Men Inside, Women Outside?



In this chapter, the author shared his personal trouble arises from doubts about the traditional division of family roles. Using his own autobiography and data from six in-depth interviews, the author attempted to examine the idea of “men outside, women inside”. He wanted to find out why he wants to challenge the traditional gender role and the resistances to change it. This discussion led to a re-examination of social determinism and voluntarism. Berger and Kellner’s formula on repression and freedom was revised with conflict and negotiation added into the formula as two crucial elements for couples to break through the tradition family roles. The author concluded that sociology is a discipline that can bring insights to people and it is the reason why he wants to promote sociology to laymen.


Gender Role Gender Stereotype Traditional Family Play Video Game Career Ambition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams, J. (2004). The imagination and social life. Qualitative Sociology, 27(3), 277–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babbie, E. (1988). The sociological spirit: Critical essays in a critical science. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Basow, S. A. (1992). Relationship between the two genders: Gender stereotypes and roles (Lin Mingkuan, Trans.) (in Chinese). Taipei: Yangzhi Wenhua.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, H. (1982). Writing for social scientists: How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bem, S. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berardo, D. H., Shehan, C. L., & Leslie, G. R. (1987). A residue of tradition: Jobs, careers, and spouses’ time in housework. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, P. L. (1963). Invitation to sociology: A humanistic perspective. New York: Doubleday and Company.Google Scholar
  8. Berger, P., & Berger, B. (1975). Sociology: A biographical approach. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Berger, P. L., & Kellner, H. (1986). Sociology reinterpreted: An essay on method and vocation. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  10. Bernard, J. (1982). The future of marriage. New York: Vail-Ballou Press.Google Scholar
  11. Blood, R. O., Jr., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brandt, A. (1981). What it means to say no. Psychology Today August, pp. 70–75.Google Scholar
  13. Corey, G., & Corey, M. S. (2005). I never knew I had a choice. Beverly, MA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Cuzzort, R. P., & King, E. W. (1976). Humanity and modern social thought. Hinsdale: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
  15. Durkheim, E. (1952). Suicide, a study in sociology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lips, H. M. (1994). Power in the family. In G. Handel & G. G. Whitchurch (Eds.), The psychosocial interior of the family. New York: Adine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Merton, R. K. (1988). Some thoughts on the concept of sociological autobiography. In W. R. Matilda (Ed.), Sociological lives (pp. 7–22). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Mills, C. W. (1970). The sociological imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  21. Oakley, A. (1974). The sociology of housework. London: Robertson.Google Scholar
  22. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. F. (1955). Family, socialization, and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Philpot, C. L., Brooks, G. R., Lusterman, D.-D., & Nutt, R. L. (1997). Bridging separate gender worlds: Why men and women clash and how therapists can bring them together. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Pleck, J., & Sawyer, J. (1987). Men and masculinity. Harmonsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  26. Richardson, L. (1979). Writing: A method of inquiry. In H. Schwartz & J. Jacobs (Eds.), Qualitative sociology: A method to the madness (pp. 516–529). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ritzer, G., & Goodman, D. J. (2004). Sociological theory. Boston: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  28. Ruddick, S. (1992). Thinking about fathers. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom (Eds.), Rethink the family (pp. 176–190). Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Turner, J. H. (2003). The structure of sociological theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  31. Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. London: Unwin University Books.Google Scholar
  32. Wrong, D. H. (1961). The oversocialized conception of man in modern sociology. American Sociological Review, 26(2), 183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Independent ResearcherHong kongChina

Personalised recommendations