|
Article Excerpt
Nearly a century ago educator, researcher, and feminist Leta Hollingworth identified some of the institutional barriers to women's achievement. In an article in the American Journal of Sociology, Hollingworth (1916) showed how social institutions conspire to control and limit a woman's role in society to that of motherhood. The major source of gender difference, she asserted, can be found in the opportunity structure in society rather than in sex category. In a similar vein, Barbara Risman (1998) more recently argued that men and women act differently because of the positions they occupy in society--in their families, their work, and the institutional settings of their lives. She used social interactional and institutional factors, along with individual personality factors, to explain the parenting behavior of men and women.
Research on gender relations in the workplace reveals that when women have the same opportunities as men for example, interactions with similar others, available mentors, and equal access to promotions--they behave similarly (Kanter, 1977). In an attempt to observe the effects of respondent's sex and social role on behavior in the family setting, Risman asked the question: Can men mother (i.e., care for their children)? The answer, based on her research, was clearly and unequivocally, yes, men can nurture their children. Respondents' sex and parenting roles affected their responsibilities for housework and parent-child intimacy and affection. Single fathers were similar in most ways to single mothers on these ostensible "mothering" measures, and both differed from married fathers and mothers.
GENDER AND PERSONALITY
The relationship between gender identity and personality traits has been the topic of interest and investigation for years. Brim (1960) analyzed the characteristics parents encourage in their 5- to 6-year-olds and reported that curiosity, ambition, and competitiveness were promoted in boys, whereas kindness, friendliness, and obedience were fostered in girls. Later, these two distinct sets of personality characteristics were labeled instrumental and expressive and attributed to men and women, respectively (Bem, 1974; Spence & Helmreich, 1978). Early psychological research assumed masculinity and femininity to be core to personality, and gender identity disorder was assigned to those who deviated from societal norms for sex-typed behavior (Bern, 1993).
In the popular press, John Gray (1992) proclaimed that men and women are from two different planets where they hold different values and speak different languages. His depiction of inherent personality differences reflects the biological, or sociobiological, view that maleness and femaleness are "natural" sex differences. This position ignores the importance of social forces that shape individuals' attitudes and behavior. Beyond understanding that differential socialization creates gendered personalities, the recognition that our behavior is influenced by social roles, interactional scripts, and contextual factors extends our views of gender and personality in today's society (Risman, 1998).
It is common in the academic world to distinguish the concepts of sex and gender as follows: sex is used to represent the biologically based designation of male and female and gender indicates the performance of activities to confirm one's sex category (West & Zimmerman, 1987). Some in the social sciences argue that gender is structural, a feature of society designed to create inequality and the subordination of women (Lorber, 1994). Others see gender as both personal and cultural, where external gender constraints affect individual selves (Risman, 1998). Social psychologists Stets and Burke have said that "gender identity involves all the meanings that are applied to oneself on the basis of one's gender identification" (2000, p. 998) and that self-identity motivates gender-related behavior.
MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY
Male and female, masculine and feminine, generally have been seen as representing opposing tendencies (Bem, 1993; Lips, 2005) and were first measured as opposite ends of a continuum (Lips; Terman & Miles, 1936). However, when sex and gender are distinguished, it becomes clear that people do not fit neatly into masculine and feminine categories. Theorists such as Bem (1974, 1981, 1993) challenged the conceptualization of masculinity and femininity as inherent aspects of personality and argued that they are culturally defined prescriptions for how men and women should act. This view is supported in research based on the inventory she developed called the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1981).
The BSRI is composed of two independent scales: one indicating highly masculine-identified individuals and one indicating highly feminine-identified individuals. A person may score high on one or the other, high on both, or low on both. Scores on the two scales, masculinity and femininity, are used to create four distinct gender categories: masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated. Androgyny is the concept Bem used to indicate a merging of masculine and feminine characteristics within an individual. When men or women score high on both instrumental and expressive dimensions, they are androgynous, and when low on both, they are undifferentiated.
Those classified in either masculine or feminine categories are highly attuned to sex-appropriate, culturally determined behaviors and use these definitions to describe themselves (Bem, 1981). Those classified as androgynous represent an integration of masculinity and femininity (Bem, 1974). Androgyny is considered a healthy personality trait, beneficial for psychological development and high levels of psychological functioning (Bem; Pipher, 1994; Waterman & Whitbourne, 1982). Androgynous individuals are flexible in social situations because they use situational appropriateness rather than...
|
