There is no such thing as
man and
woman. No such thing as
boy and
girl. The distinctions we use to separate men from women, and the qualities that go into what we call masculine and feminine, are arbitrary and culturally defined. All things being equal, we are born with a clearly defined
biological sex. We are born
male or
female, but we are not born
boy or
girl. That distinction must be
taught. That distinction can only come from the
culture around us. The media teaches us that only men can be corporate executives. Our families teach us that girls wear dresses and are cleaner, happier, and more polite than boys. Our schools teach us that boys play soccer and girls jump rope. Commerce ties the whole bundle together with dolls and trucks; pants and dresses; designer toothbrushes in blue and black or pink with sparkles. This paper will explore early
gender socialization through the
artifacts and
social institutions of
the United States. This does not pretend to be an exhaustive study, merely an inquisitive exploration.
It would help to begin by defining what we mean by "
gender."
Gender does not mean
biological sex. Gender refers to the socially constructed
expectations placed on a person as a result of their
sex.
Male, as a purely biological classification, usually refers to that organism which has the smaller of the two sex cells in organisms with dualistic male/female reproductive techniques. In humans, it refers to someone who has an
X and a
Y chromosome, and is capable of producing
spermatozoa. Standard equipment for males includes a
penis and two
external testicles responsible for the production of
sperm and
testosterone.
Female, as a biological classification, usually refers to that organism with the larger of two sex cells and which is responsible for
gestating and
bearing young. In humans, females have two X chromosomes and are included with, as
standard factory equipment, two internal
ovaries that produce
ova, and a
uterus for gestating young. Adult male and female humans exhibit many biological distinctions, with the possibility of
inherent psychological differences only now being investigated. It is well established, however, that males tend to be
taller,
heavier, and more
muscular than females. Females tend to have less
body hair and more
surface body fat leading to a rounder, more
gracile form. Current research would also suggest a host of differences in the structure of
male and
female brains. Despite the usually unmistakable physical separation between human males and females, there exists a whole other class of traits: culturally prescribed
gender. Those qualities which humans are taught, literally from the moment of birth, about what men and women, boys and girls, are supposed to be. They dwell benieth our counciousness and alter our preceptions, opinions, reactions and impluses without us ever realizing it. We are taught that women are
nurturers and men are
leaders. We are taught that women are emotional and loving, and that men are
strong and
impassive. These things, unlike our
biology, are taught to us via the
socialization process. They, not biology, make
males men and
females women.
We are born genderless, but the process of gender socialization is immediate. Often from the very moment of birth, infant males are dressed in blue, and infant females in pink; from that point on they can start becoming boys and girls. It has become politically correct for some hospitals and parents to adopt gender-neutral colors such as yellow or white for newborns, but the significance of blue and pink as a permanent symbol of gender remains. A 1998 survey by students at the University of Oregon found that, out of 54 adults, a full 95 percent identified blue as a boy’s color and pink as a girl’s color. While those conventions may be ebbing, it is still fairly uncommon for a man to voluntarily wear
pink clothing. The color of apparel is only the beginning of gender socialization, and may merely communicate sex and how people should treat infants and very young children. A study conducted in 1969 by psychologists Michael Lewis and Susan Goldberg found that mothers treated their young sons and daughters very differently. They usually kept their infant female children closer to them than their boys. They also touched and talked to their daughters more than their sons. By the age of 13 months, girls stayed closer to their mothers when they played. When the researchers placed barriers between the mothers and their children they found the girls were more likely to cry and motion for help; the boys to try to climb over the wall. Lewis and Goldberg concluded that, in our society, parents unconsciously reward independence in their sons and passive dependence in their daughters.
Sociologists have found, though often anecdotally, that parents allow their young sons to roam farther from home, to get dirtier and play rougher, and even to be more destructive in their play. Young girls are kept cleaner and are expected to stay that way, and are taught the importance of beauty and image. Girls tend to play indoors more, and are much less rough in their games. Parents promote this activity in their children, and from it they teach that violence and rough, athletic activity are proper for males. Cleanliness and quite, near inactivity proper for females. These ideas remain virtually intact into adulthood, only to be passed down to the next generation. Children learn that the line between
man and
woman is clearly
demarcated. For boys:
independence,
power,
leadership and
freedom. For girls:
domesticity,
passiveness, a focus on
beauty and
image, and a generally more
subdued existence.
Our media institutions are both windows and mirrors on society.
Television especially, they at once teach and reinforce cultural attitudes, and for children can be among the most powerful forces of
socialization. All one has to do is turn on a television or open a magazine to see men and women cast in often very rigid
gender roles. Advertising is required to constantly reinvent itself, but some images are frequently reused. Among them, images of men as
rugged and
strong --
the Marlboro man for instance-- or women as submissive objects which can be simply cast into a scene to attract eyeballs. Indeed, much advertising seems based on
buxom and
semi-naked young women whose sexual assets are expected to sell everything from cars to long distance plans. Most of these women are drawn as mere
objects whose value is measured only in the fleeting beauty of their bodies. Girls are taught to judge themselves accordingly, and a truly awful message is sent to our daughters. Researchers found in a 1992 study that in prime-time television males outnumber females two to one. Males were also portrayed in more
glamourous, higher-status positions. Sociologist Nancy Signorielli found in 1990 that those depictions do effect viewer’s opinions of women. The more television people watch, Signorielli found, the more restrictive their views about women tended to be. Media images help form the filter that is socialization, and they all contribute to the internalized
gender identity. It sounds almost silly to say it, but people only do what they know how to do. Where little boys and little girls are told that they may only act in accordance with their sex, and then are repeatedly shown examples of strong men in positions of
power and passive women in positions of
subordination, what else can they become?
The toys of children are interesting
artifacts of
gender socialization. Almost without fail, the playthings of
boys and
girls come from two different worlds. Walking by the cluttered shelves in the children’s section of a major department store,
androgynous or
gender-neutral toys seem an exception rather than a rule. The clearly demarcated zones of dark
blue and electric
pink only bring the
quantitativeness of
geography to the distinction. But beyond that, the separation between what is marketed to
young boys and
young girls is glaring and, on closer inspection, somewhat
disheartening. To boys are offered a near endless assortment of toys. Vehicles:
trucks,
planes,
race cars,
boats,
space ships and
police,
fire and
military hardware, all in various themes and scales. Weapons:
swords, endless varieties of
guns,
bows, and fanciful
projectile weapons.
Sporting paraphernalia,
action figures, systems of
construction such as
Legos, and
video games. Girls would appear to have a somewhat less exciting selection. While a stunning variety of
dolls and
doll equipment does exist, the pink-swathed universe of girls toys would seem to end there. The only break to this theme are board games and the occasional invocation of the "
princess" archetype (where is
Carl Jung when I need him?). The
princess image is an interesting diversion, but the board games marketed to girls only reinforce the
gender stereotypes already mentioned. Girls are marketed games which promote beautification, "acceptable"
male mate selection, and the navigation of artificial social networks. The upshot is distressing. While the playthings of young boys seem based on
power,
action,
adventure, and even
violence, the toys of girls seem to reflect one thing:
domesticity. If little boys are trained to be
race car drivers and
fire fighters through their toys, girls are trained to be
mothers and
house wives with theirs.
That great crucible of
American socialization,
school, plays no small part in gender socialization. Schools represents vast social environments where children come together and learn about who they are by watching and interacting with others. The stunning powers of
acceptance and
rejection can put the finishing touches on the development of early gender identity in young children. Many studies of elementary and middle schools show a self-imposed segregation based on sex. In choosing work partners or where to sit,
boys almost always choose other
boys, and
girls other
girls. On the
playground large spatial separations can be seen between boy groups and girl groups. It is within these groups, isolated from the other
sex, that children learn from each other the proper social posture and models of interaction "proper" for their gender. The social differences between
adolescent boys and
girls are numerous, often
dramatic, and usually carry on into adulthood. Boys tend to interact in
larger, more
publicly visible groups. They take up more
space, and are
rougher in their play. Girls tend to choose
smaller, more
intimate groups of shifting alliances. Compared to boys, they tend to be
less competitive and engage in more turn-taking. Girls tend to
acquiesce more readily than boys to teachers and the rules of the institution. The larger boy groups give each member a greater degree of
anonymity, and group rule breaking for boys is rather common. Boy groups are also more clearly
hierarchical, with well defined
leaders. From this, boys learn how to interact in structured organizations where there is a clear
top and
bottom. They learn
competitiveness,
assertiveness, and
aggression as tools for
success. Girls tend to organize themselves into pair groups of "best friends" linked in shifting alliances. They continually
negotiate with each other for friendship, and talk about who "likes" who. Compared with boys, girls tend to be more interested in forming
intimate relationships and
communicating their
feelings. This interaction helps to teach the
creation,
sustaining, and
ending of
relationships,
intimate and otherwise. Their attention to who "likes" who and the
delicate social interactions of those around them teach them strategies for forming and leaving
personal relationships. These disparities between early
male and
female socialization reflect several major qualities of later sexual identification: that girls and boys are members of
opposing, sometimes
antagonistic groups, that cross-gender contact is at once
dangerous and
pleasurable, and that girls are more sexually defined than boys.
A biologist might disagree that the sum of who we are, our
aspirations and
opinions, the underlying
expectations placed on us, and the
subtle psychological forces which nudge us this way and that, are purely the result of
socialization. But if there is anything which
anthropology teaches us, it is that humans are different and the same each in very precise ways. The human condition is the same the world over. We all do the same things, we just go about them in different ways. The idea of
men and
women,
boys and
girls is no different. All cultures include the powerful symbols of
man and
woman, but how they separate the two is arbitrary. The separation must exist though, for where biological sex is a factor the "real" issue of
reproduction must be considered. The luxuries of culture and society can not overpower our "true" function as mere machines for the reproduction of our genes.
Gender as an extension of
biological sex is our little way of making sure that that is carried out. But into gender, we must be
socialized. To what end result, however, is up to the
culture around us.
A Noding things you've written before node.
Also, another anthropology assignment from way back when.