Occupational Segregation And Gender Inequality

Running head: GENDER, SEXUALITY AND SOCIETY
Gender, Sexuallity and Society
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1GENDER, SEXUALITY AND SOCIETY
Introduction
Gender inequality and societal interpretations of this perspective has been
interpreted by several critics at different times. The most important fact in this discourse
is females do not have any kind of social security and they are exposed to gender
inequality in their workplaces and society as well. It has become a matter of regularity
that women have been harassed sexually and they are not given proper respect in their
workplaces along with equal wages as men (Alexander 2014). This paper will discuss
on the theoretical perspectives of different critics in this scenario and how they have
interpreted this issue in front of common people. The two chosen theorists in this paper
are Talcott Parsons and Mary Wollstonecraft. Their interpretations of gender role theory
will be discussed in this paper with further revelations from other theorists. Examples of
daily life where women have been deprived of their rights and harassed sexually will be
linked to these theories so the success of these theoretical interventions can be found.
Theoretical interventions of gender and sexuality
Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) was basically a very popular sociologist from United
States who gave a strong interpretation of gender roles and its contributions for the
development of society. The functional fit theory by Parsons is one of the most
influential theories that had shaped the 20th century sociology properly. According to this
theory by Talcott Parsons, it has been mentioned that both men and women will have
similar respect in the society because of its equal status. No discrimination should be
there because all of them deserve to be treated in the similar manner. However,
Parsons has defined the roles of gender to be different from each other in different
perspectives (Alexander 2014). These differences will help the society in turn only. The
division of sexuality should be made in terms of labor so it could cater to the better
functions of society.
On the contrary, there are several critics who have completely differed on this
view of sexual divisions of labor. They have given their opinion that women can do all
kinds of labors that are designed for men. There should be no contradictions in this
scenario. A very lively example can be provided in support of denying sexual division of

2GENDER, SEXUALITY AND SOCIETY
labor roles. According to the statistical data, there are around 14% female army officers
in United Kingdom (Turner and Holton 2014). This shows females have similar kind of
fearlessness and bravery like their male counterparts. They are also very subtle at
doing their roles proactively in corporate organizations in hierarchy roles as well.
This shows females are always capable or worthy of doing their works properly. If
some kind of work is especially kept for women only, it will be a complete discrimination
from all the perspectives (Fourie 2016). Rather, similar kinds of works can be distributed
among both men and women in terms of their capabilities. Society can always function
better if all members of society distribute the workload among themselves and not
indulge in any kind of unethical means or corruption. Both males and females have
equal rights in contributing to all forms of social development. On the other hand,
Parsons has opined that men in the society are responsible for observing instrumental
roles and women have to perform expressive roles (Turner and Holton 2014).
This is regarded as a reflection towards public or private dichotomy in the
society. This functionalist view of sexuality is of the opinion that sexual roles in society
are completely fixed and it cannot be changed. This is somewhat odd in the 21st century
since both the roles of men and women are flexible and keep on changing (Harris and
Giuffre 2015). If functionalist view states it is unchanging, this view cannot be accepted
entirely. He has also said that instrumental role and expressive roles should be
observed. Still, it can also be highlighted that this theoretical perspective has not
focused on inequalities in genders (Fourie 2016). The deprivation of women from social
roles has been one of the most intriguing factors missing in this theory by Talcott
Parsons.
In the explanation by Simonne de Beauvoir, it has been said human beings
become women and not born with the identity of women. This view has also been
criticized largely for its inefficiencies and respecting roles of women in society. Men also
have to learn the way of becoming masculine. There are many agents of socialization in
this scenario (O'rand 2018). These agents are media personnel, their family members
as peers such as teachers. This theory has also been criticized since people have to be
active agents in the society and not some passive creatures going with the flow or trend.