The Formation and Development of Gender Roles
OUTCOME: ASSESS THE EXTENT TO WHICH BIOLOGICAL, COGNITIVE AND SOCIOCULTURAL FACTORS INFLUENCE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.---
Focus questions:
1. Are there psychological differences between men and women, or are the differences in behavior due to socialisation?
2. When does gender-role socialisation begin?
3. What is gender identity, gender role and gender constancy?
---
Nearly all societies have expectations of the ways males and females should behave. In order to live up to these expectations, children will learn what it means to be a boy or a girl in the culture that it grows up in.
Thus, it is generally accepted that gender role socialisation begins as soon as a newborn child has been identified as a girl or a boy. The child will be given a name, and that name will already be a definition of the sexuality of that child. The world will treat the children according to their gender.
 |
| Gender Roles are determined once the infant's gender is determined soon before / after birth. |
Men and women occupy different roles in society, and ideas of what is typical behavior for a sex is according to the biological sex of an individual. Children, once assuming gender roles, are raised accordingly to their genders (so as to facilitate the development of gender roles).
Whiting and Edwards (1973) found that girls were more nurturing and made more physical contact, while boys were more aggressive, dominant and engaged in rough play. Whiting and Edwards studied children from Kenya, Japan, India, the USA, Mexico and the Philippines. Whiting et al determined that the gender differences in the six cultures as differences in the socialisation pressures that those cultures put upon children. (EG: to what extent older female siblings were put in charge of taking care of their younger siblings).
---
Nurture or nature?
There has been an ongoing debate on whether gender roles are developed behaviorally or culturally. The general consensus is that biological (hormonal) factors are important in the development of gender identity, but cultural factors are also important. (An extremist nature argument contends that a child's gender identity is completely determined by the physiology of the child such as prenatal exposure to certain hormones, and is unchangeable.) (An extremist nurture view claims that the way a child is dressed, treated and taught will be critical factors in the development of his or her gender identity.
---
Biological Explanations of the Difference in Females and Males
Evolutionary psychologists tend to argue that the difference in the evolutionary pressures faced by men and women are what account for the gender differences between males and females. the natural selection process in evolution is what brought upon vast differences in the physiology and the psychology between the man and the woman.
This view argues that men are aggressive and competitive because it increases their chances to mate with a female. Women are nurturing, caring, empathetic and gentle, which are also evolutionary adaptations in order to attract a mate and produce / care for offspring.
Critics of this theory: argue that differences in gender roles are not a result of evolution, but rather a consequence of the different roles that cultures assign to men and woman, as well as agreement on socialisation practices that prepare children for these roles.
The BIOLOGICAL perspective: PSYCHOSEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION:
Some researchers argue that behavioral differences between children can be explained by the hormones and the changes in the brain structure as they develop. The theory of psychosexual differentiation holds that all humans were born with an innate (biological) predisposition to behave like females or to behave like males. This theory stresses that the prenatal hormones that are secreted and absorbed by the infant are what affects the gender and gender-appropriate behavior of the children. This theory undermines the important of social interaction / societal influences in gender-related behaviors and roles.
---
The role of SOCIALISATION on gender behavior: BIOSOCIAL THEORY OF GENDER ROLE DEVELOPMENT
The biosocial theory of gender role development values the role that society and socialisation have on the individual's gender identity and role. This theory was first suggested by Money and Ehrhardt in 1972. This theory sees that the interaction between prenatal hormones and biological indicators of gender differences (i.e. from the psychosexual differentiation theory) and socialisation are important indicators in the way a gender role develops within an individual. Biosocial theory of gender role development argues that the development of a gender role and the adherence to the gender role during growth (/development) depend on socialisation. Money argues that children are gender neutral at birth which means that they can be raised and reared to grow up as either a female or a male.
Money and his theory of gender neutrality
Money based his theory off of case studies with individuals that were born with ambiguous sexual reproductive organs. He found that children who were born as biological females can be raised as boys and they will act like boys, and vice versa. Thus he arrived at the theory of gender neutrality: "humans are not born with a gender identity, and do not have one until two years of life. Therefore if a child is raised as a specific gender from before the age of two, they will be act like the gender that they were raised as." = "It is possible to reassign sex to children with intersex reproductive organs due to surgical disasters."
Money and David Reimer (a subject)
David Reimer (birth name Bruce) was born an identical twin in Winnipeg, Manitoba. At 6 months of age both boys were mistakenly diagnosed with phimosis, a natural condition of the infant penis. The so-called doctor Jean-Marie Huot botched the first circumcision completely destroying Bruce's penis. Twin Brian's circumcision was canceled; he made a full recovery from his "condition" of phimosis, without further treatment.
Shortly after the botched circumcision Bruce's mother Janet saw a television interview with John Money, a physician from John Hopkins Hospital who worked with cases of gender identity, transsexuality and intersex conditions. Janet wondered if perhaps she had found an answer to the horrific situation her baby was in, could Bruce be raised as a girl?
John Money thought he saw an opportunity to prove gender is learned behavior, and Bruce was an ideal subject with his twin brother Brian as a scientific control. Bruce was reassigned as Brenda. Money reported several times that the experiment was a success, and Brenda had adjusted well and liked to help her mother with traditionally female tasks around the house. Money built much of his career and theories of gender on the "successful" outcome of this case. Reality was far from the rosy domestic picture Money was reporting, Brenda never adjusted.
As a young teenager, refusing to take the prescribed female hormones and facing vaginoplasty surgery, Brenda rebelled to the point that her father broke down and confessed to her the botched circumcision which had led to the forced feminization. Brenda immediately assumed a male identity and took the name David. (Text taken from http://youtu.be/bw24j0Litlc)
---
The Social Learning Theory and Development of Gender Roles
OUTCOME: DISCUSS THE FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF GENDER ROLES IN PEOPLESocial Learning Theory (Albert Bandura, 1977).
The social learning theory is a theory that suggests that children learn by observing and emulating adult models that are alike to them. Thus, this theory could explain why certain characteristics belong to the female category, and why others belong to the male category. The social learning theory reasons that boys and girls behave differently because they are treated differently by their parents and others.
For example, it is known that the toys that are given to boys and girls are different. Boys may get air-guns, truck toys or trains as toys, while girls prefer to receive dolls, doll-houses and other toys.Generally, children learn to behave in ways that are rewarded by others, while they also learn to avoid behaviors that are punished or frowned upon by others. (=Direct tuition). The social learning theory, as you may remember from socio-cultural psychology, involves the following steps:
1. observation
2. retention
3. motor reproduction
4. motivation
There are two important factors in the social learning theory when considering the development of gender roles. One is the necessary rewards / punishments that will serve as instigators to behave in a certain way (or to emulate a model). A reward will typically be given for a gender-appropriate behavior, and a punishment will be given if the behavior is gender-inappropriate. Additionally, there is an important factor that the model must be alike to the subjects (children who are developing gender identities and roles). The modelling of behavior will be done through same-sex adult models; the child will learn through observing the way the model behaves throughout the day, By observing how others of the same sex behave in certain ways, children receive positive reinforcement for behaviors that are considered gender-appropriate. (Bandura 1977). See the Bobo doll experiment in 1961, where there were interesting reactions of children (with already developed sense of gender roles in a society) against gender-inappropriate behaviors of models.
Children can act as gender police, Fagot in 1985 observes. Gender police is a term that refers to how informed a child is of gender roles, and how they react in the face of other children that have not fully understood gender-appropriate or inappropriate behavior. Fagot found that in an observational study of children ages 12-25 months, boys made fun of boys who played with girls' toys, while girls disliked it when boys acted girly. The children in this study were very young, which means that it is unlikely that gender identity had been achieve at this point. Thus, the reactions upon having a few gender-inappropriate behaviors can be seen as a socially learned behavior, through the observance of daily social interaction or other sources of information such as TV.
Sroufe et al (1993) observed that children around the age of 10-11 years old were more popular if they acted according to their gender. These studies indicate that children establish a kind of social control in relation to gender-roles very easily, and that peer-socialiastion might be an important factor in growth.
The social learning theory takes into account the social and cultural context in which gender socialisations occur. It predicts that children acquire internal standards of gender roles and gender-based behaviors through reward and punishment, from models, and from observing their actions.
Weaknesses of the social learning theory:
- it cannot explain why there seems to be considerable variation in the degree to which individual boys and girls conform to the gender role
- the theory suggests that gender is more or less passively acquired by an individual, through simple observation.
Developing gender identities and roles is a rather complex process that involves cognitive (social learning theory) factors in addition to social factors (biosocial theory of gender role development) and biological factors (the psychosexual differentiation).
---
Gender Schema Theory and the development of gender roles within children
Schemas are mental frameworks of perception that originate from an individual's experiences and expectations for situations in the future. The gender schema theory therefore is a mental representation of the genders and their behaviors. An example of a gender schema would be stereotypes. The gender schema theory is based on the fact that knowledge of gender roles and gender identity may be developed through cognitive processes. Children constantly construct gender identity based on their experiences (ie schemas turn into stereotypes).
 |
| Gender schemata can turn into gender stereotypes |
Because children tend to categorise on the basis of gender this leads the children seeing the girls and boys as different existences. Once they have identified their own gender identites, they will be motivated to be alike the others in their gender group, causing them to observe their own sex-roles more closely (i.e. observation Albert Bandura's constructivist theory of social learning). Martin and Halvorson state that children have schemata of what are suitable for boys and what are suitable for girls. They thus have a gender schema for their own group (this is an in-group) and a gender schema for the other gender-group (this will be known as the out-group). These schemata include attributes, activities and objects that are gender consistent or definite.
Gender schemata determine what attracts a child's attention, what they are meant to pay attention to, what attracts them, and what they remember. A boy is more likely to imitate same-sex models because gender schemas serve as an internal, self-regulating standard.
Martin et al in 1983 showed how information that is not consistent with a child's schemata will be distorted when recalled. They used a sample of 5-6 year old boys and girls. The boys and girls were shown photos of males and females that were doing activities that pertained to the children's gender schemas (females that play with dolls, or of boys who are holding guns). However, there were also photos of gender-inappropriate actions, such as a female holding a gun. The interesting result was that any information that was not in line with the children's schemata (anomalies such as the female with the gun) were altered within the children's minds so that it was a male holding the gun. This is an example of assimilation due to the strength of gender schemata.
Strengths of the gender schema theory:
- this theory suggests that memory and gender role formations are a constructivist process, rather than a passive process like it is suggested in the social learning theory of gender role development.
- this theory can explain why children's gender roles do not change over time: regardless of time, because evidence that supports the framework of gender identity within the child will continue to be paid attention to.
Limitations of the gender schema theory:
- there is too much focus on the individual child in gender development
- in reality, social and cultural factors should be taken into account: not only cognitive processes
- we do not know how these gender schema developed (through observations of models, such as the social learning theory?)
---
Sociocultural Influences on Development of Gender Roles
OUTCOME: EXPLAIN CULTURAL VARIATION IN GENDER ROLES.
Focus questions:
Are gender roles universal?
What is the evidence that gender roles are biologically based?
---
Cross-cultural studies of gender have been an effective method to determine the extent to which culture plays a role in allocating gender roles. For as long as can be remembered, there have been different jobs for women and men, simply because women were weaker, had childbearing and nurturing to do, while men were stronger and larger. Work that was most compatible with women were assigned to women, and the men did the rest of the work. Eagley in 1987 suggested the social role theory that suggests that gender stereotypes arise from the differing roles that men and women occupy. Usually, societies have "gender ideologies" that promote some roles to women, and others to men, while simultaneously restricting access to that role to the "inappropriate sex". These societal beliefs are integrated into the culture: through religion, through social norms, and through daily communications.
Williams and Best (1990) argued against Eagly, suggesting that gender stereotypes arose from the gender roles of men and women. The gender stereotypes will establish what individuals should expect from each sex; that is, they provide models for gender role socialisation.
Research by Best et al (1977) shows that gender stereotypes (expectations) of females and males are adopted by an individual at a very early age. A cross-cultural study that included Ireland, the UK and the USA, with subjects that were five years old and eight years old. The majority of boys and girls in both groups identified that females were more gentle, calm and soft-hearted, whereas boys were aggressive, rough, and cruel. More characteristics were stereotyped by those in the eight-year old group than the five-year old group. The eight-year old group's stereotypes were similar to the same stereotypes of gender that adults held.
Mead was an anthropologist that set out to suggest that gender roles were more culturally influenced than it was thought to be at the time. Mead believed that gender roles and traits were merely the result of cultural beliefs in a society, and not dependent on biology. In 1935 Mead compared gender roles in three tribes in New Guinea, all of the tribes at a 100 miles radius from each other. The first tribe will be known as A, the second tribe will be referred to as B, and the third tribe will be referred to as C.
Results:
A- this tribe displayed very different gender roles from the Western world. Men and women were all cooperative, loving and caring - which are considered "feminine" in the Western world. Both men and women took care of their children in great care, and would share tasks for crops and other chores.
B- in this tribe, both men and women were aggressive, rough, competitive and arrogant. They were also emotionally unresponsive. The men and women alike were known to be consistently quarreling, and neither cared for the children very much which resulted in the children becoming self-reliant at a young age.
C- this tribe had opposite gender roles from the Western world: men gossiped and were concerned with accessories and garments while women were responsible for the production of food and other chores.
Interpretation:
Mead found the results of her study to support her theory that gender roles were influenced greatly by cultural norms and beliefs, instead of being biologically hardwired within people. Mead's study shows that labor division is not the same in all cultures, and that roles of gender are not universal.
Criticisms:
Her self-report is not reliable (-)
Her view undermines the importance of biological influences on gender-roles (-)
The study takes on an etic approach (a scientist looking into a foreign culture) which could be biased to some extent (-)
She showed that cross-cultural research can provide evidence to falsify theories (+)
She used three tribes that were not exposed to a Western culture (+)
---
In Denmark, the gender roles of men and women differ slightly from those that face men and women in the Western world. Men are more involved in the child-care process of a new born, where they will take paternal leave in order to care for their child. Additionally, new fathers form communities on websites to share tips, questions and stories about their child. Women are often found to be working in place of men during this time. Men in a survey by Reinicke (2006) answered that it was important for them to have a close relationship with their baby and take part in caring for the child.
This indicates that Mead had validity in her theory that gender roles are a result of cultural beliefs and norms rather than biology.
No comments:
Post a Comment