Search This Blog

Sunday, September 29, 2024

Homosexuality and psychology

The field of psychology has extensively studied homosexuality as a human sexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality in the DSM-I in 1952 as a "sociopathic personality disturbance,"[1] but that classification came under scrutiny in research funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. That research and subsequent studies consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as anything other than a natural and normal sexual orientation that is a healthy and positive expression of human sexuality.[2] As a result of this scientific research, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM-II in 1973. Upon a thorough review of the scientific data, the American Psychological Association followed in 1975 and also called on all mental health professionals to take the lead in "removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated" with homosexuality. In 1993, the National Association of Social Workers adopted the same position as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, in recognition of scientific evidence.[2] The World Health Organization, which listed homosexuality in the ICD-9 in 1977, removed homosexuality from the ICD-10 which was endorsed by the 43rd World Health Assembly on 17 May 1990.[3]

The consensus of scientific research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.[4] There is now a large body of scientific evidence that indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment.[5]

Historical background

The view of homosexuality as a psychological disorder has been seen in literature since research on homosexuality first began; however, psychology as a discipline has evolved over the years in its position on homosexuality. Current attitudes have their roots in religious, legal, and cultural underpinnings. Some Ancient Near Eastern communities, such as the Israelites, had strict codes forbidding homosexual activity, and when Christianity began, it adopted their Jewish predecessors attitudes surrounding homosexual activities. Among the New Testament authors Paul in particular is notable for his affirmation and reinforcement of such texts in his letters to nascent churches. Later, the Apostolic Fathers and their successors continued to speak against homosexual activity whenever they mentioned it in their writings. In the early Middle Ages the Christian Church ignored homosexuality in secular society; however, by the end of the 12th century, hostility towards homosexuality began to emerge and spread through Europe's secular and religious institutions. There were official expressions condemning the "unnatural" nature of homosexual behavior in the works of Thomas Aquinas and others. Until the 19th century, homosexual activity was referred to as "unnatural, crimes against nature", sodomy or buggery and was punishable by law, sometimes by death.[6]

As people became more interested in discovering the causes of homosexuality, medicine and psychiatry began competing with the law and religion for jurisdiction. In the beginning of the 19th century, people began studying homosexuality scientifically. At this time, most theories regarded homosexuality as a disease, which had a great influence on how it was viewed culturally.[7] There was a paradigm shift in the mid 20th century in psychiatric science in regards to theories of homosexuality. Psychiatrists began to believe homosexuality could be cured through therapy and freedom of self, and other theories about the genetic and hormonal origin of homosexuality were becoming accepted. There were variations of how homosexuality was viewed as pathological.[6] Some early psychiatrists such as Sigmund Freud and Havelock Ellis adopted more tolerant stances on homosexuality. Freud and Ellis believed that homosexuality was not normal, but was "unavoidable" for some people. Alfred Kinsey's research and publications about homosexuality began the social and cultural shift away from viewing homosexuality as an abnormal condition. These shifting viewpoints in the psychological studies of homosexuality are evident in its placement in the first version of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) in 1952, and subsequent change in 1973, in which the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality replaced the DSM-II category of "sexual orientation disturbance".[7] However, it was not until 1987 in DSM-III-R that it was entirely dropped as a mental disorder.[8]

A 2016 survey of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights found that many medical professionals in countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia believe that homosexuality is a disease and that such interpretations continue to exist in professional materials. This goes against Council of Europe Recommendation 2010(5) which recommends that homosexuality not be treated as a disease.[9] As of 2018, homosexuality was popularly considered a disease in Lebanon.[10]

Freud and psychoanalysis

Sigmund Freud's views on homosexuality were complex. In his attempts to understand the causes and development of homosexuality, he first explained bisexuality as an "original libido endowment",[11] by which he meant that all humans are born bisexual. He believed that the libido has a homosexual portion and a heterosexual portion, and through the course of development one wins out over the other.

Some other causes of homosexuality for which he advocated included an inverted Oedipus complex where individuals begin to identify with their mother and take themselves as a love object. This love of one's self is defined as narcissism, and Freud thought that people who were high in the trait of narcissism would be more likely to develop homosexuality because loving the same sex is like an extension of loving oneself.[12]

Freud believed treatment of homosexuality was not successful because the individual does not want to give up their homosexual identity because it brings them pleasure. He used psychoanalysis and hypnotic suggestion as treatments, but showed little success.[13] It was through this that Freud arrived at the conclusion that homosexuality was "nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness, but a variation of sexual function".[14] He further stated that psychoanalysts "should not promise to abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place",[11] as he had concluded in his own practice that attempts to change homosexual orientations were likely to be unsuccessful. While Freud himself may have come to a more accepting view of homosexuality, his legacy in the field of psychoanalysis, especially in the United States viewed homosexuality as negative, abnormal and caused by family and developmental issues. It was these views that significantly impacted the rationale for putting homosexuality in the first and second publications of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM, conceptualizing it as a mental disorder and further stigmatizing homosexuality in society.[7]

Havelock Ellis

Havelock Ellis (1859–1939) was working as a teacher in Australia, when he had a revelation that he wanted to dedicate his life to exploring the issue of sexuality. He returned to London in 1879 and enrolled in St. Thomas's Hospital Medical School. He began to write, and in 1896 he co-authored Sexual Inversion with John Addington Symonds. The book was first published in German, and a year later it was translated into English. Their book explored homosexual relationships, and in a progressive approach for their time they refused to criminalize or pathologize the acts and emotions that were present in homosexual relationships.[15]

Ellis disagreed with Freud on a few points regarding homosexuality, especially regarding its development. He argued that homosexuals do not have a clear cut Oedipus complex but they do have strong feelings of inadequacy, born of fears of failure, and may also be afraid of relations with women.[16] Ellis argued that the restrictions of society contributed to the development of same-sex love. He believed that homosexuality is not something people are born with, but that at some point humans are all sexually indiscriminate, and then narrow down and choose which sex acts to stick with. According to Ellis, some people choose to engage in homosexuality, while others will choose heterosexuality.[16] He proposed that being "exclusively homosexual"[17] is to be deviant because the person is a member of a minority and therefore statistically unusual, but that society should accept that deviations from the "normal" were harmless, and maybe even valuable.[15] Ellis believed that psychological problems arose not from homosexual acts alone, but when someone "psychologically harms himself by fearfully limiting his own sex behavior".[16]

Ellis is often credited with coining the term homosexuality but in reality he despised the word because it conflated Latin and Greek roots and instead used the term invert in his published works. Soon after Sexual Inversion was published in England, it was banned as lewd and scandalous. Ellis argued that homosexuality was a characteristic of a minority, and was not acquired or a vice and was not curable. He advocated changing the laws to leave those who chose to practice homosexuality at peace, because at the time it was a punishable crime. He believed societal reform could occur, but only after the public was educated. His book became a landmark in the understanding of homosexuality.[15]

Alfred Kinsey

Alfred Charles Kinsey (1894–1956) was a sexologist who founded the Institute for Sex Research, which is now known as the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction. His explorations into different sexual practices originated from his study of the variations in mating practices among wasps. He developed the Kinsey Scale, which measures sexual orientation in ranges from 0 to 6 with 0 being exclusively heterosexual and 6 being exclusively homosexual.[18] His findings indicated that there was great variability in sexual orientations. Kinsey published the books Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, which brought him both fame and controversy. The prevailing approach to homosexuality at the time was to pathologize and attempt to change homosexuals. Kinsey's book demonstrated that homosexuality was more common than was assumed, suggesting that these behaviors are normal and part of a continuum of sexual behaviors.[7]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

The social, medical, and legal approach to homosexuality ultimately led to its inclusion in the first and second publications of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This served to conceptualize homosexuality as a mental disorder and further stigmatize homosexuality in society. However, the evolution in scientific study and empirical data from Kinsey, Evelyn Hooker, and others confronted these beliefs, and by the 1970s psychiatrists and psychologists were radically altering their views on homosexuality. Tests such as the Rorschach, Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) indicated that homosexual men and women were not distinguishable from heterosexual men and women in functioning. These studies failed to support the previous assumptions that family dynamics, trauma, and gender identity were factors in the development of sexual orientation. Many psychologists have differing opinions about same-sex relationships. Some think that it is not healthy at all, some support it, and some cannot support it because of their own personal religious beliefs.[19] Due to lack of supporting data, as well as exponentially increasing pressure from gay rights advocates, the board of directors for the American Psychiatric Association voted to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II in 1973, but the DSM retained a diagnosis that could be used for distress due to one's sexual orientation until the DSM-5 (2013).[20]

Major areas of psychological research

Major psychological research into homosexuality is divided into five categories:[21]

  1. What causes some people to be attracted to his or her own sex?
  2. What causes discrimination against people with a homosexual orientation and how can this be influenced?[22]
  3. Does having a homosexual orientation affect one's health status, psychological functioning or general well-being?
  4. What determines successful adaptation to rejecting social climates? Why is homosexuality central to the identity of some people, but peripheral to the identity of others?[23]
  5. How do the children of homosexual people develop?

Psychological research in these areas has always been important to counteracting prejudicial attitudes and actions, and to the gay and lesbian rights movement generally.[21]

Causes of homosexuality

Although no single theory on the cause of sexual orientation has yet gained widespread support, scientists favor biologically based theories.[24] There is considerably more evidence supporting nonsocial, biological causes of sexual orientation than social ones, especially for males.[25][26][27]

Discrimination

Anti-gay attitudes and behaviors (sometimes called homophobia or heterosexism) have been objects of psychological research. Such research usually focuses on attitudes hostile to gay men, rather than attitudes hostile to lesbians.[21] Anti-gay attitudes are often found in those who do not know gay people on a personal basis.[28] There is also a high risk for anti-gay bias in psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients.[29] One study found that nearly half of its sample had been the victim of verbal or physical violence because of their sexual orientation, usually committed by men. Such victimization is related to higher levels of depression, anxiety, anger, and symptoms of post-traumatic stress.[30][full citation needed] Through the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, which was conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality, transgender people of color were found to face disproportionate discrimination because of their overlapping identities. These forms of discrimination included violence, unreasonable unemployment, unfair policing, and unfair medical treatment.[31]

Research suggests that parents who respond negatively to their child's sexual orientation tended to have lower self-esteem and negative attitudes toward women, and that "negative feelings about homosexuality in parents - decreased the longer they were aware of their child's homosexuality".[32]

In addition, while research has suggested that "families with a strong emphasis on traditional values implying the importance of religion, an emphasis on marriage and having children – were less accepting of homosexuality than were low-tradition families",[33] emerging research suggests that this may not be universal. For example, recent[when?] research published in APA's Psychology of Religion & Spirituality journal by Chana Etengoff and Colette Daiute[34] suggests that religious family members can alternatively use religious values and texts in support of their sexual minority relative. For example, a Catholic mother of a gay man shared that she focuses on "the greatest commandment of all, which is, love". Similarly, a Methodist mother referenced Jesus in her discussion of loving her gay son, as she said, "I look at Jesus' message of love and forgiveness and that we're friends by the blood, that I don't feel that people are condemned by the actions they have done." These religious values were similarly expressed by a father who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who shared the following during his discussion of the biblical prohibition against homosexuality: "Your goal, your reason for being, should be to accept and to love and to lift up ... those in need no matter who they are".[22]

Mental health issues

Psychological research in this area includes examining mental health issues (including stress, depression, or addictive behavior) faced by gay and lesbian people as a result of the difficulties they experience because of their sexual orientation, physical appearance issues, eating disorders, or gender atypical behavior.

  • Psychiatric disorders: in a Dutch study, gay men reported significantly higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders than straight men, and lesbians were significantly more likely to experience depression (but not other mood or anxiety disorders) than straight women.[21] A research paper from the American Journal of Community Psychology states that individuals who face multiple forms of oppression tend to find their hardships more difficult to manage. In this study, it is noted that LGBTQ+ people who are disabled have reported struggling more with their oppressed statuses.[35]
  • Physical appearance and eating disorders: gay men tend to be more concerned about their physical appearance than straight men.[36][full citation needed] Lesbian women are at a lower risk for eating disorders than heterosexual women.[37]
  • Gender atypical behavior: while this is not a disorder, gay men may face difficulties due to being more likely to display gender atypical behavior than heterosexual men.[38] The difference is less pronounced between lesbians and straight women.[39]
  • Minority stress: stress caused from a sexual stigma, manifested as prejudice and discrimination, is a major source of stress for people with a homosexual orientation. Sexual-minority affirming groups and gay peer groups help counteract and buffer minority stress.[7]
  • Ego-dystonic sexual orientation: conflict between religious identity and sexual orientation can cause severe stress, causing some people to want to change their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation identity exploration can help individuals evaluate the reasons behind the desire to change and help them resolve the conflict between their religious and sexual identity, either through sexual orientation identity reconstruction or affirmation therapies.[7] Ego-dystonic sexual orientation is a disorder where a person wishes their sexual orientation were different because of associated psychological and behavioral disorders.
  • Sexual relationship disorder: people with a homosexual orientation in mixed-orientation marriages may struggle with the fear of the loss of their marriage.[7] Sexual relationship disorder is a disorder where the gender identity or sexual orientation of one of the partners interferes with maintaining or forming of a relationship.

Suicide

The likelihood of suicide attempts is higher in both gay males and lesbians, as well as bisexual individuals of both sexes, when compared to their heterosexual counterparts.[40][41][42] The trend of having a higher incident rate among females encompasses lesbians or bisexual females; when compared with homosexual or bisexual males, lesbians are more likely to attempt suicide.[43]

Studies dispute the exact difference in suicide rate compared to heterosexuals with a minimum of 0.8–1.1 times more likely for females[44] and 1.5–2.5 times more likely for males.[45][46] The higher figures reach 4.6 times more likely in females[47] and 14.6 times more likely in males.[21]

Race and age play a factor in the increased risk. The highest ratios for males are attributed to young Caucasians. By the age of 25, their risk is more than halved; however, the risk for black gay males at that age steadily increases to 8.6 times more likely. Over a lifetime, the increased likelihoods are 5.7 times for white and 12.8 for black gay and bisexual males. Lesbian and bisexual females have the opposite trend, with fewer attempts during the teenager years compared to heterosexual females. Through a lifetime, the likelihood for Caucasian females is nearly triple that of their heterosexual counterparts; however, for black females there is minimal change (less than 0.1 to 0.3 difference), with heterosexual black females having a slightly higher risk throughout most of the age-based study.[21]

Gay and lesbian youth who attempt suicide are disproportionately subject to anti-gay attitudes, often have fewer skills for coping with discrimination, isolation, and loneliness,[21][48][49] and were more likely to experience family rejection[50] than those who do not attempt suicide. Another study found that gay and bisexual youth who attempted suicide had more feminine gender roles,[51] adopted a non-heterosexual identity at a young age and were more likely than peers to report sexual abuse, drug abuse, and arrests for misconduct.[51] One study found that same-sex sexual behavior, but not homosexual attraction or homosexual identity, was significantly predictive of suicide among Norwegian adolescents.[52]

Government policies have been found to mediate this relationship by legislating structural stigma. One study using cross-country data from 1991 to 2017 for 36 OECD countries established that same-sex marriage legalization is associated with a decline in youth suicide of 1.191 deaths per 100,000 youth, with the impact more pronounced for male youth relative to female youth.[53] Another study of nationwide data from across the United States from January 1999 to December 2015 revealed that same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among children, with the effect being concentrated among children of a minority sexual orientation, resulting in about 134,000 fewer children attempting suicide each year in the United States.[54]

Sexual orientation identity development

  • Coming out: many gay, lesbian and bisexual people go through a "coming out" experience at some point in their lives. Psychologists often say this process includes several stages "in which there is an awareness of being different from peers ('sensitization'), and in which people start to question their sexual identity ('identity confusion'). Subsequently, they start to explore practically the option of being gay, lesbian or bisexual and learn to deal with the stigma ('identity assumption'). In the final stage, they integrate their sexual desires into a positive understanding of self ('commitment')."[21] However, the process is not always linear[55] and it may differ for lesbians, gay men and bisexual individuals.[56]
  • Different degrees of coming out: one study found that gay men are more likely to be out to friends and siblings than to co-workers, parents, and more distant relatives.[57]
  • Coming out and well-being: same-sex couples who are openly gay are more satisfied in their relationships.[58] For women who self-identify as lesbian, the more people know about her sexual orientation, the less anxiety, more positive affectivity, and greater self-esteem she has.[59]
  • Rejection of gay identity: various studies report that for some religious people, rejecting a gay identity appears to relieve the distress caused by conflicts between religious values and sexual orientation.[7][60][61][62][63] After reviewing the research, Judith Glassgold, chair of the American Psychological Association sexuality task force, said some people are content in denying a gay identity and "there is no clear evidence of harm".[64]

Fluidity of sexual orientation

Often, sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity are not distinguished, which can impact accurately assessing sexual identity and whether or not sexual orientation is able to change; sexual orientation identity can change throughout an individual's life, and may or may not align with biological sex, sexual behavior or actual sexual orientation.[65][66][67] Sexual orientation is stable and unlikely to change for the vast majority of people, but some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation, and this is more likely for women than for men.[68] The American Psychological Association distinguishes between sexual orientation (an innate attraction) and sexual orientation identity (which may change at any point in a person's life).[69]

In a statement issued jointly with other major American medical organizations, the American Psychological Association states that "different people realize at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual".[70] A 2007 report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states that, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time".[71] Lisa Diamond's study "Female bisexuality from adolescence to adulthood" suggests that there is "considerable fluidity in bisexual, unlabeled, and lesbian women's attractions, behaviors, and identities".[72][73]

Parenting

LGBT parenting is the parenting of children by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, as either biological or non-biological parents. Gay men have options which include "foster care, variations of domestic and international adoption, diverse forms of surrogacy (whether "traditional" or gestational), and kinship arrangements, wherein they might coparent with a woman or women with whom they are intimately but not sexually involved".[74][75][76][77][78] LGBT parents can also include single parents; to a lesser extent, the term sometimes refers to parents of LGBT children.

In the 2000 U.S. Census, 33% of female same-sex couple households and 22% of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under eighteen living in their home.[79] Some children do not know they have an LGBT parent; coming out issues vary and some parents may never come out to their children.[80][81] Adoption by LGBT couples and LGBT parenting in general may be controversial in some countries. In January 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt a child.[82][83] In the U.S., LGBT people can legally adopt, as individuals, in all fifty states.[84]

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions are not supported by scientific research literature.[2][85] There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. Much research has documented the lack of correlation between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with one or more gay parents.[86] No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents influences the well-being of the child.[87] If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children would present more poorly regardless of the type of sample; this pattern has not been observed.[88]

Professor Judith Stacey of New York University, stated: "Rarely is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of gay parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights".[89] These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics,[86] the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,[90] the American Psychiatric Association,[91] the American Psychological Association,[92] the American Psychoanalytic Association,[93] the National Association of Social Workers,[2] the Child Welfare League of America,[94] the North American Council on Adoptable Children,[95] and the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA). The CPA is concerned that some persons and institutions are misinterpreting the findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or values.[96]

The vast majority of families in the United States today are not the "middle-class family with a bread-winning father and a stay-at-home mother, married to each other and raising their biological children" that has been viewed as the norm. Since the end of the 1980s, it has been well established that children and adolescents can adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.[97]

Psychotherapy

Most people with a homosexual orientation who seek psychotherapy do so for the same reasons as straight people (stress, relationship difficulties, difficulty adjusting to social or work situations, etc.); their sexual orientation may be of primary, incidental, or no importance to their issues and treatment. Regardless of the issue for which psychotherapy is sought, there is a high risk of anti-gay bias being directed at non-heterosexual clients.[29]

Relationship counseling

Most relationship issues are shared equally among couples regardless of sexual orientation, but LGBT clients additionally have to deal with homophobia, heterosexism, and other societal oppressions. Individuals may also be at different stages in the coming out process. Often, same-sex couples do not have as many role models for successful relationships as opposite-sex couples. There may be issues with gender-role socialization that does not affect opposite-sex couples.[98]

A significant number of men and women experience conflict surrounding homosexual expression within a mixed-orientation marriage.[99] Therapy may include helping the client feel more comfortable and accepting of same-sex feelings and to explore ways of incorporating same-sex and opposite-sex feelings into life patterns.[100] Although a strong homosexual identity was associated with difficulties in marital satisfaction, viewing the same-sex activities as compulsive facilitated commitment to the marriage and to monogamy.[101]

Gay affirmative psychotherapy

Gay affirmative psychotherapy is a form of psychotherapy for gay, lesbian, and bisexual clients which encourages them to accept their sexual orientation, and does not attempt to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual, or to eliminate or diminish their same-sex desires and behaviors. The American Psychological Association (APA) and the British Psychological Society offer guidelines and materials for gay affirmative psychotherapy.[102][103] Practitioners of gay affirmative psychotherapy state that homosexuality or bisexuality is not a mental illness, and that embracing and affirming gay identity can be a key component to recovery from other mental illnesses or substance abuse.[102] Some people may find neither gay affirmative therapy nor conversion therapy appropriate, however. Clients whose religious beliefs are inconsistent with homosexual behavior may require some other method of integrating their conflicting religious and sexual selves.[104]

Sexual orientation identity exploration

The American Psychological Association recommends that if a client wants treatment to change their sexual orientation, the therapist should explore the reasons behind the desire, without favoring any particular outcome. The therapist should neither promote nor reject the idea of celibacy, but help the client come to their own decisions by evaluating the reasons behind the patient's goals.[105] One example of sexual orientation identity exploration is sexual identity therapy.[7]

After exploration, a patient may proceed with sexual orientation identity reconstruction, which helps a patient reconstruct sexual orientation identity. Psychotherapy, support groups, and life events can influence identity development; similarly, self-awareness, self-conception, and identity may evolve during treatment.[7] It can change sexual orientation identity (private and public identification, and group belonging), emotional adjustment (self-stigma and shame reduction), and personal beliefs, values and norms (change of religious and moral belief, behavior and motivation).[7] Some therapies include "gender wholeness therapy".[106]

The American Psychiatric Association states in their official statement release on the matter: "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great and include depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone 'reparative therapy' relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian are not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. APA recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors."[107]

The American Psychological Association aligns with this in a resolution: it "urges all mental health professionals to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientation"[108] and "Therefore be it further resolved that the American Psychological Association opposes portrayals of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation and supports the dissemination of accurate information about sexual orientation, and mental health, and appropriate interventions in order to counteract bias that is based in ignorance or unfounded beliefs about sexual orientation."[109]

The American Academy of Pediatrics advises lesbian, gay, gynandromorphophilic, and bisexual teenagers struggling with their sexuality: "Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression. No one knows what causes a person to be gay, bisexual, or straight. There probably are a number of factors. Some may be biological. Others may be psychological. The reasons can vary from one person to another. The fact is, you do not choose to be gay, bisexual, or straight."[110]

Developments in individual psychology

In contemporary Adlerian thought, homosexuals are not considered within the problematic discourse of the "failures of life". Christopher Shelley, an Adlerian psychotherapist, published a volume of essays in 1998 that feature Freudian, (post)Jungian and Adlerian contributions that demonstrate affirmative shifts in the depth psychologies.[111] These shifts show how depth psychology can be utilized to support rather than pathologize gay and lesbian psychotherapy clients. The Journal of Individual Psychology, the English language flagship publication of Adlerian psychology, released a volume in the summer of 2008 that reviews and corrects Adler's previously held beliefs on the homosexual community.

Neuroscience and sexual orientation

Sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender, or none of the aforementioned at all. The ultimate causes and mechanisms of sexual orientation development in humans remain unclear and many theories are speculative and controversial. However, advances in neuroscience explain and illustrate characteristics linked to sexual orientation. Studies have explored structural neural-correlates, functional and/or cognitive relationships, and developmental theories relating to sexual orientation in humans.

Developmental neurobiology

Many theories concerning the development of sexual orientation involve fetal neural development, with proposed models illustrating prenatal hormone exposure, maternal immunity, and developmental instability. Other proposed factors include genetic control of sexual orientation. No conclusive evidence has been shown that environmental or learned effects are responsible for the development of non-heterosexual orientation.

As of 2005, sexual dimorphisms in the brain and behavior among vertebrates were accounted for by the influence of gonadal steroidal androgens as demonstrated in animal models over the prior few decades. The prenatal androgen model of homosexuality describes the neuro-developmental effects of fetal exposure to these hormones. In 1985, Geschwind and Galaburda proposed that homosexual men are exposed to high androgen levels early in development and proposed that temporal and local variations in androgen exposure to a fetus's developing brain is a factor in the pathways determining homosexuality. This led scientists to look for somatic markers for prenatal hormonal exposure that could be easily, and non-invasively, explored in otherwise endocrinologically normal populations. Various somatic markers (including 2D:4D finger ratios, auditory evoked potentials, fingerprint patterns and eye-blink patterns) have since been found to show variation based on sexual orientation in healthy adult individuals.

Other evidence supporting the role of testosterone and prenatal hormones in sexual orientation development include observations of male subjects with cloacal exstrophy who were sex-assigned as female during birth only later to declare themselves male. This supports the theory that the prenatal testosterone surge is crucial for gender identity development. Additionally, females whose mothers were exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy show higher rates of bi- and homosexuality.

Variations in the hypothalamus may have some influence on sexual orientation. Studies show that factors such as cell number and size of various nuclei in the hypothalamus may impact one's sexual orientation.

Brain structure

There are multiple areas of the brain which have been found to display differences based on sexual orientation. Several of these can be found in the hypothalamus, including the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the preoptic area (SDN-POA) present in several mammalian species. Researchers have shown that the SDN-POA aides in sex-dimorphic mating behavior in some mammals, which is representative of human sexual orientation. The human equivalent to the SDN-POA is the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, which is also sexually dimorphic and has demonstrated dissimilar sizes between sexualities. There are also other POA-like brain structures in the human brain which differ between sexual orientations, such as the suprachiasmatic nucleus and the anterior hypothalamus. Using meta-analysis of neuroimaging, researchers have concluded that these areas are linked to sexual preferences in humans, which would explain why they may differ based on sexual orientation.

Another area of the brain which demonstrates sexual orientation differentiation is the thalamus, which is a structure involved in sexual arousal and reward. The thalamus of heterosexual individuals was found to be bigger than that of homosexual individuals. The placement of connections in the amygdala have been demonstrated to differ between heterosexual and homosexual individuals. The posterior cingulate cortex, a part of the occipital lobe, the region of the brain that processes visual information, has also been demonstrated to have differences based on sexual orientation.

Research has shown that a couple of the areas of connection between the hemispheres of the brain have differences in their size depending on sexual orientation. The front commission was found to be wider in homosexual men than heterosexual men, and the corpus callosum was found to be larger in homosexual men than heterosexual men.

Some areas of the brain which researchers looked at but did not find differences in structure between sexualities are the temporal cortex, hippocampus and putamen.

Fraternal birth order effect

Neuroscience has been implicated in the study of birth order and male sexual orientation. A significant volume of research has found that the more older brothers a man has from the same mother, the greater the probability he will have a homosexual orientation. Estimates indicate that there is a 33–48% increase in chances of homosexuality in a male child with each older brother, and the effect is not observed in those with older adoptive or step-brothers, indicative of a prenatal biological mechanism. Ray Blanchard and Anthony Bogaert discovered the association in the 1990s, and named it the fraternal birth order (FBO) effect. The mechanism by which the effect is believed to operate states that a mother develops an immune response against a substance important in male fetal development during pregnancy, and that this immune effect becomes increasingly likely with each male fetus gestated by the mother. This immune effect is thought to cause an alteration in (some) later born males' prenatal brain development. The target of the immune response are molecules (specifically Y-linked proteins, which are thought to play a role in fetal brain sex-differentiation) on the surface of male fetal brain cells, including in sites of the anterior hypothalamus (which has been linked to sexual orientation in other research). Antibodies produced during the immune response are thought to cross the placental barrier and enter the fetal compartment where they bind to the Y-linked molecules and thus alter their role in sexual differentiation, leading some males to be attracted to men as opposed to women. Biochemical evidence to support this hypothesis was identified in 2017, finding mothers of gay sons, particularly those with older brothers, had significantly higher anti-NLGN4Y levels than other samples of women, including mothers of heterosexual sons.

The effect does not mean that all or most sons will be gay after several male pregnancies, but rather, the odds of having a gay son increase from approximately 2% for the firstborn son, to 4% for the second, 6% for the third and so on. Scientists have estimated that 15–29% of gay men owe their sexual orientation to this effect, but the number may be higher, as prior miscarriages and terminations of male pregnancies may have exposed their mothers to Y-linked antigens. In addition, the effect is nullified in left-handed men. As it is contingent on handedness and handedness is a prenatally determined trait, it further attributes the effect to be biological, rather than psychosocial. The fraternal birth order effect does not apply to the development of female homosexuality. Blanchard does not believe the same antibody response would cause homosexuality in firstborn gay sons – instead, they may owe their orientation to genes, prenatal hormones and other maternal immune responses which also influence fetal brain development.

The few studies which have not observed a correlation between gay men and birth order have generally been criticized for methodological errors and sampling methods. J. Michael Bailey has said that no plausible hypothesis other than a maternal immune response has been identified.

Research directions

As of 2005, research directions included:

  • finding markers for sex steroid levels in the brains of fetuses that highlight features of early neuro-development leading to certain sexual orientations
  • determine the precise neural circuitry underlying direction of sexual preference
  • use animal models to explore genetic and developmental factors that influence sexual orientation
  • further population studies, genetic studies, and serological markers to clarify and definitively determine the effect of maternal immunity
  • neuroimaging studies to quantify sexual-orientation-related differences in structure and function in vivo
  • neurochemical studies to investigate the roles of sex steroids upon neural circuitry involved in sexual attraction

Sexual differentiation in humans

The human Y chromosome showing the SRY gene which codes for a protein regulating sexual differentiation.

Sexual differentiation in humans is the process of development of sex differences in humans. It is defined as the development of phenotypic structures consequent to the action of hormones produced following gonadal determination. Sexual differentiation includes development of different genitalia and the internal genital tracts and body hair plays a role in sex identification.

The development of sexual differences begins with the XY sex-determination system that is present in humans, and complex mechanisms are responsible for the development of the phenotypic differences between male and female humans from an undifferentiated zygote. Females typically have two X chromosomes, and males typically have a Y chromosome and an X chromosome. At an early stage in embryonic development, both sexes possess equivalent internal structures. These are the mesonephric ducts and paramesonephric ducts. The presence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome causes the development of the testes in males, and the subsequent release of hormones which cause the paramesonephric ducts to regress. In females, the mesonephric ducts regress.

Disorders of sexual development (DSD), encompassing conditions characterized by the appearance of undeveloped genitals that may be ambiguous, or look like those typical for the opposite sex, sometimes known as intersex, can be a result of genetic and hormonal factors.

Sex determination

Most mammals, including humans, have an XY sex-determination system: the Y chromosome carries factors responsible for triggering male development. In the absence of a Y chromosome, the fetus will undergo female development. This is because of the presence of the sex-determining region of the Y chromosome, also known as the SRY gene. Thus, male mammals typically have an X and a Y chromosome (XY), while female mammals typically have two X chromosomes (XX).

Chromosomal sex is determined at the time of fertilization; a chromosome from the sperm cell, either X or Y, fuses with the X chromosome in the egg cell. Gonadal sex refers to the gonads, that is the testicles or ovaries, depending on which genes are expressed. Phenotypic sex refers to the structures of the external and internal genitalia.

6 weeks elapse after fertilization before the first signs of sex differentiation can be observed in human embryos. The embryo and subsequent early fetus appear to be sexually indifferent, looking neither like a male or a female. Over the next several weeks, hormones are produced that cause undifferentiated tissue to transform into either male or female reproductive organs. This process is called sexual differentiation. The precursor of the internal female sex organs is called the Müllerian system.

Reproductive system

Figure One: The mesonephric System Pathway [7]

Differentiation between the sexes of the sex organs occurs throughout embryological, fetal and later life. In both males and females, the sex organs consist of two structures: the internal genitalia and the external genitalia. In males, the gonads are the testicles and in females, they are the ovaries. These are the organs that produce gametes (egg and sperm), the reproductive cells that will eventually meet to form the fertilized egg (zygote).

As the zygote divides, it first becomes the embryo (which means 'growing within'), typically between zero and eight weeks, then from the eighth week until birth, it is considered the fetus (which means 'unborn offspring'). The internal genitalia are all the accessory glands and ducts that connect the gonads to the outside environment. The external genitalia consist of all the external reproductive structures. The sex of an early embryo cannot be determined because the reproductive structures do not differentiate until the seventh week. Prior to this, the child is considered bipotential because it cannot be identified as male or female.

Internal genital differentiation

The internal genitalia consist of two accessory ducts: mesonephric ducts (male) and paramesonephric ducts (female). The mesonephric system is the precursor to the male genitalia and the paramesonephric to the female reproductive system. As development proceeds, one of the pairs of ducts develops while the other regresses. This depends on the presence or absence of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome, also known as the SRY gene. In the presence of a functional SRY gene, the bipotential gonads develop into testes. Gonads are histologically distinguishable by 6–8 weeks of gestation.

Subsequent development of one set and degeneration of the other depends on the presence or absence of two testicular hormones: testosterone and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Disruption of typical development may result in the development of both, or neither, duct system, which may produce morphologically intersex individuals.

Males: The SRY gene when transcribed and processed produces SRY protein that binds to DNA and directs the development of the gonad into testes. Male development can only occur when the fetal testis secretes key hormones at a critical period in early gestation. The testes begin to secrete three hormones that influence the male internal and external genitalia: they secrete anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), testosterone, and dihydrotestosterone (DHT). Anti-Müllerian hormone causes the paramesonephric ducts to regress. Testosterone converts the mesonephric ducts into male accessory structures, including the epididymides, vasa deferentia, and seminal vesicles. Testosterone will also control the descending of the testes from the abdomen. Many other genes found on other autosomes, including WT1, SOX9 and SF1 also play a role in gonadal development.

Females: Without testosterone and AMH, the mesonephric ducts degenerate and disappear. The paramesonephric ducts develop into the uterus, fallopian tubes, and upper vagina (the lower vagina develops from the urogenital sinus). There still remains a broad lack of information about the genetic controls of female development, and much remains unknown about the female embryonic process.

External genital differentiation

Development of external genitalia

By 7 weeks, a fetus has a genital tubercle, urogenital sinus, urogenital folds and labioscrotal swellings. In females, without excess androgens, these become the vulva (clitoris, vestibule, labia minora and labia majora respectively). Males become externally distinct between 8 and 12 weeks, as androgens enlarge the genital tubercle and cause the urogenital groove and sinus to fuse in the midline, producing an unambiguous penis with a phallic urethra, and the labioscrotal swellings become a thinned, rugate scrotum where the testicles are situated. Dihydrotestosterone will differentiate the remaining male characteristics of the external genitalia.

A sufficient amount of any androgen can cause external masculinization. The most potent is dihydrotestosterone (DHT), generated from testosterone in skin and genital tissue by the action of 5α-reductase. A male fetus may be incompletely masculinized if this enzyme is deficient. In some diseases and circumstances, other androgens may be present in high enough concentrations to cause partial or (rarely) complete masculinization of the external genitalia of a genetically female fetus. The testes begin to secrete three hormones that influence the male internal and external genitalia. They secrete anti-Müllerian hormone, testosterone, and Dihydrotestosterone. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) causes the paramesonephric ducts to regress. Testosterone, which is secreted and converts the mesonephric ducts into male accessory structures, such as epididymis, vas deferens and seminal vesicle. Testosterone will also control the descending of the testes from the abdomen into the scrotum. Dihydrotestosterone, also known as (DHT) will differentiate the remaining male characteristics of the external genitalia.

Further sex differentiation of the external genitalia occurs at puberty, when androgen levels again become disparate. Male levels of testosterone directly induce growth of the penis, and indirectly (via DHT) the prostate.

Alfred Jost observed that while testosterone was required for mesonephric duct development, the regression of the paramesonephric duct was due to another substance. This was later determined to be paramesonephric inhibiting substance (MIS), a 140 kD dimeric glycoprotein that is produced by Sertoli cells. MIS blocks the development of paramesonephric ducts, promoting their regression.

Secondary sexual characteristics

Breast development

Visible differentiation occurs at puberty, when estradiol and other hormones cause breasts to develop in typical females.

Psychological and behavioral differentiation

Human adults and children show many psychological and behavioral sex differences. Some (e.g. dress) are learned and cultural. Others are demonstrable across cultures and have both biological and learned determinants. For example, some studies claim girls are, on average, more verbally fluent than boys, but boys are, on average, better at spatial calculation. Some have observed that this may be due to two different patterns in parental communication with infants, noting that parents are more likely to talk to girls and more likely to engage in physical play with boys.

Intersex variations

The following are some of the variations associated with atypical determination and differentiation process:

  • A zygote with only X chromosome (XO) results in Turner syndrome and will develop with female characteristics.
  • Congenital adrenal hyperplasia –Inability of adrenal to produce sufficient cortisol, leading to increased production of testosterone resulting in severe masculinization of 46 XX females. The condition also occurs in XY males, as they suffer from the effects of low cortisol and salt-wasting, not virilization.
  • Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome – A rare type of pseudohermaphroditism that occurs in 46 XY males, caused by either a mutation in the Müllerian inhibiting substance (MIS) gene, on 19p13, or its type II receptor, 12q13. Results in a retention of Müllerian ducts (persistence of rudimentary uterus and fallopian tubes in otherwise normally virilized males), unilateral or bilateral undescended testes, and sometimes causes infertility.
  • XY differences of sex development – Atypical androgen production or inadequate androgen response, which can cause incomplete masculinization in XY males. Varies from mild failure of masculinization with undescended testes to complete sex reversal and female phenotype (Androgen insensitivity syndrome)
  • Swyer syndrome. A form of complete gonadal dysgenesis, mostly due to mutations in the first step of sex determination; the SRY genes.
  • A 5-alpha-reductase deficiency results in atypical development characterized by female phenotype or undervirilized male phenotype with development of the epididymis, vas deferens, seminal vesicle, and ejaculatory duct, but also a pseudovagina. This is because testosterone is converted to the more potent DHT by 5-alpha reductase. DHT is necessary to exert androgenic effects farther from the site of testosterone production, where the concentrations of testosterone are too low to have any potency.

Glass ceiling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A chart illustrating the differences in earnings between men and women of the same educational level (USA 2006)

A glass ceiling is a metaphor usually applied to people of marginalized genders, used to represent an invisible barrier that prevents an oppressed demographic from rising beyond a certain level in a hierarchy. The metaphor was first used by feminists in reference to barriers in the careers of high-achieving women. It was coined by Marilyn Loden during a speech in 1978.

In the United States, the concept is sometimes extended to refer to racial inequality. Minority women in white-majority countries often find the most difficulty in "breaking the glass ceiling" because they lie at the intersection of two historically marginalized groups: women and people of color. East Asian and East Asian American news outlets have coined the term "bamboo ceiling" to refer to the obstacles that all East Asian Americans face in advancing their careers. Similarly, a multitude of barriers that refugees and asylum seekers face in their search for meaningful employment is referred to as the "canvas ceiling".

Within the same concepts of the other terms surrounding the workplace, there are similar terms for restrictions and barriers concerning women and their roles within organizations and how they coincide with their maternal responsibilities. These "Invisible Barriers" function as metaphors to describe the extra circumstances that women go through, usually when they try to advance within areas of their careers and often while they try to advance within their lives outside their work spaces.

"A glass ceiling" represents a blockade that prohibits women from advancing toward the top of a hierarchical corporation. These women are prevented from getting promoted, especially to the executive rankings within their corporation. In the last twenty years, the women who have become more involved and pertinent in industries and organizations have rarely been in the executive ranks.

Definition

The United States Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1991–1996) defined the glass ceiling as "the unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements."

David Cotter et al. (2001) defined four distinctive characteristics that must be met to conclude that a glass ceiling exists. A glass ceiling inequality represents:

  1. "A gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee."
  2. "A gender or racial difference that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome."
  3. "A gender or racial inequality in the chances of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportions of each gender or race currently at those higher levels."
  4. "A gender or racial inequality that increases over the course of a career."

Cotter and colleagues found that glass ceilings are correlated strongly with gender, with both white and minority women facing a glass ceiling in the course of their careers. In contrast, the researchers did not find evidence of a glass ceiling for African-American men.

The glass ceiling metaphor has often been used to describe invisible barriers ("glass") through which women can see elite positions but cannot reach them ("ceiling"). These barriers prevent large numbers of women and ethnic minorities from obtaining and securing the most powerful, prestigious and highest-grossing jobs in the workforce. Moreover, this effect prevents women from filling high-ranking positions and puts them at a disadvantage as potential candidates for advancement.

History

In 1839, French feminist and author George Sand used a similar phrase, une voûte de cristal impénétrable, in a passage of Gabriel, a never-performed play: "I was a woman; for suddenly my wings collapsed, ether closed in around my head like an impenetrable crystal vault, and I fell...." [emphasis added]. The statement, a description of the heroine's dream of soaring with wings, has been interpreted as a feminine Icarus tale of a woman who attempts to ascend above her accepted role.

Marilyn Loden invented the phrase glass ceiling during a 1978 speech.

According to the April 3, 2015, The Wall Street Journal the term glass ceiling was notably used in 1979 by Maryanne Schriber and Katherine Lawrence at Hewlett-Packard. Lawrence outlined the concept at the National Press Club at the national meeting of the Women's Institute for the Freedom of the Press in Washington DC. The ceiling was defined as discriminatory promotion patterns where the written promotional policy is non-discriminatory, but in practice denies promotion to qualified females.

The term was later used in March 1984 by Gay Bryant, who is credited with popularizing the glass ceiling concept. She was the former editor of Working Woman magazine and was changing jobs to be the editor of Family Circle. In an Adweek article written by Nora Frenkel, Bryant was reported as saying, "Women have reached a certain point—I call it the glass ceiling. They're at the top of middle management and they're stopping and getting stuck. There isn't enough room for all those women at the top. Some are going into business for themselves. Others are going out and raising families." Also in 1984, Bryant used the term in a chapter of the book The Working Woman Report: Succeeding in Business in the 1980s. In the same book, Basia Hellwig used the term in another chapter.

In a widely cited article in the Wall Street Journal in March 1986 the term was used in the article's title: "The Glass Ceiling: Why Women Can't Seem to Break The Invisible Barrier That Blocks Them From the Top Jobs". The article was written by Carol Hymowitz and Timothy D. Schellhardt. Hymowitz and Schellhardt introduced glass ceiling was "not something that could be found in any corporate manual or even discussed at a business meeting; it was originally introduced as an invisible, covert, and unspoken phenomenon that existed to keep executive level leadership positions in the hands of Caucasian males."

As the term "glass ceiling" became more common, the public responded with differing ideas and opinions. Some argued that the concept is a myth because women choose to stay home and showed less dedication to advance into executive positions. As a result of continuing public debate, the US Labor Department's chief, Lynn Morley Martin, reported the results of a research project called "The Glass Ceiling Initiative", formed to investigate the low numbers of women and minorities in executive positions. This report defined the new term as "those artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their organization into management-level positions."

In 1991, as a part of Title II of the Civil Right Act of 1991, The United States Congress created the Glass Ceiling Commission. This 21 member Presidential Commission was chaired by Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and was created to study the "barriers to the advancement of minorities and women within corporate hierarchies[,] to issue a report on its findings and conclusions, and to make recommendations on ways to dis- mantle the glass ceiling." The commission conducted extensive research including, surveys, public hearings and interviews, and released their findings in a report in 1995. The report, "Good for Business", offered "tangible guidelines and solutions on how these barriers can be overcome and eliminated". The goal of the commission was to provide recommendations on how to "shatter" the glass ceiling, specifically in the world of business. The report issued 12 recommendations on how to improve the workplace by increasing diversity in organizations and reducing discrimination through policy.

The number of women CEOs in the Fortune Lists has increased between 1998 and 2020, despite women's labor force participation rate decreasing globally from 52.4% to 49.6% between 1995 and 2015. Only 19.2% of S&P 500 Board Seats were held by women in 2014, 80.2% of whom were considered white.

Glass Ceiling Index

In 2017, The Economist updated their Glass Ceiling Index, combining data on higher education, labour-force participation, pay, child-care costs, maternity and paternity rights, business-school applications, and representation in senior jobs. The countries where inequality was the lowest were Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Poland.

Gender stereotypes

2001 Gallup Poll: Men are perceived as more aggressive, women are perceived as more emotional

In a 1993 report released through the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, researchers noted that although women have the same educational opportunities as their male counterparts, the Glass Ceiling persist due to systematic barriers, low representation, mobility, and stereotypes. The perpetuation of sexist stereotypes is one widely recognized reason as to why female employees are systematically inhibited from receiving advantageous opportunities in their chosen fields. A majority of Americans perceive women to be more emotional and men to be more aggressive. Gender stereotypes influence how leaders are chosen by employers and how workers of different sex are treated. Another stereotype towards women in workplaces is known as the "gender status belief" which claims that men are more competent and intelligent than women, which would explain why they have higher positions in the career hierarchy. Ultimately, this factor leads to perception of gender-based jobs in the labor market, so men are expected to have more work-related qualifications and hired for top positions. Perceived feminine stereotypes contribute to the glass ceiling faced by women in the workforce.

Gender stereotyping is thinking that men are better than women in management and leadership roles; it is the concept of alluding that women are inferior and better suited in their biological roles of mother and spouse. The nature of this stereotype is toxic and hindering to women's success and their rights in every aspect but it is even more damaging in the workplace in a patriarchal society. It represents an invisible but strong barrier that stands in the way of women. Men are put at the utmost positions for they are primally viewed as better leaders whereas women are stuck in low or medium level positions. These barriers to women's progression in management roles and a of significant issue. For example, the few women that have worked hard and relentlessly to break those barriers and have earned their deserving place in a leadership role are either viewed as "competent or warm" but never both. This is because the idea of a successful woman is stereotyped within the idea that she must be a ruthless, competitive, cold person whereas a woman of a warm and caring nature will be perceived as not having the right skill set for leadership and progression because "she does not have what it takes".

Hiring practices

When women leave their current place of employment to start their own businesses, they tend to hire other women, and men to hire other men. These hiring practices (seemingly) diminish "the glass ceiling" effect because there is a perception of less competition of capabilities and sex discrimination. They appear to ally with the idea of "men's work" and "women's work".

Cross-cultural context

Few women tend to reach positions in the upper echelon of society, and organizations are largely still almost exclusively led by men. Studies have shown that the glass ceiling still exists in varying levels in different nations and regions across the world. The stereotypes of women as emotional and sensitive could be seen as key characteristics as to why women struggle to break the glass ceiling. It is clear that even though societies differ from one another by culture, beliefs, and norms, they hold similar expectations of women and their role in society. These female stereotypes are often reinforced in societies that have traditional expectations of women. The stereotypes and perceptions of women are changing slowly across the world, which also reduces gender segregation in organizations.

Overcoming glass ceiling

Despite significant improvement of women's participation in the labor force due to equity programs, advanced education levels, and work-life balanced policies, women are still underrepresented in upper-level positions in the workplace. There has been substantial invisible barriers for them to reach high-level management position such as lack of social capital, low level of self-efficacy and self-esteem, gender stereotypes, and masculine organizational culture. In fact, individual, government and organization effort are needed to break double glass ceilings in which not only cultural and gender biases but also limitation of access to resources and opportunities have been rooted in the male-dominated workplace.

"Individual effort"

One of the effective strategies that women can use to overcome the glass ceiling effect on their own is networking. Social networks are critical for promoting one's career and receiving access to resources. Establishing intensive connections within and outside an organization can contribute to better interpersonal understanding and reduction of negative stereotypical views of women and thus achieving career advancement in return. Social networks can be constructed through connections with individuals on various dimensions such as formal vs. informal, homogeneity vs. heterogeneity, instrumental vs. psychosocial and strong vs. weak ties. Women have strong capabilities of building and maintaining social relationship. They can create internal network within their organizations that influence on deciding promotion and acceptance while an external network with outsiders contributes to psychosocial support. They can build social networks in different ways depending on their social identity and cultural background. However, building and maintaining networks can be time-consuming and not straightforward. Women can also face additional barriers to construct networks in an organization that have been dominated by powerful men.

The benefits accumulated from social networks become social capital for individuals. Thus, the quality of one's social network can determine the value of its social capital. Social capital can contribute several positive career outcomes such as task accomplishment and social support for career advancement. Women can enhance their social capital and promote their professional images through mentoring. Mentoring plays a critical role in supporting women to achieve executive-level positions in an organization. Mentoring means a senior with advanced knowledge, skills and experience helps a junior through career and psychological support. Career support includes sponsorship, coaching and visibilityile psychological support includes acceptance, emotional support and role modeling. A supportive supervisor or mentor can enhance the opportunity of being appointed to the critical roles and increase the probability of actual promotions through temporary promotions. To achieve this, women can intentionally forge relationships across race, gender, occupation level and organizational culture. Moreover, they can borrow this kind of social capital from strategic partners to get important contacts. But, such kind of connection is related with only temporary promotions. Mentors are more likely to support the same-gender mentee in an organization. Female mentors may be sympathetic and understand about women's challenges and emotions in the battle of promotions. However, this benefit could be realized only when female mentors reach relatively high-level positions. In fact, it is difficult for women to receive mentoring from the same gender since there are fewer senior management positions occupied by women.

Positive attitude towards glass ceiling can also help women to break glass ceiling. Optimistic beliefs about chances of being promoted in an organization can cause positive actions towards pursuing promotions. Resilience and denial are optimistic glass ceiling beliefs for subjective career success. Resilience means women believe that they are able to break glass ceiling: they can fight for their rights to promotion and career development. Denial means women think that men and women experience the same issues and barriers in pursuing executive positions. On the other hand, resignation and acceptance are pessimistic glass ceiling beliefs for subjective career advancement. Resignation means women are unwilling to break glass ceiling due to the belief of experiencing more negative consequences than men. Acceptance deals with women's preference on other goals such as family involvement instead of career advancement. Women who want to reach higher levels of management in an organization can analyze their levels of resilience and denial. Then, they will be able to build resilience skill through attitude, behavior and social support in order to overcome glass ceiling in a highly competitive contemporary workplace.

"Organization effort"

Overcoming the glass ceiling is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic advantage for organizations aiming to thrive in an increasingly diverse in a complex world. To break through this barrier and promote diversity and inclusivity in leadership, organizations must adopt a multifaceted and sustained approaches including development of policies, programs, leadership commitment and evaluation.

1. Policies

Effective diversity and inclusion policies play a pivotal role in breaking through organizational glass ceilings. Firstly, organizations must develop robust recruitment and retention strategies that not only attract diverse talent but also address attrition rates among underrepresented employees through targeted retention programs. To foster diversity at all levels, from recruitment to promotions, organizations should establish clear and comprehensive diversity and inclusion policies. These policies should not only outline specific objectives but also incorporate metrics and strategies that serve as guiding principles. Furthermore, compliance with all relevant anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws is fundamental in cultivating a fair and inclusive workplace. Moreover, transparency in promotion and succession processes is essential. Maintaining clear communication regarding the criteria for advancement empowers employees to understand and actively pursue leadership opportunities, thereby dismantling the glass ceiling and promoting a more inclusive and equitable workplace. In addition to focusing on policy, organizations should also prioritize their programs for breaking through the glass ceiling.

2. Program

Firstly, organizations should prioritize the creation of comprehensive diversity and inclusion programs that clearly show their dedication to fairness and equal opportunities to all employees in workplaces. In addition, ensuring fairness in promotions is vital. Transparent promotion criteria must be developed and consistently applied across the organization to maintain fairness and equal opportunities for all. Furthermore, the implementation of leadership development programs is essential to identify and nurture potential leaders from diverse backgrounds. These programs may include elements such as mentorship, training, and opportunities for high-potential employees to gain valuable leadership experience.

To increase awareness and mitigate unconscious bias, organizations should provide diversity and inclusion training for all employees, including management and executives. This training should equip individuals with strategies to minimize the impact of bias on decision-making and team dynamics. Lastly, organizations should create platforms and events that facilitate networking opportunities for employees from diverse backgrounds to interact with senior leadership. Enhanced visibility through these initiatives is paramount for career progression and reinforces an organization's commitment to breaking through the glass ceiling and promoting diversity and inclusion.

3. Leadership commitment

Firstly, leaders must exemplify unwavering commitment to diversity and inclusion, serving as champions of this vital initiative. This should be evident in the organization's values, policies, and in the actions of its leaders. Secondly, organizations should establish clear accountability mechanisms. Leadership should be held responsible for achieving diversity and inclusion goals, with performance metrics directly tied to these objectives. Additionally, promoting inclusive leadership is crucial. Organizations should invest in training their leaders to make equitable and inclusive decisions, manage teams with fairness, and engage in inclusive interactions. Effective communication plays a pivotal role in this journey. Organizations should transparently communicate their commitment to diversity and inclusion, both internally and externally. Regularly publishing diversity and inclusion reports helps maintain transparency and keeps stakeholders informed about progress. Lastly, cultural transformation is essential. Cultivating a workplace culture rooted in respect and open communication is paramount (Bhasin, 2020). Encouraging employees to report any instances of discrimination or harassment and providing a safe and supportive space for such reports is vital to addressing issues promptly and effectively.

4. Performance evaluation

To successfully overcome the glass ceiling at the organizational level, a commitment to continuous improvement is paramount. This entails regularly evaluating the effectiveness of diversity and inclusion initiatives through methods such as surveys, feedback mechanisms, and data analysis. Organizations must remain adaptable, ready to adjust their strategies as necessary to tackle evolving challenges and capitalize on opportunities for enhancement.

"Glass escalator"

A parallel phenomenon called the "glass escalator" has also been recognized. As more men join fields that were previously dominated by women, such as nursing and teaching, the men are promoted and given more opportunities compared to the women, as if the men were taking escalators and the women were taking the stairs. The chart from Carolyn K. Broner shows an example of the glass escalator in favor of men for female-dominant occupations in schools. While women have historically dominated the teaching profession, men tend to take higher positions in school systems such as deans or principals.

Men benefit financially from their gender status in historically female fields, often "reaping the benefits of their token status to reach higher levels in female-dominated work".

A 2008 study published in Social Problems found that sex segregation in nursing did not follow the "glass escalator" pattern of disproportional vertical distribution; rather, men and women gravitated towards different areas within the field, with male nurses tending to specialize in areas of work perceived as "masculine". The article noted that "men encounter powerful social pressures that direct them away from entering female-dominated occupations (Jacobs 1989, 1993)". Since female-dominated occupations are usually characterized by more feminine activities, men who enter these jobs can be perceived socially as "effeminate, homosexual, or sexual predators".

"Sticky floors"

In the literature on gender discrimination, the concept of "sticky floors" complements the concept of a glass ceiling. Sticky floors can be described as the pattern that women are, compared to men, less likely to start to climb the job ladder. This is often due to discriminatory employment pattern that keeps workers, mainly women, in the lower ranks of the job scale, with low mobility and invisible barriers to career advancement. Thereby, this phenomenon is related to gender differentials at the bottom of the wage distribution. Building on the seminal study by Booth and co-authors in European Economic Review, during the last decade economists have attempted to identify sticky floors in the labour market. They found empirical evidence for the existence of sticky floors in countries such as Australia, Belgium, Italy, Thailand, and the United States.

"The frozen middle"

Similar to the sticky floor, the frozen middle describes the phenomenon of women's progress up the corporate ladder slowing, if not halting, in the ranks of middle management. Originally the term referred to the resistance corporate upper management faced from middle management when issuing directives. Due to a lack of ability or lack of drive in the ranks of middle management, these directives do not come into fruition and as a result the company's bottom line suffers. The term was popularized by a Harvard Business Review article titled "Middle Management Excellence". Due to the growing proportion of women to men in the workforce, however, the term "frozen middle" has become more commonly ascribed to the aforementioned slowing of the careers of women in middle management. The 1996 study "A Study of the Career Development and Aspirations of Women in Middle Management" posits that social structures and networks within businesses that favor "good old boys" and norms of masculinity exist based on the experiences of women surveyed. According to the study, women who did not exhibit stereotypical masculine traits, (e.g. aggressiveness, thick skin, lack of emotional expression) and interpersonal communication tendencies were disadvantaged compared to their male peers. As the ratio of men to women increases in the upper levels of management, women's access to female mentors who could advise them on ways to navigate office politics is limited, further inhibiting upward mobility within a corporation or firm. Furthermore, the frozen middle affects female professionals in western and eastern countries such as the United States and Malaysia, respectively, as well as women in a variety of fields ranging from the aforementioned corporations to STEM fields.

"Second shift"

The second shift focuses on the idea that women theoretically work a second shift in the manner of having a greater workload, not just doing a greater share of domestic work. All of the tasks that are engaged in outside the workplace are mainly tied to motherhood. Depending on location, household income, educational attainment, ethnicity and location, data shows that women do work a second shift in the sense of having a greater workload, not just doing a greater share of domestic work, but this is not apparent if simultaneous activity is overlooked. Alva Myrdal and Viola Klein as early as 1956 focused on the potential of both men and women working in settings that included paid and unpaid types of work environments. Research indicated that men and women could have equal time for activities outside the work environment for family and extra activities. This "second shift" has also been found to have physical effects as well. Women who engage in longer hours of work in pursuit of family balance often face increased mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Increased irritability, lower motivation and energy, and other emotional issues were also found to occur as well. The overall happiness of women can be improved if a balance of career and home responsibilities is found.

"Mommy track"

"Mommy track" refers to women who disregard their careers and professional responsibilities in order to satisfy the needs of their families. Women are often subject to long work hours that create an imbalance within the work-family schedule. There is research suggesting that women are able to operate on a part-time professional schedule compared to others who worked full-time while still engaged in external family activities. This research also suggests that flexible work arrangements allow the achievement of a healthy work and family balance. A difference has also been discovered in the cost and amount of effort in childbearing between women in higher skilled positions and roles, as opposed to women in lower-skilled jobs. This difference leads women to delay and postpone goals and career aspirations over many years.

"Concrete floor"

The term concrete floor has been used to refer to the minimum number or the proportion of women necessary for a cabinet or board of directors to be perceived as legitimate.

Quota Doctors

Government intervention in the admission and promotion process results in beneficiaries being tagged as quota doctors. These quotas are floor quotas, having a required minimum; their contrast is for ceiling quotas, Numerus clausus.

Anticancer gene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticancer_gene   ...