What Is Gender? Author(s): Ivy Kennelly, Sabine N. Merz, Judith Lorber Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Aug., 2001), pp. 598-605 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088925 Accessed: 26/03/2009 15:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review.

http://www.jstor.org 598 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Sex of Things: Gender and Consumption in Commenton Udry, ASR, June 2000 Historical Perspective, edited by V. de Grazia with E. Furlough. Berkeley, CA: University of WHAT IS GENDER? California Press. Malven, Paul V. 1993. Mammalian Neuroendo- IVY KENNELLY crinology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. McGuire, L. S., K. O. Ryan, and G. S. Omenn. George Washington University 1975. "Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia II: Cognitive and Behavioral Studies." Behavior Genetics 5:175-88. SABINE N. MERZ Moore, Celia L and Karen L Power. 1992. University of Massachusetts-Amherst "Variation in Maternal Care and Individual Differences in Play, Exploration, and Groom- ing of Juvenile Norway Rat Offspring." Devel- JUDITH LORBER opmental Psychobiology 25:165-82. College and Graduate School, CUNY Nelson, Randy J. 2000. An Introduction to Be- havioral 2d ed. Sunderland, Endocrinology, CIENTISTS HAVE long tried to deter- MA: Sinaur Associates. S mine how biology might affect behav- Peiss, Kathy. 1996. "Making Up, Making Over: Cosmetics, Consumer Culture, and Women's ior. One particular hotspot of research has Identity." Pp. 311-36 in The Sex of Things: fixated on two of the many steroid molecules Gender and Consumption in Historical Per- more commonly referred to as hormones: spective, edited by V. de Grazia with E. Fur- testosterone and estrogen. These molecules lough. Berkeley, CA: University of California have assumed a place in both scientific and Press. general discourse as determining factors of June and Reinisch, M., Mary Ziemba-Davis, "gendered behavior." In his article, "Biologi- A. Sanders. 1991. "Hormonal Con- Stephanie cal Limits of Gender Construction," tributions to Behavioral Udry Sexually Dimorphic henceforward on his in Humans." (2000, Udry) reports Development Psychoneuroendo- of the adult behaviors that crinology 16:213-78. study gendered result from women's to Roberts, Celia. 2000. "Biological Behavior? Hor- prenatal exposure mones, Psychology, and Sex." National testosterone. In this comment, we critique Women's Studies Association Journal 12:1-20. Udry's guiding theoretical framework, his Schiebinger, Londa. 1992. "The Gendered Brain: definition and operationalization of "gen- Some Historical Perspectives." Pp. 110-20 in dered behavior," and the social and political So Human a Brain: Knowledge and Values in implications of his findings. the Neuroscience, edited by A. Harrington. Boston, MA: Birkauser. Sperling, Susan. 1997. "Baboons with Briefcases UDRY'S CONCEPT OF vs. Langurs with Lipstick," Pp. 249-64 in The "BIOSOCIAL" Gender/Sexuality Reader, edited by R. N. Lancaster and M. di Leonardo. New York: Udry's project is centered on 163 white 27- women from somewhat Routledge. to-30-year-old Templeton, Alan R. 1998. "HumanRaces: A Ge- higher-than-average socioeconomic class netic and Evolutionary Perspective." American backgrounds. When these women were fe- Anthropologist 100:632-50. tuses-during the second trimester of their Tiefer, Leonore. 1995. Sex Is Not a Natural Act mothers' pregnancies-researchers mea- and Other Essays. Boulder, CO: Westview. sured the amount of testosterone and sex Richard. 1994. "The Nature of Gender." Udry, hormone binding globulin (SHBG) present Demography. 31:561-73. in their mothers' blood. Since SHBG inhib- .2000. "Biological Limits of Gender Con- struction." American Review Sociological Direct correspondence to Ivy Kennelly, 65:443-57. George Washington University, Department of J. Naomi M. and Judith Udry, Richard, Morris, Sociology, Phillips 409, Washington DC 20052 Kovenock. 1995. Effects on "Androgen ([email protected]). We greatly appreciate in- Women's Gendered Behaviour." Journal of sights from Joya Misra, Cyrus F. Slaton, Wendy Biosocial Science 27:359-68. Simonds, Marina Karides, Carrie Yang Costello, Weininger, Otto. 1903. Sex and Character. New Eleanor M. Miller, Barbara J. Risman, three York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. anonymous reviewers, and the Editors of ASR. COMMENTS AND REPLIES 599 its testosterone from being transmitted from nizational-activational theories rely are a mother's to a daughter's bloodstream, a merely speculative, as they have never been high level of SHBG in a mother's blood sig- directly shown in any brain organization re- nifies to Udry that her daughter's brain will search (Fausto-Sterling 2000:195-232). be less "organized" by testosterone than it The debate about what causes behavior is would be if there were a low level of SHBG thus much more complex than "nature ver- in the mother's blood. Using OrdinaryLeast sus nurture.""Nature" for human beings in- Squares tests, Udry investigates whether the cludes reproductive systems and secondary level of testosterone in these pregnant moth- sex characteristics, the human genome, the ers' blood organized their female fetuses' evolution of human bodies, and the evolu- brains in ways that created "predispositions" tion of human psyches; for an individual it for certain types of gendered behaviors as is a particularset of genes and hormones that adults. result in a particular body and brain. "Nur- Udry's use of testosterone as an indepen- ture" includes life experiences, the social, dent variable is a manifestation of organiza- economic, and political milieu of similarly tional-activational theory, which became located people, culture, and the physical en- popular with psychologists and neuroendo- vironment in which the body and brain de- crinologists in the 1960s (Wijngaard 1997). velop. What we are as material bodies is the This theory, extrapolated from research on result of all the "natural"and "nurtured"in- animals to human beings, posits that expo- put working together and affecting each sure to prenatal hormones "hardwires" the other interactively. Gendered behavior and brain in ways that generate either distinctly its variations are the result of genetic and "masculine" behavior or distinctly "femi- hormonal input, long-term evolutionary ad- nine" behavior. Research in this vein has aptations, lifetime experiences, and involve- been guided by the assumption that biologi- ment in ongoing social situations. Interactive cal influences on behavior can be isolated theorists would argue that there is no simple from social influences, which has justified a or single answer to the question of how hu- preoccupation with determining which of the man beings differ biologically or how two is the "bedrock"source of gendered be- women and men differ behaviorally. There- havior. Such a quest has sometimes caused fore, there cannot be a simple or single way organizational-activational theorists to sup- of determining how much behavior can vary press evidence of social influences and made or how much our social orders can be it impossible to theoretically explain the changed by new patterns of behavior. considerable behavioral overlaps in men and Udry argues that he takes these interactive women. theories into account to create his "biosocial" In a critical response to this biological and model. Indeed, he does move beyond some sociological reductionism, more interactive of the weaknesses of a strictly unidirectional models have emerged since the 1980s that organizational-activational theory by intro- spring from the work done in a developing ducing socialization as an intervening vari- sociology of the body. This work does not able.1 However, his model of gender devel- assume that biological and social factors act opment is not biosocial so much as it is independently, but instead argues for a loop- biopsychological. In relying on participants' back interchange of bodily, behavioral, en- reports of parental socialization to account vironmental, interactive, and social struc- 1 tural factors (Birke 2000; Bordo 1993; To measuresocialization, Udry asks partici- Featherstone, Hepworth, and Turner 1991; pants if their mothers(and he later says, "par- Laqueur 1990; Martin [1987] 1992; Shilling ents")encouraged them to have, for instance,an 1993; Turner 1984; Wendell 1996). Interac- interestin mathematics,sewing, and home repair. tive models that hormonal Askingadult research participants to accountfor recognize input their own childhoodsocialization is an incom- may indeed affect behavior but also demon- and limited to this con- strate that the are since plete way operationalize pathways reciprocal cept, especiallyin light of the wealthof studies behavior has also been shown to affect hor- that take special care to measuresocialization mone levels (Kemper 1990). In contrast, the with nuance and subtlety (e.g., Grant 1994; linear connective pathways on which orga- Thorne1986). 600 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW for the entire "social" dimension, the model tinuous dependent variable (more or less cannot account for the continual interactive "masculine"), but he chose to dichotomize experiences that mold and change children his variable: Participants' behaviors could and adults throughout their lives, including only be coded in one of two supposedly mu- experiences with educators, peers, and mass tually exclusive ways. media along with adult participants' particu- Udry's definition of gendered behavior ig- lar class, racial-ethnic group, religion, age, nores contextual variations and overlaps in and place of residence. Thus, although Udry the behavior and attitudes of women and claims to examine biological and sociologi- men. His dichotomous conceptualization of cal factors together, his weak measures and gender cannot account for its interactive and his reliance on organizational-activational developmental aspects, its cultural and tem- theory in guiding his research erode his abil- poral contexts, and its reflection of institu- ity to test a truly interactive, multidimen- tional pressures and conventionalized as- sional model of gendered behavior. sumptions. In contrast, for 30 years a body of theory and researchon to which makes UDRY'S DEFINITION OF gender, Udry almost no indi- "GENDERED BEHAVIOR" reference, analyzes gender's vidual, group, organizational, cultural, and Udry's primaryhypothesis is that "the effect systemic aspects. In the social sciences, what on women of their childhood gender social- we now call gender was originally conceptu- ization is constrained by the biological pro- alized as "sex roles" (Komarovsky 1946, cess that produces natural behavior predis- 1992; Lopata and Thorne 1978) (i.e., the so- positions" (p. 444). His research design cial and culturaloverlay that exaggerates and hinges on his definition and operation- builds on presumed biological differences alization of "masculine" and "feminine" be- between males and females). As the concept havior in women-his dependent variable. of gender has developed in the social sci- Although he grants that "[s]ex-dimorphic ences, its definition has moved from an at- distributions usually have a large overlap" tribute of individuals to a major building (p. 444), his concept of women's gendered block in the social order and an integral ele- behavior "refers to the degree to which a ment in every aspect of social life (Ferree, woman's behavior is more 'masculine' or Lorber, and Hess 1999). Over the last 20 more 'feminine' for those behaviors on years, gender has come to be viewed by so- which women and men typically differ" (p. cial scientists as a socially constructed insti- 445). tutional arrangement,with gender divisions Based on this definition, he constructs his and roles built into all major social institu- dependent variable through questions and tions such as the economy, the family, the scales designed to elicit whether the women state, culture, religion, and the law, that is, who participated in his research behave in the gendered social order (Connell 1987; ways that are either "feminine" or "mascu- Lorber 1994). "Gendered behavior," in this line." This conceptualization of gendered be- conceptualization, refers to the ways people havior is individualistic, static, and rigidly act based on their position within the gender bipolar, but it is necessitated by his research structure and their interaction with others, design.2 To determine whether prenatal an- rather than as a result of hormonal input or drogens or socialization have had the greater brain organization. We "do gender" (West effect on adult women's gendered behavior, and Zimmerman 1987) and participate in its he has to measure androgen input, quantity construction, but it is also something that is and type of intervening socialization, and done to us as members of a gendered social output levels of "masculinity"and "feminin- order (Moore 1994; Thorne 1986; Valian ity" in adulthood. He could have used a con- 1998). As social orders change, and as we participatein different social institutions and our behavior 2 Fausto-Sterling(2000) notes that any re- organizations, gendered searcherwho pursues this kind of study must changes. constructgender in such a way as to create a This research has shown that gendered be- measurabledependent variable. havior varies with context and perception; it COMMENTS AND REPLIES 60 1 may be inconsistent and sometimes even tors are derived from a questionnaire that contradictory in response to situational and characterizes 20 items as "feminine," such interactive constraints (Epstein 1988). For as being married and finding marriage im- example, one of the behaviors often associ- portant, having a high number of children ated with women in the be- and liking baby care, doing "women's work" cause of their disproportionateresponsibili- in the home, placing little importance on a ties as mothers is "nurturance."Yet women paid career, having low job status in a have been active in the Ku Klux Klan (Blee women-affiliated occupation, and refraining 1996; Tavris 1992), fought in wars (Elshtain from driving a car or paying on a date. In 1987), and killed their children (McFadden addition to the questionnaire, interviewers 1999; McKittrick 1999). Likewise, depic- also rated participants' "feminine de- tions of battles often portray men who kneel meanor," "facial attractiveness,"use of jew- down and tend to their wounded friends with elry, and use of cosmetics. This mixture of extreme displays of care and nurturing,mak- measures of a time-bound conventional ver- ing those soldiers' last moments as gentle as sion of "femininity" does not lend itself to possible (e.g., Ambrose 1997). The variation generalizations about universal "gendered of behavior within different contexts is es- behavior" and its immutability. pecially apparent in cross-cultural and his- Udry's operationalization is inconsistent torical research, such as Jensen's ([1977] with his own definition of gender as distin- 1990) study of the matrilineal Seneca soci- guishing between women and men. For ex- ety in which women historically controlled ample, Udry's questionnaire asks partici- land and agriculture, thus occupying impor- pants if children and marriage are important tant economic positions over men (also see to them. Only if they answer affirmatively Amadiume 1987; Lepowsky 1993). These are women considered "feminine." This examples indicate that what may be thought conceptualization clearly limits gender roles of as universal "gendered behaviors" are for women but also for men because it im- very context-specific, relying more on set- plicitly suggests that men whose children ting and circumstances than on individual and marriages are importantto them must be "predispositions"(Tavris 1992). "feminine." Research on men and women across various social locations indicates that value and children in UDRY'S OPERATIONALIZATION people may marriage different Holland and OF "FEMININITY" ways (Halle 1984; Eisenhart 1990; Kaplan 1997; Rubin 1994; Udry describes his dependent variable, South 1993). According to Udry's opera- gendered behavior, as "one on which males tionalization, working-class men who put and females differ" (p. 448, emphasis importance on having children because they added). This is an "explicitly bipolar concept feel that fathering will enhance their "mas- of gender" (p. 448) that equates gender and culine" status (Seccombe 1991) would be sex-dimorphism, that is, social behavior and classified as "feminine," simply because biological differentiation. Udry develops a they feel children are important. single second-order factor, "gendered adult In a more glaring way, the inconsistency behavior"comprised of four primaryfactors: of the operationalization of gender is dem- "importanceof home," "feminine interests," onstrated in a question that asks research "job status," and "masculinity-femininity" participants if they have ever been married (see Table 1, p. 448). Although Udry's de- to a man; a response of "yes" is coded as pendent variable is behavior, its measures "feminine," "no" as "masculine." Presum- are of attitudes, work status (which is not ably, if Udry were to administer this ques- necessarily a matter of choice), and place- tionnaire to men he would expect their an- ment on a series of personality scales first swers to fall into the "masculine" category. used in 1978, 1981, and 1990.3 The four fac- Benderley 1987; Collaer and Hines 1995; 3 Althoughextensive sociological research has Constantinople1973), Udryremarks in footnote establishedthe severe limitationsof using bipo- 1 (p. 448) thathe madethe deliberatedecision to lar gender scales (Auster and Ohm 2000; disregardthis scholarship. 602 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Yet "marriageto a man" is not a measure on mean? Would individuals like Mr. T, a popu- which men and women in the United States lar television and movie actor in the United can empirically and legally differ. States around the time of Udry's study, be The coding of the women subjects' re- considered "feminine" based on his exten- sponses to this question also fails to reflect sive "use of jewelry"? Are "unattractive" demographic realities. The women in Udry's women or women who do not use makeup study were 27 to 30 years old; the median intrinsically "masculine"? age of heterosexual first marriage in 1990 In sum, Udry's measures of gendered be- (the year when Udry's questionnaire was ad- havior ignore contextual variations and over- ministered) was 24 and has since steadily laps in the behavior and attitudes of women risen (U.S. Census Bureau 1999). Coding and men. His use of an all-white, middle- only a "yes" answer to this question as class subject group cannot represent the "feminine" implies that women who are un- ways that women and men differ by class, married in their late 20s are "masculine." In racial group, education, age, and other sta- addition, at a time when rates of cohabita- tus positions (Acker 1999; Collins 1990; tion have increased, it recognizes only Glenn 1999). His questionnaire items at best women in legally sanctioned heterosexual reflect a localized and time-bound version of unions as "feminine." This is a stark view of gender conformity. The results, therefore, "femininity" for which Udry does not cite are not universally generalizable (Oyewtmi any empirical or theoretical support. 1997). Another problem with Udry's construction of is the lack of of his cod- gender specificity SOCIAL AND POLITICAL One to ing procedures. question study par- IMPLICATIONS ticipants refers to the numberof children they have; he reports that a "high number" indi- Whether or not it is the overt intention of the cates "femininity." Udry does not reveal research, the latent political implication of what this high number is (or give us any in- studies on the sources of gendered behavior dication of whether this was measured con- is the possibility or practicality of change in tinuously or discretely). Remarkably,moth- behavior, and ultimately, in the social order. erhood, in itself, is not enough to qualify a Udry argues that the level of prenatal expo- woman for "femininity." She must have a sure to testosterone has a vital organizing ef- "high number"of children by the time she is fect that will result in "masculine" or "femi- 30 for Udry to consider her anything but nine" behavior despite counteracting social- "masculine." His operationalization fails to ization. According to this argument, and take into account that the definition of a high consistent with organizational-activational number of children is socially constructed theory, the power of historically situated, so- and may vary by race, age, religion, and class cially constructed, and institutionalized (Gerson 1985; Spain and Bianchi 1996). This norms is not as important in influencing be- question and most others on Udry's question- havior as prenatal hormone levels, which naire demonstrate how inappropriateit is to sets rather rigid limits on how much indi- represent the category "woman" with a viduals can alter their gendered behavior. sample solely comprised of 27-to-30-year- Udry claims that he takes a neutral stand old white middle-class women. on the efficacy of reducing gender differ- Many of Udry's measures are not just im- ences and whether it could be done by mas- precise but also impressionistic (e.g. "femi- culinizing women or feminizing men, but he nine demeanor, facial attractiveness, use-of- notes that the former would be easier than jewelry scale, use-of-cosmetics scale") (p. the latter because of the primacy of testoster- 448). These characteristics are rated in one (p. 454). Presumably, even if women Udry's study by individual interviewers, yet and men were equal, it would be easier to the author provides no explanation of the change women than men. However, Udry's criteria interviewers used to make such construction of gendered behavior is such deeply culturally embedded judgments. that "masculinity" and "femininity" are not More discussion on each of these measures equal statuses in the social order. His mea- is needed: What does "feminine demeanor" sures of "femininity" are measures of defer- COMMENTS AND REPLIES 603 ence and subordination (letting a man drive, ably have produced the current gendered so- working at a low-status job), and they reflect cial order, Udry concludes that it would take a traditional view of what a woman should "a social engineering program to degender be (a heterosexual wife and a mother of society . .. [with] continuous renewal of many children). As contrasted with the vari- revolutionary resolve and a tolerance for ables used to constitute "femininity," "mas- conflict" (p. 454). We quite agree (cf. Lorber culinity" would be constituted of assertive- 2000), and recognize that the current ness, commitment to work, and emotional gendered social order has required an distance. Thus, reducing sex differences equivalently broad social engineering pro- would mean that men would trade dominat- gram. Ratherthan seeing change in the given ing characteristics for warmth and intimacy; social order as generating "social malaise" women would exchange motherhood for a (p. 454), however, we see it as highly liber- chance to be dominant. Social change is set ating for men as well as women. up as a Faustian bargain on either side. Whether gender equality goes against our However, Udry implies that men have biological predispositions to dominance and more to lose than women from significant subordination or against the cultural lag of change in the gendered social order. There- centuries of institutionalized oppression and fore we argue that Udry's stance on his "bio- control is not the most importantissue in pre- social macro theory" is not neutral. The dictions of the difficulties and possibilities theory, as he states it, is: "Humansform their of deep social change. It may seem easier to social structures around gender because modify gendered behavior if we are dealing males and females have different and bio- with socially constructed gendered social or- logically influenced behavioral dispositions. ders than if we are dealing with biological Gendered social structure is a universal ac- predispositions, but the intensity and commodation to this biological fact" (p. protractednessof the struggle for all kinds of 454). A neutral view on the effects of bio- equality-racial-ethnic, economic, and logical hardwiring might argue that the con- gendered-belies that theory. The important tent of "biologically influenced behavioral issue is the political implication of the argu- dispositions" and the status positions in the ment over whether the continued subordina- "gendered social structure" could be any- tion of women is due to brain organization or thing-as long as males and females dif- to unquestioned systemic gendered practices. fered. Men and women could be equal; Belief in theories of brain organization, no women could even be dominant. This does matter how tenuous the proof, is a belief in not appear to be Udry's view. the inalterability of the gendered status quo Udry says that his biosocial macro theory and the continued dominance of men over can encompass both cross-cultural similari- women. The search for "first causes" and the ties (presumably the result of biological concomitant distortion of gender is thus nei- brain organization) and cross-cultural varia- ther innocent nor morally neutral. tion due to "technological and ecological variation" (p. 454). Udry does not spell out Ivy Kennelly is Assistant Professor of Sociology what these cross-cultural similarities are, but at George Washington University. Her article, "'That the reader would be expected to equate them Single Mother Element': How White Em- with the status in Western ployers TypifyBlack Women" (Gender and Soci- gendered quo vol. received the 2001 the last sen- ety, 1999, 13, pp. 168-92), post-industrial society, given article award from the ASA Race, Gender, and tence of his article: "It may be easier to Class Section . In her most recent research on degender society by changing female behav- the ways inequality is bound up in labor markets, ior to more closely coincide with the present she focuses on occupational segregation. behavior of males rather than the reverse" (p. 454, emphasis added). This shows that Sabine N. Merz is a Ph.D. candidate at the Uni- the issue is not but the versity of Massachusetts at Amherst. Her re- biological hardwiring search interests include historical gendered status quo-a social order in which demography, social policy, and the intersection of gender and those who are "feminine" are subordinated. work. Her dissertation is a cross-national com- the Given "underlying sex-dimorphism of parison of the gender-based division of house- biological predispositions," which presum- hold labor in and the United States. 604 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Judith Lorber is Professor Emerita of Sociology Connell, R. W. 1987. Gender and Power: Soci- and Women's Studies at and ety, the Person and Sexual Politics. Stanford, The Graduate School, City University of New CA: Stanford University Press. York. She is author of Gender Inequality: Femi- Constantinople, Anne. 1973. "Masculinity-Femi- nist Theories and Politics (Roxbury, 2d ed., ninity: An Exception to a Famous Dictum?" 2001), Gender and the Social Construction of Ill- Psychological Bulletin 80:389-407. ness (Sage 1997), Paradoxes of Gender (Yale Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1987. Women and War. 1994), and Women Physicians: Careers, Status, New York: Basic Books. and Power (Tavistock 1984). She also is co-edi- Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. 1988. Deceptive Distinc- tor of Revisioning Gender (Sage 1999) and The tions: Sex, Gender, and the Social Order. New Social Construction of Gender (Sage 1991). She Haven, CT: Press. was Founding Editor of Gender and Society, the Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the Body: official publication of Sociologists for Women in Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexu- Society, and was Chair of the ASA Sex and Gen- ality. New York: Basic Books. der Section. She has received the ASA Jessie Ber- Featherstone, Mike, Mike Hepworth, and Bryan nard Career Award and held the Marie Jahoda S. Turner,eds. 1991. The Body: Social Process International Visiting Professorship of Feminist and Cultural Theory. London, England and Studies at Ruhr University, , Germany. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. She is currently working on a new book, Break- Ferree, Myra Marx, Judith Lorber, and Beth B. ing the Bowls: Gender Theory and Social Change Hess. 1999. "Introduction." Pp. xv-xxxvi in (Norton, forthcoming). Revisioning Gender, edited by M. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, and B. B. Hess. Thousand Oaks, CA: REFERENCES Sage. Gerson, Kathleen. 1985. Hard Choices: How Acker, Joan. 1999. "Rewriting Class, Race, and Women Decide about Work, Career, and Gender: Problems in Feminist Rethinking." Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of Pp. 44-69 in Revisioning Gender, edited by M. California Press. M. Ferree, J. Lorber, and B. B. Hess. Thou- Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1999. "The Social Con- sand Oaks, CA: Sage. struction and Institutionalization of Gender Amadiume, Ifi. 1987. Male Daughters, Female and Race: An Integrative Framework."Pp. 3- Husbands: Gender and Sex in an African So- 43 in Revisioning Gender, edited by M. M. ciety. London, England: Zed Books. Ferree, J. Lorber, and B. B. Hess. Thousand Ambrose, Stephen E. 1997. "'Medic!"' American Oaks, CA: Sage. Heritage 48:76-86. Grant, Linda. 1994. "Helpers, Enforcers, and Go- Auster, Carol J. and Susan C. Ohm. 2000. "Mas- Betweens: Black Females in Elementary culinity and Femininity in Contemporary School Classrooms." Pp. 43-64 in Women of American Society: A Reevaluation Using the Color in U.S. Society, edited by M. Baca Zinn Bem Sex-Role Inventory." Sex Roles 43:499- and B. Thornton Dill. Philadelphia, PA: 528. Temple. Benderley, Beryl Lieff. 1987. The Myth of Two Halle, David. 1984. America's Working Man: Minds: What Gender Means and Doesn't Work, Home, and Politics among Blue-Collar Mean. New York: Doubleday. Property Owners. Chicago, IL: University of Birke, Lynda. 2000. and the Biologi- Chicago Press. cal Body. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Uni- Holland, Dorothy C. and Margaret A. Eisenhart. versity Press. 1990. Educated in Romance: Women,Achieve- Blee, Kathleen M. 1996. "Becoming a Racist: ment, and College Culture. Chicago, IL: Uni- Women in Contemporary Ku Klux Klan and versity of Chicago Press. Neo-Nazi Groups." Gender and Society Jensen, Joan M. [1977] 1990. "Native American 10:680-703. Women and Agriculture: A Seneca Case Bordo, Susan R. 1993. Unbearable Weight: Study." Pp. 51-65 in Unequal Sisters: A Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body. MulticulturalReader in U.S. Women'sHistory, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. edited by E. Carol and V. L. Ruiz DuBois. Collaer, Marcia L. and Melissa Hines. 1995. New York and London, England: Routledge. "Human Behavioral Sex Differences: A Role Kaplan, Elaine Bell. 1997. Not Our Kind of Girl: for Gonadal Hormones During Early Develop- Unraveling the Myths of Black Teenage Moth- ment?" Psychological Bulletin 118:55-107. erhood. Berkeley, CA: University of Califor- Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist nia Press. Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Kemper, Theodore D. 1990. Social Structure and Politics of Empowerment.Boston, MA: Unwin Testosterone: Explorations of the Socio-Bio- Hyman. Social Chain. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers COMMENTS AND REPLIES 605

University Press. ships and Development, edited by W. W. Komarovsky, Mirra. 1946. "Cultural Contradic- Hartup and Z. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ: L. tions and Sex Roles: The Masculine Case." Erlbaum Associates. American Journal of Sociology 52:184-89. Turner, Bryan S. 1984. The Body and Society: . 1992. "The Concept of the Social Role Explorations in Social Theory. Oxford, En- Revisited." Gender and Society 6:301-313. gland and New York: Basil Blackwell. Laqueur, Thomas. 1990. Making Sex: Body and Udry, J. Richard. 2000. "Biological Limits of Genderfrom the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, Gender Construction." American Sociological MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Review 65:443-57. Lepowsky, Maria. 1993. Fruit of the Motherland: U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. "MarriageRates and Gender in an Egalitarian Society. New York: Median Age of Bride and Groom, by Previous Columbia University Press. Marital Status, 1970-1990." Table 158, P. 111, Lorber, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender. New in Statistical Abstract of the United States. Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com- .2000. "Using Gender to Undo Gender: A merce, Economics and Statistics Administra- Feminist Degendering Movement," Feminist tion, Bureau of the Census. Theory 1:101-18. Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why So Slow? The Ad- Lopata, Helena Zaniecki and Barrie Thorne. vancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT 1978. "On the Term 'Sex Roles.'" Signs Press. 3:718-21. Wendell, Susan. 1996. The Rejected Body: Femi- Martin, Emily. [1987] 1992. The Woman in the nist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction. New York and London, England: Routledge. Boston, MA: Beacon. West, Candace and Don Zimmerman. 1987. "Do- McFadden, Robert D. 1999. "PregnantMother of ing Gender." Gender and Society 1:125-51. 3 Is Charged in Girl's Beating Death." New Wijngaard,Marianne van den. 1997. Reinventing York Times, September 14, p. B3. the Sexes: The Biomedical Construction of McKittrick, Meredith. 1999. "Faithful Daughter, Femininity and Masculinity. Bloomington, IN: Murdering Mother: Transgression and Social Indiana University Press. Control in Colonial Namibia." Journal of Afri- can History 40:265-84. Moore, Henrietta. 1994. A Passion for Differ- ence: Essays in Anthropology and Gender. Commenton Udry, ASR, June 2000 Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press Oyewumf, Oyeronke. 1997. The Invention of CALLING THE BLUFF OF Women: an Sense Western Making African of VALUE-FREE SCIENCE Gender Discourses. Minneapolis, MN: Univer- sity of Minnesota Press. Rubin, Lilian B. 1994. Families on the Fault BARBARA J. RISMAN Line: America's Working Class Speaks about North Carolina State University the Family, the Economy, Race, and Ethnicity. New York: HarperCollins. Seccombe, Karen. 1991. "Assessing the Costs NCE IN A WHILE an article is pub- and Benefits of Children: Gender Comparisons lished that challenges currently held among Childfree Husbands and Wives." Jour- notions within a scientific paradigm. It is nal and the 53:191-202. of Marriage Family usually the case-and should be the case- Shilling, Chris. 1993. The Body and Social Theory. London, England and Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Direct correspondence to: Barbara J. Risman, South, Scott J. 1993. "Racial and Ethnic Differ- Department of Sociology North Carolina State ences in the Desire to Marry."Journal of Mar- University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8107 (Barbara_ riage and the Family 55:357-70. [email protected]). I thank my graduate students Spain, Daphne and Suzanne M. Bianchi. 1996. in for the lively discussions Balancing Act: Motherhood, Marriage, and which helped to generate the ideas for this re- Employment among American Women. New sponse. I also thank Judith Howard, Kecia York: Russell Sage Foundation. Johnson, , Joey Sprague, Tavris, Carol. 1992. The Mismeasure of Woman. Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, Patricia Warren, the New York: Simon and Schuster. anonymous reviewers at the ASR, and the authors Thorne, Barrie. 1986. "Girls and Boys Together of the two other critiques published in this issue . . . but Mostly Apart: Gender Arrangementsin for their helpful comments on early versions of Elementary School." Pp. 167-84 in Relation- this article.