Social Perceptions of Gender Differences and the Subjective Significance of the Gender Inequality Issue (2024)

Table 1

Theoretical approaches to studying gender behavior

Participants

106 people aged 18 to 68 years participated in the study (M = 30.2, σ = 10.5). The respondents were men (54) and women (52) living in megacities (St. Petersburg and Moscow). Most of our respondents had a full-time day job (as they mentioned in the survey). The absence of statistically significant differences between the samples of men and women in terms of demographic characteristics allowed further comparative analysis.

Procedure

The study was conducted through an online survey in February–September 2019. The sample was formed by the “snowball” technique within social networks. The time taken to complete the questionnaires was 25–35 minutes. The survey was anonymous.

Measures

“Social perceptions of gender differences” questionnaire.

The questionnaire consisted of two parts and each part was comprised of four scales. There were two versions of the measure. The first version contained 38 items formulated according to the criteria of gender inequality in various spheres of life. After an expert’s evaluation, 10 items with duplicating content were eliminated, and the wording of the remaining items was corrected. In the 2019 survey, this revised 28-item questionnaire was tested. Respondents were asked to evaluate their agreement with the items on a 5-point scale, where 1 signified “absolutely disagree” and 5 “absolutely agree”. Both direct and reverse items were used, where a greater degree of agreement meant less agreement with gender differences. When calculating the resulting score, the points of reverse items were converted.

The first part of the questionnaire (items 1-20) included four scales concerning gender relations in four spheres of life. We have conditionally named the scales “Family” (e.g. “The main task of a woman is housekeeping and caring for her husband and children”), “Work” (e.g. “It is more difficult for a woman to stay in a managerial position than for a man”), “Politics” (e.g. “A woman is able to succeed in politics”) and “Everyday life” (e.g. “Men are better drivers than women”). The second part of the questionnaire (items 21–28) aimed to define social perceptions of gender inequality in an organization where the respondent currently works, according to the criteria of the organizational “glass ceiling” (). The second part also included four scales: “Conditional Vertical Inequality” (e.g. “There are more male leaders than female leaders in organizations”), “Bottom-to-top Inequality Acceleration” (e.g. “In business, there are far more female middle managers than female top managers”), “Career Advancement Inequality” (e.g. “A man moves up the career ladder faster than a woman of the same professional level”), “Diverging Career Trajectories” (e.g. “The career paths of women and men in business differ”). For the scales of the first part of the questionnaire (“Work”, “Family”, “Politics”, “Everyday life”) the minimum possible score was 5 points and the maximum possible score was 20 points. For the scales of the second part of the questionnaire, the minimum possible score was 2 points and the maximum possible was 10 points. The higher the score, the more pronounced the perceptions of gender differences in a particular area.

“Gender Inequality” Questionnaire.

The questionnaire included four direct questions aimed at identifying the respondents’ perceptions of gender inequality and describing their life experiences related to this phenomenon. The questionnaire was also used to identify the degree of subjective significance of the gender inequality issue. The questionnaire included the following questions:

1. Free description of manifestations of gender inequality: “In your opinion, what manifestations/confirmations of gender inequality are there in society? Please list them.” Received responses were classified according to the four categories considered in the first part of the “Social perceptions of gender differences” questionnaire, and the number of mentioned situations was used as a measure of gender awareness.

2. A question about the frequency of observation of such situations: “How often have you observed and heard about such situations?” The question had possible answers rated on a 5-point scale: “never”, “very rarely”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, “often”.

3. A description of the situation of gender inequality in their own life experiences, case studies: “Describe the last unpleasant or offensive situation of manifestation of gender inequality/discrimination that affected you the most.” When coding the data, it was taken into account whether the respondent has described the situation or not; the situations described by the respondents were classified into one of the four categories outlined above (family, work, politics and everyday life).

4. A question aimed to assess the emotional significance of situations of gender inequality: “How upset would you be if you were in this situation?” The question had possible answers rated on a 5-point scale: “not at all”, “a little”, “difficult to answer”, “very”, “extremely”.

Thus, the subjective significance for respondents of the gender inequality issue was assessed by the following 4 indicators used in data processing independently: the number of known manifestations of gender inequality listed by the respondent (gender awareness); the frequency of gender inequality observation (witnessing frequency); the presence or absence of a description of the gender inequality situation in their own life (articulated personal experience) and the degree of unpleasant emotions felt in situations of inequality and discrimination (emotional significance).

Social and Demographic Characteristics.

This questionnaire contained questions about the age, employment, gender, and city of residence of the respondents.

Mathematical and Statistical Methods of Data Analysis

The assessment of the internal consistency of the scales was carried out using Cronbach’s alpha. When analyzing the reliability of differences between samples, we used the Mann–Whitney U test. Correlation analysis was used to assess the relationships between quantitative variables (indicators of the subjective significance of the gender inequality problem and the degree of agreement with ideas about gender differences in various spheres of life). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used. Factor analysis was employed to analyze the possibility of reducing the eight scales of the questionnaire, which describe ideas about gender differences in various spheres of life, to a smaller number of latent variables. Data analysis was carried out using the SPSS Statistics.

Social perceptions of gender differences in various spheres of life

Reliability scores, calculated for the scales included in the “Social perception of gender differences” questionnaire, are presented in Table 2. The results of the study confirm the reliability of the following scales: “Work”, “Politics”, “Everyday life”, “Career Advancement Inequality” (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7 (Furr, 2021; Nasledov, 2011)). Other scales required item corrections (“Family”, “Bottom-to-top Inequality Acceleration”, “Diverging Career Trajectories”; “Conditional Vertical Inequality”).

Skewness, kurtosis, mean and standard deviation were calculated for each item. This was done in order to test item discrimination of each item and to sift out unfit items. Since the questionnaire is gender-sensitive, descriptive statistics were obtained separately for women and men. This made it possible to identify significant differences in the responses of men and women and meaningfully interpret these differences. According to the indicators of skewness and kurtosis (module of indicators of skewness and kurtosis do not exceed 2 (Furr, 2021; Nasledov, 2011)), the distribution of answers to all the items except item 1 (“A person, regardless of gender, can be successful in any profession”) and item 10 (“A man and a woman should participate equally in the upbringing of children”) can be considered close to normal. The majority of respondents fully agreed that a person, regardless of gender, can be successful in any profession (60.4%) and that a man and a woman should take equal part in the upbringing of children (78.3%).

For each scale of the questionnaire, mean values were calculated both for the sample as a whole and separately for men and women. Differences in the average scores of men and women were assessed using the U-test (Table 2).

It can be concluded that the most pronounced spheres where perceptions about gender differences are varied to a greater extent between men and women can be considered the spheres of politics, family and everyday interaction. There is a dissimilarity in the views of men and women about gender differences in career advancement.

In order to study psychological factors of gender inequality and to analyze the possibility of reducing the eight scales of the questionnaire to a smaller number of not-directly-measurable spheres of representation, exploratory factor analysis was performed (Table 3).

The first factor in the manifestation of the socio-psychological phenomenon of gender inequality is characterized by a high degree of expression of ideas about manifestations of gender inequality in the professional sphere. This can concern career advancement, career trajectories, or vertical gender inequality and its increase in higher positions. We named this factor “Career Inequality”.

The second factor in the manifestation of the phenomenon of gender inequality is characterized by a higher expression of perceptions about gender differences in the family, politics and everyday life. We called the second factor “Differences in Social Spheres”. It implies a comprehensive assessment of the perceptions of gender differences in various social contexts that are not related to employment.

Social perceptions of gender inequality

When answering the question “In your opinion, what manifestations/confirmations of gender inequality are there in society?” respondents listed 0 to 11 different manifestations, M = 1.79, SD = 2.03. According to the χ²-Pearson criterion, men significantly more often did not indicate any manifestation (they gave answers like “I don’t know”, “didn’t notice” or refused to answer) (χ² = 15.63, p < 0.001). Comparative analysis (Mann–Whitney U test) showed that women, on average, described more manifestations of gender inequality known to them (p < 0.001).

We analyzed 190 different manifestations of gender inequality in society described by the respondents and divided them into several categories (Table 4). The first four categories corresponded to the four areas of life that we identified when creating the questionnaire “Social perceptions of gender differences”: traditional distribution of roles in family, gender inequality in the professional sphere, gender inequality in politics, and gender inequality and sexism in everyday life. The category “General descriptions of inequality” included descriptions of inequality and sexism that were not related to any specific sphere. The category “Other” included obscure or ambiguous descriptions that could not be assigned to any category without further clarification.

The frequency of observed situations of gender inequality is presented in Table 5.

If we consider the response options as an ordinal scale (from 0 — “never” to 4 — “often”), then according to the Mann-Whitney U-test, the women in the study experienced manifestations of gender inequality more often than the men (p < 0.001).

The experienced situation was described by 54.7% of respondents (73.1% of women and 35.7% of men), the rest refused to answer or answered that they did not remember / did not notice such situations. In some cases, respondents described situations that affected their acquaintances, and we considered these situations in the same way as those that happened to the respondent personally, since we were interested in all situations that the respondents considered as a part of their experience.

Men described a total of 20 situations (Table 6). We were not able to classify 3 situations into any of the four categories without clarification (these were placed in the category “Other”). Men most often described situations related to gender-based injustice and the pressure of male gender norms and did not describe a single situation regarding family interaction. Women described 38 situations (Table 6). Four situations were not classified in any of the four categories considered (“Other”). Women most often described situations of gender inequality related to the performance of traditional female roles in the family, situations of inequality in the professional sphere and manifestations of sexism in everyday life. Women did not describe a single situation regarding inequality in politics.

For both men and women, situations of gender inequality were most prominently encountered in everyday life. However, for women, manifestations of gender inequality such as the performance of a traditional female role in the family and situations of gender inequality in the professional sphere were also relevant.

The emotional significance of situations of gender inequality was assessed by the answers to the question “How upset would you be if you were in this situation?” (Table 7).

High emotional significance of situations of manifestation of gender inequality was found in 50.0% of women and 33.3% of men.

Social perceptions of gender differences and the subjective significance of the gender inequality issue

The first hypothesis was that social perceptions of gender differences in various spheres are interrelated with the subjective significance of the gender inequality issue.

The number of known manifestations of gender inequality listed by the respondents (gender awareness) was positively correlated with the “Career Inequality” factor (scale “Work” (r = 0.364, p < 0.001) and scales of the second part of the questionnaire: “Conditional Vertical Inequality” (r = 0.210, p = 0.024), “Bottom-to-top Inequality Acceleration” (r = 0.229, p = 0.018), “Career Advancement Inequality” (r = 0.251, p = 0.009), “Diverging Career Trajectories” (r = 0.216, p = 0.026)); and negatively correlated with the “Differences in Social Spheres” factor (scales: “Family” (r = –0.425, p < 0.001), “Politics” (r = –0.470, p < 0.001), “Everyday life” (r = –0.406, p < 0.001)).

Similar interrelations have been found for the frequency of witnessing gender inequality situations and the emotional significance of such situations.

Consistently, the frequency of observations of gender inequality situations was positively correlated with the factor of “Career Inequality” (scales: “Work” (r = 0,286, p = 0,003), “Bottom-to-top Inequality Acceleration” (r = 0, 295, p = 0.002), “ Career Advancement Inequality” (r = 0.309, p = 0.001)) and negatively correlated with the factor of “Differences in Social Spheres” (scales: “Family” (r = –0.397, p < 0.001), “Politics” (r = –0.362, p < 0.001), “Everyday life” (r = –0.370, p < 0.001)).

The emotional importance of gender inequality situations was positively correlated with the factor of “Career Inequality” (scales: “Work” (r = 0.305, p = 0.002), “Conditional Vertical Inequality” (r = 0.284, p = 0.005), “Bottom-to-top Inequality Acceleration” (r = 0.331, p = 0.001), “Career Advancement Inequality” (r = 0.327, p = 0.001)); and negatively correlated with the factor of “Differences in Social Spheres” (scales “Family” (r = –0.371, p < 0.001), “Politics” (r = –0.227, p = 0.025), “Everyday life” (r = –0.284, p = 0.005)).

Perceptions of gender differences in respondents with and without personal experience of gender inequality

According to the second hypothesis, we expected that people who articulate their personal experience of gender inequality more readily agree with the idea of gender differences in the professional career opportunities.

Using the U-test, significant differences were found in the responses of respondents who described the situation of gender inequality in their own experience and those who did not, the results are shown in Table 8. They showed distinctions in perceived degree of gender differences on the factor of “Career Inequality” (scales: “Work” (p = 0.001), “Conditional Vertical Inequality” (p = 0.017), “Bottom-to-top Inequality Acceleration” (p = 0.048), “Career Advancement Inequality”, (p = 0.004), “Diverging Career Trajectories” (p = 0.009)). People with personal experience of inequality scored higher on perceptions of large differences in career opportunities for men and women compared to people who did not mention such experiences (Table 8).

Personal experience of inequality also affects factor 2 “Differences in Social Spheres”, but only in the family relationships domain, where people with personal experience of inequality scored significantly lower compared to those who did not mention such experiences (p = 0.025) (Table 8).

• Abraham, M. (2020). Gender-role incongruity and audience-based gender bias: an examination of networking among entrepreneurs.Administrative science quarterly,65(1), 151–180. 10.1177/0001839219832813 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Acker, J. (1990). Jobs, hierarchies and sexuality: Some further thoughts on gender and organizations.Gender & Society,4, 139–158. 10.1177/089124390004002002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class and race in organizations.Gender & society,20(4), 441–464. 10.1177/0891243206289499 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Andresen, M., Biemann T. & Pattie, M.W. (2015). What makes them move abroad? Reviewing and exploring differences between self-initiated and assigned expatriation.The International Journal of Human Resource Management,26(7), 932–947. 10.1080/09585192.2012.669780 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Barber, B.M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence and common stock investment.The Quarterly Journal of Economics,116(1), 261–292. 10.2139/ssrn.139415 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Benschop, Y. (2009). The micro‐politics of gendering in networking.Gender, Work & Organization,16(2), 217–237. 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00438.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S.J., & Zelditch Jr, M. (1980). Status organizing processes.Annual Review of Sociology,6(1), 479–508. 10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2018). Complexity in risk elicitation may affect the conclusions: a demonstration using gender differences. Journal of risk and uncertainty,56(1), 1–17. 10.1007/s11166-018-9274-6 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2012). Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,83(1), 50–58. 10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Cohen, P.N., Huffman, M.L., & Knauer, S. (2009). Stalled progress? Gender segregation and wage inequality among managers, 1980–2000.Work and Occupations,36(4), 318–342. 10.1177/0730888409347582 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital.American Journal of Sociology,94, S95–S120. 10.1086/228943 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Connor, R.A., Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (2017). Ambivalent sexism in the twenty-first century. In Sibley C.G. & Barlow F.K. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice (pp. 295–320). Cambridge University press. 10.1017/9781316161579.013 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Eagly, A.H., & Wood, W. (1991). Explaining sex differences in social behavior: A meta-analytic perspective.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,17(3), 306–315. 10.1177/0146167291173011 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Eagly, A.H., & Sczesny, S. (2019). Editorial: gender roles in the future? Theoretical foundations and future research directions.Frontiers in Psychology,10:1965. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01965 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Fisher, M.I., & Hammond, M.D. (2019). Personal ties and prejudice: A meta-analysis of romantic attachment and ambivalent sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,45(7), 1084–1098. 10.1177/0146167218804551 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Folke, O., & Rickne, J. (2016). The glass ceiling in politics: Formalization and empirical tests.Comparative Political Studies,49(5), 567–599. 10.1177/0010414015621073 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Forret, M.L., & Dougherty, T.W. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: differences for men and women?Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior,25(3), 419–437. 10.1002/job.253 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Furr R.M. (2021). Psychometrics: an introduction.SAGE publications. [Google Scholar]
• Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality.American Psychologist,56(2), 109–118. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gurieva, S., Borisova, M., Mikhalyuk, O., Dmitrieva, V., Odintsova, V., & Kawabata, T. (2016). Trust as a mechanism of social regulation of the modern youth’s behavior.American Journal of Applied Sciences,13(1), 100–110. 10.3844/ajassp.2016.100.110 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gurieva, S.D., & Udavikhina, U.A. (2015). Negotiating Styles in Situation of Limited Resources and Ambiguity: “Short” and “Long” Communications.Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,6(4), 109. 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s2p109 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hollander, J.A. (2001). Vulnerability and dangerousness: The construction of gender through conversation about violence.Gender & society,15(1), 83–109. 10.1177/089124301015001005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hutt, C. (1972). Sex differences in human development. Human Development,15(3), 153–170. 10.1159/000271239 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kletsina, I.S. (2020). Gender socialization at senior age.Social Psychology and Society,11(3), 22–34. 10.17759/sps.2020110302 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Koening, A.M. (2018). Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly.Frontiers in psychology,9, 1086. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01086 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Lytton, H., & Romney, D.M. (1991). Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis.Psychological bulletin,109(2), 267–296. 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.267 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Maccoby, E.E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account.American psychologist,45(4), 513–520. 10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.513 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Maccoby, E.E., & Jacklin, C.N. (1987). Gender segregation in childhood.Advances in Child Development and Behavior,20, 239–287. 10.1016/S0065-2407(08)60404-8 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mararitsa, L.V., Kazantseva, T.V., & Gurieva, S.D. (2019). The phenomenon of gender inequality as a factor of women’s career capital: Problem definition.Psychology in Education,1(1), 44–52. 10.33910/2686-9527-2019-1-1-44-52 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Martin, A.E., & Phillips, K.W. (2017). What “blindness” to gender differences helps women see and do: Implications for confidence, agency, and action in male-dominated environments.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,142, 28–44. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.004 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P.A., Stuhlmacher, A.F., Bilke, L., & Hertel, G. (2015). A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators.Psychological bulletin,141(1), 85–104. 10.1037/a0038184 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mednick, M., & Thomas, V. (2008). Women and achievement.Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. [Google Scholar]
• Morrison, Z., Bourke, M., & Kelley, C. (2005). “Stop making it such a big issue”: Perceptions and experiences of gender inequality by undergraduates at a British University.Women’s Studies International Forum,28(2–3), 150–162. 10.1016/j.wsif.2005.04.020 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M.K. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychology: How can Butler’s work inform experimental social psychologists’ conceptualization of gender?Frontiers in Psychology, 9:1320. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Nasledov A. (2011). SPSS 19: Professional’nyi statisticheskii analiz dannykh [Professional statistical data analysis]. Piter.
• Neff, K.D., Cooper, C.E., & Woodruff, A.L. (2007). Children’s and adolescents’ developing perceptions of gender inequality.Social development, 16(4), 682–699. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00411.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Nelson, T.D. (2009). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination.Psychology Press. 10.4324/9781841697772 [CrossRef]
• Rudman, L.A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to Counterstereotype Behavior: The Role of Backlash in Cultural Stereotype Maintenance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–176. 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rudman, L.A., & Phelan, J.E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations.Research in organizational behavior,28, 61–79. 10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Ryabova, T.B., & Ovcharova, O.G. (2016). Gender Studies in Russian Political Sciences. Current status, issues and prospects. Woman in Russian Society,1, 3–14. https://womaninrussiansociety.ru/article/t-b-ryabova-o-g-ovcharova-gendernaya-politologiya-v-rossii-dostizheniya-problemy-i-perspektivy-str-3-23/ [Google Scholar]
• Salomon, K., Bosson, J.K., El-Hout, M., Kiebel, E., Kuchynka, S.L., & Shepard, S.L. (2020). The Experiences with Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (EASI). Basic and applied social psychology,42(4), 235–253. 10.1080/01973533.2020.1747467 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Shawn, F.D., & Glenn, F. (2010). Trends in global gender inequality.Social Forces, 88(5), 1941–1968. 10.1353/sof.2010.0040 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Spoor, J.R., & Schmitt, M.T. (2011). “Things are getting better” isn’t always better: Considering women’s progress affects perceptions of and reactions to contemporary gender inequality.Basic and Applied Social Psychology,33(1), 24–36. 10.1080/01973533.2010.539948 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Stewart, R., Wright, B., Smith, L., Roberts, S., Russell, N. (2021). Gendered stereotypes and norms: A systematic review of interventions designed to shift attitudes and behavior. HELIYON,7(4). 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06660 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Thang, L.L. (2002). Expatriate on the margins: A study of Japanese women working in Singapore.Geoforum,33(4), 539–551. 10.1016/S0016-7185(02)00042-8 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Uryvaev, V. (2018). Perestroika and personality: Transformation of gender stereotypes amongst the youngsters in Russia.SHS Web of Conferences, 51. 10.1051/shsconf/20185101006 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Vandello, J.A., & Bosson, J.K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood.Psychology of Men & Masculinity,14(2), 101. 10.1037/a0029826 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Verdonk, P., Benschop, Y.W.M., de Haes, H.C.J.M. et al. (2009). From gender bias to gender awareness in medical education.Advances in Health Sciences Education,14, 135–152. 10.1007/s10459-008-9100-z [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Voronina, O.A. (2013). Gender equality policy in modern Russia: Problems and contradictions. Woman in Russian Society,3, 12–20. https://womaninrussiansociety.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/voronina.pdf [Google Scholar]
• West, C., & Zimmerman, D.H. (1987). Doing gender.Gender & society,1(2), 125–151. 10.1177/0891243287001002002 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• World Economic Forum: The Global Gender Gap Report (2021). https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2021
• Wilson E.O. (2000). Sociobiology: The new synthesis.Harvard University Press. 10.2307/j.ctvjnrttd [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Yaffe, Y. (2020). Systematic review of the differences between mothers and fathers in parenting styles and practices.Current Psychology,1–14. 10.1007/s12144-020-01014-6 [CrossRef]