Replicating and extending previous work, this study aims to explore women's construction of masculinity in the context of work, family, friendship and romantic relationships. However, where previous studies explored this in the South African context, the current study aims to determine whether women's construction of masculinity has followed similar patterns for women from different countries around the world. It seems that women's negotiations of masculinity (traditionally hegemonic or non-hegemonic) are interdependent on their narrative of identity and their ability to construct and negotiate their femininity (emphasized and liberated) in the same contexts.
Introduction
WOMEN'S STEREOTYPES OF MASCULINITY IN THE DIFFERENT CONTEXTS OF WORK, FAMILY, FRIENDSHIPS AND ROMANTIC PARTNERSHIPS. Research conducted by Talbot and Quayle (2010) showed how different gender relations were constructed in relation to the context of the interaction between men and women. The purpose of this study is to replicate the study conducted by Brittain by exploring how women's construction of masculinity differs depending on the context of their lives.
Literature Review
The Construction of Masculinity
Hegemonic Masculinity
Patriarchy and the Changing Nature of Masculinity
Constructions of masculinity and femininity and the balance of power between them have therefore shifted unevenly across the board. Society requires men to construct this type of masculinity and women are required to adopt "complimentary, compliant and. These constructions by both men and women thus ensure the continuation, normalization and legitimization of the "global subordination of women".
Construction of Masculinity is Context Dependent
However, the display of emotion was acceptable according to the degree of emotion shown, the reason why it was shown and, provided it was shown in moderation, and did not threaten masculinity (Talbot & . Quayle, 2010). One arena in which displays of emotion are acceptable is in the world of sports. In this context, Larkham's display of emotion was acceptable because his team lost in a major world tournament and, secondly, because he was about to finish his career in the sport.
Women’s Role in the Co-Production of Masculinities
Despite the early theoretical insights that women have been shown to in fact contribute to the maintenance and production of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987 in Messerschmidt, 2012), women are underrepresented in research on the social construction of masculinity. Having said that, "women can construct different forms of femininities that are emphasized and liberated – in different contexts as they recognize and support situational masculinities" (Talbot & Quayle, 2010, p.10). Women are also likely to value and idealize versions of. masculinity that conforms to their own ideals of female identity. Consequently, femininity and masculinity are complementary, each dependent on the other according to the identity demands of a given context.
Contexts in Which Traditional Hegemonic Versions of Masculinity are Valued by
The findings were consistent with Brittain (2010) and Talbot and Quayle (2010) in that women constructed ideal forms of masculinity in the context of friendship, using non-traditional hegemonic masculine traits. However, the bad guy was more acceptable in the short-term context (Murray & . Milhausen, 2012). In the context of romance, stereotypes of femininity and masculinity are central to how romance is negotiated.
The Interdependent Identity Shift Between Men and Women as They Negotiate a
However, in Brittain's (2010) study, women valued more hegemonic masculine characteristics in colleagues, thus maintaining hegemonic masculinity in both the context of work and romance. These results were replicated in the Brittain (2011) sample of college women who also constructed hegemonic masculinity in the context of work. It appears that in the context of romance/marriage, women will adopt a feminine identity that supports the hegemonic masculinity they wish to realize in their ideal partner (Talbot & Quayle, 2010).
Could the Patriarchal Status of the Society in Which Women Originate Play a Part in
The countries experiencing this inequality are clustered in the sub-Saharan region (Ferrant, 2010). In the next type of cluster, women experience a different type of inequality than the two just discussed. Despite some countries having more equal opportunities, employment inequality remains.
Method
- Rationale
- Aims
- Research Design
- Sampling
- Recruitment
- Data Collection
- Research Instrument: Questionnaire
- Procedure for data collection
- Validity and Reliability
- Ethical issues
- Recruitment
- Informed consent
- Confidentiality
- Beneficence
- Justice
- Data Analysis
- Organizing the data
- Analyzing data
Will women's constructions of masculinity be influenced by the status of equality in the country in which they reside. The nature of research conducted online limits the nature of confidentiality in this scenario. The women were provided with details of the study and asked to answer whether or not they wanted to participate in the study.
Furthermore, the participant's name was not requested in the questionnaire, which protects confidentiality. The data for section one (the manhood ratings) for each of the 35 characteristics was entered and processed in Excel. This made it possible to calculate the mean masculinity rating for each trait chosen by the 159 women.
In the case of the excel document, a formula was created to calculate the total and average of each domain and each participant. The sample of ratings of the 159 women was collected and averaged for each of the 35 characteristics. This gives weights of the predictor's importance to determine its function in the discrimination between the different groups (Powell & Hill, 2005).
This part of the research aimed to determine whether women's constructions of masculinity in each domain would be affected depending on the equality status of the country in which they live.
Results
- Construction of Masculinity across Different Domains
- Mean Manliness rating for 35 characteristics
- Descriptive statistics for the mean manliness rating between the four domains
- Post Hoc Analysis of mean manliness ratings
- Discriminant Function Analysis of Characteristics across Four Domains
- Constructions of Masculinity across the Four Domains as Determined by the Equality
- Analysis of Variance of the mean manliness scores across the equality status
- Analysis of Variance of the mean manliness scores across the equality status
- Analysis of Variance of the mean manliness scores across the equality status
- Analysis of Variance of the mean manliness scores across the equality status
- Discriminant Function Analysis Based on the Gender Equality Status of the
- Discriminant function analysis in the domain of family man
- Discriminant function analysis in the domain of Friendship
- Discriminant function analysis in the domain of Work colleague
- Discriminant function analysis in the domain of Romantic Partner
- Summary of Findings
ANOVA showed that there was no significant difference between the masculinity scores of the low, medium and high equality groups within the family man domain at [F p= 0.475]. The data show that the test did not show a significant difference between the masculinity ratings of women with low, medium and high equality status in the co-worker domain (F p=.472). A discriminant analysis of 35 characteristic variables in the family man domain yielded one function that was significant for accounting for the variance among masculinity scores in the three equality indices.
It was discovered that more traditional hegemonic masculine characteristics were found to differentiate women's constructions of the ideal man in the family man context across the equality indices. The discriminant analysis of the 35 characteristic variables within the friendship domain yielded a function that was significant in accounting for the variance between manliness ratings across the 3 similarity indices. The discriminant analysis of the 35 characteristic variables in the domain of work colleagues yielded a function that was significant in accounting for the variance between masculinity ratings across the 3 equality indices.
Discriminant analysis of the 35 characteristic variables in the domain of Romantic Partner yielded a function that was significant to account for the variance between. Family Man There is no significant difference between the manhood scores of the low, medium and high parity groups. Working College There is no significant difference between the manhood scores of women with low, medium and high equality status.
Romantic partner No significant difference between the masculinity scores of women with low, medium and high equality status.
Discussion
- Constructions of Masculinity as Manly Across the Four Domains
- Anchoring the Different Characteristics According to the Domain They are Enacted . 62
- Women in Low Equality Countries Construct Hegemonic Masculinity
- Hegemonic Masculine Ideals continue to be Constructed in Varying Degrees Across
- Constructions of masculinity in friendship
- Constructions of masculinity in work colleague
- Constructions of masculinity in family man
- Construction of masculinity in romantic context
- The Negotiation of Masculinity in One Context Affects the Negotiation in Another
- Limitations
- Recommendations
In the coworker domain, Talbot and Quayle (2010) showed women constructing the “nice guy”. This type of permeability and negotiation of masculinity can be seen in the context of family men, where women wanted "loving" men. In the area of family men, women from countries with low equality scored the highest, followed by countries with high equality, and countries with medium equality scored the lowest.
In the context of work, the results showed that women from countries with low equality preferred more masculine men, compared to the medium equality. The most characteristic trait was "decisiveness", which was most valued in the countries with low equality. However, it was found that women from countries with less equality still advocated for the traditionally more masculine qualities, even in the context of friendship.
Overall, the pattern seems to show that women espouse more traditional masculine characteristics in the field of work, regardless of the country's equality status. In the area of "family man", six of the eight characteristics most characteristic of this area were found to be traditionally male. This may have indicated that there still remained a desire to construct versions of masculinity within the family.
Talbot and Quayle (2010) found that women would want more non-traditional masculine characteristics in the context of work.
Conclusion
The results differed from Talbot & Quayle, (2010), in the sense that although women still advocated hegemonic masculinity in the romance/family context, they constructed the ideal man in the work colleague as possessing traditionally hegemonic masculine characteristics. Women generally advocated and maintained hegemonic masculinity in the context of romance and family life. It also showed that most women would favor 'nice guy' masculinities in the context of friendships.
This study found that women advocated for traditional hegemonic masculine characteristics in the context of work. The extended part of the study examined whether women's equality status would influence their constructions of masculinity with their ideal man across contexts. More importantly, it shows that women play a role in perpetuating forms of dominant masculinity, which perpetuates gender stereotypes and the continued subordination of other masculinities and women.
One aspect of the study showed that women perpetuate the ongoing construction of hegemonic masculinity in the work context. In this research it was shown that women continue to maintain and perpetuate the construction of hegemonic masculinity in the context of the family man and romance. Thus, women, regardless of their egalitarian status, are primed to uphold and perpetuate hegemonic masculinity in order to engage in the romantic partnership ideal (Brittain Messerschmidt, 2012; Talbot & Quayle, 2010).
Postfeminism was important in the role it played in the advancement of women.
Letter sent requesting assistance to participate in research
Informed Consent Form
Questionnaire
After thinking about what you would want in your “ideal family man,” mark the 10 traits with an X on the left and rate them from 1-10, from most important to least on the right. Think about what you would want from him in terms of the role he will play in your life and also in terms of the ideal qualities you would like him to possess. Then mark with an X on the left the 10 words from the list below that best describe this 'ideal male friend'.
Then rate the characteristics in the column to the right of the word; for example: put '1' for the most important attribute you've chosen, then '2', until '10' for the least important. Think about what you want from him in terms of the role he wants to play in your life and work. Then mark with an X to the left the 10 words in the list below that best describe this 'ideal male work colleague'.
Think about what you would like from him in terms of the role he will play in your relationship and also about the ideal qualities you would like him to have. Then mark with an X to the left the 10 words from the list below that best describe this "ideal romantic partner". Then rate the properties in the column to the right of the word; for example: put a "1" next to the most important attribute you selected, then a "2", up to a "10" for the least important.
The Survey
