When a Man Thinks He Has Female Traits Constructing Femininity and Masculinity: Methodological Potentials and Limitations

Abstract

In everyday life, people are confronted with common beliefs about how women and men differ from each other. These beliefs make them wonder about their personal femininity and masculinity. But what hides behind these constructs? In this article, we will discuss the potential and limitations of different definitions. We will focus on methodological issues which can trigger new discussions about the social implications of gender differences-which are not part of this paper. One of the major questions here is whether it is methodologically justifiable (legitimate) to make individual predictions based on group differences. An issue that is not only relevant in regards to femininity and masculinity. In general, all definitions of masculinity and femininity show more limitations than potentials. They are either neglecting certain sub-groups or are based on stereotypes (either displaying common beliefs or exaggerated group differences). Individual predictions derived from these constructs are questionable due to oversimplification/reductionism (e.g., when forming groups). By pointing out that constructs like femininity and masculinity can in fact limit an individual's development, it is suggested to clearly differentiate between different types of differences and to clearly state what can and cannot be said when "measuring" an individual's masculinity and femininity. Since femininity and masculinity can be seen as example constructs, and generalizations are part of many research processes, general implications beyond these concepts are being discussed.

Toward Renewed Constructions of Masculinity and Femininity: Measuring Significant Psychological Differences between Young Men and Women’s Subjective Experiences in Their Romantic Relationships

“…Distinguishing traits from bio/psychological sex constitutes an important step in the evolution of research in the field of sex roles (Watzlawik, 2009). Based on this methodological strength, the theory of objectality and subjectality provides an approach that is applicable on very large scale.…”

“…According to Watzlawik (2009), current literature in the field of sex roles seems to reflect a preference for defining the psychological concepts of masculinity and femininity in a sociological manner, through the use of deductive processes (e.g., Levant, Hirsch, Celentano, Cozza, Hill, MacEachern, Marty, & Schnedeker, 1992). This approach involves identifying attributes perceived to be socially acceptable for men and women, and analyzing the degree of correlation between respective attributes and genders.…”

“…This approach involves identifying attributes perceived to be socially acceptable for men and women, and analyzing the degree of correlation between respective attributes and genders. The process of classifying traits as either "masculine" or "feminine" is based on perceptions that given traits are more likely to be present in one sex than in the other (Watzlawik, 2009). The existing constructs of femininity and masculinity are obviously the function of researchers' personal beliefs (which often reflect beliefs shared by the general population).…”

“…As illustrated in the factors presented above, researchers have individual -and generally archetypalconceptualizations of masculinity and femininity, and test their models for accuracy of fit in the general population. However, recent research (see Watzlawik, 2009) has demonstrated that many traits overlap in their distributions across genders; this finding poses a problem in terms of the legitimacy of assigning a surface trait exclusively to one sex over the other.…”

When Stereotypes Become ‘Scientific’ Statements: Dealing with Gender Issues

“…As the theoretical analysis by Watzlawik (2009) showed, the belief that it is perfectly possible to make precise predictions of an individual's conduct from the supposed shared characteristics of a group (men versus women) ignore important distinctions between two levels of analysis-those of group differences and intraindividual differences. In the next topics, I will focus on different ways to construct generalizations through idiographic approach and issues concerning stereotypes and prejudices as boundary phenomena.…”