Sugar & Spice:
A look at the nature vs. nurture argument through
Miamiís students
by: Laura Becker, Patrick Frato, Alicia Marron & Kobi Platt
For Hays Cummins 9:30 am section
Introduction:
After careful consideration, we were determined to look at the nature versus nature dilemma and take a stance on the issue. There has been much controversy as to whether our sexes, or rather our respective genders, are produced by our surroundings and developed by the environment, or whether they are innately born into us from the moment of conception. This question has been debated for years and is currently still looming in the world of science. Several of our findings consist of very relevant material written in the past few years. In fact, we found there be at least an entire shelf at the library devoted to the subject.
Our genders are possibly the single most obvious characteristic of our lives that we each deal with every day: every time we go to the bathroom, every time we enter into a classroom, every time we put on clothes in the morning. In fact, during our group research for this project, we engaged in some small discussions on the subject ourselves. We all find it incredibly interesting to notice the dichotomy, if any, between a socially and/or biologically constructed being. The material we have found contains a plethora of information that is not only extremely intriguing, but often debatable as well.
Our hypothesis, as it stands, is that gender is more socially than biologically created. We hope to be able to determine, from the use of carefully drawn-out surveys, whether the students on Miamiís campus (we understand that our subjects are limited) believe they are socially constructed to be male or female, or if they adhere to the nature argument. Baring in mind the argument that people may be socially constructed to think that they are not, our study must be inclusive and all-encompassing. Our audience, as it stands, is to high school seniors, but more importantly to college students who wish to gain a better understanding of the social constructs of gender in the American society. We decided that the more mature student would be able to comprehend how our society is formed.
Ultimately, we would all like to learn more, expanding our philosophical and intellectual horizons, about the nature of gender, in search of what the exact definition of sex really is.
Relevance:
As noted above, we found an abundance of information on the subject not only at the library, but on the internet as well. The nature vs. nurture argument has been on the minds of social psychologists and other doctors around the world for years.
In John Nicholsonís book Men and Women: How are They Different, he consults many theories surrounding the gender construction of the child based on societal influences directly following birth. The analyses of both male and female infants showed psychological tendencies which are both innate and socially constructed.
ìBabies appear to have very little sense of self awareness, so, presumably they start life oblivious to what sex they are,î Nicholson writes. He goes on to introduce two British psychologists, unnamed, who feel that society discriminates gender from a very early age. Although obvious, it is worthy of noting the fact that infants (10-18 months) spend much of their time looking at pictures and associating with environments that are of their same sex (Nicholson 20). Nicholson goes on to provide evidence for the biological construction of gender:
More recently, however, researchers have found small but significant
sex differences between babies even when none of the boys had
been circumcised. For example, a Swedish psychologist observed that
by the fourth day after birth boys were adopting more of a ëlittle and oftení
approach to breast feeding while girls showed a more regular feeding
pattern. Other researchers have found that baby girls smile more often,
and they may differ in the way they may respond to being held or spoken
to. Boys react in the same way to both, where as girls react more to being
spoken to than being held. Girls show a greater interest in communicating,
spending on average twice as long as boys maintaining eye contact with a
silent adult. So it is perhaps as a result of the babyís behavior that, within
48 hours of birth, mothers tend to talk to and smile at their babies more
often if they are female, and pick them up and play more boisterously if
they are boys (Nicholson 21-2).
Notably, this primary gender discrimination begins at a very young age in human beings and continues throughout our lifetimes.
This differentiating process is perpetuated throughout scholastic careers of nearly each and every child within the American school system. In various studies around the country, according to social-psychologist Linda Lindsey, ìCompared to boys, girls are called on less, have less overall interaction with teachers and get less criticism but also less instruction.î (Lindsey 273) Although there has been progress, girls are still taught differently at a young and tender age from their male counter-parts. This continues on through high school. Lindsey comments, ìBoth genders are exposed to the same history and social studies courses. As with elementary school, these courses demonstrate that ìboys doî and ìgirls donít.î In history books, when women are mentioned, it is usually in the context of a traditional role, Betsy Ross for sewing and Florence Nightingale for nursing...î (Lindsey 280) This is, of course, prolonged throughout the educational process.
When it comes to careers, authors Archer and Lloyd have found, ìMen tend to enter higher-status and potentially better-paid occupations than women (see table 8.1), are apt to receive more occupational training, and are more likely to be found in jobs with good promotion prospects.î (Lloyd 224) Even when women are able to achieve higher status among the work-force, (see tables 2.3, 2.4, 2.5) they are still presupposed to rear and maintain families, which places a strain on her biological expectations. ìThe average woman takes about seven years out of employment to raise a family,î (Nicholson 140) whereas men very rarely take any time off after a baby is born.
These traditional roles, as weíve noted, are doled throughout our lifetimes. For instance, once a member of either sex enters the world of dating, there are certain expectations placed upon both, however, the pressures placed on males have been much greater. He is automatically expected to initially approach the female in a social situation and ìask her outî on a date, and in turn, pay for dinner and a movie, while the girl sit idly waiting for him to open the door for her.
In a related issue involving attraction, Donald Symonsí The Evolution of Human Sexuality examines many of the ideas that surround the emotions and psyche of physical attraction among humans. His intuitive, and in depth research, helps form a basis for the understanding of the way men and women are constructed to think and act, and how that may effect their sexual preferences and desires.
Ultimately, it becomes necessary to note the relationship between the opposing forces of society and biology. It is evident that the two ideas work in conjunction with one another, offering contradiction to the individual in question.
Although we have to focus our study on the students of Miami, for lack of resources, our research relates to the entire world as a whole, being that every human has a gender, whether it is defined by society or our chromosomes. The larger question we are pointing to in our research is really, what is sex? Is there something in every person's genes that makes them born with the ability and desire to play football or throw tea parties, or do our parents instill in us as children that girls play with dolls while boys throw balls around? Is this the same around the world, or is this specific to our culture? Ultimately, what makes us who we are? These are all questions we hope to address within our study of male and female psyche's around Miami's campus, in the hopes of coming to some sort of conclusion about how our genders are shaped.
Inclusiveness:
Although it might seem as though this experiment were a bit swayed by gender, our study is completely non-gender, non-race specific and will hopefully cover a wide range of individuals on Miamiís campus. The material will not be aimed at any specific group, however, we have decided to focus our ideas on our local populace, that being the American culture. We were obviously able to find an abundance of information on typical heterosexual male/female constructs, however, within that realm, there were scatterings of reports on the homosexual beingís social constructs as well.
According to Nicholson, scientific evidence exists that may indicate a biological difference in the genetic make-up of homosexual and heterosexual human beings. An American scientist who has studied the gray matter of homosexual men and women who have died of AIDS has found ìthat one of these nuclei in the hypothemus in homosexuals has the anatomical form usually found in womenî (Nicholson 89). Perhaps this is why homosexuality is not a phenomenon that remains restricted among one society or culture.This information would also perpetuate several stereo-types placed on the gay male in our contemporary society.
Fortunately, due to the deluge of information on the subject, we are able to cover a large portion of subject matter, however, within a small testing area.
Materials & Methods:
For collecting data, we have administered numerous surveys to as many Miami students around campus as possible, in our classes, in the dining hall, and even in Shriver. We have compiled the data and synthesized it with graphs, tables, and charts using Statview, which should provide some telling results. However, most of our data will be things that canít necessarily be depicted on a graph, so our information will be revealed within our writing.
In one of the books, Sex & Gender by John Archer and Barbara Lloyd, we found an extensive listing of qualities or characteristics (see tables 2.9, 2.10, 2.11) that one might find in males and/or females, including what is most socially acceptable (i.e. affectionate in women vs. aggressive in men in comparison to the most socially desirable in both being adaptable). We concluded that for a class exercise, and most likely on the survey as well, we would list attributes, or faults, whichever the case may be, and ask the students to write a check next to the characteristics that most fit their personality. Later on, after a discussion and most likely a debate, we would compare results from the lists to determine whether or not these listed traits are, in fact, gender-specific. One of the best ways to get students to think about what they are learning is to role play, and we considered that if we were to provide sides on the issue, one nature the other nurture, it would provoke some thought in the minds of the students, rather than simply instilling data into their heads.
Data Sheet: sample
Male/Female (circle one)
Circle five of these traits that pertain to yourself:
blunt objective neat in habits
acts as a leader rational direct
subjective can make decisions
religious tact
sneaky illogical
Rank in order from one to five traits that you believe to pertain to females, and do the same also for males:
blunt objective neat in habits
acts as a leader rational direct
subjective can make decisions
religious tact
sneaky illogical
Results:
After passing out surveys at Shriver for about an hour to a random sampling of Miami students, we gathered the results and tallied each answer in a complex set of graphs. With the help of Hays Cummins, Alicia spent an extensive amount of time in the Peer Science Center creating working graphs that display our data in a clear and complete fashion. We got some interesting answers...
(please see graphs and data on last pages of the packet)
Discussion & Conclusion
The collective material in the survey came from various sociological texts which gave several stereotypical gender traits. There was hope that these ìeducatedî students filling out the surveys would not adhere to these traits, and out step the social constructs which confine most people. Yet, there were no evident traces of this after graphing out our results.
According to the graphs, the females and the males perceived there genders similarly. There were parallels amongst the chosen stereotypical traits for each gender. The differences lay between the opposite genders perceptions of one another.
Assuming that there are lines of communication amongst these genders, the only rational is that males and females cannot fully comprehend the complexities of one another . It also raises the question of, ìIs there a definitive truth behind stereotypes?î. Is it possible to fully understand a gender if there is no constant value in which to compare them with?
The rolling results our graphs displayed that there are no constant variable that suggests biological constructs in genders. The various independent factors implied that people tend to be more socially constructed. Surprising to some, (not to others) both of the genders did evaluate one another in accordance with the stereotypical, socially constructed traits.
It seems that the ways in which our work would be applied to the classroom is rather obvious. Our discoveries and examinations are applicable and inclusive among all the students in the potential classroom. Perpetuated by discussion, we feel that our project would be perfect for an interdisciplinary setting in any type of school.
Overall, our project was quite a large under-taking for a bunch of college kids. After all, this very subject has been studied around the globe for years now, which lends to why this would make such an ideal topic for a college curriculum. Thereís obviously an over-abundance of resources and information on gender studies and in particular, the nature versus nurture argument, which has already been proven, for the most part, to lean toward nurture. By studying Miami students, a class would be able to dissect its own community and the way gender is constructed among them. However, it is nearly impossible to determine the social construction of gender through simple surveys. As Donald Symons put it: ìIt is possible that questionnaire items have different emotional meanings for men and women, and hence that comparing their responses quantitatively may be somewhat misleadingî (Symons 237). The best way to find answers is through discussion and writings, asking questions and forming opinions based on those expressed. More and more colleges are looking directly at this by offering a new major for students: women studies. This curriculum would be best placed in such a course.
Suggestions for further investigations:
See how our stereo-types about physical attraction relates to gender roles and our particular survey.
Create and larger and more thorough survey and distribute it to lecture halls of students and obtain more results for better comparisons.
Explore the history of gender roles and development to understand relativity.
Survey minorities and study about minorities with relations to gender, with a comparison to non-minoroty groups in America.
Study gender development and how it relates with intellectual development.
Study gender development as it relates to physical development.
Compare our findings from main campus Miami students to the same study done on Western campus scholars.
Works Cited:
Archer, John and Barbara Lloyd. Sex and Gender. Cambridge University Press: New York, 1985.
Gergen, Kenneth J. The Social Construction of the Person. Springer-Verlag: New York, New York, 1985.
Maccoby, Eleanor E. The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. University of Harvard Press: London, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1998.
Nicholson, John. Men and Women: How different are they? Oxford University Press: New York, NY, 1984.
Siann, Gerda. Gender, Sex and Sexuality. Taylor and Francis: Bristol, Pa, 1994.
Symons, Donald. The Evolution of Human Sexuality. Oxford University Press: New York, Ny, 1979.
Wilber, Ken. The Atman Project. Quest Books: Wheaton, IL, 1980.
Farrell, Susan A. & Judith Lorber Social construction of gender www.sagepub.co.uk/b003257.html City University of New York
Next Article IMPORTANT: For each Response, make sure the title of the response is different than previous titles shown above! Article complete. Click HERE
to return to the Natural Systems Menu. It is 1:11:18 PM on Sunday, November 22, 2009. Last Update: Thursday, April 29, 1999
Return to the Topic Menu
Here is a list of responses that have been posted to this Study...
Important: Press the Browser Reload button to view the latest contribution.
Respond to this Submission!