After writing about my values a few days ago, it occurred to me—brought back to my professional interest in gender—that my [very American] values did not seem to be particularly ‘gendered’. They would be, it seemed to me, equally pertinent for men or women.
But then, on further reflection, I realized that within the values that came spontaneously to mind, there was nothing about loyalty or courage in the face of violence—values to which I also adhere but that may be more emphasized for men. My own courage, for instance, has been far removed from my physical safety. ‘Speaking truth to power’ takes a kind of courage. But I have never had to face an enemy who was likely to strike me, for instance; I have never been called on to rush into a melee to save someone. In the US, most boys and many men do have to face such eventualities. And although I have tried to be loyal to my friends, it has not seemed to be a value much threatened. I have rarely been confronted with friends or family under physical attack (more often I have defended against emotional or verbal attack). [There are, of course, places (and times)—too many—where violence strikes everyone, men, women and children.]
Alexander Dumas’ work, The Count of Monte Cristo, reminds me that issues of obedience and submission vis-à-vis pride and strength, or protection (of one’s reputation and of others) might be more emphasized in a list made by men. Many of the values associated with ‘hegemonic masculinity’ are notably absent from my own spontaneous list—despite my respect for many of them (responsibility, self-control, strength, courage).
So…perhaps it is less the applicability or not of a particular value, and more the repertoire of ‘activated’ values or ones likely to be activated that vary by gender…