Gender roles in our society are based on prejudice.

Authors Avatar

Paul Crane

24/1/05

Mr. Savage

Humanities

Gender roles in our society are based on prejudice

“Gender roles in our society are based on prejudice” is an essay about the ways in which we stereotype each gender. These stereotypes lead the children, through socialisation, to conform to the way in which both male and females are supposed to act in society. For example, the male stereotype in supposed to have physical strength, be aggressive and competitive characteristics, whereas female characteristics are supposed to be sensitive, caring and compassionate. If men act in the female characteristics they are regarded as “wimps”, and if women act like men then they are called “tomboys”. This view is bombarded at us as children should affect us when we enter working life causing men to have better jobs than those of women. This is prejudice.

I aim to find out whether these views are correct. I want to find out are women biologically less abled than men and that’s why we socialise them differently, or do we think there is a biological difference and that’s why we socialise then differently.

In theory if there are biological differences between the two sexes then once they are born their futures are pre-determined regardless of the socialisation by their guardians through their comformative period. I watched this programme called “freaks” on BBC1 and it showed a boy in Germany who was abandoned in a house with a dog. Now the boy’s only agent of socialisation was the dog. He was found 10 years later wondering the streets, naked and crawling on all fours and barking at passer by. Now surely if nurture (socialisation) was less effective than nature this would not have happened. We simply nurture children into our society as to conform and not stand out. Our society had a tradition of protecting females and let boys be boys. Also in other societies with different cultures the roles are reversed. Women do all the work and men groom themselves.

However, some people argue that nature is all that matters and nurture in a minor factor. This could be deemed to be true. If you look at the animal kingdom, nature, you see this. Let’s take lions for example. The lion gets the lioness pregnant and then if she is still allowed in the pack by the other lioness’s she raised the cubs with the pack. The lions hunt for food and once they get the kill the lionesses comes over and feeds her and the cubs. This basically means that the lion gets the lioness pregnant, lion continues his normal life, the lioness has to gain acceptance all over again. When the cubs are born the lion continues as normal and yet the lioness has to nurture them in everyway for them to survive. The outstanding thing here is that even though the cubs know who there father is but also they have loads of lionesses to look up to they stick to there mother and also how the mother naturally cares for the cubs and yet the lion does not.

Join now!

        Has this always been the case if you look at history for example you could argue for both sides. Cavemen had no understanding of anything and yet adapted this idea. From the understanding that we have of cavemen we say that men went out and got the food whilst the women stayed home and looked after the cave and children. On the other hand you could also argue that women were unable to hunt but not because of biological differences but because throughout a cavewomen’s life she is pregnant from as early as 10 until her death. So she was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay