Male/Female Is Not Enough: Adding Measures of Masculinity and Femininity to General Population Surveys

Survey research and sociological theory each provide insights into how and why people and groups act, think, and feel. Sociological theories identify what concepts are important for understanding and representing the social world. That is, sociological theories inform what to measure in surveys, and, to a certain extent, how to measure it. Survey research permits sociologists to carefully specify what is to be measured vis a vis sociological theory, setting surveys apart as a social research tool. It is this level of specification of concepts and measures that allow surveys to provide continued value at a time when “big data” proliferate. High quality survey measurement and estimation is necessary for sociologists to evaluate sociological theory among generalizable samples with well-developed questions, leading to further refinement and improvement of the theory and improved understanding of the social world. High quality surveys also provide insights into where sociological theories fail and where they must be adjusted for different subgroups, as well as basic insights into the prevalence of outcomes of interest. Together, sociological theory and survey methods produce insights about society that can inform decision-making and social policy. This mutually reinforcing relationship between sociological theory and survey methods requires sociological theory to evolve from insights obtained using survey methods and survey measurement to evolve with advances in in sociological theory. The measurement of sex and gender in surveys is one area where the development of survey measures has not kept pace with sociological theory and empirical, largely qualitative, findings. Contemporary gender theory sees sex and gender as separate concepts, both of which are important for understanding behaviors and outcomes. Yet, virtually all contemporary surveys measure sex as a binary “male” versus “female” categorization and fail to measure gender, ignoring important heterogeneity in gender identification that may exist within sex categories and any overlap that may occur across categories. Both gender scholars and survey researchers are potentially affected by this shortcoming of modern survey measurement. Gender scholars lose an important tool for assessing gender theories, especially on generalizable samples, risking conclusions that are specific to a small group of individuals rather than the population at large. Survey researchers risk producing theoretically obsolete data, limiting the utility of the data or potentially generating misleading conclusions. Survey data that fail to capture and reflect modern and complex understandings of our social realities also face increased risk of being replaced by “big data” such as administrative and social media data. Survey data that do reflect modern and complex understandings can bring value not available in administrative or other data and are therefore unlikely to be replaced. This paper is part of a growing chorus advocating for updates to how modern surveys measure sex and gender. We argue that the reliance on a single binary measure of sex (male or female) is out of step with current sociological understandings of sex and gender. In response, we propose and test a new theoretically-informed gradational measure of gender identification in a nationally representative mail survey. We evaluate whether respondents answer the gender measure and examine the reliability and predictive validity of the measure. In particular, we examine whether measuring gender gradationally adds explanatory value beyond sex on important social outcomes such as sexuality, childcare, grocery shopping, housework, working for pay, and military service. We also examine whether sex moderates the effect of gender identification in the ways that sociological theory would suggest on these outcomes

I\u27m Not Going To Be A Girl : Masculinity And Emotions In Boys\u27 Friendships And Peer Groups

This study examines the peer relations and emotion practices of adolescent boys in light of their expectations and assumptions about masculinity. We carried out semistructured interviews with middle-class and upper-middle-class boys from an independent high school. The boys reported that they assiduously avoided displays of emotional or physical pain and disparaged such displays in other boys. They tied tough, stoic self-presentations to manliness; moreover, they said that their peer groups derided expressions of hurt and worry and of care and concern for others as gay or girly. Boys described interactions with boys as centering on taunting, mocking, and shoving around. Although these practices were hurtful, boys valued them as means of bolstering one another\u27s masculinity. The study points out that securing masculinity demands ongoing efforts from boys and their peers. Moreover, it points to feeling rules and emotion practices as important constituents of young White masculinities