ASPECTOS RELEVANTES AL ANALIZAR UNA EMPRESA  La liquidez

Eagly (1987) proposed Social Roles theory arguing that ‘social roles account for sex differences in social behaviour’ (p. 10). She further argued that ‘the sexual division of labour and societal expectations based on stereotypes produce gender roles’ (p. 12). She defined the latter as ‘shared expectations about appropriate qualities and behaviours which apply to people on the basis of their socially identified gender’ (p. 12). According to Eagly (1987) ‘gender roles are germane to explaining sex differences which occur in typical research settings [school classrooms] and such gender roles are applicable to a large portion of people’s lives, including that portion which might occur in the classroom setting’ (p. 12). Eagly

(ibid) argued that ‘gender roles do have a direct impact on social interactions that occur in the classroom settings’ (p. 12). These gender roles are often established upon social norms which are ‘the standards or rules of behaviour for men and women expected by a given society or culture’ (Statt, 2003:145) Such social norms are usually perceived as ‘stereotypes’ which are ‘shared beliefs that people hold about a group of people’ (Archer and Lioyd, 2002:19). Moreover, ‘gender roles are the social roles that a society defines for men and women while the stereotypes that people hold about men and women are gender stereotypes’ (Eagly, 1987:6).

Eagly (1987) further makes a distinction between ‘the communal and agentic dimensions of gender-stereotyped characteristics’ (p. 16). The ‘communal dimension describes a concern with the welfare of other people and women are believed to manifest this concern more strongly than men’ (Eagly, 1987:16). The communal role therefore is characterized by attributes such as caring, nurturance and emotional expressiveness, and is commonly associated with women and domestic activities’ (p. 16). On the other hand, the ‘agentic dimension is characterized by attributes such as assertiveness and controlling tendencies, and is commonly associated with public activities, and thus, with men’ (p. 16). Eagly (1987) therefore associates the stereotypes of the agentic role with masculinity and argues that these attributes are the results of men’s roles in the public sphere. Similarly she associates the stereotypes of the communal role with femininity and argues that these qualities emanates from their roles in the private sphere or in the domestic activities’ (p. 21). Nevertheless, Eagly (1987) maintained that ‘the gender stereotypes about agentic and communal roles do not represent men and women as widely separated categories because people do not believe that all men are domineering and that all women are submissive’ (p. 17). She argued that ‘instead, people believed that the sexes are somewhat heterogeneous, partially overlapping groups, possessing different average levels of various attributes’ (p. 17). Therefore, using the distinction of Holmes (2009), masculine and feminine are not necessarily clear and opposite categories’ (p. 2). Consequently, ‘gender roles and physical characteristics are considered to be consistent or inconsistent with masculine and feminine roles’ (Eagly, 1987:24). The behaviours of school children are likely to be connected to their gender roles when the specific cultures approve gender stereotypes and hold firm expectations based on those stereotypes (Eagly 1987). Gender roles in the Nigerian background refer to socialisation experiences which boys and girls are taught in their homes. Such experiences often influence their

behaviour and they normally bring such behaviours into classroom settings during teaching and learning process.

Eagly (1987) also posits that ‘skills as well as attitudes and beliefs learned from performing gender roles are often carried from one setting to another and therefore, men and women often bring with them such knowledge and skills into the research settings’ (p. 28). As a result, the ‘behaviour of men and women tends to differ in the classroom even though they are treated equally and are assigned the same specific role’ (p. 28). Consequently, gender roles are germane to this study because they do influence certain kinds of behaviours in the Nigerian boys and girls. As earlier noted, during Nigerian family socialisation, boys and girls learn and accept certain roles taught to them by their parents. In the Nigerian family background where I grew up, there is total role segregation for men and women and this is also applicable to boys and girls. One of the gender roles in the Nigerian society is the issue of housework. For example, housekeeping and caring for children are the primary responsibilities of women and as such men are expected to partially participate in them. In the same way, girls help their mothers to keep their houses clean and to care for younger children while boys are expected to partially take part in those duties. In many families, parents prefer to leave their younger siblings in the care of their girls as they are often socialized to do this. Indeed, parents hardly leave them in the care of their boys because as they are not socialized to be doing that. As a result, it is generally believed that boys will not be able to care of them very well. In addition, the Nigerian women and girls take care of the largest part of child care and character formation, including educating them and caring for them in every way. This is because girls are expected to be sensitive and caring. From my experience, there are male and female roles in the Nigerian family background. For example, as a boy I was taught not to think, act and behave like a girl or woman but like a man at all times. Again, I was taught to work harder to be successful in my life pursuits and to be aggressive and self-reliant. On the other hand, girls are taught to appear beautiful at all times, be loving and kind and to bear long with people no matter how badly they are treated. Therefore one major way that we can know the effect of gender roles is the issue of gender-specific education as these often influenced their choices of future occupations. This type of education entails boys and girls studying at school, subjects that best go well with their genders. This is because in the traditional family background where I grew up, many parents think of high professional education as being important for men and boys while women and

girls could study courses such as those of teaching, nursing and secretarial, sales and clerical courses that appeared to go well with their genders.

‘The socialisation of boys and girls in the Nigerian cultures appears to be tailored towards making them separate people with different capabilities, potentials and constitutions’ (Izugbara, 2004:9). Thus, ‘while boys are socialised to see themselves as future heads of households, breadwinners, and owners of their wives and children, girls are taught that a good woman has to be obedient, submissive, meek and a humble housekeeper’ (Izugbara, 2004:9). Again in the area of skill learning, boys and girls tend to be socialised differently at home. As noted earlier in chapter one, girls are informally taught different aspects of home economics (Ekpenyong, 1995). Ekpenyong also (ibid) adds that the greater part of farming activities are carried out by women and girls. Furthermore, mothers who were engaged in petty trading also socialised their daughters into the business by giving them opportunities to serve as sales assistant in their small businesses with the result that they make contacts with very many customers, develop skills of good communication and the skills of working with other people (Toby, 2000:34). However, Ekpenyong (1995) suggests that ‘cattle rearing, bush clearing, planting and tending of yams are mainly the work of men and the boys had to learn from their fathers how these were done by following them to the farm and closely observing the processes involved’ (p. 26). However, most feminists argued that gendered behaviour is to some extent socially constructed, given that these behaviours and those assigned appropriate to one gender or the other, vary between cultures and historic periods (Francis, 2006:11). The next section deals with cultural capital theory.