Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?

Abstract

The major tests of masculinity-femininity (M-F) in adults are reviewed with special attention to the ways in which their construction and use reflect three untested assumptions about the nature of the M-F construct: (a) that it is best defined in terms of sex differences in item responses; (6) that it is a single bipolar dimension ranging from extreme masculinity at one end to extreme femininity at the other; and (c) that it is undimensional in nature and can be adequately measured by a single score. Evidence which questions the validity of these assumptions and, therefore, of the tests of M-F is presented, with the conclusion that further theoretical and empirical work is necessary in all aspects of the problem.

The association between masculinity rank and mortality patterns: a prospective study based on the Swedish 1969 conscript cohort

“…Another potential explanation is that men who achieve a high masculinity ideal “can afford” to add health-protecting routines such as taking care of themselves and their children without risking their position 5. This corresponds to the theory that admitting both masculine and feminine traits is the best position in terms of health and wellbeing 8 9. On the whole, strategies targeting differences in mortality between women and men, and between groups of men, are likely to gain from questioning the prevalent masculinity ideals.…”

“…This belief that acting according to one’s gender role is beneficial has, however, been challenged by Constantinople8 and Bem,9 who proposed that androgyny in terms of scoring high on both masculinity and femininity is the best position in terms of lifetime health. Further, the chance of health and longevity among men could be determined by the type of masculinity they adopt 10.…”

Two Traditions of Research on Gender Identity

“…In a landmark article, Constantinople (1973) critiqued these early measures of masculinity and femininity, especially faulting their empirically-driven selection of test items that resulted in highly diverse item content. Constantinople showed that statistical analyses of such items often revealed multiple dimensions and not a single bipolar masculinefeminine dimension.…”

Estimating the Sex-Specific Effects of Genes on Facial Attractiveness and Sexual Dimorphism

“…Prior to rating Masculinity – femininity , judges received a lesson on typical sexual dimorphism in human facial and cranial dimensions—for example, that female faces tend to feature a more tapering jaw line and that male faces tend to be longer below eye level. Given that intercorrelations among specific sexually dimorphic facial features are reportedly low (Penton-Voak et al 2001), it is possible that facial masculinity and femininity are separate dimensions, as appears to also be the case with psychological masculinity and femininity (Bem 1974; Constantinople 1973). However, in the present study the construct is necessarily one-dimensional because judges rated masculinity/femininity on a single dimension; this is consistent with previous investigations of facial and bodily sexual dimorphism (e.g., Lee et al 2013; Little et al 2007; Penton-Voak et al 2001; Perrett et al 1998; Welling et al 2007), which have generally treated the construct as onedimensional.…”