Verbal Attitudes towards Gender Stereotypes

DEMOCRATIC AND POPULAR REPUBLIC OF ALGERIA MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

UNIVERITY OF ABDELHAMID IBN BADIS – MOSTAGANEM- FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

MASTER DEGREE IN « Sociolinguistics and Gender Studies »

Presented by:

Djelled Mohammed

Jury Members:

President: Dr. Benneghrouzi F. Z.

Supervisor: Dr. Ziani Melouka

Examiner: Dr. El Abed Zohra

Academic Year 2014/2015

Verbal Attitudes towards Gender Stereotypes.

Resisting, Sustaining and Revealing Gender Ideologies.

Critical Discourse Analysis Perspective

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………...I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………………………….II

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………..III

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………….IV

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………..V

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………....VI

General Introduction………………………………………………………………….1

I. Chapter One: Gender Stereotypes and CDA Underpinning

I.1.Introduction……………………………………………………………….. ....4

I.2.Section 1: Definitions of Stereotypes and Some Related Concepts.

I.2.1. Stereotypes and Gender Stereotypes…………………………………..4

I.2.2. Formation and Validity of Stereotypes………………………………..5

I.2.3. Function of Gender Stereotypes…………………………………….... 6

I.2.4. Gender Stereotypes and Culture……………………………………....7

I.2.5. Gender Stereotypes and Gender Roles………………………………...8

I.2.6. Gender Stereotypes and Gender Ideology……………………………..9

I.2.6.1.What is Ideology?…………………………………………….......9

I.2.6.2Gender Ideology………………………………………………….10

I.3. Section 2: Critical Discourse Analysis

I.3.1. Discourse and Discourse Analysis……………………………………10

I.3.2. what is CDA? Critical Discourse Analysis…………………………....11

I.3.3. Systemic Functional Grammar (Linguistics)…………………………12

I.3.4. Fairclough’s Contribution to CDA……………………………………13

I.3.5. Van Dijk’s Approach to CDA………………………………………...14

I.3.6. Discourse and Ideology…………………………………………….....15

I.3.7. Van Dijk’s Framework………………………………………………..16

I.4. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. Chapter Two: Methodology of the Study and Data Analysis

II.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………19

II.2. Description of the Sample…………………………………………......19

II.3. Methods of Data Collection…………………………………………...19

III.3.1. Description of the Questionnaire…………………………..19

II.4. Data Analysis……………………………………………………….....19

II.4.1. Analysis of the Questionnaire………………………………20

II.4.2. Van Dijk’s Model of Analysis………………………….......27

II.5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….30

III. Chapter Three: Discussion and Interpretation

III.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………...31

III.2. Discussion and Interpretation of the Findings……………………......31

III.3. Recommendations……………………………………………………35

III.4. Limitations……………………………………………………………35

III.5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………....36

General Conclusion………………………………………………………………..37

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………40

Appendix (A)……………………………………………………………………….I

Appendix (B)……………………………………………………………………….II

I

DEDICATION

To my lovely parents

This dissertation is lovingly dedicated to my mother and father; their

support, encouragement, and constant love have sustained me throughout

my life. I think of all the things you gave to me: Sacrifice, devotion, love

and tears, your heart, your energy and soul, all these. You spent on me

throughout the years. ”Mom and dad without you I am lost”. Without my

dear parents I would never be at this stage, all the merit return to you,

beloved parent. They are the most courageous and wonderful I have ever

known, I love you dear mom and dad.

Thank you for everything.

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to pay my gratitude to the following people who have accepted to

be part of this challenging but rewarding research work

I am particularly indebted to Madame Ziani Melouka, my dear

supervisor, for her expert guidance, her patience, her support and

valuable suggestions throughout the duration of this work.

My gratitude also goes to both Dr. Benaghrouzi and Dr. El Abed for

their valued help and guidance, and for accepting to be in the board of

examiners and for carefully reading the present research.

My many thanks go to the teachers of the Department of English for

their assistance, help and encouragement.

Finally, I wish to thank my colleagues, friends and classmates for their

personal involvement and motivation in the process of this research.

III

ABSTRACT

From « men discuss; women gossip” to “women love shopping; men hate shopping”,

negative images that are pervasive in the culture can make individuals choke in their

society; resulting in creating certain attitudes towards these rigid stereotypes. We

relied heavily on a structured questionnaire containing six top predetermined

questions. The questionnaire was handed to students randomly chosen from the

department of English, University of Abd el Hamid Ibn Badis; Mostaganem. The

data collected went under a quantitative, qualitative and critical analytical study

using Van Dijk‘s framework to scrutinize and scan for any hidden ideological

agenda. The analysis ushered and led into a partial answer and embracing our

hypotheses. We surprisingly found that female individuals tend to show passive and

submissive verbal attitudes which in turn are clean from any ideologies; whereas

male individuals exhibited strong resistive verbal attitudes to both gender stereotypes

and roles, and of course their attitudes were loaded with ideological implicature.

Key Words: stereotypes, gender stereotypes, verbal attitudes, Critical Discourse

Analysis, Van Dijk’s framework.

IV

List of Abbrevaitions

D…………………Discourse

DA………………..Discourse Analysis

CDA………………Critical Discourse Analysis

SFG……………….Systemic Functional Grammar

V

List of Tables

II. Table.1 Result of participants’ gender……………………………………20

II.Table.2 Result of participants’ age ………………………………………..21

II.Table.3 Result of participants’ knowledge about the term “stereotype”…..22

II.Table.4 Result of participants’ knowledge about the term “gender

stereotype”…………………………………………………………………...23

II.Table.5 Result of participants’ attitudes towards the chosen gender

stereotypes…………………………………………………………………...25

VI

Liste of Figures

II. Figure1 Result of participants ‘gender…………………………………………………...20

II. Figure2 Result of participants ‘age……………………………………………………….21

II. Figure3 Result of participants’ knowledge about the term «stereotype”…………………22

II. Figure4 Result of Participant’s knowledge about the term “gender stereotype”…………23

General Introduction

Page 1

Society expects women and men to adopt, believe in and full fill specific

gender stereotypes that have been socially established. In the Algerian context males

and females are differently and unequally stereotyped and assumed to have distinct

characteristics in society resulting in adopting different gender roles accordingly.

Yet, males and females may have different point of views and attitudes towards these

rigid gender stereotypes. Critically speaking, people (males/females) may expose

their positions towards gender stereotypes, reflect and reveal the implied ideologies

(gender ideology), and strengthen gender roles in society. So this study is put

forward to investigate people’s verbal attitudes towards gender stereotypes, whether

sustaining, resisting and possibly revealing some hidden ideologies. And to answer

the questions being: Do people, both male and female, have negative attitudes

towards gender stereotypes? And do their verbal attitudes unveil some ideologies?

Being a social member living in a highly stereotypical society is the main

motive and ground for conducting this research. Further, it is important to emphasize

that this issue has never been tackled before. Besides that, Critical Discourse

Analysis as a discipline has raised my awareness about the possibility to critically

analyze people’s verbal attitudes and stances for the purpose of revealing and

exposing hidden messages, intentions and social power.

Our paramount aim and objectives behind this research is to grasp people‘s

verbal attitudes towards gender stereotypes, To investigate and delve into whether

people‘s attitudes reflect and mirror into some ideologies (gender ideologies), and

whether people‘s attitudes support and strengthen gender roles in society.

Our research paper aims at answering two main questions being: Do people

(male/female) have and show resistive verbal attitudes towards gender stereotypes?

And whether these verbal attitudes reflect some hidden ideologies. The above main

questions inspire us to assume that people (males/females) do have resistive verbal

attitudes towards gender stereotypes and roles ,with of course, revealing some gender

ideologies embodied in their discourse( verbal attitudes).

To answer our major questions and verify the above hypotheses, a structured

questionnaire is used and analyzed consisting of six main questions as a whole going

in accordance with the main objectives of our research. This is achieved by handing

the questionnaire to a number of participants chosen at random from the Department


Page 2

of English, university of Mostaganem as a setting. The questions are about the

participant’s gender, age, their knowledge about and attitudes towards the term

“stereotypes and gender stereotypes”. Participants are asked to answer the main six

questions by ticking the right options provided and they are as well given space to

express their attitudes towards the terms “stereotype and gender stereotypes” in

general and to the selected spreading Algerian gender stereotypes in particular. A

quantitative, qualitative and an analytical study is conducted and applied on the data

obtained from the participants. The analytical study is applied on the data gathered

by using Van Dijk‘s framework introduced to Critical discourse analysis for the

purpose to look for ideological agenda hidden in the participants’ discourses.

This research is structured as follows: In the first chapter a conceptual

framework is covered and divided into two sections. The first section will proceed

from a general definition of ‘’stereotypes” to a specific definition of ‘’gender

stereotypes’’, and how are they culturally shaped. It will as well shed light on the

sensitive interrelation between gender stereotypes and gender roles ,as stated by

Alice H,Eagley and Valerree Steffen ‘’ Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution

of women and men into social roles’’(1984). Besides that, it will mention a clear

definition of gender ideologies. The second part will be devoted to explaining and

defining some important concepts and notions such as discourse, discourse analysis

and critical discourse analysis which is seen as a theory and a modal of analysis

pioneered by Norman Fairclough and Teun A. Van Dijk inspired by the systemic

functional grammar introduced by M.Halliday. It will as well comprise one major

CDA framework and modal of analysis adopted Van Dijk as a leading critical

analyst.

In chapter two, both questionnaire and the representing sample will be briefly

described. It will also consist of the analysis of the data obtained. This chapter will

be mainly concerned with the investigation of the hypotheses on the basis of data

collected. It will discuss the sampling and the data collection, the means of research,

the data analysis. In this practical part, we will adopt a triangular analysis; the data

obtained will go under quantitative, qualitative, analytical and critical study by using

Van Dijk framework to detect some hidden ideological agenda.


Page 3

In chapter three, we will describe and interpret the results and findings

provided by the quantitative and critical analysis of the data gathered; in an attempt

to verify and see whether our hypotheses can be infirmed or confirmed on the basis

of the given outcomes. This chapter will include as well some limitations faced in the

process of our study, and provides suggestions and recommendations.

Chapter one Gender Stereotypes and CDA Underpinning

Page 4

I.1. Introduction

People are bombarded with socially constructed stereotypes in general and

gender stereotypes in particular from birth until death, pigeonholing both men and

women into different social positions according to their physical endowment. Yet,

these fixed gender stereotypes may attract and welcome either positive or negative

attitudes from people. These attitudes may have and reflect some collateral

ideologies, and can be detected by using CDA which is believed to be the best

method to look for hidden truth.

This chapter will cover the above points in two parts. The first part will proceed

from a general definition of ‘’stereotype” to a specific definition of ‘’gender

stereotypes’’, and how are they culturally shaped. It will as well shed light on the

sensitive interrelation between gender stereotypes and gender roles ,as stated by

Alice H,Eagley and Valerree Steffen ‘’ Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution

of women and men into social roles’’(1984). Besides, gender ideologies. The second

part will be devoted to explaining and defining some important concepts and notions

such as discourse, discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis which is seen as

a theory and a modal of analysis pioneered by Norman Fairclough and Teun A. Van

Dijk inspired by the systemic functional grammar introduced by M.Halliday. It will

as well comprise some CDA frameworks and modal of analysis adopted Van Dijk as

a leading critical analyst.

I.2. Section One: Stereotypes, Gender Stereotypes and Related Concepts

I.2.1. Definition of ‘’Stereotype’’

Etymologically speaking, the word « Stereotype » was invented by Firmin Didot in the

profession of the printing press, during the late eighteenth century in France. It was a

duplicate impression of a typographical element used for printing newspaper. The first

application of the word “stereotype” was in 1850. Some dictionaries defined it as “an image

perpetuated without change”. (www.PsychologyWiki.com).

Walter Lipmann (1922) stated that the pictures in the press influence people’s

perceptions of reality and as a result, they develop their own stereotypes:” whether right or

wrong, our imagination is shaped by these pictures seen. Consequently, they lead to our own

stereotypes that are hard to shake “(www.psychwiki.com).Moreover, stereotype can as well

be defined as a generalized belief about the qualities or traits of a particular group of people

(www.PsychWiki.com). Yet, they can be negative leading to prejudice, or positive


Page 5

(www.PsychWiki.com).According to Cordwell 1996, a stereotype is a fixed and over-

generalized belief about a particular group of people. They are learned, maintained and

potentially changed through the language and communication of a culture. He added that

stereotypes may have negative touch on people’s perception of reality, affect social

judgements about others and reflect illusory correlation.1Baily. B (2012, s 3) states that

stereotype is defined as a term used to define and categorize all people of certain beliefs into

a commonly negative category. A stereotype, in Baily’s words, is used to categorize a group

of people (2012, s 3). She believes that , in an attempt to understand a type of a person,

society positions them into categorizations, believing and supporting that everyone who

belongs to the already classified group has certain and fixed distinguishing attributes( 2012,

S 4).

I.2.2. Definition of ‘’ Gender Stereotype’’

Gender stereotypes are beliefs about how males and females differ in personality

characteristics and behaviors (Cardwell, 1996). In other words, gender stereotypes are

composed of beliefs about the psychological characteristics of and activities appropriate to

men and women. They can as well be defined as beliefs and attitudes about femininity and

masculinity (Brannon, 2000, p 160). In Brannon’s words, gender stereotypes are very

effective; they affect conceptualization of women and men, and form social categories for

gender. These categories represent what people think (2000, p 160).Moreover, gender

stereotypes affect the way women and men think and how they evaluate their and other’s

behaviors (Unger, 1995, p, 427). According to Baily’s view, gender stereotypes are used for

categorizing men and women, the masculine and the feminine (2012, S4).

I.2.3. Formation and Validity of Gender Stereotypes

For Brannon (2001.p164) gender stereotypes are formed and developed along

with the process of developing gender knowledge among children thanks to three

main stages introduced by social theories of gender development .Children in the

first stage (03-06 years) learn behaviors and characteristics associated directly with

each gender. They start showing signs of gender stereotyping by using toys suitably

(Brannon, 2001.p164). In the second stage (06-08 years), children begin to develop

the indirect associations for behaviors connected only with their own gender and not

1 Illusory correlation: the incorrect belief that two events vary together, or the perception that the relationship is strong

when little or no actual relationship exists.


Page 6

the other. Children in this stage, for Brannon, show a pattern of selective

stereotyping in which they make gender stereotyping judgements for the others

(2000.p164). In the third stage (08-10 years), according to Brannon children learn

indirect associations for the other gender as well as their own; having the ability to

make stereotypical judgements of both men and women. Therefore, children do even

more gender stereotyping as they get older (2000.p164). To add more, for Brannon a

specific cognitive process called “illusory correlation” allows children and mainly

adults maintain stereotypes once they have formed them (2000.p164).So, gender

stereotypes in Brannon’s words follow age-related trends similar to the development

of other gender knowledge, and the flexible application of gender stereotypes

increases with age (2000.p165,166).

Stereotypes may have some validity as some researchers claimed and argued

that stereotypes reflect truths about the realities that people face

(www.PsychWiki.com). But stereotypes can be also misleading; meaning that they

are rarely true and are fabricated (psychwiki.com). There may be some validity to

stereotypes, but they are often over-generalized or exaggerated and not a true

reflection of reality (Psych Wiki). Gender stereotypes are very influential; they affect

conceptualizations of women and men and establish social categories for gender.

These categories represent what people think, and even when beliefs vary from

reality, the beliefs can be very powerful forces in judgments of self and others.

Therefore, the history, structure and function of stereotypes are important topics in

understanding the impact of gender on people’s lives (Brannon, 2000.p160).

I.2.4. Function of Gender Stereotypes

Stereotypes were believed to be a way in which people in positions of power

maintain control over others (Johnson, P. 1976.p32). Recently, researchers have argued

that stereotypes exist to help the mind navigate through a complex and contradictory

environment (Hamilton, D., & Sherman, J, 1994.p1). In simpler words, stereotypes

help making sense of the world and can be relied on to help evaluate ambiguities and

bring deliberations to closure (www.PsychWiki.com). Moreover, stereotypes work

and function as motivational processes (Blanton, Crocker, & Miller, 2000.p36). For

Brannon, there is another function of stereotypes termed as “stereotype threat’’

,meaning that negative stereotypes threaten and impact self-concept, and the threat of


Page 7

being negatively stereotyped can be a permanent factor exposing a 2person to tension

and anxiety , and decreases his or her social performance (2000.p159).

I.2.5. Gender Stereotypes and Culture

Culture for Triandis (1989, p96) can be traited as individualistic versus

collectivistic or independent versus interdependent (Marcus and Kitayama,

1991.p98). Individualistic/independent cultures or societies support autonomy,

individuality and self-reliance; whereas collectivistic/interdependent societies

endorse and emphasize social embededness and communal goals (Hofstede, 1980;

Marcus and Kitayama, 1991; Schwartz, 1994; Triandis, 1989). The content of gender

stereotypes turn on the dimension of independence /interdependence; women are

stereotypes as interdependent and communal; whereas men are stereotyped as

independent and agentic (Eagley and Steffen, 1984; Spence and Helmreich, 1978).

These stereotypes impact negatively on men’s and women’s important life outcomes

(Cuddy, Fisk and Glick ,2004.p 60).Therefore, the contents of gender stereotypes are

culturally shaped and accepted as pervasive and universal( Heilman ,2001.p57) , and

endorsed by both men and women ( Cuddy , Fisk and Glick,2007.p92) and universal

across cultures (William and Best,1990). So, given that men as group possessing

higher status in every nation in the world ( United Nation,1990), and that higher

status groups tend to be viewed as possessing more of whatever skills their society

most value ( Ridgeway,2001.p57); gender stereotypes and cultural values go hand in

hand and seem to align. That is to say that cultures which appreciate more

independence and patriarchal system are automatically likely to sort the contents of

gender stereotypes supporting and sustaining independence and vice versa

(Ridgeway, 2001.p57).

2 Stereotype threat a phenomenon that occurs in situations in which the presences of negative stereotypes affect the

performance of those to whom the stereotype applies( Brannon,2000.p160).


Page 8

I.2.6. Gender Stereotypes and Gender Roles

For Brannon gender stereotypes are composed of beliefs about the

psychological traits and the activities appropriate to men and women; but Gender

roles are defined by behaviours (2000.p160). He adds that the concepts of gender

role and gender stereotype tend to be related (Brannon, 2000.p160). When people

associate a pattern of behavior with either women or men, they may Passover

individual variations and exceptions and come to believe that the behaviour is

unescapable associated with one gender but not the other. Therefore, gender roles are

seen as the furnituring material for gender stereotypes (Brannon, 2000. P160).

According to psychologists such as Sandra Bem (9), gender polarization often

creates an artificial gap between women and men and gender roles that are very

difficult to change in time (Isabella Crespi,p1). For B. Baily(2012, S9) gender roles

and stereotypes are the pillars of gender socialization, through which expectations,

roles, social norms and space are prescribed and assigned for male and female

identity. She adds and asserts that, by virtue of living in a social world, individuals

learn informally the appropriate or expected gendered behavior for their sex.

Individuals can accept or resist traditional gender roles in their own perspective

(2012, S 10). Given that gender roles are a powerful means of social organization

impacting many aspects of society; therefore, individuals inevitably internalize

conventional and stereotypic gender roles, regardless of their particular chosen

gender, and develop their sense of gender in the face of strong messaging about the

correct gender role for their perceived body (B. Baily, 2012. S 10). To continue, B.

Baily (2012, S 10) stresses that the general repetition of suitable gendered behaviour

and gender roles serve to fix the belief that this is the way things are, the way they

have always been, and will be.

Moreover, Gender roles can be described as social rules and standards

determining and deciding different interests, responsibilities, opportunities,

limitations, and behaviours for men and women (B. Baily 2012, S11). Egley (1987)

added as well that gender stereotypes are closely linked to traditional gender roles

and power inequalities between men and women. Besides that, Parson (1956a) as

well acknowledged that the feminine role is defined only within family circle


Page 9

whereas the masculine role is more complex and defuse for the reason that it is

related to both family and outside the family.

As a closing statement, B. Baily (2012, S 11) states that gender roles shape and

construct the various parts that individuals play through their lives, impacting aspects

of life and conveying the false message that the normativeness is natural.

1.2.7. Gender Stereotypes and Gender Ideologies

I.2.7.1 What is Ideology?

The notion of ideology was first invented by French philosopher Destutt de

Tracy at the end of the 18th century. It is widely used in politics and seen as a system

of beliefs (Teun A. van Dijk, 2000.p 6). In simpler words, ideology has something to

do with system of ideas, and especially with the social, political or religious ideas

shared by a social group or movement such as sexism and androcentricism which are

seen as best examples of wide-spreading ideologies(T. A Van Dijk, 2001, p6).

Sexism as an ideology is defined as a prejudiced attitude or discriminatory behaviour

based on the inferiority of women as social group (Cameron, 1977, p.340). For

Lipstiz .Bem (1993.p 3) androcentricism was first articulated in the early twentieth

century by Charlotte Perkins Gilman who mentioned in his ‘’ The Man-Made

World or Our Androcentric Culture’’ (1911/1971) that:

all our human scheme of things rests on the same tacit assumption;

man being held the human type; woman a sort of accompaniment

and subordinate assistant, merely essential to the making of

people. She has held always the place of a preposition in relation

to man. She has always been considered above him or below him,

before him, behind him, beside him, a wholly relative existence--

".(pp. 20-22).

Androcentricism , as enunciated by Perkins, is all about a belief that human

culture is purely males-made; meaning that males are privileged to be the norm and

women are only sort of accompaniment. The concept of androcentricism is defined

and clarified by Sandra Lipstiz as the privileging of males, male dominance and the

male perspective (1993.p3). That is to say treating males as the main characters in


Page 10

the drama of human life around whom all action revolves and through whose eyes of

reality is to be interpreted. Whereas females are treated as the peripheral or marginal

characters in the drama of human life whose purpose for being is defined only in

relation to the main or male character (1993.p3).

Gender ideology according to Pastor (1998) is a historical construction whose

meaning stems from each culture or context and is the surface on which different

meanings are given to the sexes (Joaquin U. and Edgardo E, 2013.p41). In this way

societies label women and men into stereotypes that seem immovable, building

systems of beliefs about masculinity and femininity resulting in fixing certain types

of activities appropriate to men and women (Joaquin U. and Edgardo E. 2013.p

41).Gender stereotypes are closely linked with and support gender ideologies if they

are seen as ideological prescriptions for behaviour. Gender stereotypes linked to

gender ideologies reproduce naturalized gender differences. In doing so, they

function to sustain hegemonic male dominance (Androcentricism) and female

subordination (Jose Santaemilia, 2003.p30-31). Evidently, women’s gender ideology

is seen and viewed against the backdrop of patriarchy, which enables men to

dominate women; and there is no denying to the fact that women are culturally

dominated and tend to follow traditional ideology .women’s ideology is affected by

the patriarchal ideology ; therefore, women’s gender ideology, regardless their

privileged rights is , is constrained by patriarchal ideology that gives the priority to

the masculine over the feminine in almost all environments( Naved,1994;Hashimi et

al,1996. P 121-155).

I.3. Section two: Critical Discourse Analysis Perspective

I.3.1. Discourse and Discourse Analysis

Discourse is a product of society and at the same time a dynamic and changing

force that constantly influences and reconstructs social practices and values, either

positively or negatively (Fatemah Perham, 2013, p1) .Discourse can as well be seen

as a form of language use, and discourse analysis (DA) as the analytical frame work

which was created for the purpose of studying actual text and talk in the

communicative context. Fitch (2005) believes that the early DA focused mainly on

the internal structure of texts (Forough R, Mohammad J. R, 2011.p107). He adds also

that DA does not have a rigid frame work; but always seen as a general methodology


Page 11

or theory linked to social power(Forough R, Mohammad J. R, 2011.p107). For Fitch

(2005) DA has different method of analysis. Some discourse analysts tend to analyze

texts (textual and verbal) in terms of their grammatical structures. Other discourse

analysts may have no specific procedure of rigorous analysis. Instead, they search for

patterns of language use that may be linked to social or power structure and

ideological colorings. This is another branch of DA called CDA: Critical Discourse

Analysis (Forough R, Mohammad J.R, 2011.p108).

I.3.2. What is CDA? Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical discourse analysis is heavily based upon Halliday’s systemic-functional

linguistics (Philip Strazey, 2011.p905), and the critical linguistic approach drawn

from the work led by Roger Fowler in 1970s (Andrew J. L, 2008.p4). According to

van Dijk (1998a), CDA is a field that is concerned with studying and analyzing

written and spoken texts to reveal the discursive source of power, dominance,

inequality and bias. It examines how these discursive sources are maintained and

reproduced within specific social, political, and historical contexts (Jaffer She.p1).

Likewise, Fairclough (1993) defines CDA as follows:

Discourse analysis aims to systematically explore often opaque

relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive

practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural

structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such

practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically

shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to

explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse

and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony (Allan

Davies and Catherine, E. p.2004.p 135).

Critical discourse analysis approaches discourse analytically in order to illustrate

how social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced and

resisted through text and talk (Deborah Sch, Deborah T and Heidi E. Hamilton,

2011.p352). In F. Perham’s words, Fairclough and Wodak (1997) see and view that

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) addresses social problems and regards power

relations to be discursive (in Van Dijk, 2008b, p.86). Fairclough explains that one of


Page 12

the objectives of critical discourse analysis is "helping people to see the extent to

which their language does rest upon common-sense assumptions, and the ways in

which these common-sense assumptions can be ideologically shaped by relations of

power (2013. p1). For Aine MC (2010.p84), In critical analysis of discourse the

analysts take explicit positions and attempt to expose and ultimately resist social

inequality (Van Dijk, 2008b. p85). In other words, CDA lights up ways in which the

dominant forces in a society construct versions of reality that favor their own

interests and thereby try to encourage the victims of such dominant discourses to

resist and transform their lives (Foucault, 2000).

For F. Perham gender differences in talk can as well be studied in general

perspective in terms of “ powerful” and “powerless” speech(Van Dijk,2008.p44);

and therefore analyzed from Critical Discourse Analysis perspective. The joint

between language and gender provides a rich and fertile ground for analyzing how

power is created in discourse (2013, p140). Kamel H.S states that CDA is defined by

Scollon (2011) as a program of social analysis that critically analyses discourse

(2012, p65).

I.3.3. Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG)

Halliday’s systemic functional grammar being as a basis and the backbone of

Critical Discourse Analysis has been used by critical discourse analysts in analyzing

text’s structure (Diana Kelpert, p161). For Diana, It is called systemic for the sense

that individuals have alternative choices to produce linguistic utterances and texts,

and the system is what provides and connects the notion of choice in language and

grammar which is seen as the system offering a variety of options and involving

other specific structured and lexical choices. It is called functional because and due

to the variety of purposes language is used for (p161). Diana adds as well in Suzan’s

words that language functions as making meaning by choosing , being influenced by

the social and cultural context(p161).

Halliday’s systemic functional grammar, according to Diana has inspired

critical analysts for the statement that Halliday made that the context of a particular

situation is ordered in three major categories being: field, tenor and mode,

corresponding to the ideational, interpersonal and textual components (p162).

According to Diana, Halliday (1994) asserts that language has triangular function:

Ideational, interpersonal and textual through which meanings are made and


Page 13

represented (p162). The former function allows language users to delegate their

world experience lexicogrammatically. The interpersonal function refers to the way

speakers and listeners interact. The textual function is concerned with the

organization and cohesion of situations (Diana K. p162). According to Fairclough

(1992. p65), Halliday’s textual function enables a coherent connection of parts of

texts taking situations as given themes (Diana K. p162). So, the Systemic Functional

Grammar pioneered by Halliday plays as a firm ground inspiring the leadings figures

and founders of Critical Discourse Analysis such as Fairclough and Van Dijk.

I.3.4. Fairclough’s Contribution to CDA

As stated by Forough R. and Mohammed J., Fairclough is famous for his

contribution to the field of CDA most significantly. His model is believed to be the

core section of the entire field of CDA, because he was the first to create a theoretical

framework, which provided guidelines for future CDA research (2011.p108). They

add that Fairclough’s belief that the language is an irreducible part of social life is the

main part of his framework. The dialectic relation between language and social

reality is realized through social events (texts), social practices (orders of discourse)

and social structures (2011.p109). For Forough R. and Mohammed J. (2011.p109)

Fairclough attempts to uncover ideological and power patterns in texts in his research

method of analysis. They also assert that Fairclough (1989) is the only CDA scholar

who defines the relationship between power and language (social power and

ideology) in his research.

Fairclough provides a three-dimensional framework for the analysis of text

and discourse: 1) the linguistic description of the formal properties of the text; 2) the

interpretation of the relationship between the discursive processes/interaction and the

text, where text is the end product of a process of text production and as a resource in

the process of text interpretation and lastly, 3) the explanation of the relationship

between discourse and social and cultural reality( Forough R. and Mohammed

J.,2011.p109). They as well mention that Fairclough’s (1989) analysis has gone

beyond the “whatness” of the text description towards the “how” and “whyness” of

the text interpretation and explanation. There are certain underlying assumptions

behind certain selections of discourse. These assumptions are never value-free and


Page 14

innocent; rather they are ideologically driven and motivated. By studying the forms

of the language, we can discover the social processes and also the specific ideology

embedded in them. This leads to the exploration of power relations that exist in the

society or community. He believes in a “hidden agenda”. (2011.p109).

I.3.5. Van Dijk‘s Approach to CDA

According to R. Forough and J. Mohammed (2011.p109), Teun A. Van Dijk as

another leading figure in CDA is famous for his great contribution and endeavor in

CDA, combining cognitive psychology and CDA to uncover how ideological

structures are hidden in people’s memory. R. Forough and J. Mohammed

(2011.p109) mention that Van Dijk sees CDA from his own perspective as follows

“Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is obviously not homogenous model, nor a school or a

paradigm; but at most a shared perspective on doing linguistics, semiotics or discourse

analysis” (1993:131).He continues defining CDA as follows:

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research

that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality

are enacted, reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political

context. With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit

position, and thus want to understand, expose and ultimately resist social

inequality. (Van Dijk, 2001:352).

In other words, Critical Discourse Analysis aims at critically detecting

how social power in its all sorts is discursively reproduced and resisted within

discourse. Furthermore, Critical Discourse Analysis is, in the words of Caroline

Coffin (2001.p99), “An approach to language analysis which concerns itself with

issues of language, power and ideology” .This latter is shared by Van Dijk for the

statement that it rejects the study of language as independent from social studies; but

rather focuses on language as a form of social practice and seeks to examine how

discourse is shaped by relations of power and ideology, and how discourse actively

plays a role in shaping these relations( Fairclough and wodak,1997.p258).

According to R. Forough and J. Mohammed (2011), Van Dijk (1997) asserts that

CDA aims at providing a thorough description, explanation and critique of the


Page 15

textual strategies writers use to naturalizes discourses which in turn are made to

appear common sense and apolitical (p108). Van Dijk made a golden touch on CDA

dealing with ideologies and discourse. As proposed by Van Dijk, ideology is defined

in terms of the fundamental cognitive beliefs that are at the basis of the social

representation shared by the members of a group (2000.p7). He continues to say that

people may have ideological racist or sexist beliefs that are at the basis of racist and

sexist prejudices shared by the members in their groups, and that condition their

discourses and other social practices; meaning that ideologies shape and dictate the

way members of a certain group produce their discourses(talk, text)(Van Dijk,2000).

Moreover, in Van Dijk’s words, ideologies can be linked with discourse, and hence

with the ways they are discursively reproduced and as well as with the ways

members of a group represent and reproduce their social position and conditions in

their social cognitions and discourses. He points out as well that ideologies control

social representations of groups, the social practices and discourses of their members

(2000).

I.3.6. Ideology and Discourse

For Van Dijk (2000, 9), language use and discourse as social practices

influenced ideologies, and they in turn also influence how we acquire , learn and

change ideologies. He adds as well that much of our discourses, especially when

speaking or writing as members of groups, express ideologically based opinions; that

is to say, according to Van Dijk (2000), we learn most of our ideological ideas by

reading and listening to other group members, starting with our parents and peers.

Later we learn ideologies by watching television, reading text books at school, and

advertising. Van Dijk (2000) stresses this latter point as follows:

“We shall pay special attention to these discursive dimensions of

ideologies. We want to know how ideologies may be expressed (or

concealed) in discourse and how ideologies may thus also be

reproduced in society.” .p9

In simpler words, ideologies that are smuggled implicitly or explicitly in discourse

should be detected and given too much attention.


Page 16

Van Dijk(2000) asserts that discourses may be heavily loaded implicitly with

ideologies as stated as follows“… in other words, there may be a wide gap between the

abstract, general ideologies on the one hand, and how people produce and understand

discourse or engage in other social practices on the other hand”.( Van Dijk,2000.p18). In

Van Dijk’s words, attitudes in all sorts, while being forms of social cognition, may

embody ideological propositions (2000. p19). To continue, for Van Dijk (2000.p 31)

discourse is one critical form of everyday interaction being imbued by ideologies.

Women and men when verbally interacting may exhibit and expose various gender

ideologies such as those of sexism and feminism. He adds also that people as social

groups while verbally interacting may bring to bear their ideologies i.e. men may

violate and discriminate against women who, as Van Dijk states, are being

ideologically discriminated by the daily tasks of their husbands. Van Dijk

summarizes this as “sexist ideologies imbue virtually all aspects of the everyday

interaction between women and men” (2000. p32).

Van Dijk (2000) stresses the idea that ideologies are bi-functional having

negative and positive functions (p7). The negative side of ideologies is stated by Van

Dijk that ideologies are negative in essence, exploited for domination and

polarization; however, they can be used for noble purposes and function as

legitimization of dominance. That is to say, in Van Dijk’s words, that ideologies

have positive functions such as of those of feminism and anti-sexist seen as systems

that sustain and legitimize opposition and resist against dominance and social

inequality (2000.p7-8).

I.3.7. Van Dijk’s Framework

Forough and Mohammed (2011.p109) state that Van Dijk (1997), as a

leading figure in CDA, asserts that the main point of the analysis is to expose and

show how various ideologies are expressed in various kinds of structures. So for that,

Van Dijk has provided and introduced some categories called “Categories of

Ideological Analysis” which he believes to be important in doing CDA. Some of

these categories are described below:

Actor description (meaning): Ideologies will determine the way actors are

described in discourse. For Van Dijk(2000.p 62), discourse on people involves


Page 17

different and various types of actor descriptions and ideologies decide the way

actors are described in discourse as a strategy of positive self-presentation and

negative other-presentation. He adds as well that the way others (actors) are

described may be flagrantly sexist or feminist. Moreover, Van Dijk stresses the

idea that descriptions are never neutral; but contain semantic, rhetorical and

argumentative functions in the expression of opinions and standpoints (2000.p

62).

Categorization (meaning): Generally, people tend to categorize other people

based on their sex, race, and affiliation. Van Dijk states that psychologically

speaking, people categorize other people who are lexically distinguished and

categorized with attributing negative characteristics (2000.p64).

Comparison (meaning, argumentation): people grouped according to their sex

can be negatively or positively compared (Van Dijk, 2000.p65). He believes as

well that comparisons unlike other categories occur when members of a given

group compare themselves with the others implying the negative score of the out-

group (Others) on the criteria of the comparison and this is namely and mainly

seen in sexist talk and texts.

Disclaimers (meaning): According to Van Dijk (2000.p 67), disclaimers are the

ideological base of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation.

Disclaimers, as Van Dijk states, come in many types and seen as a well-known

combination of the ideologically based strategy of positive self-presentation and

negative other-presentation.

Generalization (meaning, argumentation): Generalization is a powerful move

in argumentation for ideological reasons and purposes (Van Dijk, 2000. p71-72).

Van Dijk sees that generalizations abort the idea of exceptionality and support

the typicality and the representation of negative characteristics, events and

actions by applying standard expressions and linguistics features such quantifiers.

Hyperbole (rhetoric): For Van Dijk (2000.p73) hyperboles are semantic

rhetorical devices used for exaggerating and enhancing meaning. They are used

as well for strategic purposes such as positive self-presentation and negative

other-presentation. In sexist debates, bad actions or properties of the others are

expressed in hyperbolic terms by implying the use of metaphors.


Page 18

Irony (rhetoric): Accusations are more effective in the forms of irony than when

they are stated directly (Van Dijk, 2000. p 76).

I.4. Conclusion

This partitioned chapter is mainly concerned with theories and definitions about

‘’ gender stereotype’’ and Critical Discourse Analysis. The first section deals with

the firm relationship with gender stereotype, culture, gender roles, and gender

theories. The second section deals with CDA and some significant concepts related

to it including one of CDA frameworks done by some leading figures in CDA such

as Van Dijk.

Chapter Two Methodology and Data Analysis

Page 19

II.1. Introduction

The current chapter is mainly concerned with the investigation of the hypotheses

on the basis of data collected. It discusses the sampling and the data collection, the

means of research, the data analysis. In this practical part, participants are asked to

answer the questionnaire through which we want to examine the participants’

knowledge about and attitudes towards the term ‘’gender stereotype’’, and their

reflections on some common Algerian gender stereotypes selected on purpose. The

participant’s answers will go under a critical analysis by using Van Dijk framework

(see chapter 1.p16) to detect some hidden ideological agenda in their answers.

II.2. Description of the Sample

Since attitudes are concerned with people’s feelings and positions towards certain

social concepts such as stereotypes and mainly gender stereotypes; so the targeted

population is automatically large and time consuming. For the purpose to narrow-

down the targeted population and save time, we limited our selected population by

choosing a setting which is the Department of English University of Mostaganem in

which a representing sample of 20 participants (10 males and 10 females between the

age of 20-25/25-30) were chosen for the reason of having a common language, the

English language in which the questionnaire was written. The participants were

picked up randomly with, of course, taking gender into consideration.

II.3. Methods of Data Collection

For the purpose and sake to collect data we used only method which is the

questionnaire seen as a common method for data collection. The questionnaire we

use consists of five predetermined questions with distinct objectives going along with

the objectives and aims of our study.

II.3.1 Description of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire is designed for the purpose to gather data about people’s

attitudes towards gender stereotypes. The questionnaire is composed of four subtitled

questions handed-down randomly to the sample chosen.


Page 20

We chose a sample of 10 participants from the Department of English University

of Mostaganem to avoid large sampling which is time consuming and to save time

collecting more valid data. The chosen sample is composed of 10 participants (5

males and 5 females between the age of 20-25 and 25-30) with taking gender into

account. The participants were asked to answer the questionnaire questions

structured and divided into three main parts being: personal information about the

informants such as their sex and age, their knowledge about the terms ‘’stereotype’’

and “’’gender stereotypes’’, participants’ attitudes towards the term ‘’gender

stereotype’’ in general, and more precisely towards some purposefully chosen

common Algerian gender stereotypes.

II.4.the Analysis of the Questionnaire

Question 01: Participants ‘gender

This question is asked mainly for the sake to see if girls have more

resisting attitudes than boys do, and to find out and dig for possible hidden

ideological agenda used by both males and females detected in their answers. The

following table shows the number:

Options Number Percentage Total

Males

05

50%

100%

Females

05

50%

Table II.1: participants’ gender.

Figure II.1: participants’ gender

Gender

Males 50%

Females 50%


Page 21

As both table and graphic show and thanks to the structured questionnaire used

we had a parallel number of both males and females.

Question 02: Participants’ age

We have asked this question to know and see whether age plays an

important role in influencing and changing people’s attitudes towards gender

stereotypes; in other words, age may play a crucial role as a social factor impacting

people’s views and positions towards certain social phenomena such as gender

stereotypes. The table below shows the results:

Age Number Percentage

20-25 10 100%

25-30 0 0%

Table II.2: Participants’ age

Figure II.2: Participants’ age

As the table and graphic show; we notice that all participants’ age is between 20-

25 meaning that all participants are young; so that there is no interfering factor

impacting both the analysis and findings.

Question 03: Do you know the term “stereotype”?

This question aims at finding if participants have knowledge about the term

“stereotype”. The participants are asked to say whether they know the term

mentioned above and to give a definition for the term in case their first answer is

positive(yes). The following table shows the result:

Age

20-25

25-30


Page 22

Options Number Percentage

yes 10 100%

No 0 0%

Table II.3: Participants’ knowledge

Figure II.3: Participants’ knowledge

As far as the results obtained we notice that all the participants know about the

term “stereotype”. And from the definitions provided by the participants for the term

we found out that they gave common words defining the term already mentioned.

The participants’ words taken from their answers of the third questions are as

follows:

Prejudgement, judgements, unproved, assumption, generalization.

This selection of words made by the participants show that they do have a firm

knowledge about the term “stereotype”.

Question 04: Do you know the term “gender stereotype”?

This question was asked mainly to find out whether informants know about the

term “gender stereotype” or not. The participants were asked also to define the term

in case their first answer was positive (yes). The following table shows the results:

100%

0%

knowledge

yes

No


Page 23

Options Number Percentage

Yes 10 100%

No 0 /

Table II.4: participants’ knowledge about the term “gender stereotype”.

Figure II.4: participants’ knowledge about the term “gender stereotype”

As far as the results obtained, we noticed that since the participants had

knowledge about the term “stereotype”; so their answers about their knowledge

about the term “gender stereotype” were automatically positive ( yes). Besides that,

all participants shared common words defining the term and the words shared are as

follows:

(Prejudgement about men and women, generalizations of men and women, unfair

characteristics given to both men and women).

Question 05: What do you think about “gender stereotype”?

This question is asked for the purpose to investigate and assess participants’

attitudes towards the term “gender stereotype”. Participants in this question are asked

to give their views and opinions about the term.

From the participants’ various answers we have found out and noticed that the

informants show and expose strong and resisting positions towards the term “gender

stereotype” summed up in the following selection of words made by the informants :

( Not valid, alert misunderstanding, not fair, not true, splitting, creating boundaries,

prescriptive).

Yes No 0%


Page 24

Question 05: Do you agree on the following Algerian common gender

stereotypes?

In this last question informants were asked to show if they agree or not on the

Algerian gender stereotypes chosen on purpose, and required as well to justify their

answers which will be critically analyzed using Van Dijk’s framework of analysis to

dig and look for hidden ideologies in general and gender ideologies in particular such

as sexism and androcentricism seen as spreading gender ideologies.

This question was asked to see and find out whether participants have supportive

or resisting attitudes towards the purposefully chosen Algerian common gender

stereotypes, and to see whether their verbal attitudes reflect some implied gender

ideologies.

From table 2.5 shown below we notice a very interesting remark which does give

evidence to taking gender into account. The gender stereotypes chosen, and as it is

obvious in the table, have received various positions from both male and female

participants.

So as table 2.5 shows, the first gender stereotype delegating men has received

different positions from both male and female informant. Since this gender

stereotype represent only men ; so 60% of male participants agree and the 40%

disagree; whereas 80% of female informants show an agreement on the first gender

stereotype which is rejected by the remaining 20%. The second gender stereotype

concerning women, as it is shown in the table, receives an agreement from 80% of

male participants, but only 20% of them disagree; as against this, 60% of female

informants accept and the remaining 40% disagree; which is the case with the third

gender stereotype representing women only.

The fourth gender stereotype talking about both men and women has received a

strong disagreement from 100% of male participants; whereas female participants

have splitting positions, 80% of them accept and the remaining 20% show a

rejection. The fifth one, as it is clearly exposed in the table, has received various

positions, 60% of male informants accept it and the rest 40% stand against it; but

female informants have spitted into 80% being with and 20% being against. The


Page 25

sixth gender stereotype that is linked with gender role celebrating men has welcomed

a strong approval and acceptance from the whole 100% of the male participants and

90% of the female ones; but only 10% of them are against.

TableII.5: Participants’ attitudes towards the chosen Algerian gender stereotypes.

The next gender stereotype as table 2.5 that is related to gender role is strongly

accepted as well as by the whole 100% of both male and female participants. The

eighth gender stereotype, as the table shows, has received an agreement from 80% of

both male and female informants; but the remaining 20% have disagreed. The gender

Common Algerian gendre stereotypes

Participants’ positions

Total %

Males Females 100%

With Against With Against

Men are physically strong but emotionally weak.

3

2

4

1

Women are emotionally strong but physically weak.

4

1

3

2

Women are materialistic. 4

1

3

2

Women do not swear and men never gossip. 0

5

3

2

Women are talkative and men are silent. 3

2

4

1

Men make better political leader than women do.

5

0

5

0

Women‘s most important task is caring for their children.

5

0

5

0

Staying at home women are happier than working ones.

4

1

4

1

Working women are trouble-makers. 5

0

3

2

Men are street owners par excellence; whereas women are housekeepers par default.

5

0

3

2


Page 26

stereotype that follows welcomes also an acceptance from 80% of both male and

female informants, and a rejection from 20% of both of them. The ninth gender

stereotype related as well to gender role condemning women , as we see in the table,

has received a 100% of male participants’ agreement; but 60% of female informants

accept and the remaining 40% reject it. And the same case with the last gender

stereotype.

As we see in the table, most of male participants agreed on and showed strong

sustaining and supportive positions towards the chosen gender stereotypes which

represent them in a positive way , and to the ones that represent females in a negative

way as well ; but they disagreed and exposed resisting attitudes towards the gender

stereotypes representing them negatively. As against this, nearly most of female

informants, unlike male, had different views and attitudes. Female informants, as it is

shown in the table, agreed almost on all the chosen gender stereotypes, showing no

resistance even to the ones representing them in a negative way, and what looks

questionable is that most of female informants agreed on the gender stereotypes

celebrating males; meaning that female informants have no resisting positions

towards gender stereotypes presenting themselves negatively, and that is explicitly

detected and exposed in their common linguistic choices which are summed up in the

following examples:

Yes, women are emotionally strong.

Women are materialistic.

Yes women do gossip.

We as women like to talk about everything.

We as women are born to stay at home.

Yes for sure working women are trouble makers.

Women are physically too weak.

From the examples chosen above made by some female participants, we notice

that female participants show a strong submissive verbal positions towards the

chosen common Algerian gender stereotypes. So Given that what Halliday believes

that truth is shaped by wording; we can say that female participants here do not only

agree on the gender stereotypes ; but they welcome in a way or another the gender


Page 27

roles ascribed and prescribed to them as social members in a highly stereotypical

society.

Both male and female informants in this last question were asked to justify their

yes or no answers, and their written justifications went under a critical study and

analysis using Van Dijk’s framework in an attempt to look for possible hidden

ideological agenda.

II.4.2. Van Dijk’s framework

Van Dijk has introduced to Critical discourse analysis a host of categories to

help find and detect some hidden ideologies in structures in general. We have

adopted Van Dijk’s well known framework to expose and divulge some hidden

gender ideologies in particular expressed consciously and discreetly by both male

and female participants in their written answers expressing their attitudes towards the

chosen gender stereotypes.

After having applied and followed Van Dijk’s framework (see chapter 1; section

2 , p16-17 ); we have found out the following results :

Actor description: for Van Dijk (1997), the way actors are described is shaped and

dictated by ideologies. And this is salient and shown in the following sentences made

by some male participants:

Women are really materialistic, no exception.

Obviously, second gender creatures are so talkative.

Logically, women are housekeepers by nature.

We the men are stable and rational; but women are unstable and subjective.

So, from the above examples chosen we see that the male participants described

women in a very negative way semantically speaking by using some negative words

such as adjectives and adverbs i.e. really, obviously, second gender creatures,

logically, unstable and subjective. Yet, the male participants pictured and described

themselves in a very positive way revealing a strong sense of sexism and

androcentricism as two spreading gender ideologies. So from the sentences chosen


Page 28

we noticed a sense of sexism showing too much hatred for women and preserving

men’s status; in other words, preserving androcentricism in the Algerian society.

Categorization: Van Dijk (1997) states that ideologies always decide and shape the

way people or groups classify and categorize other people. In our case we have two

biologically different groups being males and females ideologically categorizing

each other in the following examples:

Of course, women as second gender are weak and fragile.

Definitely, women are so weak.

For sure, the street is tough for women as females.

Since they are women and weak, they are not welcomed in the world of politics.

Thanks to the above sentences and phrases chosen from the male participants

’answers; we found out that the male informants did categorize women according to

their sex and biological endowment describing them as weak and fragile, and, of

course, putting themselves in a nice frame and image representing themselves

positively showing a strong sense of sexism and maintaining androcentricism.

Comparison: broadly speaking, people grouped according to their sex can be

negatively or positively compared revealing of course an ideology (Van Dijk, 1997).

This latter is remarkably shown in the following sentences :

Women are weaker than us, the men.

We the men are much stronger than women.

So, from the examples above it is noticeable that the male participants worded

themselves as “The men” and compared themselves in a better way to women, who

were negatively represented and compared due, of course, to their sex.

Disclaimers: Van Dijk believes that disclaimers are the ideological base of

positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation. The following examples

show some disclaimers used by some male informants in their discourses:


Page 29

Well, we are the men never gossip and have no idea about women; but for me women

do gossip and swear.

I have nothing against women but they are not qualified to be political leaders.

In the above sentences, male participants started their first clauses denying

adverse feelings or sexism against women; but their second clauses carried very

negative things about women. The negation used in the first clauses served as a form

of positive self-presentation, and of course for presenting women in a negative

image.

Generalization: According to Van Dijk, generalization and over-generalization of

negative acts and events are the basis of stereotyping and prejudice with of course

keeping one’s face clean as a part of positive self-presentation. This latter is crystal

clear in the following examples:

All women are materialistic.

All women are talkative and they always gossip everywhere.

Women talk everywhere.

The above sentences taken from male participants’ answers show a great use of

quantifiers for nouns( all), or expression of time and place (always, everywhere)

generalizing negative acts as women’s exclusive acts such as being talkative. Male

participants in the above sentences intended to keep themselves safe and clean as a

form of self positive-presentation for ideological reasons and purposes.

Hyperbole: Hyperboles, for Van Dijk, are semantic rhetorical devices used for the

enhancement for meaning and for ideological purposes; in other words, they are used

as a strategy of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation implied by

the use of metaphors. In our scientific paper we encounter such use of hyperboles

and here are two characteristic examples:

Women’s mouths are gushing water.

Women are as noisy as cackling chickens.


Page 30

As we see in the above sentences, using simile and comparing women to both

cackling chickens and gushing river mean only that women are talkative. Besides,

resembling women to gushing river for having something in common which is

flowing without stopping as a metaphor, and comparing women to cackling chicken

were both used and implied to present women in a negative way showing a serious

and severe sense of sexism as a gender ideology.

Irony: Van Dijk believes that accusations may be more effective when stated

indirectly using irony than when stated directly. In our case male participants used

some ironic expressions which are ideologically determined ,and The following

examples show that:

Women do lipsticks to make their lips slippery.

…..that is why they do lipstick for not having friction while talking

Poor women never gossip; but they just bubble.

The world would be perfect with a political female leader.

The above examples and sentences written by male participants contain too many

sarcastic expressions as an indirect way to foul women’s image and accuse them as

being talkative and not illegible to be political leaders. The irony used and implied in

the examples was used by male informants to express sexism indirectly and for

preserving androcentricism meaning that the world of politics is a men’s world.

II.5. Conclusion

In summary, this chapter has been devoted to describing both the sample chosen

and the questionnaire set for obtaining data, and the methodology adopted for this

study. It has covered as well the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data

obtained by the questionnaire, and the critical analysis using Van Dijk‘s framework

to look for ideologies hidden in discourse.

Chapter Three Interpretation and Discussion

Page 31

III.1. Introduction

This chapter is based on the discussion and interpretation of the findings of our

data analysis, and it provides as well some suggestions, recommendations and why

not some possible solutions. The present chapter focuses also on testing our

hypotheses with an attempt to answer our research questions and see whether the

outcomes of the analysis do meet and confirm or hypotheses or not.

III.2. Discussion and Interpretation of the Findings

The first question: participants’ gender

Thanks to having used a structured questionnaire with predetermined

questions handed to already chosen participants in terms of number, by of course

following randomization; we have an identical number of both girls and boys. This

quantitative result has made the process of our research easy and handy, having no

interfering factor in our study.

The second question: Participants’ age

The question about participants’ age has been asked mainly to know and

discover whether age as a factor may intervene effecting and changing people’s

attitudes towards social phenomena such gender stereotypes in particular. Yet, as the

results show (see table 2.2 and graph 2.2 p), we have young participants between the

age 20-25; so luckily, there has been no interfering social or psychological factor

such as age in the study.

The third question: Participants’ Knowledge about the Term

“Stereotype”

After having asked this question which is about participants’ knowledge

about the term “stereotype”, we have received astonishing answers from the

participants providing common words defining the term. So from their linguistic

choices, we have discovered that participants do have a firm knowledge about the

term already mentioned; meaning only that these participants may or must have dealt

with the term before, or since the participants are already social members living in a


Page 32

highly stereotypical society; they may have unconsciously acquired the term at any

stage of their lives.

The fourth question: Participants’ Knowledge about the Term

“gender stereotype”

After having discovered that all participants do have knowledge about

the term “stereotype”; we have automatically received the same answer for

this question. Participants, as the results show, have given and provided us

with some common words they chose while defining the term “gender

stereotype”, and all of them, as the results tell, have made the same linguistic

choices that shape truth about their knowledge about the term. They all share

that “gender stereotype” is defined, as quoted from their answers,

as:”prejudgement about men and women, generalizations of men’s and

women’s traits, unfair characteristics given to both men and women”.

The fifth question:

After having, firstly made sure that participants do have knowledge about

the term “gender stereotype”, and secondly asked them to give their views

and opinions towards the term mentioned above; it seems, as the results show,

that all participants have and reveal a strong resistance and rejection to the

term. This rejection and resistive attitudes are detected of course in the

participants’ careful linguistic choices shaping the truth about their attitudes

as the following words shared by the participants while expressing their

views: “not valid, alert understanding, not fair, not true, splitting, create

boundaries, prescriptive”. So, these linguistic choices such as adjectives and

verbs unveil that the participants in particular and people in general do have

resistive verbal attitudes towards this social phenomenon “gender

stereotype”, and this discovery goes hand in hand with our first hypothesis

saying that people may have resistive verbal attitudes towards “gender

stereotype”; yet, it is too early to confirm all the hypotheses.


Page 33

The sixth question:

Participants are given this question to show and express more their

attitudes towards the already chosen common gender stereotypes representing

both men and women in distinct and different way. As the quantitative

description and analysis show , we see that most and almost all the gender

stereotypes chosen have been strongly accepted and agreed on by almost all

the participants ; but specifically male participants have expressed a strong

agreement on the gender stereotypes representing them in a positive way and

on those that represent women negatively; but the male participants have

rejected and expressed a strong resistive attitudes towards the gender

stereotypes that represent them in a negative way . This latter consequently

results into refusing and changing the gender roles prescribed to people

according to their biological endowment.

As against this, the majority of female informants have exhibited a

remarkable acceptance and sustaining positions towards both gender

stereotypes representing them either negatively or positively. Besides that,

and as it is seen and noticed in the results, females show no resistance of any

kind to the gender stereotypes that celebrate only men. This latter remark tells

that since the female respondents have shown no resistance of any kind; so

they automatically accept and sustain the chosen gender stereotypes, and

consequently they warmly accept and sustain gender roles prescribed to them

in society. So the breakthrough we have made is that, generally speaking

people do have resistive verbal attitudes towards gender stereotypes as a

social phenomenon; but particularly speaking, people are of two genders men

and women, and as what we have come out with, men tend to go along with

the stereotypes that represent them positively and to the ones that represent

women negatively; but they stand against to the stereotypes that represent

both them negatively and women in a positive way.

On the other hand, the female respondents have shown no verbal

resistance to any of the gender stereotypes celebrating men and they do not


Page 34

even stand against to the ones that represent them negatively; but they instead

welcome and accept such negative gender stereotypes ; sequencing

automatically in engraving gender roles prescribed to them in society. This

latter raises another question being: why do women have such passive

sustaining verbal attitudes? , is it due to socialization or because of their

inferior social status in society?

The Results of CDA Analysis

Speaking about men’s verbal attitudes splitted and divided into being with and

against, and after having applied Van Dijk’s approach to participant’s answers, we

have found that men’s attitudes go beyond the shade of that. The male participants’

answers are loaded with ideologies in general and gender ideology in particular. As

far as the results show , males tend to display strong verbal attitudes towards both

gender stereotypes and gender roles , and this may be due to their valued social

status.

As a positive breakthrough, we found out that the male participants, as dictated

by the analysis, showed strong resistive verbal attitudes towards both gender

stereotypes and stereotypic gender roles. Besides that, males’ discoursed attitudes

were full of ideological agenda detected thanks to Van Dijk’s framework. The

critical analysis lied down that males tend to display gender ideologies in their

discourse to practice power over females and maintain the androcentric notion in

society. As against this, females exposed sustaining and submissive verbal attitudes

towards gender stereotypes, and that is logically and automatically means accepting

passively and engraving gender roles in society. Furthermore, females, regardless

their privilege rights to display gender ideologies, their discoursed attitudes were

empty and clean from any ideological agenda. This latter goes hand in hand with the

statement that women’s gender ideology, is constrained by patriarchal ideology that

gives the priority to the masculine over the feminine in almost all environments

(Naved, 1994; Hashimi et al, 1996. P 121-155). To add more, the androcentric world

led by males gives no denying to the fact that women are culturally dominated and

tend to follow traditional ideology (Naved, 1994).


Page 35

III.3. Recommendations

We recommend re-considering the issue that we have tackled to be

conducted again with choosing a large sample.

As a possible solution for this social phenomenon (gender stereotypes),

I go along with Egley’s words that gender stereotypes can change if the

social roles of men and women change; meaning, if women are

empowered they can change stereotypes in society.

In the light of the findings we have come up with concerning women’s

verbal attitudes and ideology, we would love to suggest another issue to

be scientifically studied under title:

“The Impact of the Social Inferiority of Women in Shaping their

Ideologies and Expressing their Attitudes towards Social Phenomena”

III.4. Limitations

In the highway of this research paper a host of obstacles and problems have been

faced.

1. Being a novice and an inexperienced researcher weighted

against me, and this may decrease the efficacy of my research.

2. Time played a major obstacle to me during my research.

3. Looking for an issue to work on was another bump to me in the

beginning.

4. The findings of this research cannot be theorized or standardized

for the reason that our research was conducted on a very limited

number of participants and context.

5. Motivation was another major obstacle to me.


Page 36

III.5. Conclusion

This chapter has covered both the discussion and interpretation of the findings

provided by the data analysis in an attempt to see whether our research questions

have been answered, and most importantly to verify our hypotheses. It has as well

mentioned some limitations encountered in the duration of our research and provided

some recommendations for further research and specifically to find solutions for the

issue that have been tackled, if possible.

General Conclusion

Page 37

Men and women are unwillingly asked to adopt, believe in and full fill

specific gender stereotypes that have been socially established. In the Algerian

context males and females are differently and unequally stereotyped and assumed to

have distinct characteristics in society resulting in adopting different gender roles

accordingly. Yet, males and females may have and expose internalizing attitudes

towards these rigid gender stereotypes and stereotypical roles. Critically speaking,

people (males/females) may voice and exhibit their verbal positions towards gender

stereotypes, reflect and reveal the implied ideologies (gender ideology), and

strengthen gender roles in society. So this study is put forward to investigate people’s

verbal attitudes towards gender stereotypes, whether sustaining, resisting and

possibly revealing some hidden ideologies. And to answer the questions being: Do

people, both male and female, have negative attitudes towards gender stereotypes?

And do their verbal attitudes unveil some ideologies?

Being a social member living in a highly stereotypical society was the main

motive and ground for conducting this research. Further, it was important to

emphasize that this issue has never been tackled before. Besides that, Critical

Discourse Analysis as a discipline was another motive to raise my awareness about

the possibility to critically analyze people’s verbal attitudes and stances for the

purpose of revealing and exposing hidden messages, intentions and social power.

Our paramount aim and objectives behind this research was to grasp people‘s

verbal attitudes towards gender stereotypes, To investigate and delve into whether

people‘s attitudes reflect and mirror into some ideologies (gender ideologies), and

whether people‘s attitudes support and strengthen gender roles in society.

Our research paper aim was to answer two main questions being: Do people

(male/female) have and show resistive verbal attitudes towards gender stereotypes?

And whether these verbal attitudes reflect some hidden ideologies. The above main

questions inspired us to assume that people (males/females) do have resistive verbal

attitudes towards gender stereotypes and roles ,with of course, revealing some gender

ideologies embodied in their discourse( verbal attitudes).

General Conclusion

Page 38

For the purpose to answer our major questions and verify the above hypotheses,

a structured questionnaire was used and analyzed consisting of six main questions as

a whole going in accordance with the main objectives of our research. This was

achieved by handing the questionnaire to a number of participants chosen at random

from the Department of English, university of Mostaganem as a setting. The

questions were about the participant’s gender, age, their knowledge about and

attitudes towards the term “stereotypes and gender stereotypes”. Participants were

asked to answer the main six questions by ticking the right answers, and they were

as well given space to express their attitudes towards the terms “stereotype and

gender stereotypes” in general and to the selected spreading Algerian gender

stereotypes in particular. A quantitative, qualitative and an analytical study was

conducted and applied on the data obtained from the participants. The analytical

study was applied on the data gathered by using Van Dijk‘s framework introduced to

Critical discourse analysis for the purpose to look for ideological agenda hidden in

the participants’ discourses.

Surprisingly our questions were fully answered and our hypotheses were

partially met and confirmed; for the reason that the breakthrough of the analysis

announced that females exposed sustaining and submissive verbal attitudes towards

gender stereotypes, and that is logically and automatically means accepting passively

and engraving gender roles win society. Furthermore, females, regardless their

privilege rights to display gender ideologies, their discoursed attitudes were empty

and clean from any ideological agenda. This latter goes hand in hand with the

statement that women’s gender ideology, is constrained by patriarchal ideology that

gives the priority to the masculine over the feminine in almost all environments

(Naved, 1994; Hashimi et al, 1996. P 121-155). On the other hand, as a positive

breakthrough, males, as dictated by the analysis, showed strong resistive verbal

attitudes towards both gender stereotypes and stereotypic gender roles. Besides that,

males’ discoursed attitudes were full of ideological agenda detected thanks to Van

Dijk’s framework. The critical analysis lied down that males tend to display gender

ideologies in their discourse to practice power over females and maintain the

androcentric notion in society.

The very first finding pushes the trigger for further research about the passivity

of women and why do they tend to show submissive sustaining attitudes towards

General Conclusion

Page 39

categorizing and polarizing gender stereotypes and stereotypic roles? Is this because

their inferior status in society or is it due to socialization? It is recommended to bear

in mind that this issue needs to be tackled in the near future, with of course

suggesting another issue being “the effect of the social inferiority of women in

shaping their attitudes towards social phenomena”. Yet, in spite of the reached

findings , we did face some obstacles in the process of our study such as the shortage

of time and the inexperience we have in doing scientific researches.

40

Bibliography

B.BAILY. "Gender Stereotypes: Institulising Social Gender Stereotypes as " Natural"."

Training Workshop for Management Committee. Bahamas: NGEP, 2012. 4-11.

BEM, SANDRA LIPSITZ. "The Lenses of Gender, Transforming the Debate on Sexual

inequality." New Haven, 1993. 3.

BEM, SANDRA LIPSTIZ. The Lenses of Gender. New Haven City: Yale University Press,

1993.

BRANNON. "The Stereotype Trap." Gender Stereotypes: Masculinity and Femininity (2000):

159-160.

CAMERON, C. "Sex-role Attitudes: Attitudes and Opinions." Engle Wood , NJ: Prentice

Hall, 1977. 339-340.

CATHERINE, ALAN DAVIES and. "The handbook of Applied Linguistics ." UK.London :

Black Well Publishing,108 cowleyRoad Oxford OX4,1JF, 2004. 135.

CRESPI, ISABELLA. "Socialization and Gender Roles within the Family: A Study on

Adolescents and their Parents in Great Britain." Milan, Italy: Department of Sociology

.Catholic University of Milan.Italy, n.d. 1.

CRESPI, ISABELLA. "Socialization and Gender Roles within the Family: A Study on

Adolescnts and Their Parents in Great Britain." Italy.Milan: Department of Sociology.

Catholic University of Milan.Italy, n.d. 1.

CUDDY, A.J. C , FISKE, S. T and GLICK. "When Professionals Become Mothers, Warmth

does not Cut The ice.Journal of Social Issues." 2004. 60.

CUDDY, A.J. C , FISKE,S. T and GLICK. "The bias Map, Behaviours from Intergroup

Affect and Stereotypes.Journal of personality and Social psychology." 2007. 92.

DEBORAH SCHIF, DEBORAH TA andHEIDI E . HAMILTON. "the Handbook of

Discourse Analysis." UK : Blakwell Publishers. Oxford, 2011. 352.

DIJK, TEUN A. VAN DIJK. "Ideology and Discourse, A multidisciplinary Introduction."

Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University, 2000. 6.

DIJK, TEUN A. VAN. "Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction."

Spain.Barcelona: Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, 2000. 7-76.

DIJK, TEUN A.VAN. "Critical Discourse Analysis." 2001. 352.

DIJK, TEUN.A VAN. A Multidiscilinary Introduction: Ideology and Discourse. Barcelona:

Pomper Fabra University, 2000.

41

DONOUGH, AINE MC. "the Legal Appropriation of the voice of Child Sexual Abuse

Victims in Ireland." Ireland: University of Ireland , Maynooth.Department of Sociology,

2010. 84.

EAGLEY, A.H. and STREFFEN, V.J. Gender Stereotypes Stem from the Contribution of

Women and Men into Social Roles. 1984.

EAGLEY, AH and STEFFEN, V.J. "the Distribution of Women and Men into Social

Roles,Journal of Personality and social psychology." 1984. 46.

ET, JOAQUIN U and EDGARDO. "Gender Role Ideology According to Sex Acceptance of

Women 's Rights and Gay Marriage." Vol. 3. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Gral. Juan Lavalle

2353, 2013. 41.

GILMAN.C.P. "The Man Made World: or Our Androcentric Culture." New York: Johnson

Reprint, 1971. 20-22.

GORMAN. "Gender Stereotypes, Same Gender Preferences and Organizational Variation in

the Hiring of Women." , 2005. 70.

HAIDARI, KAMEL SOURESHGANI. "Towards Better Understanding of Critical Discourse

Analysis." 2012.

HASHEMI.S. Rural Credits Programs and Women's Empowerment in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh, 1996.

HEILMAN, M. E. "Description and Prescription:zational Ladeder How Gender Stereotypes

prevent Women's Ascent Up the Organi." 2001. 57,657,674.

HOFSTEDE, G. "Culture's Consequences: International Difference in Work-related Values."

Biverley Hills. CA: Sage, 1980.

K, FITCH.L. "Handbook of Language and Social Interaction." 2005.

KILBER, DIANA. "Getting the Full Picture: A Reflection on the Work of M.A.K Halliday."

South Africa: Po.box Graham Stwon .6140 South Africa, n.d. 161-162.

LAWSON, ANDREW JOSEPH. "One-on-One with Obama: Analysis." Birmingham:

University of Birmingham, 2008. 4.

MARKUS and KITAYAMA, S. "Culture and Self Implication of Cognition, Emotion and

Motivation." 1991. 98,224-235.

NAVED.S. Empowerement of Women: Listening to ten Voices of Women. Bangladesh,

1994.

PARHAM, FATEMAH. "GENDER REPRESENTATION IN cHILDREN's EFL Books."

Tahran. Iran: Academy Publisher .Manufactured In Finkand, 2013. 1.

PASTOR, R. "Asimetria Generica y Representationes de Genero." 1998. 217.

42

Psych Wiki: A Collaborative Psychology Wiki.

RAHIMI FOROUGH and MOHAMMED, J.R. Critical Discourse Analysis: Scrutinizing

Ideologically-driven Discourses. Vol. Volume I. Shiraz: Department of Foriegn Languages,

Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad Univerisity, 2011.

RIASITI, FOROUGH RAHIMI and MOHAMMED JAVAD. "Critical Discourse Analysis:

Scrutinizing Ideologically-driven Discourse." Vol. 1. 2011.

RIDGEWAY, CL. "Gender , Status and Leadership, Journal of Social Issues." Biverly Hills:

Sage, 2001. 57.

SANTAEMILIA, JOSE. "Genero,Lenguaje y Traduccion." Valencia,Anglesa I Almanya:

Universitat Valencia, 2003. 30-31.

SCHWARTZ, S. H. "Beyond Individualism/Collectivism, New Cultural Dimensions of

Values." UK. london: Sage, 1994. 85-117.

SHEYHOLISLAMI, JAFFER. "Critical Discourse Analysis." Canada: Carleton University

.Canada, n.d. 1.

SPENCE, J . T and HELMREICH,R. L. "Masculinity and Femininity , Their psychologicql

Dimension, Correlates and antecendents." Austin : University of Texas, 1978.

STRAZEY, PHILIP. New York: Madison Avenue NY,20016, 2011. 905.

TRIANDIS, H.C. "the Self and Social Behaviour in Differing Cultural Contexts." 1989.

96,605-520.

United Nation. 21-24 octobre 2003.

VAN DIJK, A.T. Discourse as Structure and Process Studies: A Multidisciplinary

Introduction. Vol. Volume I. London: SAGE Publications, 1997.

WILLIAM, J. E and BEST, D. L. "Measuring Stereotypes , A multinational Study." Beverly

Hills: Sage, 1990.

WOOD and EAGLEY, A. C. "Gender." n.d.

WOOD, W and EAGLEY,A.H. "Gender.Handbook of Social Psychology." 5TH. New York:

New York Wiley, 2010.

43

Webliography

United Nation. 21-24 octobre 1990. 2003

<http://www.org/ecosocdev/geniinfo/women/women>.

psychWiki-A Collaborative Psychological Wiki. 10 04 2015. <www.PsychWiki.com>.

Appendix (A)

QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire is a part of a research work. It aims at analyzing verbal

attitudes towards gender stereotypes.

You are kindly requested to answer the following questionnaire. Please tick the

Appropriate box ( ) or make full statements when necessary. Thank you very much

for your cooperation.

1- Gender: please specify

Male

Female

2- Age: please specify your age

20-25

25-30

3-Do you know the term ‘’ Stereotypes’’?

Yes No

If yes, define it in few words.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………….

4-Do you know the term “Gender stereotype’’?

Yes No

If yes , define it in few words :

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………....

5- What do you think about the term‘’ Gender stereotypes”?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………

6- Do you agree on the following common gender stereotypes?

a) Men are physically strong but emotionally weak.

Yes No

Justify:………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

……………………….

b) Women are emotionally strong but physically weak.

Yes No

Justify

:……………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………

c) Women are materialistic.

Yes No

Justify:………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

……………………......

d) Women do not swear and men never gossip.

Yes No

Justify:

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………

e) Women are talkative and men are silent.

Yes No

Justify:………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………..

f) Men make better political leader than women do.

Yes NO

Justify:

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

……………………......

g) Women ‘s most important task is caring for their children.

Yes NO

Justify:

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………..

h) Staying at home women are more happier than working ones.

Yes NO

Justify:

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………..

i) Working women are trouble makers.

Yes No

Justify:

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………..

j) Men are street owner par excellence ; whereas women are housekeepers

par default.

Yes NO

Justify:

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………..

Appendix (B)

The selected common Algerian gender stereotypes

a) Men are physically strong but emotionally weak.

b) Women are emotionally strong but physically weak.

c) Women are materialistic.

d) Women do not swear and men never gossip.

e) Women are talkative and men are silent.

f) Men make better political leader than women do.

g) Women‘s most important task is caring for their children.

h) Staying at home women are happier than working ones.

i) Working women are trouble makers.

j) Men are street owner par excellence; whereas women are housekeepers par default.

Documents

Verbal Attitudes towards Gender Stereotypes