Stereotypes as dynamic constructs
Prevalently, the common understanding particularly in late 1980s was that both boys and girls were cognitively born the same. However, as they grew up differences began to be noticed, in that the male gender could be seen as more hardy when compared to females. This could be extended to boys being discouraged from crying any how simply because they were not girls. From the perception, girls could therefore grow with such a mentality of weakness while boys could see themselves as physically strong. The notion has therefore initiated the difference between the two genders in the society up to today. All because of the manner in which parents and the society at large treated the two from their tender age.
Since male gender has been given a higher status in most of the cultures, they have been also are perceived as good leaders. And more likely to be given leadership positions in most of the cultures when compared to women, for instance, women usually hold about 20 percent of the basic elected positions as well as the appointed political positions worldwide. Similarly, there are more men compared to women in leadership positions, mainly in high-level organizational roles, in different kinds of businesses. Consequently, Women are rarely promoted to leadership positions compared to men in real working groups, even if the actual performance is put into consideration. All because of the foundation laid by the parents that men are stronger than women.
A number of reviews as well as meta-analyses on the conformity and leadership in both men and women have been conducted. This has paved a way to draw strong conclusions in this regard. In regard to conformity, overall conclusion indicates that the differences in the manner at which culture judges men and women depends on the parents initial treatment when nurturing children right from their tender age.
Work cited
Diekman, Amanda B., and Alice H. Eagly. “Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future.” Personality and social psychology bulletin 26.10 (2015): 1171-1188.