discuss nature vs nurture in gender development

Anthropologist Margaret Mead addressed the differences in temperament found between men and women in her book Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935). In this study she concluded that sex has no bearing on social traits and the temperament of an individual. Her research looked at whether masculine or feminine traits are innate or learned. She also questioned whether men and women differ because of nature (heredity) or nurture (socialization). She concludes that cultural conditioning is more important than biology in shaping the behavior of women and men. The observed differences in temperament between men and women are not a function of their biological differences. Rather, they result from differences in the socialization

Doing gender is always justified by religion, science, law and society’s believes in morals and values. This proves the truth that in our society gender is very much prevalent. Both sex and gender are very much embedded in each other. But these two are very closely related that most of the time; both words are taken as synonym of each other. But in reality, sex and gender are two very different words having a different meaning and interpretation. We cannot inherit gender as it is not a natural phenomenon but it is created by our society. Gender is a created by a continuous process of teaching, learning and enforcement by generations over generations (Lorber). Some people believe that gender comes from physiological differences. Most commonly known as the differences in men and female genitalia and reproductive organ. But that is not true because both sex and gender are two different things. Sex is mostly about the physical differences in the

Gender reveal day. A blue middle is exposed by the slice of a cake. Dad perches on a ladder and lathers the nursery with the same sky-blue paint, Mom standing in the middle, rubbing her belly, “He’ll play football just like you, our little man.” So when the little man grows into a big one, will he play football because of the sports mobile turning above his crib, or because something in himself innately gravitates toward masculine activities? The mechanisms of what creates someone’s gender identity doesn’t have an easy answer. While gender is something that is self-identifiable, most people live their lives being told what it should look like or be. Scholars and scientists debate over the heaviest influences on an individual’s gender;

Many people confuse the definition of gender and sex. “Gender, on the other hand, refers to the meanings, values, and characteristics that people ascribe to different sexes. Sex is a biological concept, determined on the basis of individual 's primary sex characteristics.” (Blackstone) Society gives social cues on the appropriate behavior for each sex. For example, women are to exert more feminine traits such as being dependent, emotional, passive, innocent, nurturing, and/or self-critical. On the contrary, men should be more

The historical debate regarding nature and nurture has been going on for years and is still unresolved. Many theorists believe what we have inherited and our genes, makes us the way we are and how we develop. Other theorists believe it is the way we are brought up and our experiences, that make us the way we are and how we develop.

The nurture side of the argument states that gender is essentially a product of socialization. It is dependent on environmental experiences. Family upbringing and society’s expectations would therefore play a key role in a person’s gender. This would mean, of course that most boys learn to behave in a masculine way and mot girls learn to behave in feminine ways.

1) Use the example of feral children to construct an argument in the nature versus nurture debate.

     Femininity and masculinity are topics that have been debated over in our society extensively, through psychological research and day to day interaction with people. Children learn from their parents as well as society the concept of “feminine” and “masculine.” The majority of people tend to believe that these conceptions are biological but I believe it is more cultural. From birth, female children are shaped by society as being sweet, caring, loving, and delicate and usually associated with the color pink. While male children are shaped by being tough, aggressive, and competitive and associated with the color blue. As these children grow, the boy is given a football to play with and the girl a

The nature-nurture debate has been around for decades. It is one of the oldest and most popular topics in the history of psychology asking what makes people who they become and how they behave and develop the way they do. What makes the debate more interesting is that now scientists are asking if personality traits and even sexual orientation can be determined by what is in already there from conception. Bodies are built up of chromosomes which contain genetic information. Many of these are inherited from parents and relatives. The nature side of the debate states the way people are is predominantly from inherited genetics and other biological factors not so much the environmental factors. The genes humans have in their bodies play a huge role to many aspects of who they are and who they become. For example, hair colour, eye colour and height are all predetermined by genes. Unchangeable. This is natures way. The argument stands to decide whether most attributes do stem from nature, genes, or if they can be affected by the environment and the way people are nurtured as they have grown. The nurture side of the argument believes although humans do have the genes and traits with which they are born, most personality traits are being made up of environmental factors. For example, being loved and cared for as children, if parents or carers were positive role models and if those people were taught in ways which provided them with discipline and respect for others. Where nature

Baron and Cohen (2002) suggested, in their E-S theory, that male hunters gained an evolutionary advantage systematising over women who were much more empathetic. With their theory they suggested that during stress responses, men tend to be adapted for flight or fight, whereas females are not. Shields (1975) suggested that men and women evolved to have roles that complemented each other, in order for both genders to survive. This is supported by Ennis et al 2001) who found that men show a better ‘fight or flight’ response, as during exams men’s cortisol levels are higher than women’s during the same time period. However, evolutionary explanations may partially explain why gender roles have developed but the fact that gender roles can differ globally would imply social factors are also involved, so the evolutionary explanations cannot fully explain gender roles.

Nature versus nurture is a commonly debated topic in the scientific world. For example were all child molesters abused as children themselves or are their genes or other factors to blame for their bad decisions? Genes seem to determine much about children, such as eye color and height, but do they also determine behavior and overall health, or is the environment the children were raised in to blame? For example, when a child is misbehaving, is it the parents responsibility to take the blame for their offspring's behavior due to how they have chosen to raise their son or daughter, or is the child's genetic makeup to blame for their faults? Can a child's environment override the genes a child is born with?

Scientists and psychologists everywhere study twins. The argument most commonly studied is nature versus nurture. The focus of this essay, however, is whether or not to separate twins in schools. Some believe the separation is demeaning and traumatic to the twins. The side about to be proved however that is this separation is a necessary step in the individualization of twins. Often, separation sparks the path to individualization.

Secondly, I chose Mead’s work Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies, because it “completed the trilogy on these native cultures” (Flaherty 2002, 1). Simply put, not only do these works play a significant role in Mead’s life, but they hardly represent all of what Mead has done. In this anthropological research, Mead observes three tribes, “(1) the Arapesh, a hill tribe near the coast of Aitape, in the Mandated Territory of New Guinea, (2) the Mundugumor, on the Yuat (Dörferfluss), the second southern upstream tributary of the Sepik River, and (3) the Tchambuli, lake dwellers in the middle Sepik region” (Thurnwald 1936, 664). In the end, Mead’s work Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies concludes that “sex differences are not ‘something deeply biological,’ but rather are learned and, once learned, become part of the ideology that continues to perpetuate them” (Kimmel 2013, 60). Basically, Mead is saying that sex roles and behavior vary from culture to culture (Angus 2016). As a result, gender is developed primarily by socialization or based on one’s cultural environment (Angus 2016). Upon observing three different cultures, Mead was able to come to a conclusion that “in one culture, both the women and men were cooperative, in the second they were both ruthless and aggressive, and in the Thambuli culture the women were dominant and the men more submissive” (Flaherty 2002, 2). In this research, Mead was able to demonstrate that these three primitive

But is this really the case? Are girls really born with the genes to prefer pink and Barbie dolls, while boys are genetically predisposed to act like warriors and defend their families? Are masculine and feminine simply genetic facts? Evidence seems to support a deeper reason than that. As a

On the other side of the spectrum, others may agree that gender roles and stereotypes are purely biological. One might say that a child grows up without a father or mother figure still ends up learning specific gender roles. It is nearly impossible to have a child unscathed