The biosocial approach to gender development
- Created by: Kelsie
- Created on: 28-05-14 18:22
View mindmap
- The biosocial approach to gender development
- Biosocial theories
- Money and Ehrhardt
- Produced classic book: Man and woman, boy and girl
- once a biological male/female is born, social labelling + differential treatment interact with biological factors.
- this steers development
- This theory was an attempt to integrate influences of nature + nurture.
- It is sex of rearing that is the pivotal point of gender development
- Biology = likely to determine sex of rearing as baby is sexed at birth
- Everything else follows from that
- BUT some interesx individuals may be mistyped at birth
- Money + Ehrhardt predict of a genetic girl is mislabelled as a male and treated as a male before the age of 3 she would acquire the gender identity of a boy.
- Thus the key to gender development is the label a person is given
- Money + Ehrhardt predict of a genetic girl is mislabelled as a male and treated as a male before the age of 3 she would acquire the gender identity of a boy.
- BUT some interesx individuals may be mistyped at birth
- Everything else follows from that
- Money and Ehrhardt
- Social role theory
- Eagly and wood
- selective pressures do not cause both physical and psychological differences; only physical
- division of labour
- physical differences between men and women allow them to perform different tasks more efficiently
- e.g childbearing; women are better but due to this less able to do roles that require absence from home
- e.g men; greater speed + upper body strength are good for tasks that require intensive bursts of energy + strength
- in addition, in societies where strength is not required for occupational roles - social roles between men + women will be more similar
- + psychological differences reduced
- physical differences between men and women allow them to perform different tasks more efficiently
- mate choice
- what women + men seek in a partner can be related to their social role rather then reproduction value (evolutionary view)
- physical differences create difference in social roles
- women maximise their outcomes by choosing mate who is a good wage earner
- men maximise outcomes by seeking a mate successful in domestic role
- therefore different social roles can explain sex differences in mate choice
- physical differences create difference in social roles
- what women + men seek in a partner can be related to their social role rather then reproduction value (evolutionary view)
- hormonal differences
- hormonal differences may be the outcome of social roles/psychological sex differences rather than cause
- e.g testosterone is not the cause of greater male verses female aggressiveness but the effect of the fact that men (because of strength) engage in more athletic events - creating higher levels of testosterone than women.
- hormonal differences may be the outcome of social roles/psychological sex differences rather than cause
- Eagly and wood
- Commentary
- Lack of evidence
- The theory took a blow from the outcome of the john/joan study
- They hoped the study would be definitive evidence in favour of the importance of sex typing
- The theory took a blow from the outcome of the john/joan study
- Social bias
- M + E had collected other evidence to support their theory but it was still derived from the study of abnormal individuals
- e.g. the study of genetic females exposed to high levels of testosterone prenatally due to drugs taken by their mothers
- May not be relevant to understanding normal gender development
- e.g. the study of genetic females exposed to high levels of testosterone prenatally due to drugs taken by their mothers
- M + E had collected other evidence to support their theory but it was still derived from the study of abnormal individuals
- Lack of evidence
- Commentary
- selective pressure
- LUXEN = Behaviour as important as physical characteristic, therefore selective pressure would act directly on behaviour to create psychological as well as physical sex differences
- sex differences without socialisation
- LUXEN = research has shown very young children/animals display sex differences in toy preferences. Suggests such preferences would be biological rather than psychological because sex role socialisation is unlikely to have occurred in children/animals.
- selective pressure
- A social contructionist approach
- the approach suggests that human behaviour is an invention or outcome of a particular society/culture.
- No objective reality, such as a real difference between men + women
- or if there is, its not relevant.
- Behaviours best understood in terms of social context in which they occur
- Real world application
- In the last 100 years the feminist movement succeeded in bringing great changes for women (vote, equal pay)
- Evolutionary approach seen as a force against gender equality as it might be seen to imply sex differences are innate + cannot be changed by social context
- Supports feminist view that changes in psychological differences between men + women
- Evolutionary approach seen as a force against gender equality as it might be seen to imply sex differences are innate + cannot be changed by social context
- Has high ethical appeal because sex roles are perceived as social + more flexible (LUXEN)
- In the last 100 years the feminist movement succeeded in bringing great changes for women (vote, equal pay)
- Buss' study of 37 cultures
- the pattern of sex differences can be explained by social roles
- In all cultures women seek men with resources while men prefer younger, attractive women.
- Women have less earning capacity = women seek men with resources, power, dominance
- Men want younger, attractive = not because of fertility but because of obedience
- Biosocial theories
Comments
No comments have yet been made