FREE ESSAY ON DOUBLE STANDARD OF MASCULINITY IN GENDER ROLE SOCIALIZATION

DOUBLE STANDARD OF MASCULINITY IN GENDER ROLE SOCIALIZATION

Double Standard of Masculinity in Gender Role Socialization 
Masculinity is a topic that has been debated in our society extensively, through research
as well as in informal settings. Many wonder what it means to be masculine, and if we can
really assign a definition to such a subjective term. After all, shouldn't one's own
perception be the determinant of what constitutes masculinity? This self-construction
would be the ideal in our society, but unfortunately, it represents a false belief.
Masculinity has certain characteristics assigned to it by our culture. In this paper I
will explore the many facets of masculinity and demonstrate how certain beliefs
pertaining to it are perpetuated in our society. I will also uncover many of the
contradictions between society's assigned definition of masculinity and the expectation
that males will somehow learn how to act contrary to that assigned and learned meaning.
Definition of Masculinity 
Men are primarily and secondarily socialized into believing certain characteristics are
definitive in determining their manliness and masculinity. These characteristics range
from not crying when they get hurt to being and playing violently. The socialization of
masculinity in our society begins as early as the first stages of infancy. A child's
burgeoning sense of self or self-concept is a result of the multitude of ideas,
attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs to which he is exposed (Witt 1997). Later in this paper
the question of whether there are genetic factors will be discussed. However, to further
my argument at this point, I will discuss masculinity as it is socially defined. From the
outset of a boy's life he is socialized into the belief that he should be 'tough'. Often
when boys get hurt, 'scrape their knee', or come whimpering to their mother or father,
the fated words, Little boys don't cry, issue forth. Children internalize parental
messages regarding gender at an early age, with awareness of adult sex role differences
being found in two-year-old children. One study found that children at two and a half
years of age use gender stereotypes in negotiating their world and are likely to
generalize gender stereotypes to a variety of activities, objects, and occupations (Witt
1997). This legitimization teaches males that boys and men are not allowed to cry. There
also exists the belief that boys are often required to do 'men's work' outside of the
home such as mowing the lawn, cleaning the garage, etc., and not 'sissy women's work'
such as cooking and cleaning, etc. Other factors help to perpetuate certain standards
expected of men and boys (Stearns 1990).
The violence boy's witness on television further legitimates this belief. Katz explains
that advertising imagery equates masculinity with violence. For boys this means
aggression is instrumental in that it enables them to establish their masculinity (Katz
1995). Lee Bowker researched the influence advertisements have on youth. He asserts that
toy advertisements featuring only boys depict aggressive behavior. Strangely, the
aggressive behavior generally results in positive consequences more often than negative.
Bowker also looked at commercials with boys that contain references to domination. The
results of all the commercials indicate that 68.6% of the commercials positioned toward
boys contain incidents of verbal and physical aggression. There was no cross?gender
display of aggressive behavior. Interestingly, not one single-sex commercial featuring
girls shows any act of aggression (Bowker 1998). This research helps explain that it is
not just the reinforcement of close caretakers to the child that legitimate masculinity
but society as a whole (using the television as a symbol of society and it's desires).
Another example of how this can be reinforced even by women who may or may not be trying
to promulgate such a belief is with an experience I had growing up:
When I would get a cut or a bruise, I would muster up all the strength I had to not cry.
I feared that if I cried I wouldn't be worthy of being a tough kid. On one occasion I had
a severe cut in my knee that required several stitches. When I took a look at the wound
after rolling up my pant leg, my first inclination was to break out crying. However, at
that moment my teacher told me what a brave boy I was and how amazed she was that I was
not crying. She probably did not realize that she was sending a message to me that if I
cried I would not be tough enough, and therefore I would not become a real man. 
Athletics is another type of legitimation that reinforces society's definition of
masculinity. Boys watch how their fathers dote and fawn over 'the game', whether it is
football, basketball, or any other sport that epitomizes masculinity. Children notice
that the 'men' on TV impress dad and they want to be like that. This initial reinforcer
is a major impetus for boys wanting to learn athletics (Thompson 1995). It may not be
just that dad watches athletics on TV, but also in speaking with his son, he may
encourage him to develop his athletic prowess. He can do this in ways such as buying him
a baseball glove so they can spend time playing catch, or buying him other 'masculine'
athletic equipment such as guns. All of these factors serve as primary socializers in
instilling within boys the desire to excel physically. Similarly, how often are young
boys seen competing with each other in bike races, acts of physical strength or even in
something as simple as My dad can beat up your dad? Little boys are taught to see
physical prowess as the ideal. An interesting aspect of masculinity is that we are not
taught so much to be manly but rather to not be feminine. Most of what a young boy learns
about what it means to be masculine is presented to him at such an early stage that he
accepts it as an inevitable truth. Often young boys can be found taunting and even
motivating each other with phrases like Don't be a (sissy) girl or Only girls do that. It
seems that there is a pervasive fear among all males that the worst possible insult is to
be labeled a female. William Betcher reports that some societies take this concept to an
extreme. He talks of the initiation rites of the Sambia of New Guinea saying, Initiation
rites begin when boys are seven to ten years old and include oral ingestion of older
boys' semen and painful bleeding by sticking grass reeds up the nose. The bleeding is a
counterpart of menstruation and semen is ingested instead of mother's milk (Betcher
1993). Although these actions seek to mark the boy as not a woman, ironically they
incorporate basic feminine biologic functions that men lack. 
Secondary socialization then acts in the later stages of a boy's life to reaffirm
society's beliefs about masculinity. As boys grow older, their bodies develop and they
enter junior high and high school. At this point they begin to really understand that
physical prowess and largess are the ideal. To see how this is done, we can simply look
at the emphasis given to athletics versus the emphasis given to academics in public
schools. Understandably, how schools emphasize athletics over academics is going to have
some influence over the way young men think and visualize the importance of physical
prowess, but the true legitimator is how athletes are seen by the student?body of the
school. Pep rallies are thrown to support the 'athletes', the 'stars' of the school.
Girls swoon over the masculine 'hunks'.
As young boys move into adulthood they are told to be men when confronted with a
formidable challenge or when they face some sort of agony. The implication in this phrase
is that men should be immune to pain and not show any emotion. To show emotion would be a
sign of weakness and society would view them as abnormal or inferior (Pollack 1995).
I have covered the socialization process showing how physical prowess is objectified and
legitimated in males. This process, however, does not end in high school. As men move
into their twenties and thirties, health and fitness become issues of concern. To see how
health and fitness are socially defined as overly muscular men, one need only pick up a
copy of Men's Health. Invariably you will find on the cover, men flaunting their toned,
muscular bodies, and often you will find them with a seductively beautiful and toned
woman by their side. These toned and muscled men are seen and depicted by society as the
ideal. They may not be the healthiest individuals and probably are not. Nevertheless,
they are deemed as the 'ideal men' of our society. Along with the emphasis on health and
fitness comes the continued advent of athletic prowess. How often are men asked Did you
see the game last night? or How about them Jazz? In the work place and social groupings,
men often turn the topic of conversation to athletic events, enthralled and enraptured by
the topic. From the beginning of male life to the very end, society has determined that
men must be strong, tough, aloof, and powerful to be considered masculine and not weak or
effeminate.
Is this all that society (and women) want in men? Do they want simple-minded 'hunks' of
musculature that are 'tough'. It is no longer sufficient for men to just be 'tough'
physically. They must also demonstrate competence intellectually, spiritually and
emotionally. This argument is not to say that being physically fit and healthy is a
negative characteristic, but rather it is only trying to point out that what society is
defining as the ideal is later revoked by that same society, or at the very least
discarded and seen as secondary to the truly important mental prowess, sensitivity and
intelligence.
This is where the double standard becomes evident. William Pollack, a Harvard clinical
psychologist, talks about how males have been put in a gender straightjacket that leads
to anger, despair and often violence. Pollack states, We ask them (men) to take a whole
range of feelings and emotions and put those behind a mask . . . We tell them they have
to stand on their own two feet and we shame them if they show any emotion. Pollack says
that boys are shame phobics and some will [even] kill to avoid shame(Gwartney 1998). It
appears that the standard defined by society allows men to express their emotion only
through anger. With such strict conflicting expectations, a male often doesn't know how
to act. Rigid stereotypes have been emphasized to them from an early age of what it means
to really be a man. However, men are often criticized for being one dimensional in their
behavior and emotions.
They are expected by society to be sensitive and show their emotions. Men are so
insensitive!' Are they? Why do women think men are so insensitive? Do they realize that
insensitivity is what men have been taught their whole lives? Realistically, men are in a
no?win situation. If they don't show their emotions, they are berated for being detached
from the essence of what really constitutes a human being. On the other hand, if a male
decides to expose his emotions, he is labeled as a sissy and not viewed as equal to other
males who demonstrate more valor and bravery.
Genetics vs. Socialization
Why do we choose blue for boys and pink for girls? Why do we have girls take dance and
boys play baseball? There is no genetic difference as to why women would do laundry and a
man would mow the lawn. This is a result of externalization (Bowker 1998). But are males
more prone to 'toughness' and masculinity than women? Could it be said that genetics play
a factor in what is so often considered to be a socially defined aspect of male
masculinity?
In general, males are much more aggressive than females. Biologists and anthropologists
would propose that this is because humans have evolved from a polygamous society. In that
society males competed hard to procreate, and females worked to raise and support the
young. These roles demanded aggression in males, and promoted rules such as hierarchy,
competition and dominance.
A theory promulgated by David Buss takes into consideration the social side of aggression
while maintaining that biological instincts are the underlying cause. He suggests in his
book The Evolution of Desire that the existence of large numbers of men who cannot
attract a mate may increase sexual aggression and rape. He states that violence is often
the recourse of people who lack resources that would otherwise elicit voluntary
compliance with their wishes. Rape occurs more often by men who lack the status and
resources that women want in mates (Buss 1994).
Richard Wrangham and Dale Petersen take another perspective with their insightful article
about primates. From their research they conclude that a high percentage of matings were
forced copulations. These findings were mostly with the orangutan species, but there is
also evidence that chimpanzees and ducks participate in what appears to be rape. The
theories suggest that natural selection has favored rape as a way for smaller males to
impregnate females. This theory has also been argued with humans. Thus it could be said
that males are genetically prone to violence and aggression (Wrangham 1997). 
Conclusion
Is there a double standard in masculinity? It is apparent through my arguments that
society expects men to be both 'tough' and 'gentle' while some might argue that genetics,
instincts and their animalistic nature for men to act more tough than gentle. The paradox
is evident, the source ambiguous. Regardless, masculinity is an unrealistic expectation
of men. Who or what are they supposed to be?
Bibliography
Betcher, William R. et al. (1993) In a time of fallen Heroes. New York, NY, Macmillan
Publishing Company. 
Bowker, Lee H. (1998) Masculinities and Violence. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications,
Inc.
Buss, David. (1994) The Evolution of Desire. New York, NY, St. Martin's Press, Inc. 
Gwartney, Debra. (October 17, 1998) Double bind of boys concerns psychologists. Oregon
Times.
Katz, Jackson. (1995) Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity In
Dines, Gail and Humez, Jean. (Eds.) Gender, Race and Class in Media. Thousand Oaks, CA,
Sage Publications. 
Pollack, William. (1995) Deconstructing Dis-identification: Rethinking psychoanalytic
Concepts of male development. Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy. 12(1)30-45.
Stearns, Peter N. (1990) Be A Man! Males in Modern Society. New York, NY, Holmes & Meier
Publishers, Inc.
Thompson, Neil. (1995) Men and Anti-Sexism British Journal of Social Work. 25(4)459-475.
Witt, Susan D. (1997) Parental influence on children's socialization to gender roles.
Adolescence. 32(126)253-257.
Wrangham R. et al. (1997) Relationship Violence in Demonic Males. New York, NY,
Routledge.