Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers
Publishing Web for Students' Final Papers |
|
From: Barbara Burns
Email:
Course: PSY100G, Issues of diversity in development
psychology
College: UCSC
Instructor: Eugene Matusov
ClassWeb: http://www.ematusov.com/psych100G
ChildrenObservations: No
Date: 11 Dec 1996
Time: 20:13:15
Remote Name: ss1mac-18.ucsc.edu
As a psychology major, at the University of California at Santa Cruz, I took a course on the Issues of Diversity in Developmental Psychology. This course and its theme proved to be very interesting for me. We studied how universality and diversity permeate cultures, learning processes, morals, and gender. Most stimulating to me were the gender issues. Hence, I participated in a small group research presentation on the subject of how gender boundaries are developed. I took that research further, expanding on the possible explanations including gender via genetics.
Are there genuine stereotypical gender boundaries and roles? If so, why do they exist? Just what is their relevancy? Do we want to perpetuate them or stifle them? How do they develop? Are our roles a manifestation of nature versus nurture, meaning, are they founded in biology or contrived by our environment, or both? What and how much are you comfortable with?
In this paper I present information, briefly covering, support for both sides. I offered support for gender being predetermined by your genetics, regarding chromosomes, hormones, and “brain sex”. I also used the collaborative efforts on our small group project to support the socialization by product of gender. In this area we covered: parental expectations and interactions, child’s play, child's clothing, accessories, and room decor and finally, the effects of TV commercials.
I would like to acknowledge my appreciation to all my peers and the collaborative work we did, in the classroom, on the web site, and in small group. Thanks to Mary Zinsmeyer, for her work on socialization, to Deborah Ingram, for her wonderful information on TV commercials, to Dave Fellner, for his findings on bedroom decor, Edward Rivera, for his well analyzed material on child’s play and to Elizabeth Hom, for her dedication on the Internet, led me to more information on child’s play. I would also like to give my sincere gratitude to Eugene Matusov, who inspired my studies and stimulated this “re-entry “ mind of mine.
What is universal regarding gender boundaries in infants and how is their diversity established and promoted? Does evolution and/or genetics have an effect gender. What is there to be said about cultural and parental socialization?
David M. Buss, speaker for evolutionary psychology, argues that all human behavior is biological (McAdams, 1994, p. 189). Buss states, “Environments shape behavior, but without an organism equipped in a certain anatomical and physiological manner there can be no behavior.” Carl W. Bushong, psychotherapist, also supports genetics and “brain sex” for the diversity that establishes gender boundaries.
Bushong contends that an individual can view oneself and function as male or female in varying degrees, considering five semi-independent attributes of gender, thus providing a “fuzziness of gender roles.” His research defined the five attributes as: genetic, physical gender, brain sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity (http://users.aol.com/ashleyar/html/tmdg.htm/). I will condense Bushong’s information on genetics, physical gender, and brain sex to offer innate gender differences that offer the foundations for gender boundaries.
For genetics, Bushong, presents the chromosomal inheritance. We all know the traditional effect of the XX and the XY chromosome; the XX produces a female and XY creates a male. Did you know there are other possible combinations? XXY, XYY, and X0 are other possibilities.
Klinefelder’s syndrome is the combination of XXY, totaling 47 chromosomes, not 46. One in 500 births have this condition that later shows enlarged breasts, small testicles and penis. The XYY Syndrome provides a male physique and matching male hormones, but they tend to behave differently. Typically they are bisexual and show very low impulse control.
Turner’s syndrome is the deletion of a chromosome, only 45 instead of 46, hence X0. These people have external sex organs of a female and are free of all sexual hormones, except those coming from the mother during the fetal life.
Bushong’s primary concern for the physical gender category is hormonal involvement. He states, “During fetal life, the amount present, or the absence of testosterone determines our sexuality--physically, mentally and emotionally.” We all have female orientation and it is through small windows of opportunity that the amount of testosterone exposure creates differences.
Your physical gender is not always an indicator to your brain sex. Bushong reports brain sex to be an attribute to some behavioral differences noted between male and female infants. Newborn girls are much more sensitive to touch, spend about twice as long looking back at an adult face (and even longer if they are speaking), then boys. Newborn boys tend to be more active and awake, and are inattentive to the presence of an adult (regardless if the adult is speaking or not). According to Barbara Rogoff, Professor at University of California at Santa Cruz, there is an innate universal need for all infants. “They are all born incompetent, in need of food, warmth, and comfort from a capable adult,” (Rogoff, NOV 96) This adult/caregiver/parent has some preconceived notions on how the gender boundaries are drawn. The parents’ ideas of what equals proper gender boundaries are emanated by their verbal descriptions of their newborns. Vogal, Lake, and Hildebrandt Karraker (1995) found parents describing their daughters as finer featured, less strong and more delicate than male babies. According to the statistical analysis the numbers were insignificant on this finding, but I suggest they specifically point out the gender boundaries, after all, are not all babies fine featured, weak, and delicate?
Parents influence behavior and gender boundaries for their children by modeling preferred behavior. Albert Bandura, theorist of the social learning model, reports children tend to imitate people they like more than people they do not like, those which are more similar to themselves, and finally, those “same-sex role models somewhat more than opposite-sex models,” (Weiten, 1992 p.438). Bandura and Ken Bussy (1984) conducted an experiment that demonstrated this. Children, 29-68 months old, were matched with a same-sex adult. The adult was situated in front of the child. Together they viewed a video. From this situation the behavior of the child was noted to pattern after the observable adult model.
When parents play with their children, there are definite patterns that serve to reinforce gender roles. Girls’ play is directed and structured by adults more than boys’ play (Carpenter, 1983). So girls are protected and lead, while boys are not so fussed over and allowed freedom. The evidence gathered by Houston and O’Brien (1989), finds that parents and children select the same sex-typed toys when given a choice. Houston and O’Brien conclude the following:
Pomerleau, Bloduc, Malcuit, and Cossette (1990) found in their observational data of infants, ages 5-25 months, that colors were commonly coordinated with sex. Boys were found to wear more blue, red, and gray colored clothing, while girls wore more pink.
Also, an infant’s personal accessories helped to establish gender boundaries. Girls held pink pacifiers and boys held blue ones (Pomerleau, et al., 1990). Also, the parents repeated their girls possessed more jewelry. Sandra Bem, (Cole and Cole, 1993, p. 367) tells of the day her young son decided to wear barrettes to nursery school. A classmate determined and insisted that Jeremy must be really a girl because only girls wore barrettes. Finally exasperated, Jeremy, pulled down his pants to offer proof of his sex. The other boy still replied, “Everybody has a penis; only girls wear barrettes.”
Earlier, in 1975, Rheingold and Cook indexed the contents of children’s bedroom decorations to demonstrate how their personal environment reflects their gender. The boys’ rooms were significantly more likely to be decorated in animal motifs, while girls’ were more likely to be decorated with floral and lace. The Pomerleau study (1990) found girls’ rooms had more yellow bedding, opposing boys’ bedding and curtains being more likely blue. Overall, gender differences in room decorations have not changed much, still having and impact on gender boundaries.
Parents permit children to watch 3-4 hours of television a day (Ruble, Balabon, and Cooper, 1981). The commercials viewed during this time have an enormous impact on their socialization. Studies have shown that toy commercials intensify gender boundaries, making them more salient. It is not only the toys themselves, it is also the way they are presented. According to the study, (Ruble, et al., 1981) toys for girls are usually in an indoor setting with soft background music, and an adult present. The types of toys featured are: baby dolls, playhouses, princess and bride dolls, cooking sets, and beauty items. Toys for boys feature: fast cars, weapons, sports equipment, and construction sets. These boy toy commercials are set outside, with fast-paced louder music, and without adult interaction. The emphasis in girls’ commercial is on “being”--being a girlfriend, wife, mother, and a homemaker. The boys’ commercials focus on “doing”--building, running, shooting, tackling, and exploring. Clearly the type of toy a child plays with, and the commercials they watch, reinforce gender boundaries.
What are the results of these considerations? Are you interested in pointing the finger if you do not like how you are defined or perceive? Would it serve you to know you are the way you are because of the amount of hormones you were subjected to invivo, or that your parents did it to you, or your toys made you? Is your appreciation of yourself in your own mind and hands? Can you be how you want to be and share that essence with others? Can you define your personal success and proclaim it public based on measurements of self-fulfillment and what you offered to others?
I have strong considerations for the creation of gender in our biology. I find parental, cultural, societal influences, and ultimately our own cognition’s are responsible for the boundaries and roles we exemplify. We are universally living and breathing. Our satisfaction and successes should be personally measured, wholeheartedly felt, and eagerly shared to enhance our lives and others’. Diversity in gender boundaries gives us all something to value and appreciate. “Gender-role attitudes are important around the world,” (http://www.sas.upenn.edul~jbaron/pp.html).
References
Bushong, C.W., (1995). The multi-dimensionality of gender. http://users.aol.com/ashleyar/html/tmdg.htm/.
Calders, Y., Houston, A., & O’Brien, M. (1989). Social interaction and play patterns of parents and toddlers with feminine, masculine and neutral toys. Child Development, 60, 70-76.
Carpenter, C.J. (1983). Activity structure and play: Implication for socialization, social and cognitive skills. Sex roles and children’s play, New York: Academic Press.
Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (1992). The development of children (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Author.
Lecture 7: Sex or gender? http://fnord.dur.ac.uk/teaching.1ChildDev/h7ac.details.html
Ruble, D. N., Balaban, T., & Cooper, J. (1981). Gender constancy and the effects of sex-typed televised toy commercials. Child Development 52, 667-673.
Pomerleau, A., Bluoduc, D., Malcuit, G., & Cossette, L. (1990, March). Pink or blue: Environmental gender stereotypes in first two years of life. Sex Roles 24, 605-615.
Prasad, P. (1996, March) Measurement of gender-role attitudes, beliefs, and principles. http://www.sas.upenn.edul~jbaron/pp.html.
Vogel, D.A., Lake, M.A., Evans, S., & Hildebrandt Karraker, K. (1995). Parents’ gender-stereotyped perceptions of newborns. Sex Roles 33, 687-701.
Weiten, W. (1992). Psychology: Themes and variations (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
