Functionalist explanations of gender inequality

Functionalism is a sociological perspective. In the context of gender, some functionalists argue that inequalities and differences between men and women stem mainly from biological factors.

Biological differences and their role in gender inequality

Functionalists like George Murdock emphasise how physical differences between the sexes contribute to gender patterns. For instance, men's greater average physical strength is viewed as enabling them to dominate economic activities.

Parsons' theory of expressive and instrumental roles

Talcott Parsons, a key functionalist thinker, builds on biological differences to explain gender roles. He suggests that women are 'naturally' suited to caring for the young because they physically bear children. Parsons believed that separate gender roles for men and women were helpful to societies.

Types of gender roles according to Parsons:

• Expressive roles - These emphasise caring and emotions. Parsons argues women are suited to these.
• Instrumental roles - These require qualities such as competition, aggression, and achievement. Men are seen as better suited to these.

This division implies that men are more suited to paid employment and women are more suited to domesticity. As a result, Parsons suggests that women will be less motivated and less adapted to the competitive labour market, leading to, on average, lower pay compared to men.

Human capital theory and the gender pay gap

Human capital refers to the skills, knowledge, qualifications, and experience that individuals acquire, which enhance their productivity and value in the job market. Some economists apply this concept to explain gender inequalities, particularly the pay gap between men and women. They argue that differences in human capital accumulation arise from varying commitments to paid work, justifying why men often earn more.

How human capital theory explains gender differences

According to this theory, men typically build more human capital because they prioritise continuous paid employment. This allows them to gain education, training, and uninterrupted work experience, increasing their skills and earning potential. Women, however, are seen as less committed due to family responsibilities, such as childcare.

Consequences for women's careers:

• More frequent career breaks for women, interrupting their skill development.
• A preference for part-time work among women to balance family duties, which limits opportunities for advancement.
• Overall lower human capital for women, resulting in reduced pay and fewer promotions.

As a result, the gender pay gap is viewed as a fair reflection of these differences, with men earning more because their greater orientation to work equips them with superior skills and experience.

Criticisms of human capital theory - Olsen and Walby (2004)

While human capital theory attributes the gender pay gap to individual choices and commitments, it has been criticised by Olsen and Walby (2004).

Aims and methods

Olsen and Walby conducted research using data from the longitudinal British Household Panel Survey to investigate the causes of pay differences between men and women.

Results

• Olsen and Walby found that while women do experience less full-time employment and more career breaks than men, these factors only partially explain pay gaps.
• Instead, the main cause is systematic disadvantage in building human capital.
• Occupations with high concentrations of women offer lower pay, often due to fewer training opportunities and limited promotion prospects.
• Experience in part-time work, which is predominantly taken by women, is linked to a slight decrease in wages rather than an increase, contrary to human capital assumptions.

Conclusions

• The researchers conclude that human capital theory oversimplifies the issue by ignoring how labour market structures disadvantage women.
• Pay inequalities stem more from unequal access to skill-building opportunities than from women's supposed lack of commitment.