I'd like to add another historical dimension to this discussion.  The treatment of
"masculinity" and "feminity" -- from which Becker and others abstracted in this century --
has a rather dark side.  In the nineteenth century, political economists of such stature
as J. S. Mill were "diminished" intellectually, by the claim that they were overly
sentimental and "feminine", and therefore less-than-fully rational.  Their ideas were
consequently also diminished in stature.  And when Mill defended the right of women to
vote, he was criticized.
   
The point that sometimes gets lost as we think about cultural determinants of this and
that is that, historically, the idea of difference was about "nature".  And, as David Levy
and I have argued in The "Vanity of the Philosopher"
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0472114964/103-2082484-7204637?v=glance&n=283155> ,
"natural difference", historically, has meant "inferiority" (of gender, race, religion),
with the awful policy results that followed -- paternalistic looking-after and denial of
suffrage, direction, eugenics, slavery.  The return to homogeneity in this century denied
these possibilities.
   
I've posted two examples of how Punch portrayed Mill, as well as excerpts from some of the
debate on our list, at my history of economics blog:  http://AdamSmithLives.blogs.com
   
Sandra Peart