Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Women’s Ideals for Masculinity Across Social Contexts: Patriarchal Agentic Masculinity is Valued in Work, Family, and Romance but Communal Masculinity in Friendship

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study explores women’s ideals for masculinity in different social contexts (work, family/romance, and friendship) and compares how traditional (agentic) and non-patriarchal (communal) masculinity are valued in each context. Survey data were collected from one international (N = 159) and three South African samples (Ns = 86, 100, 161) of women. Results show that although women value patriarchal ideals for masculinity, agentic and communal versions of masculinity are valued differently across contexts. Specifically, traditional agentic versions of masculinity were most valued in the contexts most important to the long-term production of viable identity (family/romance and work). It was only in friendship that non-patriarchal communal masculinity was consistently idealized over traditional agentic masculinity. The results are discussed in relation to hegemonic masculinity (HM) and system justification theory (SJT). Congruent with SJT, women idealized versions of masculinity that may not be in their own or their group’s best interests, but in line with HM, the results emphasized the fluidity of masculinity and that the same individual can simultaneously idealize different versions of masculinity depending on the context. Because stereotypes are both explanations for the status quo and warrants for behaving in one way or another, these collective ideals for masculinity and contextual boundaries may be important obstacles to achieving gender equity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Backus, F. R., & Mahalik, J. R. (2011). The masculinity of Mr. right: Feminist identity and heterosexual women’s ideal romantic partners. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(2), 318–326. doi:10.1177/0361684310392357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. England: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banchefsky, S., & Park, B. (2016). The 'new father': Dynamic stereotypes of fathers. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(1), 103–107. doi:10.1037/a0038945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, F. J. (1996). The organizational construction of hegemonic masculinity: The case of the US navy. Gender, Work and Organization, 3(3), 129–142. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.1996.tb00054.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batnitzky, A., McDowell, L., & Dyer, S. (2009). Flexible and strategic masculinities: The working lives and gendered identities of male migrants in london. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(8), 1275–1293. doi:10.1080/13691830903123088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J., Haynes, M., Western, M., & Hewitt, B. (2013). Gender, justice and domestic work: Life course transitions and perceptions of fairness. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 4(1), 78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, J. C. (2010). Why do women endorse hostile and benevolent sexism? The role of salient female subtypes and internalization of sexist contents. Sex Roles, 62(7–8), 453–467. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9707-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Being a Strong Independent Woman. (2017, March 3). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/Being-a-Strong-Independent-Woman-185781448134898. Accessed 24 Aug 2011.

  • Bernhardt, E., Noack, T., & Lyngstad, T. H. (2008). Shared housework in Norway and Sweden: Advancing the gender revolution. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(3), 275–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleske-Rechek, A. L., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Opposite-sex friendship: Sex differences and similarities in initiation, selection, and dissolution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(10), 1310–1323. doi:10.1177/01461672012710007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, A. (2000). IV. Looking for love in intimate heterosexual relationships. Feminism & Psychology, 10(4), 481–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cikara, M., Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., Glick, P., & Jost, J. T. (2009). Ambivalent sexism at home and at work: How attitudes toward women in relationships foster exclusion in the public sphere. In A. C. Kay & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 444–462). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clow, K. A., Ricciardelli, R., & Bartfay, W. J. (2015). Are you man enough to be a nurse? The impact of ambivalent sexism and role congruity on perceptions of men and women in nursing advertisements. Sex Roles, 72(7–8), 363–376. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0418-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W. (1993). The big picture: Masculinities in recent world history. Theory and Society, 22(5), 597–623. doi:10.1007/bf00993538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19, 829–859. doi:10.1177/0891243205278639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343–370. doi:10.1177/1088868314564789.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. N., & Greenstein, T. N. (2004). Cross-national variations in the division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(5), 1260–1271. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00091.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demetriou, D. Z. (2001). Connell's concept of hegemonic masculinity: A critique. Theory and Society, 30(3), 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, J., & Wetherell, M. (2004). On discourse and dirty nappies: Gender, the division of household labour and the social psychology of distributive justice. Theory & Psychology, 14(2), 167–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22(5), 643–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durrheim, K., Quayle, M., & Dixon, J. (2016). The struggle for the nature of 'prejudice': 'Prejudice' expression as identity performance. Political Psychology, 37(1), 17–35. doi:10.1111/pops.12310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Trautner & H. M. Eckes (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edley, N., & Wetherell, M. (1997). Jockeying for position: The construction of masculine identities. Discourse and Society, 8, 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezzell, M. B. (2012). “I’m in control”: Compensatory manhood in a therapeutic community. Gender and Society, 26(2), 190–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frosh, S., Phoenix, A., & Pattman, R. (2002). Young masculinities. New York: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gough, H. G. (1952). Identifying psychological femininity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 12, 427–439. doi:10.1177/001316445201200309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimond, S. (2008). Psychological similarities and differences between women and men across cultures. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 494–510. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00036.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing … or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353–363. doi:10.1177/0361684316634081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, S. A., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Reynolds, K. J., & Doosje, B. (2002). From personal pictures in the head to collective tools in the world: How shared stereotypes allow groups to represent and change social reality. In C. Mcgarty, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & R. Spears (Eds.), Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups (pp. 157–185). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hot, Cute or OK. (2017, March 3). Retrieved from https://apps.facebook.com/hotcuteokay/. Accessed 24 Aug 2011.

  • Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., Hearn, J., Lundqvist, E., Blackbeard, D., Lindegger, G., et al. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity: Combining theory and practice in gender interventions. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 17(2), 96–111. doi:10.1080/13691058.2015.1085094.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: A paradigm for investigating the effects of socioeconomic success on stereotype content. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 293–305. doi:10.1177/0146167200265003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 498–509. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kandiyoti, D. (1988). Bargaining with patriarchy. Gender and Society, 2(3), 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knights, D., & Kerfoot, D. (2004). Between representations and subjectivity: Gender binaries and the politics of organizational transformation. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(4), 430–454. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2004.00241.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LimeSurvey Project Team / Carsten Schmitz. (2012). LimeSurvey: An open source survey tool. Hamburg. Retrieved from http://limesurvey.org.

  • Mehta, C. M., & Dementieva, Y. (2016). The contextual specificity of gender: Femininity and masculinity in college students’ same- and other-gender peer contexts. Sex Roles. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0632-z

  • Messerschmidt, J. W. (2012). Engendering gendered knowledge: Assessing the academic appropriation of hegemonic masculinity. Men and Masculinities, 15(1), 56–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, L. E., Young, A. F., Troisi, J. D., & Pinkus, R. T. (2011). Effects of everyday romantic goal pursuit on women’s attitudes toward math and science. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(9), 1259–1273. doi:10.1177/0146167211408436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peele, M. (2009). New worlds of friendship: The early twentieth century. In B. Caine (Ed.), Friendship: A history (pp. 279–216). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, A. (2003). Research on men and masculinities: Some implications of recent theory for future work. Men and Masculinities, 6(1), 54–69. doi:10.1177/1097184X02250843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, C. A., Rogalin, C. L., & Gee, C. A. (2016). Masculinities through a cross-disciplinary lens: Lessons from sociology and psychology. Sociology Compass, 10(8), 652–672. doi:10.1111/soc4.12396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, D. A., & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. doi:10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reicher, S., Hopkins, N., & Condor, S. (1997). Stereotype construction as a strategy of influence. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 94–118). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, S. C. E. (2003). The management of the traditional male role: A discourse analysis of the constructions and functions of provision. Journal of Gender Studies, 12(2), 99–113. doi:10.1080/0958923032000088300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, R. J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schacht, S. P. (1996). Misogyny on and off the "pitch": The gendered world of male rugby players. Gender and Society, 10(5), 550–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, M. C., & Bos, A. L. (2014). Measuring stereotypes of female politicians. Political Psychology, 35(2), 245–266. doi:10.1111/pops.12040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherriffs, A. C., & McKee, J. P. (1957). Qualitative aspects of beliefs about men and women. Journal of Personality, 25(4), 451–464. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1957.tb01540.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spears, R., & Smith, H. J. (2001). Experiments as politics. Political Psychology, 22(2), 309–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speer, S. A. (2005). Gender talk: Feminism, discourse, and conversation analysis. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Subašić, E., Reynolds, K. J., Reicher, S. D., & Klandermans, B. (2012). Where to from here for the psychology of social change? Future directions for theory and practice. Political Psychology, 33(1), 61–74. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00864.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tai, T., & Treas, J. (2013). Housework task hierarchies in 32 countries. European Sociological Review, 29(4), 780–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, K., & Quayle, M. (2010). The perils of being a nice guy: Contextual variation in five young women’s constructions of acceptable hegemonic and alternative masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 13(2), 255–278. doi:10.1177/1097184X09350408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. H. J., & Bennett, K. M. (2015). Measurement of masculinity ideologies: A (critical) review. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 115–133. doi:10.1037/a0038609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Toorn, J., & Jost, J. T. (2014). Twenty years of system justification theory: Introduction to the special issue on ideology and system justification processes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(4), 413–419. doi:10.1177/1368430214531509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weichselbaumer, D., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of the international gender wage gap. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(3), 479–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M., & Edley, N. (1999). Negotiating hegemonic masculinity: Imaginary positions and psycho-discursive practices. Feminism & Psychology, 9(3), 335–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whorley, M. R., & Addis, M. E. (2006). Ten years of psychological research on men and masculinity in the United States: Dominant methodological trends. Sex Roles, 55(9), 649–658. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9120-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. E., Satterwhite, R. C., & Best, D. L. (1999). Pancultural gender stereotypes revisited: The five factor model. Sex Roles, 40(7), 513–525. doi:10.1023/A:1018831928829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, Y. J., Steinfeldt, J. A., Speight, Q. L., & Hickman, S. J. (2010). Content analysis of psychology of men & masculinity (2000-2008). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(3), 170–181. doi:10.1037/a0019133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present research was supported by funding from the South African National Research Foundation (grant #TTK1206141295).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Social Issues Research, Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Michael Quayle

  2. School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

    Michael Quayle, Graham Lindegger, Kirsty Brittain, Neesa Nabee & Charlene Cole

Authors
  1. Michael Quayle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graham Lindegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kirsty Brittain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Neesa Nabee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Charlene Cole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Quayle.

Ethics declarations

All studies reported on in this paper received full ethical review and approval from the responsible ethics committee prior to data collection.

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Informed Consent

All participants participated voluntarily, with clear information about the risks and benefits of participation and fully aware of their right to terminate participation at any time.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 34 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quayle, M., Lindegger, G., Brittain, K. et al. Women’s Ideals for Masculinity Across Social Contexts: Patriarchal Agentic Masculinity is Valued in Work, Family, and Romance but Communal Masculinity in Friendship. Sex Roles 78, 52–66 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0772-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0772-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation