When applied to gender the advantages of the structuralist position are that it allows a discussion of gender relations in a way that makes it possible to argue that there are gender inequalities that need to be addressed politically. Women have just gained some status as subjects and need to speak out. There are still pressing issues regarding the unequal access of many women to resources (see Walby, 1996 and Chapter 1 above). Also a structuralist position is useful for criticizing conservative ideas about individualism, which suggest we can do whatever we want to and have only ourselves to blame if we do not succeed. Yet this approach has limitations in explaining gender relations.
There are several disadvantages to the structuralist position on gender. It can discourage us from thinking about diversity between women (see the problems with theoretical individualism outlined below). Structuralism’s close connections with Marxism can mean economic factors are highlighted (for example, women get paid less) while cultural or symbolic factors (for example, a general devaluing of any tasks associated with women) are underanalyzed or ignored. Both Marxist and linguistic forms of structuralism have been accused of being overly deterministic, meaning they are thought to over-emphasize the extent to which people’s lives are determined by social structure. Both are criticized for their assumption that individuals have very limited agency (power to act) to change social structures or social meanings.