“No way my boys are going to be like that!” Parents’ Response to Gender Nonconformity.

By:
Emily Kane
 Heterosexual parents would allow their daughters to do more male activities but not
their sons.
 Mothers, gay fathers and lesbian mothers were more accepting of gender non-
conformity, but were worried of how their children would be judged by others
 Fathers believed if their sons were not masculine they had failed as fathers

Methods:
 A diverse sample of 42 parents who had pre-school aged children were interviewed
regarding the study.
 Pre-school age was picked because this is an age where children start to realize gender
roles.
 Interviewed 42 parents (24 mothers & 18 fathers)
o Started with a brief questionnaire
 Interviewees averaged 2.5 children (11 daughters & 12 sons)

Results:
 Discuss
o Single fathers feel about nonconforming children
o Mothers, gay fathers, lesbian mothers raise their children (what others thought
about their children but still allowed them to act that way)
o Heterosexual parents teach and raise their children
o There are more boundaries on boys
o Gender is expected in society

 Video of pre-school aged children interviewed on gender look out for different answers
from the boys and the girls see how even young children expect each gender to act
watch at how such a young age their defensive about being associated with the other
gender
 What children think of the other gender, ego boundaries- We build egos at a young age
and as you can see from the video male and female egos are different
 Fathers push children more than mothers to achieve and take risks more than their
current level of ability
 parents associate gender with things such as household chores and other activities
 parents communicate gender through modeling masculinity and femininity

 Concerns with too much emotionality and passivity from both parents –Homosexuality

o Fear that a son either would be or would be perceived as gay

- feminine behavior could be an indicator of eventual homosexuality
- playing w/ toys "meant for girls" may not indicate but rather shape their son's
eventual sexual orientation
 o Parents can feel responsible for crafting their child's sexuality
- "If he were to be gay, it wouldn't make me happy at all. I would probably see
that as a failure as a dad...as a failure because I'm raising him to be a boy, a
man."
o Connection between gender performance and sexual orientation was not raised
as an issue for daughters
 For sons, heteronormativity appears to play a role in shaping parental responses to
gender nonconformity
o may reflect a more general devaluation of femininity
o Mothers v. Fathers in the Accomplishment of Masculinity
o Encouragement of domestic skills, nurturance, and empathy
o Discouragement of icons of femininity
o Concerns about homosexuality
o Many parents reported efforts to craft a hegemonic masculinity
- indicated awareness their son's behavior was at risk of gender assessment

Conclusion
 It's okay to help try and guide your child to do normal things a boy or girl would do, but
if they are happier not conforming you should love and support them anyway.

Discussion Question:
 Reading the Kane article, I wonder does it really matter how one performs his/her
gender roles at young ages and do you think parent overemphasize gender role
limitations and sanctions in order to raise their children in gender-appropriate role?
Doesn't it relate to overcompensation and feeding into hegemonic masculinity
discourse? If parents do not overemphasize socializing their boys more masculine, will it
bring a change in hegemonic masculinity discourse or masculine performance in later
years?
 Overdoing Gender A Test of the Masculine Overcompensation Thesis. By: Robb Willer,
Christabel L. Rogalin, Bridget Conlon and Michael T. Wojnowicz

 Men react to masculine insecurities and their masculinity being threatened with more
extreme demonstrations of their masculinity
 Research questions: Do men overcompensate in response to gender identity threats? (p
4) When men respond to threats with masculinity striving, are they seeking to restore a
fundamental aspect of their self-concept that they deeply value, or restore repetition
standing in the eyes of others? (p 45)
Literature Review:
 Theories of Masculinity (Connell 1987) and Theories of Identity (Maass et al. 2003)
 Masculine overcompensation can be attributed to Freud’s notion of “reaction
formation” ([1898] 1962), or tendency of individuals to respond to the suggestion that
they possess a socially unacceptable trait by enacting its opposite, often in the extreme.
 Identity Theory 1: “homophobia may be a case of reaction formation for men with
same-sex attraction and strong concerns about the social implications of being seen as
gay masculinity theory, which argues that masculinity is both more narrowly-defined
(making masculinity more easily threatened) and socially-valued (making men more
motivated to recover it) than femininity. (Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996))
 Identity Theory 2: individuals tend to react to feedback that threatens valued identities
with overcompensation, enacting attitudes and behaviors associated with the identity
to a more extreme extent than they would have in the absence of threats.
 “while definitions of masculinity vary across contexts, within a given culture men are
typically measured against a monolithic standard of ‘hegemonic masculinity.’”
Dominance and control are key in hegemonic masculinity in America. (Connel (1983))
 There is a slow, and somewhat stagnant halting acceptance of expressions of self
associated with femininity in boys (Kimmel and Mahler 2003; Pascoe 2005).
 “The standards of true masculinity are so exacting as to be virtually unattainable,
leading men to continually strive to satisfy them” (Connell 1987; 1995).
 Kimmel emphasizes the role of men as a sort of “gender police,” describing homophobia
as the fear among men that other men will detect their insufficient
masculinity…masculine status is relative and hierarchical (1994). Thus, as one man
establishes his masculine standing, he necessarily diminishes the standing of other men.
 MacMillan and Gartner found that employed wives of unemployed husbands face a
greater risk of domestic abuse, perhaps because their employment constitutes a threat
to the masculinity of their spouse (1999).
 social psychologists found that men whose masculinity was threatened via bogus
feedback on a gender identity survey were more likely to subsequently sexually harass a
female participant in the study (Maass et al. 2003). This body of research supports
masculinity theorists’ contention that men are highly responsive to their masculine
status.
  From this literature we cull two main theoretical claims: 1)a narrower definition exists
for what are acceptable and respected masculine, as opposed to feminine, traits, and 2)
masculinity tends to be more respected than femininity (e.g., Ridgeway 2011).”

Data set and methodology

 Study design: Gender identity survey (Bem Sex Role inventory) —-> Survey Feedback for
Study 2 (Gender Identity Confirming/Disconfirming) creating a 2x2 design, participants
M/F —-> Assessment of dependent measures
 Dependent measures: a) interest in SUV, Support for Iraq War, homophobic attitudes,
persistence on a strength test

Design
 Argument is made through deductive reasoning, because the authors started off with
predictions based on conclusions derived from other studies and well regarded and
semi-established patterns of behavior, particularly based on the masculine
overcompensation thesis, which states that men are likely to respond to threats to their
masculinity with more exaggerated or extreme demonstrations of masculinity.
 Following that account, the paper test it with four studies
i. a lab experiment (experimental design. 2 (participants were men/women) x 2
(participants’ gender identity was threatened/not). 111 undergraduate students
(60 women, 51 men) at a large, Eastern private university participated in the
study for pay plus the option of extra credit in a sociology class.)
ii. extension of the lab experiment’s findings (Replicated methodology of Study 1)
iii. a large scale survey (2007 “American Values Survey” respondents contacted,
only approximately 2.7% of contacted respondents consented to participate, not
representative)
iv. a tracking of men’s testosterone levels (Demographic questionnaire and gender
identity survey (Bem 1974). Given randomly determined feedback on the results
of their gender identity survey before being asked to complete a “Political and
Religious Views Survey” and a post-study questionnaire. At regular intervals,
their saliva would be collected and analyzed for testosterone (four times in
total)).
Analysis and Critique
 research soundly conducted, and the information provided is accurate based on its
citations in other papers, and the theory it tests is well-established.
 many doubts with the information provided during experimental procedures, which I
believe may have exaggerated or downplayed the results.
o Firstly, participants were recruited by fliers advertising pay for participation in a
sociology experiment or by announcements in their undergraduate sociology
class. These are sociology students, who are probably more understanding and
less likely to support wars and Bush anyway.
o Also, why is support for the Iraq War, homophobia and interest in purchasing an
SUV considered masculine? I feel that Willer did not go into any depth regarding
that matter.
o More specifically to experimentation, studies 1 and 2 demonstrated in
laboratory settings that “men whose masculinity was threatened reacted with
more extreme masculine attitudes, in particular views associated with
dominance. These studies were, however, conducted within a relatively small,
homogeneous population, creating external validity concerns.” Thus making it a
non-representative sample, which makes it not so widely applicable, if anyone
cares for accuracy.
o For study 3, “while the survey was not nationally representative and is
essentially a convenience sample, it does provide substantial sample diversity.”
No explanation as to what substantial sample diversity meant exactly was
provided, thus making it pretty vague.
o In study 4, “Fifty-four undergraduate men at a large, Midwestern public
university participated in the study for pay.” This is a problem, again, because it’s
at a Midwestern university as opposed to an eastern one which diverts from the
uniformity of the samples across studies, and is also not representative, again.
o The conclusions do seem reasonable, but the samples used for each study
probably skewed the data as it might have compared to a representative sample.
Recovering the feminine other masculinity, femininity, and gender hegemony. By:
Mimi Schippers

The characteristics (sexual desire, and being aggressive), or practices will be stigmatized and
sanctioned if it is embodied by women.

Connell’s model
 Hegemonic masculinity (men’s domination on women and other men)
 emphasized femininity (compliance to patriarchy)
 3 components (1. Social location, 2. Set of practices and characteristics understood to be
masculine, 3. When these practices are embodied especially by men and also by
women, they have widespread cultural and social effects.)
 Complicit masculinities (masculinities constructed in ways that realize the patriarchal
dividend, without the tensions or risks of being the frontline troops of patriarchy.)
 Marginalized masculinities (Subordination of gay men by heterosexual men.)

Pyke and Johnson Study - Applying theoretical framework in femininity

 White hegemonic femininity
 Hegemonic masculinity is a superstructure of domination, hegemonic femininity is
confined to power relations among women (p. 88)
 white and Asian femininities in term of gender hegemony and subordination poses two
problems
o no way to identify the relationships between femininities operating within race
and ethnicity
o Hegemonic femininities mimics hegemonic masculinities, that is no conceptual
apparatus with which to identify how men benefit from the relationship
between white femininity and Asian-American femininity
o Inequality is based on racial hegemony not gender hegemonic among women
Alternative Model
 Heterosexual matrix (Judith Butler) – gender is the socially constructed binary that
defines “men” and “women” as two distinct classes of people. The discursive
construction of gender assumes that there are certain bodies, behaviors, personality
traits and desired that nearly match up to one or the other category.
 Symbolic meanings for gender differences establish 1. Origins (biology, divine will,
socialization), 2. Significance (defines subjectivity, is the foundation of society), 3.
Quality characteristics of each category (men are physically strong and authoritative and
women are physically vulnerable and compliant)
 Heterosexual desire = regardless of one’s sex category, the possession of erotic desire
for the feminine object is constructed as masculine and being the object of masculine
desire is feminine. E.g. gossip about wives
Gender hegemony and multiple masculinities and femininities
 The characteristics (sexual desire, and being aggressive), or practices will be stigmatized
and sanctioned if it is embodied by women. why?
 Definitions of hegemonic masculinity and femininity (p. 94)
 Pariah femininities = subordinate femininities (The symbolic construction of girls’ sexual
agency and ability and willingness to use physical violence as undesirable and deserving
of sanction and social expulsion turns their potential challenge to male dominance into
something contained and less threatening.
 When a woman is authoritative, she is not masculine; she is a bitch – both feminine and
undesirable.
 Male femininity = When men establish hegemonic, feminine characteristics, he becomes
target of stigma and social sanction.
 Study of changing gender meaning and practices in Mexico (fathering doesn’t effect
masculinity in working class but is stigmatized in upper class)
 alternative femininities and masculinities (intentional replacement of hegemonic
masculinities and femininities, pariah femininities and male femininities)
 Masculinity insurance (Eric Anderson (2002)) = the men were superior athletes and
embodying this feature of masculinity overshadowed their gay identities and are not
stigmatized. (p 98)