Theories of Women and Work: From Patriarchy to Preference

Why is it that even in 2025, we see stark differences in the jobs men and women typically hold? Why does a gender pay gap persist, even with decades of progress? If you ask a biologist, a sociologist, and an economist, you might get three completely different answers. The world of work is a complex web of choices, constraints, power, and tradition. Understanding women’s socio-economic position isn’t a simple task, and researchers have developed several competing theories to try and explain the patterns we see every day. These theories range from biological destiny to pure rational choice, and each offers a unique-and often controversial-lens on the issue.

Today, we’re going to explore four of the most significant and competing explanations. We’ll look at the arguments for innate male dominance, the structure of patriarchal job segregation, the economics of rational family choices, and the modern idea of individual preference. Let’s dive in.

The biological argument: Goldberg’s theory of innate male dominance 🔗

One of the most controversial and provocative theories comes from sociologist Steven Goldberg. In his 1973 book, *The Inevitability of Patriarchy*, Goldberg makes a bold and unsettling claim: male dominance (patriarchy) in society is not a cultural accident but a biological inevitability. He argues that the differences we see in the workplace-men holding the vast majority of leadership and high-status positions-are a direct result of innate, biological differences between the sexes.

So, what’s the logic here? Goldberg’s theory hinges on a single, powerful factor: testosterone. He posits that higher levels of testosterone in men lead to greater “aggressiveness,” or more accurately, a stronger drive to achieve dominance and status. This isn’t about men being “better” or “smarter,” but about a hormonal drive that makes them more likely to do whatever is necessary-compete, sacrifice, work long hours-to rise to the top of any social hierarchy.

How does this translate to the workplace? 🔗

According to this view, society doesn’t *create* male dominance; it merely *reflects* an underlying biological reality. He argues that no matter the cultural context, the top positions in politics, business, and science will always be held by men. This is because, in his view, women (on average) simply do not have the same biological drive for dominance. Therefore, social policies aimed at achieving perfect 50/50 representation in leadership are, in his opinion, doomed to fail because they are fighting against biology itself.

It’s important to note that Goldberg’s theory is a form of sociobiology, which attempts to explain social behavior through an evolutionary and biological lens. It suggests that our social structures are built on a biological foundation that we cannot easily change.

Criticisms of the biological argument 🔗

As you can imagine, this theory has faced decades of intense criticism. Most sociologists and economists today reject biological determinism. Critics point out several major flaws:

• It ignores cultural variation: If biology were destiny, we wouldn’t see the vast differences in women’s roles and status across different cultures and historical periods.
• It confuses “is” with “ought”: Even if a biological tendency exists (which many dispute), it doesn’t mean it’s morally right or socially desirable.
• It downplays structure: It completely ignores the powerful role of social structures, laws, discrimination, and cultural norms that actively *block* women’s advancement.

While Goldberg’s theory is largely dismissed as overly simplistic and deterministic today, it represents one extreme of the debate: the idea that nature, not nurture, is the primary force at play.

The power argument: Hartmann’s theory of patriarchal job segregation 🔗

Moving from pure biology to social power, we find the work of feminist economist Heidi Hartmann. Hartmann offers a completely different explanation. She argues that women’s lower economic status isn’t due to biology, nor is it just a side effect of capitalism. Instead, it’s the direct result of patriarchy: a social system designed to maintain male power and privilege.

In her famous essay, “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism,” Hartmann argued that trying to understand women’s work through a purely economic (Marxist) lens was insufficient. Capitalism might explain *exploitation*, but it couldn’t explain why *women* were consistently the most exploited and lowest-paid workers. Her answer? We are living in a “dual system” where patriarchy and capitalism work together.

How does this dual system work? 🔗

Hartmann’s core concept is job segregation. Patriarchy, she argues, works by dividing the labor market into “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs.” This isn’t a natural division; it’s a social and political one created and maintained by men to protect their economic interests.

Here’s how the theory works:

1. Men in power create barriers: Men, who historically held power in unions, professional associations, and legislatures, actively worked to exclude women from high-paying, desirable jobs. They used a variety of excuses-that women were “unfit” for the work, that they were taking jobs from men, or that their “real” place was in the home.
2. “Women’s jobs” are devalued: The jobs women were channeled into (like secretarial work, nursing, teaching, and textile manufacturing) were systematically devalued and paid less, *precisely because* they were jobs for women.
3. Capitalists benefit: Capitalists, for their part, were often happy to go along with this. It gave them a cheap, flexible pool of labor (women) that they could pay less than men.
4. Men benefit at home: This system also reinforces male dominance in the home. By earning more, men maintain economic power over their wives. And by having women confined to a “second shift” of unpaid domestic labor, men are freed up to invest more time and energy in their own careers.

This segregation is both horizontal (different types of jobs) and vertical (men holding the leadership roles within the same field). Hartmann’s theory paints a picture of a continuous power struggle, where the gender pay gap and occupational segregation are not accidents, but the *intended outcomes* of a patriarchal system.

The economic argument: Becker’s rational choice theory 🔗

Now, let’s switch gears from power and biology to pure economics. Enter Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who revolutionized the study of the family. Becker’s “rational choice” theory offers a powerful, and to some, deeply logical, explanation for the division of labor we see.

Becker’s starting point is that families are like “little factories.” They are economic units that make rational decisions to maximize their overall well-being, or “utility.” This includes income, but also the “production” of things like well-raised children, a clean home, and good meals. In his Nobel-winning work on the family, he argued that the division of labor between a husband and wife is not necessarily about power or biology, but about specialization and comparative advantage.

What is comparative advantage in the home? 🔗

The theory goes like this: Even if a man and a woman are equally good at everything, there is almost always a *small* difference in their skills or in the wages they can command in the market. For much of history, women’s biological role in childbirth gave them a “comparative advantage” in (or at least a greater initial tie to) domestic activities. Even a tiny initial difference is enough to make specialization the “rational” choice.

Let’s imagine a couple:

• The woman has a slight advantage in domestic tasks (or, more realistically, the man faces a slightly higher wage in the market, perhaps due to discrimination against women).
• To maximize the family’s total output, the “rational” choice is for the woman to specialize in “home production” (childcare, cooking, cleaning) and for the man to specialize in “market production” (paid work).

This specialization, Becker argues, is efficient. The family as a whole is better off. The problem is that this specialization has massive long-term consequences. The person specializing in market work (the man) builds “human capital”-skills, experience, and a professional network-that makes his wages grow over time. The person specializing in home production (the woman) builds domestic skills, but these are not valued by the market.

Criticisms of the rational choice model 🔗

Becker’s theory is elegant, but it has faced significant criticism. Critics argue it “assumes” a level playing field that doesn’t exist.

• It ignores power: Who gets to “choose” this specialization? Becker’s model often assumes a benevolent “head of household” rather than a complex negotiation between two individuals with potentially conflicting interests.
• It takes discrimination as a given: The model works partly because women *already* face lower wages in the market due to discrimination. It “rationalizes” choices that are made under constraint.
• Is it really a “choice”? If a woman “chooses” to stay home because childcare is unaffordably expensive and her job pays too little (due to segregation), how “rational” or “free” is that choice?

Becker’s model shows how seemingly small differences can lead to large gaps in earnings, all through a series of “logical” steps. But it’s often criticized for being a sterile, value-neutral explanation for a system that is, for many, deeply unfair.

The preference argument: Hakim’s preference theory 🔗

Our final theory, from sociologist Catherine Hakim, brings us into the 21st century. Hakim argues that in modern, affluent, liberal societies-where women have access to contraception and equal-opportunity laws-the old theories of patriarchy (Hartmann) and rational-choice constraints (Becker) are less relevant. The main driver of women’s work patterns today, she argues, is choice.

Hakim’s “preference theory” is based on the idea that women are not a single, unified group. Instead, they are diverse and have different, freely-chosen preferences regarding work and family. She identifies three main groups of women:

1. Home-centered (~20%): This group of women prefers to prioritize family and domestic life. If they could, they would choose not to be in the paid labor force, or to work only very minimally.
2. Work-centered (~20%): This group is the mirror image of the first. Their priorities are focused on their careers, much like traditional, career-driven men. They are willing to make significant sacrifices in their personal lives to achieve professional success.
3. Adaptive (~60%): This is the majority. These women want to combine work and family. They do not want to choose one over the other. As a result, they *prefer* jobs that offer flexibility, shorter hours, or part-time work, even if it means lower pay, less status, and fewer promotion prospects.

What does this mean for the pay gap? 🔗

Hakim’s theory is controversial because it suggests that a significant portion of the gender pay gap is *not* the result of discrimination, but the result of these choices. The “adaptive” majority, by *choosing* to step back from the high-pressure, full-time career track, ends up earning less. In this view, it’s a “preference gap” as much as a pay gap.

This sociological theory has major policy implications. Hakim is critical of “victim feminism” that she believes portrays all women as oppressed. She argues that instead of forcing women into a male, work-centered model, policies should focus on supporting *real* choice by, for example, making high-quality, high-paying part-time work more available.

Even in a context like India, we can see echoes of these “adaptive” choices, where social norms and family responsibilities heavily influence a woman’s decision to seek flexible or part-time employment, or to leave the workforce entirely after childbirth.

Criticisms of preference theory 🔗

Like the others, Hakim’s theory is hotly debated. Critics ask one simple, powerful question: Are these “preferences” truly free?

• Are women “adaptive” by choice, or because society *still* expects them to be the primary caregivers (the “second shift”)?
• Are they “choosing” part-time work, or are they being forced into it by the lack of affordable childcare and inflexible workplaces?
• Does this theory “blame the victim” by attributing systemic problems (like a lack of paternal leave or a culture of overwork) to individual women’s “preferences”?

Weaving the threads together 🔗

So, which theory is right? The truth is, no single story can capture the complex reality of women and work. The real world is a messy combination of all four.

A woman’s “preference” (Hakim) to work part-time is never made in a vacuum. It’s shaped by the “rational” economic calculation (Becker) of whether her salary will even cover childcare. That calculation, in turn, is based on a labor market still rife with “segregation” (Hartmann) that devalues “women’s work.” And all of these choices and structures are built on a bedrock of centuries-old cultural “traditions” (the non-biological echo of Goldberg’s point) about the “proper” roles of men and women.

Understanding these theories helps us see the different forces at play. They are not just academic exercises; they are the very frameworks that shape the policies we create, the workplaces we build, and the personal choices we make every single day.

What do you think? Which of these theories resonates most with your own observations of the world? Do you believe the differences we see are primarily about power, economics, or personal choice?

References

1. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1992/becker/facts/
2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038038503037001004
3. https://www.ibef.org/blogs/women-s-participation-in-the-indian-workforce