Introduction Feminist Perspectives on Gender and Thought: Paradox and Potential

  • Margaret Gentry

Abstract

“Equality” has been the preeminent value in American culture since our first self-evident truth declared that “all men are created equal.” Although equality and difference are not necessarily antithetical, equality within our culture has been taken to depend on sameness: that is, historically equality has evolved in favor of standardized rules that demand the same qualifications, afford the same opportunities, and offer the same rewards to all. Generally, standardization of criteria dominates diversity, which is considered irrelevant when equality is applied as a principle. This operationalization of equality as sameness cuts right to the heart of the paradoxical status of gender in the United States. For although we base equality primarily on sameness, our ideology of gender is based on the idea that men and women are fundamentally different. Consequently, we expect women to be different from men (e.g., in traits, values, and skills), and yet to obtain equality women must be the same as men.

Keywords

Coherence Resis Logical Positivism Arena Editing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angoff, W.H. (1988). The nature-nurture debate, aptitudes, and group differences. American Psychologist, 43, 713–720.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J., & Huston, T.L. (1984). Sex role orientation and division of labor early in marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R., & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Crosby, F., Clayton, S., Alksnis, O., & Hemker, K. (1986). Cognitive biases in the perception of discrimination: The importance of format. Sex Roles, 14, 637–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social categories: Analysis of a decade’s research on gender. American Psychologist, 39, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deaux, K., & Kite, M.E. (1987). Thinking about gender. In B.B. Hess & M.M. Ferree (Eds.), Women and society: Social science research perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hare-Mustin, R., & Marecek, J. (1988). The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodernism, and psychology. American Psychologist, 43, 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pleck, J.H., & Rustad, M. (1980). Husbands’ and wives’ time in family work and paid work in the 1975–1976 study of time use (Working paper No. 63). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College, Center for Research on Women.Google Scholar
  10. Twiss, C., Tabb, S., & Crosby, F. (1989). Affirmative action and aggregate data: The importance of patterns in the perception of discrimination. In F. Blanchard & F. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action: Social psychological perspectives. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Unger, R. (1979). Toward a redefinition of sex and gender. American Psychologist, 34, 1085–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret Gentry

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations