Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 78, Issue 1–2, pp 52–66 | Cite as

Women’s Ideals for Masculinity Across Social Contexts: Patriarchal Agentic Masculinity is Valued in Work, Family, and Romance but Communal Masculinity in Friendship

  • Michael Quayle
  • Graham Lindegger
  • Kirsty Brittain
  • Neesa Nabee
  • Charlene Cole
Original Article

Abstract

The present study explores women’s ideals for masculinity in different social contexts (work, family/romance, and friendship) and compares how traditional (agentic) and non-patriarchal (communal) masculinity are valued in each context. Survey data were collected from one international (N = 159) and three South African samples (Ns = 86, 100, 161) of women. Results show that although women value patriarchal ideals for masculinity, agentic and communal versions of masculinity are valued differently across contexts. Specifically, traditional agentic versions of masculinity were most valued in the contexts most important to the long-term production of viable identity (family/romance and work). It was only in friendship that non-patriarchal communal masculinity was consistently idealized over traditional agentic masculinity. The results are discussed in relation to hegemonic masculinity (HM) and system justification theory (SJT). Congruent with SJT, women idealized versions of masculinity that may not be in their own or their group’s best interests, but in line with HM, the results emphasized the fluidity of masculinity and that the same individual can simultaneously idealize different versions of masculinity depending on the context. Because stereotypes are both explanations for the status quo and warrants for behaving in one way or another, these collective ideals for masculinity and contextual boundaries may be important obstacles to achieving gender equity.

Keywords

Masculinity Gender identity Romance Family Professional identity Friendship Sex role attitudes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The present research was supported by funding from the South African National Research Foundation (grant #TTK1206141295).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All studies reported on in this paper received full ethical review and approval from the responsible ethics committee prior to data collection.

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Informed Consent

All participants participated voluntarily, with clear information about the risks and benefits of participation and fully aware of their right to terminate participation at any time.

Supplementary material

11199_2017_772_MOESM1_ESM.docx (35 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 34 kb)

References

  1. Backus, F. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2011). The masculinity of Mr. right: Feminist identity and heterosexual women’s ideal romantic partners. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 318–326. doi: 10.1177/0361684310392357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. England: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  3. Banchefsky, S., & Park, B. (2016). The 'new father': Dynamic stereotypes of fathers. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(1), 103–107. doi: 10.1037/a0038945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, F. J. (1996). The organizational construction of hegemonic masculinity: The case of the US navy. Gender, Work and Organization, 3(3), 129–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.1996.tb00054.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batnitzky, A., McDowell, L., & Dyer, S. (2009). Flexible and strategic masculinities: The working lives and gendered identities of male migrants in london. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(8), 1275–1293. doi: 10.1080/13691830903123088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baxter, J., Haynes, M., Western, M., & Hewitt, B. (2013). Gender, justice and domestic work: Life course transitions and perceptions of fairness. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 4(1), 78–85.Google Scholar
  7. Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles, 62(7–8), 453–467. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9707-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Being a Strong Independent Woman. (2017, March 3). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/Being-a-Strong-Independent-Woman-185781448134898. Accessed 24 Aug 2011.
  9. Bernhardt, E., Noack, T., & Lyngstad, T. H. (2008). Shared housework in Norway and Sweden: Advancing the gender revolution. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(3), 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bleske-Rechek, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Opposite-sex friendship: Sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection, and dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1310–1323. doi: 10.1177/01461672012710007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burns, A. (2000). IV. Looking for love in intimate heterosexual relationships. Feminism & Psychology, 10(4), 481–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cikara, M., Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P., & Jost, J. T. (2009). Ambivalent sexism at home and at work: How attitudes toward women in relationships foster exclusion in the public sphere. In A. C. Kay & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 444–462). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clow, K. A., Ricciardelli, R., & Bartfay, W. J. (2015). Are you man enough to be a nurse? The impact of ambivalent sexism and role congruity on perceptions of men and women in nursing advertisements. Sex Roles, 72(7–8), 363–376. doi: 10.1007/s11199-014-0418-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Connell, R. W. (1993). The big picture: Masculinities in recent world history. Theory and Society, 22(5), 597–623. doi: 10.1007/bf00993538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829–859. doi: 10.1177/0891243205278639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343–370. doi: 10.1177/1088868314564789.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2004). Cross-national variations in the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1260–1271. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00091.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. de Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Demetriou, D. Z. (2001). Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society, 30(3), 337–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dixon, J., & Wetherell, M. (2004). On discourse and dirty nappies: Gender, the division of household labour and the social psychology of distributive justice. Theory & Psychology, 14(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22(5), 643–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Durrheim, K., Quayle, M., & Dixon, J. (2016). The struggle for the nature of 'prejudice': 'Prejudice' expression as identity performance. Political Psychology, 37(1), 17–35. doi: 10.1111/pops.12310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Trautner & H. M. Eckes (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (1997). Jockeying for position: The construction of masculine identities. Discourse and Society, 8, 203–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ezzell, M. B. (2012). “I’m in control”: Compensatory manhood in a therapeutic community. Gender and Society, 26(2), 190–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2002). Young masculinities. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Gough, H. G. (1952). Identifying psychological femininity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 12, 427–439. doi: 10.1177/001316445201200309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Guimond, S. (2008). Psychological similarities and differences between women and men across cultures. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 494–510. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00036.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353–363. doi: 10.1177/0361684316634081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Doosje, B. (2002). From personal pictures in the head to collective tools in the world: How shared stereotypes allow groups to represent and change social reality. In C. Mcgarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 157–185). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hot, Cute or OK. (2017, March 3). Retrieved from https://apps.facebook.com/hotcuteokay/. Accessed 24 Aug 2011.
  37. Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D., Lindegger, G., et al. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(2), 96–111. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094.Google Scholar
  38. Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: A paradigm for investigating the effects of socioeconomic success on stereotype content. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 293–305. doi: 10.1177/0146167200265003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender and Society, 2(3), 274–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Knights, D., & Kerfoot, D. (2004). Between representations and subjectivity: Gender binaries and the politics of organizational transformation. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(4), 430–454. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00241.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. LimeSurvey Project Team / Carsten Schmitz. (2012). LimeSurvey: An open source survey tool. Hamburg. Retrieved from http://limesurvey.org.
  46. Mehta, C. M., & Dementieva, Y. (2016). The contextual specificity of gender: Femininity and masculinity in college students’ same- and other-gender peer contexts. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11199-016-0632-z
  47. Messerschmidt, J. W. (2012). Engendering gendered knowledge: Assessing the academic appropriation of hegemonic masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 15(1), 56–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park, L. E., Young, A. F., Troisi, J. D., & Pinkus, R. T. (2011). Effects of everyday romantic goal pursuit on women’s attitudes toward math and science. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), 1259–1273. doi: 10.1177/0146167211408436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Peele, M. (2009). New worlds of friendship: The early twentieth century. In B. Caine (Ed.), Friendship: A history (pp. 279–216). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Petersen, A. (2003). Research on men and masculinities: Some implications of recent theory for future work. Men and Masculinities, 6(1), 54–69. doi: 10.1177/1097184X02250843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pfeffer, C. A., Rogalin, C. L., & Gee, C. A. (2016). Masculinities through a cross-disciplinary lens: Lessons from sociology and psychology. Sociology Compass, 10(8), 652–672. doi: 10.1111/soc4.12396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. doi: 10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reicher, S., Hopkins, N., & Condor, S. (1997). Stereotype construction as a strategy of influence. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 94–118). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  54. Riley, S. C. E. (2003). The management of the traditional male role: A discourse analysis of the constructions and functions of provision. Journal of Gender Studies, 12(2), 99–113. doi: 10.1080/0958923032000088300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schacht, S. P. (1996). Misogyny on and off the "pitch": The gendered world of male rugby players. Gender and Society, 10(5), 550–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266. doi: 10.1111/pops.12040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sherriffs, A. C., & McKee, J. P. (1957). Qualitative aspects of beliefs about men and women. Journal of Personality, 25(4), 451–464. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1957.tb01540.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spears, R., & Smith, H. J. (2001). Experiments as politics. Political Psychology, 22(2), 309–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Speer, S. A. (2005). Gender talk: Feminism, discourse, and conversation analysis. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Subašić, E., Reynolds, K. J., Reicher, S. D., & Klandermans, B. (2012). Where to from here for the psychology of social change? Future directions for theory and practice. Political Psychology, 33(1), 61–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00864.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tai, T., & Treas, J. (2013). Housework task hierarchies in 32 countries. European Sociological Review, 29(4), 780–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Talbot, K., & Quayle, M. (2010). The perils of being a nice guy: Contextual variation in five young women’s constructions of acceptable hegemonic and alternative masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 13(2), 255–278. doi: 10.1177/1097184X09350408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson, E. H. J., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 115–133. doi: 10.1037/a0038609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. van der Toorn, J., & Jost, J. T. (2014). Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on ideology and system justification processes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 413–419. doi: 10.1177/1368430214531509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weichselbaumer, D., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of the international gender wage gap. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(3), 479–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology, 9(3), 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whorley, M. R., & Addis, M. E. (2006). Ten years of psychological research on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant methodological trends. Sex Roles, 55(9), 649–658. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9120-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Williams, J. E., Satterwhite, R. C., & Best, D. L. (1999). Pancultural gender stereotypes revisited: The five factor model. Sex Roles, 40(7), 513–525. doi: 10.1023/A:1018831928829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wong, Y. J., Steinfeldt, J. A., Speight, Q. L., & Hickman, S. J. (2010). Content analysis of psychology of men & masculinity (2000-2008). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(3), 170–181. doi: 10.1037/a0019133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Social Issues Research, Department of PsychologyUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.School of Applied Human SciencesUniversity of KwaZulu-NatalDurbanSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations