Breaking down the question
The question has two parts. The first asks for a conceptual account of gender — what it is and how it differs from biological sex. The second, more distinctive part asks how gender shapes specifically "male" identity, that is, how masculinity is socially constructed. The inverted commas around "male" are a cue: the examiner wants you to treat maleness not as a natural given but as a socially made identity.
Many candidates can define gender but falter on the second part, which is where the marks are won. You must show that masculinity, no less than femininity, is a product of socialisation, ideology and power. The framework of patriarchy and the sexual division of labour is central to explaining how male identity is built and sustained.
Bring in the sex–gender distinction, the idea of social construction, and above all theorists of masculinity such as R. W. Connell, whose concept of hegemonic masculinity is tailor-made for the second half of the question.
How to approach it
Open by defining gender and distinguishing it sharply from sex, citing Ann Oakley and de Beauvoir on gender as socially made rather than biologically given. Establish that gender is learned, relational and bound up with power.
Then pivot to male identity. Explain how boys are socialised into masculinity through the family, education, peer groups, media and work — learning norms of toughness, emotional restraint, breadwinning, aggression and dominance. Use Connell's hegemonic masculinity to show that there is a dominant, idealised form of manhood against which men are measured, and that masculinities are plural and hierarchical.
Develop the point that male identity is defined relationally, in opposition to the feminine, and is sustained by patriarchy, giving men privilege but also imposing costs and pressures. Conclude that masculinity is historically variable and changing, not fixed.
Model answer
Gender refers to the socially and culturally constructed roles, behaviours, attributes and identities that a society considers appropriate for men and women. It is sharply distinguished in sociology from sex, which denotes the biological and physiological differences between males and females. Ann Oakley was among the first to popularise this distinction, arguing that while sex is a matter of nature, gender is a matter of culture and is learned through socialisation. Simone de Beauvoir captured the same insight in her famous claim that one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman — and, by extension, a man. Gender is therefore not a natural endowment but a social achievement, produced and reproduced in everyday life.
Three features define gender as a sociological concept. First, it is socially constructed: what counts as masculine or feminine varies across societies and historical periods, showing that these identities are made rather than biologically fixed. Second, gender is relational: masculinity and femininity are defined against each other, so that neither can be understood in isolation. Third, gender is bound up with power: it is not merely difference but hierarchy, since in most societies the qualities and roles assigned to men are valued more highly and carry greater authority than those assigned to women. Gender, in short, is a principle of social organisation and inequality, not just of personal identity.
The second part of the question asks how gender shapes male identity — how masculinity is constructed. Just as femininity is learned, so too is masculinity. From birth, boys are subjected to a distinct process of gender socialisation. Within the family they are given different toys, clothes and expectations, encouraged towards activity, competition and toughness, and discouraged from displays of emotion or vulnerability — "boys don't cry". In school, curricula, sports and teachers' expectations often channel boys towards assertiveness and technical competence. Peer groups police the boundaries of acceptable manhood, ridiculing those seen as weak or effeminate. The media project heroic, dominant and often aggressive images of men, and the world of work presents the breadwinner role as central to male worth. Through these agencies boys internalise a set of norms — strength, independence, emotional restraint, competitiveness, sexual assertiveness and provider status — that come to constitute male identity.
R. W. Connell's theory of masculinities gives this process its sharpest analysis. Connell argued that there is no single masculinity but a plurality of masculinities, arranged in a hierarchy. At the top stands hegemonic masculinity — the culturally idealised and dominant form of manhood that legitimates men's authority over women and over subordinate men. This ideal is associated with physical strength, heterosexuality, authority, rationality and success. Against it are ranked subordinated masculinities, such as those of gay or non-conforming men, and marginalised masculinities shaped by class and race. Most men do not fully embody the hegemonic ideal, yet it shapes their identity by serving as the standard against which they measure themselves and by delivering the "patriarchal dividend" of collective advantage over women.
Male identity is thus defined relationally, largely in opposition to the feminine. To be a man is culturally constructed as being not-a-woman: not soft, not dependent, not emotional. This relational and oppositional definition is sustained by patriarchy, the system of male dominance, and by the sexual division of labour that assigns men the public sphere of paid work and authority and women the private sphere of care. Male identity therefore carries privilege, but it also imposes real costs: the pressure to suppress emotion, to succeed as breadwinner, to prove toughness, and the anxiety and risk-taking that accompany the constant demand to perform manhood.
Finally, because masculinity is constructed rather than natural, it is historically variable and open to change. The colonial ideal of the disciplined, martial man, the older patriarch's authority and the contemporary emergence of more caring or "softer" masculinities show that male identity is continually being remade. Rising women's education and employment, feminist critique and shifting family forms are all reshaping what it means to be a man. In conclusion, gender is the cultural construction of difference between the sexes, and male identity is one of its products — a learned, relational, power-laden and changeable achievement rather than a fixed expression of biology.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner expects the sex–gender distinction to be established crisply, with support from Oakley or de Beauvoir, but the discriminating part of the answer is the treatment of male identity. Weak scripts define gender competently and then say little about masculinity, or lapse into describing women's position instead. The question is specifically about how maleness is constructed, and the marks follow that focus.
Strong answers demonstrate that masculinity is socialised through named agencies, and they deploy Connell's hegemonic masculinity to show that manhood is plural, hierarchical and tied to power. The best scripts add that male identity is relational, sustained by patriarchy, costly as well as privileged, and historically changing. Concrete illustration and a theorist of masculinity, rather than generic assertions about roles, are what secure the top band.