1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Sociology
  4. Volume 48, 2022
  5. Article

Annual Review of Sociology

Volume 48, 2022

Gender in the Elite

Abstract

Research on elites experienced a resurgence in sociology over a decade ago, but this work was largely gender neutral. Recently, a body of work on elite women and gender dynamics in elite families emerged and is growing rapidly. We propose here that gendered processes are critical for understanding the reproduction of elite privilege and inequality and highlight three subjects that dominate contemporary literature in this area. First, we address who counts as an elite and gender differences in pathways to the elite. Second, we discuss elite family dynamics and the mechanisms that create traditional gender divisions of labor in elite households. Third, we underscore the significant power that elites have and discuss gender differences in the sources of power. We conclude by identifying areas for future directions, including honing empirical and theoretical understandings of the complex relationship between gender and rising class inequality.

Keyword(s): elite women, elites, family, gender, income, inequality, power, wealth, work
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-020321-031544
2022-07-29
2024-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/48/1/annurev-soc-020321-031544.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-020321-031544&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acemoglu D, Robinson JA. 2008. Persistence of power, elites, and institutions. Am. Econ. Rev. 98:1267–93
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Acker J. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gend. Soc. 4:2139–58
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bank of America. 2018. The 2018 U.S. Trust Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy. Rep., Bank of Am. and Lilly Fam. Sch. Philanthr., Indiana Univ. Indianapolis, IN: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/17666/high-net-worth2018-summary.pdf
  4. Barclays Glob. 2011. Hedge fund pulse: affirmative investing: women and minority owned hedge funds Rep., Capital Solutions Group Barclays, London: https://2rp8zq2kdoxy38kvwx23zbuc-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/research-affirmative-investing.pdf
  5. Bertrand M, Bombardini M, Fisman R, Trebbi F. 2020. Tax-exempt lobbying: corporate philanthropy as a tool for political influence. Am. Econ. Rev. 110:72065–102
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bittman M, Wajcman J. 2000. The rush hour: the character of leisure time and gender equity. Soc. Forces 79:1165–89
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Blair-Loy M. 2003. Competing Devotions: Career and Family Among Women Executives Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  8. Bloome D, Burk D, McCall L. 2019. Economic self-reliance and gender inequality between U.S. men and women, 1970–2010. Am. J. Sociol. 124:51413–67
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Blossfeld H-P, Buchholz S. 2009. Increasing resource inequality among families in modern societies: the mechanisms of growing educational homogamy, changes in the division of work in the family and the decline of the male breadwinner model. J. Comp. Fam. Stud. 40:4603–16
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  11. Browne I, Misra J. 2003. The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 29:487–513
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bur. Labor Stat. 2016. Volunteering in the United States News Release, Feb. 25. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.htm
  13. Bur. Labor Stat. 2020. Employee benefits in the United States, March 2020 Rep., US Dep. Labor Washington, DC:
  14. Burnham L, Theodore N. 2012. Home economics: the invisible and unregulated world of domestic work. Rep., Natl. Domest. Work. Alliance New York:
  15. Burris V. 2004. The academic caste system: prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. Am. Sociol. Rev. 69:2239–64
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Calarco JM. 2014. Coached for the classroom: parents’ cultural transmission and children's reproduction of educational inequalities. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:51015–37
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Calarco JM. 2020. Avoiding us versus them: how schools’ dependence on privileged “helicopter” parents influences enforcement of rules. Am. Sociol. Rev. 85:2223–46
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cha Y. 2010. Reinforcing separate spheres: the effect of spousal overwork on men's and women's employment in dual-earner households. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75:2303–29
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cha Y, Weeden KA. 2014. Overwork and the slow convergence in the gender gap in wages. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:3457–84
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Chang ML. 2010. Shortchanged: Why Women Have Less Wealth and What Can Be Done About It Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  21. Charles M, Bradley K. 2009. Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. Am. J. Sociol. 114:4924–76
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Chu JSG, Davis GF. 2016. Who killed the inner circle? The decline of the American corporate interlock network. Am. J. Sociol. 122:3714–54
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 2010.)
  24. Collins PH. 2004. Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism New York: Routledge
  25. Connell RW. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics. London: Polity
  26. Connell RW, Messerschmidt JW. 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gend. Soc. 19:6829–59
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Cook A, Glass C. 2018. Women on corporate boards: Do they advance corporate social responsibility?. Hum. Relat. 71:7897–924
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Coontz S. 2005. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage New York: Viking
  29. Cooper M. 2014. Cut Adrift: Families in Insecure Times Oakland: Univ. Calif. Press
  30. Correll SJ, Weisshaar KR, Wynn AT, Wehner JD. 2020. Inside the black box of organizational life: the gendered language of performance assessment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 85:61022–50
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Crenshaw K. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Univ. Chicago Legal Forum 1989:139–167
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Currid-Halkett E. 2017. The Sum of Small Things: A Theory of the Aspirational Class Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  33. Damaske S. 2011. A “major career woman”? How women develop early expectations about work. Gend. Soc. 25:4409–30
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Daminger A. 2019. The cognitive dimension of household labor. Am. Sociol. Rev. 84:4609–33
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Davis GF, Yoo M, Baker WE. 2003. The small world of the American corporate elite, 1982–2001. Strateg. Organ. 1:3301–26
     [Google Scholar]
  36. de Vaan M, Elbers B, DiPrete TA. 2019. Obscured transparency? Compensation benchmarking and the biasing of executive pay. Manag. Sci. 65:94299–317
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Desai SD, Chugh D, Brief AP. 2014. The implications of marriage structure for men's workplace attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors toward women. Adm. Sci. Q. 59:2330–65
     [Google Scholar]
  38. DiPrete TA, Eirich GM, Pittinsky M. 2010. Compensation benchmarking, leapfrogs, and the surge in executive pay. Am. J. Sociol. 115:61671–712
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Doan L, Quadlin N. 2019. Partner characteristics and perceptions of responsibility for housework and child care. J. Marriage Fam. 81:1145–63
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Domhoff GW. 2009. The power elite and their challengers: the role of nonprofits in American social conflict. Am. Behav. Sci. 52:955–73
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Donovan S 2020. Paid family and medical leave in the United States CRS Rep. R44835, Congr. Res. Serv. Washington, DC: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44835
  42. Ehrenreich B, Hochschild AR. 2004. Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy New York: Macmillan
  43. Einolf CJ. 2011. Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving.. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 40:61092–112
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Ellersgaard CH, Lunding JA, Henriksen LF, Larsen AG. 2019. Pathways to the power elite: the organizational landscape of elite careers. Sociol. Rev. 67:51170–92
     [Google Scholar]
  45. England P. 2010. The gender revolution uneven and stalled. Gend. Soc. 24:2149–66
     [Google Scholar]
  46. England P, Levine A, Mishel E. 2020. Progress toward gender equality in the United States has slowed or stalled. PNAS 117:136990–97
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Esping-Andersen G. 2007. Sociological explanations of changing income distributions. Am. Behav. Sci. 50:5639–58
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Etzion D, Davis GF. 2008. Revolving doors? A network analysis of corporate officers and U.S. government officials. J. Manag. Inq. 17:3157–161
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Farrell J. 2020. Billionaire Wilderness: The Ultra-Wealthy and the Remaking of the American West Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  50. Fleming CM, Roses LE. 2007. Black cultural capitalists: African-American elites and the organization of the arts in early twentieth century Boston. Poetics 35:6368–87
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Fremeth A, Richter BK, Schaufele B. 2013. Campaign contributions over CEOs’ careers. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 5:3170–88
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Friedman S, Reeves A. 2020. From aristocratic to ordinary: shifting modes of elite distinction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 85:2323–50
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Gabaix X, Landier A. 2008. Why has CEO pay increased so much?. Q. J. Econ. 123:149–100
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Garicano L, Rossi-Hansberg E. 2006. Organization and inequality in a knowledge economy. Q. J. Econ. 121:41383–435
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Gaztambide-Fernández RA. 2009. The Best of the Best: Becoming Elite at an American Boarding School Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  56. Gilens M, Page BI. 2014. Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspect. Politics 12:3564–81
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Gill TM. 2018. The persistence of the power elite: presidential cabinets and corporate interlocks, 1968–2018. Soc. Curr. 5:6501–11
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Glucksberg L. 2018. A gendered ethnography of elites: women, inequality, and social reproduction. Focaal 81:16–28
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Gorman EH, Kmec JA. 2009. Hierarchical rank and women's organizational mobility: glass ceilings in corporate law firms. Am. J. Sociol. 114:51428–74
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Gupta S. 2006. Her money, her time: women's earnings and their housework hours. Soc. Sci. Res. 35:4975–99
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Guvenen F, Kaplan G, Song J. 2014. The glass ceiling and the paper floor: gender differences among top earners, 1981–2012. NBER Work. Pap. 20560
  62. Hamilton LT, Armstrong EA. 2021. Parents, partners, and professions: reproduction and mobility in a cohort of college women. Am. J. Sociol 127:1102–51
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Hamilton LT, Armstrong EA, Seeley JL, Armstrong EM. 2019. Hegemonic femininities and intersectional domination. Sociol. Theory 37:4315–41
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Hays S. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  65. Heerwig JA, Gordon KM. 2018. Buying a voice: gendered contribution careers among affluent political donors to federal elections, 1980–2008. Sociol. Forum 33:3805–825
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Hochschild AR, Machung A. 2003 (1989. The Second Shift New York: Penguin
  67. Hu Y. 2019. What about money? Earnings, household financial organization, and housework. J. Marriage Fam. 81:51091–109
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Ishizuka P. 2019. Social class, gender, and contemporary parenting standards in the United States: evidence from a national survey experiment. Soc. Forces 98:131–58
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Joshi A, Son J, Roh H. 2015. When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Acad. Manag. J. 58:51516–45
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Kaplan SN, Rauh J. 2013. It's the market: the broad-based rise in the return to top talent. J. Econ. Perspect. 27:335–56
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Karabel J. 2005. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
  72. Keister LA. 2014. The one percent. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 40:347–67
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Keister LA. 2020. Income and wealth inequality in the decades following the great recession. Work. Pap., Dep. Sociol., Duke Univ. Durham, NC:
  74. Keister LA, Lee HY. 2014. The one percent: top incomes and wealth in sociological research. Soc. Curr. 1:113–24
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Keister LA, Lee HY. 2017. The double one percent: identifying an elite and a super-elite using the joint distribution of income and net worth. Res. Soc. Stratif. Mobil. 50:1–12
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Keister LA, Young LH, Yavorsky JE. 2021. Gender and wealth in the super rich: asset differences in top wealth households in the United States, 1989–2019. Sociologica 15:225–55
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Keller S. 1963. Beyond the Ruling Class: Strategic Elites in Modern Society New York: Random House
  78. Kelly EL, Moen P. 2020. Overload: How Good Jobs Went Bad and What We Can Do About It Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  79. Kendall DE. 2002. The Power of Good Deeds: Privileged Women and the Social Reproduction of the Upper Class Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
  80. Khan S. 2010. Privilege: The Making of an Adolescent Elite at St. Paul's School Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  81. Khan SR. 2012. The sociology of elites. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38:361–77
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Killewald A. 2011. Opting out and buying out: wives’ earnings and housework time. J. Marriage Fam. 73:2459–71
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Killewald A, Gough M. 2010. Money isn't everything: wives’ earnings and housework time. Soc. Sci. Res. 39:6987–1003
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Kornrich S, Furstenberg F. 2013. Investing in children: changes in parental spending on children, 1972–2007. Demography 50:11–23
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Kroska A, Elman C. 2009. Change in attitudes about employed mothers: exposure, interests, and gender ideology discrepancies. Soc. Sci. Res. 38:2366–82
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Ku MC. 2011. When does gender matter? Gender differences in specialty choice among physicians. Work Occup 38:2221–62
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Lamont M. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American Upper-Middle Class Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  88. Lareau A. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  89. Lilly Fam. Sch. Philanthr. 2018. The impact of diversity: understanding how nonprofit board diversity affects philanthropy, leadership, and board engagement Rep., Indiana Univ. Indianapolis, IN: http://hdl.handle.net/1805/15239
  90. Lin K-H, Neely MT 2020. Divested: Inequality in Financialized America Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  91. Lovejoy M, Stone P. 2012. Opting back in: the influence of time at home on professional women's career redirection after opting out. Gender Work Organ 19:6631–53
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Matos K, Galinsky E, Bond JT. 2017. 2016 national study of employers Rep., Soc. Hum. Res. Manag. Alexandria, VA: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ow8usu72/production/d73a7246cc3a3fef4ad2ece1e3d5aa4eaec2f263.pdf
  93. Mears A. 2020. Very Important People: Status and Beauty in the Global Party Circuit Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  94. Mills CW. 1956. The Power Elite Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  95. Moore G, Sobieraj S, Whitt JA, Mayorova O, Beaulieu D. 2002. Elite interlocks in three U.S. sectors: nonprofit, corporate, and government. Soc. Sci. Q. 83:3726–44
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Moras A. 2017.. “ This should be my responsibility”: gender, guilt, privilege and paid domestic work. Gend. Issues 34:144–66
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. 2012. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. PNAS 109:4116474–79
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Murray B, Domina T, Renzulli L, Boylan R. 2019. Civil society goes to school: parent-teacher associations and the equality of educational opportunity. RSF 5:341–63
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Neely MT. 2018. Fit to be king: how patrimonialism on Wall Street leads to inequality. Socioecon. Rev. 16:2365–85
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Neely MT. 2020. The portfolio ideal worker: insecurity and inequality in the new economy. Qual. Sociol. 43:2271–96
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Okimoto TG, Brescoll VL. 2010. The price of power: power seeking and backlash against female politicians. Pers. Soc. Psychol Bull. 36:7923–36
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Ostrander S. 1984. Women of the Upper Class Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press
  103. Ostrower F. 1995. Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  104. Ostrower F. 2002. Trustees of Culture: Power, Wealth, and Status on Elite Arts Boards Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  105. Padavic I, Ely RJ, Reid EM. 2020. Explaining the persistence of gender inequality: the work-family narrative as a social defense against the 24/7 work culture. Adm. Sci. Q. 65:161–111
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Page BI, Bartells LM, Seawright J. 2013. Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans. Perspect. Politics 11:151–73
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Page BI, Seawright J, Lacombe MJ. 2018. Billionaires and Stealth Politics Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  108. Pedulla DS, Thébaud S. 2015. Can we finish the revolution? Gender, work-family ideals, and institutional constraint. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80:1116–39
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Peoples CD. 2019. The Undermining of American Democracy: How Campaign Contributions Corrupt Our System and Harm Us All New York: Routledge
  110. Pew Res. Cent. 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic's long-term financial impact Rep., Pew Res. Cent. Washington, DC:
  111. Phillips P. 2018. Giants: The Global Power Elite New York: Seven Stories
  112. Piketty T, Saez E. 2006. The evolution of top incomes: a historical and international perspective. Am. Econ. Rev. 96:2200–5
     [Google Scholar]
  113. Piketty T, Saez E, Zucman G. 2016. Distributional national accounts: methods and estimates for the United States NBER Work. Pap. 22945
  114. Posey-Maddox L. 2016. Beyond the consumer: parents, privatization, and fundraising in US urban public schooling. J. Educ. Policy. 31:2178–97
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Poynting S, Donaldson M. 2016. Snakes and leaders: hegemonic masculinity in ruling-class boys’ boarding schools. Men Masc 7:4325–346
     [Google Scholar]
  116. Qian Y, Yavorsky J. 2021. Under-utilization of women's talent: academic achievement and future leadership positions. Soc. Forces 100:2564–598
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Qian Z, Lichter DT. 2007. Social boundaries and marital assimilation: interpreting trends in racial and ethnic intermarriage. Am. Sociol. Rev. 72:168–94
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Raley S, Bianchi, Wang W. 2012. When do fathers care? Mothers’ economic contribution and fathers’ involvement in child care. Am. J. Sociol. 117:51422–59
     [Google Scholar]
  119. Reeves RV. 2017. Dream Hoarders: How the American Upper Middle Class Is Leaving Everyone Else in the Dust, Why That Is a Problem, and What to Do About It Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
  120. Ridgeway CL. 2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  121. Risman BJ. 2004. Gender as a social structure: theory wrestling with activism. Gend. Soc. 18:4429–50
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Rivera LA. 2012. Hiring as cultural matching: the case of elite professional service firms. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:6999–1022.
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Rivera LA. 2015. Pedigree: How Elite Students Get Elite Jobs Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  124. Rivera LA, Tilcsik A. 2016. Class advantage, commitment penalty: the gendered effect of social class signals in an elite labor market. Am. Sociol. Rev. 81:61097–1131
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Romero M. 2002. Maid in the U.S.A. New York: Routledge
  126. Roth LM. 2006. Selling Women Short: Gender and Money on Wall Street Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  127. Roth PL, Purvis KL, Bobko P. 2010. A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performance in field studies. J. Manag. 38:2719–39
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Rothkopf D. 2008. Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
  129. Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Phelan JE, Nauts S. 2012. Status incongruity and backlash effects: defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48:1165–79
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Ruppanner L. 2020. Motherlands: How States Push Mothers out of Employment. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
  131. Ruppanner L, Moller S, Sayer L. 2019. Expensive childcare and short school days = lower maternal employment and more time in childcare? Evidence from the American Time Use Survey. Socius 5: https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119860277
     [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  132. Sam F, Daniel L. 2019. The Class Ceiling: Why It Pays to Be Privileged Chicago: Policy
  133. Sani GMD, Treas J. 2016. Educational gradients in parents’ child-care time across countries, 1965–2012. J. Marriage Fam. 78:41083–96
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Schein VE. 1978. Sex role stereotyping, ability and performance: prior research and new directions. Pers. Psychol. 31:2259–68
     [Google Scholar]
  135. Schneider D, Hastings OP, LaBriola J. 2018. Income inequality and class divides in parental investments. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83:3475–507
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Schwartz CR. 2013. Trends and variation in assortative mating: causes and consequences. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 39:451–70
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Scott J. 2008. Modes of power and the re-conceptualization of elites. Sociol. Rev. 56:s125–43
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Sherman R. 2017. Uneasy Street: The Anxieties of Affluence Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  139. Sherman R. 2018.. “ A very expensive ordinary life”: consumption, symbolic boundaries and moral legitimacy among New York elites. Socioecon. Rev. 16:2411–33
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Sherwood JH. 2012. Wealth, Whiteness, and the Matrix of Privilege: The View from the Country Club Lanham, MD: Lexington
  141. Stone P. 2007. Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  142. Sudo N. 2017. The effects of women's labor force participation: an explanation of changes in household income inequality. Soc. Forces 95:41427–50
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Thébaud S, Charles M. 2018. Segregation, stereotypes, and STEM. Soc. Sciences 7:7111
     [Google Scholar]
  144. Thébaud S, Halcomb L. 2019. One step forward? Advances and setbacks on the path toward gender equality in families and work. Sociol. Compass 13:6e12700
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Thébaud S, Kornrich S, Ruppanner L. 2019. Good housekeeping, great expectations: gender and housework norms. Sociol. Methods Res. 50:31186–214
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Thébaud S, Taylor CJ. 2021. The specter of motherhood: culture and the production of gendered career aspirations in science and engineering. Gend. Soc. 35:3395–421
     [Google Scholar]
  147. Theodore N, Gutelius B, Burnham L. 2019. Workplace health and safety hazards faced by informally employed domestic workers in the United States. Workplace Health Saf 67:19–17
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Tichenor V. 2005. Maintaining men's dominance: negotiating identity and power when she earns more. Sex Roles 53:3191–205
     [Google Scholar]
  149. Turco CJ. 2010. Cultural foundations of tokenism: evidence from the leveraged buyout industry. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75:6894–913
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Useem M. 1980. Corporations and the corporate elite. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 6:41–77
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Vianello M, Moore G. 2004. Women and Men in Political and Business Elites: A Comparative Study in the Industrialized World London: Sage Publ. Ltd.
  152. Volscho TW, Kelly NJ. 2012. The rise of the super-rich: power resources, taxes, financial markets, and the dynamics of the top 1 percent, 1949 to 2008. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:5679–99
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Warner J, Ellmann N, Boesch D. 2018. The women's leadership gap Fact Sheet, Cent. Am. Prog. Washington, DC:
  154. Weisshaar K. 2018. From opt out to blocked out: the challenges for labor market re-entry after family-related employment lapses. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83:134–60
     [Google Scholar]
  155. Williams JC. 2010. Reshaping the Work-Family Debate: Why Men and Class Matter Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  156. Williams JC, Blair-Loy M, Berdahl JL. 2013. Cultural schemas, social class, and the flexibility stigma. J. Soc. Issues 69:2209–34
     [Google Scholar]
  157. Yamokoski A, Keister LA. 2006. The wealth of single women: marital status and parenthood in the asset accumulation of young baby boomers in the United States. Fem. Econ. 12:1–2167–94
     [Google Scholar]
  158. Yavorsky JE, Keister LA, Qian Y 2020a. Gender in the one percent. Contexts 19:112–17
     [Google Scholar]
  159. Yavorsky JE, Keister LA, Qian Y, Nau M. 2019. Women in the one percent: gender dynamics in top income positions. Am Sociol Rev 84:154–81
     [Google Scholar]
  160. Yavorsky JE, Keister LA, Qian Y, Thébaud S 2020b. Separate spheres in the new Gilded Age: mapping the gender division of labor by income and wealth Work. Pap., UNC-Charlotte Charlotte, NC:
  161. Zweigenhaft RL, Domhoff GW. 2006. Diversity in the Power Elite: How It Happened, Why It Matters Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-020321-031544
Loading
Gender in the Elite
Annual Review of Sociology 48, 149 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-020321-031544
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-020321-031544
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-020321-031544
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error