Cross-cultural similarities appear within gender roles for example through division of labour. Food preparation and childcare is seen to be predominantly carried out by women while men would hunt and provide resources. In some some societies these 'female' roles will be shared, however have not be found to be predominantly carried out by males.
Murdoch and Provest found strong indications of consistent cross-cultural masculine and feminine activities. For example, smelting of ores, metal work and lumbering were 100% or nearly 100% predominantly masculine activities whereas laundering, cooking and fetching water were only carried out by 10% of males. This provides evidence towards an evolutionary approach as similar activities were seen across cultures suggesting an evolutionary basis. This study used a 'Standard Cross cultural sample' therefore the sample raises issues of reliability due to the relevance of each of the categories within a society. For example someone may be unmarried in one society due to lack of partners and in another due to choice. Such factors are ignored with this study making it reductionist therefore we cannot determine the extent to which findings can be generalised.
Williams and Best found a high degree of cross cultural agreement between masculine and feminine adjectives. Men were seen as dominant and aggressive and women as nurturing and submissive. This suggests that are universal stereotypes about male and female characteristics. Methodological strengths of the study include it was longitudinal, conducted over 30 years therefore provides the ability to determine a pattern overtime. This provides greater reliability in findings creating support linking towards an evolutionary explanation of gender role as similar gendered ideas were displayed. Methodological problems occur as participants may have shown demand characteristics and expected to attribute certain words to male or female and therefore doe not truly represent what the students thought themselves. Resulting in the study being potentially less reliable and less generalisable. However, a large sample was used of over 2800 students form 30 different countries. Therefore it could be argued that findings may have sufficient validity and reliability which could be used to justify the conclusions drawn. Overall supporting an evolutionary cause of gender roles rather than a cultural one.
A positive of cross-cultural research suggests it satisfies the demand to be both emic and etic. It is etic as it is able to understand cultures with that cultures own terms and is etic as researchers can leave their own cultural biases and view cultures objectively. However, as many studies were originally based in the US it could be argued they attempt to replicate findings in other countries involving an imposed etic. This assumes that all measures of gender stereotypes are the same across cultures, which is unlikely to be the case. Results gained therefore may lack internal validity and not be a measure of true gender role stereotypes in each culture.
Both Murdoch and Provost, and, Williams and Best studies suggest gendered characteristics and stereotypes are consistent across cultures and such studies take an evolutionary approach. This is retrospective and attempts to make generalised assumptions with little experimental evidence raising issues of reliability and validity. There is also an issue with such research in measuring exact gender role perceptions as they can change quickly. Therefore conclusions drawn at one period of time will not likely be valid in the future. Also feminists have criticised the evolutionary explanation as an attempt to give gender roles a biological basis to keep females in the traditional subordinate role and draw attention away from the male dominance and patriarchy. If this view continues to be accepted with will be reinforced in each generations further moving away from gender equality.
However, real world applications from research such as globalisation must be considered. This may cause less cultural differences with masculine and feminine differences being reduced through legislation and equal opportunities, suggesting social influence may be stronger than biological or evolutionary ones. Therefore refuting a biological basis for cultural variations in gender development.
No comments:
Post a Comment