|
Academics
Departments Special Interest
Navigation
|
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
A Response to Evangelical Feminism
Wayne Grudem and John Piper
[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]
Psychological Foundations for Rearing
Masculine Boys and Feminine Girls
George Alan Rekers
A fierce battle is being waged today over male and female roles in American family life. For thousands of years of Western culture, the overwhelming majority of people accepted and lived according to some basic distinctions between the roles of mothers and fathers, wives and husbands. The only legitimate way for a child to be born and reared was in a heterosexual marriage, providing both a mother and a father to share jointly in the rights and responsibilities of family life. Unmarried motherhood was considered tragic for the child because of the absence of a supportive father, who should have a role in cooperatively insuring a protective family environment for the child. Boys were reared differently from girls. Boys were dressed differently from girls. Boys were encouraged to identify with their fathers and other men, and girls were encouraged to identify with their mothers and other women. A person's sex was considered to be an important distinction in human personality.
But now this idea that sex makes a legitimate role difference is being fought by vocal and active social reformers. One of the official goals of the National Organization for Women (NOW) is to work toward "an end to all distinctions based on sex."{1} This is a concise definition of the unisex mentality that is gaining popularity in our society today. When advocates of unisex childrearing publish their ideas, it becomes immediately clear that when they argue for "an end to all distinctions based on sex" (italics mine), they include distinctions between men and women as sexual partners. In other words, they say that a woman should be free to choose either a man or a woman for a sexual partner and that an openly practicing lesbian is as fit to be a mother as is a heterosexual, married woman.{2}
Should the family be based on a heterosexual marriage? Should the mother's role in the family be different, in some significant respects, from the father's role? Do the child's long-term sexual identity and normal sexual adjustment depend, in some way, on unique fathering from the father and unique mothering from the mother? The unisex advocates say no to all of these questions.
The Source of Unisex Notions
The unisex notions are not based on the findings of child development research. Instead, the feminist and unisex ideas are rooted in the relativism of humanistic thinking.{3} The idea of natural sex-role boundaries embedded in creation is anathema to the relativistic humanists.{4} The relativistic humanists do not hold up heterosexuality as a desired norm:
. . . neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered evil. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire.{5}
So the proponents of unisex childrearing do not believe that children should be taught that committing oneself to marital fidelity to a woman for a lifetime is a masculine thing for a man to do.{6} The unisexist would be just as happy if a man had sexual relations with another man.{7} After all, the word unisex means that a person's sex doesn't make any difference! This is not a conclusion reached on the basis of scientific research. It is simply the idea of a relativistic, humanistic world view, a myth widely propagated in the media in the latter quarter of the twentieth century.
A Different Standard
NOW has a membership of less than .1 percent of the United States population. Yet its unisex and feminist values are loudly proclaimed in the mass media.
In sharp contrast, national polls{8} report that 90 percent of all Americans "favor the Christian religion," and 87 percent report that Jesus Christ has influenced their lives. Ninety percent of Americans pray to God. Eighty percent insist that they believe Jesus is God or the Son of God. Forty-four percent of all Americans attend church frequently, and seventy percent are church members. (This is a marked increase from less than 10 percent during the Revolutionary War, and no more than 20 percent throughout the nineteenth century.)
Seventy-two percent of Americans believe that the Bible is the Word of God. More than 50 percent of all Americans claim to have had a born-again conversion experience to Christ, and at least 40 percent claim they are evangelical. Thirty-three percent confess Jesus Christ as their "only hope of heaven," and 25 percent insist that the Bible is inerrant.
If I quote from the Humanist Manifesto and the radical feminists who constitute a tiny fraction of the population in America, I would hardly be out of place to quote the Christian Scriptures on these same issues. It is nonsense to capitulate to the charge that quoting the Bible is imposing Judeo-Christian values on a secular, non-Christian culture when our American government, law, and society were founded on Christian values and the vast majority of Americans identifies with Christian values.
Sex: To Be or Not to Be?
Should there be "an end to all distinctions based on sex," as the unisex proponents would have it? Or should parents shape the sexual identities of their boys to masculinity and of their girls to femininity?
If we took a vote in America, I suppose the results would be like these:
Is sex a meaningful distinction for human identity and roles?
All those in favor? 90 percent.(Those Americans who favor Christian values.)
All those opposed? .1 percent.(Members of NOW).
All those abstaining? 9.9 percent.(Some folks always fail to vote!)
The Real Question
For the vast majority of parents, then, the question is not whether the unisex mentality is correct. They already know sex is an important distinction, and they have another, more complicated question: "How can I shape a normal sexual identity in my child?"
Parents have two key influences in shaping their children's sexual identities. First, parents shape normal sexual identities in their sons and daughters by properly contributing the distinctive roles of father and mother to their family life. Second, parents shape normal sexual identities in their children by encouraging their sons to behave in masculine ways and their daughters to behave in feminine ways. Let's examine each of these two key influences.
The First Key: Properly Contributing Distinctive Roles
We have looked at the unisex myth that tries to undermine the distinction between fathers' and mothers' roles. While the evil excesses of the menacing macho myth and male chauvinism are to be recognized, they should not lead us to the opposite and equally unreasonable evils of radical feminism and the unisex mentality. We should not end all distinctions based on sex just because those distinctions have been abused by some men in the past and present.
Sexual Identity Problem: Family Backgrounds of Troubled Children
For the past nineteen years, I have devoted the major portion of my professional career to the intensive study of more than one hundred children and teenagers who were identified by their pediatricians, psychologists, psychiatrists, schools, or other social agencies as having problems with their sex-role adjustment. With more than half a million dollars of support from research grants, I have been carefully studying these troubled children, both boys and girls, who are three to eighteen years old.{9} In addition to conducting a careful study of these youngsters, I have also written articles and invited textbook chapters about the psychological treatment desperately needed by these children with gender identity disorders.{10}
Not surprisingly, I have discovered that the family backgrounds of these young people tend to be quite a bit more troubled than those of normal children. The question has been, however, "Exactly how are these families different?"
Let's look at the importance of the family background of children troubled by sex-role deviations. We'll direct our attention to young children in order to illustrate the importance of family factors in early childhood adjustment to one's sex role. For the moment, we'll focus on what we have learned about families of young boys with sex-role difficulties. What do their family backgrounds tend to be like?
Male Role Example
One of the most obvious first questions had to do with whether the father was physically present in or absent from the home. If the father was present, I tried to find out what kind of relationship the biological father or the substitute father had with the boy. On the other hand, if the father was absent, I was interested in studying the age of the boy at the time of his separation from his father and the reason for the separation.
Whether or not the father was at home at the time of my study, I was also interested in whether the father had a psychiatric history. To round out my concern regarding the male role examples that these boys might have, I also recorded the number of older brothers the boy potentially had.
Mother's Role
I also thought it would be important to find the differences between the role that the mothers took in these families and the role taken by the fathers. For this reason, I developed a Behavior Checklist for Childhood Gender Problems,{11} which asked a number of questions about the fathers, the mothers, and the everyday home environment.
Psychological Testing
I was interested in finding out how involved emotionally the troubled boy was with his mother, his father, and other family members. For this reason, I hired other psychologists to administer a Family Relations Test{12} to as many of these boys as possible.
For the first three dozen of these boys that I studied, I wanted to make the most careful psychological diagnosis possible, given the state of the art in clinical psychology. For this reason, I asked two other senior clinical psychologists to join me in evaluating these boys.{13} One of these clinical psychologists extensively interviewed the mother and the father of the boy, first together and then individually. He then interviewed the child extensively and administered numerous standard clinical psychological tests.
The other clinical psychologist developed a Child Behavior and Attitude Questionnaire{14} and a Child Game Participation Questionnaire{15} based on research on normal boys and girls ranging in age from early to late childhood. Using norms based on the answers from these questionnaires, he was able to evaluate the boys with sex-role problems and to provide a psychometric diagnosis for each child.
In addition to these studies made by the other two clinical psychologists, I also interviewed the parents and the child and observed the child in play in controlled clinic situations in which I was able to compare the child's play with the play of normal boys and girls,{16} as well as make specific recordings of any effeminate gestures or mannerisms{17} of the child. When I interviewed the parents, I asked questions about how work was divided at home, how decisions were made on important questions at home, the parents' approach to discipline, the patterns of support and affection expressed by each of the parents toward the boy, and the amount of contact of each parent with the boy.{18} This was in addition to standard questions about the child's own appreciation of his physical sexual status and awareness of his sexual identity.
Then all three of us, as psychologists, made a diagnosis of each boy, on a scale from one to five. A rating of one indicated the most extreme sex-role disturbance and a rating of five indicated normal sex-role adjustment.
Psychological Problems in Parents
One of the most striking results of our research had to do with the high incidence of psychological problems in the families of these disturbed boys.{19} Of those families for whom we could obtain the information, a full two-thirds had at least one parent who had been under the extensive care of a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental-health professional. For 80 percent of the boys with sex-role problems, the mothers had mental-health problems. For 45 percent of these disturbed boys, the fathers had mental-health difficulties. It may be that these percentages are somewhat inflated because the parents who have sought psychological help for themselves might be likely to seek such treatment for their own child. But the results are so extreme as to suggest that the parents, and especially the mothers, of boys with sex-role problems have histories of serious psychological difficulties themselves.
The Boys' Fathers: We found that, unlike the majority of children in America, 67 percent of these boys with sex-role problems were not living in a home with their biological father. In fact, the biological father was absent for nearly all of the boys who had been diagnosed as having the most profoundly disturbed sex-role adjustment. In contrast, the boys with a moderate to mild sex-role adjustment problem had fathers absent in 54 percent of the cases. Our statistical tests of these data demonstrated our scientific findings. The more profoundly disturbed the boy is in sex-role adjustment, the more likely he is to be separated from his biological father.
On the average, we found that the boys were three-and-one-half years old at the time the father left the home. Eighty percent of the boys were five years of age or younger when their separation from their father occurred.
In 82 percent of the cases, the parents were separated or divorced. Only one of the fathers was dead, and in two cases the mothers had never legally married.
Fathers or Father Substitutes: For boys whose fathers had left, it is always possible that the mother has remarried so that the boys have father substitutes who can serve as an example of a male role. We found that 37 percent of these boys with sex-role problems had no adult male role model present in the home. This means that more than a third of the boys had neither a biological father nor a father substitute living at home with them.
This is a much higher rate of male role absence in the home than we find in the general population. According to United States census figures{20} contemporary with our testing, only 11.9 percent of all white children in the United States lived with their mothers without the benefit of a father or a father substitute in the home.
Once again, we separated these boys with sex-role problems into two groups: the most severely disturbed boys and the less severely disturbed boys. Making this simple grouping, we found that 75 percent of the most severely disturbed boys had neither the biological father nor a father substitute living at home with them, whereas 21 percent of the less severely disturbed boys had neither the biological father nor a father substitute living with them. (Once again, our statistical tests demonstrated that this was a scientific finding, not likely due to chance occurrence.)
Psychologically Remote Fathers: Tragically, we found that when a father figure was present physically, he was often psychologically remote from the rest of the family. In other words, the father was living in the same house, but he was not very involved emotionally with the other family members. In fact, for the boys with sex-role problems who were fortunate enough to have a biological father or father substitute living in the home, fully 60 percent of those father figures were found to be psychologically distant and remote from the other family members. This means that only about one in four of these boys with a sex-role problem had what might be described as a normal, close relationship with a father or a father substitute.
Older Brothers: It is possible that boys without a father can learn about the male role from the example of their older brothers. When we scrutinized our findings on this question, fewer than half of the boys had an older brother, and the results suggested a trend where the most severely gender-disturbed boys were less likely to have an older brother as an example of a male role than were the less severely disturbed boys.
Missing Male Models: We discovered a consistent picture that emerged from all the facts that we collected about these boys' families. As compared with most boys in America, these boys with severe sex-role problems are much less likely to have a father figure living in the home with them, and even when the father figure is present he tends to be psychologically remote from the boy. The boys with the most severe sex-role problems are much less likely to have a good male role example living in their own home than are the other boys with sex-role problems.
Mothers in Power: In those families that did have a father present, what was the family interaction like? On this question, we have accumulated clinical experience rather than research data. This means that we can only make a tentative description of what these families are like.
Our clinical records show that in the families of disturbed boys, the mothers held the balance of power with regard to financial decisions in more than half of the families. The mothers also held the balance of power with regard to decisions concerning the children in three-fourths of these families.
Our clinical records also show that in the majority of cases, the boys with sex-role problems typically go to the mother rather than to the father for sympathy. They are more likely to object to being separated from their mother than their father, and they are more likely to cling to the mother than to the father. It also appears that the mothers rather than the fathers are somewhat more likely to be the ones to discipline the child when both parents are present.
Feelings for Fathers: Based on the use of the Family Relations Test, our clinical record shows that the older boys with sex-role difficulties are more likely than normal children to endorse statements such as, "I wish this person [the father] would go away," "this person is not very patient," and "this person can make one feel very angry."
In conclusion, we have discovered that boys with serious sex-role disturbances live in families in which a male role model is usually absent or inadequate. In many cases, the boy did not have a father, a father substitute, or an older brother to look up to as an example of acceptable male behavior. In cases where a father or father substitute did live in the same home, he was usually psychologically remote from the boy. This means that these boys with sex-role disturbances did not have, in most cases, a male role model to identify with. In fact, the most severely disturbed boys had no father figure at home.
It was the less severely disturbed boys whose fathers were psychologically remote from the family if they were present at all. This means these fathers were not involved in making important family decisions and did not have affectionate, helping relationships with their sons.
This evidence from these clinical cases suggests that the father's role in the family is critically important for the development of sex-role adjustment.{21}
How Fathers Make a Difference
So far we have been considering the results of clinical experience with children with sexual-identity problems. These findings are similar to those of studies about the childhood and adolescence of adult homosexuals and transsexuals.{22} But there is yet another set of evidence that needs to be described to every serious parent. This is the extensive research about the effects on children when a father is absent from the home and the studies on the characteristics of fathers that lead to normal sexual-identity development.
Fathers' and Mothers' Roles
Should parents choose the unisex style of child rearing, or are there reasons why mothers and fathers should take different roles?
Results of Child-development Research
According to research findings, the special role of the father in the family is critically important for many different aspects of child rearing. It is not sufficient to say merely that two parents, regardless of their sex, are better than one, because there is a unique advantage for the child in having both a female parent and a male parent. As a male, the father makes a unique contribution to the child rearing of either a son or a daughter. While it is desirable for the father to be actively involved in rearing a child for the social, emotional, and spiritual needs of the child, I will focus my attention here on the special contribution that the father makes to the sexual identity of his children.
One of the most important roles that the father has in the family is to promote the development of a normal heterosexual role and normal sexual identity in his children. The father is more actively involved in heterosexual role development of his sons and daughters than the mother is.{23} The father usually fulfills an active role in the family, as compared with the expressive role of the mother.{24} The father is, therefore, more involved than the mother in preparing the children for their roles in society, including masculine roles for his sons and feminine roles for his daughters.
Effects of the Father's Absence on Masculine Development of Boys
Unfortunately, fathers often are absent from home due to a variety of reasons like separation, divorce, death, or military service. A number of research studies have been conducted on the question of whether a fatherless home has a detrimental influence on the development of boys.
One study found that young boys whose fathers were absent from the home were more likely to exhibit more feminine ways of thinking, low masculinity, dependence, and either less aggression or exaggeratedly masculine behaviors than were boys whose fathers were present.{25} Other studies have also reported the negative effects on the sex-role development of boys that are associated with the father's absence. Boys who were separated from their fathers during their preschool years were more often called sissies than were boys who had not been separated from their fathers.{26}
In studies that compare boys with fathers to boys without fathers, the fatherless boys are more likely to be perceived as effeminate than are the boys with fathers.{27} When fatherless boys become adults, they have less successful heterosexual adjustment than do males who grew up in homes with a father.{28} Therefore, all these studies indicate that the absence of the father can have a detrimental effect on normal heterosexual role development in boys.
Another body of evidence has suggested that sex-role problems in boys with serious sexual identity problems are correlated with either the physical absence or the psychological distance of the father from the young boy.{29} These studies of sex-role disturbances in boys parallel the findings of the other studies I have just reviewed.
We may conclude, then, that the absence of a father tends to have a detrimental effect on the normal masculine role development of boys. We may also conclude that the father is very important in fostering a normal heterosexual role development in his boy. This is not to say that the father is absolutely essential in order to rear a normal boy (there are cases in which widows, for example, have successfully reared normal boys), but as a general finding, the normal sex-role development of a boy usually depends on the presence of the father or a father figure in early childhood.
When Does the Father's Absence Have Its Biggest Effect?
Overall, the younger the age of the boy when the father departs, the more harmful is the impact on the boy's heterosexual role development. One psychological research study{30} found no difference in the sex-role behaviors of boys whose fathers left the home after they were five years old as compared with boys whose fathers were present all during childhood. But this same study found strong effects of the father's absence if the father left during the boy's first four years of life. Therefore, the younger the boy is when the father leaves, the more profound the effects will be on the boy's sex-role development.
Different Symptoms at Different Ages: The boy's age at the time of separation from the father not only is related to how strong the effect is on the boy, but also may determine the kind of effect that the father's absence will have on him. If the father leaves the boy before the age of five, effeminate behavior is likely to develop, whereas if the father leaves between the ages of six and twelve, hypermasculine problem behavior may result. The older boy without a father may have trouble in mastering what is appropriate masculine behavior, and in the process he may overcompensate for the loss of the father by acting in extremely "masculine" ways. For example, the boy may become belligerent, uncontrollable, insensitive to the feelings of others, and aggressive to the point of interpersonal violence. None of these is a desirable masculine quality, though all can be recognized as abnormal attempts to achieve a secure masculine image.
As a footnote, it should be pointed out that the research on heterosexual development is more complex than I can describe here, in that different aspects of heterosexual role development have been studied, including sex-role preference, sex-role orientation, and sex-role adoption. Father absence has its strongest effect on sex-role orientation, which is defined as the conscious or unconscious sense of basic maleness or femaleness in the child.{31}
Can the Effects of the Father's Absence be Counteracted?: The presence of a father substitute has generally been found to counteract, somewhat, the effects of the father's absence on a child's development.{32} One research study found that black preschool boys were more feminine, more dependent, and less aggressive if their father was absent than other boys who had fathers present in their home. However, a group of boys who had father substitutes were found to be less dependent than the boys with no fathers and no father substitutes.{33} But a father substitute may not be quite as effective as one continuous father in some cases, as suggested by another psychological study that failed to find a compensating effect from the presence of a father substitute.{34}
Even if a father or father substitute is not present in the home, there is another factor that has been found to lessen the effect of the father's absence. Research studies have identified this other factor as a positive attitude toward the father by the mother of the boy, as well as her positive attitude toward men in general.{35} This shows that the potential negative effects of the father's absence on the masculine role development of boys is not a simple thing. We must take into account other factors, such as the possibility that other male role models may be present for the boy and that a mother may be able to compensate for the effects if she has positive attitudes toward men and treats her boy with respect for his masculinity.
Effects of the Father's Absence on Feminine Development of Girls
Relatively fewer research studies have dealt with the effects of the father's absence on the development of the daughter than on sons. But the few studies available suggest that the father's absence is less devastating to the sex-role development of girls than of boys. In fact, some studies{36} have not found any differences in the heterosexual role development of girls in father-absent as compared with father-present homes. But more recent studies have found some subtle, complex effects of the father's absence on the development of girls.{37}
As with boys, the negative consequences of a fatherless home can have different effects depending on the reason for the father's absence. In a research study of a group of adolescent females, the girls were found to be inhibited in their interactions with males in general if the father had died.{38} On the other hand, if the parents were divorced, the girls were overly responsive to males and displayed early and inappropriate sexual behaviors. Sophisticated research studies are therefore finding that the absence of the father can have a debilitating effect on the sex-role development of girls.
What Characteristics of a Father Contribute to Normal Heterosexual Role Development in Children?
Earlier research studies focused on the differences in children in homes with fathers compared with those in homes without fathers. More recent studies have concentrated on which of the father's characteristics make a difference in the heterosexual role development of his children.{39}
Warm, Affectionate Fathers
The degree of the father's active, involved affection toward his children is the most important factor related to normal heterosexual role development in his child. Research studies have shown that the father who is affectionate and involved with his child is most likely to foster masculinity in his son. Appropriate sex-role development has been correlated with father-son interactions that can be characterized as warm, nurturant, and affectionate.{40} The warm affection of the father was more important than the father's actual, literal encouragement of masculine behaviors, and it was also more important than the extent to which the father himself was masculine as opposed to feminine. Many different studies have shown that appropriately masculine boys come from families with fathers who are affectionate, nurturant, and actively involved in childrearing.{41} Boys are more likely to identify with their fathers if their fathers are rewarding and affectionate toward them than if they are not.{42}
At the same time, normal feminine role development in girls is also related to a warm, nurturant relationship with the mother. The father's influence on daughters is different from the father's influence on sons. The normal feminine girls tend to have highly masculine fathers who encourage feminine behaviors in their daughters.
Quality of Father-Son Relationship
Other characteristics of fathers have been considered important to the appropriate and heterosexual role development of children. The results of research studies testing these ideas have not provided many absolute conclusions. For example, research has not found heterosexual role development dependent on how similar a boy feels he is to his father or how similar a girl feels she is to her mother.{43} Some fathers are more available than others to spend time with their boys, but better masculine role development has not been found for the boys whose fathers are more available.{44} If the father is living in the home and is usually available, it has been concluded that the quality of the father-son relationship may be more important than the number of interactions they have.{45}
Father's Assertion of Leadership
The different amounts of power assumed by the father and the mother in a family can also influence the heterosexual role development of children.{46} Generally speaking, the child is likely to identify with the parent who is the leader in the household. Boys from homes in which the mother asserted herself as the leader exhibited more feminine sex-role preferences than did boys from homes in which the father was leader. However, the sex-role preferences of girls were not influenced by whether the mother or father asserted leadership.{47}
In another research study, children were asked whom they wanted to be like when they grew up.{48} In many homes where the mother was the leading parent, there were many boys who chose to be a female when they grew up. At the same time, in homes in which the mother asserted leadership, the girls were likely to want to be a male.
It was also found that in homes led by dominant mothers, both girls and boys were likely to say that they disliked the opposite sex (as determined by sociometric ratings). Also, these girls and boys were frequently disliked by the opposite sex. These effects are not always observed, as reported by another study that did not find power distribution of the family to be related to some measures of sex typing in children.{49}
Father's Leadership Plus Affection
Clearly then, the father's assertion of leadership has a better effect on the heterosexual role development of both the boys and the girls than does the mother's assertion of leadership. When the mother asserts dominance, studies show that the sex-role orientation of the boys tends to be feminine and that of the girls tends to be masculine. Earlier, I reviewed the evidence that showed that the father's affection and nurturance toward the sons is very important to their masculine development. Other studies have shown that the father who both asserts leadership and is nurturant is more likely than the father who is remote to have sons who are masculine in their heterosexual role development.{50} In addition, there is evidence that suggests that effects of the father's leadership are expressed in the homes in which the father is also nurturant.{51}
Some of the most important factors, then, for the child's heterosexual role development are the affection and leadership of the father in the home. Additional studies have found that the father's ability to set limits for his sons is related to greater masculinity in boys if the father is also a nurturant and affectionate person.{52}
Family Fragmentation
Unfortunately, the role of the father in the family may be quickly changing in today's American society. The nature of the father's role for children of the future and the consequences of changes in the family structure will have profound influences on the sexual identity and sex-role development of children. The recent increase in the number of fatherless homes may result in larger numbers of sexual identity problems in children.
At the same time, there has been another trend of women being employed outside the home. Research studies indicate that child-rearing tasks are being shifted to group child care centers and temporary baby-sitters. By and large, fathers are not stepping into the vacuum created by the mothers' absence from the home. In cases where the father does increase participation in child rearing, it has been suggested that the differences in the mother's and father's role in the family may become blurred as the father becomes involved in historically feminine roles.{53} This may result in greater difficulty for children to distinguish between proper male and female roles.
The Straight Truth
Discarding the unisex myth as extremist, simplistic, and destructive to family life, my review of child-development research confirms the first key to shaping normal sexual identity in children---namely, the parents' proper contribution of the distinctive father and mother roles to their family life.
The Second Key: Encouraging Masculinity in Boys and Femininity in Girls
Little boys need to learn how to behave like boys and little girls need to learn how to behave like girls, and both need to learn in younger childhood. As the little boy learns how to behave like a boy---for example, by taking the role of "daddy" when he plays---he not only masters what it means to be a male but also sees himself behaving like a male, which will solidify or reinforce his identity as a male. By the same token, the little girl who is encouraged to act in a feminine way will feel more and more feminine as she grows up.
Sex-role behavior and sexual identity have certain connections:
The boy who is encouraged to act in a masculine way will develop a firm male identity.
The boy who develops a firm male identity will behave in a more masculine way.
Similarly, the girl who is encouraged to act in a feminine way will develop a firm female identity.
The girl who develops a firm female identity will behave in a more feminine way.
This means that parents need to be attentive to the proper sex-role behaviors for males and females and carefully teach these behaviors to their children.
What Are Masculinity and Femininity?
True Masculinity
The popular Playboy platitudes of our generation falsely preach that the most masculine attribute is unrestrained intercourse.{54} This irresponsible attitude pretends that we can isolate biological masculinity from social or moral aspects of the male role. But genuine masculinity acknowledges the interconnecting biological, psychological, social, and spiritual responsibilities attending the male role in all full sexual expression.{55} Therefore, promiscuous sexual acts outside the protective confines of permanent marriage are really counterfeit masculinity. Playboy's image of masculinity and the "gay liberation" view of sexuality are both pseudo-masculinity because sexual behavior outside of marriage is not socially and morally responsible masculinity.{56}
The sexual identity of a boy or man rests on much more than his genital functions. There are social and moral as well as physical attributes that define a man as a man. The male role has been understood throughout history as embodying much more than the male reproductive act. As a whole person, the man's role involves social responsibilities of father and husband that accompany sexual intercourse. As a whole person, the man's spiritual responsibilities as moral leader and provider attend the procreative sexual act. Marital fidelity and a leadership responsibility for children are intrinsic to the true and complete masculine role.{57}
We cannot understand the essence of masculinity or the fullness of male sexual identity if we separate the different aspects of being a man. Instead, we need to consider the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions of the male role together. If we take all of these aspects into account, then we have answers for these questions:
Can a man be fully masculine without fathering a child? Yes.
Can a man be fully masculine without marrying a woman? Yes.
At the same time, this holistic perspective teaches us that a man who promiscuously pursues heterosexual intercourse outside of marriage is diminishing his masculinity. And a male who engages in homosexual acts is also abandoning true masculinity.
True Femininity
Similarly, a true female sexual identity involves the whole person in her biological, psychological, social, and spiritual life.
It is true femininity to experience sexual intimacy in the protective confines of marriage with one's husband; extramarital promiscuity of the Playboy-bunny image is pseudofemininity. It is true femininity to conceive and bear a child in marriage; it is unfeminine to expose oneself to pregnancy out of wedlock. It is true femininity and motherhood to protect the unborn child from outside harm from tobacco or alcohol use; it is unfeminine and contrary to true motherhood to deliberately abort a child.
Scripture clearly defines the feminine role in terms of its biological, social, and moral dimensions taken together:
So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. (1 Timothy 5:14)
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. (Titus 2:3-5)
In our twentieth-century culture, permeated as it is by Madison Avenue advertising, we might easily fall prey to the idea that a female identity is bolstered by the latest cosmetic wonders and the finest in feminine attire. This is a culturally-conditioned definition of femininity not supported in Scripture.
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. (1 Timothy 2:9-10)
Of course, this is not to say that girls should be prohibited from using modest amounts of cosmetics. The point is that true femininity is an inner quality and not mere outward adornment. In fact, overemphasis on outward appearance can actually detract from true femininity.
Distinctions in Male and Female Identity
Now that the reader has thoughtfully considered many important aspects of shaping the sexual identity of a child, a summary table (see Table 1) can be offered with minimal risk that it will be viewed in a simplistic or superficial way. I hope that studying this table will help to put everything I have discussed in perspective.
Contrary to the unisex myth, there are distinctions between male and female roles. Some of these distinctions are absolute differences, based on biological and moral realities. Other distinctions between the masculine and the feminine are culturally based.
Biologically Defined Sex Roles
Notice that each box in the figure is numbered in the upper left-hand corner. Look now at box 1 and box 2.
|
Table 1 Examples of Sex Role Distinctions |
||
|
Feminine Sex Role |
Masculine Sex Role |
|
|
Absolute Sex-role Distinctions |
||
|
Biologically Defined |
1 Delivering a baby Being a mother |
2 Impregnating a female by sexual intercourse Being a father |
|
Morally Defined |
3 Modest clothing of upper torso Abstaining from actions during pregnancy that would endanger the life of the child (such as abstaining from alcohol or illicit drug intake and from deliberate abortion) Abstaining from sexual relations with females Being submissive to husband's leadership at home |
4 Financially supporting one's children Abstaining from sexual relations with males Abstaining from sexual relations outside the protective confines of marriage Providing moral and spiritual leadership in the home |
|
Culturally-based Sex-role Distinctions |
||
|
Culturally Defined Based upon Biological Sex Differences |
5 Using the women's room Wearing a dress Singing in a female choir Living in a sorority |
6 Grooming a beard Shaving the facial hair Playing professional sports on all-male teams Using the men's room Serving in combat Singing in a male quartet Living in a fraternity |
|
Culturally Defined Based upon Arbitrary But Legitimate (Benign) Assignment |
7 Wearing lipstick Wearing fingernail polish Wearing mascara Shaving underarms or legs Carrying a purse |
8 Wearing a suit and necktie Having a man's haircut Opening doors for women or girls Paying for a date with a woman |
|
Culturally Defined Based upon Arbitrary and Harmful Stereotypes Which Should Be Abolished |
9 Nurse Airline cabin attendant Lower pay for same job done by a man Secretary |
10 Doctor Airline pilot Male chauvinism Macho male stereotypes Sexual harassment of women Lewd jokes, locker-room language |
Box 1 gives examples of feminine sex roles that are absolutely feminine because they are based on the unique biology and anatomy of the female. For example, little girls learn to imitate a mother's role, which includes fantasizing or play-acting about growing up, being married, getting pregnant, delivering a baby, and breast feeding the little one. Parents should encourage and approve their little girl's play-acting in this feminine role. It helps the girl develop a normal female identity.
Box 2 gives examples of masculine sex roles that are absolutely masculine because they are based on the unique biology and anatomy of the male.{58} It is important, for example, for the boy to learn that he will not grow up with the biological possibility of having sexual intercourse with a man, getting pregnant, delivering a baby, or breast feeding the infant. This is essential in order to shape a normal male identity in the boy. While the boy should be encouraged to be nurturant, sensitive, and caring for infants (in preparation for fulfilling the command to fathers in Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21; and 1 Timothy 5:8, for example), it is important to teach the boy that he cannot grow up to marry a man or to be a woman himself.
Morally Defined Sex Roles
Box 3 gives some examples of feminine sex roles that are absolutely feminine because they are based on unique moral responsibilities of women, as set forth in Scripture. Modest clothing of the upper torso should be taught to girls, and not boys, to train them to fulfill the moral teaching of 1 Timothy 2:9-10, for example. When parents emphasize this reason for having the girl dress differently from the boy, it reinforces her separate and distinct female identity. Protecting and preserving the life of the unborn child is a feminine responsibility taught by Scripture{59} and should be taught to every girl by her parents. The shaping of the girl's sexual identity also involves teaching her that women cannot select other women as sexual partners. In childhood and the teen-age years, the girl's mother should teach her daughter, by word and example, how to fulfill the uniquely feminine role of submissiveness in the home and the church. Of course, this moral distinction for the female is not expressed in the same ways outside the church and home. The domestic responsibilities of the woman, as Biblically defined (for example, 1 Timothy 5:8-14; Titus 2:3-5) are also morally based aspects of the female role.
Box 4 provides examples of absolute masculine distinctives that are based on unique moral responsibilities of men as set forth in the Bible. Fathers, in particular, should teach these truths to their sons by word and example. The male role includes providing spiritual leadership in the home and church, as well as supporting his wife and children in family life. The moral standards for sexual conduct teach that true masculinity enters into sexual union only within the protective and loving confines of marriage. Premarital and extramarital sexual intimacies are decidedly unmasculine and undermine the development of a confident and secure male identity. Similarly, boys should be taught that sexual relations with other males are not only wrong but also a symptom as well as a cause of a confused sexual identity. A male who has sex with another male calls his own masculinity into serious doubt. True masculinity reserves sexual acts for marriage, where the full moral, social, and biological responsibilities of manhood can be fulfilled as intended by the Creator.
Culturally Defined Sex Roles
There are three different kinds of culturally-based sex-role distinctions. Because these distinctions are not absolutes, it is essential that parents notice the real differences between these.
Culturally Defined, with Biological Basis: These male and female roles have come about by an interaction of cultural and biological factors.{60} Society has taken note of certain differences in the anatomy of males and females and has then made some cultural assignments based on these differences.
Look at boxes 5 and 6 in the table. These are simply examples of many ways that males and females do different things in our society because of their sex. It is important that you teach these differences to your children so they will get along well in everyday life. People in our culture expect different things from males from what they expect of females. To fit into society, your child needs to learn these things. But another benefit of teaching these distinctions to children is that they help boys feel like boys and girls feel like girls. It would be damaging to children's sexual-identity development if we parents failed to point out these sex differences to children in everyday life.
Consider some of these examples. Girls are taught to use the women's room and boys to use the men's room. Men either shave their beards or grow them out and groom them. Girls wear dresses and training bras. Boys and girls are placed on separate athletic teams that take into account their different rates of physical maturation and strength.
Culturally Defined, with Arbitrary But Legitimate Assignment: Every culture has different sets of behaviors that are arbitrarily classified as masculine or feminine (see boxes 7 and 8). There is nothing wrong with this if these arbitrary categories do not interfere with the freedom of individuals of both sexes to develop their potential competencies. As long as the arbitrary social labels of "for men only" or "for women only" do not hinder freedom to use one's talents, then they are benign or harmless sex-role stereotypes.
For example, in our culture, women may wear lipstick, fingernail polish, and mascara, as well as shave their underarms and legs. These things, along with wearing dresses and sometimes wearing their hair differently, all serve to highlight the differences between males and females. In the same way, men and boys often have their hair cut in a recognizable male fashion and they sometimes wear clothing, such as a suit and necktie, that is distinctively worn more by men than by women.
There are also various social roles and rules of etiquette that distinguish males from females. For example, men and boys often hold doors open for women and girls and let them walk in first. Men, in North American society at least, tend to shake hands more than women do, and women tend to hug one another more than men do.
All these kinds of male and female differences are largely culturally based, with little or no connection to the biological differences between men and women.{61} So a parent might ask, "Should I teach these kinds of arbitrary cultural distinctions to my children?"
The answer should be yes for most examples of benign cultural sex-role stereotypes. There are two reasons for this. First, if your child will be living for years in this culture, he or she will get along better with peers and society in general if these sex-role distinctions are learned. Boys, for example, might suffer severe ridicule and social rejection if they regularly appeared with lipstick, mascara, and bright red fingernail polish on. A youth who asks a girl out for a dinner date might be socially embarrassed---and the girl unprepared---if the young man did not realize the social expectation that the male pays for the female's dinner if he invites her out. Social and psychological adjustment depend on teaching the young person these sex-role stereotypes.
The second reason for parents' teaching these arbitrary sex-role stereotypes to their children is that such stereotypes help boys develop male identities and girls develop female identities. In childhood and adolescence, the boy and girl do not have the opportunity to experience many of the absolute sex-role distinctions. For instance, the girl cannot base her female identity on daily breast feeding of infants, because she must await marriage in adulthood for that. But she can feel quite feminine and different from boys by carrying a purse or putting on nail polish on a day-to-day basis. Little boys can feel "just like daddy" when they wear a little suit and tie.
In fact, in daily rearing of preschool children, parents should look for these kinds of social distinctions and tell the little boy he looks "just like daddy" when his clothes resemble dad's. The little girl will benefit when she's given her play cosmetics "just like mommy's." These things help to reinforce the crucial identification process that solidifies male identity in boys and female identity in girls.
These distinctions are important in childrearing. That is why the unisex myth that calls for "an end to all distinctions based on sex" is so destructive for normal sexual identification. Our culture has developed these sex-role stereotypes because they are useful in childrearing and help reinforce adolescent and adult sexual identities.
Culturally Defined, with Arbitrary But Harmful Assignment: These sex-role stereotypes (see boxes 9 and 10) are arbitrary because, once again, there is no biological or moral basis for them. But unlike the category we just considered, these stereotypes are harmful and should be abolished in our society.
This category includes the harmful attitudes of male chauvinism and the so-called masculine image of the menacing macho myth described earlier.
This category further includes those arbitrary classifications of employment categories that hinder the individual's freedom to develop talents and abilities. If your little children want to play a game of "hospital," it would be morally wrong to insist that the girl always play the nurse, letting only a little boy play the doctor. These are the kind of arbitrary, harmful stereotypes that overrule the consideration of individual ability. Intelligence, not sex, should be a criterion for choosing a career as a physician, dentist, psychologist, or optometrist.
Destructive male stereotypes, such as telling lewd jokes, using crass locker-room language, and sexually harassing women are part of this category of harmful stereotypes.
Obviously, these are the types of sex-role stereotypes that concerned parents should not teach their children by either word or example. In fact, when they become aware of them in everyday life, children need to be taught that these harmful stereotypes are morally wrong.
The existence of this category of harmful sex-role stereotypes provides fuel for the unisex proponents. But while this one category of sex-role distinctions needs to be eliminated in our society, it does not logically follow that the other four helpful types of sex-role distinctions need to be obliterated as well. Herein lies the fallacy of the unisex myth.
The Image: Male and Female
It is interesting that the unisex mentality is based on the godless world view of relativistic humanism, which includes the radical feminist movement.{62} Those who call for "an end to all distinctions based on sex" are those who simultaneously endorse the "right" to abortion, homosexuality, and divorce. The unisex mentality, therefore, is an assault against sex. It denies the existence of unique mother and father roles. It denies the existence of human rights for unborn babies. It denies the existence of the norm of heterosexuality by affirming the life-denying practice of homosexual acts. It denies the existence of divine sanction for marital permanence by its approval of divorce. In this sense, the unisex mentality denies the existence of God Himself, because it opposes the Judeo-Christian Scriptures' teaching about sexuality and family responsibility.
The Bible asserts: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27). This means that sexuality in men and women reflects the "image of God." When the unisex mentality denies the human "distinctions based on sex," it is denying the image of God in the human personality. But what else would we expect from the godless worldview of relativistic humanism? The unisex mentality denies the existence of God and His Word's authority, and in the same sweep, denies one mark of God in the human personality-the distinctions of male and female.
Fortunately, most parents sincerely want to shape normal sexual identities in their sons and daughters. They have two basic ways of accomplishing this: by assuming distinctive and proper roles of mothering and fathering their children, and by directly encouraging masculinity in their sons and femininity in their daughters.
Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. (Proverbs 22:6)
Note: Professional writer and editor Carol Steinbach compiled and organized an initial draft of this chapter from excerpts of chapters 2, 3, and 10 of Dr. Rekers's book Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982). For a more complete discussion of this subject, including case studies and treatment strategies, see Shaping Your Child's Sexual Identity, and chapter 3, "Biblical Perspectives for Goal Setting" in Dr. Rekers's book, Counseling Families (Waco, TX: Word, 1988), pp. 66-87.
Endnotes to Chapter Seventeen
{1}Mary Smith, et al., Revolution: Tomorrow Is NOW (National Organization for Women, 1973), p. 9. This publication is described on page 1 as "a summary of NOW's existing resolutions and policies by issue."
{2}Ibid., pp. 20-21. See also page 27 of the National Plan of Action (Washington, DC: International Women's Year Commission, 1977), adopted at the National Women's Conference, November 18-21, 1977, in Houston, Texas. "This publication states, This National Plan of Action constitutes the official recommendations of the National Women's Conference, pursuant to Public Law 94-167." For recent thoughtful essays on homosexuality and contemporary society see G. J. M. Aardweg, Homosexuality and Hope (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1985) and W. Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989).
{3}See the extended discussion of the relationship between secular humanism and feminist thinking in Michael Braun and George Alan Rekers, The Christian in an Age of Sexual Eclipse: A Defense Without Apology (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1981), Chapter 2, "The Rhetoric of Revolt: The Sexual Propaganda of Humanism."
{4}See Humanist Manifestos One and Two (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973). For example, Humanist Manifesto Two states, "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics are autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stem from human need and interest. . . . We strive for the good life, here and now" (p. 17); "We believe in maximal individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased" (p. 18). See also David W. Ehrenfeld, The Arrogance of Humanism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).
{5}Humanist Manifesto Two, p. 18.
{6}A. Simon, "Promiscuity as Sex Difference," Psychological Reports 64: 802; D. M. Weisbrot, "The Politics of Sexuality in Adolescent Psychiatry," International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 2: 27-37.
{7}J. Money, Venuses Penuses (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986).
{8}1978 Harris Poll and 1983 Gallup Poll. J. C. Pollock, et al., The Connecticut Mutual Life Report on American Values in the '80s.' The Impact of Belief (Hartford, CT: Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, 1981). See also G. A. Rekers, Counseling Families (Waco, TX: Word, 1988).
{9}University of California at Los Angeles, by a post-doctoral fellowship at Harvard University from the Foundations' Fund for Research in Psychiatry, and by United States Public Health Service research grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (grant numbers MH21803, MH28240, and MH29945), resulting in over sixty publications on gender identity disorder of childhood. The following publications are selected examples: G. A. Rekers, Pathological Sex-role Development in Boys: Behavior Treatment and Assessment (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms), No. 72-33, 978; G. A. Rekers, "Sexual Problems: Behavior Modification," in B. B. Wolman, ed., Handbook of Treatment of Mental Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978); G. A. Rekers, B. F. Crandall, A. C. Rosen, P. M. Bentler, "Genetic and Physical Studies of Male Children with Psychological Gender Disturbances," Psychological Medicine 9 (1979): 373-375; G. A. Rekers and S. L. Mead, "Early Intervention for Female Sexual Identity Disturbances," Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 7 (1979); A. C. Rosen, G. A. Rekers, and S. L. Brigham, "Gender Stereotypy in Gender-dysphoric Young Boys," Psychological Reports 51 (1982): 371-374; G. A. Rekers, "The Family and Gender Identity Disorders," Journal of Family and Culture 2 (1986): 8-37; G. A. Rekers, "Cross-sex Behavior Problems," in R. A. Hoekelman, S. Blatman, S. B. Friedman, N. M. Nelson, and H. M. Seidel, eds., Primary Pediatric Care, 2nd edition (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby, 1990).
{10}George Alan Rekers, et al., "Child Gender Disturbances;" see also G. A. Rekers, "Assessment and Treatment of Childhood Gender Problems," in Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, ed. Benjamin B. Lahey and Alan E. Kazdin (New York: Plenum, 1977), volume 1, chapter 7. G. A. Rekers, "Therapies Dealing with the Child's Sexual Difficulties," in Jean-Marc Samson, ed., Enfrance et Sexualite/Childhood and Sexuality (Montreal and Paris: Les Editions Etudes Vivantes, Inc., 1990); G. A. Rekers, "Play Therapy with Cross-gender Identified Children," in C. E. Shaefer and K. J. O'Connor, eds., Handbook of Play Therapy (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), pp. 369-385; G. A. Rekers, "Gender Identity Problems," in P. H. Borstein and A. E. Kazdin, eds., Handbook of Clinical Behavior Therapy with Children (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1985), pp. 658-699; G. A. Rekers, M. Kilgus, and A. C. Rosen, "Long-term Effects of Treatment for Childhood Gender Disturbances," Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 3(2) (1990).
{11}G. A. Rekers, "Pathological Sex-role Development in Boys: Behavioral Treatment and Assessment" (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1972).
{12}E. Bene and J. Anthony, "Bene-Anthony Family Relations Test: An Objective Technique for Exploring Emotional Attitudes in Children." Distributed by the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales. Copyright 1957.
{13}P. M. Bentler, G. A. Rekers, and A. C. Rosen, "Congruence of Childhood Sex-role Identity and Behavior Disturbances," Child: Care, Health and Development 5(4) (1979): 267-284. G. A. Rekers, "Psychosexual Assessment of Gender Identity Disorders," in R. J. Prinz, ed., Advances in Behavioral Assessment of Children and Families, Volume 4 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 1988), pp. 33-71; G. A. Rekers and S. M. Morey, "Personality Problems Associated with Childhood Gender Disturbance," Italian Journal of Clinical Psychology (1990).
{14}J. E. Bates, P. M. Bentler, and S. Thompson, "Measurement of Deviant Gender Development in Boys," Child Development 44 (1973): 591-598.
{15}J. E. Bates and P. M. Bentler, "Play Activities of Normal and Effeminate Boys," Developmental Psychology 9 (1973): 20-27.
{16}G. A. Rekers and S. M. Morey, "The Relationship of Measures of Sex-typed Play with Clinician Ratings on Degree of Gender Disturbance," Journal of Clinical Psychology 46 (1990): 28-34.
{17}G. A. Rekers and S. M. Morey, "Sex-typed Body Movements as a Function of Severity of Gender Disturbance in Boys," Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 2 (1989): 183-196.
{18}G. A. Rekers and S. M. Morey, "Relationship of Maternal Report of Feminine Behavior and Extraversion to the Severity of Gender Disturbance," Perceptual and Motor Skills 69 (1989): 387-394.
{19}G. A. Rekers, S. L. Mead, A. C. Rosen, and S. L. Brigham, "Family Correlates of Male Childhood Gender Disturbance," The Journal of Genetic Psychology 142 (1983): 31-42.
{20}U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United States: 1978 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1978).
{21}S. L. Mead and G. A. Rekers, "The Role of the Father in Normal Psychosexual Development," Psychological Reports 45 (1979): 923-931; Rekers, et al., "Family Correlates." G. A. Rekers, "Parental Involvement with Agencies Serving Adolescents in Crisis: Adolescent Sexuality and Family Well-being," in hearings before the Subcommittee on Family and Human Services, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, on Parental Involvement with Their Adolescents in Crisis (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984).
{22}L. B. Apperson and W. G. McAdoo, "Parental Factors in the Childhood of Homosexuals," Journal of Abnormal Psychology 73 (1968): 201-206; Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978); A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1981); E. Bene, "On the Genesis of Male Homosexuality: An Attempt at Clarifying the Role of the Parents," British Journal of Psychiatry 111 (1965): 803-813; Irving Bieber, et al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study (New York: Basic Books, 1926); R. E. Billingham and S. L. Hockenberry, "Gender Conformity, Masturbation Fantasy, Infatuation, and Sexual Orientation," Journal of Sex Research 23 (1987): 368-374; D. Boyer, "Male Prostitution and Homosexual Identity," Journal of Homosexuality 17 (1989): 151-184; D. G. Brown, "Homosexuality and Family Dynamics," Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 27 (1963): 227-232; J. A. Cates, "Adolescent Male Prostitution by Choice," Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 6 (1989): 151-156; R. B. Evans, "Childhood Parental Relationships of Homosexual Men," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 33 (1969): 129-135; R. Green, The "Sissy Boy Syndrome" and the Development of Homosexuality (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987); J. Harry, "Parental Physical Abuse and Sexual Orientation in Males," Archives of Sexual Behavior 18 (1989): 251-261; C. H. Jonas, "An Objective Approach to the Personality and Environment in Homosexuality," Psychiatric Quarterly 18 (1944): 626-641; G. A. Rekers, "The Formation of Homosexual Orientation," in P. F. Fagan, ed., Hope for Homosexuality (Washington, DC: Free Congress Foundation, 1988), pp. 1-27; G. A. Rekers, "AIDS: Behavioral Dimensions of Medical Care," USC School of Medicine Report 6 (1989): 7; Marcel T. Saghir and Eli Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973); S. F. Signer, "Homo-erotomania," British Journal of Psychiatry 154 (1989): 729; Charles M. Socarides, The Overt Homosexual (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1968); W. G. Stephan, "Parental Relationships and Early Social Experience of Activist Male Homosexuals and Male Heterosexuals," Journal of Abnormal Psychology 82 (1973): 506-513; E. D. Wilson, Counseling and Homosexuality (Waco, TX: Word, 1988); B. Zuger, "Homosexuality in Families of Boys with Early Effeminate Behavior," Archives of Sexual Behavior 18 (1989): 155-156.
{23}B. I. Fagot, "Sex Differences in Toddlers' Behavior and Parental Reaction," Developmental Psychology 10 (1974): 554-558; J. Z. Rubin, F. J. Provenzano, and Z. Luria, "The Eye of the Beholder: Parents' Views on the Sex of Newborns," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 44 (1974): 512-519.
{24}David B. Lynn, The Father: His Role in Child Development (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1974); G. A. Rekers, "Father Absence: The Effects on Children's Development," in hearings before the Subcommittee on Family and Human Services, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, on Oversight on the Breakdown of the Traditional Family Unit (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983).
{25}L. Carlsmith, "Effect of Early Father-absence on Scholastic Aptitude," Harvard Educational Review 34 (1964): 3-21; Lois H. Stolz, et al., Father Relations of War-Born Children: The Effect of Post-War Adjustment of Fathers on the Behavior and Personality of First Children Born While Fathers Were At War (1954; reprint ed., Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1969).
{26}Stolz, et al., Father Relations of War-Born Children.
{27}G. R. Bach, "Father-fantasies and Father-typing in Father-separated Children," Child Development 17 (1946): 63-80; W. N. Stephens, "Judgment by Social Workers on Boys and Mothers in Fatherless Families," Journal of Genetic Psychology 99 (1961): 59-64.
{28}R. F. Winch, "The Relation Between the Loss of a Parent and Progress in Courtship," Journal of Social Psychology 29 (1949): 51-56.
{29}A. C. Rosen and J. Teague, "Case Studies in Development of Masculinity and Femininity in Male Children," Psychological Reports 34 (1974): 971-983.
{30}E. M. Hetherington, "Effects of Paternal Absence on Sex-typed Behaviors in Negro and White Preadolescent Males," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4 (1966): 87-91.
{31}H. B. Biller, "A Multiaspect Investigation of Masculine Development in Kindergarten Age Boys," Genetic Psychology Monographs 78 (1968): 89-138; C. T. Drake and D. McDugall, "Effects of the Absence of the Father and Other Male Models on the Development of Boys' Sex Roles," Developmental Psychology 13 (1977): 537-538.
{32}G. A. Rekers, "Research on the Essential Characteristics of the Father's Role for Family Strength," in hearings before the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families, United States House of Representatives on The Diversity and Strength of American Families (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986), pp. 55-69. G. P. Matthews, "Father-absence and the Development of Masculine Identification in Black Preschool Males," Dissertation Abstracts International 37, no. 3-A (1976): 1458; G. Sutton-Smith, B. G. Rosenberg, and F. Landy, "Father-absence Effects in Families of Different Sibling Compositions," Child Development 38 (1968): 1213-1221.
{33}J. W. Santrock, "Paternal Absence, Sex Typing, and Identification," Developmental Psychology 2 (1970): 264-272.
{34}Drake and McDugall, "Effects of the Absence of the Father."
{35}H. B. Biller and R. M. Baum, "Father-absence, Perceived Maternal Behavior, and Masculinity of School Boys," Developmental Psychology 4 (1971): 178-181; Matthews, "Father Absence and the Development of Masculine Identification."
{36}Santrock, "Paternal Absence"; Winch, "Loss of a Parent and Progress in Courtship."
{37}G. A. Rekers and S. L. Mead, "Female Sex-role Deviance," Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 8 (1980): 199-203.
{38}E. M. Hetherington, "Effects of Father-absence on Personality Development in Adolescent Daughters," Developmental Psychology 7 (1972): 313-326.
{39}H. B. Biller, "The Father and Personality Development: Paternal Deprivation and Sex-role Development," in The Role of the Father in Child Development, ed. Michael E. Lamb (New York: Wiley, 1976), pp. 89-156; Lamb, ed., The Role of the Father in Child Development; Lynn, The Father: His Role in Child Development; D. B. Lynn, "Fathers and Sex-role Development," Family Coordinator 25 (1976): 403-409; G. A. Rekers, et al., "Family Correlates of Male Childhood Gender Disturbance," The Journal of Genetic Psychology 142 (1983): 31-42; S. L. Mead and G. A. Rekers, "The Role of the Father in Normal Psycho-sexual Development," Psychological Reports 45 (1979): 923-931; Rosen and Teague, "Case Studies in Development of Masculinity and Femininity."
{40}P. H. Mussen and E. Rutherford, "Parent-child Relation and Parental Personality in Relation to Young Children's Sex-role Preferences," Child Development 34 (1963): 589-607.
{41}E. M. Hetherington, "A Developmental Study of the Effects of Sex of the Dominant Parent on Sex-role Preference, Identification, and Imitation in Children," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2 (1965): 188-194; Lamb, Role of the Father in Child Development; P. H. Mussen and L. Distler, "Child Rearing Antecedents of Masculine Identification in Kindergarten Boys," Child Development 31 (1960): 89-100; D. E. Payne and P. H. Mussen, "Parent-child Relations and Father Identification Among Adolescent Boys," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 52 (1956): 358-362.
{42}Mussen and Distler, "Child Rearing Antecedents"; P. H. Mussen and L. Distler, "Masculinity, Identification, and Father-son Relationships," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59 (1959): 350-356.
{43}S. Gray, "Perceived Similarity to Parents and Adjustment," Child Development 30 (1959): 91-107.
{44}M. Reis and D. Gold, "Relation of Paternal Availability to Problem Solving and Sex-role Orientation in Young Boys," Psychological Reports 40 (1977): 823-829.
{45}Biller, "The Father and Personality Development;" F. Earls, "The Fathers (not the mothers): Their Importance and Influence with Infants and Young Children," Psychiatry 39 (1976): 209-226.
{46}Hetherington, "Developmental Study of the Effects of Sex."
{47}Ibid.
{48}L. W. Hoffman, "The Father's Role in the Family and the Child's Peer-group Adjustment," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 7 (1961): 97-105.
{49}. M. Greenstein, "Father Characteristics and Sex Typing," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3 (1966): 271-277.
{50}Lynn, The Father: His Role in Child Development.
{51}E. M. Hetherington and J. L. Deur, "The Effects of Father Absence on Child Development," Young Children 26 (1971): 233-248.
{52}Biller, "The Father and Personality Development;" Lamb, The Role of the Father in Child Development.
{53}L. W. Hoffman, "Changes in Family Roles, Socialization, and Sex Differences," American Psychologist 32 (1977): 644-657; G. A. Rekers, "Adolescent Development in American Culture," Contemporary Psychology 31 (1986): 122-123; G. A. Rekers, Counseling Families (Waco, TX: Word, 1988); G. A. Rekers and A. P. Jurich, "Development of Problems of Puberty and Sex-roles in Adolescence," in C. E. Walker and M. C. Roberts, eds., Handbook of Clinical Child Psychology (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983), pp. 785-812.
{54}C. S. Chilman, "Some Major Issues Regarding Adolescent Sexuality and Childbearing in the United States," Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality 8 (1989): 3-25; C. S. Chilman, Adolescent Sexuality in a Changing American Society (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1983); A. Parrot, "Acquaintance Rape Among Adolescents," Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality 8 (1989): 47-61; A. C. Salter, Treating Child Sex Offenders and Victims (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988); D. A. Schetky, "Child Pornography and Prostitution," in D. H. Schetky and A. H. Green, eds., Child Sexual Abuse (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1988); D. H. Schetky and A. H. Green, eds., Child Sexual Abuse (New York: Brunner/Mazel).
{55}P. Allen-Meares, "Adolescent Sexuality and Premature Parenthood: Role of the Black Church in Prevention," Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality 8 (1989): 133-142; J. McDowell and D. Day, Why Wait? (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1987); J. McDowell, How to Help Your Child Say "No" to Sexual Pressure (Waco, TX: Word, 1987).
{56}A. W. Burgess and M. L. Clark, Child Pornography and Sex Rings (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1984); E. Coleman, "The Development of Male Prostitution Activity Among Gay and Bisexual Adolescents," Journal of Homosexuality 17 (1989): 131-139; C. A. Gidycz and M. P. Koss, "The Impact of Adolescent Sexual Victimization," Violence and Victims 4 (1989): 139-149; D. B. Goldston, D. C. Turnquist, and J. F. Knutson, "Presenting Problems of Sexually Abused Girls Receiving Psychiatric Services," Journal of Abnormal Psychology 98 (1989): 314-317; M. Hancock and K. B. Mains, Child Sexual Abuse (Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1987); J. J. Haugaard and N. D. Repucci, The Sexual Abuse of Children (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988); G. E. Wyatt and G. J. Powell, Lasting Effects of Child Sexual Abuse (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989).
{57}G. A. Rekers, Counseling Families (Waco, TX: Word, 1988); G. A. Rekers, "Developmental and Cultural Counters for Disorders in Adolescence," Contemporary Psychology 30 (1985): 813-814.
{58}There are also gender-linked differences in abilities and in physical and psychological traits that are not discussed here in length (see Chapter 16 of this volume). The most obvious biological differences are that gestation, lactation, and menstruation occur in females only, and sperm production in the male only. Numerous research studies have also found that males, as a group, tend to score higher in measures of physical strength and fleetness (related to sex differences in muscles), certain mathematical skills, visual-spatial skills, and gross-muscle movements. On the other hand, females tend to score higher, as a group, in measures of certain verbal skills, resistance to certain illnesses and disease, tactile sensitivity, and fine-muscle movements involved in manual dexterity. In psychological traits, boys as a group are more aggressive, on average, than girls, and boys are more active in boisterous play than girls. On the other hand, girls score higher, as a group, on measures of nurturance, sociability, and empathy. The research studies demonstrating these sex differences are reviewed by several recent reports, including J. H. Block, Sex-role Identity and Ego Development (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1984); J. Brooks-Gunn and A. C. Petersen, eds., Girls at Puberty: Biological and Psychosocial Perspectives (New York: Plenum Press, 1983); D. B. Carter, ed., Current Conceptions of Sex Roles and Sex Typing: Theory and Research (New York: Praeger, 1987); C. Hutt, "Biological Bases of Psychological Sex Differences," American Journal of Diseases in Childhood 132 (1978): 170-177; R. M. Lerner and T. T. Roch, eds., Biological-Psychosocial Interactions in Early Adolescence (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986); L. B. Lueptow, Adolescent Sex Roles and Social Change (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984); Eleanor E. Maccoby and Carol N. Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974); Diane McGuinness and Karl H. Pribram, "The Origins of Sensory Bias in the Development of Gender Differences in Perception and Cognition," in Cognitive Growth and Development---Essays in Honor of Herbert G. Birch, ed. Morton Bortner (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1978).
{59}Compare the theological truths in Genesis 1:27-28; 3:16; Exodus 20:14; 21:22-25; Psalm 22:9-10; Philippians 2:3-4; Titus 2:3-5; and 1 Timothy 5:14. The feminine responsibility for protecting and preserving the life of the unborn child is discussed in more detail by Clifford E. Bajema, Abortion and the Meaning of Personhood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1974); Braun and Rekers, The Christian in an Age of Sexual Eclipse; Harold O. J. Brown, Death Before Birth (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1977); Francis A. Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1979). See also the article by Harold O. J. Brown, "Abortion and Child Abuse," Christianity Today, October 7, 1977, p. 34.
{60}G. A. Rekers, J. A. Sanders, and C. C. Strauss, "Developmental Differentiation of Adolescent Body Gestures," Journal of Genetic Psychology 138 (1981): 123-131.
{61}G. A. Rekers, J. A. Sanders, W. C. Rasbury, C. C. Strauss, and S. M. Morey, "Differentiation of Adolescent Activity Participation," Journal of Genetic Psychology 150 (1989): 323-335; Ray Raphael, The Men from the Boys: Rites of Passage in Male America (Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press, 1988).
{62}See Braun and Rekers, The Christian in an Age of Sexual Eclipse, chapter 2, "The Rhetoric of Revolt: The Sexual Propaganda of Humanism," and chapter 3, "Drawing the Battle Lines: The Radical Challenge of Sexual Extremists."
Copyright 1997 Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. All rights reserved.
[Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]
Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood can be ordered online through the CBMW Store.
2825 Lexington Road
Box 926
Louisville, KY 40280
Phone: 1-888-560-8210
Fax: (502) 897-4061
Email: info@cbmw.org
Web Site: www.cbmw.com
copyright © 1995-2009 Leadership U. All rights reserved.
Updated: 14 July 2002