Development of Gender Roles - Assignment Example

Development of Gender Roles Name Institution Affiliation Development of Gender Roles The question as to whether men and women are different from one another has been at the core of humanity for as long as one can remember. Indeed, on the biological front, clear differences can be found to distinguish women from the men. However, it is the fact that these differences exist that has led to the creation of stereotypes across racial and cultural divides in the effort to seek a clear definition of manhood and womanhood. Much research has been conducted on these studies. According to Bandura (1977), some disciplines, notably psychology, have formulated theories as well as conducted experiments in the effort to find out the reasons behind the creation of male and female stereotypes. These stereotypic inclinations are responsible for the creation of roles based on generally accepted societal norms and traditions. One issue that needs to be clarified is that of ‘gender’ and ‘sex.' These are terms that have raised controversies, especially in the 21st-century environment. In a world in which political correctness is a priority for most, it is important that a distinction is made in the study of manhood and womanhood. Coltrane and Adams (2008) opine that gender identity is, in essence, a concept that refers to the knowledge that a person has with regards to masculinity and femininity. These concepts are usually murked between biological and socially constructed norms and definitions. Maccoby (1994) asserts that the mentality with regards to such a topic is formed from the tender age of two or three years. At this age, a human begins to be aware of the concept of gender. However, it does not necessarily mean that gender roles are assimilated at this stage (Maccoby, 1994). Indeed, boys and girls tend to interact with one another in a similar manner. At such an age, the stereotypic behavior is hard to notice. It can be difficult to define the characteristics of a boy and that of a girl without prior knowledge of the gender. The progression of time, however, seems to alter this dynamic and causes boys and girls to be more conscious of the gender differences than they would have noticed in the early years. The creation of gender stereotypes is the first thing that causes boys and girls to notice the differences between thus causing them to gain more identity with their genders. The alternate movement is that boys notice that it is inappropriate to associate with girls in the process of building relationships and identities (Maccoby, 1994). Bandura (1977) adds that these differences in status and power are responsible for the creation of roles that reflect the stereotypes already created and maintained in society. Gender roles are in essence the reflection of these gender stereotypes. A study by Bem (1981) shows that from the earliest of a person’s development, the society plays a critical role in the definition of and formation of an identity. Social expectations have always drawn the line between a man and a woman. The things that a man is required to do are different from a woman’s. These expectations and duties tend to be bestowed on children from an early age. A study by Deaux and Major (1987) found out that the social expectation of being a member of either sex heavily impacts on the definitions of the roles of a girl and boy. The development of male and female roles is thus two distinct processes which usually end with different outcomes. According to Arndorfer and Stormshak (2008), the segregation of children along the lines of gender usually results in them having to identify with their respective masculine or feminine stereotype. Such a phenomenon is referred to as sex typing (Arndorfer and Stormshak, 2008). According to Richards et al. (1998), sex typing is the extent to which an individual conforms to their respective gender roles that have arisen out of stereotypes. A study conducted by Choudhury, Blakemore and Charman (2006) shows that the environment plays a huge role in the definition of the gender roles of a person. They looked at the way in which children respond to issues based on patterns observed by various actors in the society. For Coltrane and Adams (2008) an important aspect of the social environment is the family. Parents tend to have a strong influence on the development of children. From the very beginning, boys notice that they are dressed differently from the girls - they notice the difference in toys and colors and how the parents behave in accordance with their gender. As such, this creates awareness among the children that they are indeed different from one another. Mehta and Strough (2009) add that the manner of dressing will lead to the children imitating the grownups based on their gender. The impression left in their minds is rather strong since any tendency to dress as the opposite sex is seen as humorous at the very least and embarrassing on the other scale. The behaviors of parents or teachers are also critical in this instance (Coltrane and Adams, 2008). Fagot (1985) indicates that many societies teach their boys that they are stronger than the girls. As such, the boys tend to be treated with a degree of roughness as compared to the girls, which creates a stereotype as to the roles of the boys and the girls. This phenomenon is also supported by Martin and Fabes (2001) who found out that, even as children play together, the boys engage in more physical activities as compared to the girls. However, there are scenarios in which families are not keen in segmenting the children based on gender. In non-segregationist households, gender roles are less defined, and children tend to assume roles based on a different set of rules altogether. A good example is seen in the households whereby the children are of the same gender (Coltrane and Adams, 2008). In this case, Maccoby (1998) postulates that the roles of the children in the house are mixed up due to the lack of ‘appropriate gender’ for a particular task. According to Martin and Fabes (2001), such confusion is also expressed in situations whereby boys find themselves under the constant care of an older female sibling. In such circumstances, some boys can be seen playing ‘house’ and ‘dolls. These boys tend to grow comfortable with the roles that they have to play when included in these games. On the other hand, the girls who exceedingly engage with boys as they play tend to exhibit masculine characteristics. They are usually known as ‘tomboys’ as they tend to portray behaviors that are usually associated with boys. Kohlbergs’ Cognitive Development Stage theory also proves that segregation policies tend to create sex-typed behaviors among children. In this theory, the role of self-socialization is important in determining sex typing in children. A child is actively involved in seeking information to form an identity. A critical aspect of Kohlberg’s theory is that a child must have the ability to attain gender identity, stability, and constancy. Martin, Ruble and Szkrybalo (2002) opine that the acquisition of this gendered information is important since it orients and defines the way in which a child reacts and responds to situations in their world. The Cognitive Development Theory differs from the social learning theory in that the learning process in the former is initiated by the child and not the environment (Carbon and Albrecht, 2012). For Bussey and Bandura (1984), while a child can be aware of their sex at the age of two years old, a further process of development is needed to appreciate the meaning and requirements of being associated with a particular gender role. During this period, a boy will be seen to be actively involved in efforts to establish a behavior that is in line with the notions of masculinity. The same applies to a girl, whereby she will tend to exhibit characteristics that symbolize femininity. For sex-typing to occur, gender constancy must be observed. Indeed, during this period, a girl might, for example, grow up wanting to be like her father (Martin, Ruble and Szkrybalo, 2002). For girls, a strong and loving father figure holds considerable sway in opinion as compared to a mother. It is a concept referred to as role-modeling, and it tends to have a substantial effect on the life of a young person because children tend to have very impressionable minds. As such, the behaviors of an older member of the family are likely to influence their perceptions and behaviors. The way in which a man in a household behaves will impact the attitudinal and behavioral postures of a same-sex child in a huge way (Martin, Ruble and Szkrybalo, 2002). Coltrane and Adams (2008) assert that parental power tends to have a great impact on sex typing in boys. In households in which a father tends to be disorderly and abusive towards the women, the implications for the boys are severe. If the father is a role model, a boy is likely to grow up believing that a man should mistreat a woman as he pleases (Martin and Fabes, 2001). Studies have shown that boys who were abused when they were young were likely to become abusive men when they grow up into adults. The issue is that, once a stereotype has been established in the mind of a young one, it is hard to get rid of it once it transcends into adulthood (Martin and Fabes, 2001). According to Mehta and Strough (2010), cognitive behavior is especially visible among adolescents. Adolescents tend to have exploratory minds and attitudes. As such, segregationist policies in areas such as schools tend to create a stereotype regarding the way in which men and women should behave. The homosocial norm is a good example of this reality whereby, it is accepted that the males should have male friends as compared to female friends. The converse is true for the females as they are also required to associate themselves with female friends since to be associated with male friends is usually frowned on by the society (Bandura, 1977). According to the principles of cognitive development theory, exposure to the homosocial norm tends to last a lifetime. Men will be seen making friends with other men way into adulthood. The same applies to the ladies who will be keen to make friends with other women as they grow into adulthood (Mehta and Strough, 2009). Closely related to the Kohlberg’s theory of Cognitive Development is the Gender Schema Theory. Bem (1981) opines that a schema is a cognitively organized network of associations. The network is readily available and is used in guiding an individual’s perception on various issues of life. As such, a gender schema is an established standard that acts as a guide by which a person can exhibit a certain behavior in specific scenarios (Bem, 1981). These actions and behaviors are supposed to line up with a criterion that has already been formed in the mind. The core difference between the gender schema theory and Kohlberg’s theory of cognitive development lies on the stage by which a child gets to establish a gender identity. In the latter, the establishment of a gender identity is a process that occurs after a specific set of behaviors and reactions have been under constant practice and expression in the life of a child. As mentioned earlier, this is usually after 5-6 years. For Campbell et al. (2000), gender schema theorists are of the opinion that gender roles are established in the early cognitive processes of a child (repetitive). These processes are biologically encoded in a human being. According to the gender schema theory, the process of development of stereotypical inclinations with regards to gender is an inherent process that is devoid of external manipulation. In this theory, any emergence of stereotype should be seen as perfectly normal since it is a natural process. Carbon and Albrecht (2012) postulate that the development of a child is heavily hinged on the cognitive processing. As a child develops, there is a need to categorize this information into generalizations such as “boys should wear trousers and girls should wear skirts.” Stereotypes are thus a way of ensuring that efficiency so as to navigate complex scenarios in life. As such, the view here is that the differences in gender are as a result of the inherent and inbuilt process in a person. Masculinity and femininity are equal yet different platforms (Bem, 1981). The theory, in essence, emphasizes the differences rather than the similarities between the male and the female forms, which leads to the creation of gender stereotypes. The distinguishing factor, for this reason, arises out of the society’s cultural beliefs. As such, typed sex individuals will tend to use gendered connotation when describing things (Deaux and Major, 1987). Some labels tend to enhance segregationist mentalities in individuals. A statement such as ‘girls should talk with girls and boys should talk with boys’ tends to orient children towards specific gender roles. According to Leaper (1994), it forms hegemonies in their minds, and such attitudes tend to be transferred from one generation to the next. On the other hand, such a statement such as ‘girls can play hockey as well as boys’ creates a different perception among children leading to androgynous mentalities (Martin and Fabes, 2001). People who develop in gender-segregated environment tend to exhibit more sex-typed behaviors and characteristics as compared to those who evolve in a mixed environment. The factors that can shape such mindsets are both internal and external. Social factors tend to determine the way in which an individual will perceive another sex type. Parents, teachers and other influential figures provide an avenue by which children get to understand the issues of gender and identity (Coltrane and Adams, 2008). References Arndorfer, C., & Stormshak, E. (2008). Same-sex Versus Other-sex Best Friendship in Early Adolescence: Longitudinal Predictors of Antisocial Behavior Throughout Adolescence. J Youth Adolescence, 37(9), 1059-1070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9311-x Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 Bem, S. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88(4), 354-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.88.4.354 Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1984). Influence of gender constancy and social power on sex-linked modeling. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 47(6), 1292-1302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1292 Campbell, A., Shirley, L., Heywood, C., & Crook, C. (2000). Infants’ visual preference for sex-congruent babies, children, toys and activities: A longitudinal study. British Journal Of Developmental Psychology, 18(4), 479-498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/026151000165814 Carbon, C., & Albrecht, S. (2012). Bartlett's schema theory: The unreplicated “portrait d'homme” series from 1932. The Quarterly Journal Of Experimental Psychology, 65(11), 2258-2270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.696121 Choudhury, S., Blakemore, S., & Charman, T. (2006). Social cognitive development during adolescence. Social Cognitive And Affective Neuroscience, 1(3), 165-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsl024 Coltrane, S., & Adams, M. (2008). Gender and families. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Dahlgren, K. (1985). The Cognitive Structure of Social Categories*. Cognitive Science, 9(3), 379-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0903_4 Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.369 Fagot, B. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principle: Another step toward understanding sex role development. Developmental Psychology, 21(6), 1097-1104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.1097 Leaper, C. (1994). Exploring the consequences of gender segregation on social relationships. New Directions For Child And Adolescent Development, 1994(65), 67-86. Maccoby, E. (1994). Commentary: Gender segregation in childhood. New Directions For Child And Adolescent Development, 1994(65), 87-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219946508 Maccoby, E. (1998). The two sexes. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Martin, C., & Fabes, R. (2001). The stability and consequences of young children's same-sex peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 37(3), 431-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.3.431 Martin, C., Ruble, D., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128(6), 903-933. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.6.903 Mehta, C., & Strough, J. (2009). Sex segregation in friendships and normative contexts across the lifespan. Developmental Review, 29(3), 201-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.06.001 Mehta, C., & Strough, J. (2010). Gender Segregation and Gender-Typing in Adolescence. Sex Roles, 63(3-4), 251-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9780-8 Richards, M., Crowe, P., Larson, R., & Swarr, A. (1998). Developmental Patterns and Gender Differences in the Experience of Peer Companionship during Adolescence. Child Development, 69(1), 154. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1132077 Read More