(Submission to Human Relations Journal, Tavistock Institute)

Naming Men as Men: a Critical Response

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff, Faculty of Organisation and Management, Sheffield Hallam

University, England
roryridleyduff@tiscali.co.uk

Contact: 4 Rosehill Close

Penistone
Sheffield
S36 6UF
South Yorkshire
England

Abstract

Collinson and Hearn (2001) identify five constructions of masculinity (entrepreneurialism,

careerism, paternalism, authoritarianism, and informalism) that constitute an inter-related and
collective set of strategies through which men maintain patriarchal power in work settings.
Each strategy is presented as a collective form of male power that accounts for continuing
domination through asymmetrical power relations. This article examines the argument that
patriarchy expresses the empirical reality of men’s power over women. While acknowledging
the contribution of Collinson and Hearn, the way masculinity (and men’s ideal behaviour) is
constructed as active while femininity (and women’s ideal behaviour) is constructed as
passive is critiqued. Feminist theory has provided a cogent and sustained critique of the way
men’s behaviour limits opportunities for women but it is only recently that the impact of
women’s behaviour on men has been subject to similar scrutiny. Using a new body of
literature, and data from a longitudinal study, the author discusses the relationship between
discourses on patriarchy and matriarchy, and their relationship to sexual identity.

Dr Rory Ridley-Duff is a writer/consultant/lecturer whose doctoral research established how

friendship, courtship and parental interests shape entrepreneurship and systems of
governance. His interest in enterprise governance evolved out of directorships in two
employee-controlled businesses combined with 15 years consultancy work in the social
economy.
1. Introduction

Collinson and Hearn (2001) contribute to “feminist-inspired writings on men” (Whitehead &
Barrett, 2001:1) by identifying five ‘patriarchies’ that dominate women: entrepreneurialism,
careerism, paternalism, authoritarianism and informalism. They draw attention to several
debates: poor gender analysis regarding management and leadership; classifying women’s and
men’s behaviours as outcomes of differentiated value systems; links between sexual violence
and domination.

Following the tradition of feminist writings (Rowbottom, 1973; Hearn & Parkin, 1987;
Walby, 1991; Cockburn, 1991; Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Eagleton, 2003) they argue for
the “important recognition” (Collinson & Hearn, 2001:148) that patriarchal power is
propagated through sexual violence and harassment. Nevertheless, attention is drawn to the
fragility of men’s existence, the diversity of their experience, and the need for more study of
their “lived experience”. In doing so, they comment on the increasing attention given to the
“shifting and often contradictory social relations and identities through which men’s
difference, and their perception of differences, are reproduced” (ibid: 150).

Barely has the call for plurality been articulated before boundaries are reset. They reinforce
Cockburn’s view that difference should not deflect from men’s “domination of women at
systemic and organizational levels” (Cockburn, 1991: 225). In short, plurality is permissible
only if patriarchy itself is not questioned. In this paper, however, patriarchy’s explanatory
power is questioned and recast as a discourse politically advantageous to career-oriented
women. I re-examine claims regarding “twice over” domination of women at work and home
(Hearn & Parkin, 1987:6) and the inter-relationship between discourses on intimacy,
harassment, courtship and working life. Do Collinson and Hearn’s five patriarchies help or
hinder understanding of gendering processes?

Collinson and Hearn’s article was based on data collected in the early 1990s. I contend that
they make a useful contribution by outlining multiple interlinking patriarchies. In light of
more recent research, however, a question arises whether these are independent power
structures or behavioural responses to women’s power. I will argue that it is incorrect to
describe societies as patriarchal or matriarchal. They are both: different complementary
constructions with symmetries that balance the influence of men and women at work and

1
home. As such, Collinson and Hearn’s constructions can be used to examine matriarchies as
well as patriarchies.

The article draws on the work of Dr Warren Farrell. Given the absence of his perspectives
from academic works on gender, a few notes are given here to discuss why his work is
referenced. Firstly, Farrell was a pioneer of the 1970s feminist movement, the only man
elected three times to the board of the National Organization of Women. In the 1980s, he
started to articulate men’s perspectives as well as women’s and found himself immediately
excluded from university courses, lecture circuits and mass media that previously permitted
him to articulate views on gender equality (Farrell, 2000, Chapter 8).

A decade later, however, he achieved recognition when the Financial Times included him in
their list of the top-100 thought leaders in the world, and the International Biographic Centre
of London included him in their list of 2000 outstanding scholars of the 20th Century1. For
this reason alone, his arguments need to be subject to greater academic scrutiny and
contestation.

Reaction to referencing his work has been mixed. One conference participant suggested we
should not quote his “journalism” (despite later admitting to having read none of his books).
The academic citations supporting Farrell’s arguments, however, are frequently more credible
than those not acknowledging (or deliberately ignoring) his influence2. Nevertheless, the
charge of “journalism” has some justification. His texts are written for a broader
intelligentsia, are sometimes polemical, and parts of more recent works show a lack of rigour.

This article does not contest the proposition that men dominate “at the top”: instead, it
contextualises this with reference to men “at the bottom” and the reasons why this is obscured
in the gender literature (see also Goldberg, 2000; Hoff-Sommers, 1995, 2000). This adds fuel
to Collinson and Hearn’s call for more attention to gendering processes and debate about the
purpose behind discourses on patriarchy.

In Section 2, I critically evaluate Collinson and Hearn’s claims. In Section 3, I present data
from a longitudinal study to provide new insights into the lived experience of women and
men. In section 4, the five patriarchies are reviewed in the light of empirical findings before
considering the implications of the findings in the conclusions.

2
2. Collinson and Hearn’s Five Masculinities

Exactly who is socialising who? Arguments reflect divisions in feminist discourses that see
patriarchy as a system of male violence towards women (Dworkin, 1976; Faludi, 1991;
Walby, 1991; Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Whitehead & Barrett, 2001), a discourse that
oppresses both sexes (Friedan, 1980; Farrell, 1988; Connell, 1995) or a discourse that
obscures how men are socialised by women (Farrell, 1994; Hoff-Sommers, 1995; Vilar,
1998). Firstly, let me examine Collinson and Hearn’s claims in the light of alternative
discourses.

Entrepreneurialism and Careerism

Farrell (1988) argues that socialisation of men occurs at the hands of women during
childraising, schooling and courtship. His recent work identifies how courtship expectations
have changed little as a result of the women’s movement (Farrell, 2005:137):
…our sons are still expected to pay for…dinners, drinks, dates, dances, diamonds and
driving expenses [while] our daughters are still internalising that the more desirable
they are, the more boys will pay for them…All of this is to say that men’s and women’s
work choices are rooted far more deeply than in mere rational work decisions.
Understanding the power of these roots helps us understand where our freedom to
choose may be undermined not by the other sex but by our own biology and
socialization [emphasis added].

In contrast, feminist discourses have brought about a shift in men’s attitudes to family life.
Greater numbers of men than woman are now citing lack of flexible working as their primary
concern at work. For the first time, greater numbers of men than women are prepared to give
up pay to spend more time with their children. Lastly, the number of men acting as primary
carers doubled (to 19%) in the last two decades (Farrell, 2001, 2005)3.

Obstacles to further involvement at home have been traced to men’s lack of power within the
family (Cowan & Cowan, 1987; Grossman et al, 1998) and the way that social institutions
reinforce men’s “place” at work. Financial obligations not only remain unchanged, they have
intensified so that men are more financially but not socially responsible for their children4.
As a result, they can be subject to greater scrutiny by government agencies5 and the media
through campaigns to “name and shame” those who fail to live up to societal expectations
(Wilkinson, 1998, 1999).

While Farrell (2005) concurs with Collinson and Hearn that men behave differently at work,
he offers explanations traced back to different meanings that marriage and children have for

3
each sex (see also Friedan, 1980; Chow, 2003; Molloy, 2003). Wilson (2003) reviews
research indicating that marriage and families hold back women’s, but not men’s, career
development. While this can signify discrimination against women at work, it might also
imply discrimination against men at home who are socialised to work longer hours and accept
more responsible jobs to fulfil family aspirations (Farrell, 2001). It may also be derived from
equitable negotiations regarding the division of domestic and workplace responsibilities (see
Lukas, 2005). Are workplace power-relations the inverse of power-relations at home, rather
than the “twice over” claim in patriarchal theory (Hearn & Parkin, 1987:6)?

Men at the Top, Men at the Bottom

In the UK, Wilson (2003) reports that fewer than 10% of directors are women and only one of
the top 100 FTSE companies has a woman as Chief Executive. Women’s average gross
earnings are roughly half men’s, more women work part-time, and women are segregated into
professions with lower earnings. She rightly argues that women perceive this (as a group, and
individually) as an obstacle to career development. It remains important, however, that we
ask the extent to which this reflects discrimination or personal choices. Women experience
less social pressure to “succeed” at work and consistently select their partners on the basis of
their earning potential (see Simenauer & Carroll, 1982; Buss et al, 1990; Buss & Schimitt,
1993; Buss, 1994, 2002; Smith, 2005). Consequently, their need for career success to attract a
mate is much lower.

When women have the same incentive to work not only does no pay discrimination occur, the
reverse occurs (Sowell, 1975). Farrell (2000, 2005) reports that never married women earn
17.5% more than never married men6 (this pattern can be traced back to the 1950s) and also
that part-time women earned 110% of part-time men’s earnings. While similar data analysis
is required in a UK and European context, would we expect these findings if there was pay
discrimination on the basis of gender?

While men dominate the top positions across all parts of the private and public economy, they
also dominate the most dangerous, least flexible and rewarding jobs. Men account for 92% of
occupational deaths and over 90% of staff in the 10 most hazardous jobs7. Of the 25 worst (as
opposed to the most dangerous) jobs, men dominate the workforce in 24 of them (Krantz,
2002)8. Women’s visibility in safe low-paid professions, therefore, may be more complex
than sex discrimination. It may derive partly from positive choices to select less hazardous
jobs or result from positive discrimination in their favour.

4
The widely-reported pay gap between the genders (59 cents in the dollar) has been discredited
even by its own former advocates (see Farrell, 1994; Hoff-Sommers, 1995). While
Wilson (2003) reports that the gap has narrowed to 80%, Farrell’s latest study adjusts for
working hours, labour market supply and demand, and men’s and women’s job choices.
Census data suggests that pay differentials are only 2% overall and that women are paid more
highly for the same tenure and qualifications in 80 professions. Moreover, women are seldom
willing to support men (as active fathers) to increase their ability to work flexibly (Farrell,
2001, 2005; Smith, 2005).

Authoritarianism and Paternalism

In considering ‘authoritarianism’, I discuss the emotive issue of violence between men and
women. My goal is to highlight changes that have taken place in violence discourses over the
last 10 years, and highlight inconsistencies that have been uncovered in the academic
literature. This discussion is necessary to evaluate Collinson and Hearn’s claim (2001:153)
that men’s power is maintained through “dominant sexuality, violence and potential
violence”.

Hoff-Sommers (1995) argues that there has been gross over-reporting of violence, and a lack
of rigour in both journalistic and academic claims. When enquiry is limited to 175 academic
studies involving self and cross-reports of both sexes, findings show that men are slightly less
violent than women in sexual relationships (Fiebert, 2005). Other reviews support this and
note that men are marginally more violent in same-sex relationships (Hyde, 2005). This
picture, of both women and men behaving more aggressively towards men is consistent with
Hyde’s “gender similarities hypothesis” (Hyde, 2005). Three-quarters of psychological and
personality ‘differences’ were found to be small or close to zero, and almost all others were
‘moderate’ (a ratio of approximately 1.5:1 in favour of one or other sex).

Kimmel (2001) attempts to debunk findings regarding violence by pointing out a 9:1 ratio in
favour of men’s responsibility for serious violence, but Farrell counters this by showing that
men are also victims by a ratio of 9:1 in homicides where the killer is unknown (Farrell,
2000:151). This undermines Kimmel’s claim that men target women with violence. Men are
also the principle victims of both violent crime (by a ratio of 3:1) and spousal homicide (by a
ratio of 4:1) when contract-killing is included within the scope of analysis (see Mercy and
Saltzman, 1989; Farrell, 1994, 2000)9. This raises the possibility that women play an active
role in directing ‘male violence’.

5
Studies of interpersonal relationships that poll both sexes do not support Collinson and
Hearn’s thesis. As a result, Kimmel (2001) claims both that two-gender studies cannot be
trusted because men lie more than women and also that men’s violence is more serious for
women than the reverse. Some of the studies he attempts to discredit, however, specifically
test his claims. Research based on self-reports find greater levels of physical harm to women
(see Goldberg & Tomlanovich, 1984; Carlson, 1987; Cascardi et al., 1992). Later studies
control for bias by checking the treatment required after injury. These find that women
compensate for men’s physical strength by using knives or other instruments. Men were
found to sustain injuries at all levels of seriousness as often as women (Hoff, 1999; Headley
et al., 1999; Capaldi & Owen, 2001)10 while hiding the true cause by claiming ‘sports
injuries’ (Farrell, 2000).

The perspective that both sexes are more aggressive towards men is consistent with
demographic surveys. Men are likely to die sooner in all age groups when subject to cultural
influences and the demands of sexual relationships. By comparing death rates in cloistered
populations of nuns and monks with the general population, Luy (2003) showed that 5.8 years
of the 6-year difference in life expectancy is due to cultural, not biological or genetic,
differences (Office of National Statistics, 2005)11. Furthermore, a series of texts suggest that
both sexes show greater intolerance towards boys/men from birth onwards (see Smith et al.,
1980; AAUW, 199012; Farrell, 1994, 2001; Carey & Lopreato, 1995; Hoff-Sommers, 1995,
2000).

Out of these studies, it emerges that the more there are known risks beforehand, the more
likely men are to be held responsible for (or forced into) the perpetration of violence. In
two-thirds of homicides, arguments spontaneously escalate into a killing (Maxfield, 1989). In
these cases, men and women were found to enact violence equally while men were about 25%
more likely to be prosecuted as the killer (Mercy & Salztman, 1989, Wilson and Daley,
1992). This pattern, however, is not confirmed in all studies (see Rosenfeld, 1997). As
planning increases, men both perpetrate (and are victims) more often. In planned homicides
involving men and women, men are victims four times more often (Mercy & Salztman,
1989). In homicides where the killer successfully conceals their involvement, men are
nine-times more likely to be victims (Farrell, 2000). In war, the ratio has narrowed to 40:1
amongst US forces (Farrell, 2005). Amongst UK forces, over100 British men died ‘in action’
before Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill became the first woman (Hastings, 2006).

6
Given available evidence and vivid depictions of the social process compelling men, and only
men, to become killers during wartime, a more robust theoretical position is that despite
men’s similarity to women, the riskier a situation the more men are expected (and forced) to
take responsibility for actions to address those risks (see Ashworth, 1968; Allison & Fairley,
1986; Hyde, 2005; Elton, 2006)13.

Men’s propensity to take risks is driven more by a desire to act for, rather than against,
women. Secondly, “couples” frequently act in defence of their relationships or community.
In these circumstances, men are expected and forced to perform violent acts regardless of
their individual wishes. So, while men perform more violent acts than women, the rationale
and interpretation put on those acts is radically different from the one suggested by Collinson
and Hearn (2001).

Rethinking Harassment

As a consequence, it is necessary to rethink propositions regarding sexual violence and

harassment. Kakabadse and Kakabadse (2004) found participants reported fewer instances of
sexual harassment at work than consummated homosexual relationships. Claims were almost
non-existent in the formative stages of relationships, occurred during relationship
breakdowns, and were frequently considered unjustified by participants. The authors report
more positive than negative reactions by both sexes towards intimacy (by a ratio of 4:1) and
suggest that the importance given to sexual harassment is questionable14.

While Nuwer (2004) characterises hazing as a way to reproduce hierarchies, other authors
suggest that the impacts on “subordinates” are complex (Thompson & Findlay, 1999; Allan,
2004; Sweet, 2004; Ridley-Duff, 2005). Many welcome “hazing” because it signifies social
acceptance (i.e. a perceived reduction in hierarchical differences), even when there are
dangers to a person’s well being. Both popular and academic studies suggest that submissive
behaviours can be power plays to induce or seduce others to take responsibility. This makes
it difficult to establish who is exercising power (and the consequences for hierarchy
development) without knowing the outcome of social encounters (Roy, 1958; Berne, 1964;
Perper, 1985; Moore, 1985; Lowdnes, 1996; Provine, 2002; Pease & Pease, 2004; Duberley,
2005).

Interpreting “harassment”, therefore, is complex. Hazing behaviours may be done with the
consent and approval of some (or even all existing) group members, and can even play a part

7
in selecting and developing people in a democratic culture (by using ‘hazing’ to select people
who are verbally adept and willing to debate when challenged). “Harassment” might be
deliberate violation of another person or a misunderstanding regarding the meaning of sexual
behaviour. Accusations of harassment might indicate resistance to intrusive behaviours, or a
strategy to harm a party whose lack of interest has caused emotional hurt.

Informalism as Female Power

Conceptions of power that focus on control of others, income and status (see French & Raven,
1958; Lukes, 1974) operate from a presumption that hierarchy is inevitable or desirable.
Farrell (1988), however, reconstitutes power as access to five things on a level equal to our
expectations and desires:

• External rewards (e.g. income, possessions, status)

• Internal rewards (e.g. emotional release, positive self-image)

• Interpersonal contact (attention, affection, love and recognition)

• Physical health (well-being, attractiveness and intelligence)

• Sexual fulfilment.

This construction of power places intimacy at the centre of debate.

Discussing intimacy is problematic because of contemporary perceptions that it is always

linked to sexual behaviour (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2004). Glasser (1998), however,
defines it broadly as a desire to share thoughts, feelings and experiences. Many sources of
stimulation exist and people satisfy their intimacy needs without sex (Berne, 1964).
Moreover, a desire for intimacy between men and women does not necessarily indicate a
desire for sexual contact. Men are reported to exaggerate their interest in sex, and engage in
ritualistic behaviour led by women, to avoid loss of a woman’s interest. This indicates that
woman are pro-active, and not passive, in pursuit of sexual partners (Berne, 1964; Ackroyd &
Thompson, 1999; Buss, 2002; Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2004; Ridley-Duff, 2005).

Intimate behaviour by men has also been criminalized. Courtship behaviour identical to
women’s can result in unfounded accusations against men for sexual misconduct and
harassment while parent-child play identical to a woman’s can result in sexual abuse claims
(Farrell, 1994, 2001; Thompson & Ackroyd, 1999; Goldberg, 2000; Kakabadse & Kakabadse,
2004; Ridley-Duff, 2005). Women, therefore, have benefited from feminist discourses on
8
sexual emancipation while the reverse is true for men (Friedan, 1963; Clough & McFadden,
2001; Levy, 2005).

The level of false accusations is worrying. Wakefield and Underwager (1990) found that
women make 94% of false allegations during relationship breakdowns, and that men are
victims of false allegations 96% of the time. Other studies quantify the level of false
accusations (for abuse, harassment, rape and assault) at between 50-75% (see McDowell,
1985; Besharov & Laumann, 1996; Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 2004). Control over intimacy,
therefore, is a source of power because fear of accusation is sufficient to modify behaviour.

Methodology

These issues are explored through a longitudinal study based on a critical ethnography into
workplace culture (Thomas, 1993; Dey, 2002) using a primary case and two comparison
cases. Personal details, ages and job titles are fictional. Because of the sensitivity of the
material a decision was taken to construct ethnographic characters by combining individual
cases. Each character (Brenda, Ben, Charlie, Diane, Larissa, Harry and John) represents a
discourse based a combination of gender and hierarchical status, rather than a single
individual’s story. The exceptions to this are Andy and Susan, who articulate the author’s
(and his wife’s) experiences. Ben’s discourse is constructed from four cases and includes
some participant-observation data from an 18-month period in the field doing non-managerial
work15. The aim is to construct plausible characters based on lived experience while
protecting participants’ private lives.

3. Empirical Data

Entrepreneurialism and Careerism

Charlie, a man in his early thirties, works in the production department. In early 2003, Andy
found out how he was employed.

Charlie left his first job after being pushed by his wife to do so when they extended his hours. He likes
it at Custom Products but he did mention in a slightly odd way that he did not know how flexible the
company was. I asked him how he' d come to work for Custom Products. He told me that he got the
application form and said ' I read it and thought no way, and chucked it in the bin'
. His wife got it out of
the bin and filled it in for him and that is why he came to the interview there and eventually got a job.

Staff were expected to work flexibly when the need arose and this was a particular concern to
Ben who was an office based worker:

9
 On the face of it the workplace is excellent, but stress leads people to be off sick. Work has been a
factor in people going off. I could not say it was the sole reason, or even the biggest factor, but
relationship problems arise because of work. Sometimes you have to work additional hours week-in
week-out because you dare not say ‘no’. You have to choose between work and relationships and that
is detrimental to your whole life.

Permanent staff were expected to attend a “development day” and “presentation evening”
once a year. In 2003, 25 of the 120 staff did not attend the development day and Charlie
offered comments to explain the tensions this caused.

Charlie felt it was too long a day and that he did not want to be away from his family for so long. I
think, however, that his views were more his wife' s than his own because he mentioned that she could
not get her head around the idea that people should work overtime for the ' community'benefit. I asked
him about previous Development Days and he said that going to the [Derbyshire] Dales was not quite
the same - he could get back in an emergency, but not from abroad.

Attitudes to employer support varied with men’s and women’s desire to be active parents.
Below, Andy reports the divergent views between himself Harry and Larissa:

During the twilight shift I worked with Larissa and Harry. Larissa has two sons and said she loved
being a mum. But she also liked to be back at work and wanted a balanced life. Harry, who was a
company director, had a different attitude. He could not see why the company should have to pay any
maternity/paternity leave. He’d recently separated from his wife, and had three children, but still felt
he should support all of them. He added that having children was a personal decision and felt
employers should not be penalised by having to give financial support. I, on the other hand, wanted to
be involved as a father, and felt this had only been possible because my former employer offered one
month’s paid paternity leave.16 That first month had been crucial. It had changed my life and enabled
me to be close to my children in a way that my father was not.

Andy later reports how home/work responsibilities were juggled and how his own and his
wife’s choices were affected by their desire to share child care:

What I want most of all is never to have to go down to London for three-days on the trot again. Better
still, I’d like to work only 4 days a week and spend more time with my daughters, but Susan is unhappy
too and would be content to give up work. She always comes first in these matters. But I’m already
deeply unhappy about being the main breadwinner – it is such a dangerous situation for any family to
be in with so much depending on one person. And, to think there was a time when Susan earned the
same as me, and looked like she would earn more! 17

Following illness, Andy’s doctor advised a change of lifestyle. The slow process of change
caused more tensions in his marriage:

It is easy for Susan to get angry and say I should give up working in London immediately (and then
pepper the anger with pressure to get a better paid job that will mean she has the option to leave work!)
However she does not have to bear the responsibility for 10 other staff and around 300 to 400
customers. These are responsibilities she does not have to bear and I wish she could understand my
feelings better. I am taking control now, putting my family first again, and making sure my health will
improve.

Unlike Harry, who felt that fatherhood was primarily a financial responsibility, Andy saw it as
a mix of shared financial and childcare responsibilities. Harry’s attitude, however, may be
influenced because a substantial part of his pay was in the form of profit related pay. The
more parents took leave entitlements, the lower his earnings.

10
Charlie and Andy, however, depended more on wages and appear to be influenced primarily
by the attitude of their “significant other”. While Charlie accepts his wife’s presumptions
about the division of labour, Andy juggles various pressures from work colleagues, customers
and his spouse. His position at work limits the way he can respond to pressures at home,
while his work aspirations are influenced not only by his own, but also by Susan’s aspirations.

As the year progressed, Andy’s employer agreed new arrangements and the mood in his diary
improves:

It is beginning to dawn on me that my days in London are coming to an end. My children and I are
counting down the Mondays until the end of the year, after which time I will stop going to London every
week….When I leave London on the evening of 21st December to begin my new life, my heart will be
free of one of the biggest burdens it has ever had to bear – leaving my family each week, and the
heart-breaking partings with my tearful children.

Despite this, Andy sustained the changes for only 1 year. When another financial crisis hit,
he assumed the role of General Manager until the London-based company returned to
profitable trading. Then, he responded to his own desires again by establishing a business
closer to his home.

Paternalism, Informality and Authoritarianism

Charlie’s friendliness prompted a range of reactions. As Andy reports:

I talked with Ben, Charlie and Diane. Both Ben and Diane said that they found Charlie caring and
helpful. Charlie and Diane both like going to a nearby village and Charlie would sometimes bring
Diane gifts. But he also behaves this way towards young women, so Diane keeps them away from him in
the production department. Instead of reassuring [young women] that he is friendly to everyone, they
keep young women away from him. The bias appears to be towards protecting women and stereotyping
Charlie as threatening.

Andy noticed that Brenda was highly regarded by senior men, but commanded little respect
outside that group. Some were blatantly disrespectful while others were fearful:

When I was at lunch - the subject of Brenda working long hours was the topic of conversation amongst
several women. Larissa said that Brenda went late and got in early the next morning. Larissa had left
at 8.30pm, and Brenda was still there at 7.30am the next morning. Larissa asked Brenda if she had
bothered to go home. I can see this from both sides, that Brenda loves her work, enjoys her
responsibility, is not married any more and does not have a man in her life. Why shouldn’t she want to
work long hours to develop her career? But Larissa said “that Brenda, why doesn’t she get a life?”

Andy later reflected on the way that the staff and senior management colleagues regarded
Brenda differently:

At senior levels, Brenda is perceived very positively. John also works very long hours and is dedicated
in a number of areas of his life - perhaps this was one of the problems in his marriage - but he is well
liked. I have never heard anyone criticise John as a person, people are complimentary about him as a
person, although they can take issue with his approach to work issues. But with Brenda it is different. I
think this may be a form of sexism. People don’t seem to criticise John about working long hours the

11
 way they criticise Brenda. But it may be that there is sensitivity around Brenda in a director’s role. Or
maybe it is what Larissa and Ben have said - Brenda does not respect people below her in the
hierarchy.

When Andy learned of these dynamics, he followed them up through discussion with John.
He also raised the matter of Ben inviting Larissa for a drink. This prompted a lively
discussion on workplace relationships and inconsistencies:

I mentioned how Brenda made people feel, how Ben felt vulnerable after Brenda sacked a man for
complimenting women [even when the women did not complain]. Ben sent a card to Larissa and was
now worried that this would get him into trouble. John said he’d got into trouble once or twice…and
commented that there was a dual standard around men making comments, or flirting, and women
flirting. He also felt that this operated against senior staff.
We both concurred that Brenda had more difficulty gaining credibility with women than men. I
mentioned that I’d heard only one set of negative comments about Brenda from a man, but that many
women were critical of her. Do women resent being managed by other women? John felt there was an
issue with working class women who did not like to be managed by a middle-class woman. Brenda did
not have the “common touch”.

Ben’s relationship with Brenda is complex. He invites her to have a drink (with John), but
afterwards finds that inside and outside the office Brenda starts to pay him more sexual
attention. He dislikes this but says nothing. Later, Brenda twice invites Ben to stay overnight
at her house after workplace parties. Ben attempts to back off, but when Brenda learns Ben
has invited another woman for a drink she alleges that his behaviour is ‘immoral’. Ben
counters that Brenda is being sexist and hypocritical. This sparks a sharp conflict during
which Brenda enlists Harry’s assistance.

Andy reported the application of sexual stereotypes to Ben (office worker), Brenda (director),
Charlie (production worker), Larissa (office worker) and John (director) in a conference
paper. While praised for raising allegedly sexist behaviour towards Larissa and Brenda,
attempting to discuss the cases of Charlie, Ben and John provoked a different reaction.
Support for his research immediately fell. When Andy sought to theorise about these
inconsistencies and obtain further feedback, Harry “sacked” Andy from future research on the
grounds that he had upset women by raising question about their sexual behaviour.

Andy summarised the gender issues as follows.

The three figures at the centre of a crucial research event (Brenda, Ben, Larissa) are all being
subjected to unhelpful (and, on the basis of empirical data, inaccurate) stereotypes…. Stereotypes about
the sexual attitudes and behaviour of women are preventing people from assessing the viewpoint that
Brenda may have had sexual or personal motives that affected her behaviour towards Ben. The issue
here is denial of the extent that women are affected by sexual desire at work, or that sexual attitudes
might affect their management behaviour. The empirical data supports the contention that all parties
had mixed motives.

12
4. Discussion

In the analysis of the empirical data, the question arises “what is culturally acceptable for a
man or a woman?” Secondly, it is possible to see how societal structures support
conventional divisions of labour and gender stereotypes support and reproduce the structures
as facts. Challenges are created by the structures and agents sometimes navigate them in
unusual ways to achieve their goals. This becomes quite obvious in Andy’s attempt to
reconcile work and family life.

In the current gender order (see Connell, 1995) it is argued that the masculine is set before the
feminine, but not that men automatically oppress women. It represents a state of limited
opportunities and choices for both genders. Indeed, women and men both participate in
constructing this system and it cannot be ignored that certain women benefit from it.

Patriarchy (or the rule of the father) has long historical roots, but on the basis of this data it is
necessary to reassess its status within Anglo-American societies. It appears as a system of
both male and managerial responsibility that is rewarded by privilege, but not necessarily
driven by desire for it.

Collinson and Hearn (2001:153) argue that:

…men’s power in organizations is maintained through their unification and

identification with each other. Men are frequently united, though not necessarily
consciously, by dominant sexuality, violence and potential violence, social and
economic privilege, political power, shared concerns and interests and culturally
based values.

Over 18 months in the field, there were no instances of violence against women, only
violence by men towards men (in support of women), and harassment of men (by both men
and women) to curtail alleged sexual behaviour or prevent discussion. Certainly fear played a
role in the outcome of conflicts, but both men and women showed fear of women as well as
fear of men.

There is one allegation of harassment against Ben but this occurs in response to his claims
about Brenda’s sexual behaviour. These findings lend support to the Kakabadse’s findings
that harassment levels are generally low, that accusations are sometimes attempts to avoid
scrutiny, and that they occur most frequently during breakdowns in relationships that were
originally consensual.

13
Men’s social and economic advantages at work are gained by trading other social and
economic advantages that accrue to women outside work. In these data sets, men appear
sandwiched between the interests of two competing groups of women – those who desire to
work and those who desire to raise children (sometimes the same people). The resistance
highlighted by Cockburn (1991) to equal opportunity policies needs to be seen in this light.

It has long been known that women control three-quarters of all family income (Friedan,
1963; Farrell, 1988). So if woman A argues for policies that man A believes will decrease
woman B’s income, then his resistance to “equality” is gendered in ways that have not
previously been theorised in the literature. Men do appear to resist gender equality discourses
(Cockburn, 1991) but whether this constitutes resistance to “equality” is contentious. Who
earns money needs to be set against the issue of who controls and spends it, as well as who
receives most benefit (Farrell, 1994).

Harry’s, Andy’s, Charlie’s and Ben’s responses differ depending on the interests of the
women in their lives and the risks they are prepared to take to remain with those women.
Their attitudes may not be rooted in a desire to advantage themselves directly, but to align
themselves with the interests of the women with whom they are - or most wish to be –
psychologically, economically and physically intimate. Resistance may stem from the
perception that one group of women (with career aspirations) seeks to advantage itself
through equality discourses at the expense of another group of women (with child raising
aspirations).

Resistance is also observed amongst women. Larissa reports the hostility to Brenda’s role as a
senior manager. In conversations with Harry, the impact of this became clearer. He felt he
could not promote Brenda until she commanded the respect of the people she managed (the
workforce was 75% female). The glass ceiling, therefore, is not just a product of male norms,
but also a product of an in-group dynamic amongst women (to which managers must
respond).

Further study is needed to establish why employees prefer particular managers, particularly in
the light of continuing findings from Gallup (2002, cited in Farrell, 2005) that worldwide both
women and men still prefer to have men as managers18. Based on the literature and findings
of this study, women’s criteria for sexual and marriage partners is a significant factor
(Friedan, 1963; Buss, 1994; Farrell, 1994; Molloy, 2003; Smith, 2005; Ridley-Duff, 2005).

14
Entrepreneurialism and Careerism

Collinson and Hearn (2001) draw attention to the ‘hard-nosed’ and ‘competitive’ attitudes that
dominate managerial discourses. Certainly, performance management is receiving more
attention in the management control literature (Berry, Broadbent & Otley, 2005). Corporate
governance is now couched in terms of ‘conformance’ and ‘performance’ combined with
continued calls that executives should leave political considerations to others to prioritise
shareholder value (IFAC, 2003; Monks & Minow, 2004).

But entrepreneurial lifestyles can also be adopted for family related reasons (particularly by
women) and are not simple responses to shareholder demands (Farrell, 2005). ‘Hard-nosed’
approaches do not always lead to the best social and economic results (Whyte and Whyte,
1991; Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Collins, 2001). Where they do occur, is this a further
tightening of control rather than an emancipatory or privileging process? Some regard this as
a process that manipulates both sexes, but primarily men, into subservience and working “in
harness” to satisfy corporate interests (Willmott, 1993; Vilar, 1998; Thompson & Findlay,
1999; Goldberg, 2000:13).

In the data presented, Andy’s entrepreneurialism was driven by family considerations. Many
sole traders, family businesses and SMEs operate to a similar ethic (Miller & Rice, 1967) and
we must be mindful that most people are employed in small businesses, not large ones
(Wilson, 2003). In Andy’s case, he encountered resistance from his partner Susan who
wished him to find alternative full-time employment so that she could give up work. The
argument for ‘careerism’ came from Susan (stable high income to meet her aspirations, not
his) while arguments for ‘entrepreneurialism’ came from Andy (to gain long-term control
over his work-life balance).

Charlie resisted corporate expectations to work longer hours on account of his wife’s attitude
while at the same time accommodating his wife’s assumption that he work while she stay at
home. Harry and Ben, however, responded to corporate rather than partner demands and
expectations. While Harry was happy with this, and accepted divorce as a price that had to be
paid to preserve his own autonomy, Ben felt forced to “choose between work and
relationships” in such a way that it was “detrimental to [his] whole life”.

Internationally, critical studies on men have established the paradox that men are found at
both the top and bottom of societal structures and shown how the demands on men give rise
to it. Being a “successful” and “masculine” man carries considerable risk because failure may
15
more easily lead men into societal margins (see Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1987; Hearn &
Lattu, 2002). As this study shows, however, expectations of “successful” and “masculine” is
an intricate mix of corporate and courtship expectations to create lifestyles that build wealth
and protect relationships. Women are far from passive in the construction of masculinities.
Their views are expressed continually through their choice of sexual partners.

Paternalism and Authoritarianism

Paternalism is linked to a discourse in human resource management stretching back to the

Hawthorne Studies (Mayo, 1933). Despite being roundly attacked generation after generation
(Whyte, 1956; Miller, 1962; Kunda, 1992; Schwartzman, 1993; Wilson, 2003), attempts at
social engineering have gained support through texts produced by leading academics
consultants (see Ouchi, 1981; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Kanter,
1983; Collins, 2001).

However, paternalist organisations appear to depend less on the collective identification of

men, than a consensus between men and women regarding gender dynamics of mutual loyalty
and role segregation (Ridley-Duff, 2005). It is not a social structure that can be constructed
without the active support of women, or the tacit agreement of some men to prioritise women
when there are conflicts (see also Farrell, 1994)19.

In this data, Ben was frustrated in his attempt to have a dialogue about gendered behaviour.
Harry characterised Ben as pursuing a “vendetta” against Brenda, while Ben maintains he was
seeking an equitable dialogue about the company’s equal opportunity policy.20 In light of
Andy’s later “sacking” for attempting to raise the same, the data supports the claim that
making (false) allegations constitutes a form of social control that frustrates men’s ability to
discuss sexual equality.

In all, the interpretations made of all parties’ behaviour should be contextualised by both
gender and hierarchy. In Harry’s case, the collegial relationship he had with Brenda and
Diane is intertwined with the question of gendered behaviour. Harry’s behaviour is not
deterministic – he chooses to secure his own position by giving his support to them.

Informalism

That men should build informal workplace relationships around “humour, sport, cars, sex,
women and drinking” is not remarkable (Collinson & Hearn, 2001:159). Women do the

16
same, and have historically shared consensual discourses in humour and sex, and more
recently drinking (see Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Farrell, 2000; Levy, 2005). Women’s
other discourses revolve around health, beauty and fitness, rather than cars and sport.
Empirical evidence and the literature show that both women and men defend their
“differences” and argue for them even when unsupported by scientific evidence (Hyde, 2005).

A “locker room” culture (Maddock & Parkin, 1993) exists for both sexes, not just men. Men
are regarded as “fresh meat” and “hunks” (Farrell, 2000:212) while women engage in
discussion of men’s “butts” (Pease & Pease, 200421; Ridley-Duff, 2005) as well as about
wealth, income and status that treat men as “success objects” (Farrell, 1988).

Courtship studies are explicit about the reason. Both men and women are deeply attached to
their gender identities and exaggerate their biological differences at the start, and particularly
the conclusion, of courtship rituals (Moore, 1985; Perper, 1985; Farrell, 1988; Buss, 1994,
2002; Carey & Lopreato, 1995; Molloy, 2003; Pease & Pease, 2004). It is hard, therefore, to
sustain the argument that informalism is a discourse oriented toward ‘male domination’. It is
more properly characterised as ambiguous consensual play interrupted by emotive
misunderstandings.

Does informality exclude or hinder women’s career progress? Gutek (1985) found that
women’s attitude to sexual banter is ambiguous. Farrell (1994) argues that men’s humorous
reference to sport and sex are signs of acceptance rather than exclusion. Objections to sexual
humour and behaviour, therefore, may be part of a discourse by disenfranchised people of
both sexes who seek to control and limit the advantages of those who deploy sexual behaviour
to promote career success. The argument is between liberals and conservatives, not men and
women.

In the data excerpts portraying informality, a few problematizing questions arise. Andy
interprets the actions of managers towards Charlie as stereotyping. An alternative
interpretation of power relations suggests that actions regarding Charlie’s behaviour may be
derived from sensitivity. First, we need to ask who is being protected here, the temps or
Charlie himself? Diane and Brenda may be attempting to avoid conflict and save Charlie’s
face. If so, it can be characterised as ‘maternalism’. The question that then presents itself is
why ‘maternalism’ is equated with ‘sensitivity’ and ‘paternalism’ with ‘domination’?

17
We must not forget, however, that Charlie and the young female temps have different
positions in the company hierarchy. Although Charlie’s behaviour is portrayed as friendly by
his colleagues it may be perceived as potentially threatening for co-workers and subordinates
who do not have the same or higher position. What is the appropriate way to respond to his
friendliness as a woman in an uncertain position? We can, however, observe precisely the
same issue in Ben’s relationship with Brenda. He is often unsure how to respond to Brenda’s
friendliness, particularly after she sacks a man for allegedly behaving “inappropriately”.
Eventually, Brenda makes the same accusation against Ben.

What emerges in this empirical data, and also in the literature, is women’s control over
discourses on “appropriate” sexuality. As has been argued elsewhere, men’s articulation of
their own gender consciousness is almost completely absent from gender discourses
(Leinonen & Ridley-Duff, 2005). This study suggests that men fear critically evaluating
women’s sexual behaviour because they will suffer a fate similar to Andy and be “sacked”
from future discussion and debate (compare Farrell, 2000; Goldberg, 2000; Schlessinger,
2003). Secondly, researchers from a variety of feminist schools appear reluctant to critically
reflect on women’s power resources, or allow public debate of alternative perspectives on
gendered power (compare Farrell, 2000, Chapter 8).

5. Conclusions
A more transparent and critical approach to gender studies is invited. Instead of abolishing
the idea of patriarchy, I have shed light on the social processes that give rise to patriarchal
theory and drawn out ‘counter-activities’ practised both by both women and men. Following
the theorising of Bourdieu, Giddens and others, Connell suggests that debate is best directed
to the interconnections of structure and practice, in other words, focusing on what people do
by way of constituting the social relations they live in (Connell, 1995:62). The result is not an
automatic disruption of the institutional order of power, but an increasing vulnerability to
challenge (Connell, 1995:160). There is a case for new directions in gender research to
understand men’s experience of women at home and at work and deepen understanding of
women’s ‘counter-activities’ as forms of matriarchal power.

Implications

Relations of power and gender are complex. Certainly, we need more space for flexibility
and diversity in gender categories. Matriarchy, however, is not a direct equivalent of

18
patriarchy – its nature and composition is different - and we must look at the historical and
cultural connotations linked to ‘mother’ and ‘father’ and the meanings they have in terms of
power both at work and within the family.

It seems clear that equality in the public domain cannot co-exist with inequality in the private
domain (Salmi & Lammi-Taskula, 2005; Tietze & Musson, 2005; Doherty & Manfredi,
2006). If men and women are required to respond to courtship and family responsibilities in
different ways, and have different legal rights and responsibilities in the private domain, then
equal rights/responsibilities at work will become oppressive. The findings suggest that
attempts to create equality in one sphere without reference to the other generates inequality.

In the past, workplace conflicts have variously been understood as conflicts between gender,
race or ethnic interest but rarely couched as a conflict between the lifestyles developed to
meet family and corporate commitments (but see Miller and Rice, 1967; Ridley-Duff, 2005).
“Family” has been seen as a female discourse, rather than a discourse of parents and workers
jointly responsible for household and workplace economics. In my conclusions, therefore, I
suggest that both sexes need releasing from traditional gender discourses to re-evaluate the
situation and negotiate changed arrangements.

Men can raise children, and now want to do so in increasing numbers (Farrell, 2001). Women
can and do work, and have been doing so in increasing numbers (Wilson, 2003). An
alternative to increasing state or private provision of childcare is for women to consider
financially supporting men as fathers in much the same way that men accepted women as
workers. Such an approach will support family life and acknowledge a broader role for men
as parents. It remains unclear, however, how employers (and politicians) will react when
economic goals can be achieved by persuading men and women to accept fixed and
differentiated roles.

All the data examples reflect limited agency for men and women. Legislation promoting
diversity and freedom of choice in lifestyles, and which discourages normative expectations
regarding gendered behaviour and sexuality, may contribute to creating spaces for multiple
masculinities and femininities to be legitimised. This will support both heterosexual or
homosexual couples in shaping the ways they want to love and live both at work and home.

Words: 7,950

19
 Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Minna Leinonen, whose encouragement and critical feedback have been invaluable. My
gratitude to the organisers and participants of the EGOS conference 2005 for a lively debate about this paper.
Lastly, thanks to Jeff Hearn for attending the presentation at EGOS and providing background information on
his original paper as well as verbal feedback.

1
Source: www.warrenfarrell.com, accessed 27 April 2006. See also Farrell (2001), Foreword.

2
See research into partner selection and discrimination in interviewing. Hearn and Parkin (1987) make
frequent use of popular sources on partner selection whilst Farrell favours academic journals/studies.
Wilson (2003) reviews discrimination in job interviewing but offers only a single study involving
students. Farrell’s counter argument relies on academic studies that examine real-life interviews and
outcomes.

3
Farrell cites ongoing studies at the Radcliffe Public Policy Center: “Life’s Work: Generational Attitudes
Towards Work and Life Integration” in support of the claim that flexible working is now a bigger issue
for men age 21-39 than for women. He uses US census data to illustrate the demographic changes in
father-raised families, up from 10% in the 1980s to 19% in the 1990s.

4
The Child Support Act 1991 gave men no legal rights to custodianship or any role as caretakers (see
Wilkinson (1998), The Independent, 26 August 1998.

5
The Child Support Agency was introduced to the UK to enforce maintenance payments by ‘absent’
parents (almost always the father). It has proved to be one of the most controversial, and
unenforceable, policy decisions in the UK, costing more to run as an agency that it has been able to
collect.

6
Source: Farrell (2005) calculated from the original census data and correlated by occupation and tenure.

7
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003, Table A7, cited in Les Christie, “The Top Ten Most
Dangerous Jobs in America”. An attempt was made to obtain data from the UK, but available statistics
do not break down injuries and deaths at work by gender, only occupation.

8
Source: Jobs Rated Almanac. The Almanac rated 250 jobs based on a combination of pay, stress-levels,
job opportunities, work environment, security levels etc. Men constitute 92% of the workforce across
the 25 “worst” occupations.

9
The homicide statistics collected by the FBI show that women are victims of direct attacks more
frequently than men (60:40), but that men are victims of ‘multiple offender killings’ (i.e. a woman
persuading a boyfriend or contract killer to murder their former lover) by a ratio of 4:1. Most ‘male
violence’ therefore, is for rather than against women. Cited in Farrell, 2000 (Chapter 6). Sources are
provided.

20
10
Capaldi and Owen’s found - contrary to expectations – that 13% of men and 9% of women were
physically injured. Headley (1999) found that 1.8% (men) and 1.2% (women) reported injuries needing
first aid and that 1.5% (men) and 1.1% (women) needed treatment by a doctor or nurse.

11
UK Office of National Statistics, 2001-2003. The increases rise from around 20% greater likelihood at
age 0-1 to a 160% greater likelihood by the age 20-24. Thereafter the difference declines back to
around 20% greater likelihood by the age of 85+. In “cloistered” populations, however, women have
only a 0.2 year life-expectancy advantage over men, compared to a 6 year advantage in the general
population (see Luy, 2003).

12
Data was suppressed from the widely distributed self-esteem study commissioned by the American
Association for University Women (AAUW) showing that over 90% of both boys and girls felt that
boys were more frequently and harshly disciplined, and that both boys and girls felt girls were better
liked by teachers. For a discussion of the omissions and misreporting, see Hoff-Sommers (1995, 2000).
For the full report see AAUW (1990).

13
“The Monocled Mutineer” provides a factual historical account of the impacts on male soldiers having
to shoot their colleagues for ‘desertion’ and was dramatised by the BBC. In Ben Elton’s historical
novel “The First Casualty” conscientious objector Douglas Kingsley is sent to prison for opposition to
World War I. His wife abandons him leaving a white feather on his bed while young women give men
white feathers at anti-war rallies. In prison, Douglas Kingsley is beaten and left for dead by both
inmates and prison staff.

14
In their survey, nearly 40% reported that friendship resulted from intimacy while just over 10%
reported bitterness after the relationship ended (page 70). It was most common for both parties to
report positive outcomes.

15
The methodology is described fully in Ridley-Duff (2005), Chapters 3 and 7.

16
At the time the data was collected, the UK government had only just – and for the first time –
recognised father’s right to a period of paternity leave (it was still a maximum of two weeks on
statutory pay). Mothers could take up to 26 weeks ordinary (first 6 weeks at 90% pay, remainder at
statutory level of pay), and 26 weeks additional leave (unpaid). In some European countries, leave
entitlement can be split between the mother/father, but not in the UK.

17
This and the following diary entries are from one of Andy’s private diaries. The entries describe one
year in the life of a comparison company. The diary was not maintained specifically for the purposes of
the ethnographic study and, as a result, it was felt that this added to its authenticity as a description of
contemporary subjective experience and its impacts.

21
18
Source: Gallup Organisation (2002), May 10 cited in Farrell (2005:148-149). It was found that 49% of
men and 49% of women prefer a male manager, while 13% of men, and 29% of women prefer a female
manager. The gap has narrowed since 1996, but only in the leading economies. In collective societies
“both sexes were 6 to 10 times as likely to prefer men bosses”.

19
Farrell points to church congregations in support of this claim. Although run and controlled by men,
women outnumber men consistently in congregations. He argues that if the churches were not meeting
women’s needs better than men’s that the churches would not have more female than male members.

20
Brenda had previously invited Ben to drink whiskey with him overnight after a leaving do, and also
invited Ben to stay at her house after a company organised a party to celebrate the end of the summer
trading. Ben’s view, therefore, was that Brenda’s accusation of ‘immorality’ was evidence of a
double-standard and hypocritical.

21
Pease and Pease (2004) cite courtship studies that found a man’s “butt” is the most popular part of the
male anatomy to women in Anglo-American cultures.

22
References
AAUW/Greeberg-Lake. Full data report: Expectations and aspirations: Gender roles and self-esteem,
American Association of University Women, 1990.
Ackroyd, S. & Thompson, P. Organizational misbehaviour, Sage Publications, 1999.
Allan, E. Analyzing the obvious: Hazing and gender. In H. Nuwer (ed), The hazing reader, Indiana
University Press, 2004, pp. 275-294.
Allison, W. & Fairley, J. The Monocled Mutineer, London: Quartet Books, 1986.
Ashworth, A. E. The sociology of trench warfare, 1914-1918, The British Journal of Sociology, 1968,
407-423.
Berne, E. Games people play: The psychology of human relationships. New York: Penguin, 1964.
Berry, A., Broadbent, J. & Otley, D. (eds) Management control: Theories, issues and practices (2nd
edition), Palgrave, 2005.
Besharov, D.J. & Laumann, L.A. Child abuse reporting. Social Science and Modern Society, 1996, 33,
42.
Buss, D.M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., Biaggio, A., Blanco-Villasenor, A., BruchonSchweittzer, M.
[& 45 additional authors]. International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 societies.
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 1990, 21, 5-47.
Buss D.M. & Schimitt, D.P. Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating.
Psychological Review, 1993, 100, 204-232.
Buss, D.M. The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating, New York: Basic Books, 1994.
Buss, D.M. (2002) Human mating strategies. Samdunfsokonemen, 2002, 4, 48-58.
Capaldi, D.M., Owen, L.D. Physical aggression in a community sample of at-risk young couples:
Gender comparisons for high frequency, injury, and fear. Journal of Family Psychology, 2001,
15(3), 425-440.
Carey, A.D. & Lopreato, J. The biological evolution of the male-female mortality differential.
Mankind Quarterly, 1995, 36(1): 3-28. See also Carey, A.D. & Lopreato, J. The evolutionary
demography of the fertility-mortality quasi-equilibrium. Population and Development Review,
1995, 21, 3, 613-30.
Carlson, B.E. Dating violence: a research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework,
1987, 68, 16-23.
Carrigan, T., Connell, B., & Lee, J. Toward a new sociology of masculinity. In H. Brod (ed), The
making of masculinities: New men'
s studies. Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1987, pp. 63-100.
Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J. & Vivian, D. Marital aggression: Impact, injury, and health correlates
for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1992, 152, 1178-1184.
Chow, R. Sexuality. In M. Eagleton (ed), A concise companion to feminist theory, Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing, 2003, pp. 93-110.
Cockburn, C. In the way of women: Men’s resistance to sex equality in organizations, London:
Macmillan, 1991.
Collins, J., Good to great, London: Random House Business Books, 2001.
Collinson, D. & Hearn, J. Naming men as men. In S. Whitehead & F. Barrett (eds), The masculinities
reader, 2001, Polity.
Connell, R.W. Gender and power, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
Cowan, C. & Cowan, P. Men’s involvement in parenthood: Identifying the antecedents and
understanding the barriers. In P. Berman & F. Pedersen (eds), Men’s transition to parenthood:
Longitudinal studies of early family experiences, New Jersey: Hillsdalem, 1987
Deal, T.E. & Kennedy, A.A. Corporate Cultures, Addison-Wesley, 1982.
Dey, C. The use of critical ethnography as an active research methodology. Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, 2002, 15(1), 106-121.
Doherty, L. & Manfredi, S. Action research to develop work-life balance in a UK university. Women
in Management, 2006, 21(3), forthcoming.
Duberley, E. Brief encounters: A woman’s guide to casual sex, Fusion Press, 2005.
Dworkin, A. Woman hating, Dutton Books, 1976.
Eagleton, M. (ed) A concise companion to feminist theory, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
Elton, B. The First Casualty, London: Black Swan, 2006.
Faludi, S. Backlash: The undeclared war against american women, New York: Crown, 1991.
Farrell, W. Why men are the way they are, New York: Berkley Books, 1988.
Farrell, W. The myth of male power: Why men are the disposable sex, London: Fourth Estate, 1994.
Farrell, W. Women can’t hear what men don’t say: Destroying myths, creating love, New York:
Tarcher/Putnam, 2000.
Farrell, W. Father and child reunion, Sydney: Finch Publishing, 2001.
Farrell, W. Why men earn more, New York: Amacom, 2005.

Fiebert, M. References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An annotated
bibliography, California State University, 2005, http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm,
accessed 08 May 2006. Previously published in Sexuality and Culture, 1997, 1, 273-286 and
also Sexuality and Culture, 2004, 8(3-4), 140-177.
French, J. & Raven, B. (1958) The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (eds),
Group dynamics. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 607-623.
Friedan, B. The feminine mystique, Penguin Books, 1963.
Friedan, B. The second stage, London: Michael Joseph, 1980.

Glasser, W. Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom, Harper Perennial, 1998.
Goldberg, H. The hazards of being male: Surviving the myth of masculine privilege, Wellness
Institute, 2000. [Originally published in 1976]
Goldberg, W.G. & Tomlanovich, M.C. (1984). Domestic violence victims in the emergency
department. JAMA, 1985, 251, 3259-3264.
Goleman, D. Emotional intelligence, London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 1996.
Gough, B. & McFadden, M. Critical social psychology: An introduction, Palgrave, 2001.
Grossman, F. K., Pollack, W.S., & Golding, E. (1988). Fathers and children: Predicting the quality and
quantity of fathering. Developmental Psychology, 1998, 24(1), 82-91.
Gustavsen, B. Dialogue and development: Theory of communication, action research and the
structuring of working life, Assen/Maastrict: Van Gorcum, 1992.
Gutek, B. Sex and the workplace, London: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
Hastings, M. How the death of one woman brings home to us all the reality of war, Daily Mail, 2006,
9th May, p14.
Headley, B. D. & Scott D. de Vaus. (1999) Domestic violence in australia: Are men and women
equally violent, Australian Social Monitor, 1999, 2(3), July.
Hearn, J. & Parkin, W. Sex at work: The power and paradox of organisation sexuality, Wheatsheaf,
1987.
Hearn, J. & Parkin, W. Gender, sexuality and violence in organizations: The unspoken forces of
organization violation, London: Sage, 2001.
Hearn, J. & Lattu, E. (2002) The recent development of Finnish studies on men: A selective review
and a critique of a neglected field. Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 2002, 10(1), 49-60.
Hoff, B.H. The risk of serious physical injury from assault by a woman intimate. A re-examination of
national violence against women survey data on type of assault by an intimate.
www.vix.com/menmag/nvawrisk.htm, 1999.
Hoff Sommers, C. Who stole feminism: How women have betrayed women, New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1995.
Hoff Sommers, C. The war against boys: How misguided feminism is harming our young men, Simon
& Schuster, 2000.
Hyde, J. S. The Gender Similarities Hypothesis, American Psychologist, 2005, 60(6), 581-592.
IFAC, Enterprise governance: Getting the balance right, IFAC, 2003.
Kakabadse, A. & Kakabadse, N. Intimacy: International survey of the sex lives of people at work,
Palgrave, 2004.
Kanter, R.M. The change masters, New York: Basic Books, 1983.

Kimmel, M. Male victims of domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review,
report to the Equality Committee of the Department of Education and Science, 2001. Later
published as Kimmel, S. ‘Gender symmetry’ in domestic violence: a substantive and
methodological review, Violence against women, 2002, Special Issue.
Kotter, P. & Heskett, J. Corporate culture and performance, Free Press, 1992.
Krantz, L. (ed) The jobs rated almanac (6th Edition), New York: Ballantine Books, 2002.
Kunda, G. Engineering culture: control and commitment in a high-tech corporation, Philadelphia:
Temple University Press, 1992.

Leinonen, M., Ridley-Duff, R. Interpretting gender and gender relations at work – understanding
critical perspectives and addressing methodological problems. Paper to 21st EGOS Colloquium,
Berlin, June 30 – July 2nd, 2005.
Levy, A. Female chauvinist pigs: Women and the rise of the raunch culture, New York: Free Press,
2005.
Lowndes, L. How to make anyone fall in love with you, London: Element, 1996.
Lukas, C. Working overtime to find sexism where it doesn’t exist, UK men’s movement magazine,
2005, March - May, pp. 8-9.
Lukes, S. Power: A radical view, Macmillan Education, 1974.
Luy, M. Causes of male excess mortality: insights from cloistered populations”, Population and
development review, 2003, 29(4): 647-676.
Maddock, S. & Parkin, D. Gender cultures, Women in Management Review, 1993, 8(2): 3-9.
Maxfield, M. G. Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and validity.
Criminology, 1989, 27, 671-695.
Mayo, E. The human problems of industrial civilization, New York: Macmillan, 1993.
McDowell, P. False allegations, Forensic Science Digest, 1985, 11(4): 64.
Mercy, J.A. & Saltzman, L.E. Fatal violence amongst spouses in the united states, 1976-1985,
American Journal of Public Health, 1989, 79(5): 596.
Miller, E. & Rice, A. Systems of organization, London: Tavistock Publications, 1967.
Miller, G. Psychology: The science of mental life, London: Penguin Books, 1962.
Molloy, J. Why men marry some women and not others, Element, 2003.
Monks, R. & Minow, N. Corporate governance (third edition), Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Moore, N. Nonverbal courtship patterns in women: contact and consequences”, Ethnology and
Sociobiology, 1985, 6, 237-247.
Nuwer, H. (ed) The hazing reader, Indiana University Press, 2004.
Office of National Statistics (UK), Death rates per 1,000 population, by sex and age, 2001-2003,
Table 1 – England and Wales, accessed 18/05/2005.
Ouchi, W. (1981) Theory Z, Addison-Wesley.
Pateman, C. The disorder of women: Democracy, feminism, and political theory. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1989.
Pease, A. & Pease, B. The definitive book of body language, London: Orion Books, 2004.
Perper, T. Sex signals: The biology of love, Philadelphia, ISI Press, 1985.
Peters, T. & Waterman, R.H. In search of excellence, New York: Harper & Row, 1982.
Provine R. Laughter: a scientific investigation, Penguin, 2000.

Ridley-Duff, R.J. Communitarian perspectives on corporate governance, Sheffield Hallam University,

2005.
Rosenfeld, R. Changing relationships between men and women. A note on the decline in intimate
partner violence. Homicide Studies, 1997, 1, 72-83.
Roy, D. Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction, Human organisation, 1958, 18(1):
158-161.
Rowbottom, S. Women’s consciousness, man’s world, Harmonsworth: Penguin, 1973.
Salmi, M. & Lammi-Taskula, J. Understanding the work-family interface: Life totality perspective and
art-based methods in development process at workplaces. In S. Kolehmainen (ed), Research and
development of gender equality in working life, Tampere: Work Research Centre, University of
Tampere, 2005.
Schlessinger, L. Ten stupid things couples do to mess up their lives, Harper Collins, 2003.
Schwartzman, H. Ethnography in organizations, Sage Publications, 1993.
Simenauer J. & Carroll, D. Singles: the new americans, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.
Smith, S.M., Hanson, R. & Noble, S. Social aspects of the battered baby syndrome. In J.V. Cook &
R.T. Bowles (eds), Child abuse: commission and omission, Toronto: Butterworths, 1980, pp.
205-225.
Smith, A. Girls just want to marry and stay home, UK men’s movement magazine: 2005,
December 2004 – February 2005, p.33.
Smith, J. Meet alpha woman, Evening standard, 15th June 2005, p.21.
Sowell, T. Affirmative action reconsidered, Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1975.
Sweet, S. Understanding fraternity hazing. In H. Nuwer (ed), The hazing reader, Indiana University
Press, 2004, pp. 1-12.
Tietze, S. & Musson, G. Recasting the home-work relationship: A case of mutual adjustment?,
Organization Studies, 2005, 26(9): 1331-1352.
Thomas, J. Doing critical ethnography, Sage Publications, 1993.

Thompson, P. & Findlay, P. Changing the people: Social engineering in the contemporary workplace”
in L. Ray & A. Sawyer (eds), Culture and economy after the cultural turn, London: Sage
Publications, pp. 162-188.
Vilar, E. The manipulated man, London: Pinter & Martin, 1998.
Wakefield, H. & Underwager, R. Personality characteristics of parents making false accusations of
sexual abuse in custody disputes”, Issues in Child Abuse Accusations, 1990, 2, 121-136.
Walby, S. Towards a theory of patriarchy. In The polity reader in gender studies, Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1994, pp. 22-28.

Whitehead, S. & Barrett, F. The sociology of masculinity. In S. Whitehead & F. Barrett (eds), The
masculinities reader, Polity, 2001.
Whyte, W.F. The organization man, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956.
Wilkinson, H. A new vision for absent fathers, The Independent, 26th August 1998.
Wilkinson, H. Bad dads need help just as much as single mothers;
New labour should learn the lesson from the UK: It'
s not that '
deadbeats'won'
t pay - they can'
t,
The Independent, 13th April 1999.
Wilson, F. Organizational behaviour and gender (2nd edition), Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.
Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of
spousal homicides in the United States, Criminology, 1992, 30, 189-215.