From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: The BEM Test
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date:  5 Jan 93 00:18:32 GMT

levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>On the back of scratch paper from a campus recycling area, I found a
>psychological test called the Bem Sex Role Inventory. This test lists
>sixty adjectives that refer to human beings, some "masculine," some
>"feminine," and some neutral (but you don't know which are which until
>you complete the test). You are asked how well these adjectives describe
>you; and whether you assign yourself a preponderance of masculine or
>feminine adjectives, determines your "sex type."

>The fact that I found this test, suggests that it was in use some time
>in the past ten years. I am curious when and how it was devised, whether
>it's still in use, and for what clients it's intended.

>Following are the adjectives of significance in this test.

>Feminine: yielding, cheerful, shy, affectionate, flatterable, loyal,
>feminine, sympathetic, sensitive to the needs of others, understanding,
>compassionate, eager to soothe hurt feelings, soft spoken, warm, tender,
>gullible, childlike, does not use harsh language, loves children,
>gentle.

>Masculine: self-reliant, defends own beliefs, independent, athletic,
>assertive, strong personality, forceful, analytical, has leadership
>abilities, willing to take risks, makes decisions easily,
>self-sufficient, dominant, masculine, willing to take a stand,
>aggressive, acts as a leader, individualistic, competitive, ambitious. 

>I urge you to draw your own conclusions from this test.

>Lenore Levine

The Bem Sex Role Inventory has been used in numerous psychological studies.
It was used to show that career women in California were more androgynous
than their housekeeping counterparts amongst a great many other things. I
think the lists you give are not complete and seem to imply that being
masculine is somehow better. However the test was not attempting to say that
one sort of person or another was "superior". The idea being that a set of
character traits are required to maintain success or happiness within the
environment that a person finds themselves in.  The interest was which
traits were most required in which situations or occupations, those loosely
termed "feminine" or those loosely termed "masculine" as perceived by Bem's
calibrating population (probably first yeard psych students). The problems
of course are that they were calibrated some 20-25 years ago, and in that
time feminine and masculine characteristics have dynamically altered
(possibly more than in other corresponding time in history), it is
perception of androgony, not actual androgony which is measured. This is
controversial as it is currently seen as desireable to be androgynous.

The test is misunderstood in that laymen feel that it is designed to tell
which sex you are, which of course is ridiculous. Note also the terms
masculine and feminine have lost their relative neutrality compared to man
and woman. Originally feminine meant characteristics of the nature described
in your sample above, however it is now associated with a woman who is weak
or petite. Having an abundance of feminine or masculine characteristics in
either a male or a female does not imply any form of inferiority or
superiority of any classification or sex or position on the androgony
spectrum. Note also that feminine and masculine are not two ends of a
bipolar spectrum. Androgynous people were defined as those who had many and
roughly balanced traits from both masculine and feminine, Neuter people were
defined as those who had few of either feminine or masculine traits.
Masculine people were those who had predominantly masculine traits and
feminine those who had predominantly feminine traits.

What I'm trying to say is that because the feminine characteristics seem
jejune does not imply that *females* are.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism