magazine issue 10 2010 / Issue 11

Are You a “Real Man”? How Men Earn and Prove Manhood Status

• written by Jennifer Bosson
• edited by Hans IJzerman

Of course, these perspectives do not justify or speak to the legitimacy of precarious manhood beliefs. If anything, they simply provide possible explanations for why we, as a culture, persist in teaching boys and men that they must struggle to become, and then remain, “real” members of their gender.

Conclusion

Daily life is replete with examples of men’s anxiety about violating the male gender role. Boyfriends and husbands refuse to watch “chick flicks” in the theatre; pop music enthusiasts keep their fondness for certain performers a secret (“I have lots of male friends who like Adam Lambert, but they don’t want people to think they’re gay”); and many men assiduously avoid hobbies and vocations such as knitting, baking, and fashion. When faced with examples like these, it can be tempting to hold individual men responsible for their own feelings of anxiety. As the work presented here suggests, however, doing so might be missing the bigger picture. Men – even those who are perfectly “secure in their masculinity” – are aware that their manhood is precarious and that they may, at any moment, lose manhood status in other people’s eyes. Until widespread beliefs about the elusiveness and tenuousness of manhood change, it may be unrealistic to expect the average man to violate gender role norms with ease.

References

Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422-447.

Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Wasti, S. A. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623-634.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressive behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330.

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles.American Psychologist, 54, 408-423.

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206.

Garcia, M. (2010, February). Complaint filed against antigay sportscasters. Advocate.com. Retrieved April 14, 2010, fromhttp://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/22/Complaints_Filed_Agai...

Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Russo, N. (1976). The motherhood mandate. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 143-153.

Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.) Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.

Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1325-1339.