Discuss and Analyze Theories of Gender Development and Behavior - Research Paper Example

?The exploration and definition of gender roles has played an important role in society. Gender itself is determined by biology. It is thereafter that we seek to impose social standards of acceptability that may in fact hinder the potential of the individual. Gender roles are established through direct observation and encouragement to support the paradigm of gender itself. Gender roles are forced upon the individual before they are even born into the world. The individual is socially tooled into conforming to gender and the roles associate there unto. Social order demands males and females to conduct themselves in a certain manner, roles that they may not truly be suited in fulfilling. As we force the role of gender, we in turn disallow the full exploration of the individual self. Therefore, gender role association for many inhibits their ability to fully attain and achieve in life. Gender theories When viewing gender from the theoretical perspective we must first analyze the most rudimentary difference between the sexes. Sex chromosomes define sex at the gene level. In mammals, the homogametic default is XX (female), while the male XY is the homogametic derivative. However, it is after this that the sexes begin to differ and transform into the male and female being we stereotypically identify with. Sex hormones are responsible for the harmonic change in voice at puberty. Here we find a very noticeable difference between the sexes. Estrogen lowers the female fundamental frequency of voice a third of the child frequency where testosterone lowers the male voice a full octave. Testosterone in the developing male is also responsible for broadening shoulders, facial and pubic hair. These developmental changes are essentially an advertisement of testosterone. Evolutionary theory The evolutionary theory suggests that genetic differences between men and women exist to ensure survival of the fittest. A key claim in sociobiology is that men engage with as many partners as possible. This is due the millions of sperm produced by the male, thus there is no risk in impregnating multiple females in relatively short periods. This is in direct contrast to the female who generally produces one egg per menstrual cycle. Due to this inherent difference, it becomes of increasing value for the female to far more selective in choosing a mate for the purposes of reproduction. Critics of this theory suggest that it fails to account for purposes of sexual activity that do not include reproduction making it of little value in today’s modern society. Another focus of sociobiology is the role of hormonal activity in sex related behaviors in the brain as well as the body. The primary female hormone, estrogen aids the female’s body in producing good cholesterol while allowing greater flexibility in blood vessels. Estrogen also strengths the females immune system making the female less susceptible to viruses, infections, and immune disorders. It further increases fat levels in the hip that in turn provides for extra fetal cushioning during pregnancy. In males, higher levels of testosterone have been linked to aggressiveness, influence to dominate others, physical expressions of anger, violent and abusive behavior. In the early thirties males begin to undergo a decline in testosterone levels. Unlike the female’s decline in hormone levels, the male decline is more gradual. As the male hormone levels decline, so declines the level of sexual interest. One could conclude the “manly” attributes of the male are directly linked to their most optimal biological urges to reproduce that decline slowly after the early thirties. This is in contrast to the female whose hormones are utilized to make the body more adept to carrying a fetus and lose the ability to reproduce far more abruptly. Psychological gender association Cognitive development supports the ideology that children learn gender roles through the absorption of their surroundings. They learn what boys and girls are supposed to be by direction observation. The view of self in terms of gender is not only accepted, it is viewed terms that behavior is demonstrated in ways that are congruent with that conception. Consistency of the cognitive perspective is gratifying. Kohlberg wrote, “I am a boy, therefore I want to do boy things, therefore to do boy things is gratifying.” (Kohlberg, 1966) From this perspective on gender role identification, children use reciprocal interplay between behaviors and thought to establish a stable gender identity or gender constancy in cognitive-developmental theory terms. This however, is not an all or none behavior phenomenon. Gender identity must be present to the extent an individual can label themselves by gender. “I am a girl.” Gender stability must be understood in the terms that the gender of infancy will be the gender of late in life. Gender consistency becomes mastered at about the age six or seven and the individual understands gender remain constant despite external changes in appearance such as hair length or attire. When the individual masters these three elements, cognitive gender association is complete. While cognitive development is clearly a logical expression of how gender roles are acquired in the young, it is not the only manner in which children learn to associate with their given genders. Social learning theory The social learning theory supports the ideology gender association is acquired through positive feedback. (Wood, 1976) Children mimic the communications the witness via mass media and the individuals in their immediate surroundings. Behaviors that are mimicked the match the desired behavior that is sought to be demonstrated by the child are rewarded. In seeking further reward, the behavior is repeated until such a time the gender role is attained. While we are all born with certain inclinations, being rewarded for demonstrating masculine or nurturing traits reinforces the gender role. Unlike cognitive behavior, this process begins even before birth. A baby’s nursery will be painted to match the anticipate gender. While infant and newborn clothes are actually unisex in design, a boy will be dressed in blue with trucks sewn on the jumper and girl is dress in a pink jumper with ornate traits of femininity. When it comes to gender, we approach the issue as if the infant has a choice to make and to protect them from that choice; we make it for them. As they display the traits we deem appropriate for the given gender, we reward them with the positive feedback they naturally yearn for. It can be argued that social learning of gender roles is in part social manipulation of gender roles. Gender roles are learned through myriad of interactions ranging the rewarding of behavior that meets the expectations established by societal norms to direct observation of those currently demonstrating the gender role. However, one cannot limit the acquisition of gender roles to a single and exclusive source of learning. It is a combined affect that fully imparts the definition of gender on the child. However, these elements do not ultimately define the individual. They are a mere set of social guideline that society utilizes to determine acceptable gender role behavior. Ultimately, the burden of choice in gender role falls upon the individual once in the adult years. It is here where gender roles can find new meaning. Symbolic interactionism The interactionist maintains the ability to both see and further define self through several different perspectives. Many posses “old fashioned” beliefs of gender roles. The male is destined to be the provider and protector. The wife is the caring, nurturing homemaker. Boys are raised to be rough and tough. Girls are raised to play with dolls and toy kitchen sets. Boys are in the living room watching Sunday football with dad. Girls are in the kitchen with mom. To one degree or another, these events transpire in most homes, but they do not necessarily define the ultimate gender roll that is attained by the individual. Symbolic interactionism insists upon further identification of self. The interactionist not only possesses the ability to see self from multiple perspectives, but to envision self in multiple roles of gender in various scenarios. (Meade, 1934) Through scripting, a young female adult can determine they are more suited for watching football on Sunday than they are preparing Sunday dinner. The female may determine a life as a high-powered attorney is a better match than being a young mother. However, these self-evaluations are dictated by higher social influences. (Cooley, 1902) While gender roles can be adjusted by the individual, they largely conform to societal standards. There are male cheerleaders and female presidential candidates. It is through symbolic interactionism that the acceptable standard of self is defined and persued when it is socially acceptable to do so. Though it is evident in adult years, the process of indentifying with the cripted self through reciprocal interactions can begin early in life. (Reynolds, 2003) Interactionalism insists upon the personalization of social interations of a given community. In terms of gender roles, the young adult seeks to in part define self with the extremes of the given social norm of their community. If friends are contemplating college, thoughts of Yale and Harvard begin take hold. The detrimental aspect of interactionism is aslo true. In this case, one can become trapped in a sub-cuture of questionable behavior. If the reciprocal interactions reinforce lower stanrdards, these lower standards are likely to be embraced by the individual. While they can script themselves into roles that span beyond that of their current situtation, they are more likely to become products of their enviroment than they are to escape it. If the lifestyle includes promuscuity, they are likely to be promiscuous. Life phases and stages are built upon from shared understandings and role enactments. (Reynolds, 2003) Through these gender role encatments, the standards of acceptabilty can pushed to higher and higher levels; many of which redefine the gender roles acribed early in life. Without this, the United States may not have seen the likes of a Gerladine Ferraro, or a Michelle Bachmann. While both maintained the traditional gender roles, both have redined what genders are capable of in a given field. Such is the standpoint theory. Standpoint theory While the traditional generation may not have concieved of a female president, astronaut or mixed martial arts fighter, does not mean a female in these roles is wrong. Laila Ali, arguably the best female boxer in history, still exemplifies all traits of the female gender role. There exists a dichotomy when we seek to assign gender roles so strictly early in life. We define gender in terms of limitations. In rewarding for “actingly like a girl,” we are passively stating that a girl acting like a boy is wrong. Fortunately, the individual has the ability through interactionalism to redifine and deem acceptable the outer limits of gender roles which serve as a benefit to all people; bith male and female alike. This is not to suggest the traditional generation was wrong, but to impose the plausability that such restrictive perceptions of gender roles can force the underachivement of the individual. The standpoint theory insists reality of self is viewed in part from the perspective of ultimate achievement. (Kenney, 1997). While highly attributed to the feminist, its characteristics are also found in pioneers of all fields and of all races, creeds, colors and genders. A fine line exists in interactionism which is based in societal norms. While one can envision themselves in a myriad of roles, societal norms often restrict their progression. A further hinderance is the ability to step out of the traditional roles of gender. Rosa Parks stood up for profound social change, but was not a feminist. However, she did embody the essential characterisitcs of the standpoint perspective. Within the standpoint theory and feminism is a call for justice and equality that the traditional assignment of gender roles overlook. (Buzzanell, 2000) This unique blend of high motivation, extreme compassion for others and self confidence is more than worthy of addressing in the most open public forums. Interestingly, those whom enbrace the standpoint theory, seldom view themselves as possessing such traits. Queer theory Under the premise of redefining gender roles, it would be remiss to not address the queer theory. Queer theory is grounded in gender and sexuality. The association with gender and sexuality forces the debate of whether the orientation of sexual identity is natural or essential to the individual. As previously demonstrated, gender roles are determined even before birth. This is to suggest that a child, is capable of defining self in other means than that of “boys act like this and girls act like that.” The contention of queer theory is based upon the categorization of gender and sexuality. A couple of hundred years ago there was no linguistic category for “gay male.” The act was defined as sodomy, but the individual himself was directly defined. However, males whom gay clearly existed. As they were developed to identify their own gender roles, they took on some and rejected others. The ability of the individual to do this further demostrates the indaquate nature of commonly and traditionally defined roles in terms of gender. While clearly male, or clearly female; gender roles were (biology) assigned solely in terms of biology – XX or XY. Social acceptance and societal standards further attamepted to contain and define that which in turn denied the norm. (Seidman, 1996) This struggle to define gender roles continues today. In uniting the perspecitves of the standpoint theory and the queer theory, it becomes possible to witness the restrictions gender roles can place upon society. Thus, a perspective of queer theory is to submit to the ideology that sexuality is discursively constructed and not commpletely natural. (Sullivan, 2003) This is to say there is not true correct homsexuality or heterosexuality as sexuality is understood and experienced in culturally and historically unique ways. Due to the fact there is no perfect example of the homsexual or heterosexual; gender roles are therefore inadequately assigned at best. Because we force the gender role on the individual through both active and passive means based on our perspective of social order, we remove a critical protion of self indentity. Biology dictates that we be male or female. It further supports the ability to reporduce by ensuring the female is designed to support the challenge of carrying and delivering life, while the male rages forth with hormones to seek her out. This is natural, however, this the effective limit of gender roles. A child is encouraged to mimic the behavior the adult parent wishes for the child to demonstrate. This has a binding affect on the individual that can restrict their long term potential. A female child taught and encouraged to be femine, may have been the next great mixed martial arts fighter had they been allowed the freedom to pursue gender roles more aptly associated with the male. It is our discomfort with resisting the social norm that hinders the forthcoming generations. Summary The key to unlocking the freedom of self is to allow the individual to better identify gender roles on their own terms. While the first step for the individual is to script themselves into more suitable roles, interactionism has pitfalls. One such pitfall is the reality that interactionism is highly influenced by the larger social order. The individual self is confined to their role in the sub-culture. Scritping allows the perspective of playing out a life in a more apt gender role, but the reciprocal interactions insists social paradiams remain in place. This is can sequestor action into inaction. However, the opportunity to find self still remains. Though we do not, as a rule raise our duaghters to be feminists, the feminist movement of the standpoint theory has unlocked a perspective of gender role growth that has been traditionally ignored. From this perspective, the individual moves forward on a path of self actualization that is no longer hindered by the restraictions of traditional gender roles. While the individual grows from the standpoint theory, they embrace a deeper sense of humanity and embrace a more complex call to foster the and enhance their world for the betterment of others. Arguably, this is the result of the relief of not maintaining the gender roles that have been forced upon the individual throughout life. For the first time the free to pursue life in their terms. This is a sense of freedom froma struggle that has been placed upon the individual by standards of social acceptance established by all other others, except the individual. Loosly related to the standpoint theory and perspective in the queer theory. We do not raise our children to be “gay.” While it can be said that “gay” is far more accpeted today than in years past, we do attampt to raise our children to not be gay. The problem lies in the understanding that not adequately assigning gender roles early in life predisposes the individual to the gay lifestyle. The queer theory seeks to disallow the tightly related association of sexuality and gender. To disallow this, allows the individual to self idnetify gender without suffering conflict transitioning within gender roles. The less conflict, the faster one can attain self actualization and become a better contributing member of scoiety. While this defies certain paradiagms in gender roles, a case can be clearly be made that in assigning gender roles so strictly, we inhibit the development of those we love most. Buzzanell, P. M. (2000). Rethinking Organizational and Managerial Communication from Feminist Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Kenney, S. J. (1997). Politics and Feminist Standpoint Theories. Binghamton, NY: hawroth Press. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex-role concepts and attitudes. In E. E. Maccoby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82-173). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Meade, G. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reynolds, L. T.-K. (2003). Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Seidman, S. (1996). Queer Theory in Sociology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing Inc. Sullivan, N. (2003). A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory. New York, NY: New York University Press. Wood, J. T. (1976). Gender Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Read More