Theoretical Overview of Gender Socialization

Theoretical Over enamor of devolve onuality SocializationWhat is the meaning and flavour behind this rhyme? What types of messages be revealn with a rhyme to children? How children interiorise these messages?What argon itty-bitty boys made of?Frogs and snails and puppy dog tailsThats what little boys ar made of.What are little girls made of?Sugar and spice up and all thats nice.Thats what little girls are made of.(Marchbank Letherby, 2007).Immediate after the birth, children are surrounded with environ custodytal input from the golf club in which they grow up, peers and t separatelyers they interact, media, books and parents related to to their awaken activityual activity and federal agencys attributed to their sexual activity. Those messages and amicable cues tell children there are two slip route of existing (Marchbank Letherby, 2007).Children are surrounded with environmental in-put approximately sexual practice from family, peers, and the media. At the sam e cartridge clip, they make their testify attempts to understand the world and to form categories that booster organize it. grammatical sexual activity provides one convenient way for them to accomplish this cognitive organization. In addition, society suffuses the sexuality distinction with affect, making sexual activity what is mayhap the well-nigh salient (Eckes and Trautner, 2000).Gender is seen as a categorical dodging made up of some(prenominal) levels. Although at the most fundamental level, it is specify by physiology as biological differences between the sexes, on the basis of their informal anatomy it usually refers to sociable, cultural and psychological rules and traits linked to anthropoids and females through finical favorable context.Gender Identity is de all rightd as individuals experience oh himself or herself as manful or feminine and one of the strongest components of societalization is the training of sexual urge identity. Gender identity, an aspect of self-concept, gos in childhood, showed early and tumefy (Richardson Simpson, 1982).The acquisition and modification of childrens grammatical grammatical sexual urge theatrical roles, attitudes, and social sorts related to gender, are modulate by many factors, including the values of social class to which they belong, fundamental interaction with peers and t all(prenominal)ers, vulnerability to behavior and standards through mass media and especially parents and their parenting styles are the most belief and most prestigious operators in childrens gender enculturation ferment (Mussen, et al, 1979).In the fallowing part, the influences of parents testament be discussed however, it is requisite to look at theoretical overview of gender role victimization to understand the role of parents in detail.Theoretical Overview of Gender SocializationAll theories of gender role development focus on primary socialization and deal with how children learn gender identity, at the time they become aware of two sexes having distinguishable gender roles and acting other than. Gender socialization and gender role development are influenced by a variety of signifi stopt elements such(prenominal)(prenominal) as biota, social constitutions and social interaction and individualizedity. Different theories bring different point of look and apprehensiveness to these each element (Lindsey, 2005).Biological accounts of gender differences contrive been popular in refreshed-fangled years by focalization on the hormonal and genetic factors. sensual differentiation of two sexes and differentiation of sex organs are find out due to the sex hormones and chromosomes. Here, starting at the conception, it could be said that hormones form a role in sex differentiation between male and female bodies, but it is not at all (Marchbank and Letherby, 2007).Biological theories of sex differences indicate that hormone activity as biological levelts are viewed as produci ng psychological and cognitive differences between sexes in cost of being nurturance or aggressiveness. For example, the changes in the mood of women during the menstrual cycle are seen as end point of the hormone levels in their blood or the level of testosterone becomes a gross explanation employ to explain aggressive and hostile behaviors (Burr, 1998).However, there are as well as studies in literature rejecting the effects of hormones on the differences of behaviors among the females and males. Monozygotic jibe sharing 100% of identical genes be possessed of been analyzed in ground of the similarities and differences in their behaviors. Mitchell and his colleagues government issueed that genes can explain from 20% to 48% of the differences among the behaviors, but environmental factors convey a greater role in the ambit of 52%- 80% of differences (Helgeson, 2005).When the management is drawn on the studies of testosterone hormone, according to the postulate of Brann on, both(prenominal) males and males involved in criminal activities and the alliance between aggressiveness and power can not be solely depending on the testosterone level in men (Brannon, 2005). Similar to the results of Brannon, according to a development conducted with prisoners, college students and psychiatric patients, it is open that there was no positive correlation between hostility and testosterone levels (Burr, 1998). additionally to these findings, the level of testosterone should not be associated with males, quite a in a study there is a correlation between increased testosterone levels of female students and meliorate performance on tests for spatial abilities. However, the improvement is not due to the forepart of testosterone, quite an it is related to relative level of testosterone seen as de depotining factor quotation of optimal performance (Smith, 2007).When the worry has been turned to the humor studies to explain sex differences in cognition and b ehaviors of females and males, again paradoxical explanations can be seen in that era. Although, some argue that differential brain lateralization contributes differently to the ablaze and cognitive functions of two sexes, the findings are not satisfactory to explain gender role differences (Hetherington Parke, 1993).Different areas of brain defecate been playing different roles in price of different cognitive functions. It is believed that right-hemisphere reign male brain makes men superior in the spatial abilities, while women are good at verbal and language skills because of the lateralization of their brain which is left-hemisphere (Marchbank and Letherby, 2007).However, in a study, abuse to the right-hemisphere related to spatial skills influenced both men and women. Hiscock and colleges cerebrate that the differences among two sexes because of the brain specialization are very small with 1 and 2 % variability (cited in Helgeson, 2005).Besides, it is reviewed that rig ht-hemisphere is much emotional half of the brain. So, if women are left-hemisphere and men left-hemisphere dominated how women are seen as more than than emotional than men (Lindsey, 2005).When it is generally looked at the literature of brain studies and biological theories, it should be said that the evidences are foreign and those studies musical accompaniment the influences of biology on the gender differences suffer from methodological inadequacies. wherefore depending on the theories of many searches on the issue of gender socialization, it is assumed that biology alone can not be thought as determinant gender roles and gender differences in behavior and cognition. However, those biological theories draw attention of the theorist to explain the reasons of variability in the behaviors of men and women. That is why it is undeniable to focus on social-situational and cognitive factors while investigating the process of gender role development.To begin with the psychoan alytic possible action, Freud in his surmise, talked about a series of defends playing role in the development of personality and third stand for focused on the development of gender roles (Helgeson, 2005). In the third stage called as phallic, Freud described the role family environment where children engage in the process of identification with m some others feminine virtue of love and nurturance and with fathers masculine strengths of discipline and rules. That doer phallic stage is the starting point that boys and girls discover their genitals and they construct that only boys stick appendagees which leads both boys and girls to view girls as inferior.Due of the desire of opposite-sex parent, oedipal obscure, boys fear emasculation, because father figure is seen as source of threat and fear. Boys, at this stage, overcome their castration anxiety, by giving up sexual haul for their mother and by identifying with their fathers (Eckes and Trautner, 2000). For girls, the resolution of Electra complex with the meaning of being sexually attracted to their fathers is not completely resolved in the same way that the oedipal complex of boys resolved. Freud was not clear explaining girls identification with their mothers. For girls, anxiety occurs because of the penis invidia, realization of girls that they do not have a penis and they blame their mothers for anatomic deficiencies. Therefore, girls penury to attract their fathers which lead them to handle conflict, Electra complex, by identifying with their mothers and transferring their energies to make themselves attr industrious towards their fathers (Smith, 2007).Freuds psychoanalytic possibleness, however, has been criticized on a fig of grounds. One of them is that it is not possible to survey thoughts and actions by sexual instincts of unconscious mind from a scientific standpoint. That instrument it is difficult to verify objectively, whether girls suffer from penis envy or boys from castrat ion anxiety. Another criticism comes from feminist theories due to the Freudian thoughts related to penis envy and castration anxiety. Karen Horney, a feminist psychologist, pointed out the importance of social forces as determinant of gender identity kind of than biology. Horney, believed that penis envy experienced by girls, does not reflect an actual adoration to have a penis sooner it is envy of power and social term attributed to men (Brannon, 2005).On the other hand, psychoanalytic theory has been criticized by many researchers of not considering any outside influences such as parents, peers or media (Matlin, 1987). Margret Mahlers and Nancy Chodorows Object-relation speculation grew out of Freuds psychoanalytic theory, but it straind the importance of early family relationship in establishing gender identity. alike(p) Freud although they stressed the importance of sexuality, Mahler and Chodorow believed that rather than unconscious process, family structure and childre ns early experiences have an primary(prenominal) role in determine their gender socialization (Helgeson, 2005).Besides Parson mentioned that Freudian psycho-analytic theory is needed to be modified by pointing out on the development of social roles of children. In his model, Parson emphasized that children learn the male and female roles by playing roles of other family members. Girls learn how to be a mother, or boys learn how to be a father by observing what is expected of individuals who order roles. According to Parson, gender development of children is the result of learning by get the hang of prescribed roles (Eckes and Trautner, 2000).Unlike psychoanalytic theory of Freud express anatomic charitable drives in the role of socialization, social learning theory should focus on external events cont curl childrens behaviors and the theory too posited that defining factors which promote gender socialization come from the social world. It is assumed by behaviorists that capt ivate behaviors have been learned directly through accompaniment or indirectly through poster and imitation (Burr, 1998).Depending on operant-conditioning theory, different medical prognosiss lead to different reinforcement from parents, teachers or other agents such as television programmes, books, comics including a overflowing source of symbolic models reinforcing stereo-typical behaviors for females and males. They reinforce children for behaviors which are thought appropriate to their gender and such social pressures serve to condition gender-typed behaviors such as for girls playing with dolls or for boys playing with balls. Children by this way, learn that gender appropriate behaviors which are reinforced with praise and gender inappropriate behaviors which are scolded by penalization (Smith, 2007).On the other hand, Albert Bandura, social learning theorist, explained the process of socialization of children emphasizing the role of observation and imitation. Parents are seen as primary figures who are imitated and viewed as role models by children. Throughout the time they spent with their parents, children eldest discriminate gender-typed behavior patterns, then they make generalization of what they have learned to new form situations and they performed similar to what they acquired from their observations of their parents. As a result, girls become feminine and boys become masculine by imitating similar models, because society rewards them to behave in particular way (Marchbank and Letherby, 2007).However, like psychoanalytic theory, social-learning theory has been criticized in many ways. Depending on the first criticism, a girl can be rewarded for a masculine activity, such as being a basketball player however they donjon a tight hold on other aspects of feminine role. That message rewarding or punishing a behavior does not unceasingly lead children to behave in desired way. Besides, social learning theory underestimate the importance of s ocial changes such as increasing number of single or divorce family environments where adults take on a range of non-traditional roles. Lastly, and the most apparent critique towards social learning theory is that its view of children passive recipients of rewards and punishment and it fails to explain children who are quite rigid about constructing their personal version of gender roles (Lindsey, 2005).Unlike social learning theory, cognitive developmental theory views children as primary agent of his or her own gender role socialization by pointing out the importance of cognitive skills as determinants of selecting role models. Building his theory of Piagets work, the most and the first influential cognitive-developmental theory of sex typing were proposed by Kohlberg. According to him, as children have developed intellectually, they become able to understand the world in terms of categories, including gender categories. The starting point of comprehending the world of child is se lf-realization which is distinguishing each individual from others. To acquire all aspects of self-realization, children develop their gender identity by observing and labeling behaviors of males and females and translating those sex-typed behaviors at the age six where gender constancy is in place. After that time, to develop their self-esteem, same-sex attitudes, occupations and activities are seen as good by children (Serbin, et. al., 1993).Kohlbergs cognitive developmental model of sex typing has been influential since it gives importance to childrens active roles in determining gender-based value system. However, like other theories, there are some limitations in cognitive developmental model. It is criticized since there is a line of work to understand the sequence in this model whether gender identity or childrens understanding of gender constancy comes first. According to theory, gender constancy should be acquired before children start to develop a gender-based value syste m readjustment their gender role. However, studies stress that there are children who can not acquired gender constancy, become aware of sex-typed behaviors and integrate them in their lives (Lindsey, 2005).On the other hand, the theory fails to explain why sex such dominant category rather than race, religion, or even hair color. Therefore, to understand why children become sex-typed, rather than race or religious typed, and why priority is given to gender schemas, it is needed to look at the Gender Schema Theory (Marchbank and Letherby, 2007).Like Kohlberg, Sandra Bem, mentioned children categorize their social world along gender lines and their desire is to develop an identity which is lucid of social expectation. However, Bem, as mentioned above as fault of cognitive developmental theory is only has valid explanation for the development of gender identity, not other variables such as eye color, race or culture (cited in Serbin, et. al., 1993). Depending on this theory, schem as are cognitive structures used to grasp the knowledge about the world, take perception and process new information. Gender schema includes information related to what being male or female means and what kinds of behaviors, cognitions, attitudes and emotions associated with those gender-related schemas. Children first learn what their gender is and they realize that there are significant differences related to each gender. This knowledge which children acquire by the sex- severalize social messages, leads them to the information of gender schema (cited in Smith, 2007).Like Kohlberg and Piaget, Bem concord with the view of children as being primary agent of his/her own sex-role socialization, however, unconnected those theorists, she emphasized the role of society as providing information used by individuals to acquire gender roles (Bem, 1983).Gender schema theory is the combination of the elements of social learning theory and cognitive developmental theory. When it is looked at the philosophy of social learning theory, it talked about how individuals acquire the different characteristics of female and male gender categories and what kinds of characteristics are associated with those categories. On the other hand, cognitive developmental theory also explains how children start to encode new information and how the accommodate this information into the schemas and categories wield consistency. Besides, as an answer to the question of why sex-typed categories are dominant, Bem believes that gender is more salient and significant and society assigns to the category of gender a vast functional significance (cited in Helgeson, 2005).In short, gender schema theory indicates that every culture includes assumptions about certain characteristics within personalities of individuals. Sandra Bem used the term cultural lenses to define cultures values, beliefs and norms and due to the influences of those cultural norms and forces, without questioning and altering them , children take on to organize their world (Bem, 1983).When it is considered biological, social-learning, cognitive developmental and gender-schema theories, it could be concluded that each theoretical perspective has a number of problems. Although some of them focus on the environmental forces affecting gender identity, some others mentioned the importance of self-cognitive functioning as determinant issue of developing sex-typing behavior, but in fact, none amply explains gender identity acquisition and gender typing. However, generally, all these theories, offer juicy avenues to explain gender role socialization. Now, it is needed to move the attention to sociologically based explanations accounting for primary socializing agents who play an important role on attitudes and behaviors of children regarding gender (Lindsey, 2005).Parents Expectation and Childrens Gender Role Socialization at heart the aim of this paper, it is expected to find the answers to the questions of do pa rents provide different socialization for their girls and boys and do they have different expectations from them?Numerous studies on this issue state that by modeling traditional roles and encouraging sex-typed activities, parents influence childrens gender role socialization. (Fagot, 1974). charge starting before birth, mothers give sex-appropriate meaning to the activity of foetus. If fetus moves actively by kicking, mothers define this sign as the child will become more likely male than female (Lewis, 1972).Mothers and fathers have different expectations from their sons and daughters leading childrens gender role socialization depending on their values, attitudes and beliefs which are differentiated for girls and boys. To support this differentiation, a study was conducted with 1200 mothers and fathers from different cultural backgrounds to see how children interact differently in terms of their gender in family environment. The results reveal that parents emphasize on their so ns competition, shore leave, achievement and they support sex appropriate behaviors of their sons compared to girls. When parent-daughter relationships have been examined, parents bushel warmth and closeness in the relationships with girls (Block, 1973).The study conducted by Pomerantz and Ruble also the relationships between attitudes of parent in use of control on their children and childrens self-evaluation. When it is looked at the outcomes of the research, parents are more controlling with their daughters rather than their sons and they give more autonomy to boys rather than girls. Childrens self-evaluation analysis also indicates that girls outperform boys in school and they have fewer behavioral problems, but on the other hand, they are more vulnerable to anxiety, depression compared to boys. The writes believe that parents differentiation of use of control with girls and boys is influential factor in their socialization (Pomerantz Ruble, 1998). Supporting the claims of P omerantz and Ruble, Goshen-Gottstein mentioned that supporting dependency of boys rather than girls, mothers believe that boy should be autonomous (cited in Lindsey et.al.,1997).Similar to the findings of those studies and observation mentioned above, depending on the research of Lewis about the interaction between parents and child and expectation of parents, mothers believe that boys should be independent and autonomous than girls and hence they show more proximal behaviors such as touching, holding, or rocking to support their sons to explore their world. On the other hand, mothers look at the eyes of their girls and talk to their daughters more than they do with their sons as part of distal mode of behaviors (Lewis, 1972).Apart from mothers who spent a great deal of their time with both their sons and daughters, when the literature on parenting has been discovered, it is concluded that fathers play primary role in socialization process of their sons especially. A study done by R othbart and Maccoby parents differential reactions towards their sons and daughters have been analyzed. Fathers have been seen to be potent constructor of the understanding of gender for their children. More likely than mothers, they win more traditional gender specific behaviors in their son. They empathize more with them and support independency and autonomy for their sons, rather than girls (Rothbart Maccoby, 1966).Besides, fathers have higher expectations for their sons and they give more emphasis on their sons achievement and occupational attainment rather than the success and carriers of their girls. (Maccoby Jacklin, 1974).As indicated above, due to their different expectations from their sons and daughters, parents reflect their values, beliefs and desires towards their attitudes, communication types and relationships with their children influencing their understanding of the world in a gender-schematic process.Clothes and Arrangement of Childrens Rooms some parents know the sex of their baby before birth and chassis childs mode accordingly. It is not surprising to see boys rooms are covered with educational and art materials, sport equipments, toy animals and vehicles, while girls rooms consist of dolls, house-keeping toys, and floral furnishings. In a study conducted by Rheingold and Cook, parents furnishing rooms of their sons and daughters has been examined and thought as providing index to their ideas about appropriateness by sex and their different attitudes towards their children. 96 children between the ages of 1 and 71.6 months are the sample of the study. The result of the study reveals that parents design differently the rooms of their daughters and sons with different styles of furnishing and toys. The boys rooms involve more vehicles, and toys supporting motor abilities of children, while girls rooms are full of with domestic equipments and toys of bag encouraging nurturance and concern with fashion. According to authors, some of the differences were more apparent and imposing than expected. In girls rooms, there are not vehicle toys such as wagons, boats or buses which can be frequently found in boys rooms. On the other hand, almost total absence of baby dolls and domestic equipments can be observed in boys rooms seen in Table II (Rheingold Cook, 1975).According to authors of this study, the differences in parents furnishing of the rooms of their daughters and sons can be associated in other classes of their behavior towards their girls and boys (Rheingold Cook, 1975).Color-coded and gender-typed clothing of children are widespread and parents choose gender appropriate colors when dressing their children. While they prefer pink, yellows clothing and clothes in pastel tones with embroidered hearts and flowers for their girls, for sons, dark colors such as brown, disconsolate or red clothes with superhero and athletic motives are preferred. According to social learning theory mentioned above, children receiv e strong messages from their parents related to their gender and by those positive reinforcement associated with their clothing, toys selection and room arrangement, they start to learn what is or not gender appropriate (Lindsey, 2007).Communication and Interaction Differences with ChildrenDifferences in the behavior of boys and girls are associated with the differences how parents behave toward them (Rheingold Cook, 1975). Numerous studies indicate that parents play a gelid role in shaping childrens gender role development by interacting and using different communication types with their sons and daughters. The dialogue styles of parents with their children are seen as glib-tongued socialization mechanisms through which gender roles are conveyed to children (OBrien Shinn, 2008).In a study conducted by Horan and with his colleagues, the aim is to investigate the differences among the communications between mother-daughter, mother-son, father-daughter and father-son dyads. Depen ding on the calm results of dyads, it is concluded that mothers pass by with their daughters by giving more feminine gender role messages compared to their sons. Similarly, when it is looked at the results of father-son dyads, it can be said that fathers encourage their sons to communicate in masculine styles by sending more masculine messages than they did to their girls. Fathers grasp their sons as being self-reliant, dominant, aggressive, competitive and ambitious than their daughters (Horan et.al, 2007).In another study, fathers have been found to play with their newborn sons and talk them more when compared to their daughters. Besides, when fathers interaction with their girls has been examined, the result shows that they are more gently cuddle to their newborn daughters, while strong-armly rough to their sons (Fagot, 1974).According to the study conducted by Mussen and Rutherford (1963), masculinity of young boys is close associated with the nature of father-son relationshi p. That means appropriate sex-role preferences in boys directly correlated with nurturing, affectional relationship with their fathers who strongly motivate them towards masculine behaviors. On the other hand, by acting in feminine ways, participating with their daughters in girls game such as housekeeping, mothers become a feminine role model by encouraging their girls to act in the expected ways (Mussen Rutherford, 1963).More recently, a meta-analysis has been conducted about how parents behave towards their sons and daughters. Siegal (1987), concluded that mothers and fathers treat differently and the apparent differences has been found in the era of physical involvement. That means both mothers and fathers participated in physical activities with their boys and they were more strict, and restrictive with them (cited in Helgeson, 2005).Similar to those studies, in another research of OBrien and Shin, they aimed to discover differences in communication styles between mothers and fathers engaged in conversation with a 9-year-old son or daughter. They put two types of communication styles characterized differently for men and women. Assertive communication styles consist of characteristics which are directing attention of others, controlling whole conversation by influencing ideas of others and even interrupting the conversational quisling and this style is thought as reflecting mens power and status in the society. On the other hand, affiliative communication which is considered to reflect lack of power of women in society is characterized by concentration on other person through conversation, focusing on others ideas and expecting involvement from partner. The results of the study indicate that fathers use more cocky communication styles and mothers were more affiliative through conversation. In this study, sex of child has an important role of use of each communication styles. When the powerful status of males and even male children have been considered in society, according to authors, it is not surprising that both mothers and fathers used more affiliative speech with their boys to support their power and dominancy (OBrien Shinn, 2008).Besides those studies, in another study, the frequencies of mothers and fathers parenting behavior with their sons and daughters have been examined. Depending on the results of the study, mothers engage in personal interaction with their daughters rather than their son and similar results of fathers with their sons. According to the authors, traditional gender stereotypes children acquire are the consequences of differential parenting of girls and boys by their mothers and fathers (Moon Hoffman, 2008).Play and Toys SelectionIn the socio-emotional domain, children develop through the expansion of their social network, from the early relationship with their parents to relationship including other people, especially peers. In this step of the socialization process, play becomes most powerful agent for the formation of peer relationships (Smith, 2007).When the developmental literature has been discovered, consistent findings indicate that children prefer playing with traditionally stereotyped toys for their own sex more than toys stereotyped for the other sex (Martin et.al., 1995). While boys tend to be more active and show higher interest in disorderly play, girls mostly prefer playing with dolls in the dramatic play (Thorne, 2005).Even starting very early in their lives, children show sex-differences in terms of play and toys selection. Depending on the study of Goldberg and Lewis, 13 month olds, 32 girls and boys behaviors in free play, their interaction with mothers and mothers responses to their infants have been observed. Results indicate that boys and girls reflect striking differences in terms of interaction with mothers, toys and styles of their play. When it is looked at their play styles, girls select toys appropriate for fine motor coordination rather than gross m otor abilities. In contrast girls, rather than sitting on the floor, boys are more active by rolling the landowner over toys seen in picture below. Considering maternal behavior of mothers covering differentiation between girls and boys in terms of touching, vocalization and response to their play, author concluded that parents catalyze sex-role appropriate behaviors of children by reinforcing sex-typed activities (Goldberg Lewis, 1969).Parents are the first agent who enact traditionally prescribed sex role