Gender-Role and Sexuality Theories - Case Study Example

RUNNING HEAD: CASE STUDY Application of social development theories Name: Course: Institution: Instructor: Date Introduction Biological and psychological differences between females and males have led society to assign different roles to each sex creating genders identities and stereotypes. Gender-Role and Sexuality Theories of Development explore and explain the manner in which roles come about as determined by sex and social environment. Ordinarily, the family is a child’s first social environment to interact with hence shapes the development of an individual as explained by the Family Systems’ Impact on Development theory. In most cases, one’s gender and sex may match though this is not always the case specifically for transgenders and transsexuals. So how does sex and gender influence ones life and what are the differences? Crooks and Baur (2008) define sex as “the biological maleness and femaleness” (p. 46), while gender is “the psychological and socio-cultural characteristics associated with our sex” (p. 46). Based on these definitions, this paper will use a case study approach to analyse how these theories apply in one’s life based on the responses from an interview with one study subject. Gender-Role and Sexuality Theories of Development Bio social theory There are a number of theories that contribute to gender role development. The biosocial theory, proposed by John Money and Anke Ehrhardt (1972) is one of them (Sigelman & Rider, 2009). This theory postulates that behavioural divergence between males and females are caused by psychological and social processes (Eagly 1997 as cited in Eagly, Beall, & Sternberg, 2004). From this, being male or female is explicated by more than the sexual variations between males and females but rather is socially constructed through dynamic psychological and social processes. Eagly et al. (2004) say that gender roles and stereotypes are consequences of sex-typed social behaviour because, throughout the human lifecycle, individuals encounter different stages of sexuality changes and gender stereotypes. Lawrence Kohlberg (1966, as cited in Peterson, 2010) developed a model on the stages of development by years. At infancy, children are understood no to be ware of their physiological or gender differences. However, at 2-3 years, they gain gender identity. At the age of 4-5, children understand that their sex is stable and cannot be changed. At 5-7 years, children get to understand biological differences between males and females. How children understand and encounter such knowledge in gender differences at an early age shapes their gender expectations later in life and even how they relate with the opposite sex. Physiologically, the maleness or femaleness of an individual cannot be contested given the unique physical characteristics and genetic composition of such individuals unless in rare circumstances. Crooks and Baur (2008) suggest that the differences in behaviour between males and females are partly caused by physiological differences in the brain. However, the biosocial theory postulates that behavioural differences between males and females are more than just attributes of biological differences. Sigelman and Rider (2009) point out that “there is much more to being male or female than biology” (p. 343). The authors argue that how society differentiates the sexes in terms of names, play activities, household chores, dressing, and expectations among others shape how they perceive their gender and that of others. In most cases, children are encouraged to copy gender roles of the similar sex parent. For girls, they are expected to copy their mother’s behaviour while boys are expected to copy their father’s behaviour. This sets the foundations for gender role development in future and also the expectations from the other gender. Family Systems’ Impact on Development theory This theory explores how the stability or instability of the family environment affects a child’s later stages of development. The family environment in this case is inclusive of the parenting styles that parents use, presence or absence of violence, divorce, family life cycle and family structures. The assumptions by this theory are based on the perceptions that a family is the basic unit of a society under the Behavioural Learning and Systems Theories of Development. As such, how a child develops to learn about the family, his views and perceptions are about the individual relationships in a family are transferred into the wider society. Sigel and Rider (2009) acknowledge this by stating that a family is a combination of interrelationships among members. Bee and Boyd, (2002, p. 184) state that the family unit and the family relationships are some of the most influential factors in the early development of a child. How a child experiences these relationships in the early stages are likely to affect him or her in later stages of life especially on how he/she relates to other people not only in the family but also in the wider society. Parents have the highest influence on the development of their infant offspring. Sigelman and Rider (2009) write that parents can have a constructive indirect effect on the development of infants by having or displaying harmonious and cordial relationship between them. As such, children are bound to receive better development influence from the family when both parents are present and have positive influence on each other. This therefore brings into question the role of family structure on the development of children at a young age and later on in life. A study by Macatee (2007 as cited in Kail & Cavanaugh, 2010) showed that there are no differences in psychological health of children raised by lesbian and gay parents and heterosexual parents. This means that the sex of the parents is not an issues. Nonetheless, it beats the purpose of having similar sex parents while children are required to copy the behaviours of the same-sex parent. Sigelman and Rider (2009) point out that the ability of parents to act as playmates, teach children discipline and good behaviour are what really matters. The authors identify two main parenting styles which have different influences on development of children. The first style, acceptance/responsiveness is where parents support and provide a child’s sensitive needs and provide him/her with affection. The second style, demandingness/control, is where parents set rules and demand children follow them and monitors them closely. Diana Baumrind (1991, as cited in Peterson, 2010) on the other hand identified four styles of parenting; 1) authoritarian, 2) authoritative, 3) permissive/indulgent and 4) indifferent/uninvolved. Case study Method The case study sample comprised of one female student of Hispanic ethnicity aged 20 who expressed an undetermined sexual orientation. The study sought to gather data about the subject through an interview. The interview was guided by 20 predetermined questions both closed and open ended (see appendix). The questions were guided by the Family Systems’ Impact on Development theory and biosocial theory as part of Gender-Role and Sexuality Theories of Development. The questions sought to guide the respondent in making a connection between the current situation in her social life and her childhood. The questions did not seek to manipulate the responses from the subject hence the number of closed questions was minimized. The researcher sought to collect both verbal and nonverbal responses from the study subject. For this reason, the researcher did not give out the questionnaire to the respondent to fill in writing but rather read out the questions as the respondent gave out verbal answers. Verbal answers according to Gomm (2008) allow more relevant answers and allow the interviewer an opportunity to seek clarifications or explain questions where the respondents do not understand them well. Furthermore interviews enable researchers to collect additional data in form of body language and gestures. The whole interview was recorded on tape for further analysis. Much of the further analysis involved scrutinizing all non-verbal communication such as body language, posture and changes in tone using expert help. Results and discussion From the first question, the subject indicated that she was from a single parent family. She was brought up by her mother after she divorced the dad when she was still a toddler. The subject indicated that the single family structure was one sided and did not offer the best balanced family environment for bringing up children. The subject indicated that a family structure where both parents are present is not just deal by name. She said “I was born in a family union where both parents were present but my mum felt that such an environment was not ideal to bring me up because my father was abusive. I trust my mum’s judgement that the environment and the family structure in which she brought me up was the best option given the circumstances.” This resonates well with what Sigelman and Rider (2009) write about in terms of parenting. The authors say that parents can only have positive influence on infants if they have a positive relationship between themselves. In this case, the subject’s mother was right to pre-empt the problem of passing on negative influence on the subject. In response to question no. 5, the subject indicated that her relationship with her mother had improved over the years. She indicated that when she was younger, her mother was rather harsh and used to discipline her a lot whenever she committed any mistake. She said “In most cases, I felt that my mum was being extra hard on me as a way of releasing her internal turmoils in her life. Back then I used to feel left out almost in everything. My grandpa was the only adult person who seemed to understand me and even up to now, he is very close to me. As for my mum, we have an adult-to-adult relationship that works well for me now.” This shows that the subject felt not valued enough at a tender age. Her resentment towards the punishment and the adults in her life emanates from the fact she was treated as “a lesser being” which makes her avoid such as situation in life. It is presumable that the subject will seek to dominate situations driven by the fears of her childhood. Christian (2006) explains this to say that individuals learn skills that enable them to function in larger and more formal settings, such as school and the workplace. Where the skills are skewed, the individual will interact with the larger society in a skewed manner. For this reason, the subject does not expect fair treatment from the society at large and hence may display excessive aggressiveness to competition and others. When asked how she rated her childhood, the subject was very negative about it. She said that “my childhood is one of thing that I really wish I could forget and erase all the memory. I was alone at most times when my mum went to work. I was prevented from playing outside where there were many boys as my mum was opposed to me interacting with them.” This response was corroborated by the response to question no. 16 on how she relates with people in general. In her response she said “I am generally afraid of men. I can trust them and I don’t know whether I can relate to man at a deeper level. Other than that, I tend to avoid relating with people who make me feel inferior to them. Men fall in that category of people who impose themselves on my will and want to control me.” This fear of men in the subject’s was perpetuated by the mother for refusing her to interacting with boys at a tender age. As a social unit, the subject’s family control encouraged a perpetuation of stereotypes of men as controlling. Lindsey (2005) explains this by saying that “social control remains effective particularly when socialization processes encourage the perpetuation of stereotyped portrayals of the genders” (p. 54). In this case, the subject was socialised by the mother to avoid men and be independent and avoid domination by any force or entity. The question on whether the subject supported same sex unions was met with a strong positive answer. The subject responded to say that “I believe what society has made us to believe is not the reality or the ultimate truth and hence there should be room to challenge it. As such, the law should not be manipulated to criminalize same sex unions just because the society has assigned certain gender specific role to a certain sex. Heterosexual unions, though supported by nature for reproduction purposes are nothing but a social stereotype.” Cardwell and Flanagan (2003) say that some societal values are super imposed on individuals by the media. They claim that children are constantly exposed to gender linked behaviour in all areas of the media. However, in recent times modern media channels are challenging the social gender stereotypes by challenging the status quo such as on sexual orientation. They note that mix up in gender-linked behaviour especially among transgenders and transsexuals is opening up the way for opposition to gender-linked behaviour stereotypes. This evident in the manner in which the subject was willing to challenge the stereotype of model heterosexual relationships and marriages. Crooks and Baur (2008) and Carroll (2012) however, argue that deviation from the gender role expectations could be caused by other external influences such as the internet. Conclusion The research showed a degree of consistency and inconsistency with current views on gender roles and the role of families in influence child development. The consistency is indicated by the fact the subject was heavily influenced by the family environment to show a negative attitude towards men. This corresponds to the Family Systems’ Impact on Development theory. However, the subject did not conform well to the societal expectations of taking up her gender role as a female. Though the subject is ready to conform to the gender stereotype as stipulated by the Gender-Role and Sexuality Theories of Development, some aspects are challenged as influenced by the family environment. This point to the need for more research to identify how different environments and models of environment contribute to give varying results on gender roles. References Bee, D. & Boyd, H. (2002). The developing child. Sydney: Prentice Hall. Cardwell, M. & Flanagan, C. (2003). Psychology A2: The Complete Companion. Brisbane: Nelson Thornes. Carroll, J. (2012). Sexuality now: Embracing diversity. Sydney: Cengage Learning. Christian, L. G. (Jan 2006). Applying Family Systems Theory to Early Childhood Practice. Beyond the Journal • Young Children on the Web Eagly, A., Beall, A., & Sternberg, R. (2004). The Psychology of Gender, 2nd Ed. London: Guilford Press Gomm, R. (2008). Social research methodology. A critical introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan Lindsey, L. (2005). Gender role development. In Gender roles: A sociological perspective 5th ed. Cap 3. London: Pearson Prentice Hall Peterson, C. C. (2010). Looking forward through the lifespan: Developmental psychology 5th ed. Sydney: Pearson Australia. Sigelman, C. & Rider, E. (2009). Life-Span Human Development. Sydney: Cengage Learning. Read More

The authors argue that how society differentiates the sexes in terms of names, play activities, household chores, dressing, and expectations among others shape how they perceive their gender and that of others. In most cases, children are encouraged to copy gender roles of the similar sex parent. For girls, they are expected to copy their mother’s behaviour while boys are expected to copy their father’s behaviour. This sets the foundations for gender role development in future and also the expectations from the other gender.

Family Systems’ Impact on Development theory This theory explores how the stability or instability of the family environment affects a child’s later stages of development. The family environment in this case is inclusive of the parenting styles that parents use, presence or absence of violence, divorce, family life cycle and family structures. The assumptions by this theory are based on the perceptions that a family is the basic unit of a society under the Behavioural Learning and Systems Theories of Development.

As such, how a child develops to learn about the family, his views and perceptions are about the individual relationships in a family are transferred into the wider society. Sigel and Rider (2009) acknowledge this by stating that a family is a combination of interrelationships among members. Bee and Boyd, (2002, p. 184) state that the family unit and the family relationships are some of the most influential factors in the early development of a child. How a child experiences these relationships in the early stages are likely to affect him or her in later stages of life especially on how he/she relates to other people not only in the family but also in the wider society.

Parents have the highest influence on the development of their infant offspring. Sigelman and Rider (2009) write that parents can have a constructive indirect effect on the development of infants by having or displaying harmonious and cordial relationship between them. As such, children are bound to receive better development influence from the family when both parents are present and have positive influence on each other. This therefore brings into question the role of family structure on the development of children at a young age and later on in life.

A study by Macatee (2007 as cited in Kail & Cavanaugh, 2010) showed that there are no differences in psychological health of children raised by lesbian and gay parents and heterosexual parents. This means that the sex of the parents is not an issues. Nonetheless, it beats the purpose of having similar sex parents while children are required to copy the behaviours of the same-sex parent. Sigelman and Rider (2009) point out that the ability of parents to act as playmates, teach children discipline and good behaviour are what really matters.

The authors identify two main parenting styles which have different influences on development of children. The first style, acceptance/responsiveness is where parents support and provide a child’s sensitive needs and provide him/her with affection. The second style, demandingness/control, is where parents set rules and demand children follow them and monitors them closely. Diana Baumrind (1991, as cited in Peterson, 2010) on the other hand identified four styles of parenting; 1) authoritarian, 2) authoritative, 3) permissive/indulgent and 4) indifferent/uninvolved.

Case study Method The case study sample comprised of one female student of Hispanic ethnicity aged 20 who expressed an undetermined sexual orientation. The study sought to gather data about the subject through an interview. The interview was guided by 20 predetermined questions both closed and open ended (see appendix). The questions were guided by the Family Systems’ Impact on Development theory and biosocial theory as part of Gender-Role and Sexuality Theories of Development. The questions sought to guide the respondent in making a connection between the current situation in her social life and her childhood.

Read More