NOTES: Gender as a Social Structure

Risman, Barbara J. (2018) | Handbook of the Sociology of Gender | Pp. 19–38

Introduction / Overview
This chapter by Barbara J. Risman provides

(What the chapter is about?)

 a history of how social scientists have thought about
gender.
 The key argument is that gender is not just something inside
a person (like a personality trait), but is a social structure —
a system of inequality that operates at three levels:
individual, interactional, and macro (societal). Risman argues
that we should stop treating different gender theories as
competitors and instead combine them into one integrated
framework. Gender inequality is produced and reproduced
through material (physical/economic) and cultural
(beliefs/norms) processes at every level of society. Change
at one level can affect the others, meaning gender is dynamic,
not fixed.

1. The Evolution of Theories for Sex and Gender

Over time, social scientists have moved from seeing gender as a
biological given to understanding it as a social product. This section
traces that journey from biological explanations to sociological ones.

1.1 It's All in the Body or Brain

 In the early 20th century, scientists explained masculine and
feminine traits as products of sex hormones — testosterone for
men, estrogen for women. This was used to justify restricting
 women's roles in society (replacing religious justifications with
'scientific' ones).
 As research advanced, scientists found that both male and
female bodies have both hormones, just in different amounts, and
that hormones alone do not directly cause gender
differences.
 Attention then shifted to the brain: prenatal hormone exposure
was said to affect brain development, which then shaped
gendered behavior.

 Recent brain research on sex differences has increased, but

there is still no scientific consensus on what brain
differences between men and women actually mean for
behavior. Critics like Cordelia Fine and Rebecca Jordan-
Young have shown that brain sex research is
methodologically flawed — studies use inconsistent
definitions, findings are rarely replicated, and much research
is done on animals, not humans. Fine showed that even where
brain imaging reveals some differences, actual task performance
does not differ. Much claimed sex differences vary by race, class,
and nationality (e.g., math ability differs more by ethnicity than by
sex).
The new field of epigenetics has changed the debate entirely: a single
gene can do many different things depending on environmental
triggers. Social experiences change hormone levels too — for
example, testosterone rises with winning in sports and falls when men
care for young children. Brain plasticity continues throughout life. The
nature vs. nurture debate is outdated; today science acknowledges
that biology and social environment constantly shape each other.
1.2 Psychologists Measure Sex Roles
Before the feminist movement of the 1960s–70s, most social scientists
viewed gender roles as natural and functional. Sociologists like
Parsons described women as the 'heart' (emotional) of the family and
men as the 'head' (rational breadwinner). Psychologists focused on
training boys and girls for their socially appropriate roles through
socialization. These theories ignored poor families and families of color
where mothers worked, and failed to see that sex-role socialization
disadvantaged women.
When women entered academia, this began to change. Psychologists
challenged the idea that masculinity and femininity were opposites on
one scale. Sandra Bem argued that masculinity and femininity are two
independent personality dimensions — a person can be high on both,
low on both, or high on one and low on the other. This was
revolutionary because it separated personality traits from biological
sex. Even more recently, psychologists suggest abandoning the words
'masculinity' and 'femininity' altogether, instead describing the actual
traits: agency/efficacy vs. nurturance/empathy.
Social psychologists also studied stereotypes — both descriptive (what
people are like) and prescriptive (what they should be like). These
stereotypes harm women: employers assume women lack the
commitment or personality for male-dominated jobs, and working
mothers are seen as distracted. Stereotypes maintain the power gap
between men and women.

1.3 Gender as a Sociological Response to Sex-Roles

Sociologists pushed back against the idea of 'sex roles.' Lopata and
Thorne (1978) pointed out that using the word 'role' implies a natural,
complementary relationship between men and women, hides questions
of power and inequality, and assumes behavior is stable across all
contexts and groups. They asked: would we ever speak of 'race roles'
to explain inequality between whites and Blacks? Of course not — so
why use 'sex roles'?
Today, sociologists rarely use 'gender roles.' Instead, they study how
gender is socially constructed — produced through daily symbols,
behaviors, interactions, and lessons. Research shows that babies
assigned male at birth are pushed toward masculine behaviors, rough
play, and boy toys, while girls are encouraged to be feminine. Martin
(1998) showed that even preschool teachers reinforce gender in the
body — girls are told to sit still and take up little space, while boys
sprawl freely. Kane (2012) found that many parents limit how much
femininity their sons can express, even when they try to be gender-
neutral.
The result of this deep socialization is that gender appears to be a
natural, free choice — but in reality it is produced through constant
social pressure. The sociological insight here is different from the
psychological one: it focuses not just on what is internalized inside the
child, but on how gender is reproduced through social interaction. Both
sociology and psychology agree, however, that changing how we raise
children is essential for reducing gender inequality.

1.4 Moving Beyond Individuals to Social Context

In the late 1980s, sociologists developed two major new theories to
explain gender beyond personality: 'Doing Gender' and Structural
theory. Both rejected the sex-role paradigm but developed separately.
Structural Theory: Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977) studied a large
American corporation and argued that gender inequality at work is not
caused by women's personalities or weaknesses but by the structure
of organizations. Women and people of color were in positions with
little power and opportunity. When they were in leadership, they were
tokens, facing extra scrutiny. Kanter concluded: change the
organizational structure, and gender differences would disappear.
Epstein (1988) supported this with a massive review, arguing most sex
differences are deceptive distinctions produced by unequal social
roles.
However, research did not fully confirm the purely structural view.
Risman's own study (1987) of single fathers showed they did become
more nurturing than married fathers, but did not become exactly like
mothers — suggesting that gender is not only about structural position.
Research on families showed that even when wives and husbands
earn equal salaries and work equal hours, women still do more
housework. And when men are the minority in female-dominated
workplaces, they are not disadvantaged — they ride a 'glass escalator'
to leadership positions (though this applies mainly to white men).
The flaw in purely structural theory is that it ignores: (1) internalized
gender at the individual level, (2) interactional expectations people
bring to every encounter, and (3) the cultural logics embedded in
institutions. A structural perspective only works if we recognize that
gender itself is deeply embedded at all levels of society.
Doing Gender: West and Zimmerman (1987) argued that gender is
not who we are — it is something we do. We are held accountable for
performing gender correctly; failing to do so is seen as immoral. They
distinguished three things: sex (biological category assigned at birth),
sex category (the gender we claim in social interaction), and gender
(the performance that makes our sex category believable). We 'do
gender' through body language, clothing, hairstyles, and behavior. This
is similar to Judith Butler's theory of performativity.
'Doing gender' has become the most popular framework in gender
sociology (8,500+ citations). Over time it evolved to recognize that
there are many masculinities and femininities — not one fixed version.
Connell (1995) introduced 'hegemonic masculinity': the culturally
dominant form of manhood that organizes inequality among men, not
just between men and women. Critics warn that the framework can
become tautological — if any behavior by a woman is called femininity
and any behavior by a man is masculinity, the theory proves nothing.
We must be willing to recognize when gender is being 'undone,' not
just done differently.
Critiques of White Feminism: Women of color (Collins, Crenshaw,
Lorde, King) argued from the beginning of second-wave feminism that
gender cannot be understood in isolation from race, class, sexuality,
and nationality. They developed intersectionality — the idea that
multiple systems of oppression (race, gender, class, etc.) intersect and
cannot be understood separately. No longer can gender research treat
white, Western women as the universal female subject.
Intersectionality has moved from the margins to the center of feminist
scholarship.

OR

Certainly! Here is a clear and simplified explanation of the passage in

similar length, presented in well-structured paragraphs:

In the late 1980s, sociologists moved beyond individual personality to

understand gender in a broader social context. They developed two
major theories—Structural Theory and “Doing Gender.” Both rejected
the earlier sex-role paradigm, which assumed that men and women
naturally fit into fixed roles.
 Instead, these theories emphasized that gender is shaped by
society and its institutions.

Structural Theory was developed by Rosabeth Moss Kanter in 1977.

Studying a large American corporation,
  she argued that gender inequality at work is not caused by
women’s weaknesses but by organizational structures.
 Women and people of color were often placed in low-power
positions with limited opportunities.
 When promoted to leadership roles, they were treated as
“tokens” and faced intense scrutiny.
 Kanter concluded that if workplace structures were changed
to provide equal opportunities, gender differences would
diminish. Supporting this view, Cynthia Fuchs Epstein (1988)
argued that most differences between men and women are
misleading and arise from unequal social roles rather than
natural abilities.

However, later research showed that structure alone does not fully
explain gender differences. Barbara J. Risman (1987) found that single
fathers became more nurturing than married fathers, yet they did not
behave exactly like mothers. Similarly, studies revealed that even
when husbands and wives earn equal incomes and work the same
hours, women still perform more housework. In female-dominated
professions like nursing or teaching, men often rise quickly to
leadership positions—a phenomenon known as the “glass escalator,”
especially benefiting white men. These findings suggest that gender is
influenced not only by structural positions but also by social
expectations and cultural norms.

The limitation of purely structural theory is that it ignores three

important factors: internalized gender identities at the individual level,
expectations during social interactions, and cultural values embedded
in institutions. Therefore, gender must be understood as operating at
multiple levels of society—individual, interactional, and institutional.
The concept of “Doing Gender” was introduced by Candace West and
Don H. Zimmerman in 1987. They argued that gender is not
something we are born with but something we actively perform in
everyday life. Society holds individuals accountable for acting
according to gender norms, and failing to do so is often judged
negatively. They distinguished between sex (biological
classification), sex category (how others perceive us), and gender
(our behavior that makes our identity believable). For example,
people “do gender” through clothing, speech, hairstyles, and
body language. This idea closely resembles Judith Butler’s theory
of gender performativity.

Over time, the theory evolved to recognize that there are multiple
forms of masculinity and femininity. R. W. Connell (1995) introduced
the concept of hegemonic masculinity, referring to the culturally
dominant ideal of manhood that maintains inequality among men
as well as between men and women. However, critics argue that the
theory can become circular if every action by a man or woman is
labeled masculine or feminine. Therefore, scholars emphasize
recognizing when gender norms are challenged or “undone.”

Critiques of White Feminism further expanded gender theory. Women

of color such as Patricia Hill Collins, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Audre Lorde,
and Deborah K. King argued that gender cannot be studied in
isolation from race, class, sexuality, and nationality. They
developed the concept of intersectionality, which explains how
multiple systems of oppression overlap and shape people’s
experiences. For example, a Black woman may face discrimination
that is different from that experienced by white women or Black men.
Today, intersectionality is central to feminist scholarship, and gender
studies no longer treat white, Western women as the universal female
experience.

In simple terms, these theories show that gender is not merely

personal or biological—it is shaped by social structures, everyday
interactions, and overlapping systems of inequality.

1.5 And into the 21st Century

Three more important developments enriched gender theory in the
21st century:
Status Expectations: Ridgeway and Correll showed that gender acts
as a background identity — a status that shapes what we expect
from people before they even speak or act. In any new situation, we
bring gender stereotypes with us. We expect men to be good at
leadership and women to be empathetic. These expectations create
gendered behavior even in neutral settings. To achieve gender
equality, we must either change those expectations or eliminate
gender as a status category altogether.
Cultural Logics: Joan Acker (1990) showed that workplaces are not
gender-neutral — they are built around the 'ideal worker' who has no
caretaking responsibilities (historically a man with a wife at home).
Simply allowing women in doesn't fix the underlying design that favors
those without care duties. Blair-Loy (2005) found that even high-paid
women executives sometimes leave the workforce because of
competing cultural expectations about 'intensive mothering.' Swidler's
(1986) 'tool kit' theory of culture is important here: culture gives us
habits, skills, and strategies of action — and gender is deeply
embedded in those tools.
Queer Theory: Butler (1990) argued that the 'heterosexual matrix' —
the assumption that there are only two genders that must be opposite
and attracted to each other — is the foundation of gender inequality.
Schilt and Westbrook (2009) studied what happens when transgender
people disrupt this binary. In public spaces, 'doing gender' through
appearance and behavior is usually accepted. But in private or sexual
spaces, violence and panic often follow — because heteronormativity
requires that biological sex and gender match. 'Bathroom bills'
requiring transgender people to use restrooms matching their birth
certificate are examples of how society reasserts the biological binary.
Queer theory challenges us to see how all gender categories are
socially constructed — and therefore can be deconstructed.

1.6 Integrative Theories

Browne and England (1997) urged scholars to stop treating theories as
either/or. Collins (1998) coined the phrase 'both/and' — every good
theory acknowledges both social structure and how oppression
becomes internalized in the self. England (2016) reminds us that
inequality is socially structured to 'get inside of us' — studying
internalized oppression doesn't blame the victim; it acknowledges the
power of structure to shape consciousness.
By the late 20th century, scholars reached a new consensus: gender is
a stratification system, not just a personality trait. It involves the
unequal distribution of power, property, and prestige. Several scholars
contributed to this shift: Rubin (1975) analyzed gender as political-
economic oppression. Connell (1987) argued gender must be seen as
a property of collectivities, institutions, and historical processes —
each society has a 'gender order' made up of 'gender regimes' within
each institution. Lorber (1994) showed how gender as a social
institution creates and perpetuates differences to justify inequality —
and argued for 'de-gendering' society to achieve equality.
The great advantage of integrative theories is that they end the
'warfare' between competing explanations. Complex problems have
multiple causes, and we should look for complex, integrative answers
rather than crowning one theory the winner.

2. Gender as a Social Structure

Risman's central argument is that gender should be conceptualized as
a social structure — as central to society as the economic or political
structure. Structures exist outside individual desires; they constrain
human action but also allow choices. Drawing on Giddens'
structuration theory, Risman emphasizes the recursive relationship:
structures shape individuals, but individuals also shape structures
through their choices and actions. Social structures are created by
human action, and they can be changed by human action.
Recent cultural sociology (Swidler, Hays) has improved Risman's
framework by highlighting the role of meaning. Culture is not just a set
of stable values — it is a 'tool kit' of habits, skills, and strategies we use
to navigate life. Gender is deeply embedded in this tool kit, sometimes
so deeply it becomes part of identity, sometimes consciously used.
Structure is both enabling and constraining: it shapes what we can
imagine doing, but it does not dictate every action.
The model distinguishes between cultural (ideological) and material
(physical/legal/economic) aspects at each of three levels:

Individual Level of Analysis

At the individual level, the body is a material reality. Bodies are real,
flesh-and-blood objects that must be interpreted and displayed.
Research shows that while hormones and genes have some effect on
personality, childhood socialization is by far the strongest predictor of
gendered selves. Adults also use 'identity work' to maintain behaviors
consistent with their sense of self.
Bourdieu's concept of habitus is useful here: children learn to walk, sit,
and move in gendered ways — these physical habits become
embedded in the body itself. However, with modern medical
technology, people can alter the materiality of their bodies, meaning
that while the gender structure shapes possibilities, individuals have
some power to reshape their own material reality.
Culturally, the gender structure shapes what people think is possible or
desirable. Socialization teaches girls and boys (and those outside the
binary) what kinds of selves to be. These lessons come from parents
(even before birth, through 'gender reveal parties'), peers, schools, and
media. Once internalized, people do identity work to maintain
consistent gendered selves. But no one is born knowing what
femininity means — heels and lipstick were invented historically and
varied across cultures. The gender structure creates possibilities, not
inevitabilities. Agency also matters: if humans had no agency, social
change would be impossible. The gender structure is always in flux,
and individuals — alone or in movements — do change it.

Interactional Level of Analysis

Every social encounter is shaped by gender. The material reality at this
level includes who has access to positions of power, how tokens
(numerical minorities) face extra scrutiny, and how segregation into
different jobs creates objective disadvantage. Women hold only 15% of
executive positions, 17% of board seats, and 4.5% of Fortune 500
CEO positions. High-status, high-paying jobs remain male-dominated,
especially in STEM. Intersex and genderqueer people face systematic
discrimination because institutions are built on the assumption that
there are only two sexes.
The cultural dimension at the interactional level involves the gender
stereotypes and expectations we bring to every encounter — often
without realizing it. Fiske and Ridgeway showed that gender (and race)
status expectations become cross-situational: in any new situation,
white men are automatically expected to contribute more and lead
better, unless there is explicit evidence otherwise. Women are
expected to be nurturing and empathetic; men, agentic and effective.
These cognitive biases are an engine of inequality — they reproduce
disadvantage even where no one intends it.
Hollander (2018) adds that interactional accountability — the fact that
we are constantly assessed for whether we are 'doing gender' correctly
— shapes everyone's behavior. Resistance to gender expectations is
possible, but it comes with social costs. Yet resistance is precisely how
the gender structure begins to change.

Macro Level of Analysis

At the societal level, material reality includes legal systems,
government policies, and organizational rules that distribute resources
and rights along gender lines. In many societies, laws explicitly
privilege men and exclude those outside the gender binary. Even in
Western democracies with formally gender-neutral laws, private
institutions historically charged men and women different prices, and
welfare policies still implicitly assume male breadwinners and female
caregivers. Nearly all countries have laws that discriminate against
transgender people.
Cultural logics at the macro level include widely shared ideologies
about gender — what men and women 'naturally' are and should do.
These ideologies are not one-dimensional; attitudes about gender
equality at home can differ from attitudes about equality at work, and
both change independently. Cross-national research shows that
cultural beliefs about motherhood shape whether policies like parental
leave and public childcare actually improve women's earnings. In
cultures that support mothers working, such policies help. In cultures
that favor male breadwinners, the same policies can hurt women's
earnings.
Economic organizations embed gendered cultural logics in how jobs
are designed. The 'ideal worker' is assumed to be available 50 weeks
a year, 40+ hours a week, with no caretaking responsibilities —
effectively a person with a wife, or someone who doesn't need one.
Even when formal rules change, the cultural logic often persists, hiding
male privilege inside apparently neutral rules (Acker, 1990). Gender-
neutral laws do not automatically produce gender-neutral outcomes if
the underlying cultural assumptions remain unchanged.

3. Challenges for Future Research Using a Gender Structure

Framework
The gender structure framework helps organize the enormous volume
of research on gender by identifying where inequality is produced and
reproduced at each level. Rather than competing theories, we need to
understand how multiple mechanisms work together. The key empirical
question is to identify the relative weight of each mechanism at any
given moment in history.
Risman uses a thought experiment about occupational sex
segregation: if it is mainly caused by gendered selves (individual level),
then we need better socialization — raising girls and boys without
gender stereotypes, or paying equally for equally valuable work. If it is
mainly caused by cultural expectations that hold women morally
accountable for caretaking (interactional level), then we need to
change those expectations and make men equally accountable for
care. If it is mainly caused by how workplaces are organized (macro
level), then we need to redesign workplaces to accommodate
caregivers. In reality, all three processes are at work — complex
problems have complex, multivariate causes.
The most important feature of the gender structure framework is its
dynamism. No single dimension determines the others. Change at any
level reverberates through the whole structure. Changes in individual
identity can shift interactional expectations; changes in law and policy
can reshape cultural beliefs; changes in cultural beliefs can inspire
individuals to act differently. The cycle of change is ongoing and
nonlinear.
Future research must identify: (1) when behavior is habit (unconscious
reproduction of gender norms) versus intentional performance; (2)
when people are 'doing gender' versus 'undoing gender'; (3) how the
gender structure intersects with race, class, sexuality, and nationality;
(4) what conditions make it possible for individuals or social
movements to effectively challenge gender inequality. Studying
emerging equality — not only documenting existing inequality — is
equally important.
If young people refuse to 'do gender' as currently defined, can they
actually move beyond the binary? Or are they simply doing gender
differently, creating new versions of masculinity and femininity? These
are not idle academic questions — they are central to understanding
whether genuine social transformation is occurring. Risman's hope is
that the gender structure framework, by integrating individual,
interactional, and macro levels of analysis with attention to both
material and cultural processes, can provide the tools for precisely this
kind of nuanced, change-oriented research.