Close Relationships: A Sourcebook

Gender and Personal Relationships

Contributors: Author:Julia T. Wood

Edited by: Clyde Hendrick & Susan S. Hendrick
Book Title: Close Relationships: A Sourcebook
Chapter Title: "Gender and Personal Relationships"
Pub. Date: 2000
Access Date: October 14, 2020
Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.
City: Thousand Oaks
Print ISBN: 9780761916055
Online ISBN: 9781452220437
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452220437.n22
Print pages: 300-314
© 2000 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This PDF has been generated from SAGE Knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online
version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

Gender and Personal Relationships

Gender and personal relationships

Julia T.Wood

Contents

• Definitions of Central Concepts 301

◦ Sex 302
◦ Gender 302
◦ Sexual Orientation 303
• Theoretical Accounts of Gendered Patterns 303
◦ Essentialist Accounts 303
◦ Constructionist Accounts 304
• Sex, Gender, and Friendship 306
◦ Friendships between Women 306
◦ Friendships between Men 307
◦ Friendships between Women and Men 307
• Sex, Gender, and Romantic Relationships 307
◦ Topics of Talk 308
◦ Discussing the Relationship 308
◦ Showing Support 309
◦ Maintaining Conversations and Relationships 309
◦ Dealing with Conflict 310
◦ Equity 310
◦ Violence 310
• Conclusions 311

Sex differences in personal relationships have become hot topics in both popular and academic circles. John
Gray dominates the popular book market with his pronouncement that women and men are from different
planets. Less in the limelight and less well compensated are scholars such as Aries (1998) who assert
that women and men are more alike than different. In between the extremes of Gray's claim for maximum
differences between the sexes and Aries’ claim for minimum ones are many scholars who offer moderate,
well-reasoned judgments about the extent and types of both differences and similarities between women and
men (Canary & Dindia, 1998; Duck & Wright, 1993; Gottman & Carrère, 1994).

This chapter summarizes theories and research on sex and gender in close relationships. The chapter is
organized into five sections. The first section defines key concepts in the study of gender and relationships.
The second section summarizes theories about the bases of gender dynamics in relationships. The third
section reviews similarities and differences between women's and men's orientations toward, and activities
in, friendships. The fourth section discusses sex-related patterns in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual romantic
relationships. The final section offers tentative conclusions about the extent and types of sex differences,
identifies priorities for future research, and highlights the practical importance of sex and gender dynamics in
human relationships.

Definitions of Central Concepts

Although sex and gender often are used as synonyms, they actually are distinct concepts (West &
Zimmerman, 1983; Wood, 1999). Sex is innate, whereas gender is socially created and learned by individuals.
Being born male or female does not necessarily lead to thinking, acting, and feeling in ways that a culture
defines as masculine or feminine. Instead, biological sex usually, but not always, is transformed into culturally

SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships

Page 2 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

constructed gender as individuals interact with social structures and practices that express, uphold, and
reproduce prevailing views of women and men.

Sex

Sex is a biological quality that is determined before birth and, short of radical medical procedures, it remains
stable throughout life. The usual chromosome patterns are XX for females and XY for males. (Less standard
patterns are XO or XXX for females and XXY or XYY for males.) Both before and after birth, hormones govern
secondary sexual characteristics such as facial hair, menstruation, and proportions of muscle and fat tissue
(Jacklin, 1989).

Sex can influence tendencies toward hemispheric specialization in the human brain. Females generally are
more adept at using the right brain lobe, which controls creative abilities and intuitive, holistic thinking. Males
generally are more skilled in left brain functions, which govern linear thinking and abstract analytic thought
(Hartledge, 1980). Females typically have more developed corpus collosa, which are the bundles of nerves
connecting brain lobes. Thus, females might have an advantage in crossing from one side of the brain to
the other and in using both brain hemispheres (Begley, 1995). Research linking sex and hemispheric brain
specialization, however, does not prove that sex determines brain activity. It is equally possible that males
and females are socialized in ways that lead to differential development of ability in the distinct lobes of the
brain (Hines, 1992).

Gender

Unlike sex, which is innate and stable, gender is learned and varies in response to cultural settings and
experiences over a lifetime. Individuals acquire gender as they interact with specific others and the social
world, and their understandings and performances of gender continuously evolve as they participate in
different communities.

Gender consists of meanings and expectations of men and women that are created and upheld by social
structures and practices. Women generally are expected to be connected to others, deferential, and
emotionally expressive. Men generally are expected to be independent, assertive, and emotionally reserved.
The impact of gender socialization is especially evident in patterns of caregiving. Although sex determines
that women—and not men—carry fetuses, give birth, and lactate, gender accounts for the expectation that
women will assume primary responsibility for caring for children and others. Studies have shown that men can
be as loving, nurturing, and responsive as women (Kaye & Applegate, 1990; Risman, 1989), yet our society
continues to expect women to be more involved than men in parenting. Women also are expected to care for
elderly individuals, so daughters generally assume greater responsibility than do sons in caring for parents,
and wives typically provide more care to in-laws than do married sons (Wood, 1994). Social expectations that
women should care for others are reflected in and perpetuated by practices such as maternity leaves, which
seldom are paralleled by paternity leaves.

The meaning of gender varies from culture to culture and at different times within a single culture. The
rugged and physically strong exemplar of manhood that held sway in the United States during the 1700s was
replaced when the industrial revolution created a paid labor force in which a man's worth was measured by
what he earned (Cancian, 1987). The 1700s European American ideal of frail and decorative women was
displaced by a model of women as able partners in the family livelihood during the agrarian era in the United
States. When European American men were redefined as primary breadwinners in the public sphere, the
Western ideal of womanhood was revised to that of homemaker (Cancian, 1987).

Gender also varies across cultures. For example, in Nepal, both sexes are expected to be nurturing, and men
are as likely as women to take care of children and elderly people. In other societies, men are more emotional
and concerned with appearance than are women, whereas women are more independent and emotionally
restrained than are men (Mead, 1934/1968). In still other cultures, more than two genders are recognized and
SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships
Page 3 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

celebrated, and individuals sometimes change their genders (Kessler & McKenna, 1978; Olien, 1978).

Even within the United States, gender varies among social groups. Because gender is socially created, it
makes sense that different social circumstances would cultivate distinct views of the sexes. For example,
Gaines (1995) reported that, among African Americans and Hispanics, both sexes have strongly communal
orientations. As a group, African American women are more assertive and independent and, therefore, are
less inclined than European American women to smile and defer to men (Halberstadt & Saitta, 1987).

Gender intersects other social categories such as race, class, age, and sexual orientation (Collins, 1998;
Spelman, 1988). For example, research indicates that lesbians tend to be more autonomous than
heterosexual women (Huston & Schwartz, 1995). Because gender varies across time and social groups and
in relation to other aspects of identity, women and men are not homogeneous groups.

Sexual Orientation

Sexual orientation refers to individuals’ preferences for sexual and romantic partners. Contrary to common
belief, sexual orientation is not necessarily fixed permanently; rather, it appears to be somewhat fluid. As
Huston and Schwartz (1996) pointed out, many individuals who currently identify themselves as lesbian or gay
have had heterosexual relationships in the past and might have them again in the future. Furthermore, some
individuals who once identified as gay, lesbian, or heterosexual currently regard themselves as bisexual; the
converse also is true.

Sexual orientation refers to more than a preference to engage in sexual activities with members of one or the
other sex. It includes not only sexual preferences but also tendencies to feel and display affection and to feel
romantically attracted to members of one or the other sex. Cultural views of sexual orientation are diverse
and subject to change over time. For example, sexual relationships between older and younger men were the
ideal in Plato's society. Today, some countries (e.g., Sweden, Denmark) accord equal legal and social rights
and status to gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples. Although that currently is not the case in the United
States, the once radical disapproval of gays and lesbians has abated somewhat.

Theoretical Accounts of Gendered Patterns

A number of theories attempt to describe, explain, and predict men's and women's thoughts, feelings,
communication, and behaviors in close relationships. These theories fall into two broad and oppositional
categories: essentialist accounts and constructionist accounts.

Essentialist Accounts

Essentialist explanations share the fundamental premise that there is some essential innate quality (or
qualities) in women and men that accounts for differences in their behaviors in relationships. The most
obvious form of essentialist explanation is biological. For example, men's aggressiveness is attributed to
males’ testosterone levels. Sociobiologists argue that men and women engage in distinct sexual patterns in
an effort to maximize the chance that their genetic lines will continue. Some scholars, particularly French
feminists, claim that women's bodies and biology tie them to natural rhythms and interdependence that are not
promoted by male biology. Another form of essentialist explanation accounts for sex differences as matters
of divine law: God or another deity designed women to be nurturing and deferential and designed men to be
instrumental and dominating.

Constructionist Accounts

The second broad genre of explanation for sex and gender differences is constructionist theories. Common
to various constructionist explanations is the basic assumption that gender is socially constructed and not
SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships
Page 4 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

innate. Constructionists believe that, aside from a few obvious differences (e.g., reproductive organs and
abilities) that result from biological sex, differences between women and men are constructed and sustained
through social practices that reflect the prevailing ideologies in various societies.

Constructionists argue that social structures and practices reflect and reproduce distinctly gendered identities.
Institutions such as religion, the military, and schools are hierarchically organized, with men consistently,
although not uniformly, occupying positions of greater power than those held by women. In concert, the
structures and practices of a culture reflect and continuously recreate gendered identities and associated
differences.

Standpoint theory. A recent and important addition to constructionist accounts is standpoint theory, which
claims that the position a social group occupies in a culture shapes what members of a group know and how
they know it (Harding, 1991). Standpoint theorists trace how intersections among gender, race, class, and
other bases of social groupings influence group members’ experiences and, thus, the identities they form
and the patterns of communication they develop. Ruddick (1989) argued that women's traditional placement
in domestic settings cultivates “maternal thinking,” which promotes development of capacities to notice and
respond to others and their needs.

Standpoint thinking provides a theoretical foundation for research on gendered speech communities. Maltz
and Borker's (1982) classic study of children's play suggests that the games that girls and boys play foster
distinct understandings of how, when, and why to talk. War and football, which are typical boys’ games, have
four defining characteristics. First, these games require a number of players, so boys learn to interact in large
groups. Second, the games are structured by goals and rules, so little talk is needed to organize relationships
among team members. Instead, talk is used to negotiate for power, position, and influence (e.g., who calls
plays, who have key positions on the team). Third, boys’ games are highly competitive not only between
teams but also within teams. An individual boy's status depends on being better than other players (e.g.,
being the most valuable player). Finally, the bond that develops among players results from doing something
together, that is, working as a team to achieve a goal.

Games more typically played by young girls tend to cultivate distinct styles and goals of interaction. First,
they involve few people; usually, two or three are enough to play. Second, there are few clear-cut external
goals and rules. There is no parallel in house or school for the touchdown (football) or home run (baseball).
Instead, the purpose of girls’ games is to interact and learn about one another. Thus, girls develop closeness
primarily through talking, whereas activities are a backdrop for communication. Women generally regard
communication not just as a means to instrumental goals but also as a primary goal in its own right. Third,
girls’ games tend to be more cooperative than competitive. Unlike soccer or war, house has no opposing
team. Also, because girls’ games center on relationships, they minimize competition among members of the
group. Table 22.1 summarizes the rules of interaction fostered by games typically played by girls and boys.

Since Maltz and Borker's (1982) study, scholars have developed the theory that males and females are
socialized in distinct speech communities (Coates, 1986; Coates & Cameron, 1989; Johnson, 1989; Tannen,
1990). A speech community exists when a group of people share understandings about how to communicate
(Labov, 1972). Members of a speech community have common ideas about the goals of communication,
ways in which to achieve the goals, and how to interpret one another. They acquire these common views as
a result of interacting with other members of their community. Although not all girls and boys are socialized
into feminine and masculine speech communities, respectively, the majority are.

TABLE 22.1 Rules of Interaction Fostered by Girls’ and Boys’ Games

Girls’ Games Boys’ Games
Focus on building relationships with others. Focus on accomplishing goals. Do things.
Include others in interaction. Avoid putting others Assert self and establish status and authority. Make
down or outshining them. yourself stand out.
Cooperate with and support others. Show interest Hold others’ attention. Compete to gain and hold the

SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships

Page 5 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

in their concerns and topics, ask questions, and “talk stage.” Reroute conversations, interrupt, and do not
respond to them. encourage others.

Psychological theories. Complementary to standpoint theory are two psychological theories of gendered
identities: social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1963; Mischel, 1966), which claims that individuals learn
to behave in masculine or feminine ways through observing and imitating what they see in others and by
being reinforced by others, and cognitive development theories (Campbell, 1993; Piaget, 1932/1965), which
assert that individuals develop an abiding identification with one gender (called gender constancy) by 3 years
of age and that they actively work to become competent in meeting social expectations of their gender. These
kindred theories propose that adult modeling and reinforcement teach girls to be cooperative, responsive, and
caring, whereas they teach boys to be competitive, assertive, and instrumental.

Psychoanalytic theories. A final constructionist view is psychoanalytic or psychodynamic theory, which

focuses on unconscious processes of identification and internalization that construct gender. Sigmund Freud,
the father of psychoanalytic theory, contended that “anatomy is destiny.” He believed that a child's genitals
determine which sex he or she will identify with and that a penis is a source of envy for girls and a source of
castration fear for boys.

A large number of scholars and clinicians who reject Freud's biological determinism and his reverence for
the penis have developed alternative psychoanalytic theories (Chodorow, 1978, 1989). The basic principle
of newer psychoanalytic accounts is that core personality is shaped by relationships during the early years
of life. As the usual first primary caregivers, mothers form distinct relationships with sons and daughters.
Because daughters and mothers identify with each other, girls typically develop gender identities within
relationships and internalize their mothers as part of themselves. Because boys do not share the sex of
mothers, they must establish their gender identities apart from relationships. Because males carve their
identities relatively independent of others and females establish their identities in relation to others, the
two sexes develop fundamentally different orientations to relationships. Women's documented tendencies
to use communication to build connections, express empathy, and engage in personal disclosures reflect
their first relationships, which featured intimacy, openness, and identification with their mothers. The lack
of identification between sons and mothers, coupled with sons’ need to define their identities independent
of their mothers, could explain the tendencies of many adult men to strive for fairly high degrees of
independence, be emotionally reserved, and rely on action other than talking to create relationships.

No one theory has emerged as clearly superior, although theories in the constructionist category have gained
wider adherence than have those in the essentialist genre. Many scholars accept and work from multiple
theories, usually ones in the constructionist group.

Sex, Gender, and Friendship

Drawing on theories discussed in the preceding section, a great deal of research has focused on sex and
gender differences in friendships. Fehr's chapter in this volume (Chapter 6) offers a thorough discussion of
theories and research on friendship. Most scholars working in this area agree that both women and men
value friendships and that similarities between men's and women's ways of engaging in friendship outweigh
differences. Nonetheless, most scholars also think that the sexes differ to some extent and in some respects
in how they enact friendships, specifically in how they communicate with friends. Yet, scholars disagree about
the source and meaning of differences.

Burleson and his colleagues (Burleson, Kunkel, Samter, & Werking, 1996; Kunkel & Burleson, 1998) reported
finding differences between the sexes’ ways of engaging in close relationships. Echoing the thrust of research
on gender differences during the 1960s and 1970s (Wood & Inman, 1993), they argued that the masculine
mode of communicating reflects a skills deficit and is inferior to the feminine mode of interacting. Specifically,
they argued that men tend to be less skillful than women in providing verbal comfort to others.

SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships

Page 6 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

Not all scholars agree with Burleson and his colleagues’ views of the source and meaning of observed
differences between the sexes. Work conducted by Wood and Inman (1993) led them to conclude that both
sexes express caring in instrumental or material ways (e.g., trading favors, doing things together) and in
emotional or expressive ways (e.g., engaging in self-disclosures, talking about personal issues) but that
women tend to prioritize the latter and men tend to prioritize the former. They argued that masculine and
feminine modes of expressing care are different and that both are valid. Consistent with this view, Clark
(1998) found sex differences in women's and men's everyday behaviors, and this led her to conclude, “Rather
than characterizing sex differences as deficits, as some scholars have, perhaps we should view each sex
as having developed communicative specialties” (p. 318). More research is needed to determine whether
differences between men's and women's modes of engaging in friendship reflect different preferences,
unequal skills, or other factors not yet identified.

Friendships between Women

Describing women's friendships as an evolving dialogue, Becker (1987) highlighted the communication focus
that scholars repeatedly have found characterizes friendships between women. Talk between women friends
tends to be personal, disclosive, and emotionally rich (Aries & Johnson, 1983; Johnson, 1996; Riessman,
1990; Rubin, 1985). Gouldner and Strong (1987) labeled women friends as “talking companions” (p. 60)
because the middle-class and upper-middle-class women they interviewed said that talk was central to
their friendships. Similarly, Walker (1994) found that working-class and middle-class women friends bonded
through talk in which they supported each other and shared feelings. Emphasizing that the talk between
women friends is not superficial, Johnson (1996) noted that women friends engage in “really talking: talk is
action, not a replacement for action. Talk is primary, not secondary. Talk is sought after, not incidental” (p. 83).

Women's friendships tend to be marked not only by depth but also by breadth of scope. Typically, women
friends share many aspects of their experiences, thoughts, and feelings. As a consequence, women friends
generally feel that they know each other in layered and complex ways (Aries & Johnson, 1987; Johnson,
1996; Rubin, 1985).

Friendships between Men

Swain (1989) coined the phrase “closeness in the doing” to describe men's friendships. More than two thirds
of the men studied by Swain pointed to activities other than talking when asked to describe their most
meaningful times with friends. Swain's study, as well as research by others (Monsour, 1992; Sherrod, 1989;
Williams, 1985), shows that playing and watching sports and doing other things together are what male
friends cite most often as the basis of camaraderie and closeness. Because men typically are not socialized
to engage in expressive communication, male friends are less likely to talk intimately about problems than
to help each other out by suggesting diversionary activities such as going out for drinks or watching games
(Cancian, 1987; Riessman, 1990).

Although men might care deeply about their male friends, they are less likely than women to express those
feelings explicitly. Instead, they tend to engage in what Swain (1989) referred to as “covert intimacy,” which
signals intimacy indirectly and often nonverbally. Affectionate punches, backslapping, and friendly teasing are
examples of displays of covert intimacy. Based on a series of studies of men's friendships, Floyd (1997b)
concluded that men are not less affectionate or caring than are women but that men “simply communicate
affection in different, more ‘covert’ ways, so as to avoid the possible ridicule that more overt expression might
invite” (p. 78; see also Floyd, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997a).

Friendships between Women and Men

Existing research indicates that each sex perceives distinct advantages to friendships with the other. Men
value friendships with women because those generally provide more explicit and expressive support and

SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships

Page 7 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

more emotional closeness than do friendships with men. Many men also feel more able to discuss feelings
with women than with other men (Aries & Johnson, 1987; Rubin, 1985; West, Anderson, & Duck, 1996).
Women report that male friends allow them to have fun in ways that are less emotionally involving (and
sometimes draining) than is typical with women friends.

One persistent issue that surfaces in research on cross-sex friendships between heterosexuals is the difficulty
of closeness that does not have sexual undertones. In the film When Harry Met Sally, Harry says that men
and women never can really be just friends because the “sex thing” inevitably gets in the way. Yet, West et
al. (1996) questioned whether sexual interest and activity is necessarily a “problem” between friends. They
summarized research showing that a majority of women and men enjoy sexual teasing and flirting with friends
and that many people think that sexual involvement deepens friendship.

In sum, decades of research on friendships inform four general conclusions. First, both sexes value
friendships and invest in them. Second, men generally are more inclined to create and express friendship
instrumentally. Third, women also tend to engage in instrumental activities with friends, yet they see “real
talking” as the crux of close friendship. Fourth, both sexes report that women friends are more emotionally
supportive, nurturing, and responsive than are men friends.

Sex, Gender, and Romantic Relationships

Riessman (1990) reported the results of an in-depth study of divorced people. She found that the divorced
men in her study said that their marriages no longer were rewarding when their wives quit doing things such
as fixing their favorite foods and meeting them at their doors when they came home. By contrast, the women
in Riessman's study reported that their marriages were unsatisfying when communication no longer was
strong and good. Riessman's conclusions are consistent with the instrumental and expressive preferences
associated with masculine and feminine speech communities, respectively.

Heterosexual romantic relationships frequently include differences between partners. Gay and lesbian
romantic relationships often, but not always, profit from intragender empathy (Brehm, 1992), which allows
partners to understand and operate from consistent views of how relationships and communication operate.
The influence of gender is particularly evident in seven dynamics of relationships.

Topics of Talk

To some extent, men and women prefer different topics of talk. Women generally enjoy discussing feelings
and personal issues because this is a primary way in which they develop intimacy. Masculine speech
communities, however, do not emphasize personal talk, so most men are less interested in and/or skillful
at it than are women. Men typically prefer to talk about politics, sports, business, and other relatively
impersonal topics. Accompanying the difference in preferred topics of talk are differences in interpretations
of communication. Women in heterosexual relationships might be inclined to see men's lower interest in
personal talk as a rejection of intimacy, and men might not understand that talking about feelings is a primary
way in which women create and express closeness. When men want to create or express closeness, they
are likely to prefer a shared activity to personal talk. This is a frequent source of misunderstandings between
heterosexual partners, but it is less a source of tension between gay and lesbian partners.

The doing and talking paths to closeness might underlie marital therapists’ report that a recurrent problem for
heterosexual couples is different views of what sex means (Bergner & Bergner, 1990). Many men view sex as
a way in which to create closeness so as to talk about feelings. Reversing this sequence, women are likely to
see talk as a way in which to become intimate enough to make love. Keen (1991), a scholar of men's studies,
explained:

It is not that men are only interested in sex, but that we have been so conditioned to curtail our natural needs
for intimacy that only in sex do we have cultural permission to feel close to another human being. [Men] often
SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships
Page 8 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

use sexual language to express their forbidden desires for communion. (p. 78)

A second gendered dynamic surfaces in topics of talk. More than most men, women tend to enjoy sharing
details of their daily lives and activities (Becker, 1987). Thus, to tell her partner about her day, a woman
might itemize who was present at meetings and what is going on in their lives and might mention details
about settings, food, and so forth. However, because masculine culture sees talk as a means to achieve clear
results, many men regard detailed descriptions as superfluous or even boring. Men generally do not regard
sharing details as sharing selves. On the other hand, men's tendency to discuss only big events and bottom
lines often frustrates their heterosexual partners, who might feel that men are not sharing themselves and
their lives.

Discussing the Relationship

“Let's talk about us” probably creates more misunderstanding between women and men than does any other
single phrase. Because feminine speech communities regard talk about relationships as a way in which to
create closeness, many women value talking about interpersonal dynamics. From this perspective, talking
about a relationship is a way in which to intensify intimacy (Acitelli, 1988; Beck, 1988; Riessman, 1990).
Masculine speech communities, however, regard the primary purpose of talk as instrumental. Thus, men
tend to think that talk about relationships is needed only if there are problems. “Can we talk about us?” may
imply to a man that a problem exists. If no problem exists, then many men do not see the purpose of talking
about relationships because most men, unlike women, do not regard talk as the bedrock of intimacy. From a
feminine perspective, men's disinterest in talking about relationships might be misinterpreted as a signal that
they do not care about relationships.

Same-sex romantic couples are more likely to share a preference for talking or not talking about their
relationships. Gay men, like heterosexual men, are not inclined to talk at length about feelings or to
discuss their relationships overtly and emotionally (Wood, 1993). Lesbian women, like their heterosexual
counterparts, tend to enjoy talking explicitly and intimately about their relationships (Kirpatrick, 1989; Wood,
1993). Yet, as Huston and Schwartz (1996) pointed out, lesbians’ tendency to use communication to create
and enrich intimacy and to provide support might make it less than effective at solving problems, dealing with
serious differences, and charting change in relationships.

Showing Support

In some respects, women and men differ in what they consider supportive. The rules learned in masculine
speech communities incline many men to use communication to do things (e.g., solve problems, give advice).
Seeing their partners’ frustration or unhappiness, heterosexual men are likely to help in the only way they
know how, that is, by trying to fix things, often by suggesting ways in which to diminish the frustration or
unhappiness. Many women, however, regard empathy and willingness to talk about problems (not solutions)
as more supportive than instrumental responses. The converse also holds: When men express problems or
frustrations, they might appreciate pragmatic help more than empathic responses.

Communication between lesbian partners tends to be verbally supportive and emotional, reflecting rules of
interaction in feminine speech communities. Communication between gay men is less verbally supportive and
may be characterized by power struggles that work against building trust and emotional intimacy (Huston &
Schwartz, 1996).

Maintaining Conversations and Relationships

Another gendered dynamic is responsibility for maintaining conversations and relationships. Conversations
are kept alive by asking questions, probing others’ comments, showing interest, inviting others to talk, and
following up on others’ comments. Without maintenance work, conversations flounder. Research indicates

SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships

Page 9 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

that women generally exceed men in maintaining communication (Beck, 1988; Fishman, 1978). They invite
others to speak, ask questions about topics initiated by others, encourage elaborations, and respond to what
others say. In addition, women typically use nonverbal behaviors to signal interest and involvement more than
do men (Noller, 1986). As a rule, men engage less in conversational maintenance and might deter others
from talking by interrupting, failing to respond to others’ comments, insistently imposing their topics, or shifting
to topics of their own when others have initiated topics (DeFrancisco, 1991).

The masculine assumption of independence leads many men not to feel responsible for including others in
conversation. By extension, men generally are more likely than women to assume that others will speak up if
they have something to say. Thus, they feel no need to invite others to talk; if others want to talk, then they will.
This is at odds with the feminine inclination to work actively to involve others in conversations. Consequently,
women might be hurt if men do not ask how they feel or how their days went. Conversely, men might resent
being asked to talk about themselves and their activities when they have not initiated these topics.

Gendered patterns of maintenance work extend beyond specific conversations. Research consistently finds
that women assume a disproportionate amount of responsibility for maintaining relationships such as keeping
them on track, noticing when problems arise, addressing tensions, and setting a tone for interaction (Tavris,
1992; Thompson & Walker, 1989).

Dealing with Conflict

Based on a series of studies she has conducted, Rusbult (1987) concluded that there are general differences
between the sexes. Men (both gays and heterosexuals) are more likely than women to retreat from problems.
Rusbult's research also shows that men are more likely than women to minimize problems because they do
not see them as significant and/or because they do not want to engage in conflict. Gottman (1994a, 1994b)
noted that some men engage in a specific type of conflict avoidance that he termed “stonewalling,” which
involves a rigid and resolute refusal to discuss issues in relationships.

According to Rusbult's (1987) research, women (both lesbians and heterosexuals) are more likely than men
to want to talk problems through to restore emotional intimacy. Women tend to lead the way in identifying
problems and sources of discontent. They also are more likely than men to initiate discussion in an effort to
understand what is wrong. Rusbult also reported that women are more likely than men to show loyalty, which
involves standing by a relationship even when problems are not resolved or even addressed satisfactorily.

Equity

There is a notable gap between Americans’ ideals about equity in relationships and their actual practices.
A substantial majority of both women and men profess believing in equity in home responsibilities. National
polls report that 75% of Americans state that wives’ and husbands’ jobs are equally important, and fully 90%
of Americans say that women and men should share equally in parenting (Coltrane, 1996).

In practice, however, these ideals usually are not met. Wives who work outside of the home continue to do
a disproportionate amount of housework and child care—as much as twice the amount that husbands do,
according to some reports (Hochschild & Machung, 1989). Not only do women typically shoulder more of the
burdens of home-making and child care, but they also tend to do less satisfying chores than do men, chores
that are repetitive, routine, and constrained by time deadlines and multiple simultaneous tasks (Hochschild
& Machung, 1989). Compounding the inequity in responsibilities is the finding that men are more likely than
women to expect and get a buffer zone or a release from responsibilities when they feel stressed or tired.
Coulter and Helms-Erikson (1997) reported that husbands are more likely than wives to receive occasional
reprieves from normal duties and that both husbands and wives assume that men, but not women, are entitled
to this benefit. Unequal access to a buffer zone might explain why wives who work outside of the home report
feeling more positive about themselves and their lives in the workplace, a pattern that is not characteristic of
married men (Burley, 1991; Crosby, 1991; Hochschild, 1997).
SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships
Page 10 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

Violence

Another gendered dynamic that must be considered when examining romantic relationships is violence.
Although violent crimes of most types have declined during the past 10 years, the incidence of male violence
against women in personal relationships has remained at least constant and might be increasing (May, 1998;
National Research Council, 1996). Chapter 24 by Christopher and Lloyd in this volume focuses on violence
in close relationships, so detailed coverage is not needed here. I highlight only the influence of gender and
sexual orientation on tendencies toward violence between intimates.

Deeply ensconced cultural assumptions of male dominance seem central to the prevalence of violence
between intimates. The vast majority—up to 95%—of reported violence is inflicted by men on women (Brock-
Utne, 1989; French, 1992; Kurtz, 1989; Wood, 1998b). The severity of violence also differs between the
sexes. Women who abuse partners are most likely to slap, push, or shove, whereas abusive men are
more likely to commit brutal and sometimes deadly assaults (Cose, 1994; Jacobson & Gottman, 1998).
Furthermore, assault on intimates is linked to masculinity or hypermasculinity (Goldner, Penn, Scheinberg,
& Walker, 1990). In fact, Thompson (1991) found that both women and men who have strongly masculine
gender orientations tend to be more violent toward partners than do men and women who have less strong
masculine and/or more strong feminine gender orientations.

There also are sex differences in reasons for committing violence against intimates. Women generally engage
in violence to protect themselves or as a last resort when other modes of coping have been exhausted
(Campbell, 1993). Men are more likely to use physical violence to gain control, shore up self-esteem, or
diminish others (Campbell, 1993; Straus & Gelles, 1990b).

Generalizable differences between how women and men view and act in relationships can generate
frustrations, misunderstandings, and tensions, especially in heterosexual relationships. Partners can reduce
the likelihood that these problems will occur if they learn to appreciate the validity of different interaction styles
and orientations toward relationships. Increased understanding and respect for different styles might pave the
way for developing skill in both masculine and feminine interaction tendencies.

Humans are not born with understandings peculiar to a specific culture; they are born only with the ability
to learn cultural values, beliefs, norms, and language. By extension, humans are capable of learning to
understand and appreciate practices other than those of their native or original cultures. In Nepal, for
example, Buddhist stupas and Hindu shrines typically are side by side on the streets. Although Buddhists
and Hindus differ in both sacred and secular practices, they have learned to understand and respect each
other's ways without giving up their own. The same type of learning frequently is seen in people who take up
residence in societies different from the ones in which they originally were socialized.

A majority of both scholars and popular writers who focus on gender assume that people are capable of
learning new forms of communication and the meanings they have in specific social groups. The overt
message of popular authors such as Gray (1993) and Tannen (1990) is that men and women can learn to
understand each other's communication and what it means in each other's terms. This assumption also has
been made by a number of academic writers (Gottman & Carrère, 1994; Murphy & Zorn, 1996; Wood, 1997a,
1998a; Wood & Inman, 1993). Understandings of when, how, and why to communicate are not fixed at any
one time and immutable thereafter. Rather, how we communicate and what culturally encoded meanings we
attribute to communication presumably change over time.

Conclusions

This chapter has summarized theories and research on the influence of sex and gender on personal
relationships. As hinted throughout the chapter, there are practical implications of research and theories about
the impact of gender on personal relationships. One important implication is the pragmatic consequence
of adopting particular theoretical views of gender differences. Essentialist theories incline those who adopt

SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships

Page 11 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

them to assume that differences are both natural and inevitable. This assumption, in turn, undercuts critical
reflection on one's own behavior and alternatives to it. An extreme potential effect of essentialist accounts is
justification of continued inequality between women and men including rape and paternal irresponsibility. By
contrast, those who adopt a constructionist theory of gender differences are more likely to assume that their
own and others’ behaviors can be modified in ways that foster equitable relationships.

A second important practical implication of research summarized in this chapter is sound understanding of
what differences do and do not mean. For example, students and counseling clients who learn about the
distinct bases and logics of masculine and feminine interaction styles are unlikely to naively assume that their
partners are simply wrong if their partners feel and behave differently from how they themselves do. Insight
into reasons for different feelings, behaviors, and preferences can greatly reduce misunderstandings between
women and men.

A third implication of research discussed in this chapter is greater awareness of inequities that often cause
tension in personal relationships. In naming specific types of inequities, researchers have made them more
visible. For example, students and clients in counseling who learn about the buffer zone, psychological
responsibility, and the double shift are more likely to recognize and challenge those patterns in their own
relationships.

Differences between women and men, although not overwhelming in number or extent, do affect how
relationships operate and the satisfaction of partners. For this reason, researchers should continue to study
the impact of sex and gender on close relationships. Three priorities merit special attention in future research.

Develop balanced views of similarities and differences. Scholars would do well to follow the example of
Canary and Dindia (1998) in titling their recent book Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication.
Assertions that the sexes are alike and proclamations that they are different both are misleading; both present
only a partial picture of interaction between women and men.

This chapter's focus on sex and gender differences in close relationships must be understood within the
larger perspective of strong similarities between what the sexes want from and invest in relationships. In
short, similarities between women and men outweigh differences. The sex differences that do exist are
matters of degree and not dichotomy. Both sexes engage in both instrumental and expressive forms of caring,
although each sex might emphasize one means of expressing care more than the other. Differences in style
notwithstanding, both sexes listen, provide support, and want to transcend differences and conflicts. A key
task for future researchers is to integrate findings of similarities and differences into a holistic picture of the
influence of sex and gender on close relationships.

Distinguish between sex and gender. A second priority for future researchers is to develop and use means
of distinguishing between sex and gender. Although sex often is a criterion for membership in a gender
speech community, it is not necessarily or universally so. The point is that membership in a community,
and not sex per se, is the most likely influence on how one learns to communicate and interpret the
communication of others. Thus, some males are socialized in feminine communities, some females are
socialized in masculine communities, and some members of each sex are socialized in both masculine and
feminine speech communities.

The distinction between sex and gender is pervasively ignored in published research. Typically, researchers
identify sex and then advance conclusions about gender differences. We cannot untangle the roles of sex and
gender when the two are routinely conflated. Impressive research supports the importance of distinguishing
sex from gender. For example, Risman (1989) and Ruddick (1989) found that men who were primary
caregivers for children developed capacities in excess of those of men in general to attend, respond to,
nurture, and comfort others. Similarly, Kaye and Applegate (1990) reported that men who cared for elderly
people became more nurturing and other oriented than did men in general. Epstein (1981) reported that
women developed masculine styles of thought and communication when they were involved in careers as
lawyers. The longer the women worked as lawyers, the more assertive, self-confident, and competitive they

SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships

Page 12 of 13
SAGE SAGE Books
© 2000 by Sage Publications, Inc.

became. Similarly, research on love styles (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1996) shows that “in general, the Bern
classification in terms of gender role was independent of the actual sex of subjects. … masculinity and
femininity may make as much or more difference in a person's love attitudes than is due to biological sex”
(pp. 141–142). These studies suggest that communication styles reflect gender more than sex and that styles
may change as individuals move into and out of particular social groups.

Attend to intersections between gender and other aspects of identity. A third priority for scholars is to
recognize and study the interplay among aspects of personal and social identity. For example, neither sex
nor gender can be understood fully in isolation. Instead, we need to explore how sex and gender intersect
other basic aspects of identity and social structure such as ethnicity, sexual orientation, and class. As Harding
(1991) noted, “It is simply not true that gender relations create a set of human experiences that are more
important than those created by such other inequalities as race and class” (p. 213). We need to move beyond
insular analyses of sex, race, class, sexual orientation, and so forth.

To illustrate the importance of this line of inquiry, let me offer a few examples of interaction among multiple
aspects of identity and social structure. Textbooks on gender routinely advance the claim that women are
less assertive than men. They also regularly assert that males are the privileged members of Western
society. Yet, both of these claims should be tempered by recognition of the impact of race on assertion
and privilege. African American women, for example, tend to be more assertive than European American
women. African American men do not routinely benefit from the so-called “male privilege” enjoyed by many
European American men; African American males, in fact, often have less social status than do African
American females. Economic class also figures into issues that too often have been defined strictly by sex
or gender. For example, divisions of responsibility for homemaking and child care vary according to both
class and gender. In the years ahead, scholars should aim to develop more layered, nuanced, and accurate
understandings of how multiple aspects of identity and social structure interact in particular eras, societies,
and contexts.

• sex
• sex differences
• heterosexuality
• closeness
• friendship
• intimacy
• gender

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452220437.n22

SAGE Books - Gender and Personal Relationships

Page 13 of 13