Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
-
Upload
xin-yue-wang -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
-
8/10/2019 Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
1/18
Social Forces, University of North Carolina Press
Militarist, Marxian, and Non-Marxian Materialist Theories of Gender Inequality: A Cross-Cultural TestAuthor(s): Stephen K. Sanderson, D. Alex Heckert and Joshua K. DubrowSource: Social Forces, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Jun., 2005), pp. 1425-1441
Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598399.
Accessed: 06/06/2013 11:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Oxford University Pressand Social Forces, University of North Carolina Pressare collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:45:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3598399?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3598399?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup -
8/10/2019 Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
2/18
Militarist,
Marxian,
and Non-Marxian
Materialist
Theoriesof
Gender
nequality:
A
Cross-Cultural
est*
STEPHEN K.
SANDERSON,
Indiana
University
of Pennsylvania
D. ALEX
HECKERT,
Indiana
University
of
Pennsylvania
JOSHUA
K.
DUBROW,
Ohio
State
University
Abstract
This
tudy
ested hree
ypes
of
theories
of
gender nequality
n
preindustrial
ocieties
by
using half
the societies
in the
Standard Cross-Cultural
ample:
militarist,
Marxian,
and
non-Marxianmaterialist heories.
The
first phase of
the
research
used
simple
cross-tabulations
ith
chi-square
s a test
of significance
nd
gamma
as a measureof association.Theresults rom thisphase showedno support or
militarist
theories,
ome
support or
Marxian
theories,
and substantial
upport
for
non-Marxian
materialist heories.
Since the
first
phase
involved
no
control
variables,
second
hase
was conducted
sing
multivariate
nalyses.
These
analyses
confirmed
hat
militaristtheoriesmust be
emphatically
ejected,
nd that both
Marxianand
non-Marxianmaterialist
ariables
elp
determine
ender nequality.
Non-Marxian
materialist
ariables,
however,
xplain
much more
of
the
variance
in
gender nequality
han Marxianvariables
do.
Gender
nequality
has been
a
pervasive
eature
of human social ife
for
millennia.
There s
widespread, lthough
hardly
universal,
greement
hat all societies
have
been to
some extent male-dominated
Goldberg
1993;
Rosaldo
and
Lamphere
1974).
Be
that as
it
may,
t is clear
hat
there s markedvariation
n
the
degree
of
gender
nequality
acrosssocieties.
Explaining
oth
the universal
nd
the variable
aspects
of
gender
inequality
is
extremely
mportant,
but this article
seeks
to
*
An
earlier
version
of
this articlewas
presented
t the annual
meetings
of
theAmerican
Sociological
Association,
Atlanta,
August
2003. Direct
correspondence
o
Stephen
Sanderson,
Department
of
Sociology,
ndiana
University
f Pennsylvania,
McElhaney
Hall,
Indiana,
PA
15705-1085.E-mail:
?
The
University
of
North
CarolinaPress Social
Forces,
une
2005,
83(4):1425-1442
This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:45:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
3/18
1426
/
Social
Forces
83:4,
June
2005
explain
only
the
variable
aspects.
In
doing
so it tests three
competing
theories:
militarist,Marxian,
and non-Marxianmaterialist heories.
Militarist theories
Collins 1975, 1985;
Divale and Harris
1976)
hold
that
societieswith
frequent
warfare,
r
preparation
or
warfare,
re
likely
o
be more
male
dominated han other societies.
Societies
regularly ngaged
n warfare rain
males to
be fierce
and
aggressive
nd
denigrate
eminine
qualities,
out of which
develops
a culture
of
male
supremacy.
Using
half of the
societies
n the Standard
Cross-Cultural
ample
(SCCS)
of Murdockand White
(1969),
Whyte
(1978)
testedthis
theory
and found
that warfare
was
actually
related o a
higher
rather
than a lower statusfor women.
The first
of
severalMarxiantheorieswas
proposedby Engels
([1884]
1970).
Engelsargued hat n the earliest ormsof humansocietywomenwereequalwith
men. With the
rise of
social stratification
nd the state in social
evolution,
men
gained
controlover
private
property
and this cameto be extended o controlover
women;
as
a
result,
women's tatus
plummeted.
Karen
Sacks
1975)
has elaborated
on
Engels's
work.
According
o
her,
as
societies
moved
from
a communalmode
of
production
o
an
incipient
class
mode,
women were
ncreasingly
erceived
s
the
property
of
men
and
became
only indirectly
elated o
the
means of
production.
This
gradual
diminution
of their
importance
o the means of
production
meant
a
gradual
diminution of the
economic
power
that women held in
society,
and
hence a declining status.Whyte (1978) tested this overall
argument
with the
data
n the
SCCS
and found
little
empirical upport
or
it.
Hendrixand
Hossain
(1988),
using
the
same
sample
but
a
larger
numberof
variables,
lso
found
very
little
support.
According
o non-Marxianmaterialist
heories,
cological, echnological,
nd
economic factorsare the most
important
determinants f
women'sstatus.The
greater
he extent
to
which women
are involved
n
economic
production,
the
higher
their
statustends to be
(Blumberg
1984, 1991;
Chafetz
1984;
Martinand
Voorhies
1975).
Blumberg 1984, 1991)emphasizes
hatthe
key
factor s women's
level of economic
power;
he
greater
he extentof this
power,
he
higher
women's
overall
tatus.Non-Marxianmaterialist
heories
are similar
o Marxian
heories,
except
that the
latter
end
to
emphasize
he
role
of social class
and
stratification
and
the formerdo not.
A
numberof
Whyte's
1978)
empiricalanalyses
elate o
this
type
of
argument.
For
example,
he
found that
the
use
of the
plow
strongly
predicted
a
low
female
status,
primarily
because
plow
agriculture
s one in
which
men
predominate
and women lose much of
their
productive
ole and thus their
economic
power.
Collinset al.(1993)haveattemptedo draw nto acomprehensive,ynthesized
theory many
of the
factorsof all three
types
of
theory.
Their
laudable
attempt
results,however,
n an
extremely omplex
set of
flow
diagrams
and models that
would
likely
prove
extraordinarily
ifficult f not
impossible
to
test,
especially
with the
data that are
available.
ndeed,
hey provide
no
empirical
ests
of their
models.
This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:45:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
4/18
Testing
Three
Theories f Gender
nequality
1427
Hypotheses
and Methods
HYPOTHESES
We formulate three
hypotheses
that
correspond
to the three theoretical
perspectives.
Hypothesis
1 is
derived rom militarist heories:
Hypothesis
: The
greater
he
prevalence
of
warfare,
he lower the
status
of women.
Hypothesis
2 is derived
rom
Marxian heories:
Hypothesis
a: The
greater
he control women have over
the
products
of
their own
labor,
he
higher
their status.
Hypothesis
b: The
greater
he
degree
of
stratification,
he lowerthe status
of
women.
Hypothesis
3
is derived
rom
non-Marxian
materialist heories:
Hypothesis
a:
The
greater
he
contribution
of
gathering
o
the total food
supply,
he
higher
the status of women.
Hypothesis
3b: The
greater
the
contribution of women to
overall
subsistence,
he
higher
their
status.
Hypothesis
3c: In
agricultural
ocieties, the
greater
he contribution of
women to
agricultural
abor,
he
higher
their
status.
Hypothesis
3d:
In
agricultural
societies,
the
greater
the
intensity
of
cultivation,
he
lower the status of
women.
Hypothesis
e:
In
patrilineal
societies the status of
women will be lower
than in
nonpatrilineal
ocieties.
Hypothesis f:
In
patrilocal
or
virilocal societiesthe status
of women will
be lower than in nonpatrilocalor nonvirilocalsocieties.
Data
The
data
set
usedto
test these
hypotheses
s
Murdock ndWhite's
1969)
Standard
Cross-Cultural
ample,
which contains
186
pre-industrial
ocieties.
To
makethe
SCCS
a
representative
ample,
Murdockand White
dividedthe world into
186
regions
and
then selectedone
society
from
each of
the
regions.Region
selection
was intendedto solve Galton's roblem of culturaldiffusion.Assumingthat
diffusion can and will
occur when two culturesare in
contact with each
other,
Galton's
problem
suggests
hat
any
sample
could
be
biased
by
culturaldiffusion.
Murdock
and
White
solvedthe
problem
by selecting
regions
hat
were
separated
by
one or
more
significant eographical
oundaries,
oundaries hat
would
limit
or eliminate
ontactbetween
neighboring
ocieties.Within
each
region,
he
society
This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:45:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
5/18
1428
/
Social Forces
83:4,
June
2005
that was selectedwas the
best documented
society.
This
means that the
SCCS
s,
strictlyspeaking,
a
nonrandom
(but
nonetheless
highly
representative)
ample.
Anthropologists, issionaries,nd othershaverecorded he information bout
the societies
of the SCCS.
All
ethnographies
were
gatheredprior
to 1950 and in
most casesbefore
significant
mpact
was made
by
modernsocieties.
Controversy
has surrounded he use of such data sets. Data
quality
differs rom
one
society
to anotherbecause of
the
differentkinds
of
persons
-
missionaries, ravelers,
professional
thnographers,
tc.
-
who
were
collecting
he
data,
their motives
for
doing
so,
and their levels
of
competence.
Data sets like the SCCSare
still,
however,
widely
used
by anthropologists
nd
some
sociologists,
and such studies
haveoften
producedcompelling
indings.
We contend
that
the variousmeasures
usedin this
study
havea
high
degree
of face
validity.
For
example, oding
whether
societies
engaged
in
warfare,
used
the
plow,
or were
patrilineal,
and the
like,
are
relatively
traightforward
onstructswith
meaningful
ndicators.
The more
problematic
ssue,
in
our
view,
pertains
to the
reliability
of the measures.Our
basic
argument,
however,
s
that,
since
reliability
error attenuatescorrelation
coefficients,
f
statistically
nd
substantively
ignificant indingsemerge,
hen
they
actually
underestimate he
strength
of the
relationships
discovered ather
han
distort
he overall
pattern
of
results.
Overall,
f the
data
were
completely
acking
in validityandreliability,hen no significant elationships hould be found.
In
1978,
Whyte
created
gender
tatusvariables or theSCCS.
n
the interestof
saving
an enormousamount
of time and
effort,
Whyte
coded
every
other
society
starting
with
Nama
Hottentot
and
concluding
with Tehuelche
until he
had 93
with
whichto
work
(see
Whyte
1978for a list of the
93 societies
he
coded).
Whyte
then
created
a set of 52
dependent
variables.
For
purposes
of
simplification,
e
reduced
he number
of
dependent
variables
y using
cluster
analysis.
This
yielded
10
dependent
variable cales.These scales are
the
ones
Whyte
used in his
own
research
n
women'sstatus.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
We used three of
Whyte'sdependent
variable calesas measuresof the statusof
women
in
preindustrial
ocieties.These scaleswere chosen over
Whyte's
even
other
scales
for
two reasons.
First,
hey
had
the
strongest
correlationswith the
independent
variables
n
Whyte's
own
empirical analyses,
which
suggest
that
they
are the three best measuresof women's status.
Second,
they
most
clearly
operationalize
he
concepts
in
the theoretical
categories
hat we test. We
also
summedthethree measures o createa compositemeasureof gender nequality.
The
dependent
variable calesare the
following:
(1)
Domestic
authority
of
women,
which
is
a cluster
of three
dependent
variables:
inal
authority
over
infants,
inal
authority
over
children,
and
lack of male
dominanceover wives. This scale has
an
average
nteritem
This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:45:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
6/18
Testing
ThreeTheories f
Gender
nequality
1429
correlation
f
.375. It is coded
low, medium,
and
high,
where
the
higher
the
score,
the
more domestic
authority
women
have.
(2) Ritualizedfemaleolidarity,which is a clusterof fivedependentvariables:
exclusively
male
work
organizations,xclusively
emale
work
organizations,
menstrual
cycle
taboos,
female nitiation
ceremonies,
and lack of a
belief
in
female
inferiority.
This scale has an
average
nteritem
correlation
of
.247. It
ranges
rom
low to
high,
where the
higher
the
score,
the
greater
the ritualized
eparation
betweenmen and women.
(3)
Control
ver
women's
maritaland sexual ives
(referred
o
in this articleas
male ontrol
verfemale exuality ),
which
is
a clusterof four
dependent
variables: ack of a premaritaldoublestandard,ackof an extramarital
double
standard,
emarriage
ase,
and
relative
age
at first
marriage.
This
index of male
control over
female
sexuality
has an
average
nteritem
correlation f .242
and is
dichotomized
nto stricterand less strict evels
of
control.
(4)
Composite
ender
nequality
ariable,
hich
s a summed
ndex
of the
other
three
independent
variables
Cronbach's
lpha
=
.41).
We
createdthis
variable o
strengthen
he
measurement
f
gender nequalityby creating
a more sensitivemeasure
of
gender
statusacross ocieties.The
validity
of
the
composite
measure
s
supportedby
its
rather obustcorrelationswith
all but two of
the Marxianand non-Marxian
materialist
ariables.While
the Cronbach's
lpha
s
relatively
ow,
even for a three-item
measure,
he
result
will be to underestimate
he statistical ffects of the
independent
variables
ather han
alter
the
pattern
of
results.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Threevariables rom the SCCSdatabank wereused to measurewarfare:
Internal
warfare:
Warfare
ought
in and arounda
society's
own territories
(trichotomized
nto
infrequent, requent,
and
continual).
External
warfare:
Warfare
ought
at considerable istances rom a
society's
own
territories
very
low,
low,
moderate,
high, very
high).
Overall
warfare:
Operationalized
s the
average
of
internal
and external
warfare
very
ow, low,
moderate,
high,
very high).
The Marxian
hypothesis
was
measured
by
two
independent
variables:
Female economic control
of
the
products of
their
own
labor
(absent,
present).
Class
stratification egalitarian,
wealth
distinctions
only,
elite
or
dual,
complex).
This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:45:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
7/18
1430 SocialForces
83:4,June
2005
The non-Marxian materialist
hypothesis
and its
subtypes
were measured
by
the
following independent
variables:
Percentage f the contribution f gathering o thefood supply(none, less
than
10%,
less
than
50%
and less than
any
other,
less than
50%
but
more
than
any
other,
more
than
50%).
Subsistence
type (foraging, shifting
cultivation with
digging
sticks,
shifting
cultivation
with
metal
hoes,
intensive
agriculture
without the
plow,
intensive
agriculture
with
the
plow).
Percentage of
the contribution
of
women
to overall
subsistence
(low,
moderate,
high).
Percentage f
the
female
contribution o
agriculture
0-10%,
20%-40%,
50%-60%,
70%
or
more).
Intensityof
cultivation
(no
agriculture
or casual
agriculture,
extensive
cultivation
or
horticulture,
intensive
agriculture
with
or
without
irrigation).
Use
of
the
plow
(absent,
present).
Patrilineality yes,
no).
Patrilocal r virilocalresidence
yes,
no).
DATA
ANALYSIS
The data
analyses
were
performed
in
two
stages.
First,
we
used
ordinary
chi-square
tests
as
a
test of statistical
significance
and
gamma
as a
measure
of
association
for
bivariate
analyses. Thirty-nine
bivariate
cross-tabulations were conducted to test
the
hypotheses,
one for
each combination of an
independent
and a
dependent
variable and each hypothesis. To control for potential spuriousness, in the second
stage
of the
analysis
we
conducted
a
series
of
multivariate
analyses,
one for each
of the
original dependent
variables. For the two
dependent
variables
that were
ordinal,
domestic
authority
of
women and ritualized female
solidarity,
we used
ordered
(proportional
odds or
cumulative)
logistic regression.
We
also
computed
unordered
multinomial
logistic
regression equations
for
comparison.
For all
models,
significance
tests
suggested
that the
unordered multinomial
logistic
regression equations
were
unnecessary.
Therefore,
the
models
were recomputed
using ordinary
least
squares regression
and
compared
to the ordered
logistic
regressions.
Because these models
produced
identical conclusions, the
ordinary
least
squares
regressions
are shown
for
ease of
interpretation.
For
the dichotomous
dependent
variable,
male control
over female
sexuality,
we
used
binary logistic
regression.
For
the
composite
gender
inequality
variable,
which
ranged
in value
from
3 to
9,
we used
ordinary
least
squares
regression.
This content downloaded from 142.150.190.39 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:45:13 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Testing 3 Theories of Gender Inequality (M)
8/18
Testing
ThreeTheories f
Gender
nequality
1431
BUILDING
THE
MODELS
For all fourdependentvariables,we ran a seriesof ordered,hierarchicalmodels
with the
warfare ariables ntered irst into
the
model,
followed
by
the Marxian
variables,
ndthen
by
the
non-Marxian ariables.
ecause f
the
small
sample
ize,
to
preservedegrees
of
freedomand
to
minimize
problems
with
multicollinearity,
we
used
a
stepwiseapproachby testing
the
effect of each
independent
variable
in
each block
one
at
a time. Because
of
the small
sample
size
and
low
power,
we
retained
any
ndependent
variable hat achieveda one-tailed
significance
evel of
p