Sex and Gender

  • Almudena Hernando


This chapter seeks to critically review prevalent accounts of gender asymmetry and to reexamine the concepts of sex and gender. As no preexisting theoretical formulation seems really satisfactory, a new hypothesis that will serve as a starting point for the book’s arguments is put forward here: gender asymmetry is a function of the different processes that underlie the construction of male and female self-identity.When we speak of gender differences, we are referring to differences in the individuation levels of men and women throughout history.


Gender John Money Male and female degrees of individuation 


  1. Amorós, C. (2009). Vetas de Ilustración. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
  2. Burin, M. (1996). Género y psicoanálisis: Subjetividades femeninas vulnerables. In M. Burin & E. D. Bleichmar (Comps.), Género, psicoanálisis, subjetividad (pp. 61–99). Buenos Aires: Paidós.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Cobo, R. (2005). El género en las Ciencias Sociales. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 18, 249–258.Google Scholar
  5. Descola, P. (2001). The genres of gender: Local models and global paradigms in the comparison of Amazonia and Melanesia. In T. Gregor & D. Tuzin (Eds.), Gender in Amazonia and Melanesia (pp. 91–114). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dio Bleichmar, E. (1998). La sexualidad femenina. De la niña a la mujer. Buenos Aires: Paidós.Google Scholar
  7. Engelstad, E. (2007). Much more than gender. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fried, M. H. (1967). The evolution of political society. Nueva York: Random House.Google Scholar
  9. Gilchrist, R. (1999). Gender and material culture: Contesting the past. Nueva York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. Londres: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  11. Herdt, G. H. (1994). Third sex?, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. Nueva York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  12. Hernando, A. (2010). Gender, individualization, and affine/consanguineal relationship. In L. H. Dommasness, T. Hjorungdal, S. Montón-Subías, M. Sánchez Romero, & N. L. Wicker (Eds.), Situating gender in European archaeologies (pp. 283–306). Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
  13. Jónasdóttir, A. G. (1994). Love power and political interests. Towards a theory of pathriarchy in contemporary western societies. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Molina Petit, C. (2000). Debates sobre el género. In C. Amorós (Ed.), Feminismo y filosofía (pp. 255–284). Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
  15. Money, J. (1965). Psychosexual differentiation. In J. Money (Ed.), Sex research: New developments (pp. 3–23). Nueva York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Nicholson, L. (1990). Feminismo y Marx: Integración de parentesco y economía. In S. Benhabib & D. Cornell (Eds.), Teoría feminista y teoría crítica (pp. 29–48). Valencia: Edicions Alfons el Magnànim, Institució Valenciana d’Estudis i Investigació.Google Scholar
  17. Posada Kubissa, L. (2007a). La diferencia sexual como diferencia esencial: Sobre Luce Irigaray. In C. Amorós & A. de Miguel (Eds.), Teoría feminista: de la Ilustración a la globalización, Vol. 2: Del feminismo liberal a la posmodernidad (pp. 253–288). Madrid: Minerva Ediciones.Google Scholar
  18. Posada Kubissa, L. (2007b). El pensamiento de la diferencia sexual: el feminismo italiano. Luisa Muraro y ‘El orden simbólico de la madre’. In C. Amorós & A. de Miguel (Eds.), Teoría feminista: de la Ilustración a la globalización, Vol. 2: Del feminismo liberal a la posmodernidad (pp. 289–317). Madrid: Minerva Ediciones.Google Scholar
  19. Roca, I. M. (2005). La gramática y la biología en el género del español (1ª parte). Revista Española de Lingüística, 35(1), 17–44.Google Scholar
  20. Rubin, G. (1975). The traffic on women. Notes on the political economy of sex. In R. R. Reiter (Ed.), Toward and anthropology of women (pp. 157–210). New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sanahuja, M. E. (2002). Cuerpos sexuados, objetos y prehistoria. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
  22. Scott, J. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. American Historical Review, 91, 1053–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taylor, A.-C. (2001). Wives, pets, and affines. In L. M. Rival & N. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Beyond the visible and the material. The amerindianization of society in the work of Peter Rivière (pp. 45–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Vilaça, A. (2002). Making kin out of Others in Amazonia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 8(2), 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Viveiros de Castro, E. (2001). GUT feelings about Amazonia: Potential affinity and the construction of sociality. In L. M. Rival & N. L. Whitehead (Eds.), Beyond the visible and the material. The amerindianization of society in the work of Peter Rivière (pp. 19–43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wagner, R. (1972). Incest and identity: A critique and theory on the subject of exogamy and incest prohibition. Man (New Series), 7(4), 601–613.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Almudena Hernando
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de PrehistoriaUniversidad Complutense MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations