Experiments on animals were made, which provides evidence that high levels of androgens make people more aggressive. For example, Goy and Phoenix (1971) claim that female rhesus given extra androgens display more ‘rough and tumble play’ than other females.
However, Ruth Bleier(1984) argues that it is dangerous to assume that the same hormonal changes in animals would result in the same for humans. The experiment has failed to take account of the fact that the androgens produced masculinised genitalia in the female monkeys. Bleier (1984) refers to studies, which show that rhesus mothers treat their offspring from an early age according to their sex. The behaviour of the monkeys could therefore have resulted from them being treated as males because of their appearance.
Many researchers draw attention to the fact, for example, in almost all cultures, men rather than women take part in hunting and warfare. One example is Desmond. Morris (1977) who also connects much of social behaviour to evolutionary drives and proposes a model of human development that is linked to his belief in ‘man and hunter’. Surely, they argue, this indicates that men posses biologically based tendencies towards aggression that women lack?
However many researchers are unconvinced by this argument. The level of aggressiveness of males, they say varies widely between different cultures and women are expected to be more passive or gentle in some cultures than in others Elshtain (1987). Moreover, they add, because a trait is more or less universal, it does not follow that it is biological in origin; there may be cultural factors of a general kind that produce such characteristics. For example, in the majority of cultures, most women spend a significant part of their lives caring for children and could not readily take part in hunting or war.
There have been several attempts to relate sex differences in the behaviour of men and women by using the evolutionary ideas. The most influential of these, is socio-biology, which was developed by E.O Wilson (1975) and this is based in part on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Like Darwin, socio-biologists believe that humans and other species develop and change through a process of ‘natural selection.’ Haralambos.M (2000). Individuals of a species vary in their physical characteristics, and from this point of view, those which are best adapted to their environment, are most likely to survive and reproduce. Since offspring tend to have characteristics similar to those of their parents due to genetic inheritance, the characteristics of a species can change as the fittest survive. Wilson and Barash.D (1979) go further to say that different reproductive strategies produce different behaviour in males and females and also lead them to occupy different social roles.
‘The gene is the basic unit of heredity, defined as a portion of the DNA molecule which affects the development of any trait at the most elementary biochemical level. It carries the code which influences future development’ Weeks.J (1985)
Sociobiologists also argue that genes exist for every social phenomenon so that the random survival of the genes could explain all social practices from economic efficiency and educational attainment to gender divisions. If genes could explain all social practices, than this may show evidence of why girls have greater verbal abilities and boys excel in mathematics.
According to Professor David Skuse in this article:
‘Girls are pre-programmed to acquire social skills intuitively, rather like the way we acquire language. For boys, this is much more difficult’ Guardian. June 12. (1997)
This article also suggests that genes as much as culture influence the difference in social skills between the sexes. Because of the boys finding it difficult, they have to be taught, and they need a much more structured social environment.
Although the hypothesis that biological factors determine behaviour patterns in men and women cannot be dismissed out of hand, nearly a century of research identify the physiological origins of such an influence has been unsuccessful. There is no evidence of the mechanisms which would link such biological forces with the social behaviours exhibited by human men and women. Connel (1987). Theories which see individuals as complying with some kind of innate predisposition, neglect the vital role of social interaction in shaping human behaviour.
Learning the gender role begins as a baby in the family. According to environmentalism, the human mind is more or less a blank slate that is inscribed by the individual experiences in society. Early aspects of gender learning by infants are almost unconscious. They precede the stage at which children can accurately label themselves as either a boy or a girl. A range of pre-verbal clues are involved in the initial development of gender awareness. Male and female adults usually handle infants differently.
By the age of two, children have a partial understanding of gender and can usually categorise themselves and others accurately. However, it is not until five or six, does a child realise that every person has a gender which does not change or that the differences between the gender is anatomically based.
Gender behaviour is first learnt through primary and secondary socialisation within the family. Children internalise the social norms and expectations which are seen to correspond with their sex and this is reinforced later in partially every shere of social life.
According to Professor Carole Beal (Observer, June 18 1995):
‘As a child develops their cognitive abilities, they appear to want to learn about how to be there gender. It has been shown that children will copy a new activity if they see several people of the same sex demonstrate it. Children also learn about gender by the response they get from their parents’
From this, I think its fair to say that gender differences are not biologically determined, they are culturally produced (nurtured). According to this view, gender inequalities result due to men and women being socialised into different roles.
Carole Beal also argues that girls are boys are bought up, even if parents are very careful. Girls will suffer a disadvantage, which will stay with them throughout their life. For instance, jobs involving leadership and construction skills are for boys, whereas girls are expected to care for, assist and give service to others either at home or at work. The basis of division of labour is clearly laid down in childhood. Women are expected to be physically weaker, emotional and have motherly instincts and not to have strong sexual drives. Whereas men are stronger, less emotional more aggressive as I mentioned earlier and have powerful sexual drives.
On the other hand, functionalists who subscribe to the ‘natural differences’ school of thought tend to argue that the division of labour between men and women are biologically based. Giddens.A (2001). Women and men perform those tasks for which they are biologically best suited. Therefore, the anthropologist George Murdock (1949), saw it as both practical and convenient that women should concentrate on domestic and family responsibilities while men work outside the home. On the basis of cross-cultured study, Murdock.G (1949) concluded that the ‘sexual division of labour is present in all cultures. While this is not the result of biological ‘programming’, it is the most logical basis for the organisation of society’.
Similarly, Talcott Parsons (1955) also argued to account for the role of women in industrial society. He says that because mothers bore and nursed children, they had a closer and stronger relationship with them. He also characterised the women’s role in the family as ‘expressive’, which meant that she provided, warmth and security. This was essential for the effective socialisation of the young. He concluded that biological differences between the sexes provided the foundation on which the sexual division of labour was based.
However, Anne Oakely (1974) rejects the view of Murdock and Parsons and argues that the sexual division of labour is not universal nor are certain tasks performed by men, others by women. She maintains that Murdock’s interpretations of his data is biased because he looks at other cultures through both western and male eyes. She believes that gender roles are culturally rather than biologically produced.
Social learning theory is also a major influence in the construction of gender.
According to Perry and Bussy (1984), children can develop hypotheses about what is appropriate for themselves, by merely observing other male and female adults. Observational learning also enables children to imitate and thus to acquire sex-typed behaviours by modelling the significant same-sex adults they admire. Thus, like psychoanalytic theory, social learning theory has its own concept of modelling and identification, but it is based on observational learning rather than inner confliction resolution.
Cook (1975) argued that parents differently reward and punish sex-appropriate and inappropriate as well as serve as the child’s first model of masculine and feminine behaviour.
According to Sigmund Freud (1930), children began to focus on genitals at about three years old. He called the beginning of the phalliac stage of psychosexual development. For Freud, sexual identity and sex role are acquired along with a superego when the Oedipus complex is resolved, at the age of five or six. The role of the traditional mother and father unit is, therefore of crucial importance in Freud’s theory of sexual development whereby the child must identify with the same sex parent. Thus, the process of forming a gender identity and becoming sex typed, begins with the child’s discovery of the genital differences between the sexes and ends with the child identification with the same sex parent. Freud’s theory implies that rigid sex-typing even stereotyping is universally inevitable and unmodifiable.
Whereas social learning theorist’s treat the child as the passive recipient of environmental forces, society, parents, peers and the media all influence the child. Ruble (1987), argues that social learning theories are not able to account for the fact that children’s gender-role beliefs appear to change over time.
I believe we as human beings, are complex and changeable creatures. We manipulate language to constantly reshape our perceptions of the world. As individuals, we are easily influenced whether it is response to political or academic factors. We like to fit into societies norms and values so that we are not seen as the out casts. So when we discuss gender roles, they are much more than a debate, they are central to the direction of the society.
From what I have read so far, the main arguments of the social constructionists is that genes do not determine gender roles of individuals. They believe that society mould’s us into these stereotypes. If gender roles are all down to biology perspectives, then how has sex roles changed by a substantial amount. Women are now taking powerful jobs and girls are doing better in academic. Due to methods of artificial birth control and legal abortion, women are able to make a choice whether to have a family or not. Thus, enabling women to have the choice and freedom to choose their role in life.
I believe that genetics play a big role in the male and females, as they arrange the appropriate and inappropriate physical appearance and behaviour of gender. The real importance is the social meaning we give to them.
‘Society plays a lot of importance on male and female organs both psychologically and socially. This importance according to Freud, is demanded by culture and do not rise straightforwardly from the biological alone’ Weeks J (1985)
Society influences us from early age. Our parent teach us what is right and wrong in society, i.e gender roles.
I believe the development that seems most obviously to be determined by innate biological timetables can be affected by environmental events. Biology (nature) and the environment (nurture), both play important roles but they interact continuously to guide an individual through development
Bibliography
Bilton. T (2002). Introductory Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan. New York
Browne. K (1998). In introduction Sociology. Polity Press
Giddens. A (2001) Sociology. Blackwell Publishers. Oxford
Guardian. June 12 (1997)
Haralambos. M (2000). Sociology: Themes And Perspectives
Hilgard. (1996). Introduction to Psychology. Harcourt
Macionis. J (1998). Sciology: A Global Introduction. Prentice Hall Eurrope. New Jersy. USA
Mead. M (1950) Male and Female. Pelican Press
Observer. June 18 (1995)
Robertson. F (1996). Gender, Family & society. Macmillan Press. London
Stevens. R (1996). Understanding the self. Sage Publication
Trew & Kremer (1998). Gender And Psychology. Oxford University Press
Week. J (1995) Sexuality. Tavistok Publication
