Past assumptions regarding sex roles were largely contested because they

oversimplified the impact of gender on behavior. As Ferree (1990) asserted, "Even

feminist descriptions of 'sex roles' usually assumed that expected behavior was clear,

consistent, and uniform, and they neglected evidence of contradiction and struggle" (p.

867). In their emphasis of masculine and feminine gender roles, these frameworks fit well

with structural-functionalist notions of instrumental and expressive roles in families. Yet

each of these roles is not as clearly defined or as easily entered into as the structural-

functionalist perspective assumed, neglecting to acknowledge how individuals interpret

these roles and how roles are negotiated in relationships (Backett, 1982). Additionally,

this view of gender emphasized the responsibility of families in socializing children into

gender roles. Families were blamed for the reproduction of gender differences, rather

than gender bias in institutions and culture being seen as leading families to socialize

themselves accordingly (Ferree, 1990).

 More recently, theorists have recognized that attempting to explain gender and

gendered behavior at any one level provides an incomplete picture. Instead, the new

"gender perspective simultaneously emphasizes the symbolic and the structural, the

ideological and the material, the interactional and the institutional levels of analysis"

(Ferree, 1990). While a great deal of attention has been placed on how individuals learn,

express, and experience gender, and growing consideration has been given to cultural and

institutional influences on gender, the subtle reproduction of gender-differentiated

behavior at the interactional level is becoming a more prominent focus of researchers

(Fox, 2001). As Gerson and Peiss (1985) stated, "Gender is not a rigid or reified analytic