What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ann Oakley Reader: Gender, Women, And Social Science
This book brings together edited extracts from classic texts by the internationally renowned feminist sociologist, Ann Oakley.Many of Oakley's early works are out of print and this collection makes them available again. There are extracts from pioneering studies such as Sex, Gender and Society, The Sociology of Housework, From Here to Maternity and Women Confined, presented alongside some of Ann Oakley's more recent reflections on methodology, scientific method and research practice.The book illustrates how Oakley's thinking has evolved over a period in which much in the field of gender and women's studies has changed. Each section of the book is prefaced by Oakley's reflections on how her original studies relate to more recent research and theoretical perspectives. There are many points of intersection with modern debates about how (and whether) to 'do' gender and what terms such as 'women' and 'men' really mean.The result is a valuable commentary on thirty years' work on women,
320 pages, Hardcover
First published June 29, 2005
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
April 3, 2011
My new Bible.... full of fascinating research!Cannot recomend highly enough to anyone with an interest in human nature! Ohhhh, loving it :D
Part One
The Sex/gender breakdown is dealt with here; how people are first and foremost individuals and then their gender places them somewhere on a sliding scale between very male and very female. The idea that a person is totally male or female is a fallacy.Women suffer from a conflict between being a woman and a person (as, I am sure, do men). Domesticity shapes what it is to be female. Gender is a caste system with power implicit.
Being a man in a patriarchy is bad for your health, as evidenced by the increase in social stress diseases(p.11) but being a woman is bad for your mental health (p.27). Men suffer further because "help-seeking" i.e. going to the doctor "is not concordant with the ideology of the masculine role."
Men have a 30Day hormonal cycle too(Luke, 1970:111)! Lots of fuss is made over PMS/PMT yet the corresponding hormonal high which occurs mid-cycle is virtually ignored (p.18).
Women underachieve in the world of work and this is a big issue, men underachieve in the home yet this is the norm or under new enlightened thinking it is only worthy of a raised eyebrow. Pathologising female behaviour and traits has always been common, Miller (1976) studied this using dominant/submissive as his categories (i.e. male/female) and saw the breakdown of human personality traits into typically male or female. This relationship over-values some aspects of human potential and under values others, female traits are obviously the undervalued ones e.g.vulnerability. For example it divides work into 'woman's work' and 'real work'. Women's work maintains relationships and connectedness while men's work earns money and gravitas.
The socialisation of children into becoming boys or girls is another big issue for Oakley. 'Civilisation' is not feminine; if it's 'a man's world'(p34), DeBeauvoir 1960 "civilisation as a whole" makes a child a girl. This is perhaps best explained by Lake's study conducted in 1975 in which 5 young mothers were asked to spend a short amount of time with a toddler. The same child was given to all of the women but depending on the colour of the child's clothes the mothers reacted and interacted differently with the child. 'cultural determinism'- gender sterotyping.
Women even learn to speak differently for example using 'tag questions' much more frequently than men (Lakoff,1975), e.g. "I did lock the door, didn't I?". Furthermore in observed conversations between men and women it was noted that 96% of interruptions came from men and 100% of the overlap came from men. Whatever this says, it does show a big difference. Also Fishman's (1977) 'Interactional shitwork'.
I wish these studies could be redone in 2011 to see what has changed.
Part Two
Housewife embodies her job, she sets her own standards. However normally she sets them very high, this allows for psychological rewards i.e. a sense of accomplishment, she is often doomed to fail. As Betty Friedan said "housewifery expands to fill the time available" (1963). Thus women spend progressively more time doing housework than in the past despite modern technology(p.91).
Shopping becomes an escape from the home and window-shopping allows for escapist fantasy. Housework is unpleasant/odious due to MONOTONY and LACK OF SOCIAL INTERACTION but women don't mind the FRAGMENTATION (as it allows for daydreaming) or HOURS (they take it for granted that they will work long days, 77hours a week average p.82) even though these are seen as bad things in industrial/paid work. {p.78-86}
Husband help is class differentiated with middle-class men helping more than working class men. When men help it is more likely to be with children than with housework, really helping with housework (more than doing a bit of washing up) is very rare (p.94). Men HATE prams and will not push them but the buggy is fine, Oakley sees this as an example of modern technology possibly bringing about social change.
I wonder if all this still applies, this is Oakley's position, I have yet to make up my mind. I suspect that men do a lot more now BUT is this just my dad and the way I would hope my cohabitation would go??
Part One
The Sex/gender breakdown is dealt with here; how people are first and foremost individuals and then their gender places them somewhere on a sliding scale between very male and very female. The idea that a person is totally male or female is a fallacy.Women suffer from a conflict between being a woman and a person (as, I am sure, do men). Domesticity shapes what it is to be female. Gender is a caste system with power implicit.
Being a man in a patriarchy is bad for your health, as evidenced by the increase in social stress diseases(p.11) but being a woman is bad for your mental health (p.27). Men suffer further because "help-seeking" i.e. going to the doctor "is not concordant with the ideology of the masculine role."
Men have a 30Day hormonal cycle too(Luke, 1970:111)! Lots of fuss is made over PMS/PMT yet the corresponding hormonal high which occurs mid-cycle is virtually ignored (p.18).
Women underachieve in the world of work and this is a big issue, men underachieve in the home yet this is the norm or under new enlightened thinking it is only worthy of a raised eyebrow. Pathologising female behaviour and traits has always been common, Miller (1976) studied this using dominant/submissive as his categories (i.e. male/female) and saw the breakdown of human personality traits into typically male or female. This relationship over-values some aspects of human potential and under values others, female traits are obviously the undervalued ones e.g.vulnerability. For example it divides work into 'woman's work' and 'real work'. Women's work maintains relationships and connectedness while men's work earns money and gravitas.
The socialisation of children into becoming boys or girls is another big issue for Oakley. 'Civilisation' is not feminine; if it's 'a man's world'(p34), DeBeauvoir 1960 "civilisation as a whole" makes a child a girl. This is perhaps best explained by Lake's study conducted in 1975 in which 5 young mothers were asked to spend a short amount of time with a toddler. The same child was given to all of the women but depending on the colour of the child's clothes the mothers reacted and interacted differently with the child. 'cultural determinism'- gender sterotyping.
Women even learn to speak differently for example using 'tag questions' much more frequently than men (Lakoff,1975), e.g. "I did lock the door, didn't I?". Furthermore in observed conversations between men and women it was noted that 96% of interruptions came from men and 100% of the overlap came from men. Whatever this says, it does show a big difference. Also Fishman's (1977) 'Interactional shitwork'.
I wish these studies could be redone in 2011 to see what has changed.
Part Two
Housewife embodies her job, she sets her own standards. However normally she sets them very high, this allows for psychological rewards i.e. a sense of accomplishment, she is often doomed to fail. As Betty Friedan said "housewifery expands to fill the time available" (1963). Thus women spend progressively more time doing housework than in the past despite modern technology(p.91).
Shopping becomes an escape from the home and window-shopping allows for escapist fantasy. Housework is unpleasant/odious due to MONOTONY and LACK OF SOCIAL INTERACTION but women don't mind the FRAGMENTATION (as it allows for daydreaming) or HOURS (they take it for granted that they will work long days, 77hours a week average p.82) even though these are seen as bad things in industrial/paid work. {p.78-86}
Husband help is class differentiated with middle-class men helping more than working class men. When men help it is more likely to be with children than with housework, really helping with housework (more than doing a bit of washing up) is very rare (p.94). Men HATE prams and will not push them but the buggy is fine, Oakley sees this as an example of modern technology possibly bringing about social change.
I wonder if all this still applies, this is Oakley's position, I have yet to make up my mind. I suspect that men do a lot more now BUT is this just my dad and the way I would hope my cohabitation would go??
July 17, 2022
For what it was, it was good. Feminist sociological research laid out in an (on the whole) accessible way.
Not all of it was of interest to me, however. I found reading Oakley's actual research much more interesting than the debates of what research methods should be used in sociological research, for example. Particularly, the section about motherhood was interesting to me because, much like Oakley herself states, it is an area which is ignored in much research.
Not all of it was of interest to me, however. I found reading Oakley's actual research much more interesting than the debates of what research methods should be used in sociological research, for example. Particularly, the section about motherhood was interesting to me because, much like Oakley herself states, it is an area which is ignored in much research.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews