Table 2. Endorsement of Gender Roles by older men and women by research city.
| Gender roles | Total n, (%) | Men n, (%) | Women n, (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kingston | |||
| Masculine | 67 (17.0) | 38 (20.7) | 29 (13.9) |
| Feminine | 80 (20.4) | 26 (14.1) | 54 (25.8) |
| Androgynous | 140 (35.6) | 57 (31.0) | 83 (39.7) |
| Undifferentiated | 106 (27.0) | 63 (34.2) | 43 (20.6) |
| Total | 393 (100) | 184 (100) | 209 (100) |
| Saint Hyacinthe | |||
| Masculine | 82 (20.9) | 48 (25.5) | 34 (16.7) |
| Feminine | 91 (23.2) | 32 (17.0) | 59 (28.9) |
| Androgynous | 122 (31.1) | 66 (35.1) | 56 (27.5) |
| Undifferentiated | 97 (24.7) | 42 (22.3) | 55 (27.0) |
| Total | 392 (100) | 188 (100) | 204 (100) |
| Tirana | |||
| Masculine | 85 (22.0) | 60 (32.8) | 25 (12.3) |
| Feminine | 85 (22.0) | 23(12.6) | 62 (30.4) |
| Androgynous | 110 (28.4) | 51 (27.9) | 59 (28.9) |
| Undifferentiated | 107 (27.6) | 49 (26.8) | 58 (28.4) |
| Total | 387 (100) | 183 (100) | 204 (100) |
| Manizales | |||
| Masculine | 90 (22.9) | 57 (29.2) | 33 (16.7) |
| Feminine | 84 (21.4) | 28 (14.4) | 56 (28.3) |
| Androgynous | 114 (29.0) | 49 (25.1) | 65 (32.8) |
| Undifferentiated | 105 (26.7) | 61 (31.3) | 44 (22.2) |
| Total | 393 (100) | 195 (100) | 198 (100) |
| Natal | |||
| Masculine | 74 (18.4) | 42 (21.9) | 32 (15.2) |
| Feminine | 73 (18.2) | 27 (14.1) | 46 (21.9) |
| Androgynous | 143 (35.6) | 71 (37.0) | 72 (34.3) |
| Undifferentiated | 112 (27.9) | 52 (27.1) | 60 (28.6) |
| Total | 402 (100) | 192 (100) | 210 (100) |
| The whole sample | |||
| Masculine | 398 (20.2) | 245 (26) | 153 (14.9) |
| Feminine | 413 (21) | 136 (14.4) | 277 (27) |
| Androgynous | 629 (32) | 294 (31.2) | 335 (32.7) |
| Undifferentiated | 527 (26.8) | 267 (28.4) | 260 (25.4) |
| Total | 1,967 (100) | 942 (100) | 1,025 (100) |
Note: Chi-square p-value for the relationship between gender roles and sex P <0.001 in Kingston, Tirana and Manizales; 0.006 in Saint-Hyacinthe; and p = 0.11 in Natal