Journal of Research in Peace, Gender and Development (ISSN: 2251-0036) Vol. 2(13) pp. 268-274, December 2012, Special Review
Available online@ http://www.interesjournals.org/JRPGD
Copyright ©2012 International Research Journals
Review
The toll of traditional masculinity: A critical literature
review
Leehu Zysberg
Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California, Davis, CA.
Department of Psychology, Tel Hai College, Upper Galilee, Israel.
E-mail: leehuzysberg@yahoo.com
Abstract
Traditional academic and social discourse around gender and gender- roles have emphasized an
approach viewing traditional roles as serving the male gender, putting it in power position with access
to social, psychological and physical resources. This paper presents a critical view of the literature on
gender roles and their implications in diverse fields of everyday life, suggesting that traditional gender
roles put men more at disadvantage than commonly thought. Evidence borrowed from the fields of
health, criminology, economics and psychology are presented to undermine popular notions of
traditional gender roles. The paper concludes with a few trends and suggestions for future discussion
and research.
Keywords: Gender, gender roles, traditional masculinity, review.
INTRODUCTION
A contemporary look at masculinity in an age of
complexity requires that we reexamine basic
assumptions concerning masculinity and femininity in
various contexts. This paper offers a review of empirical
research and theoretical models in order to develop
discussion around several basic assumptions that have
shaped the discourse regarding masculinity and
femininity in recent decades. Such discourse put a mirror
in the face of society in which, for the first time,
masculinity versus femininity was reexamined. The word
"versus" was not chosen at random. Despite the
proliferation of approaches and definitions of feminism
(Currie and Kazi, 1987), most of the authors in the field
share the following basic assumptions: the first holds that
due to a variety of political and historical factors, human
society organized around a masculine system of norms,
which imposed male dominance serving male interests,
and thus directly or indirectly deprives women, at every
possible level, of rights, freedom of choice, and welfare
(Currie and Kazi, 1987). The second fundamental
assumption is that a variety of social structures and
mechanisms represent tactics of power and control that
perpetuate male advantage and privilege, while women
are excluded from access to these resources (Currie and
Kazi, 1987; Shulman, 1980). These basic assumptions
have typically transcended the boundaries of the feminist
discourse and penetrated deep into popular culture,
organizational and social systems, academia, the justice
system, and more e.g (Bendl, 2008; Teigen and
Wangnerud, 2009).
Here I will propose that the stereotypical gender roles,
as well as the social and psychological centers of power
that are perceived as serving the male gender and as
excluding women and inflicting injustice upon them – may
not be what they seem. I will argue that the prices that
men pay for traditional masculinity in a traditional world
are no less heavy than those paid by women, and that
traditional gender inequality does not necessarily work in
favor of men. Though this is hardly a novel claim,
previous reviews and research focused on single aspects
(e.g.: health promotion, aggression, etc.) while this review
will attempt to provide the reader with a more general
picture and re-interpretation of data and study outcomes.
The following review does not intend to be exhaustive.
It focuses on several selected aspects of psycho-biosocial research in order to present various aspects of the
toll of masculinity in the context of a traditional masculine
worldview as well as, and perhaps even more so, in a
post-chauvinistic world; a world in which women have
made impressive strides towards legitimate and socially
acceptable gender role flexibility, while men are yet to
make such headway and therefore find themselves in a
double bind of greater social and psychological pressures
than in the past (Moss, 2011). The following will review
evidence and findings from several representative
psychological and sociological fields of research
Zysberg 269
concerning sex and gender, in order to elicit reevaluation
of the basic assumptions detailed above.
Coping with illness and health
The issue of gender bias in of health management, health
systems, diagnosis, and coping with illness constitutes
the focus of long standing debate. The main argument
derived from basic current assumptions is that the
medical and health establishments are an example of a
social function controlled by men, which promotes and
perpetuates masculine dominance (Ruiz and Verbrugge,
1997). Thus for instance, the literature mentions gender
biases that create discrimination in medical diagnoses of
women and thus prevent proper treatment, especially in
the fields of mental health and heart disease. "Gender
blindness" – is a concept referring to the tendency to
judge men and women according to social stereotypes
related to their gender and the difficulty in adopting a
more holistic and accurate picture of the individual
(Hamberg, 2008; Ruiz and Verbrugge, 1997). This
concept may account for such biases in health care
delivery described above. For example-heart problems in
women are often attributed to anxiety disorders, thus
preventing proper treatment of women's heart disease for
decades, in the Western world (Remes et al., 1991).
When such one-sided discrimination is highlighted, less
attention is given to the social forces and masculine
characteristics of patients and caregivers, which lead
men to have a lower quality of life in terms of health, to
apply for medical, social and psychological assistance at
a frequency and effectiveness markedly lower than that
of women, and to a significantly shorter life expectancy in
the Western world as a whole (Springer and Mouzon,
2011).
Research findings on men’s health reveal and
interesting trend with regard to health habits, ways of
coping with sickness and most importantly: patterns of
help seeking behavior, requesting and accepting
counseling, information, assistance, and treatment
among men. The findings are horrifyingly consistent: the
masculine gender role does not permit men to admit to
weakness, and since sickness and need of assistance
can be perceived as weakness, men tend to avoid them
as much as possible (Tudiver and Talbot, 1999).
Furthermore, the traditional male sex role has been found
in the literature to be related to the adoption of risk taking
while disregarding the potential dangers and implications
involved in them (Courtenay, 1999). In other words, male
stereotypes encourage those holding them to put their
health at risk (in any number of ways: from hard work, to
smoking, eating unhealthy foods, to "extreme" sports),
while preemptively denying any need of assistance or
help.
A field that has been the subject of much research in
the past decade concerns the components of masculinity
and femininity that increase the risk of contracting HIV:
for instance, a study conducted among African
Americans showed that having sex with a condom is
considered a non-masculine act (Bowleg et al., 2011).
The result: greater risk of contracting AIDS first of all - for
men. These findings are often presented as a
phenomenon harming women, but somehow there is a
tendency to ignore the fact that this behavior pattern
primarily causes men to contract the disease.
Another relatively rich body of research reflects the
problems surrounding seeking medical assistance among
men. Although men are traditionally at a higher risk than
women for heart disease, diabetes, and other severe
illnesses, the rates of seeking medical counseling, tests
and diagnosis, treatment, and assistance is lower among
men compared to women (Courtenay, 1999; Umberson,
1992). Another interesting finding is that married men
tend to adhere to these patterns of behavior to a lesser
degree, a tendency which is attributed to the existence of
"female supervision" that encourages seeking help, which
in turn allows the male to attribute the need for help to his
wife (Parent, Moradi, Rummel and Tokar, 2011;
Umberson, 1992). Findings focused on men suffering
chronic, life-threatening disease show that they tend to
take their illness less seriously and adhere to the
necessary treatment regime to a lesser degree than
women (Galdas, Cheater and Marshall, 2005; Tudiver
and Talbot, 1999). It is no wonder, then, that life
expectancy among men is lower than that of women in in
most western countries: the life expectancy of men in the
United States is 76 years compared with 81 for women
(Central Intelligence Agency, 2012). Although there is a
tendency to attribute a significant portion of these
differences to genetic and physiological factors, there is
evidence that points to a different interpretation and
which attributes these differences to life style and social
roles. In a fascinating social study called The Blue Zones
Project (Buettner, 2009), the author presents five regions
in the world in which people live the longest and enjoy the
best quality of life at older age. In four of the five regions,
women make up the largest percentage of centenarians.
This trend is reversed in only one such zone: Sardinia.
Analysis of the living conditions in this location shows that
in Sardinia, the traditional division of labor among the
sexes is reversed. Women are the primary bread
winners, organizers, doers, producers, and even fighters
(historically speaking). Men function mainly as
housekeepers and shepherds. In this social environment,
men live many years longer than women. Such findings
suggest that the short life expectancy of men in most of
the world represents the effects of life style more than
biology.
Aggression
Popular conceptions of gender roles attribute to men a
270 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev.
tendency for overt, usually physical aggression and
assign to the feminine gender role communicativeness,
avoidance of conflict, and what would be called
"agreeableness", in terms of the five dimensions of
personality model (Levy, 1972). A closer look at the
literature in the field of aggression research reveals
differences between men and women that are much
more subtle and inconsistent. Apparently, the general
level of aggression does not vary significantly among the
sexes but rather its expression does – while men tend
toward direct, physical expression aimed at others or
themselves, women tend to express violence and
aggression in an indirect, more social and sublimated
manner e.g. (Eagly, 1996).
Another popular trend in the literature regarding gender
and aggression is the tendency to describe women as
living in a world in which violence is almost solely
emanating from men, directed towards women (Graham
and Wells, 2002). There is insufficient research
examining violence of women towards men and of men
towards other men, emphasizing a gender perspective.
Research concerning aggression that does not
emphasize the element of gender is of course abundant
and will provide some of the evidence below.
Findings consistently reflect the fact men are more
involved in incidents of aggression and physical violence
as aggressors and victims alike. In other words men,
more than women, live in a world which is physically
violent (as opposed to verbal and psychological violence,
which we will attend to forthwith) not only as perpetrators
of acts of violence but also as individuals required to
survive and cope with direct physical violence as victims
or bystanders. One of the prominent examples of the
reverse gender bias in the research and treatment of
violence from a genderal point of view is the "National
Survey of Violence against Women" (Tjaden and
Thoennes, 2000) conducted for the United States
Department of Justice about a decade ago, which
thoroughly mapped the different types of violence and put
the issue of violence against women, especially in the
family, on the public agenda in the United States. Yet,
generally speaking, the survey showed that men are
more frequent victims of violence than women. While
55% of the 8000 women participants reported being
exposed to violence (of all types) almost 67% of the men
(also 8000 participants) did so.
A later analysis of the data of these surveys revealed
that men, no less than women, suffer from psychological
and health syndromes of stress, post trauma and more,
due to exposure to violence (Coker, et al, 2002). Contrary
to the norms regarding women, for men, public
discussion of being victims of violence and coping with
exposure to aggression and its results are not part of the
popular discourse and do not grant men legitimacy to
seek assistance and cope more effectively with these
situations (Durfee, 2011).
Sexual harassment and rape are aspects of violence
traditionally receiving somewhat biased treatment in the
literature and even more so-in public discourse (although
officially and legally –the phenomenon is treated in equal
fashion). Indeed, numerically and relatively, women are
the main victims of rape (a ratio of 1:5 according to the
incidence tables the United States and in other western
European countries; e.g. Cybulska, 2007). Numerous
sources treat sexual assault of varying types and rape
(the act of coercive vaginal, oral, or anal sexual
intercourse) under the same umbrella. When summing up
the incidents (according to sources in the United States
and other coutries) the ratio changes to 1:3 and even less
(for examples see data tables in Tajden and Thoennes,
2000). In other words- men, admittedly less than women,
also are victims of sexual harassment and different types
of sexual assault. The discussion of this phenomenon,
the legitimacy for exposing it or understanding it, have
not yet become part of the public discourse: While
women have more access to help resources, and receive
at least certain levels of legitimacy as victims of sexual
assault, Male sexual assault victims receive much less
attention, scientific or public acknowledgement (and thus
legitimacy) to report abuse or assault and to seek (and
receive) help (Peterson, Voller, Polusny and Murdoch,
2011). Adding insult to injury, the few existing
testimonials regarding the experience of men who
became victims of abuse or violence suggest that such
men are more hesitant than women to file complaints,
tend to avoid coping with their situation fearing stigma,
and ridicule (e.g.: Sorenson and Siegel, 2010).
In general the literature conveys a picture of a violent
life-experience for men, and little room for showing
weakness, fear, distress, or addressing the physical,
emotional and social consequences of such experiences
for men.
Coping, stress and anxiety
Stress and anxiety are defined by the CDC as the plague
st
of the 21 century. It is estimated that stress and tension
factors may became the number one factor in the
deterioration of the quality of life of the individual and the
leading cause of death (Middlebrooks and Audage,
2008). The traditional male gender role greatly limits the
variety of techniques available for men to cope with
stress and anxiety and actually leads them to one of two
possibilities defined by the basic response pattern of
"flight (not recommended for the male self-image) or
fight". On the other hand, the female gender role permits
a wider range of coping mechanisms such as sharing,
requesting assistance, self-assertion, and more. As a
result, evidence is accumulating relating the adoption of a
rigid male gender role to distress and illness in a variety
of populations (e.g. Courteney, 2000). Here are several
examples demonstrating this principle:
A study focused on men serving or having served in the
Zysberg 271
Iraq War and the Gulf War found that the adoption of
male norms (claimed a prominent characteristic of
military men in general) constituted a significant risk
factor for suicidal thoughts and attempts following
exposure to the stress and traumas of warfare (Burns
and Mahalik, 2011).
Bowleg and others (2011) found that male behavioral
norms were linked to a tendency to contract AIDS (due to
carelessness and taking health risks, which were both
related to adoption of traditional male norms) and also to
greater difficulty in seeking and receiving assistance in
coping with the disease and its implications.
Sanders (2011) argue that adolescents adopting
stereotypical male norms, tend to replace psychological
and social coping strategies with destructive behaviors
such as drug abuse, violence, and delinquency. In other
words, the male stereotype limits the scope of coping
strategies available to young men to such a degree that
they are forced into destructive behaviors in order to
express emotional difficulties, confusion, and turmoil.
Another series of studies looking at caregivers' coping
with family members' chronic illness showed that men
caring for others suffer much more (in some cases up to
6 times more than women) adverse effects, as a result of
stress, and ineffective coping, compared to women
(Vitaliano, Zhang and Scanlan, 2003).
An interesting qualitative study conducted in Russia
examined how women and men are coping with stress
related to the social, economic, and political changes
characterizing the country in the past two decades: the
study participants (male and female) tended to describe
men as experiencing higher levels of stress and
attributed this to their gender role as breadwinners and
as being socially responsible for the financial-economic
integrity of their family unit (Petila and Rytkonen, 2008).
The above are merely examples of the cumulative
evidence suggesting men might be disadvantaged in their
coping with anxiety, stress and trauma. Men and women
cope differently with stress. There is enough evidence to
posit that the coping tactics of men are more limited than
those at the disposal of women due to their gender role
(Ptacek, Smith and Dodge, 1994).
Sexuality, romantic and intimate relationships
Norms related to the formation of intimate relations are
often defined according to traditional gender – division- of
- labor. A frequently raised argument posits that this very
division of labor is designed to preserve the social power
relations in which men are dominant and women are
subordinate, subservient (for example: Garber, 2009).
A popular example for this is the concept of "the double
standard", which has been mentioned many times in the
literature as a primary factor in the suppression of female
sexuality on one hand and maintaining male dominance
on the other: the traditional division of labor created an
expectation that women be sexually selective and loyal
while men are expected to be competitive and oriented
towards "sexual conquest" as a modern expression of
their hunter or Alpha-male roles (Milhausen and Herold,
1999). Fundamentally, the double standard means that
men are socially rewarded for having multiple sexual
partners while women are socially "penalized" for
permissive sexual behavior. Conflicting contemporary
evidence has given rise to a turbulent debate regarding
the question "does the double standard still exist in
modern Western societies?" Although the debate
continues (and apparently will continue for a while), it is
clear that at the very least one can say that men and
women differ in how they judge their sexuality and sexual
behavior (Parker, Barbosa and Aggleton, 2000). The
typical pattern arising from the research is that while men
express more positive attitudes than women towards
descriptions of a sexually permissive male figure, the
pattern is reversed when the figure is a woman: men will
express less positive attitudes than women towards a
permissive woman. In other words, it is definitely possible
that the double standard has changed its nature but it
probably hasn't disappeared.
Going beyond the double standard, there is a body of
research suggesting that in terms of social perception,
traditional male sexuality is more elusive than female
sexuality. Male sexuality is perceived as something that
must be earned: there is an expectation to be a sexual
conqueror, to display certain behavioral patterns
traditionally linked to aggressiveness, seizure and
preservation of territory, and the persistent conquest of
additional territory (Bosson and Vandello, 2011).
Furthermore, traditional masculinity requires on-going
confirmation as the danger of ‘losing it’ is constantly
present. A popular example is the perception of male
responsibility for the sexual satisfaction of his partner as
part of the affirmation of his masculinity (Bosson and
Vandello, 2011; Land, L.N. et al., 2011). Traditional
masculinity (or its lack thereof) is associated with the
man’s capability of pleasuring his partner and is less
associated with the nature of the relationship, support
and intimacy. Feminist writers interpret this phenomenon
as male de-legitimation of female sexuality and women's
right to take charge of sexual relations. A counter
argument may claim that such an attribution places the
entire burden of the quality of the sex act on the male (in
the eyes of traditional men and women), shouldering him
with
a
responsibility
that
physiologically
and
psychologically does not necessarily his (Gerber, 2009).
These patterns exact a toll: intimacy is perceived as
weakness;
avoidance
of
direct
interpersonal
communication creates conflict and makes it difficult to
preserve satisfaction in long term relations. Actually, most
of the characteristics that are considered critical to
preserving a quality intimate relationship, such as caring,
intimacy, openness and communication, are not included
in the stereotypical male sex role.
272 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev.
The traditional male sex role defines clear limits to what
is allowed and what is forbidden within intimate relations.
A characteristic example came up in a series of
interviews conducted with women and men in
contemporary Russia, a country that has undergone
social, economic and political changes and crises. In this
study, men and women alike identified the role of the
male in the family as organizer, breadwinner, and
supporter (primarily physically and economically). All of
these greatly limit the degree to which men are allowed to
need help, support, to be dependent or fragile (Hoover
and Coats, 2011; Pietila and Rytkonen, 2008). As a result
of these processes and patterns, men who adhere to the
traditional-stereotypical gender role are denied the
legitimacy and the ability to invest in intimacy and enjoy it
and to derive strength and support from an intimate
relationship compared to the extent to which this is
possible for women (with regards to social expectations
and permission).
Professional identity and career
The field of employment and career is a traditional battleground in which feminist and chauvinist opinions, and
discrimination against women seems especially
prominent: The world of employment is seen as a male
arena, a modern embodiment of the primordial hunting
fields, in which the exclusion of women or the restriction
of their advancement and the legitimization of their
abilities as workers and managers is described as
common practice (e.g.: Levy, 1972; Weisgrau, Dinella
and Fulcher, 2011). As a result, biases against women in
the labor market are perpetuated, such as the "glass
ceiling" – the invisible barrier that prevents women from
getting promoted to senior positions – and the division of
professions into feminine and masculine categories, with
implications for prestige, pay etc. (Lips, 2003).
The current world of employment is demanding and
more complex than ever before. It requires personal
resources, professionalization and life-long updating and
learning. This leads research to focus on career choice
and especially home-work conflict among female
populations (e.g.: Emslie, Hunt and Macintyre, 2004).
The assumption is that this brave new world constitutes a
challenge especially for women and puts them in a
double-bind, since on one hand they are still socially
committed to traditional roles (such as motherhood,
housekeeping) while on the other they are subject to
increasing pressures in terms of career and involvement
in a world of employment that is more complex and
demanding than ever (for an example of such writing
based on Israeli samples see: Cinamon and Rich, 2002)
Research findings dealing with employment values,
priorities, and career choices of men and women are
frequently biased: many studies compare men and
women in different occupations, for instance: nurses and
engineers, and in this way create a whole complex of
intervening variables that blur the findings regarding
gender and psychological responses to work. Studies
that isolate these aspects do not find significant
differences between the genders regarding conflicts
between family demands and employment demands,
contrary to what may have been expected (for typical
examples see: Emslie, Hunt and Macintyre, 2004; Frone
and Rice, 2012; Wiesgram, Dinella and Fulcher, 2011).
Actually, recent meta-analyses have found that gender
plays almost no role in work-related stress and the
intensity of the home-work conflict, after controlling for
intervening factors (for example: Ford, Heinen and
Langkamer, 2007).
Going beyond the above, I suggest that the changes in
the world of work posit unique pressures on men who
adhere to the traditional gender role, that do not
necessarily serve them or put them in an advantageous
position. Studies describe the role of "breadwinner" or
"economic axis" as a significant career consideration
creating
psychological
pressure
regarding
competitiveness, sacrificing quality time with the family,
and choosing jobs with higher salary expectancy and
status, not necessarily those which suit one's preferences
and areas of interest (for a recent comparative study of
boys and girls vocational interests and aspirations see
e.g: Melamed, 20122). These pressures to achieve, earn
and provide through work exact a significant
psychological toll: in a study conducted in Hong-Kong, a
patriarchal society embracing a western way of life,
employed men reported sources of work-related stress.
The main sources of stress for men were advancement
and pay, both directly related to the traditional
breadwinner role (Leung and Chan, 2012). Another
recent study suggests a link between the degree of
masculinity-femininity and the considerations applied
when choosing a career: those adhering to traditional
gender roles tended to choose a career according to the
chances of gaining income and employment security,
meaning that they emphasized their responsibility as
breadwinners at the expense of satisfaction, interest or
personal inclinations (Weisgram, Dinella and Fulcher,
2011).
The psychological toll increases in situations of moving
between jobs, unemployment, or imbalance between
income levels in the family household. The manner in
which men cope with unemployment, lack of income, and
so on is problematic and inefficient often limited by the
male gender role generating a vicious cycle of roleinduced stress and roles induced limitations on coping
(see for example: Artazcoz, et al., 2004). An example of
such dynamics can be found in a study that reviewed
data from a survey held between 1964–1986 in a large
sample representing populations of various western
countries. The study found that men tend to react with
greater emotional distress than women to unemployment;
they deal with work-related stress less efficiently, and are
Zysberg 273
at a higher risk of suicidal behavior as a result. An
interesting finding shows that with the emergence of
modern work values in the labor market, the share of
suicidal ideation among unemployed women has also
risen. Actually this suggests that the psychological toll is
apparently a product of gender roles and not biologicalphysiological factors related to the sex of the individual
(Pritchard, 1990).
Summary and
conclusions)
some
suggestions
(in
lieu
of
One of the ‘traditional’ arguments in both academic and
political gender discourse maintains that stereotypical
gender roles reflect a society that favors men over
women. The review presented here wishes to shake this
basic assumption. The physical, social, and psychological
prices men pay for being ‘stereotypically male’ are
perhaps different than those that women pay, but are not
lower. Taking into account evidence showing that modern
society has allowed some changes in traditional gender
role regarding women (such as: entering the world of
career, sexual freedom, and so on) it is surprising to see
that the very same societies have not changed their
traditional perception of masculinity to the same extent
(Archer, 1985; Norman, 2011). Therefore, it cannot be
claimed that traditional gender roles serve men, or benefit
them more than women. A closer look at empirical
evidence suggests the opposite. Men actually fare worse
than women in life expectancy and longevity, effective
coping and utilization of coping resources, and quality of
social networks and interpersonal relationships. Facts
suggest a traditional world which is anything but
beneficial to men: Men live in a more violent world, not
only as aggressors but also as victims. Their world is
lonelier that that of women: Men report less friendships
and less reliance on social support in times of hardship
and challenge (Barbee et al., 1993; Holahan and Moos,
2011).
The pendulum movement typical of every social and
scientific development (as in: thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis), is apparent in the relatively brief history of the
discussion of gender roles. Originally, the issue had no
legitimacy or recognition: from a clearly defined, rarely
challenged traditional division of sex roles, the pendulum
swung to the opposite direction, whereby traditional basic
assumptions were shattered and their veracity cast in
doubt. What, then, is the synthesis? Where would the
pendulum stabilize with the maturation of the discussion
of gender in Western society?
Gender discourse in its current form generally
encourages a "contest of misery" on the part of both
genders: who suffers more, who faces more inequities,
obstacles, and other malaises due to being a man or a
woman. To a certain extent the current paper fell into the
very same trap. This discourse, naturally, is counterproductive. The purpose of this review was to slightly
unsettle the prevailing basic assumptions regarding the
stereotypical order of things and to help the reader
reconsider the matter from a less conventional point of
view. It is possible that as the field matures we will see at
least two trends take place: the public, social discourse
may continue, but in a slightly different manner: there
does not have to be a worldwide male conspiracy aiming
to subjugate women and remove them from positions of
power. The feminist movement on the other hand is not a
collection of men-hating misanthropes. As we discuss
social changes we may want to bear in mind that social
order is a necessity without which no society can exist or
maintain necessary basic social institutions and
functions. In a different social and personal order,
individuals will adopt different roles and areas of
responsibility. The discussion of literal equality versus the
‘different but equal’ approaches can have serious
repercussions as social structures change and social
revolutions unfold.
On the empirical, more academic front It would be
interesting to study and examine the implications of
adopting different personal and social roles regardless of
biological sex. Some of the evidence presented in this
chapter suggests that lifestyle and the burden of duties
and responsibilities placed on the individual have a
crucial effect on a person's welfare and symptomatology,
and not necessarily as a function of one's gender and
sex. Can the future focus more on these aspects and less
on gender labels?
REFERENCES
Archer J (1984). Gender roles as developmental pathways. Brit. J. Soc.
Psychol., 23(3):245-256.
Artazcoz L, Benach J, Borell C, Immaculada C (2004) Unemployment
and mental health. Am. J. Pub.Health, 94:82-90.
Barbee AP, Cunningham MR, Winstead BA, Delega VJ, Gulley MR,
Ynakeelov PA, Druen PB (1993). Effects of gender role expectations
on social support process. J. Soc. Issu., 49(3):175-190.
Bosson JK, Vandello JA (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to
action and aggression. Current Direction in Psychological Science,
20:82-88.
Bowleg L, Teti M, Massic JS, Patel A, Malebranche DJ, Tschann JM
(2011). What does it take to be a man? Ideologies of masculinity and
HIV sexual risk among black heterosexual men. Culture, Health and
sexuality, 13(5):545-559.
Buettner D (2009). The blue zones: Lessons for living longer from
people who lived the longest. Washington DC: National Geographic.
Burns SM, Mahalik JR (2011). Suicide and dominant masculine norms
among current and former US military servicemen. Professional
Psychology, 42(5):347-353.
Central Intelligence Agency (2012). The world fact book. Washington
DC: The CIA information center.
Cinamon RG, Rich I (2002). Gender differences in the importance of
work and family roles. Sex Roles, 47:11-12, 531-542.
Coker AL, Davis KE, Arias I, Desai S, Sanderson M, Brandt HM, Smith
PH (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner
violence for men and women. Am. J. Prevent. Med., 23(4):260-268.
Courteney WH (2000). Constructs of masculinity and their influence on
mens’ well-being. Social Science and Medicine, 50:1385-1401.
Currie D, Kazi H (1987). Academic feminism and the process of deradicalization. Feminist Review, 25:77-98.
Durfee A (2011). “I am not a victim, she’s an abuser”: masculinity,
victimization, and protection orders. Gender and Society, 25: 316-336.
274 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev.
Emslie C, Hunt K, Macintyre S (2004). Gender work-home conflict and
morbidity among white collar bank employees in the UK. Int. J.
Behavioral Med.11:3, 127-134.
Garber J (2009). Gender and Sexuality. In: Davies J, Imbroscio D.(eds)
nd
Theories of urban Politics. 2 edition. London UK: Sage Publications.
Graham K, Wells S (2002). The two worlds of aggression for men and
women. Sex Roles, 45:9-10, 595-622.
Hamberg K (2008). Gender bias in medicine. Women’s Health, 4:3,
237-243.
Holohan CJ, Moos RH (2011). The quality of social support. British J.
Clin. Psychol. 23:3, 245-256.
Hoover SM, Coats CD (2011). The media and male identities. Journal of
Communication, 61:877-895.
Krumholz HM, Douglas PS, Lauer MS, Pasternak RC (1992). Selection
of patients for coronary angiography and coronary revascularization
after MI: Is there a gender bias? Annals of internal Medicine, 116:10,
785-790.
Land LN, Rochlen AB, Vaughn BK (2011). Correlates of adult
attachment avoidance: Men’s avoidance of intimacy in romantic
relationships. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 12:64-76.
Levy B (1972). The school’s role in the sex role stereotyping of girls: a
feminist review of the literature. Feminist Studies, 1:5-23.
Lips HM (2003). The gender pay gap: Concrete indicator of women’s
progress toward equality. Analyses of Social Issues and Public
Policy, 3:87–109.
Middlebrooks JS, Audage NC (2008). The effects of childhood stress on
health across the lifespan. Centers for Disease Control and
prevention. Retrieved from the internet: http://www.cdc.gov/
Milhausen RR, Herold ES (1999). Does the sexual double standard still
exist? Perception of university women. J. Sex Res., 36(4):361-368.
Moss N (2011) Embodying the double bind of masculinity. Men and
Masculinities, 14: 430-451.
Norman ME (2011). Embodying the double bind of masculinity. Men
and Masculinities, 14(4):430-449.
Parker R, Barbosa RM, Aggerton P (2000). Framing the sexual subject:
The politics of gender, sexuality and power. Los Angeles, CA:
University of California Press.
Pietila IY, Rytkonen M (2008). Coping with stress and by stress:
Russian men and women talking about transition stress and health.
Social Science and medicine, 66:327-338.
Pritchard C (1990). Suicide, unemployment and gender variations in the
western world 1964-1986. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric
Epidemiology, 25:73-80.
Ptacek JT, Smith RE, Dodge KL (1994). Gender differences in coping
with stress. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(4):421430.
Reme J, Miettinen H, Reunanen A, Pyorala K (1991) Validity of clinical
diagnosis of heart failure in primary care. Eur. Heart J., 12:315-321.
Rohsenow DJ, Bachorowski JA (1984). Effects of alcohol and
expectancies on verbal aggression in men and women. J. Abnormal
Psychol. 93(4):418-432.
Ruiz MT, Verbrugge LM (1997). A two-way view of gender bias in
medicine. J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health, 51:106-109.
Sanders JM (2011). Coming of age: How adolescent boys construct
masculinity via substance use, juvenile delinquency and recreation. J.
Ethnic. i Substance abuse, 10:48-70.
Shulman AK (1980). Sexual bases of radical feminism. Signs, 5(4):590604.
Springer KW, Menzon DM (2011). Macho men and preventive health
care. J. Health, Soc. Behav., 52:212-229.
Stacey J, Thorne B (1985). The missing feminist revolution in sociology.
Social Problems, 32:4, 301-316.
Tjaden P, Thoennes N (2000). Full report of the prevalence incidence
and consequences of violence against women. Washington, DC: US
dept. of Justice.
Vitaliano P, Zhang J, Scanlan JM (2003). Is caregiving hazardous to
one's physical health? A meta-analysis. Psyc. Bull., 129:6, 946-972.
Weisgram ES, Dinella LM, Fulcher M (2011). The role of masculinityfemininity values and the occupational value affordance in shaping
young men’s and women’s occupational choices. Sex Roles, 65:243258.