masculine vs feminine culture essay

Masculinity vs Femininity: Similarities and Differences

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

The distinction between masculinity and femininity primarily concerns societal expectations, behaviors, and social roles typically associated with males and females.

The differences relate to social and cultural understandings about the social behaviors and roles of these two genders, whereas the categories of ‘male’ and ‘female’ relate to biological understandings of biological sexes .

For a brief introduction, these are the two binary gender identities:

• Femininity typically embodies traits related to nurturing, emotional expression, and collaboration (Basow, 1992). Women, for example, are often expected to show more emotion, communicate effectively and non-aggressively, and prioritize nurturing relationships over assertive behavior . Think about a typical film character who is nurturing her children (e.g., Mrs. Doubtfire’s character), or a woman leading a team through conflict resolution rather than dominance.
• Masculinity tends to align with traits such as assertiveness, independence, and dominance (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). Men are often encouraged to suppress emotion, strive for independence and display assertiveness or even aggressiveness. A real-world example might be a Hollywood action hero, physically strong and emotionally guarded (e.g., James Bond).

As these descriptors are cultural descriptions of expected behaviors, they are not strictly connected to the genders. For example, many women can, and do, exhibit masculine traits to a greater or lesser extent. As such, these traits are seen as socially constructed , and extensive research underscores the spectrum of masculine and feminine behaviors rather than rigidly dichotomous categories.

Masculinity vs Femininity

Masculinity.

Masculinity refers to the qualities, characteristics or roles conventionally associated with men (Kimmel & Aronson, 2011).

Traditionally, many societies value traits such as strength, aggression, and independence in men. These are often internalized by children through media and parental expectations in a process called gender socialization .

Masculinity is not limited to men, as women can, and often do, exhibit masculine traits.

Gender theorists have also explored the concept of “ hegemonic masculinity ” (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015), which refers to a particular configuration of practice that legitimizes men’s dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of women, and other marginalized ways of being male.

An instance demonstrating this can be seen in most superhero movies like “Superman” where the male lead character is depicted as physically dominant, emotionally detached and rescues those in trouble.

See also: Toxic Masculinity Definition and Examples

However, it is vital not to oversimplify or stereotype these traits.

Modern perspectives of masculinity emphasize plurality, intersectionality and fluid dynamics (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). Plurality suggests that there are many ways to express masculinity, not just a rigid stereotype.

For example, consider the trend of stay-at-home dads, which reflects a valid expression of masculinity contrary to the societal norm. Intersectionality discusses how different factors such as race, class, age or sexual orientation interact with masculinity, which results in varied experiences of it.

The fluid nature of masculinity underscores that it can change within an individual over time due to numerous factors including personal growth or cultural shifts.

Masculinity Examples

The following are traits traditionally associated with hegemonic masculinity. Please note that these are generalized, traditional, and often outdated stereotypes, and do not necessarily apply to every individual.

• Physical Strength: Men are often judged by their physical capabilities, such as their strength, endurance, and athletic prowess (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). An example would be professional athletes like Usain Bolt who are renowned for their physical abilities.
• Emotional Control: Men are typically encouraged to suppress their emotions as a sign of strength (Kimmel & Aronson, 2011). Consider the phrase “real men don’t cry,” which discourages emotional vulnerability .
• Sexual Prowess: Successfully attracting sexual partners can be seen as a measure of masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). For example, fictional characters like James Bond are portrayed as overwhelmingly attractive to women.
• Competitiveness: Often, masculinity is associated with the need to compete and win (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). Corporate leaders like Elon Musk and his competition with other billionaires in the space industry exemplify this.
• Dominance: Exerting control in social situations is often seen as a masculine trait (Kimmel & Aronson, 2011). This can be seen in team leaders, such as football captains, who direct and guide their team.
• Stoicism: Preserving composure in the face of adversity is considered a masculine virtue (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). For example, firefighters remaining calm in dangerous situations.
• Financial Independence: Masculinity is often associated with earning power and economic independence (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). Successful businessmen like Warren Buffett exemplify this trait.
• Authority: Men who wield authority, either at home or at work, are often seen as embodying masculinity (Kimmel & Aronson, 2011). Historic world leaders, such as Winston Churchill, can serve as examples.
• Autonomy : Emphasizing self-reliance and independence is a commonly upheld masculine trait (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). Backpackers traveling alone through challenging terrains embody this characteristic.
• Risk-Taking: Men are often expected to be adventurous and willing to confront danger (Bridges & Pascoe, 2014). This trait can be seen in adrenaline pursuits such as skydiving or bungee jumping.

See More Masculinity Examples Here

Femininity, fundamentally, characterizes traits, roles, and behaviors typically associated with women in a given society (Brown & Gilligan, 2013).

Traits associated with femininity often include nurturing, empathy, sensitivity, and non-aggressive communication.

As with masculinity, the construct of femininity extends beyond women, as men can, and often do, embody these traits.

Examining femininity critically, it is often linked to the private sphere and associated with the nurturing and caring roles (Lemon, 2016).

These expectations are often structured around homemaking, child-rearing, and other forms of emotional labor.

An example of this expectation might be a character like Marmee March in “Little Women,” who embodies the loving, nurturing, and domestic qualities associated with traditional ideas of femininity.

Contrary to past stereotypical portrayals, modern understandings of femininity acknowledge its complex and diverse nature (Brown & Gilligan, 2013). Femininity is not monolithic; instead, it intersects with other identity aspects such as race, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation, leading to varying expressions and experiences.

A contemporary portrayal of femininity may include a Fortune 500 CEO who leads with compassion and empathy, effectively blending traits typically associated with both femininity and masculinity.

This underscores the emergence of a more fluid understanding of femininity that resists binary categorizations.

Femininity Examples

The following are traits traditionally associated with femininity. Please note that these are generalized, traditional, and often outdated stereotypes, and do not necessarily apply to every individual:

• Emotional Openness: Women are typically expected to be more open with their emotions (Brown & Gilligan, 2013). A well-known movie character who embodies this would be Julia Roberts’ character in ‘Steel Magnolias’, who readily shares her feelings with those around her.
• Nurturing Behavior: Femininity is often associated with nurturing and caring for others (Lemon, 2016). An example can be seen in the role of Florence Nightingale, historically known for her caring nature and dedication to nursing.
• Empathy: Empathy, or the understanding and sharing of others’ feelings, is traditionally seen as a feminine trait. A famous example could be Mother Teresa and her profound empathy for the less fortunate.
• Verbal Communication: Women are often associated with verbal skills and are often expected to be conversationally engaging (Brown & Gilligan, 2013). Oprah Winfrey, a noted television host and interviewer, is an example who uses these skills masterfully.
• Cooperation: Societal expectations often associate femininity with cooperative and collaborative work . An example could be seen in team projects in any professional setting where female team members work constructively to reach a common goal.
• Modesty: Cultural norms often link modesty, or humility, with femininity. For instance, Aung San Suu Kyi is often praised for her modest approach in leading her political movement.
• Concern for Appearance: Attention to personal grooming and appearance is often associated with femininity. One real-world example is the flourishing beauty and fashion industry largely catering to women.
• Flexibility: Adaptability and flexibility, especially emotional, are commonly viewed as feminine traits (Lemon, 2016). An example is evident in many working mothers who juggle multiplicity of roles and adapt to changing circumstances.
• Patience: Historically, patience has often been hailed as a feminine virtue. An example could be a teacher like Maria Montessori, who demonstrated patience in her innovative approach to education.
• Gracefulness: Gracefulness, such as in movement, manners, or style, is often ascribed to femininity. Many female dancers, like Misty Copeland, embody this trait through their performances.

See More Femininity Examples Here

Table of Differences Between Femininity and Masculinity

This table reflects traditional views on masculinity and femininity. It is important to understand that individuals may identify with traits from both columns or none at all, and that’s perfectly okay.

It’s also crucial to recognize that societal views on gender are changing, with many societies moving towards more fluid understandings of gender roles and characteristics.

Cultural Variations in Masculine and Feminine Stereotypes

Cultural differences in gender norms play a significant role in shaping perceptions of masculinity and femininity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2015). In fact, some cultures even have multiple different types of genders .

Essentially, what is considered masculine or feminine can vary greatly from one culture to another. Such cultural ideals are deeply embedded and shape individual behavior, identities, and societal norms at large.

In some societies, the concept of masculinity is strictly tied to physical strength, stoicism, and economic prowess (Maass et al., 2016). For instance, in many traditional societies, manual labor and physical strength define a man’s masculinity.

On the contrary, in other societies, mental strength, emotional intelligence, and the ability to provide for the family define masculinity. An example might be the difference in expression of masculinity between the Maasai warriors of Kenya, whose rites of passage include lion hunting, and men in Scandinavian cultures, where gender equality and shared household work is emphasized.

Femininity, as well, can exhibit significant cultural variation.

In some cultures, femininity is tied to domesticity, gentleness, and passivity (Maass et al., 2016). For instance, in many fundamentalist and deeply conservative societies, women’s roles are traditionally restricted to the private sphere: homemaking, child-rearing, etc.

However, in other cultures, femininity can also be associated with strength, leadership, and independence. The Mosuo culture in China, for instance, is a matrilineal society where women are heads of households, and their economic and social status are more prominent, challenging traditional notions of femininity.

See Also: 10 Types of Masculinity

Masculinity and femininity are fluid constructs, molded by cultural norms, values, and historical contexts . Therefore, they are subject to continuous change and redefinition.

Basow, S. A. (1992). Gender: Stereotypes and roles . Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Bridges, T., & Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Exploring masculinities: Identity, inequality, continuity, and change . Oxford University Press.

Brown, L. M., & Gilligan, C. (2013). Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s Psychology and Girls’ Development . Harvard University Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.151.2.281

Connell, R., & Messerschmidt, J. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19 (6), 829-859. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639

Kimmel, M., & Aronson, A. (2011). The gendered society . Oxford University Press.

Lemon, R. (2016). “Femininity” as a Barrier to Positive Sexual Health for Adolescent Girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 59 (2), 154-159.

Maass, V. S., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2016). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75 (5), 1245–1261. Doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853

O’Neil, M. (2013). Men’s and Women’s Gender Role Journeys: Metaphor for Healing, Transition, and Transformation. Springer Publishing Company.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 10 Reasons you’re Perpetually Single
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 20 Montessori Toddler Bedrooms (Design Inspiration)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 21 Montessori Homeschool Setups
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Masculinity and Femininity Essay

Introduction.

Masculinity and femininity is always influenced by geographical, cultural, and historical location. Currently, the combined influence of gay movements and feminism has blown up the conception of a standardized definition of masculinity and femininity.

Therefore, it is becoming increasingly fashionable to adopt the term masculinity or femininity not only to reflect the modern times, but also to depict the cultural construction and manifestation of masculinity and femininity to closer and more accurate scrutiny (Beynon, 2002, p. 1). In this regard, social, behavioral, and cultural scientists are specifically concerned with various ways in which gender acquires different meanings and contexts.

pecifically, gender is more associated with definitions attached to notions within the cultural and historical framework. According to Andersen and Taylor (2010), gender roles are closely associated with masculinity and femininity in different cultures. In western industrialized societies, people intend to believe that these masculinity and femininity should be absolutely juxtaposed as two opposite sexes due to the social functions they perform. This is why the era of capitalism is highly distinguished among other historical periods.

Cultural Variations of Masculinity and Femininity in the Era of Industrialization

Given that maleness has a biological orientation, then masculinity must have a cultural one. According to Beynon (2002), masculinity “can never float free of culture” (p. 2). Culture shapes and expresses masculinity differently at different points in time in different situations and different areas by groups and individual.

For instance, Hispanic professional males depict a somewhat higher robustness rating than other categories (Long and Martinez, 1997). In Hispanic cultural societies, traditional masculinity is associated with power status. Hispanic professional men (and women) fight the challenges of attempting to balance the popular cultural values in the United States with their ethnic identity and ethnic values.

Traditional masculinity has an appreciable influence on Hispanic men’s perception of self. Thus, social counselors must consider the cultural values and ethnic identity when handling a social issue involving the Hispanics. In addition, Beynon (2002, p. 2), argues that, masculinity in the first place exists merely as fantasy about what men ought to be, a blurry construction to assist individuals structure and make sense of their lives.

Much research has been done on discussing gender differences from a cross-cultural perspective. To enlarge on this point, Costa et al. (2001) have found out that there are significant gender variations that were observed across cultures. Specifically, the researchers have defined that gender difference were the most communicated ones in American and European cultures where traditional gender roles are diminished.

Such a behavior is explained by the fact that gender aspects are more perceived as roles people perform, but not as cultural traits. Regarding the identified period, the industrialized society is more on presenting direct associations with their social roles where males and females distinction come to the forth and are recognized as norms for behavior.

Full opposition for two-gender dimension has also been supported by Gaudreau (1977) whose research proves that the terms ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ are perceived as independent traits, but not as bipolar dimension.

In general, cross-cultural research on masculinity and femininity indicates that all cultures assign different roles to men and women. However, characteristics that are associated with each indicate some cultural diversity. Due to the fact that gender variations have been perceived as cultural determinants influencing the formation of societies, it has significant social meaning.

Historical Patterns of Masculinity and Femininity during Capitalist Period

Historical variations of gender distinctions are also heavily discussed by researchers in terms of social and dimensions. Furthermore, the studies have also underscored such aspects as domesticity and public movements related to masculinity-femininity aspects. Therefore, these differences and variations play a significant role in forming various social dimensions and evaluating social situation.

The observations made by Sethi (1984) has shown that industrialization have displayed tangible chances to the concepts of gender influencing such aspects as residence patterns, house composition, and sleeping accommodations. With regard to historical perspectives, gender and social reproduction are introduced by feminist theory.

In particular, Laslett (1989) argues that societies Europe and North America in the twentieth century were oriented on such social differences as consumerism, procreation, sexuality, and family strategies. In this respect, the researcher supports the idea that re-organization of gender relations have given rise to the development of macro-historical processes. In whole, femininity and masculinity in the industrialized society is presented as two opposite conceptions that have a potent impact on social reproduction.

The acceptable way for expressing masculinity in the modern American cultural society was for a young American man to enroll for war. Indeed a traditional way to lure young American men to enroll to war was to remind them of opportunities it offers to act heroically (Boyle, 2011, p. 149).

This approach exploits the mentality of young American men of equating heroics with masculinity. This reveals how cultural perception of masculinity-femininity can be use to motivate people towards a specific social course. These young American adults go to war with hope of getting an opportunity to perform heroic acts thereby expressing his masculinity. Nevertheless, most of the American war narratives depict the outright converse.

These narratives depict vain attempts by men to exhibit traditional paradigm of masculinity, because they manifest a state of being out of control and in need of rescue (Boyle, 2011, p 149); a traditional view of femininity. This misconception of masculinity is accountable for increase captivity and rescue associated with the intention to pull a heroic masculinity stunt.

In whole, the are of industrialization witnessed constantly changing patterns of masculinity and femininity that were based on chances in social perception of gender roles. Ranging from traditional norms on assessing gender relations to more radical, historical variations are also connected with social movements dedicated to the protection of human rights, such gender equality. In addition, racial disparities also significantly influenced the situation within the identified period.

Studies exploring cultural and historical variations of masculinity and femininity in the era of industrialization have revealed a number of important assumptions. First, cultural variations in gender functions exist due to the shifts in stereotypes and outlooks on social roles of males and females in society. Second, different industrialized societies propagandized various functions and influences in terms of domesticity, consumerism, and bipolar dimension.

Finally, industrialized society is more inclined to present direct, traditional traits attached to the terms under analysis. With regard to historical perspectives, most of past events are also connected with shaping different stereotypes connected to femininity and masculinity, ranging from traditional patterns to the emergence of sub-cultural forms. Both aspects are significant in defining the social significant of these shifts for the formation new patterns and variations.

Reference List

Andersen, M. L., and Taylor, H. F. (2010). Society: The Essentials . US: Cengage Learning.

Beynon, J. (2002). Masculinities and culture. Philadelphia : Open University Press.

Costa, P. Jr., Terracciano, A., and McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 81(2), 322-331.

Gaudreau, P. (1977). Factor analysis of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 45(2), 299-302.

Laslett, B., and Brenner, J. (1989). Gender and Social Reproduction: Historical Perspectives. Annual Review of Sociology. 15, 381-404.

Long, V., & Martinez, E. (1997). Masculinity, Femininity, and Hispanic

professionals Men’s self-esteem and self acceptance . The journal of psychology,131 (5), 481-488.

Sethi, R. R. and Allen, M. J. (1984). Sex-role Stereotype in Northern India and the United States. Sex Roles. 11(7-8), 615-626.

• Gender Stratification in Education, Work, and Family
• Peculiarities of Leadership, Gender, and Communication in Movies According to Gender Lives
• Gender Roles: Constructing Gender Identity
• Masculinity and Femininity: Digit Ratio
• "(Re) Fashioning Masculinity" by Ben Barry
• Role of Men in Society Essay
• Gender Identity
• Sociological perspectives of Gender Inequality
• Effects of Technology and Globalization on Gender Identity
• Identity: Acting out Culture
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 27). Masculinity and Femininity. https://ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/

"Masculinity and Femininity." IvyPanda , 27 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Masculinity and Femininity'. 27 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Masculinity and Femininity." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/.

1. IvyPanda . "Masculinity and Femininity." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Masculinity and Femininity." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/masculinity-and-femininity/.

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• Become a Member Member Login

Masculine vs. Feminine Culture: Another Layer of Culture

Kiani Laigo

October 18, 2020

• Share:      

Opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily those of WITI.

Become a WITI Member!

Are you interested in boosting your career, personal development, networking, and giving back? If so, WITI is the place for you! Become a WITI Member and receive exclusive access to attend our WITI members-only events, webinars, online coaching circles, find mentorship opportunities (become a mentor; find a mentor), and more!

Become a Member

Member Webinars

• Coffee Table - Every Weekday October 7, 2024
• WITI Generative AI Think Tank October 8, 2024
• Coffee Table - Every Weekday October 9, 2024

More Webinars

Founded in 1989, WITI (Women in Technology International) is committed to empowering innovators, inspiring future generations and building inclusive cultures, worldwide. WITI is redefining the way women and men collaborate to drive innovation and business growth and is helping corporate partners create and foster gender inclusive cultures. A leading authority of women in technology and business, WITI has been advocating and recognizing women's contributions in the industry for more than 30 years.

The organization delivers leading edge programs and platforms for individuals and companies -- designed to empower professionals, boost competitiveness and cultivate partnerships, globally. WITI’s ecosystem includes more than a million professionals, 60 networks and 300 partners, worldwide.

WITI's Mission

As part of that mission witi is committed to.

Building Your Network. Building Your Brand. Advancing Your Career.

• WITI Spotlight: Dr. Angela Dogan, Associate Director of Security and Resiliency at Kyndryl
• Join us for our upcoming LinkedIn Live Event, Women Leaders in Cybersecurity
• Empower Your Future: Join WGU's B4 Women in Tech Leadership Series and Embrace Continuous Learning
• WITI Spotlight: Kim Curley - Championing People and Organizational Change at NTT DATA
• WITI/MetLife Employee Spotlight: Xiahan Cong

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Receive emails about WITI updates, upcoming events, new products, featured members, articles, emerging programs and more!

• OLYMPIC PLAZA
• 11500 Olympic Blvd.
• Los Angeles, CA 90064
• (818) 788-9484

© 1989-2024 WITI. All rights reserved.

• Privacy Policy

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory & Examples

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

• Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions Theory, developed by Geert Hofstede, is a framework used to understand the differences in culture across countries.
• Hofstede’s initial six key dimensions include power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, and short vs. long-term orientation. Later, researchers added restraint vs. indulgence to this list.
• The extent to which individual countries share key dimensions depends on a number of factors, such as shared language and geographical location.
• Hofstede’s cultural dimensions are widely used to understand etiquette and facilitate communication across cultures in areas ranging from business to diplomacy.

History and Overview

Hofstede’s cultural values or dimensions provide a framework through which sociologists can describe the effects of culture on the values of its members and how these values relate to the behavior of people who live within a culture.

Outside of sociology, Hofstede’s work is also applicable to fields such as cross-cultural psychology, international management, and cross-cultural communication.

The Dutch management researcher Geert Hofstede created the cultural dimensions theory in 1980 (Hofstede, 1980).

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions originate from a large survey that he conducted from the 1960s to 1970s that examined value differences among different divisions of IBM, a multinational computer manufacturing company.

This study encompassed over 100,000 employees from 50 countries across three regions. Hoftstede, using a specific statistical method called factor analysis, initially identified four value dimensions: individualism and collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity and femininity.

Later research from Chinese sociologists identified a fifty-dimension, long-term, or short-term orientation (Bond, 1991).

Finally, a replication of Hofstede’s study, conducted across 93 separate countries, confirmed the existence of the five dimensions and identified a sixth known as indulgence and restraint (Hofstede & Minkov, 2010).

Cultural Dimensions

Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory (1980) examined people’s values in the workplace and created differentiation along three dimensions: small/large power distance, strong/weak uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity, and individualism/collectivism.

Power-Distance Index

The power distance index describes the extent to which the less powerful members of an organization or institution — such as a family — accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.

Although there is a certain degree of inequality in all societies, Hofstede notes that there is relatively more equality in some societies than in others.

Individuals in societies that have a high degree of power distance accept hierarchies where everyone has a place in a ranking without the need for justification.

Meanwhile, societies with low power distance seek to have an equal distribution of power. The implication of this is that cultures endorse and expect relations that are more consultative, democratic, or egalitarian.

In countries with low power distance index values, there tends to be more equality between parents and children, with parents more likely to accept it if children argue or “talk back” to authority.

In low power distance index workplaces, employers and managers are more likely to ask employees for input; in fact, those at the lower ends of the hierarchy expect to be asked for their input (Hofstede, 1980).

Meanwhile, in countries with high power distance, parents may expect children to obey without questioning their authority. Those of higher status may also regularly experience obvious displays of subordination and respect from subordinates.

Superiors and subordinates are unlikely to see each other as equals in the workplace, and employees assume that higher-ups will make decisions without asking them for input.

These major differences in how institutions operate make status more important in high power distance countries than low power distance ones (Hofstede, 1980).

Collectivism vs. Individualism

Individualism and collectivism, respectively, refer to the integration of individuals into groups.

Individualistic societies stress achievement and individual rights, focusing on the needs of oneself and one’s immediate family.

A person’s self-image in this category is defined as “I.”

In contrast, collectivist societies place greater importance on the goals and well-being of the group, with a person’s self-image in this category being more similar to a “We.”

Those from collectivist cultures tend to emphasize relationships and loyalty more than those from individualistic cultures.

They tend to belong to fewer groups but are defined more by their membership in them. Lastly, communication tends to be more direct in individualistic societies but more indirect in collectivistic ones (Hofstede, 1980).

Uncertainty Avoidance Index

The uncertainty avoidance dimension of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions addresses a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity.

This dimension reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with their anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. In its most simplified form, uncertainty avoidance refers to how threatening change is to a culture (Hofstede, 1980).

A high uncertainty avoidance index indicates a low tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, and risk-taking. Both the institutions and individuals within these societies seek to minimize the unknown through strict rules, regulations, and so forth.

People within these cultures also tend to be more emotional.

In contrast, those in low uncertainty avoidance cultures accept and feel comfortable in unstructured situations or changeable environments and try to have as few rules as possible. This means that people within these cultures tend to be more tolerant of change.

The unknown is more openly accepted, and less strict rules and regulations may ensue.

For example, a student may be more accepting of a teacher saying they do not know the answer to a question in a low uncertainty avoidance culture than in a high uncertainty avoidance one (Hofstede, 1980).

Femininity vs. Masculinity

Femininity vs. masculinity, also known as gender role differentiation, is yet another one of Hofstede’s six dimensions of national culture. This dimension looks at how much a society values traditional masculine and feminine roles.

A masculine society values assertiveness, courage, strength, and competition; a feminine society values cooperation, nurturing, and quality of life (Hofstede, 1980).

A high femininity score indicates that traditionally feminine gender roles are more important in that society; a low femininity score indicates that those roles are less important.

For example, a country with a high femininity score is likely to have better maternity leave policies and more affordable child care.

Meanwhile, a country with a low femininity score is likely to have more women in leadership positions and higher rates of female entrepreneurship (Hofstede, 1980).

Short-Term vs. Long-Term Orientation

The long-term and short-term orientation dimension refers to the degree to which cultures encourage delaying gratification or the material, social, and emotional needs of their members (Hofstede, 1980).

Societies with long-term orientations tend to focus on the future in a way that delays short-term success in favor of success in the long term.

These societies emphasize traits such as persistence, perseverance, thrift, saving, long-term growth, and the capacity for adaptation.

Short-term orientation in a society, in contrast, indicates a focus on the near future, involves delivering short-term success or gratification, and places a stronger emphasis on the present than the future.

The end result of this is an emphasis on quick results and respect for tradition. The values of a short-term society are related to the past and the present and can result in unrestrained spending, often in response to social or ecological pressure (Hofstede, 1980).

Restraint vs. Indulgence

Finally, the restraint and indulgence dimension considers the extent and tendency of a society to fulfill its desires.

That is to say, this dimension is a measure of societal impulse and desire control. High levels of indulgence indicate that society allows relatively free gratification and high levels of bon de vivre.

Meanwhile, restraint indicates that society tends to suppress the gratification of needs and regulate them through social norms.

For example, in a highly indulgent society, people may tend to spend more money on luxuries and enjoy more freedom when it comes to leisure time activities. In a restrained society, people are more likely to save money and focus on practical needs (Hofstede, 2011).

Correlations With Other Country’s Differences

Hofstede’s dimensions have been found to correlate with a variety of other country difference variables, including:

• geographical proximity,
• shared language,
• related historical background,
• similar religious beliefs and practices,
• common philosophical influences,
• and identical political systems (Hofstede, 2011).

For example, countries that share a border tend to have more similarities in culture than those that are further apart.

This is because people who live close to each other are more likely to interact with each other on a regular basis, which leads to a greater understanding and appreciation of each other’s cultures.

Similarly, countries that share a common language tend to have more similarities in culture than those that do not.

Those who speak the same language can communicate more easily with each other, which leads to a greater understanding and appreciation of each other’s cultures (Hofstede, 2011).

Finally, countries that have similar historical backgrounds tend to have more similarities in culture than those that do not.

People who share a common history are more likely to have similar values and beliefs, which leads, it has generally been theorized, to a greater understanding and appreciation of each other’s cultures.

Applications

Cultural difference awareness.

Geert Hofstede shed light on how cultural differences are still significant today in a world that is becoming more and more diverse.

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be used to help explain why certain behaviors are more or less common in different cultures.

For example, individualism vs. collectivism can help explain why some cultures place more emphasis on personal achievement than others. Masculinity vs. feminism could help explain why some cultures are more competitive than others.

And long-term vs. short-term orientation can help explain why some cultures focus more on the future than the present (Hofstede, 2011).

International communication and negotiation

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can also be used to predict how people from different cultures will interact with each other.

For example, if two people from cultures with high levels of power distance meet, they may have difficulty communicating because they have different expectations about who should be in charge (Hofstede, 2011).

In Business

Finally, Hofstede’s cultural dimensions can be used to help businesses adapt their products and marketing to different cultures.

For example, if a company wants to sell its products in a country with a high collectivism score, it may need to design its packaging and advertising to appeal to groups rather than individuals.

Within a business, Hofstede’s framework can also help managers to understand why their employees behave the way they do.

For example, if a manager is having difficulty getting her employees to work together as a team, she may need to take into account that her employees come from cultures with different levels of collectivism (Hofstede, 2011).

Although the cultural value dimensions identified by Hofstede and others are useful ways to think about culture and study cultural psychology, the theory has been chronically questioned and critiqued.

Most of this criticism has been directed at the methodology of Hofstede’s original study.

Orr and Hauser (2008) note Hofstede’s questionnaire was not originally designed to measure culture but workplace satisfaction. Indeed, many of the conclusions are based on a small number of responses.

Although Hofstede administered 117,000 questionnaires, he used the results from 40 countries, only six of which had more than 1000 respondents.

This has led critics to question the representativeness of the original sample.

Furthermore, Hofstede conducted this study using the employees of a multinational corporation, who — especially when the study was conducted in the 1960s and 1970s — were overwhelmingly highly educated, mostly male, and performed so-called “white collar” work (McSweeney, 2002).

Hofstede’s theory has also been criticized for promoting a static view of culture that does not respond to the influences or changes of other cultures.

For example, as Hamden-Turner and Trompenaars (1997) have envisioned, the cultural influence of Western powers such as the United States has likely influenced a tide of individualism in the notoriously collectivist Japanese culture.

Nonetheless, Hofstede’s theory still has a few enduring strengths. As McSweeney (2002) notes, Hofstede’s work has “stimulated a great deal of cross-cultural research and provided a useful framework for the comparative study of cultures” (p. 83).

Additionally, as Orr and Hauser (2008) point out, Hofstede’s dimensions have been found to be correlated with actual behavior in cross-cultural studies, suggesting that it does hold some validity.

All in all, as McSweeney (2002) points out, Hofstede’s theory is a useful starting point for cultural analysis, but there have been many additional and more methodologically rigorous advances made in the last several decades.

Bond, M. H. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology . Oxford University Press, USA.

Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (1997). Response to geert hofstede. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21 (1), 149.

 Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organizations. International studies of management & organization, 10 (4), 15-41.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in psychology and culture, 2 (1), 2307-0919.

Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2010). Long-versus short-term orientation: new perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4), 493-504.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences (Vol. Sage): Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the mind . London, England: McGraw-Hill.

McSweeney, B. (2002). The essentials of scholarship: A reply to Geert Hofstede. Human Relations, 55( 11), 1363-1372.

Orr, L. M., & Hauser, W. J. (2008). A re-inquiry of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: A call for 21st century cross-cultural research. Marketing Management Journal, 18 (2), 1-19.

Further Information

• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological review, 98(2), 224.
• Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological review, 96(3), 506.
• Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological bulletin, 128(1), 3.
• Brewer, M. B., & Chen, Y. R. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological review, 114(1), 133.
• Grossmann, I., & Santos, H. (2017). Individualistic culture.

Femininity vs. Masculinity

What's the difference.

Femininity and masculinity are two socially constructed concepts that dictate the behaviors, traits, and roles expected of individuals based on their gender. Femininity is often associated with qualities such as nurturing, sensitivity, and emotional expression, while masculinity is linked to traits like strength, assertiveness, and independence. These stereotypes can limit individuals' self-expression and perpetuate harmful gender norms. It is important to recognize that everyone possesses a unique blend of both feminine and masculine qualities, and that these traits should not be confined to rigid gender expectations.

Further Detail

Femininity and masculinity are two sets of attributes that are traditionally associated with women and men, respectively. These attributes are often seen as opposite ends of a spectrum, with femininity representing qualities such as nurturing, empathy, and sensitivity, while masculinity is associated with traits like strength, assertiveness, and independence.

Physical Characteristics

Physically, femininity is often linked to features such as soft curves, long hair, and a more delicate appearance. Women are typically expected to have smaller frames, higher-pitched voices, and smoother skin. In contrast, masculinity is often associated with broader shoulders, facial hair, and a more muscular build. Men are expected to have deeper voices, larger bodies, and more angular facial features.

Emotional Expression

When it comes to emotional expression, femininity is often characterized by a greater willingness to show vulnerability and express emotions openly. Women are encouraged to be in touch with their feelings and to communicate them to others. On the other hand, masculinity is often associated with emotional stoicism and a reluctance to show vulnerability. Men are often socialized to suppress their emotions and to appear strong and in control at all times.

Social Roles

In terms of social roles, femininity is often linked to caregiving and nurturing roles, such as motherhood and homemaking. Women are expected to prioritize relationships and family responsibilities. On the other hand, masculinity is often associated with provider and protector roles, such as being the breadwinner and ensuring the safety and security of the family. Men are expected to be strong and independent, taking on leadership roles in society.

Communication Style

Communication styles also differ between femininity and masculinity. Women are often socialized to be more cooperative and nurturing in their communication, using language that is more polite and indirect. They may focus on building relationships and seeking consensus in conversations. In contrast, men are often socialized to be more assertive and competitive in their communication, using language that is more direct and to the point. They may focus on achieving goals and asserting their authority in conversations.

Relationship Dynamics

In relationships, femininity is often associated with a more nurturing and supportive role, with women providing emotional care and empathy to their partners. They may prioritize communication and emotional connection in their relationships. On the other hand, masculinity is often linked to a more protective and provider role, with men taking on the responsibility of ensuring the physical and financial well-being of their partners. They may prioritize problem-solving and practical support in their relationships.

Gender Stereotypes

It is important to note that these attributes of femininity and masculinity are based on traditional gender stereotypes, which can be limiting and harmful. Not all women exhibit stereotypically feminine traits, and not all men exhibit stereotypically masculine traits. Gender is a complex and diverse spectrum, and individuals should be free to express themselves in ways that feel authentic to them, regardless of societal expectations.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Academic Writing Services

Femininity and masculinity.

Femininity and masculinity are acquired social identities: as individuals become socialized they develop a gender identity, an understanding of what it means to be a ‘‘man’’ or a ‘‘woman’’ (Laurie et al. 1999). How individuals develop an understanding of their gender identity, including whether or not they fit into these prescribed gender roles, depends upon the context within which they are socialized and how they view themselves in relation to societal gender norms. Class, racial, ethnic, and national factors play heavily into how individuals construct their gender identities and how they are perceived externally (hooks 2004). Gender identities are often naturalized; that is, they rely on a notion of biological difference, ‘‘so that ‘natural’ femininity [in a white, European, middle class context] encompasses, for example, motherhood, being nurturing, a desire for pretty clothes and the exhibition of emotions’’ (Laurie et al. 1999: 3). ‘‘Natural’’ masculinity, in contrast, may encompass fatherhood, acting ‘‘tough,’’ a desire for sports and competition, and hiding emotions (Connell 1997; Thompson 2000). In both cases, these constructions of gender identity are based on stereotypes that fall within the range of normative femininities and masculinities. Yet, as many sociologists have pointed out, not all individuals fit within these prescribed norms and as such, masculinities and femininities must be recognized as socially constituted, fluid, wide ranging, and historically and geographically differentiated (Connell 1997; Halberstam 1998; Laurie et al. 1999).

Feminist scholars have long addressed the social construction of femininities, particularly in the context of gender inequality and power (Lorber 1994). Early second wave feminist scholars such as Simone de Beauvoir (1980) argued that women’s subordinated status in western societies was due to socialization rather than to any essential biological gender difference, as evidenced in her often cited phrase, ‘‘One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.’’ Many feminist scholars in Anglo Saxon and European countries have emphasized social construction over biological difference as an explanation for women’s ways of being, acting, and knowing in the world and for their related gender subordination (Gilligan 1993). Some feminist scholars have addressed the social construction of femininities as a way to explain wage inequality, the global ‘‘feminization of poverty,’’ and women’s relegation to ‘‘feminine’’ labor markets (e.g., secretarial labor, garment industry, caring labor) and to the so called private realm of the household and family (Folbre 2001). Because feminists were primarily concerned with the question of women’s subordination, masculinities themselves were rarely analyzed except in cases where scholars sought an explanation for male aggression or power. Likewise, hegemonic femininity was emphasized over alternative femininities such that the experiences of women who did not fit into socially prescribed gender roles were either left unexamined or viewed through the normative lens of gender dualisms (Halberstam 1998).

Particularly since the 1980s, at least three areas of research on gender identity have helped shift the debate on femininities and masculinities: (1) masculinity studies, which emerged primarily in the 1980s and 1990s; (2) queer studies and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) studies, including the pivotal research of Butler (1990); and (3) gender, race, ethnic, and postcolonial studies, a trajectory of scholarship in which researchers have long critiqued hegemonic forms of masculinity and femininity on the basis that these racialized constructions helped reinforce the criminalization and subordination of racial/ethnic minorities in industrialized societies and the colonization of both men and women in poor and/or nonwestern regions.

In contrast to feminist scholarship that focused primarily on women’s experiences with femininity, Connell’s (1987) research on ‘‘hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity’’ was among the first to systematically analyze both sets of constructions as they contribute to global gender inequality. Connell argues ‘‘hegemonic masculinity,’’ a type of masculinity oriented toward accommodating the interests and desires of men, forms the basis of patriarchal social orders. Similarly, ‘‘emphasized femininity,’’ a hegemonic form of femininity, is ‘‘defined around compliance with [female] sub ordination and is oriented to accommodating the interests and desires of men’’ (p. 23). Borrowing from Gramsci’s analysis of class hegemony and struggle, Connell develops a framework for understanding multiple competing masculinities and femininities. He argues that hegemonic masculinity is always constructed in relation to various subordinated masculinities as well as in relation to women. Thus, for example, non-European, poor, non-white, and/or gay men tend to experience subordinated masculinities, whereas men of middle class European, white, and/or heterosexual backgrounds tend to benefit from the privileges of hegemonic masculinity.

Especially since the 1980s, scholars of masculinity studies have produced innovative research on various aspects of men’s lives and experiences. Messner (1992), for example, examines men’s identifications with sports as an example of how masculinities are constructed and maintained. Messner analyzes the ‘‘male viewer’’ of today’s most popular spectator sports in terms of the mythology and symbolism of masculine identification: common themes he encounters in his research include patriotism, militarism, violence, and meritocracy. Scholars of gay masculinities have addressed how gay men of various ethnic, racial, class, and national backgrounds have negotiated hegemonic masculinity, sometimes in contradictory ways, and constructed alternative masculinities through their everyday lives (Messner 1997).

Importantly, research on hegemonic masculinities sheds light on how and why masculinity has been largely ‘‘invisible’’ in the lives of men who benefit from hegemonic masculinity and in the field of women’s/gender studies, which tends to focus on the experiences of women. Although there are obvious reasons why the field of women’s/gender studies has focused primarily on women, since women experience gender inequalities more than men, scholars increasingly have pointed out that male socialization processes and identities, as well as masculinist institutions and theories, should be examined as a way to rethink gender inequality. As Kimmel (2002) notes: ‘‘The ‘invisibility’ of masculinity in discussions of [gender] has political dimensions. The processes that confer privilege on one group and not another group are often invisible to those upon whom that privilege is conferred. Thus, not having to think about race is one of the luxuries of being white, just as not having to think about gender is one of the ‘patriarchal dividends’ of gender inequality.’’

Judith Butler’s research on gender performativity has opened space for discussion about the naturalized linking of gender identity, the body, and sexual desire. Butler (1990) argues feminism has made a mistake by trying to assert that ‘‘women’’ are a group with common characteristics and interests. Like socio biologists, feminists who rely exclusively on a sociocultural explanation of gender identity construction also fall prey to essentialism. Many individuals, especially those who define as ‘‘queer’’ or as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans gendered, do not experience gender identity, embodiment, and sexual desire through the dominant norms of gender and heterosexuality. Influenced by Foucault, Butler suggests, like Connell, that certain cultural configurations of gender have seized a hegemonic hold. She calls for subversive action in the present: ‘‘gender trouble,’’ the mobilization, subversive confusion, and proliferation of genders, and therefore identity. This idea of identity as free floating and not connected to an ‘‘essence’’ is one of the key ideas expressed in queer theory (EGS 2005).

Butler and other queer theorists have addressed how normative femininities and masculinities play a role in disciplining the lives of LGBT individuals. Halberstam’s (1998) research addresses constructions of ‘‘female masculinity’’ and argues that scholars must separate discussions of gender identity (e.g., masculinities, femininities) from discussions of the body. Women can ‘‘act masculine’’ just as men can ‘‘act feminine’’; how individuals identify in terms of their gender is not and should not be linked to their biological anatomies, however defined. Halberstam’s own research addresses how masculine identified women experience gender, the stratification of masculinities (e.g., ‘‘heroic’’ vs. alternative masculinities), and the public emergence of other genders. Other scholars have examined how medical and scientific institutions have managed normative gender (and sexual) identities through psychological protocols and surgical intervention (Fausto Sterling 2000). This type of research points toward a broader understanding of gender that places dualistic conceptions of ‘‘masculine’’ vs. ‘‘feminine’’ and ‘‘male’’ vs. ‘‘female’’ into question.

Scholars of race, ethnic, and postcolonial studies have addressed how normative femininities and masculinities, which tend to benefit those with racial/ethnic privilege, help rein force a racialized social order in which subordinated groups are demasculinized or feminized in ways that maintain their racial/ethnic sub ordination in society. One example involves the stereotyping of African American men as unruly and hypersexual. The ‘‘myth of the male rapist,’’ as Davis (2001) has discussed, has played a highly destructive role in black men’s lives and has influenced legal, political, and social actions toward them, including their disproportionate criminalization for rape, often based on fraudulent charges. Another example concerns immigrant men racialized as minorities in the US. Thai (2002) illustrates how working class Vietnamese American men have developed innovative strategies to achieve higher status in their communities by marrying middle to upper class Vietnamese women and bringing them to the US. Faced with few marriage options and low paying jobs in the US, working class Vietnamese American men who experience a form of subordinated masculinity seek upward mobility through these transnational marriage networks.

Women of color in the US and working class women in developing countries also face unequal access to hegemonic femininity, as defined in western terms. Hill Collins (2004) addresses how African American women have been hypersexualized in US popular culture, thereby placing them outside the realm of normative femininity according to hegemonic white, western standards. Postcolonial studies scholars have demonstrated how poor women in developing regions (particularly non-white women) have been sexualized by male tourists from industrialized countries and sometimes also by local men (Freeman 2001). More broadly, scholars of masculinities and/or femininities have pointed out how constructions of masculinities and femininities are embedded in social institutions (e.g., the state, economy, nation, educational system) and processes (e.g., social welfare policy, globalization, colonization, political campaigns, popular culture, everyday life) and shape individuals’ everyday experiences and gendered self-perceptions (Connell 1987, 1997; Laurie et al. 1999; Free man 2001; Hill Collins 2004).

Critics have defended normative femininity and masculinity on religious, moral, and/or biological grounds. Some, for example, have argued that these social norms (what Connell would call hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity) are ‘‘naturally’’ aligned with men’s and women’s assumed biological roles in reproduction and/or with their assumed heterosexual desire (see Lorber 1994; Messner 1997). On all sides of the ideological spectrum, individuals have participated in interesting political responses and social movements that either embrace or challenge dominant societal constructions of masculinity and femininity. Some women have joined feminist movements and challenged traditional notions of femininity; whereas other women have joined right wing women’s movements that embrace

traditional gender roles and identities (e.g., Concerned Women for America). Men have formed feminist men’s movements, based largely on the principles of women’s feminist movements, as well as movements to embrace traditional notions of fatherhood, as in the divergent examples of the Christian based (and largely white, middle class) Promise Keepers and the Million Man Marches, first organized in 1995 by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and attended by over 800,000 African American men as part of a movement to reclaim black masculinity (Messner 1997).

Future research on femininities and masculinities will likely be influenced by the recent scholarship in the fields of masculinity studies, queer theory and LGBT studies, and race, ethnic, and postcolonial studies. Although scholars vary in their disciplinary backgrounds and methodological approaches to the study of femininities and masculinities, most would agree that femininities and masculinities can be seen as sets of rules or norms that govern female and male behavior, appearance, and self-image

References:

• Butler, (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, New York.
• Connell, W. (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.
• Connell, W. (1997) Hegemonic Masculinity and Emphasized Femininity. In: Richardson, L., Taylor, V., & Whittier, N. (Eds.), Feminist Frontiers IV. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 22-5.
• Davis, (2001) Rape, Racism and the Myth of the Black Rapist. In: Bhavnani, K.-K. (Ed.), Feminism and ‘‘Race.’’ Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 50-64.
• de Beauvoir, (1980 [1952]) The Second Sex. Random House/Alfred Knopf, New York.
• European Graduate School (EGS) (2005) Judith Online. http://egs.edu/faculty/judith-butler.
• Fausto-Sterling, (2000) Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. Basic Books, New York.
• Folbre, (2001) The Invisible Heart: Economics and Family Values. New Press, New York.
• Freeman, (2001) Is Local : Global as Feminine : Masculine? Rethinking the Gender of Globalization. Signs 26(4): 1007-38.
• Gilligan, (1993) In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
• Halberstam, (1998) Female Masculinity. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
• Hill Collins, P. (2004) Black Sexual Politics: African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism. Routledge, New
• hooks, b. (2004) We Real Cool: Black Men and Masculinity. Routledge, New
• Kimmel, (2002) Foreword. In: Cleaver, F. (Ed.), Masculinities Matter! Men, Gender and Development. Zed Books, London, pp. xi xiv.
• Laurie, , Dwyer, C., Holloway, S., & Smith, F. (1999) Geographies of New Femininities. Longman, London.
• Lorber, (1994) Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press, New Haven.
• Messner, A. (1992) Power at Play. Beacon Press, Boston.
• Messner, A. (1997) Politics in Masculinities: Men in Movements. Sage, Walnut Creek, CA.
• Thai, C. (2002) Clashing Dreams: Highly Educated Overseas Brides and Low-Wage US Husbands. In: Ehrenreich, B. & Hochschild, A. R. (Eds.), Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. Metropolitan Books, New York, pp. 230-53.
• Thompson, C. (2000) The Male Role Stereotype. In: Cyrus, V. (Ed.), Experiencing Race, Class, and Gender in the United States. Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, CA, pp. 85-7.

Back to Sociology of Gender

• Contributors
•  Links
•  Translations
• What is Gendered Innovations ?

Sex & Gender Analysis

• Rethinking Research Priorities and Outcomes
• Rethinking Concepts and Theories
• Formulating Research Questions
• Analyzing Sex
• Analyzing Gender
• Analyzing how Sex and Gender Interact
• Analyzing Factors Intersecting with Sex and Gender
• Engineering Innovation Processes
• Designing Health & Biomedical Research
• Participatory Research and Design
• Rethinking Standards and Reference Models
• Rethinking Language and Visual Representations
• Analyzing Additional Variables
• Study Design in Biomedical Research
• Sex and Gender are Distinct Terms
• Interactions between Sex and Gender
• Gender Dimension
• Not Considering Sex Differences as a Problem
• Overemphasizing Sex Differences as a Problem
• Women & Men
• Female & Male

Femininities & Masculinities

• Race & Ethnicity
• Stereotypes
• Health & Medicine
• Engineering
• Tissues & Cells
• Urban Planning & Design

Case Studies

• Animal Research
• Animal Research 2
• Genetics of Sex Determination
• Colorectal Cancer
• De-Gendering the Knee
• Dietary Assessment Method
• Heart Disease in Women
• Nanotechnology-Based Screening for HPV
• Nutrigenomics
• Osteoporosis Research in Men
• Assistive Technologies for the Elderly
• Gendering Social Robots
• Haptic Technology
• HIV Microbicides
• Human Thorax Model
• Information for Air Travelers
• Machine Learning
• Machine Translation
• Making Machines Talk
• Pregnant Crash Test Dummies
• Video Games
• Climate Change
• Gender Mainstreaming in Decision-Making
• Environmental Chemicals
• Housing and Neighborhood Design
• Menstrual Cups
• Public Transportation
• Water Infrastructure
• Design Thinking
• Major Granting Agencies
• Peer-Reviewed Journals
• United Nations
• Disparities between Women and Men
• Subtle Gender Bias
• Solutions and Best Practices

"Femininities" and "masculinities" describe gender identities (see Gender ). They describe socio-cultural categories in everyday language; these terms are used differently in biology (see below). Because femininities and masculinities are gender identities, they are shaped by socio-cultural processes, not biology (and should not be essentialized). Femininities and masculinities are plural and dynamic; they change with culture and with individuals.

Points to keep in mind:

• ● In everyday language, femininities and masculinities do not map onto biological sex. In any one culture, certain behaviors or practices may be widely recognized as “feminine” or “masculine,” irrespective of whether they are adopted by women or by men. Femininities and masculinities are not descriptors of sexual orientation.
• ● Femininities and masculinities are plural—there are many forms of femininity and many forms of masculinity. What gets defined as feminine or masculine differs by region, religion, class, national culture, and other social factors. How femininities and masculinities are valued differs culturally.
• ● Any one person—woman or man—engages in many forms of femininity and masculinity, which she or he adopts (consciously or unconsciously) depending on context, the expectations of others, the life stage, and so forth. A man can engage in what are often stereotyped as “feminine” activities, such as caring for a sick parent.
• ● Cultural notions of “feminine” and “masculine” behavior are shaped in part by observations about what women and men do. This kind of “gender marking” tends to discourage women or men from entering “gender-inauthentic” occupations (Faulkner, 2009).
• ● Femininities and masculinities are learned. Messages about “feminine” and “masculine” behaviors are embedded in advertising, media, news, educational materials, and so forth. These messages are present in a range of environments, from the home to the workplace to public spaces.  

Note on biology: Although the terms “feminine” and “masculine” are gender terms (socio-cultural categories) in everyday usage, they carry different meanings in biology. Masculinization refers to the development of male-specific morphology, such as the Wolffian ducts and male reproductive structures. Feminization refers to the development of female-specific morphology, such as the Müllerian ducts and female reproductive structures. In order to become a reproductively functioning female, for example, both feminization and demasculinization are required, and vice versa for males (Uhlenhaut et al., 2009).

Works Cited 

Faulkner, W. (2009). Doing Gender in Engineering Workplace Cultures: Part II—Gender In/Authenticity and the In/Visibility Paradox. Engineering Studies, 1 (3), 169-189.

Uhlenhaut, N., Jakob, S., Anlag, K., Eisenberger, T., Sekido, R., Kress, J., Treier, A., Klugmann, C., Klasen, C., Holter, N., Riethmacher, D., Schütz, G., Cooney, A., Lovell-Badge, R., & Treier, M. (2009). Somatic Sex Reprogramming of Adult Ovaries to Testes by FOXL2 Ablation. Cell, 139 (6), 1130-1142.

This dimension focuses on how extent to which a society stress achievement or nurture.  Masculinity is seen to be the trait which emphasizes ambition, acquisition of wealth, and differentiated gender roles.  Femininity is seen to be the trait which stress caring and nurturing behaviors, sexuality equality, environmental awareness, and more fluid gender roles.

Hoftstede’s definitions:

“Masculinity stands for a society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.” “Femininity stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap: Both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life.” From Hofstede (2001), Culture’s Consequences , 2nd ed.  p 297.

• DOI: 10.46324/pmp2401116
• Corpus ID: 269272739

Masculinity and femininity

• Gergana Nikolova Hristova
• Published in Postmodernism Problems 5 April 2024
• Sociology, Psychology
• Postmodernism Problems

12 References

Masculinity, femininity and sex: an exploration of their relative contribution to explaining gender differences in health, sex and gender: on the development of masculinity and femininity, gender identity: a multidimensional analysis with implications for psychosocial adjustment., psychological femininity and masculinity and motivation in team sports, hofstede’s cultural dimensions (masculinity vs. femininity) and its impact on earnings management, daily gender expression is associated with psychological adjustment for some people, but mainly men, satisfaction after contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: the significance of mastectomy type, reconstructive complications, and body appearance., hofstedes mas/fem dimension, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers