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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Gender differences are a wide topic in psychology and other disciplines. It is not possible to reference all literature in this article, but it is also not the aim of this article to do so. This article will point out that the constructs of femininity and masculinity come with many limitations when one examines what is done (methodological approach)–despite the ambiguity of the content.
Most studies do not “test” a person’s biological sex (or ask for their gender identity, which might influence development even more). They assume that what they perceive represents reality.
References
Alfermann, D. (1996). Geschlechterrollen und geschlechtstypisches Verhalten [Gender roles and gender typical behavior]. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 293–321. doi:10.1162/003355301556419.
Behrens, H., & Deutsch, W. (1991). Die Tagebücher von Clara und William Stern [Clara and William Stern’s diaries]. In H. E. Lück, & R. Miller (Eds.), Theorien und Methoden psychologiegeschichtlicher Forschung [Theories and methods of historical research in psychology] (pp. 67–76). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Bem, S. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 196–205. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.45.2.196.
Bischof-Köhler, D. (2006). Von Natur aus anders. Die Psychologie der Geschlechter unterschiede [Different by nature. The psychology of gender differences]. Stuttgart, Germany: Kohlhammer.
Bosinski, H. A. G. (2000). Determinanten der Geschlechtsidentität. Neue Befunde zu einem alten Streit [Determinants of gender identity. New findings in an old debate]. Sexuologie, 7(2/3), 96–140.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. New York: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Deutsch, W. (2000). Die Fichte und der Palmenbaum. Über die Entwicklung des Geschlechts und der Sexualität beim Menschen [The spruce and the palm tree. Human development of gender and sexuality]. In W. Deutsch, & H. Schneider (Eds.), Sexualität—Sexuelle Identität. Heidelberg, Germany: Mattes.
Deutsch, W., & Watzlawik, M. (2005). Gespaltene Identität. Überlegungen zur Geschichte der Persönlichkeitsforschung [Split identity. Thoughts on the history of personality research]. Scheidewege—Jahreszeitschrift für skeptisches Denken, 35, 138–154.
Dimen, M. (1991). Deconstructing difference: Gender, splitting, and transitional space. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 1, 335–352.
Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429.
Haeberle, E. J. (2003). Die Sexualität des Menschen. Handbook and Atlas [The sex atlas] (2nd ed.). Hamburg, Germany: Nikol.
Heckhausen, J., Dixon, R. A., & Baltes, P. B. (1989). Gains and losses in development throughout adulthood as perceived by different adult age groups. Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 109–121. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.25.1.109.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. The American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.
Jagose, A. (1997). Queer theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press.
Maccoby, E. (1998). The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2(4), 201–218.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 29–51. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.29.
Piaget, J. (1951). Psychology of intelligence. London: Routledge.
Sayers, J. (1982). Biological politics: Feminist and anti-feminist perspectives. New York: Tavistock.
Schmitz, S. (2002). Hirnforschung und Geschlecht: Eine kritische Analyse im Rahmen der Genderforschung in den Naturwissenschaften [Brain research and gender: A critical analysis within gender research in natural science]. In I. Bauer, & J. Neissel (Eds.), Gender studies—Denkachsen und Perspektiven der Geschlechterforschung (pp. 109–125). Innsbruck, Austria: Studienverlag.
Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1974). The personal attributes questionnaire: a measure of sex-roles stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4, 43–44 Ms, 617.
Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2008). Understanding uncertainty. Annals of Family Medicine, 6, 196–197. doi:10.1370/afm.848.
Stangor, C. (2000). Stereotypes and prejudice. Philadelphia: Psychology.
Valsiner, J. (2008). Science of psychology today: Future horizons. Sapporo, Japan: Keynote lecture presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Japanese Psychological Association.
Watzlawik, M. (2004). Experiencing sexual orientation—A comparison between American and German adolescents. Identity, 4(2), 173–189. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0402_4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Watzlawik, M. When a Man Thinks He Has Female Traits Constructing Femininity and Masculinity: Methodological Potentials and Limitations. Integr. psych. behav. 43, 126–137 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-008-9085-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-008-9085-4