Femininity and masculinity entail characters or traits that associate an individual with being female or male, respectively. Conventionally, femininity and masculinity have been idealized as a single dimension but of opposite ends with femininity at one end and masculinity at the furthest end ( Bonnie, 2011) . However, modern-day theories have conceptualized the two as separate dimensions, giving the impression that an individual can have or show both traits.
Question 1
Maccoby and Parsons Theories
According to Maccoby, there are only four significant sex differences between masculinity and femininity. Maccoby also argued that parental differences, such as parents' primary concern on boys than girls, reinforce sex differences between the two (Kimmel, 2012). Maccoby's theory only identified four significant sex differences between girls and boys; boys are aggressive, boys are good in maths, girls are better in verbal skills and boys are excellent in spatial and visual ability (Kimmel, 2012). On the other hand, Parsons argued that society put greater necessity for femininity and masculinity, with society having two primary functionalities reproduction and production.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The two theorists are similar in their approach to sex roles in femininity and masculinity. Both agree that boys tend to have a domineering character from an early age and that expressive nurturing and tenderness have a substantial impact on masculine and feminine traits in boys and girls. However, their main difference is the role of society in shaping masculine and feminine attributes in the two. According to Parsons, the community has a significant role in the development of femininity and masculinity (Kimmel, 2012). Maccoby, however, focuses more on the parental influence that the broader community.
Strengths and Drawbacks
Sex roles deny the opportunity to view the development of a child from an all-inclusive perspective, a significant drawback in understanding other different aspects of masculinity and femininity. However, outstanding strength is that the two theories by Parsons and Maccoby are that they offer an opportunity for a broader and more engaging concept of understanding the difference between males and females within the framework of a societal and parental role.
Studying Masculinity and Femininity
The most accurate way to research masculinity-femininity without reaffirming a gendered binary of sex roles is to focus on their brain anatomy, DNA structure, bone structure, and psychological differences. These studies are away from the sexual concept and can provide comprehensive approach to understanding the difference between males and females.
Question 2
Perpetuating Negative Stereotypes
Most theories, ideas, concepts perceive women undesirably. For example, Feud's "penis envy" concept was widely rejected due to its negativity (Kimmel, 2012). Most ideas also portray girls as weak in most areas, such as Maccoby's survey that revealed that boys are more aggressive. Through these, it is easy for society to form a negative perception of women.
Reinforcing Gender Roles
Agents of socialization play a significant role in reinforcing gender roles. For example, mothers tend to give girls "over-protection" as compared to boys ( Hyde, 2005) . Teachers, on the other hand, tend to assign girls more relaxed class or acting roles as compared to boys (It’s Reigning Men, 2015). Society and peers associate boys with more demanding tasks and parts such as football and bike riding as compared to girls, further reinforcing gender roles.
References
Bonnie, R. J. (2011). Responsibility for addiction. Available at SSRN 1759547 .
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American psychologist , 60 (6), 581.
It’s Reigning Men: Gender Roles and How They Hurt You. (2015). Retrieved February 1, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R_JX0qRV-w&=&feature=youtu.be
Kimmel, Michael. (2012) Chapter 4 “So that explains it”: Psychoanalytic and
developmental perspectives on gender. The Gendered Society, 5th ed. New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 86-111.
