunting or gathering food to alleviate hunger and bearing and nursing children (Thornhill and Gangestad 2008). As only women could fulfill the latter role, they naturally became the primary caretakers for children in the years following childbirth. Additionally, due to the frequent pregnancies and nursing demands, women’s roles as mothers tethered them to the home. Conversely, men, being stronger and swifter, were better suited for hunting. Hence, in prehistoric societies, biology essentially dictated destiny: men predominantly worked outside the home (hunted), while women remained at home with their children.

Evolutionary reasons also underpin the observation that men tend to be more violent than women. In prehistoric times, men who exhibited a greater propensity for violence and even lethal aggression toward other men had a competitive edge in securing female mates. Consequently, they were more likely to pass on their genetic predisposition toward violence to their offspring. According to evolutionary psychologists, natural selection favored societies where men displayed traits such as strength, bravery, and aggression, while women exhibited traits like fertility and nurturing. Over time, these traits became ingrained, with men becoming inherently more assertive, daring, and violent, and women inherently more gentle, nurturing, and maternal. Proponents argue that traditional gender roles thus align with evolutionary principles, and efforts to alter them run counter to biological realities. This perspective implies that existing gender inequality is rooted in biology and must persist.

Critics, however, contest the evolutionary explanation on multiple grounds (Begley 2009a; Fine 2011). Firstly, they argue that prehistoric societies likely exhibited far greater gender variation in behavior and attitudes than assumed by the evolutionary explanation. Secondly, even if biological differences influenced gender roles in prehistoric times, such distinctions are largely irrelevant in modern societies where physical strength is not a prerequisite for survival. Thirdly, human environments over millennia have been too diverse to support the simplistic, linear biological development posited by the evolutionary argument. Lastly, critics assert that evolutionary arguments implicitly justify existing gender inequality by reinforcing the notion of confining women and men to traditional roles.

Recent anthropological evidence challenges the evolutionary argument suggesting that men’s inclination towards violence was biologically inherited. Contrary to this viewpoint, the evidence indicates that violent men encounter difficulties in attracting female mates who desire them. Moreover, the female mates they do acquire and the children they father are often targeted and killed by rivals to these men (Begley 2009a).

A second biological explanation for traditional gender roles links males’ higher levels of aggression to their elevated levels of testosterone (Mazur 2009). Numerous studies indicate that males with higher testosterone levels tend to exhibit higher levels of aggression. However, it’s important to note that this correlation doesn’t necessarily imply that testosterone directly increases violence. Similar to findings in various animal species, it’s plausible that violence could also elevate testosterone levels. Since manipulating testosterone levels in human males is ethically and practically challenging, the precise implications of studies correlating testosterone with aggression remain ambiguous, as highlighted in a report by the National Academy of Sciences (Miczek 1993).

Another line of research explores the biological basis for sex differences in aggression among children, some as young as ages 1 or 2, in diverse situations (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, and Little 2008). These situations may involve children playing with each other, interacting with adults, or responding to hypothetical scenarios provided by researchers. In many studies, boys tend to exhibit more physical aggression in thought or action than girls, even at a very early age. Some studies adopt experimental methodologies where a toddler playing with a toy has it taken away by an adult. Typically, boys display signs of anger and attempt to retrieve the toy aggressively, while girls tend to display more passive reactions. Given that these gender differences in aggression emerge at a young age, researchers often suggest that they may have a biological foundation. However, critics of this research line argue that even young children have already been socialized along gender lines (Begley 2009b; Fine 2011), a point we revisit later in the module. Consequently, gender disparities in children’s aggression may reflect socialization rather than biology.

In summary, while biological evidence for gender differences does exist, its interpretation remains highly contentious. This evidence must be considered alongside the evidence of cultural variations in the experience of gender and differences in socialization based on gender, which we will explore next. One thing is evident, embracing biological explanations for gender implies that existing gender differences and gender inequality will persist. As sociologist Linda L. Lindsey (2011) observes, “Biological arguments are consistently drawn upon to justify gender inequality and the continued oppression of women (p. 52).” In contrast, cultural and social explanations of gender differences and gender inequality offer some prospect for change. Let’s inspect the evidence supporting these explanations.

Cultural explanations

Some of the most compelling evidence against a strict biological determination of gender roles comes from anthropological studies, which highlight significant gender variation across different cultures. This variation underscores the profound influence of culture on the behaviors and attitudes of females and males. Anthropologist George Murdock (1937) conducted extensive research on almost two hundred preindustrial societies, known as the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample, revealing notable patterns in gender roles.

Murdock’s findings indicated that certain tasks, like hunting and trapping, were predominantly performed by men in most societies, while activities such as cooking and fetching water were mainly carried out by women. While these patterns align with the evolutionary argument based on biological differences between the sexes, Murdock also identified substantial gender variation in other tasks such as planting crops, milking, and starting fires. In some societies, men primarily undertook these tasks, while in others, women took the lead, and in some, both sexes shared the responsibilities equally. These findings illustrate how gender roles differ across cultures, suggesting that they are not solely determined by biology.

Anthropologists continue to explore cultural differences in gender, with some of the most intriguing findings pertaining to gender and sexuality (Brettell and Sargent, 2009). In certain societies, additional gender categories beyond traditional male and female exist. For instance, the Mohave Native Americans recognize four genders, including individuals who exhibit traits of both genders. Anthropologists refer to this intermediary category as the berdache, representing an androgynous gender that combines elements of femininity and masculinity within society.

Moreover, anthropologists have documented instances of androgynous genders among women warriors in various Native American groups. These women, referred to as “amazons” by Walter L. Williams (1997), often adopt masculine characteristics and, in some cases, marry women. Their presence challenges conventional gender norms and underscores the diversity of gender expressions across cultures.

The existence of androgynous genders in various societies serves as a reminder that gender is a social construct shaped by cultural beliefs and practices, rather than solely a biological phenomenon. Socialization, the process through which individuals internalize cultural norms and values, plays a crucial role in shaping gender roles and identities. Our experiences as girls and boys strongly influence our development as women and men in terms of behavior and attitudes. The evidence on socialization further emphasizes the intricate dimensions of gender and its relationship with culture.

Gender Socialization

Socialization, the process by which individuals learn the cultural norms and values of their society, plays a significant role in shaping gender roles and identities. Several agents of socialization, including the family, peers, schools, the mass media, and religion, contribute to the socialization process and help individuals develop their understanding of gender roles and identities (Andersen and Witham 2011).

The process of gender socialization begins in infancy, with parents unknowingly socializing their children as boys or girls from the moment of birth (Begley 2009b; Eliot 2011). Parents often describe their infant daughters and sons using gendered language and interact with them differently based on their perceived gender. From infancy onward, parents tend to engage in rougher play with their sons and provide different types of toys and activities based on traditional gender norms.

As children grow older and enter school, peer influences further reinforce gender socialization. Boys and girls tend to engage in different types of play activities and games based on their gender, with boys participating in more competitive and rule-based games, while girls engage in smaller, cooperative activities such as jump rope and hopscotch. Although there has been progress in encouraging girls to participate in sports, gender differences in play activities persist and contribute to the reinforcement of gender roles.

Schools also play a crucial role in gender socialization, as teachers may treat male and female students differently in subtle ways, such as calling on boys more often in class and providing them with more feedback on their assignments (Sadker and Sadker 1994). Textbooks and educational materials may also contain gender-stereotyped portrayals of individuals, further influencing children’s perceptions of gender roles.

The mass media, including television shows, movies, and advertisements, also contribute to gender socialization by portraying stereotypical gender roles and behaviors (Maier, Curran, and Renzetti 2012). Children’s television programs often feature male characters in prominent roles, while female characters may be depicted in more stereotypical or limited roles. Prime-time television and commercials often reinforce traditional gender stereotypes, portraying women as focused on appearance and domestic tasks, while men are depicted as dominant and focused on leisure activities.

Magazines targeted at different genders also reinforce gender stereotypes, with magazines for women often featuring content related to appearance, relationships, and homemaking, while magazines for men focus on sports, careers, and lifestyle advice (Hesse-Biber 2007; Milillo 2008). These media representations contribute to the perpetuation of traditional gender roles and expectations in society.

Religion, another influential agent of socialization, plays a significant role in perpetuating traditional gender stereotypes. Many interpretations of religious texts, such as the Bible, convey the idea that women are inferior to men (Tanenbaum 2009). This notion begins with the creation story in Genesis, where Adam, the first human, is depicted as preceding Eve, who was made from one of his ribs. Throughout the Bible, prominent figures are predominantly male, while women are often portrayed as wives, mothers, temptresses, or prostitutes. They receive praise for fulfilling traditional roles as wives and mothers but are condemned for deviating from these roles. Moreover, women are frequently depicted as possessions of men. For instance, the Ten Commandments equate a neighbor’s wife with other possessions not to be coveted, alongside his house and ox (Exodus 20:17). Additionally, numerous biblical passages explicitly state the subordination of women to men, such as Ephesians 5:22–24, which instructs wives to be submissive to their husbands, drawing parallels to Christ’s authority over the Church. In the Old Testament, certain passages even appear to justify the rape and murder of women and girls. Similarly, the Quran, Islam’s sacred text, contains passages asserting the subordinate status of women (Mayer 2009).

Overall, the agents of socialization play a significant role in shaping individuals’ understanding of gender roles and identities, highlighting the impact of cultural norms and values on gender socialization processes.

Feminism & Sexism

Feminism and sexism are essentially two sides of the same coin. Feminism advocates for the belief that women and men should have equal opportunities in economic, political, and social spheres, while sexism perpetuates traditional gender role stereotypes and reinforces the belief in inherent inequality between men and women. Sexism, therefore, mirrors the concept of racial and ethnic prejudice. Both women and people of color are often deemed, due to biological and cultural reasons, to lack certain qualities necessary for success in today’s world.

Two significant feminist movements in U.S. history have profoundly advanced the cause of women’s equality and reshaped views about gender. The first movement emerged during the abolitionist era, when figures like Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton began to draw parallels between slavery and the oppression of women. This nascent women’s movement addressed various issues, with a particular emphasis on securing the right to vote, which women achieved in 1920. The second major feminist movement took root in the late 1960s, spurred by women who had been active in the Southern civil rights movement, redirecting their efforts toward women’s rights. This movement remains active today and has had a profound impact on public perceptions and societal and economic structures. However, despite these advancements, significant gender inequality persists.

Within the feminist movement, several ideological strands exist. While they all share the fundamental principle that women and men should have equal opportunities across all aspects of life, they diverge in their approaches (Hannam 2012). Liberal feminism contends that women’s equality can be attained within the existing societal framework through legislative changes and reforms in social, economic, and political institutions. Conversely, socialist feminism attributes women’s inequality to capitalism, advocating for substantial alterations in social structures and even a socialist revolution to achieve genuine gender equality. Radical feminism posits that patriarchy, characterized by male domination, underlies women’s oppression, asserting that the elimination of patriarchy is essential for women to achieve parity with men, even in non-capitalist societies. Multicultural feminism highlights the intersectionality of gender, race, and class, emphasizing that women of color experience oppression on multiple fronts. By focusing attention on the experiences of women of color in the United States and globally, multicultural feminists underscore the divergent challenges faced by these women compared to the predominantly middle-class women who historically spearheaded U.S. feminist movements.

Dimensions of Gender Inequality

The main emphasis of this module centers on gender inequality within the United States. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge and address gender inequality on a global scale as well. While women in the United States face disparities compared to men in various aspects, the situation for women in many parts of the world is notably dire. Therefore, it’s imperative to initially explore the global disparities faced by women before delving into the specific context of the United States. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of gender inequality, considering both domestic and international perspectives.

Global inequality of women

The issue of global poverty disproportionately affects women. Even though more than 1.4 billion individuals worldwide live in extreme poverty, women constitute a disproportionate 70 percent of this population (World Bank 2012). This gender disparity in poverty exacerbates the challenges faced by women, who are more susceptible to the adverse effects of poverty, including malnutrition and disease. However, women also encounter additional obstacles, some of which stem from their biological role in childbearing, while others arise from gender-based discrimination.

Let’s begin by examining the implications of childbearing. One of the most distressing consequences of global poverty for women is maternal mortality, which refers to the number of women who die during childbirth for every 100,000 live births. Annually, over 500,000 women worldwide lose their lives due to complications during pregnancy or childbirth. Maternal mortality often results from factors such as inadequate prenatal nutrition, prevalent diseases and illnesses, and substandard obstetrical care, which are significantly more prevalent in impoverished nations compared to affluent ones. While wealthy nations typically report a maternal mortality rate of 14 per 100,000 births, the rate in poor nations is alarmingly high at 590 per 100,000 births, equivalent to nearly 6 deaths for every 1,000 births. Consequently, women in impoverished nations are forty-two times more likely than their counterparts in affluent nations to succumb to complications during pregnancy or childbirth (World Bank 2012). This disparity underscores the profound impact of poverty on maternal health and highlights the urgent need for improved healthcare infrastructure and resources in impoverished regions.

In addition to facing challenges related to poverty, women in poor nations experience compounded difficulties due to gender-based discrimination and violence. Manifestations of this reality include the prevalence of violence against women, which has been identified by the World Health Organization (2010) as a significant issue. Approximately one-third of women worldwide have experienced rape or physical abuse, leading Amnesty International (2004) to label violence against women as “the greatest human rights scandal of our times.” While violence against women exists in wealthy nations, it is more prevalent and severe in impoverished and middle-income countries, particularly in regions characterized by high levels of gender inequality (Kaya and Cook 2010). For instance, over half of women in Uganda have been victims of physical or sexual abuse (Amnesty International 2010).

In countries like India and Pakistan, thousands of women are killed annually in dowry-related incidents, where newlywed brides are murdered by their husbands or relatives if they fail to provide dowry payments (Kethineni and Srinivasan 2009). Additionally, female genital mutilation, a practice affecting more than 100 million girls and women globally, continues to perpetuate suffering and has been condemned as an act of torture (Kristoff, 2011; Rogo, Subayi, Toubia, and Sharief 2007).

Sex trafficking poses another significant challenge, particularly in countries such as Cambodia, India, Nepal, and Thailand. Young girls are frequently abducted and forced into prostitution, effectively becoming victims of sexual slavery (Kristoff and WuDunn 2010). The scale of sex trafficking is staggering, with millions of girls, and sometimes boys, estimated to be involved, surpassing the number of African slaves during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Beyond violence, women in poor nations encounter barriers to education, employment, healthcare, and political representation. Girls are less likely than boys to receive primary education and adequate medical care, contributing to higher mortality rates among young girls compared to boys. Moreover, women are disproportionately excluded from higher education opportunities and decent-paying jobs, as well as from holding political office.

Conversely, women in wealthy democratic nations generally experience better conditions compared to their counterparts in poor nations. In many affluent democracies, women enjoy higher status relative to men, surpassing levels observed in the United States.

Gender inequality in the United States

We have mentioned the impact of the women’s movement on American society, yet gender inequality remains prevalent in the United States. Let’s explore examples of such inequality, often rooted in institutional discrimination. This discrimination can occur inadvertently. We will begin by examining gender disparities in income and the workplace before considering other areas of life.

In recent decades, more women have joined the workforce, driven by economic necessity and the desire for self-worth through work. In February 2012, 57.9 percent of U.S. women aged 16 or older were in the labor force, compared to only 43.3 percent in 1970; comparable figures for men were 70.3 percent in 2012 and 79.7 percent in 1970 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). Thus, while women’s labor force participation continues to lag behind men’s, this gender gap has narrowed. When considering younger women, labor force participation is even higher. For example, 74.7 percent of women aged 35–44 were in the labor force in 2011, compared to only 46.8 percent in 1970.

Despite women’s increased presence in the workplace, challenges persist, notably the gender gap in income. Women have consistently earned less money than men since record-keeping began (Padavic and Reskin 2002). In the early 1800s, full-time women workers in agriculture and manufacturing earned less than 38 percent of what men earned. By 1885, they were earning about 50 percent of men’s earnings in manufacturing jobs. In the 1980s, full-time women workers’ median weekly earnings were about 65 percent of men’s. Although women have narrowed the gender gap in earnings, their weekly earnings in 2011 were 82.2 percent of men among full-time workers aged 16 and older (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012). Still, for every $10,000 men earn, women earn only about $8,220, while for every $10,000 women earn, men earn $12,156. This gap amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime of working.

As shown in Table 7a “Median annual earnings and gender earning ratio for full-time year-round workers by race/ethnicity, 2022” and Table 7b “Median annual earning and gender earning ratio for all workers with earning by race/ethnicity, 2022,” this gender gap exists for all racial-ethnic groups. On average, women earn $0.84 per dollar earned by their male counterparts.

Table 7a. Median annual earnings & gender earning ratio for full-time year-round workers, 2022

Table 7b. Median annual earnings & gender earning ratio for all workers, 2022

_{Source: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. 2023. Gender and Racial Wage Gaps Marginally Improve in 2022 but Pay Equity Still Decades Away. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.}

The gender gap in earnings can be attributed to several factors, with one major reason being the segregation of jobs by gender in the workplace. Research suggests that up to 45 percent of the gender gap in earnings can be accounted for by this phenomenon (UN Women 2024; Padavic and Reskin 2002). Despite the increasing participation of women in the labor force, workplaces still tend to be divided along gender lines. Nearly half of all women are employed in low-paying clerical and service positions, such as waitressing, while men have access to a wider range of job opportunities, including higher-paying ones. This segregation is influenced by socialization, which shapes the career choices of young men and women, as well as by the desire to avoid potential challenges associated with jobs traditionally held by the opposite sex. Additionally, sex-segregated jobs may discriminate against applicants based on their gender, either through conscious hiring biases or unintentional barriers like height requirements or night shifts. Despite legal measures against such practices, they persist, contributing to the ongoing gender gap in earnings.

Jobs predominantly held by women tend to offer lower wages and salaries, leading to disparities in earnings between men and women (Padavic and Reskin 2002). This raises the question, “Why are women’s jobs valued less than men’s?” Contrary to the notion that women’s jobs are less important or require fewer skills, evidence suggests that women’s work is undervalued precisely because it is associated with women. As a result, jobs primarily performed by women are paid less compared to those traditionally held by men (Magnusson 2009).

Research on comparable worth, as highlighted by Levanon, England, and Allison (2009), underscores the argument that certain jobs traditionally held by women are undervalued compared to similar jobs traditionally held by men. In these studies, researchers assess various job attributes such as importance, required skill level, level of responsibility, and independent judgment to determine the expected salary for each job. Despite variations in specific job attributes, some jobs held by women are found to have comparable worth to or even higher than similar jobs held by men, yet they still receive lower pay.

For instance, according to comparable worth calculations, a social worker might earn less than a probation officer, even though their job attributes would suggest similar salaries. This research reveals that women’s jobs, even when comparable in worth to men’s jobs, often pay less. If pay scales were based on comparable worth, families could potentially earn several thousand dollars more annually.

Even when women and men work in the same jobs, women often earn less than men, and men are more likely than women to hold leadership positions in these occupations. Government data provide ready evidence of the lower income women receive even in the same occupations. For example, among full-time employees, female marketing and sales managers earn only 66 percent of what their male counterparts earn; female human resource managers earn only 80 percent of what their male counterparts earn; female secretaries and clerical workers earn only 91 percent (U.S. Department of Labor 2011).

Caregiving responsibilities, as noted by Chang (2010), also contribute to women’s lower earnings. Women are often primarily responsible for caring for children and elderly family members, which limits their work hours and can lead to interruptions in their careers. Returning to the workforce after a hiatus places women several years behind men who started working earlier in life. The economic consequences of time away from work, including lower pay and limited career advancement opportunities, are significant and lasting.

Moreover, economics writer David Leonhardt (2010) explains this dynamic, highlighting that women’s higher likelihood of taking time off from work, working part-time, and facing difficulties in adjusting work hours result in a permanent hit to their earnings and career trajectories (p. B1). Even after considering factors like years of experience, weekly work hours, and company size, differences in earnings between genders decrease but don’t vanish entirely. Much of the remaining gap in pay is likely due to sex discrimination, whether intentional or not, by employers.

Sex discrimination in the workplace can be understood through two concepts: the glass ceiling and the glass escalator. The glass ceiling refers to an unseen barrier that prevents women from advancing beyond a certain point in their careers. In major U.S. corporations, only about 16 percent of top executives are women, and they typically earn less than their male counterparts (Catalyst 2009). While part of these disparities stems from women entering corporate roles more recently than men, they also indicate a glass ceiling that hampers qualified women from reaching higher positions (Hymowitz 2009).

Conversely, men often experience what’s called the glass escalator, allowing them to advance more easily, even in fields dominated by women. For instance, in elementary school teaching, where principals usually rise from teacher ranks, men comprise only around 16 percent of all public elementary school teachers but represent about 41 percent of all elementary school principals (Aud et al. 2011). This disparity illustrates how men can ascend to leadership positions more readily, even in predominantly female occupations.

Regardless of the reasons behind the income gap between genders, the stark reality is that women earn significantly less than men. This discrepancy means that families led by women are particularly susceptible to poverty. In 2010, nearly 32 percent of these households lived below the poverty line, contrasting sharply with the 6 percent of married-couple families facing similar circumstances (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Smith 2011). This gendered aspect of poverty is one of the most significant indicators of gender inequality in the United States.

Sexual harassment remains a significant issue in workplaces and educational institutions, including schools. According to federal guidelines and legal definitions, sexual harassment comprises unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or any sexual conduct that affects someone’s job or promotion opportunities or creates a hostile work environment.

While both men and women can experience sexual harassment, women are more frequently targeted. This difference arises from cultural and structural factors. Culturally, women are often portrayed as objects of sexual desire, while men are encouraged to be assertive sexually. This cultural dynamic leads some men to believe they have the right to make unwanted advances in the workplace, which can constitute sexual harassment.

Structurally, the imbalance of power between men and women in workplaces and educational settings contributes to the prevalence of sexual harassment. Male supervisors may harass female employees, or male professors may harass female students or staff. Subordinate women may feel powerless to resist these advances due to fears of negative consequences, such as being fired or receiving poor grades.

Determining the exact prevalence of sexual harassment is challenging due to underreporting by victims and the reluctance of perpetrators to admit their actions. However, anonymous surveys indicate alarming rates: between 40–65 percent of women in corporate settings report experiencing sexual harassment (Rospenda et al. 2009). Among women physicians, 36.9 percent report being sexually harassed during medical school or in their practice (Frank et al. 1998). In studies of college students, nearly one-third of undergraduate women and about 40 percent of graduate students’ report experiencing sexual harassment from faculty members (Clodfelter et al. 2010). Research on individuals who have experienced sexual harassment indicates that they frequently encounter a range of psychological issues.

The Me Too movement is a social movement against sexual harassment and sexual assault, gained widespread attention and momentum in 2017. It originated from a phrase coined by activist Tarana Burke in 2006 to support survivors of sexual violence, particularly young women of color from low-income communities. The movement surged globally when actress Alyssa Milano encouraged women to tweet “Me Too” to demonstrate the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault, following high-profile accusations against film producer Harvey Weinstein. The hashtag #MeToo went viral, revealing the widespread nature of these issues and empowering countless individuals to share their stories and demand accountability from perpetrators. The movement has since led to increased public awareness, policy changes, and a broader cultural reckoning with the systemic nature of sexual misconduct in various sectors, including entertainment, politics, and the workplace. For more details on this topic, refer to “Consequences of Sexual Harassment” box.

Earlier, we discussed multicultural feminism, which highlights the unique challenges faced by women of color due to their gender, race, and often their socioeconomic status, which tends to be lower on the economic scale. This triple burden presents itself in various aspects of their lives.

For instance, women of color experience increased income inequality. As we mentioned earlier, there’s a gender gap in earnings, with women earning 84.0 percent of what men earn. However, women of color face both a gender gap and a racial/ethnic gap in earnings. Table 8 “Median annual earnings and gender earnings ratio for full-time year around workers by race and ethnicity as a percentage of White male earnings” illustrates this double gap for full-time workers. We observe a racial/ethnic gap among both women and men, with African Americans and Latinx/e Americans earning less than Whites regardless of gender. Additionally, there’s a gender gap between men and women within any racial/ethnic group, where women earn less than men. These dual gaps lead to a particularly large disparity between African American and Latina women and White men. African American women earn approximately 69 percent of what White men earn, while Latina women earn only about 58 percent of what White men earn.

Table 8. Median annual earnings & gender earnings ratio for full-time year around workers by race and ethnicity as a percentage of White male earnings, 2022

_{Source: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. 2023. Gender and Racial Wage Gaps Marginally Improve in 2022 but Pay Equity Still Decades Away. Washington, DC: Author.}

The income disparities highlight the economic challenges faced by African American and Latina women compared to White women. As mentioned earlier, nearly 32 percent of families led by women are living in poverty. However, when we examine the breakdown by race and ethnicity, significant differences emerge, 24.8 percent of families headed by non-Latina White women live in poverty, whereas 41.0 percent of families led by African American women and 44.5 percent of families led by Latina women are below the poverty line (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2011). While White women experience financial struggles compared to White men, African American and Latina women face even greater economic hardship compared to White women.

Gender inequality extends into family dynamics and household responsibilities. Typically, it falls on women to manage household chores. Cleaning bathrooms, cooking meals, grocery shopping, vacuuming, and other household tasks require significant time and effort.

Research shows that women who are married to or living with men spend two to three times more hours per week on housework compared to men (Gupta and Ash 2008). This inequality persists even when women have jobs outside the home. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild (1989) aptly describes this phenomenon as the “second shift” – women engage in additional unpaid work when they return home from their paid employment.

The positive aspect is that gender gaps in housework time have decreased compared to a generation ago. However, there’s still a considerable difference between men and women. According to one study that reviewed evidence on this matter, “Women dedicate notably more time to household chores than men, despite the reduction in gender gaps in recent times” (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, and Robinson 2000: 196). Thus, gender inequality remains prevalent in household duties.

Violence against women

Susan Griffin (1971) opened a seminal essay on rape by sharing a profound insight: “I have never been free of the fear of rape. From a very early age I, like most women, have thought of rape as a part of my natural environment—something to be feared and prayed against like fire or lightning. I never asked why men raped; I simply thought it one of the many mysteries of human nature (p. 26).” Despite considering various forms of interpersonal violence—homicide, assault, robbery, rape, and sexual assault—it’s notable that men are more likely than women to be victims of violence. However, this fact often overshadows another reality, women face a significantly higher risk of experiencing rape and sexual assault. Furthermore, women are more frequently depicted as victims of pornographic violence in various media outlets like the Internet, videos, magazines, and others. Additionally, women bear a disproportionate burden of domestic violence, which involves violence between spouses or individuals in intimate relationships.

The gendered nature of violence against women sets it apart from violence against men. While violence towards men is typically driven by factors like anger, jealousy, and sociological dynamics, violence against women—such as rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and pornographic violence—occurs precisely because of their gender. These acts serve as extreme manifestations of the gender inequality prevalent in various aspects of women’s lives.

Our understanding of the extent and context of rape and the reasons behind it is sourced from three main avenues: the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), and surveys and interviews conducted by academic researchers with women and men. According to the UCR, compiled by the FBI from police reports, there were 88,767 reported rapes (including attempts) in the United States in 2010 (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2011). However, the NCVS, which involves survey interviews with thousands of individuals nationwide, likely provides a more accurate estimate of rape occurrences. The NCVS also encompasses sexual assaults in addition to rape. According to the NCVS, there were 188,380 reported rapes and sexual assaults in 2010 (Truman 2011). Additional research suggests that up to one-third of U.S. women will experience rape or sexual assault, including attempts, at least once in their lives (Barkan 2012). In a study involving intensive interviews with 420 Toronto women, researchers Melanie Randall and Lori Haskell (1995) found an even higher figure: Two-thirds of the women reported experiencing at least one rape or sexual assault, including attempts. The researchers concluded that “it is more common than not for a woman to have an experience of sexual assault during their lifetime (p. 22).”

Research conducted among college students also reveals a concerning prevalence of rape and sexual assault. Anonymous surveys conducted among college women indicate that approximately 20–30 percent report experiencing rape or sexual assault, including attempted assaults, often perpetrated by male students whom they knew beforehand (Fisher et al. 2000; Gross et al. 2006). To put this into perspective, consider a campus with 10,000 students, half of whom are women. Over a four-year period, it’s estimated that approximately 1,000–1,500 women on such a campus will experience rape or sexual assault, averaging around 10 incidents per week throughout a typical four-year academic calendar.

The common perception of rape often involves a stranger assaulting a woman in a dark alley. However, research reveals that most rape cases occur between individuals who know each other. Extensive studies indicate that 60–80 percent of all rapes and sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knows, including partners, ex-partners, boyfriends, and ex-boyfriends, whereas only 20–35 percent are committed by strangers (Barkan 2012). This means that a woman is two to four times more likely to experience rape by someone she knows rather than a stranger.

In 2011, incidents of sexual assault involving hotel housekeepers gained widespread attention when the head of the International Monetary Fund was arrested for allegedly assaulting a hotel housekeeper in New York City. Although the charges were later dropped due to concerns about the housekeeper’s credibility, forensic evidence supported her claim. Following this event, news reports shed light on instances where hotel housekeepers encountered male guests who engaged in sexual assault, made explicit remarks, or exposed themselves. According to a hotel security expert, these incidents occur with some frequency, although they are neither rare nor commonplace. Recounting her experience, one housekeeper described an unsettling encounter when a male guest approached her while she was vacuuming, attempting to kiss her and grabbing her forcefully. Although she managed to escape, she refrained from contacting the police out of fear of disbelief or potential job loss (Greenhouse 2011).

Sociological explanations for rape can be categorized into cultural and structural factors, like those discussed earlier for sexual harassment. Within our culture, several “rape myths” perpetuate the dangerous notion that women somehow enjoy or invite rape. For instance, in the iconic movie Gone with the Wind, a scene depicts Rhett Butler carrying a resisting Scarlett O’Hara up the stairs, only to show her waking up the next morning with a contented expression, implying she enjoyed being raped, or at least was playing hard to get (Franiuk et al. 2008).

Another prevalent myth suggests that women may provoke or deserve rape based on their appearance or behavior. If a woman dresses attractively or enters a bar alone, she may be seen as inviting sexual advances, leading to victim-blaming in cases of assault. The film “The Accused” portrays this narrative, depicting public scrutiny of a rape victim who was assaulted in a bar, with some questioning why she was there alone if she didn’t want sex (Franiuk et al. 2008).

Additionally, there exists a cultural perception that men who engage in sexual activity with multiple partners are celebrated as “studs” among their peers. In contrast, women with multiple sexual partners are considered “slutty” illustrating the double standard of human sexuality as it relates to men and women. Despite the risks of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS, this belief persists, contributing to a societal norm where men are expected to take the initiative in sexual encounters, blurring the line between assertiveness and aggression (Kassing et al. 2005).

These cultural beliefs—that women might enjoy forced sex, deserve rape based on their behavior, and that men should be sexually assertive—create an environment conducive to rape. While it’s important to note that most men do not commit rape, these cultural myths contribute to the occurrence of rape in society. Since the 1970s, the women’s movement has actively challenged these myths, leading to increased awareness about the realities of rape. However, many people still hold onto these beliefs, making it challenging for prosecutors to secure convictions in rape cases unless the victim shows visible injuries, did not know the perpetrator, or was not dressed in a certain way (Levine 2006).

Structural explanations for rape highlight the power imbalances between men and women, like what we discussed earlier regarding sexual harassment. In male-dominated societies, rape and other forms of violence against women are more likely, as they reinforce men’s dominance over women. Research supports this idea, showing that rape is more prevalent in societies where women have less economic and political power (Baron and Straus 1989; Sanday 1981). Poverty also plays a role in predicting rape rates; although rape occurs across social classes, it is more common among poorer communities, possibly because economically disadvantaged men may try to assert their masculinity through violence against women (Martin, Vieraitis, and Britto 2006).

Male privilege

In our society, which is biased toward men, women occupy a subordinate position. However, gender encompasses more than just being female, and it’s important to make a few remarks about men as well. We’ve already talked about how men tend to have better job opportunities and higher incomes compared to women due to the prevailing patriarchal system.

Men also benefit in various ways. As we discussed racial and ethnic inequality, White people have inherent advantages in a racist society, a concept termed white privilege (McIntosh 2001). Similarly, scholars discuss male privilege, which refers to the advantages men enjoy in a patriarchal society, often without realizing it. Susan Griffin was able to write “I have never been free of the fear of rape” because she was a woman; it is no exaggeration to say that few men could write the same thing and mean it. While some men do face harassment, it’s less common compared to women. Men can pursue most careers without worrying about gender-based rejection or promotion concerns. They can navigate public spaces without facing unwelcome comments or physical harassment.

However, it’s important to note that living in a patriarchal society also comes with challenges for men. Scholars increasingly highlight the issues men face due to societal expectations of masculinity, which emphasize traits like assertiveness and toughness (Kimmel and Messner 2010). This socialization into masculinity contributes to emotional difficulties among men, who may struggle to express emotions or seek help for personal problems (Wong and Rochlen 2005). These challenges sometimes manifest in extreme ways, such as in mass shootings. Boys also encounter problems, including higher rates of emotional disorders and learning disabilities compared to girls, and increased likelihood of suicide and high school dropout.

Men also experience other disadvantages compared to women. They perpetrate more violence and are more frequently victims of violence other than sexual assault. They have shorter life expectancies and experience more injuries. Additionally, men’s lesser involvement in child-rearing means they miss out on the joys of parenting that women often experience.

The growing awareness of the challenges men face due to societal expectations has led to increased concern about the well-being of boys in America. Some authors advocate for different approaches to raising boys to address the link between masculinity and violence (Corbett 2011). In various ways, boys, men, and society as a whole bear the consequences of male identity within a patriarchal framework.

Understanding Sexualities

“Miami Beach to Fire Two Officers in Gay Beating at Park” the headline read. Officials in Miami Beach, Florida, declared that the city would terminate two police officers allegedly involved in assaulting a gay man two years prior, as well as mistreating and apprehending a gay tourist who intervened to help the man. The tourist recounted dialing 911 upon witnessing two undercover officers assaulting the man and kicking his head. He said the officers used antigay slurs, kicked him, and unlawfully arrested him. The president of Miami Beach Gay Pride expressed satisfaction at the news of the imminent terminations. He remarked, “It sets a precedent that you can’t discriminate against anyone and get away with it. [The two officers] tried to cover it up and arrested the guy. It’s an abuse of power. Kudos to the city. They’ve taken it seriously” (Smiley and Rothaus 2011).

From 1933 to 1945, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime systematically murdered 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, while also targeting millions of other individuals, including gay men. Nazi authorities labeled these men as “degenerate,” believing their existence threatened Germany’s notion of “disciplined masculinity.” Gay men were branded as “antisocial parasites” and “enemies of the state,” leading to the arrest of over 100,000 men under laws against homosexuality. Lesbians were not targeted as severely because the regime valued their potential for bearing children. Approximately 5,000 gay men were imprisoned, with many more confined to mental institutions. Hundreds were subjected to castration, and up to 15,000 were incarcerated in concentration camps, where most perished due to disease, starvation, or outright murder.

As noted by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (2011), “Nazi Germany did not seek to kill all homosexuals. Nevertheless, the Nazi state, through active persecution, attempted to terrorize German homosexuals into sexual and social conformity, leaving thousands dead and shattering the lives of many more.” This dark chapter in history serves as a stark reminder of the various forms of inequality faced by individuals based on sexual orientation, culminating in atrocities such as castration, imprisonment, and death. The incident highlighted at the beginning of this module underscores that violence stemming from sexual orientation persists, albeit not at the magnitude witnessed during the Nazi era.

Despite significant progress made by the gay rights movement, sexual orientation continues to be a basis for various forms of inequality. This module explores contemporary manifestations of inequality linked to sexual orientation, encompassing conceptual discussions, historical perspectives, explanations, types of inequality, and related issues.

Sexual orientation refers to an individual’s preference for engaging in sexual relationships with individuals of the opposite sex (heterosexuality), their own sex (homosexuality), or both sexes (bisexuality). This term is now also increasingly used to encompass transgender individuals, who deviate from conventional norms in behavior, appearance, and gender identity (the personal conception of oneself as female, male, both, or neither). Transgender individuals may include transvestites (who dress in the clothing of the opposite sex) and transsexuals (whose gender identity differs from their physiological sex and may involve a sex change). A transgender woman is someone born biologically as a male but becomes a woman, while a transgender man is born biologically as a female but becomes a man. The commonly used term “gay” now refers to any homosexual individual, with “gay men” or “gays” specifically used for homosexual men, and “lesbian” for homosexual women. The collective acronym LGBTQ+ (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/queer/questioning) often encompasses all these sexual orientations.

Determining the exact number of individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender poses challenges. Conceptual issues arise, questioning what it means to be gay or lesbian (Gates 2011). For instance, does one need to engage in sexual relations with a same-sex partner to be considered gay? Additionally, empirical challenges exist, and surveys asking about sexuality remain the primary source of evidence, despite potential reluctance in disclosure.

In the mid-20th century, sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey conducted influential studies, challenging the binary classification of individuals as either exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual (Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, and Gebhard 1953). Kinsey introduced the Kinsey Scale, a continuum ranging from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). His findings suggested that gradations exist between these extremes, with a significant portion of individuals experiencing both heterosexual and homosexual attractions or activities (Kinsey et al., 1953:469).

Recent research finds that 13.9 million adults (5.5% of the U.S. population) identify as LGBT, live in the south, and are young adults 18-24 (Williams Institute 2023). These estimates are calculated using nationally representative samples, combining 2020-2021 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data. BRFSS is a state-based system of health surveys coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Table 9a.  Prevalence of LGBT adults in the United States by region

Table 9b.  Prevalence of LGBT adults in the United States age

_{Source: Williams Institute. 2023. Adult LGBT Population in the United States. Los Angeles: School of Law UCLA.}

These estimates illustrate that while self-identified LGBT individuals constitute a relatively small portion of the U.S. population, they still represent about 13.9 million adults, including a significant number of adolescents. Furthermore, the total number of individuals who have had same-sex experiences, regardless of sexual orientation, is estimated to be at least 19 million, with at least 25 million reporting some degree of same-sex attraction.

Based on historical evidence, it’s understandable why a significant number of individuals in the United States identify as gay/lesbian or have had same-sex experiences. Throughout history, homosexuality has been documented in various societies, often being accepted as a normal form of sexual expression.

In ancient Athens, Greece, there was approval and even encouragement of male homosexuality, particularly sexual relations between men and teenaged boys, as well as between men themselves. According to classical scholar K. J. Dover (1989), Athenian society considered strong homosexual desire and emotion as normal, partly due to a low opinion of women’s intellectual capacity. Louis Crompton (2003), a prominent historian of homosexuality, confirms the prevalence of male homosexuality in ancient Greece. He notes that Greek lyric poets and vase-painters depicted numerous homoerotic scenes, and inscriptions celebrated the love of boys. This acceptance of same-sex relationships was not limited to an intellectual elite but was widespread across Greek society for over a millennium, from before 600 B.C.E. to about 400 C.E.

In ancient Rome, male homosexuality was also prevalent and considered a normal aspect of sexuality, albeit in a different context from ancient Greece. While Romans disapproved of relationships between freeborn men and youthful males, they sanctioned sexual interactions between male slave masters and their young male slaves. This form of sexual activity was widespread, with about 40 percent of the ancient Roman population being slaves. However, it’s important to note that these relationships were marked by violent domination by the slave masters over their slaves, as pointed out by Crompton (2003).

With the fall of Rome in 476 CE, Europe became a predominantly Christian continent. Influenced by passages in the Bible condemning homosexuality, European societies viewed same-sex relations as sinful, leading governments to outlaw such practices. Over the next fourteen centuries, male homosexuals (or men suspected of homosexuality) faced the risk of execution, and many lost their lives. During the Middle Ages, gay men and lesbians endured horrific treatment, including stoning, burning at the stake, hanging, beheading, and various forms of abuse and mistreatment, as described by Crompton (2003). These atrocities were described as a “routine of terror” and a “kaleidoscope of horrors.” The persecution of gay men by Hitler during the twentieth century found ample precedent in the long history of European persecution of homosexuals.

In contrast to how Europe treated gay men and lesbians, China and Japan had a much more positive outlook on homosexuality since ancient times, as highlighted by Crompton (2003). He describes it as an “unselfconscious acceptance of same-sex relations.” In Japan, male love during the 1500s was considered a national tradition, seen as natural and honorable, particularly within the samurai culture before industrialization (Crompton 2003). Similarly, in China, both male and female homosexuality were viewed as normal and healthy expressions of sexuality. Confucianism, the predominant Chinese religion at the beginning of the Common Era, emphasized the importance of male friendships due to its view of women as inferior, potentially inadvertently encouraging same-sex relations among men.

Historical records, including various artworks and written documents, suggest that male homosexuality was quite prevalent in China over the centuries, although exact numbers remain unknown. When China began engaging in trade and communication with Europe during the Ming dynasty, its tolerance for homosexuality shocked and repulsed Catholic missionaries and other Europeans. Some European clergy and scientists even attributed earthquakes and other natural disasters in China to this tolerance.

Apart from historical studies, anthropologists have also examined same-sex relations in small, traditional societies. In many of these societies, homosexuality is common and socially accepted. For example, in a study of seventy-six societies, Ford and Beach (1951) found that nearly two-thirds considered homosexuality normal and socially acceptable for specific members of the community. Among the Azande of East Africa, young warriors live together without marriage and often engage in sexual relations with younger boys. Similarly, among the Sambia of New Guinea, young males live apart from females and engage in same-sex relations for an extended period, believed to contribute to their strength and masculinity (Edgerton 1976).

This brief historical and anthropological overview offers clear evidence supporting the idea stated at its beginning: homosexuality has been present since ancient times and has been widely accepted as a normal form of sexual expression in some societies. While Western society, influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, has largely condemned homosexuality over the past 2,000 years, ancient civilizations such as Greece, China, and Japan approved of same-sex relationships until the industrial age. In these cultures, male homosexuality was common, and female homosexuality was also recognized. Similarly, anthropologists have found that same-sex relations are prevalent in many societies they have studied.

Despite Western societies historically viewing homosexuality as sinful and unnatural, and often holding negative attitudes toward it, the historical and anthropological evidence shows that same-sex relationships are not rare and should be considered normal expressions of sexuality. In fact, many well-known figures in Western history, including political, literary, and artistic figures, are believed to have engaged in same-sex relations at some point, including Alexander the Great, Aristotle, Sir Francis Bacon, James Baldwin, Leonard Bernstein, Lord Byron, Julius Caesar, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Frederick the Great, Leonardo da Vinci, Herman Melville, Michelangelo, Plato, Cole Porter, Richard the Lionhearted, Eleanor Roosevelt, Socrates, Gertrude Stein, Pyotr Tchaikovsky, Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Tennessee Williams, Oscar Wilde, and Virginia Woolf, among others (University of Minnesota Libraries 2016). Regardless of or perhaps in some cases due to their sexuality, these individuals made significant contributions to the societies in which they lived.

Determining the exact number of individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual poses a challenge. Moreover, understanding why some individuals have these sexual orientations while others do not remain a complex issue, with scholars holding differing perspectives on the potential causes (Engle et al. 2006; Sheldon et al. 2007).

The beliefs surrounding the origins of homosexuality and the implications of identifying its potential genetic roots are subjects of discussion in academic circles. Discoveries about the etiology of sexual orientation are not merely academic pursuits. When individuals perceive homosexuality as having biological origins or believe that individuals do not consciously choose their sexual orientation, they tend to hold more positive or at least tolerant attitudes toward same-sex behavior. Conversely, those who view homosexuality as a personal choice are more likely to disapprove of it (Sheldon et al. 2007). Understanding the reasons behind individuals’ sexual orientation is essential, if not for any other reason than this one.

Research into the origins of sexual orientation predominantly explores biological and social-cultural factors. There exists a robust scholarly debate regarding the significance of each of these factors in shaping sexual orientation.

Biological factors

Research indicates that there may be genetic and other biological factors contributing to sexual orientation, yet the evidence remains inconclusive. One area of study focuses on genetics. While scientists have not identified a specific “gay gene,” studies of identical twins suggest a higher likelihood of sharing the same sexual orientation (gay or straight) compared to what would be expected by chance alone (Kendler et al. 2000; Santtila et al. 2008). Since identical twins share the same DNA, this similarity hints at a potential genetic influence on sexual orientation. However, it’s important to note that traits solely determined by genetics should manifest in both twins or neither. The fact that many identical twins have differing sexual orientations suggests that genetics alone may not fully account for sexual orientation, if at all. Additionally, methodological issues in some twin studies raise doubts about their conclusions. A recent review suggests that evidence supporting a purely genetic cause of sexual orientation is lacking, because findings from genetic studies are inconsistent and inconclusive (Sheldon et al. 2007).

Another avenue of research examines brain anatomy. Some studies indicate differences in the size and structure of the hypothalamus—the brain region controlling various bodily functions—between gay and straight individuals (Allen and Gorski 1992). However, conflicting findings from other studies challenge this conclusion (Lasco et al. 2002). Moreover, the influence of sexual behavior on the hypothalamus further complicates interpretation, making it difficult to discern whether observed differences reflect the impact of the hypothalamus on sexual orientation or vice versa (Sheldon et al. 2007).

A third line of biological inquiry investigates hormonal balance in the womb, hypothesizing that prenatal androgen levels may influence sexual orientation. Since prenatal androgen levels cannot be directly measured, researchers often indirectly assess them by comparing certain finger and bone lengths believed to be linked to prenatal androgen levels between gay and straight individuals (Martin and Nguyen 2004; Mustanski et al. 2002). While some studies suggest associations between prenatal androgen levels and sexual orientation, others find no such connections. A recent review highlights inconsistencies in hormone studies and concludes that the available data do not support the idea that non-heterosexual preferences stem from deviations in normal prenatal hormonal levels (Rahman 2005).

Social and cultural factors

Sociologists often stress the significance of socialization over biology in shaping various human behaviors. According to this perspective, individuals are born with clean slates and are then influenced by their society, culture, and immediate social surroundings as they grow up, including interactions with parents, teachers, peers, and other aspects of their environment.

Considering this prevailing sociological standpoint, one might assume that sociologists generally believe that individuals identify as gay or straight not because of their biology, but because they learn these identities from their society, culture, and immediate social environment. Indeed, this was a common belief among sociologists about a generation ago (Engle et al. 2006). In a 1988 review article, two sociologists concluded that the “evidence supporting homosexuality as a social construction, learned from society and culture, is more compelling than evidence suggesting a widespread biological predisposition toward homosexual desire” (Risman and Schwartz, 1988:143). Similarly, the most widely used introductory sociology text during that time asserted, “Many people, including some homosexuals, believe that gays and lesbians are simply ‘born that way.’ But since we know that even heterosexuals are not ‘born that way,’ this explanation seems unlikely…Homosexuality, like any other sexual behavior ranging from oral sex to sadomasochism to the pursuit of brunettes, is learned” (Robertson, 1987:243).

However, sociologists’ perspectives on the origins of sexual orientation appear to have evolved since the time these passages were written. In a recent national survey involving a random sample of sociologists, findings revealed that 22 percent attributed male homosexuality to biological factors, 38 percent to both biological and environmental (learning) factors, and 39 percent to environmental factors (Engle et al. 2006). Hence, a significant majority, approximately 60 percent, believed that biology either wholly or partially accounts for male homosexuality, a figure markedly higher than what might have been observed a generation ago.

It’s noteworthy that 77 percent of sociologists still acknowledge the significance of environmental factors, or socialization, in shaping sexual orientation. Scholars holding this perspective argue that sexual orientation is learned, at least in part, from one’s society, culture, and immediate social environment. According to this view, individuals absorb “messages” from these influences regarding the acceptability of being sexually attracted to someone of the same sex and the opposite sex. Positive messages about same-sex attraction during upbringing may increase the likelihood of acquiring such attractions, whereas negative messages may decrease this likelihood and foster heterosexual desire.

Although conducting research to test the influence of socialization is challenging, historical and cross-cultural evidence offers some support for this process. Ancient Greece, China, and Japan, where homosexuality was generally accepted and appeared common, illustrate this connection. Similarly, many societies studied by anthropologists exhibit similar patterns. In contrast, homosexuality faced condemnation in early European history, resulting in its perceived rarity, although it’s plausible that many gays concealed their orientation due to fear of persecution and death.

The question of the origins of sexual orientation remains unanswered. Some scholars attribute it to unidentified biological factors beyond individual control, akin to handedness. Supporting this notion, many gays report realizing their orientation during adolescence, and evidence from childhood behaviors indicates future sexual orientation (Rieger et al. 2008). Others contend that cultural norms play a role, shaping individuals’ identification as gay or straight based on societal views of sexual orientation during upbringing. Ultimately, sexual orientation likely results from a complex interplay of biological and cultural factors yet to be fully understood.

The American Psychological Association (APA) aligns with this perspective, stating, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation…” (American Psychological Association 2008:2). They emphasize the complex roles of nature and nurture, suggesting that most individuals experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

While the precise origins of sexual orientation are still unclear, the APA’s recent statement underscores a crucial finding, most individuals feel they have little or no control over their sexual orientation. As previously discussed, people tend to be more accepting of homosexuality when they understand that it’s not a matter of choice. Therefore, efforts to inform the public about this research finding could promote greater acceptance of LGBT behavior and individuals.

Attitudes about sexualities

As mentioned earlier, attitudes toward gays and lesbians have been largely negative throughout history in regions like Europe and the Americas, which predominantly adhere to the Judeo-Christian tradition. It’s undeniable that the Bible condemns homosexuality, with Leviticus containing some of the most frequently cited passages:

“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22).

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Leviticus 20:13).

However, the crucial question is to what extent these passages should be interpreted literally. While very few people advocate for the execution of male homosexuals, as Leviticus 20:13 suggests, many who oppose homosexuality often refer to passages like Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 to justify their stance. Though this is not a theology text, it’s worth mentioning two points often raised by religious scholars regarding the Bible’s stance on homosexuality (Helminiak 2000; Via and Gagnon 2003). First, translations of the Bible’s antigay passages may distort their original meanings, and contextual studies of the Bible suggest that these passages may not have universally condemned homosexuality.

Second, many individuals selectively adhere to certain beliefs from the Bible while disregarding others. Despite being a source of inspiration for many, people often exhibit inconsistency in applying Biblical principles. For instance, while some may disapprove of homosexuality based on Biblical teachings, they may not support the prescribed execution of gay men, as Leviticus 20:13 commands. Moreover, numerous Biblical injunctions and penalties are disregarded by even devout believers. Many religious scholars argue against using the Bible as the sole basis for public attitudes toward homosexuality, highlighting the inconsistency with which most people adhere to Biblical commands.

In this module, we explored the concept of racism, which involves negative attitudes and actions directed toward people of color, and sexism, which encompasses negative attitudes and actions toward women. Similarly, heterosexism denotes negative attitudes and discriminatory behaviors aimed at LGBT individuals and their sexual orientation.

While the public remains divided on various LGBT issues and heterosexism persists, attitudes toward LGBT behavior and the rights of the LGBT community have notably improved in recent decades. This positive shift aligns with earlier observations regarding attitudes toward people of color and women. Since the 1970s, the United States has undoubtedly become less racist, less sexist, and less heterosexist.

Certain aspects of individuals’ sociodemographic backgrounds play a role in shaping their attitudes toward heterosexism. This finding isn’t surprising since sociology has long shown that social backgrounds influence attitudes and behaviors. However, the impact of sociodemographic factors on heterosexism stands out. These factors are likely relevant for understanding differing views on other LGBTQ+ issues as well. Reflecting on your own perspectives, you might recognize how your gender, age, education, and other social background aspects influence your views.

Inequality of Sexualities

Just a decade ago, people engaging in consensual same-sex relations risked arrest in many states under sodomy laws. These laws were upheld by the US Supreme Court until 2003 when they were finally outlawed in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558, by a 6–3 vote. The court’s majority opinion declared a constitutional right to engage in private sexual activity under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Despite this important ruling, the LGBTQ+ community still faces various challenges. Sexual orientation is a significant source of social inequality, akin to race/ethnicity, gender, and social class. This section examines inequalities based on sexual orientation.

The news story at the beginning of this module highlighted the reported beatings of two gay men. Bullying and violence against individuals perceived or known to be gay or lesbian represent a severe form of inequality based on sexual orientation. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011), there were 1,277 reported hate crimes, including violence and property destruction, against gays and lesbians in 2010. However, this number is likely an underestimate as many victims do not report their victimization to the police. An estimated 25 percent of gay men have experienced physical or sexual assault due to their sexual orientation (Egan 2010), with some even being murdered, like Matthew Shepard. Shepard, a University of Wyoming student, was kidnapped, tortured, and left tied to a fence in October 1998. He was found in a coma and died a few days later. His murder garnered national attention and contributed to public awareness of the challenges faced by the LGBTQ+ community (Loffreda 2001).

Gay teenagers and those perceived to be gay are frequent targets of bullying, harassment, and physical assault in schools and other settings (Denizet-Lewis 2009). Survey data shows that 85 percent of LGBTQ+ students experience verbal harassment, 40 percent face physical harassment, and 72 percent hear antigay slurs frequently or often at school. Additionally, 61 percent feel unsafe, with 30 percent missing school due to safety concerns, and 17 percent experience physical assault requiring medical attention (Kosciw et al. 2010).

The bullying and violence faced by gay teens have profound impacts on their education and mental health. One of the gravest consequences is suicide, as demonstrated by a series of suicides among gay teens in fall 2010. During this time, three male teenagers from California, Indiana, and Texas took their own lives after experiencing antigay bullying. Additionally, a male college student committed suicide after his roommate live-streamed a video of him kissing another male (Talbot 2010).

LGBTQ+ teens are significantly more prone to skipping school, performing poorly academically, dropping out, and facing mental health challenges like depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem (Mental Health America 2014; Russell et al. 2011). These mental health issues often persist into their twenties. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), LGBTQ+ teens are also at higher risk of engaging in risky behaviors such as tobacco, alcohol, and drug use, unprotected sex, and neglecting seatbelt use (Kann 2011). A CDC official expressed concern, stating, “This report should be a wake-up call. We are very concerned that these students face such dramatic disparities for so many different health risks” (Melnick 2011).

Ironically, although LGBTQ+ teens often face bullying and mistreatment at school, they are disproportionately disciplined for misconduct compared to straight students accused of similar behavior. This discrepancy is more pronounced among girls than boys. The reasons behind this imbalance are unclear but may arise from unconscious bias against gays and lesbians among school officials. As noted by an educational psychology scholar, “To me, it is saying there is some kind of internal bias that adults are not aware of that is impacting the punishment of this group” (St. George 2010).

Federal law currently prohibits employment discrimination based on race, nationality, sex, or religion. Notably, sexual orientation is not included in this list. Thus, it remains legal under federal law for employers to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals or those perceived as LGBTQ+. This includes refusing to hire, firing, or refusing to promote openly LGBTQ+ employees. While twenty-one states have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, twenty-nine states do not, allowing employers in those states to freely discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals. Additionally, only fifteen states prohibit discrimination based on gender identity (transgender), leaving thirty-five states where such discrimination may occur according to Human Rights Campaign (2011).

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), aimed at preventing job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, has been introduced in Congress but has yet to pass. In the absence of legal protection for LGBT employees, many companies have implemented their own policies. By March 2011, 87 percent of Fortune 500 companies, the largest corporations in the U.S., had policies against sexual orientation discrimination, with 46 percent also prohibiting gender identity discrimination (Human Rights Campaign 2011).

National surveys reveal a significant incidence of workplace discrimination against LGBT individuals (Sears and Mallory 2011). According to the 2008 General Social Survey, 27.1 percent of LGBTQ+ respondents reported experiencing verbal harassment at work in the past five years, and 7.1 percent reported being either fired or denied employment during the same period (SDA 2008). Other surveys, though not nationally representative, indicate even higher rates of workplace harassment or discrimination among LGBTQ+ individuals. Consequently, over one-third of LGBTQ+ employees admit to concealing their sexual orientation at work. Transgender individuals encounter even more employment difficulties, with 78 percent reporting some form of workplace harassment or discrimination in one study. Researchers have conducted field experiments sending out resumes or job applications to potential employers. Results show that resumes or applicants indicating LGBTQ+ status are less likely to receive positive responses compared to their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts.

LGBTQ+ individuals facing workplace harassment and discrimination endure additional hardships (Sears and Mallory 2011). They are more prone to mental health issues, job dissatisfaction, and increased absenteeism compared to their counterparts who do not face such challenges.

Same-sex marriage has stirred significant controversy in recent years. Despite nearly 650,000 same-sex couples living together in the United States (Gates 2012), many are unable to marry due to legal restrictions. In May 2012, President Obama endorsed same-sex marriage.

Public opinion on same-sex marriage has shifted, with a narrow margin of Americans now supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry. The legalization of same-sex marriage across the United States following the 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges Supreme Court decision has had substantial effects on various aspects of life. Now, same-sex married couples are entitled to federally mandated spousal rights and benefits, impacting areas such as Social Security, veterans benefits, and family leave. Previously, LGBTQ+ individuals faced barriers in accessing these benefits, including limitations on taking family leave or visiting their partner in the hospital during times of illness.

The 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the United States, was based on four main points:

1. Right to Personal Choice in Marriage: The Court held that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.
2. Right to Marry is Fundamental: The Court affirmed that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent to the liberty of the person under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. This right extends to same-sex couples in the same way it does to opposite-sex couples.
3. Safeguards for Children and Families: The Court recognized that marriage safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage would harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.
4. Marriage as a Keystone of Social Order: The Court stated that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order and that there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood.

These points collectively emphasize the protection of individual liberties, equality, and the recognition of the fundamental role of marriage in society, leading to the decision that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.

Opponents of same-sex marriage argue along three main lines (Emrich 2009). First, they contend that marriage is designed for procreation, which same-sex couples cannot fulfill. Second, they suggest that children raised by same-sex couples may face psychological issues due to their parents’ sexual orientation or the absence of both a father and a mother. Thirdly, they argue that legalizing same-sex marriage would weaken the institution of marriage.

In response, advocates for same-sex marriage present their arguments (Barkan, Marks, and Milardo 2009; Human Rights Campaign 2009). First, they point out that many heterosexual couples marry without the intention or ability to have children. Second, research indicates that children raised by same-sex couples have comparable psychological well-being to those raised by opposite-sex couples. Thirdly, there is no evidence suggesting that legalizing same-sex marriage has undermined the institution of marriage in jurisdictions where it has been permitted.

Although children raised by same-sex couples generally fare as well as those raised by heterosexual couples, same-sex couples still face significant challenges in adopting children, particularly in many states. Currently, Mississippi and Utah outright prohibit adoptions by same-sex couples, while half of the other states impose significant barriers to such adoptions (Tavernise 2011). For example, some states mandate that social workers prioritize married heterosexual couples over same-sex couples in adoption decisions. Additionally, several states require that adoptive parents must be married, effectively excluding same-sex couples from adoption eligibility. Despite these obstacles, the number of adoptions by same-sex couples has increased in recent years due to the growing number of children in need of adoption and the shifting public opinion towards greater acceptance of gays and lesbians.

Marriage grants numerous legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities to spouses. However, in most states, same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying, and even if they manage to marry, their union lacks federal recognition. As a result, they face significant material disadvantages. In fact, heterosexual married couples receive over 1,000 federal rights that married same-sex couples are denied (Shell 2011).

Traditionally, LGBTQ+ individuals were barred from serving openly in the U.S. military. Those who concealed their sexual orientation could serve without repercussions, but many faced dishonorable discharges if their orientation was discovered. Living in fear of exposure, they endured constant anxiety about their status in the military.

In 1992, presidential candidate Bill Clinton pledged to lift the ban on LGBTQ+ individuals in the military. However, upon his election, his proposal faced staunch opposition from military leaders, Congress, and the public. The compromise was the implementation of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy in 1993. DADT allowed members of the military to serve without disclosing their sexual orientation but mandated discharge if they openly acknowledged being LGBTQ+. Despite this policy, advocates continued to push for full inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in the military.

In 2010, a federal judge deemed DADT unconstitutional following a lawsuit. Concurrently, President Barack Obama, both as a candidate and as president, called for the repeal of DADT. Congress passed legislation to repeal DADT later that year, with President Obama signing it into law, effective September 2011. With the official end of discriminatory practices, LGBTQ+ individuals are now permitted to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces. However, concerns persist regarding the potential for negative experiences such as verbal and physical abuse.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic significantly impacted the LGBTQ+ community from the 1980s onwards, resulting in numerous deaths from AIDS-related complications. Today, HIV and AIDS remain serious health concerns for both LGBT individuals and heterosexuals. Approximately 1.2 million Americans are living with HIV, with about 35,000 diagnosed with AIDS. Over 50,000 new HIV cases are reported annually, with a majority being among men who have sex with men. Thankfully, appropriate medical treatment can now effectively manage HIV (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2011).

Less recognized is that LGBTQ+ adults face higher rates of physical and mental health issues compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Research suggests that these challenges stem from the stress of living in a society where LGBTQ+ individuals often encounter harassment, job discrimination, and the need to conceal their sexual identity. Additionally, the lack of equal treatment, particularly due to the absence of legal recognition for same-sex marriage, contributes to these health disparities (Frost et al. 2011; Institute of Medicine 2011).

As highlighted earlier, LGBTQ+ secondary school students also experience educational and mental health challenges due to mistreatment. By the time LGBTQ+ individuals reach adulthood, the cumulative effect of these stressors begins to impact their physical and mental well-being.

Because stress is believed to weaken immune systems, LGBTQ+ individuals generally have lower immune functioning and perceive their physical health as poorer compared to heterosexual individuals. Stress also negatively affects mental health, leading to higher rates of depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, and other psychiatric issues among LGBTQ+ individuals, including a higher tendency to attempt suicide (Sears and Mallory 2011). Those who face greater stress due to their sexual orientation typically experience more physical and mental health problems than those with lower stress levels. It’s crucial to note that these health issues stem not from being LGBTQ+ per se, but from living in a society that is homophobic and discriminates against LGBTQ+ individuals and behaviors.

Despite the health challenges faced by LGBTQ+ people, medical students receive limited education on these matters. A recent survey of medical school deans revealed that one-third of medical schools offer no clinical training on LGBTQ+ health issues. Even in schools that do, students receive an average of only five hours of training (Obedin-Maliver et al. 2011). Commenting on the findings, the senior author of the study emphasized the need for deeper conversations on LGBTQ+ health topics, noting that many medical schools overlook these important issues (White 2011).

In earlier sections, we explored the concepts of White privilege and male privilege. White individuals can navigate daily life without concern for the subtle and overt negative experiences faced by people of color, while men similarly avoid many challenges that women encounter due to their gender. Whether conscious of it or not, whites and men inherently enjoy privileges compared to people of color and women, respectively.

A similar concept applies to sexual orientation and inequality is heterosexual privilege. This term describes the numerous advantages enjoyed by heterosexual individuals, simply because their sexual orientation is not LGBTQ+. 

Here are some examples:

• Heterosexuals can freely express affection in public without fear of harassment or violence based on their sexuality.
• Employment opportunities are not hindered by heterosexuality, avoiding discrimination in hiring, firing, or promotion.
• Heterosexual marriage is legally recognized nationwide, granting access to various benefits.
• Public displays of affection between heterosexual couples are generally accepted without negative reactions.
• Heterosexual individuals are not questioned or criticized for their sexual orientation choices or pressured to change.
• Concerns about parenting abilities due to sexuality are absent for heterosexual parents.
• Heterosexual individuals can openly discuss their sexual orientation without fear of judgment or discrimination.
• Heterosexuals are not accused of imposing their sexuality on others.