Course Code: Py 407
Course Title: Gender Issues in Psychology
Course Instructor: Raiha Aftab
Unit 2
Social constructionists argue that science cannot be
applied to the study of gender because gender is not a
static quality of a person but is a product of society. As
the context changes, so does gender.
The minimalists believe that men and women are
essentially the same, that differences are small, and
that those that do exist are likely to be due to social
forces.
The maximalists believe that women and men are
fundamentally different in important ways, but that
“different” does not mean that one is better than the
other. The standpoint feminists argue that some
differences imply an advantage to women’s
perspective.
Intersectionality recognizes that one social category is often
confounded with other social categories and that examining
only one category, such as gender, is limiting in terms of
understanding research and implications for social justice.
Today’s women’s movements have as their common thread
a concern with improving the lives of women around the
world—in terms of health, education, and opportunity.
Today’s men’s movements are varied, some endorsing
feminist positions and others advocating a return to
traditional male and female roles.
Research has shown that sexist language, such as the use of
the generic he to imply both women and men, activates
male images and is not perceived as gender neutral.
1894-1936: Gender
1936-1954: M/F as a
differences in
global personality trait
intelligence
1982 to present:
1954-1982: Sex typing
Gender as a social
and androgyny
category
Era 1
Ellis (1894) - Man and Woman
› called for a scientific approach to the study of the
similarities and differences between men and women. No
consideration was yet given to personality traits or roles
associated with sex.
Thus, gender-related roles were not part of the
picture.
› The primary goal of this era was to examine if (really, to
establish that) men were intellectually superior to women.
› To accomplish this goal, scientists turned to the anatomy of
the brain (Shields, 1975).
First, scientists focused on the size of the human brain.
› Because women’s heads and brains are smaller than those of
men, there seemed to be conclusive evidence that women
were intellectually inferior.
› However, men were also taller and weighed more than
women; when body size was taken into account, the
evidence for sex differences in intelligence became less
clear.
If one computed a ratio of the weight of the brain to the weight
of the body, women appeared to have relatively larger brains.
If one computed the ratio of the surface area of the brain to
the surface area of the body, men appeared to have relatively
larger brains.
› Thus, brain size alone could not settle the question of sex
differences in intelligence.
Era 2
During this period, the concept of M/F was introduced.
However, it was defined merely by sex differences.
Because women were rarely included in research, one
scale of femininity, from the MMPI, was validated on
homosexual men. Homosexuality was thought to be
equivalent to femininity.
Projective tests of M/F were developed to reduce
demand characteristics. However, these tests were
flawed in that sex differences in drawings were taken to
be evidence of masculinity and femininity.
Researchers developed a 456-item instrument to measure M/F.
It was called the Attitude Interest Analysis Survey (AIAS; Terman &
Miles, 1936) to disguise the true purpose of the test. The AIAS was
the first published M/F scale. The items chosen were based on
statistical sex differences observed in elementary, junior high, and
high school children.
› This meant that items on which the average female scored higher than the
average male were labeled feminine, and items on which the average male
scored higher than the average female were labeled masculine, regardless of
the content of those items.
The M/F scale was also bipolar, which meant that masculinity and
femininity were viewed as opposite ends of a single continuum.
› The sum of the feminine items was subtracted from the sum of the masculine
items to yield a total M/F score.
› The instrument was composed of seven subject areas: (1) word association,
(2) inkblot interpretation, (3) information, (4) emotional and ethical
response, (5) interests (likes and dislikes), (6) admired persons and opinions,
and (7) introversion–extroversion, which really measured superiority–
subordination.
Hathaway and McKinley (1940) developed the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI).
It eventually included an M/F scale that consisted
of items reflecting altruism, emotional sensitivity,
sexual preference, preference for certain
occupations, and gender identity questions.
› Women were not involved in the conceptualization of
the female gender-related traits;
› only 13 homosexual men were involved in the study,
which is hardly sufficient to validate an instrument
even if they had been the appropriate population
Franck and Rosen
(1949).
Franck and Rosen
began with 60 stimuli,
asked men and women
to complete the
drawings, and found
sex differences in the
way that 36 of the 60
were completed. These
36 stimuli then
comprised the test.
Franck and Rosen suggested their instrument measures acceptance of one’s gender role
rather than the degree of masculinity and femininity. Males who scored masculine and
females who scored feminine were considered to have accepted their gender roles
All the M/F scales developed during this period suffered from a
number of conceptual weaknesses:
› The tests did not distinguish between more or less masculine people,
nor did they distinguish between more or less feminine people.
› They merely distinguished men from women, a distinction that did not
need to be made.
› Any item that revealed sex differences was taken as evidence of
masculinity and femininity, regardless of its relevance to these
constructs (e.g., thinking Tokyo is a city in India is an indicator of
femininity).
› All the scales were bipolar, such that masculinity represented one end
and femininity represented the other.
› Homosexual men were equated with feminine women.
There seemed to be some confusion among masculinity,
femininity, and sexual orientation.
› An assumption at the time was that psychologically healthy men were
masculine and psychologically healthy women were feminine.
Era 3
The period between 1954 and 1982 brought
with it major innovations in the
conceptualization and measurement of
gender roles and gender-related traits.
The distinction between the instrumental
and expressive orientation was made and
then linked to gender.
This led to the development of two instruments, the PAQ and the
BSRI, which are the most widely used instruments to measure
psychological masculinity and femininity today; these constructs
are now referred to as agency and communion.
These two instruments differed from previous instruments in that
masculinity and femininity were established as two independent
dimensions rather than bipolar ends of a single continuum.
The use of independent M/F scales led to the development of the
androgyny construct. Initially, androgyny was captured by similar
scores on masculinity and femininity and later by high scores on
masculinity and femininity.
The most recent advance during this period was the idea that
there are socially undesirable aspects of gender roles that ought
to be considered and measured. This led to the concepts of
unmitigated agency and unmitigated communion.
4
Three shifts occurred in the most recent thinking
about gender roles:
(1) the realization that gender roles are multifaceted
constructs that cannot be fully captured by single
trait measures of agency and communion;
(2) the idea that gender roles are influenced by the
social context, time, place, and culture; and
(3) a shift in focus from sex of target effects to sex
of perceiver effects.
gender-role strain
The third shift led to the consideration of the strains people face
from the gender roles society imposes.
› Strains arise when our behavior is discrepant from the role that society
has set forth and when the behaviors required of the role are not
compatible with mental and physical health.
› Gender-role strain among men includes homophobia, competitiveness,
emotional inhibition, aggression, and a reluctance to seek help.
› Gender-role strain among women, less studied, includes fear of
physical unattractiveness, fear of victimization, difficulties with
assertion, uncertainty about how to behave in traditionally masculine
settings, and centrality of relationships and children to self-definition.
› The nature of gender-role strain is likely to differ across race,
ethnicity, and culture.
The end of this Presentation
Course Description
The objective of this course is to
› Provide an understanding of psychology of gender, gender
differences and related research evidence
› Acquaint students with the contemporary gender related debates
and issues particularly with relevance to the Pakistani context
Course Objectives
By studying this course, students will be in a position to:
› Differentiate facts from myths about sex and gender differences
in the context f personality, cognition, mental health, morality,
achievement, empathy, and aggression
› Contemplate about gender issues faced particularly in the
Pakistani context such as abuse, harassment, ownership of
property, gender discrimination across different levels.
Brannon, L. (2011; 2008; 2005). Gender: Psychology
perspective. USA: Allyn and bacon.
Brettell, C. B., & Sergeant, C.F. (2009). Gender in cross-
cultural perspective (5th ed.). New Delhi, India: PHI
learning.
Hassan, I. N. (1990). The psychology of women. Pakistan:
Allama Iqbal Open University.
Helgeson, V. S. (2005). Psychology of gender (2nd ed.).
UK: Pearson and Education.
McCracken, J. (1997). Thinking about gender: A
historical Anthology. USA: Harcourt brace & company.
Ussher, J. M. (1992). Gender issues in clinical
psychology (Eds.). New York: Rutledge’s Champion and
Hall