To what extent are gender differences socially constructed Essays

To what extent are gender differences socially constructed Essays To what extent are gender differences socially constructed Essay To what extent are gender differences socially constructed Essay Many sociologists believe gender is socially constructed (i. e. it is mostly created by society and is not completely natural, as gender identity varies between societies and within societies). Some sociologists argue that gender is the result of environmental influences, particularly the way we are taken care of by our parents or guardians. On the other hand a number of sociologists argue that gender is the result of nature, due to the effects of hormones, brains or genes of the two sexes. Haralambos and Holborn (1995) In terms of how we understand identity a distinction between sex and gender must be drawn. Nick Jorgensen, John Bird, Andrea Heyhoe Bev Russell (1997). Sex deals with what are often biological differences, while gender is about a socially constructed role. Therefore, labels women and man are about both biological and social differences. Jorgensen, Bird, Andrea Russell (1997) Pg 23 Gender roles have a big influence on our lives, and there is a lot of evidence that suggests gender roles are culturally rather then biologically produced. Oakley (1972 cited in Haralambos and Holborn 1995) this means individuals are taught the behaviour that is expected of males and females within their society. These processes create systems of ideas and practises about gender that vary across time and space. They also create gender divisions of labour, allocating women and men to different activities and responsibilities. Bilton, Bonnett, Jones, Lawson, Skinner, Stanworth and Webster (2002) Pg 132. Many studies have shown that gender roles can differ considerably due to the culture of tha t society. This illustrates whatever the biological differences between males and females, it is the culture of the society which exerts most influence in the creation of masculine and feminine behaviour. Haralambos and Holborn (1995) Further more primary and secondary socialisation influences the behaviour of girls and boys from an early age. The roles themselves are made quite clear from the start; females are weak, more emotional and do not have strong sexual desires. Whereas, males are strong less emotional and have powerful sexual desires. Stephen Moore (1987) Parents tend to treat girls and boys differently in ways that influence their development. Oakley talks about four main ways in which socialisation takes place in gender roles. Firstly the childs self- concept is affected by manipulation. Secondly differences are achieved through canalisation involving the direction of boys and girls towards different objects. (Oakley 1972 cited in Haralambos and Holborn 1995 Pg 589/590) For instance girls are expected to be neat and tidy, to appreciate they are wearing pretty dresses and to be aware of their appearances. They are also given different toys to boys such as dolls, to play mother with and cooking and washing up appliances whereas, the boys are given toy guns, building bricks. All these activities encourage different forms of behaviour. (Stephen Moore 1987) The third aspect of socialisation is the use of verbal appellation such as thats a good girl. Or youre a naughty boy. (Oakley 1972 cited in Haralambos and Holborn 1995 Pg 590) this leads boys and girls to identify their gender and imitate adults of the same gender. So the son copys his father and is taught the traditional views of a man and the girl copys her mother and is taught traditional views of a women. Finally male and female children are exposed to different activities. (Oakley 1972 cited in Haralambos and Holborn 1995 Pg 590) Girls in particular are encouraged to become involved in domestic everyday jobs which reinforces stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. In addition primary socialisation can also cause differences in attitude to education research by Harris et al (1993) into attitudes of working class 16 year old boys and girls found that girls tented to be better motivated and more hard working than boys. The boys were easily distracted in class and were less determined to overcome educational difficulties. The researchers concluded that these attitudes were linked to the gender regimes they encountered in their homes and communities. Girls who were exposed to women who were organisers of the home and family and wage earners, displayed the same characteristics i. e. they were also organised with schoolwork and homework. However, the stereotype of the male was the macho male that did not care about authority and just liked to be in the company of other males. Researchers felt some of the boys were already fulfilling this stereotype in their approach to school. Moreover sociologists argue that teachers spend more time with boys and concentrate their efforts more on them. (Moore 1987 Pg 53) Like parents who are more likely to label their sons as less interested in school and education at an early age (Eccles study) teachers have different expectations of from boys and girls. Boys are expected to be more boisterous, girls to be quieter and more obedient. As a result, teachers are likely to treat the children differently according to their sex. (Moore 1987 Pg 53) There are also many other ways in which socialisation into gender roles takes place. Identification also takes place; children see themselves as their parents or television heroes. So as well as imitating their parents they also play at being parents/hero figures. Peer group pressure is also applied by friends, as friendships develop along sex lines with boys playing with boys and girls playing with girls, both playing different types of games. Stephen Moore (1987). From the viewpoints described above it would seem gender is socially constructed in the sense that differences in the behaviour of males and females are learned rather than being the inevitable result of biology. Haralambos and Holborn (1995) In contrast to this argument some sociologists would argue biologically differences are believed to be responsible for the behaviour of boys and girls and their roles in society. Stoller (cited in Haralambos and Holborn 1995) claims there are no vital links between femininity and being a woman, and being a man and behaving in a masculine way. Not all girls are caring and sympathetic and not all boys have to be aggressive and competitive. Some sociologists believe that hormones and brain differences can explain the difference in behaviour and roles of males and females. Both males and females produce sex hormones. Usually women produce larger amounts of progesterone and oestrogen, whilst males usually produce more testosterone and other androgens. The activity of a wide range of hormones is closely integrated with the activity of the nervous system, and so hormones can influence behaviour, personality and emotional disposition. (Haralambos and Holborn 1995 Pg 582) There has been much research done on animals to show evidence that there is link between the hormone androgens and aggressive behaviour such as castrated male rats fighting less, whereas female rats given more androgens after birth being more aggressive in adult life than other female rats (Haralambos and Holborn 1995). However, there have been criticisms made of the hormonal explanations of the study mentioned above by Ruth Bleier. In general, it is dangerous to assume that the same hormonal changes in animals would result in the same behaviour as humans. Such experiments are not conclusive. (Haralambos and Holborn 1995 Pg 582) In addition there are claims that hormones have indirect effects on male and female brain development as well as direct effects. Research has also concentrated on the issue of brain lateralisation. It is believed that the left and right hemispheres of the brain specialise in different tasks. The left hemisphere specialises in language and logical skills whereas the right is mostly responsible for visuospatial abilities. (Haralambos and Holborn 1995) It is alleged that the left hemisphere is more dominant in girls, and that in boys the right hemisphere is more dominant. This difference might be due to the hormonal influences on the brain. On the other hand Ruth Bleier has no ted the contradictory findings of the studies in this area. For example, some studies claim that girls are less lateralised than boys; some claim the reverse to be true; and some find no difference between boys and girls. (Haralambos and Holborn 1995 Pg 583) Moreover another biological explanation for the difference in behaviour of males and females is genetic and evolutionary factors. Some sociologists believe these reasons account for the difference in male and female behaviour. Some sociologists argue that social scientists who assume that human beings behave simply in terms of their culture and society are ignoring what they call human biogrammer. (Haralambos and Holborn 1995 Pg 583) This is a genetically based programme which inclines people to behave in certain ways. Although it is similar in men and women, Tiger and fox argue that compared to women, men are more aggressive and dominant and that these characteristics are genetically based. (Haralambos and Holborn 1995 Pg 584) This is partially because genetic inheritance and because a genetic adaptation to a hunting way of life. Males hunt which can be found to be an aggressive activity. To conclude, to support a biological case we would need to establish that a universal difference exists, that men and women across societies are characterised by more or less identical behaviours. We would also need to show that this difference is actually caused by biology and not in the similarities in upbringing. The more segregated the worlds that women and men inhabit, the harder it is to demonstrate that nature, rather than nurture, accounts for gender difference. (Bilton, Bonnet, Jones, Lawson, Skinner, Stanworth Webster 2002 Pg 132) Sociologists have tried to move away from the debate as to whether sex and gender shapes male and females behaviour Both David Morgan and Linda Birke argue sex and gender interact. Sex differences and vice versa. (Haralambos and Holborn 1995 591)

Georges Cuvier Biography

Georges Cuvier Biography Early Life and Education: Born August 23, 1769 - Died May 13, 1832 Georges Cuvier was born on August 23, 1769 to Jean George Cuvier and Anne Clemence Chatel. He grew up in the town of Montbeliard in the Jura Mountains of France. While he was a child, his mother tutored him in addition to his formal schooling making him much more advanced than his classmates. In 1784, Georges went away to the Carolinian Academy in Stuttgart, Germany. Upon graduation in 1788, he took a position as a tutor for a noble family in Normandy. Not only did this position keep him out of the French Revolution, it also gave him the opportunity to begin studying nature and eventually become a prominent Naturalist. In 1795, Cuvier moved to Paris and became a professor of Animal Anatomy at Musà ©e National dHistoire Naturelle. He was later appointed by Napoleon Bonaparte to various government positions related to education. Personal Life: In 1804, Georges Cuvier met and married Anne Marie Coquet de Trazaille. She had been widowed during the French Revolution and had four children. Georges and Anne Marie went on to have four children of their own. Unfortunately, only one of those children, a daughter, survived past infancy. Biography: Georges Cuvier was actually a very vocal opponent to the Theory of Evolution. In his 1797 published work entitled Elementary Survey of the Natural History of Animals, Cuvier hypothesized that since all of the different animals he had studied have such specialized and different anatomy, they must not have changed at all since the creation of the Earth. Most zoologists of the time period thought an animals structure was what determined where they lived and how they behaved. Cuvier proposed the opposite. He believed that the structure and function of organs in animals was determined by how they interacted with the environment. His Correlation of Parts hypothesis emphasized that all organs worked together within the body and how they worked was directly a result of their environment. Cuvier also studied many fossils. In fact, legend has it that he would be able to reconstruct a diagram of an animal based off of a single bone that had been found. His extensive studies led him to be one of the first scientists to create a classification system for animals. Georges realized there was no possible way that all animals could be fit into a linear system from most simple in structure all the way up to humans. Georges Cuvier was the most vocal opponent to Jean Baptiste Lamarck and his ideas of evolution. Lamarck was a proponent of the linear system of classification and that there were no constant species. Cuviers main argument against Lamarcks ideas was that important organ systems, like the nervous system or cardiovascular system, did not change or lose function like other less important organs did. The presence of vestigial structures was the cornerstone of Lamarcks theory. Perhaps the most well known of Georges Cuviers ideas comes from his 1813 published work called Essay on the Theory of the Earth. In this, he hypothesized that new species came into being after catastrophic floods, such as the flood described in the Bible when Noah built the ark. This theory is now known as catastrophism. Cuvier thought that only the highest of the mountain tops were immune to the floods. These ideas were not very well received by the overall scientific community, but more religious based organizations embraced the idea. Even though Cuvier was anti-evolution during his lifetime, his work actually helped give Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace a starting point for their studies of evolution. Cuviers insistence that there was more than one lineage of animals and that organ structure and function depended on the environment helped shaped the idea of Natural Selection.