1. COMMUNICATING GENDER DIVERSITY:
Chapter 7
Family
Matt Leach

2. “Families are not
merely influenced by
gender; rather, families
are organized by
gender. This
organization is
apparent in the
prescribed roles played
in many families:
mother, father,
daughter, son, sister,
brother, grandmother,
grandfather, aunt,
uncle. These roles are
sex marked and
designate
responsibilities,
expectations, and
power hierarchies”
(DeFrancisco &
Palczewski, 2007, p.
153).

3. FAMILY AS A SOCIAL INSTITUTION

4. NUCLEAR FAMILY:
 Also called the family of procreation, is composed
of two parents—one male and one female, and
biological children. With the male being the primary
wage earner and the female being the primary
homemaker.

5. “The nuclear family and
its rigid gender roles
became firmly
institutionalized during
the 1950s. Rapid
economic growth and
popular media
representations enabled
and normalized the male
wage earner” (p. 157).

6.  Television programming
during the 1950s played
a major role in
conditioning people into
upholding specific gender
roles.
 Each program showed
the family as being a
traditional white nuclear
family.
 “The father was the sole
wage earner, and the
home was his haven
against the cold business
world. The mother did not
work outside the home
and was the nurturer who
had milk and cookies
ready when the children
arrived home from
school, and drinks and
dinner ready when the
father arrived home from
work” (p. 157).

7. “This demand to abide by a role is what sociologist
Virginia Rutter and Pepper Schwartz called a
gendered social script: the rules that people carry
around in their heads about what they ought to be like
as men or women (straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgendered, or intersexed) and what others ought
to be like as men or women” (p. 154).

8. INTERLOCKING INSTITUTIONS

9.  “Politics and law constitute
and legitimate the ideology
of the nuclear family. U.S.
politicians and clergy
repeatedly use the slogan
family values, in which
family means nuclear
family” (p. 158).
 “The nuclear family and its
institutionalization of
prescribed gender/sex roles
interlocks with the institution
of compulsory
heterosexuality, the
assumption that only one
legitimate way of loving and
one legitimate form of family
is possible” (p. 159).

10. FAMILY CONSTRUCTS (AND
CONSTRAINS) GENDER

11. Parent-Child
Communication:
“Parents provide a
model for children‟s
gendered identities
because children are
closest to parents
physically and
emotionally and for a
longer period of time.
Through often
unconscious social
learning, children
observe and
internalize particular
types of behaviors” (p.
161).

12. “Mothers and
fathers alike have
been found to
habitually reward
daughters for
demonstrating
interpersonal skills
and politeness,
and to reward
sons for
demonstrating
physical or verbal
aggression” (p.
161).

13. Adult Friends and
Lovers:
“U.S. culture treats
heterosexual marriage
culminating in the nuclear
family as the ultimate
form of romantic
expression; the cultural
assumption that
everyone is heterosexual
and wants to be married
is named
heteronormativity. From
early on, children are
pressured to have
boyfriends and
girlfriends; to learn to flirt
with the other sex; to
devalue, distrust, and
compete in platonic
same-sex friendships;
and to see marriage as a
life accomplishment” (p.
164).

14. “The romanticized
white wedding are
primary cultural tools
for institutionalizing
heterosexuality as the
norm, as „the
standard for
legitimate and
expected social and
sexual relations.‟ The
predominant
socialization toward
heterosexual
romance and family
literally marries
women and men into
intimate legal bonds”
(p. 165).

15. Domestic Violence:
Linkage between
masculinity and
violence—“We expect
and encourage boys to
pursue our cultural
ideals of masculinity.
From early in their
youth, we teach them
(through for instance
toys and sports) to
symbolically correlate
competition, violence,
power, and domination
with masculinity. As
children, boys are
socialized to relate to
family in a particular
way” (p. 170).

16. “Domestic violence,
particularly the abuse
of women by men in
the domestic setting,
should not be
understood as an
aberration in an
otherwise-functioning
gendered family
institution. Instead,
gendered violence
ought to be seen as
an expected
component of the
heteronormative
family norm” (p. 170).

17. EMANCIPATORY FAMILIES

18.  “We spend more time as parents trying to create
clear gender roles which are actually destructive
than trying to create more flexible gender roles that
are libratory and responsive to each persons
individuality and lived experience. „Clear gender
roles‟ often are narrow and prescriptive, creating
ideals few can attain and thus harming those who
cannot” (p. 172).

19. “As long as masculinity is defined in opposition
to femininity, and requires devaluing and
stigmatizing things labeled feminine, men will be
blocked from or conflicted by learning from
female role models. The learning and valuing of
nurture [sic] is blocked by misogyny and
homophobia…It is also challenged by the
embrace of violence as a part of masculinity, a
value or trait to nurture and care” (p. 174).

20. o Through cultural
dogma over the many
years, the
predominant cultural
ideology has corralled
individuals to acting a
specific gender. This is
visible in the political
arena, working world,
family life and through
the media.
o It is up to each
individual in breaking
cultural constraints
and constructing their
own families in such a
way that teaches and
welcomes the diverse
modes by which
equality can be
expressed.
Conclusion: