Gender Norms

Cultural constructs such as femininity and masculinity have economic impli­cations. The General Social Survey (GSS), administered on a regular basis in the United States since 1972, asks many questions designed to trace changes in norms regarding women's behavior (with relatively little attention, until recently, to men's behavior).

Even more consequential is the way this question ignores the counter- factual. What would be better than the existing gender division of respon­sibilities for care? One possibility is that men and women might more equitably share them. But another is simply that no one takes care of home and family. Women's willingness to withdraw care services may well depend on their perceptions of what might happen if they did. From a game-theoretic perspective, men and women seem engaged in a giant game of Chicken.⁴1

Dating and marriage ‘‘markets'' reinforce gender specialization. Men have much to gain by marrying—and pooling income with—a high-earning woman, but they have something to lose from a reduction in their bargain­ing power within the home. Women who choose a traditionally male occupation such as plumbing or electrical work may earn more money over their lifetime, but they tend to be ranked as less attractive by men than those who choose a traditionally female occupation such as nursing.⁴²

Many women struggle to find ways of improving their economic prospects without undermining their perceived femininity.

Gender identity in general is expensive. Just as femininity imposes costs on women, masculinity imposes costs on men. Men face pressures not to display weakness and, sometimes, to sacrifice their lives in military combat or other dangerous jobs. Intrinsic motivation is central to the work of both mothers and soldiers; neither group is easily paid for performance on a per unit output basis. As a result, the market does not generously reward either type of work. On the other hand, the costs of defying gender norms are also high. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transsexual individuals often face signifi­cant forms of discrimination that lower their family income.⁴⁶

Gender norms influence individual behavior in ways that often operate below the level of conscious choice. Yet norms depend, for their influence, on a high degree of conformity or compliance. If too many individuals defy them, they lose their force. As the economic costs of compliance increase, nonconformity can reach a tipping point. Consideration of changes in sexual behavior, family behavior, and popular culture, as well as attitudinal surveys suggest that gender norms are, in a sense, undergoing renegotiation.

This renegotiation can be interpreted in the same terms that economist Albert Hirschman prescribed for understanding behavior in firms, organ­izations and states: choose exit, voice, or loyalty.⁴⁷ To “exit” traditional gender norm assignment, men and women can literally change their gender, whether through surgery or demeanor. To remain “loyal” implies a will­ingness to celebrate the costs of traditional femininity or masculinity, and to insist that they reflect intrinsic benefits.

In between these two options, yet not mutually exclusive with either one, lies the voice option: complain, protest, and modify traditional gender norms. Voice is a strategy that can be costly if pursued by isolated individ­uals; pursued in concert with others, achieving a critical volume, voice can have a dramatic impact. The voice strategy extends to academic discourse: the preceding chapters of this book document a history of feminist efforts to encourage women to consider their collective interests. In particular they show how women have challenged norms urging women toward cooperative altruism and men toward competitive self-interest.

Feminist theory's attention to the tensions between individual and collective interests is embedded in centuries of debate. These tensions illustrate an asymmetry evident in changing gender roles: it is easier for women to claim traditionally masculine rights than to persuade men to assume traditionally feminine obligations. It seems easier to make women more self-interested than to make men more altruistic. Indeed, if the pursuit of self-interest is as hegemonic—and the definition of the self as narrow—as conventional economic theory suggests, modern capitalist society may shift toward a gender-neutral ideal of selfishness. Feminist care theorists are not the only ones who believe that such a shift would be problematic.