Male Socialization
While there are many competing theories surrounding the development of gender roles, this one fact is incontestable and unavoidable: men and women are socialized differently. There is not yet enough conclusive evidence to determine how large of a role biology plays in creating the gendered psyches, but, whilst scientists continue to explore the intricacies of neurology, we can draw conclusions about how social mores assist in instilling masculinity and femininity into our culture. The following pages will explore how U.S. culture affects the socialization of its males.
The male infant born in the United States of America is born into a legacy of masculine expectations. From pre-industrial times until the 1960’s, the “good provider” role of fathers dominated family ideology. Although all family members contributed to subsistence activities during pre-industrial times, men provided the dominant source of authority within the household. When the economy of the U.S. moved outside of the household during the industrial revolution, men’s family roles became primarily concerned with economic support. Due to the nature of this necessary absence of the father from his family, sons (and daughters) viewed their fathers’ role within the family to be primarily that of the provider. While the mother’s “job” was to provide emotional support and nurturing, the father’s “job” was to provide security in the form of finances.
During the 1960’s, women began to elbow their way into the work force in larger numbers while men simultaneously began a retreat from their instrumental role in financial security. This retreat manifested itself in two ways: men either increased their activity in child rearing and household dut...
... middle of paper ...
...pe. A June 3, 1990, New York Times article states “interviews with rape-crises counselors as well as results of studies of assaults on college campuses indicate that athletes are involved in a disproportionate number of rapes and other sexual assaults.”
The key to alleviating these incidents of male violence and depression is to be found within the study of gender socialization paired with biological findings regarding the human brain.
Bibliography:
Bibliography
Fivush, Robyn & Golombok, Susan. Gender Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY, 1994.
Kelley, Gary F. Sexuality Today. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, NY, NY, 2001.
Lewis, Robert A., ed. Men in Difficult Times. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981.
Real, Terrence. I Don’t Want to Talk About It. Scribners, NY, NY, 1997.
In his 1943 work, “Sex Roles in the American Kinship System,” Talcott Parsons addresses his beliefs that the individual gendered roles in the nuclear family are essential to creating a functioning family dynamic. During this time period, the United States was in between wars and working to recover from the Great Depression. These significant events greatly shaped society not only at the time, but for future generations as well. It is almost impossible for a theorist of this time, such as Parsons, not to be influenced by such drastic social conditions and changes.
In the 19th Century it was the Father who was known to be the one that worked, or the breadwinner for the family. However, after World War II we began to see a shifting in this as the women’s right’s movement took place and women began to get paid more for working and now entered the workplace regularly. This also occurred because of the great economic growth that was occurring at the time. So as things changed economically, the family progressed with it as well. However, not all was a positive progression as during this time we also began to see divorce increase as well as and increase in the number of women who became pregnant without having been married. These were huge changes and shifts in the family dynamics as the family became under pressure from the ever-changing economics and culture. With both parents entering the workforce, little supervision is given to the children. This was totally unlike the Leave it to Beaver family, the Cleavers in which only the father went to work and the mother had time to care for the kids. Having both parents work definitely cut into family time or time that in the past had been spent between parents and children. This gave way to leaving society an open door in having a greater impact on children then they would have received at home through the training and modeling of their parents. Because of their thinking to progress with the world around them and in the way the world was progressing in thought, it left an open door for their families to become impacted negatively by
Both Deborah Blum’s The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over? and Aaron Devor’s “Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes” challenges the concept of how gender behavior is socially constructed. Blum resides on the idea that gender behavior is developed mainly through adolescence and societal expectations of a gender. Based on reference from personal experiences to back her argument up, Blum explains that each individual develops their expected traits as they grow up, while she also claims that genes and testosterones also play a role into establishing the differentiation of gender behavior. Whereas, Devor focuses mainly on the idea that gender behavior is portrayed mainly among two different categories: masculinity and femininity,
However, social conditions made it less feasible for families to live this way. As the 1960s approached and consumption was in high demand, women were yet again, forced to join the work force; but only a quarter of the women joined the workforce, whereas in the 1990s about “two-thirds of women who had children were in the work force (Coontz 55). Coontz (1997) explains how by 1973, “real wages were falling for young families, and by the late 1970s, government effectiveness had decreased (Coontz 54). It was because of economic factors that the nuclear bread-winning family could only be a lifestyle a few can afford. Nonetheless, women joining the workforce created a new understanding of women-hood, changed women’s status in society, and created conflict within the household. Women did not have the time to complete all the household tasks which contributed to the increased divorce rates, but left women happier due to the fact that they had that ultimate
In the 1950s, women comprised less than one third of the labor force (Berger, 4) (See Appendix B). Women had their place in the workforce, yet it was not very influencial. Women had to fight to hold their positions while confro...
Therefore, the constrictive American ideals of male and female gender identities inhibits growth and acceptance of gender expression. Each gender is separated by rules and guidelines that they must abide by. This, in turn, creates inner tensions that inhibit personal growth. For males, this may be, or is, an extraordinarily arduous task. More often than not, it is other male figures, such as the father, that administer and enforce these certain rules.
Early feminist studies of gender often depicted the expression of masculinity as solely meant to subordinate women. Upon further research and understanding of gender and its role in society, gender theorists have realized that masculinity is not only a patriarchal regulation against women, but that it also has negative effects against men. Masculinity has different characteristics in different cultures, but masculinity in general presents a hierarchy of traits, with femininity as the lowest, least desirable trait. In American culture, masculinity is defined within multiple structures, such as race, class, and sexuality, where a man’s masculinity can be lessened by his traits as well as these identities. Often, normative expressions of masculinity
Talcott Parsons and Robert Bales, two of the leading figures in sociology, may be considered the founding fathers for the ideas of the “modern family” and the “male-breadwinner family.” Collectively, their work has influenced how Americans analyze families and has sparked new ideas regarding the American family from sociologists such as Stephanie Coontz and Arlie Hochschild. However, when studying the American family, Parsons and Bales fail to understand that the “ideal” family may not be so ideal for everyone. They neglect to consider societal influences and economic changes when discussing patriarchal social norms as the most optimal family structure. Their description of the male-breadwinner family consists of the father being the “instrumental leader” within the home, providing economically for his family based on his occupational earnings. Meanwhile, the mother is considered the manager of the household, providing for her husband and children physically, emotionally, and mentally.
In David Blankenhorn’s book written in 1995, he brings to light what he calls “America’s fundamental problem”: our culture of fatherlessness. Our modern day view of fathers is that they are unnecessary both in society and in the upbringing of a child. Blankenhorn argues the contrary: the only way to solve the multitude of social problems present in America is to address the common denominator, the decline of fathers and the shrinking importance of fatherhood. Blankenhorn’s book is split into three parts: Part I: Fatherlessness, Part II: The Cultural Script and Part III: Fatherhood. In Fatherlessness, he provides the history of fatherhood and includes statistics that help to illustrate the transition of the father from head of the household to being “almost entirely a Sunday institution” (pg. 15).
As centuries pass by, generations also pass their traditional values to the next generation. some people still think the way their ancestors thought and believe in what they believed in. During the beginning of 1890 people couldn’t have premarital sex, women had to be the caretaker while men were the breadwinner. During this century, those perspectives have changed, argued Stephanie Coontz, the author of “The American Family”. Coontz believes women should have more freedom and there should be gender equality.
In fact, gender socialization appears very early in childhood, and it is generally regarded as one of the most related issues in early childhood. (Early Childhood, 2007) Children learn the differences between boys and girls by the environment they are exposed to, and the ideas are reinforced mainly by family, education, peer groups, and the mass media.
From a young age , many individuals worldwide are socialized according to their gender and what is appropriate for males and females. Socializing according to ones gender starts from the moment you are born when the nurses give you either a blue or pink blanket to wrap the child in. This allows society to known whether the child is a male or female. The double standard for gender occurs within many areas of development for instance the clothes one wears, the toys that are placed with, the jobs and careers one chooses in their later life. Attachment given by a child's parent reinforces an individual to be socialized and children can also contribute how their parents treat and see them , these are social constructs within parenting (Ambert,2012). All of these things can be gender separated and still are in today's society. Another area where males and females are socialized differently is in the area of sexuality and what is acceptable for males is not always for the female gender. Gender specific norms govern the appropriate amount of partners , when it is acceptable to engage in sexual activity and what motivates ones behavior (Kreager &Staff, 2009). This shows society individuals are socialized according to their gender because males are socialized into behaving a different way than girls but it still be accepted as a norm. Women are taught that it is okay to have sexual relationships but they need a reason, example being in a committed relationship, where as men just need a place. This is a common perception based on ones gender , formed from a western conservative view point ( Fugere et.al, 2008). Gender socialization is a process where boys are seen to be given wings and girls are to be given roots (Myers, Spencer, Jordan...
Throughout history, the roles of men and women in the home suggested that the husband would provide for his family, usually in a professional field, and be the head of his household, while the submissive wife remained at home. This wife’s only jobs included childcare, housekeeping, and placing dinner on the table in front of her family. The roles women and men played in earlier generations exemplify the way society limited men and women by placing them into gender specific molds; biology has never claimed that men were the sole survivors of American families, and that women were the only ones capable of making a pot roast. This depiction of the typical family has evolved. For example, in her observation of American families, author Judy Root Aulette noted that more families practice Egalitarian ideologies and are in favor of gender equality. “Women are more likely to participate in the workforce, while men are more likely to share in housework and childcare (apa…).” Today’s American families have broken the Ward and June Cleaver mold, and continue to become stronger and more sufficient. Single parent families currently become increasingly popular in America, with single men and women taking on the roles of both mother and father. This bend in the gender rules would have, previously, been unheard of, but in the evolution of gender in the family, it’s now socially acceptable, and very common.
In present time dads share with mothers the same level of emotional response to new-born babies and are just as sensitive and affectionate when looking after their babies (Secunda, 1992). Today more than half of all children are raised by single mothers and twenty eight percent of children are raised in single parent homes. Fathers are now the main care givers for children when mothers are working. In thirty percent of dual earner families, it is now the father more than any other individual, who cares for children when the mother is at work. If it proves true that daughters search for romantic partners like t...
behaviors, and social conditions that we call masculinities are “hard-wired” into males through biology (see Thorhill & Palmer, 2000) and/or the heritability of human psyche (see Jung, 1959/1989; Bly, 1990). They view masculinity as static, transhistorical, cross-cultural, and cross-situational. From this perspective, gender change is either impossible, or it involves the use of powerful force to constrain what is seen as “naturally” male. (Masculine Self pg. 19)