Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes

Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes

“Boys will be boys, and girls will be girls”: currently our cultural mythologies seem as natural as this one. But in this exploration of the gender signals that traditionally tell what a “boy” or “girl” is should look and act like, Aaron Devor teaches how this is  cultural. Indeed, he suggests, they can be  mixed and varied, or to paraphrase the old Kinks song “Lola,” “Boys can be girls and girls can be boys.” Masculine characteristics are used to identify persons as males, while feminine ones are used as signifiers for femaleness. Such an alternative conception of gender roles captures the hierarchical and competitive masculine thirst for power, which can, but need not, lead to aggression, and the feminine quest for harmony and communal well-being, which can, but need not, result in passivity and dependence.

Many activities and modes of expression are understood by the society as feminine. They are displayed by both genders. In some cases, cross-gender behaviors are ignored  in the society, thus no  compromising the integrity ones  gender display. Most people, research use influence tactics and verbal styles associated with men and masculinity, while subordinate to either gender, tend to use those considered to be the province of women.

Thus it seems likely that many aspects of masculinity and femininity   result  than the to status inequalities. Femininity and masculinity  revolve  hierarchical appraisals of the “natural” responsibilities of males and females. Both genders   share a lot of the similar  characteristics, but in  different   proportions   males and females  are   able to do many of the same things,  contrary most activities are divided into suitable and unsuitable groups for the two gender class. Those  persons are considered appropriate for another gender should  perform them poorly; if they succeed adequately, or  well, at their endeavors, they may be rewarded with ridicule   scorn for blurring the gender dividing line.

The patriarchal gender schema currently in use in mainstream North American society shows    attributes for males and  supports the high evaluation of any characteristics which might inadvertently become associated with maleness. The ideology underlying the schema postulates that the cultural superiority of males is a natural outgrowth of the innate predisposition of males toward aggression and dominance, which is assumed to flow inevitably from evolutionary and biological sources. Female attributes are likewise postulated to find their source in innate predispositions acquired in the evolution of the species. Feminine characteristics are thought to be intrinsic to the female facility for childbirth and breastfeeding. Hence, it is popularly believed that the social position of females is biologically mandated to be intertwined with the care of children and a “natural” dependency on men for the maintenance of mother-child units. Thus the goals of femininity and, by implication, of all biological females are presumed to revolve around heterosexuality and maternity.

Femininity, according to this traditional formulation, “would result in warm and continued relationships with men, a sense of maternity, interest in caring for children, and the capacity to work productively and continuously in female occupations.”

This recipe translates into a vast number of proscriptions and prescriptions. Warm and continued relations with men and an interest in maternity require that females be heterosexually oriented. According to  heterosexual orientation  femininity must be expressed through modes of dress, movement, speech, and action they  communicate weakness, dependency, availability for sexual or emotional service, and sensitivity to the needs of others.

Some, but not all, of these modes of interrelation also serve the demands of maternity and many female job ghettos. In many cases, though, femininity is not particularly useful in maternity or employment. Both mothers and workers often need to be strong, independent, and effectual in order to do their jobs well. Thus femininity, as a role, is best suited to satisfying a masculine vision of heterosexual attractiveness.

Body postures and demeanors communicate subordinate status and vulnerability to trespass through a message of “no threat” make people appear to be feminine.  People   look feminine when they point their toes inward and use their hands in small or childlike gestures. Other people also tend to stand closer to people they see as feminine, often invading their personal space, while people who make frequent appeasement gestures, such as smiling, also give the appearance of femininity. Perhaps as an outgrowth of a subordinate status and the need to avoid conflict with more socially powerful people, women tend to excel over men at the ability to correctly   done by womenthough not always.

Feminine styles of dress likewise display subordinate status  for instance  the free movement of the body, greater exposure of the bare skin, and an emphasis on sexual characteristics. The more gender distinct the dress, the more this is the case.

Masculinity, like femininity, can be demonstrated through a wide variety of cues. Pleck has argued that it is commonly expressed in North American society through the attainment of some level of proficiency at some, or all, of the following four main attitudes of masculinity. Persons who display success and high status in their social group, who exhibit “a manly air of toughness, confidence, and self-reliance” and “the aura of aggression, violence, and daring,” and who conscientiously avoid anything associated with femininity are seen as exuding masculinity  These requirements reflect the patriarchal ideology that masculinity results from an excess of testosterone, the assumption being that androgens supply a natural impetus toward aggression, which in turn impels males toward achievement and success. This vision of masculinity also reflects the ideological stance that ideal maleness   must remain untainted by female pollutants.

Masculinity, then, requires of its actors that they organize themselves and their society in a hierarchical manner so as to be able to explicitly quantify the achievement of success. The achievement of high status in one’s social group requires competitive and aggressive behavior from those who wish to obtain it. Competition which is motivated by a goal of individual achievement, or egoistic dominance, also requires of its participants a degree of emotional insensitivity to feelings of hurt and loss in defeated others, and a measure of emotional insularity to protect oneself from becoming vulnerable to manipulation by others. Such values lead those who subscribe to them to view feminine persons as “born losers” and to strive to eliminate any similarities to feminine people from their own personalities. In patriarchally organized societies, masculine values become the ideological structure of the society as a whole. Masculinity thus are “innately” valuable and femininity is contrapuntal function to delineate and magnify the hierarchical dominance of masculinity.

Speech and dress which likewise demonstrate or claim superior status are also seen as characteristically masculine behavior patterns. Masculine speech show a tendency for expansiveness same as those masculine body postures. People who attempt to control the direction of conversations seem more masculine. Speaking   loudly interrupts the conversations of others and communicate masculinity to others. Styles of dress which shows  the size of upper body musculature, necessitate freedom of movement, and accelerates  illusion of physical power and a look of easy physicality all suggest masculinity. They result to strength and readiness to action serve to intimidation central to an appearance of masculinity. Expansive postures and gestures combine with these qualities to insinuate that a position of secure dominance is a masculine one.

Gender role characteristics reflect the ideological contentions underlying the dominant gender schema in North American society. That schema makes us  to understand  that female and male behaviors results from socially directed hormonal instructions which  are specifying that females  want to have children and  thus  find themselves  helpless and depending on males for support and protection. Males are innately aggressive and very competitive thus dominating over females. The social hegemony of this ideology ensure we are  raised to put into practice the gender roles this confirms this vision of the nature of the male and women. Fortunately,  training to gender roles is neither complete nor uniform. The fact is that gender roles are the result of systematic power imbalances based on gender discrimination.