Double Bind Theory

Introduction

Social inequalities are present in our contemporary society. This essay contends that there are two main sources of inequality; ethnicity and gender. The discussion of ethnicity is contended rather than race because the focus will be on the socially constructed differences between individuals based on shared cultural values, as opposed to their biological differences (Cornell & Hartmann 2007, pp. 20-21). Additionally, gender is analysed in the context of inequality between men and women. This essay acknowledges the broad range of dimensions impacted by both ethnic and gender inequality, but for the purpose of this essay, the scope is narrowed down. For gender, this essay focuses on the representation of women in the Australian

This theory identifies that in order for women to be taken seriously in leadership positions, they are required to be authoritative, however too much aggression in their behaviour often leads to negative perceptions (Oakley 2000, p. 324). Gender matters because the same consequences of double bind would not apply to men who depict their authority in an aggressive manner. This behavioural double bind creates challenges for women seeking employment with leadership roles or gaining work in a male-dominated field such as politics. According to Jamieson (1995, p. 120), double bind is particularly problematic for women leaders because “feminine” is linked with incompetence, thus in order to be competent, women must appear unfeminine. This uneven effect of double bind can be seen in the way the media describes female political figures. For example, a reporter described the personality of former Canadian Prime Minister Kim Campbell as “at times brittle, defensive, and haughty” (Jamieson 1995, p. 125). Similarly, former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard is often recognised by the media for her “deliberate barrenness” (Hall & Donaghue 2013, p. 631). In comparison to male politicians, female leaders are at disadvantaged because of the need to display competence, yet simultaneously maintain

Many feminists define the notion of patriarchy as the role of male dominance over female in politics, economic and social structure (Jones 2001, p. 1197), which is characterised as unjust and oppressive to women (Makama 2013, p. 117). This theory of patriarchy may explain the lack of women participation in politics and full time employment. This is because the existence of patriarchal belief has caused the different gender roles in our society, which strengthens inequality. Both men and women are victims of strict patriarchal divisions as constrained identities are formed (Singh 2016, p. 29). This may be reflected in the division of work and family life balance caused by gender. As women are more likely than men to dedicate time to house chores and childcare (Parker & Wang 2013), this may result in the unequal work restrictions due to family responsibilities. For instance, an analysis of the American 2000 census has found that single women are more likely to be in the labour force than married ones, and those who became mothers are less likely to work full time (Cotter et al. 2005, p. 109). In Australia, 69.1 per cent of men are employed in full-time positions, while only 40.7 per cent of women work full-time (WGEA 2016, p. 8). These gaps in the labour market reinforce the existence of gender inequality. Furthermore, a Princeton