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


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:

[email protected].

?

The

University

of

North

CarolinaPress Social

Forces,

une

2005,

83(4):1425-1442

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


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.



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



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



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).



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.



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

testing 3 theories of gender inequality (m)

Documents