The concept of gender and how gender roles are defined and constructed, in a way fit into the bigger nature versus nurture debate. Over the years, research as well as numerous inquiries, have been launched in an attempt to establish whether or not gender and accompanying gender roles are usually predetermined by an individual’s genes or by society’s construction of gender. The debate, takes on a different dimension when one considers that the main physical difference actually comes about due to biology, raising questions over exactly where the role played by biology or genetics towards the concept of gender stops, and exactly how significant the environment within which one is raised in is when it comes to their gender roles. It is perhaps plausible to argue that the environment, more so societal influences, play the biggest role when it comes to the construction of gender, as evidenced not just by its subjective nature, but also by its dynamic nature.
Essentially, one’s gender is defined based on society’s expectations of how their sex is expected to behave. For females, society judges their femininity on the basis of how well they are able to fulfill their maternal roles, show dependence on men, as well as practice heterosexuality. Furthermore, society also expects women to dress, act, and move, not to mention speak in ways that attract the opposite sex. In fact, the ideal female is defined by their ability to behave in a way that communicates dependency, weakness, ineffectualness as well as availability for emotional as well as sexual service, all the while remaining sensitive to the needs of others. As such, gender roles are not really innate, because it is through this societal lens and construction of gender, that people usually see themselves. As a female, most people will grow up idolizing this construct, and developing attitudes that only seem to reaffirm these beliefs and projections. Actively, most people are raised to believe that each gender has its roles and prescribed behavior, perhaps aptly captured by the common phrase “boys will be boys, and girls will be girls.” Through such phrases, society is able to effectively communicate and inculcate its acceptable definitions of “boys” and “girls”, which play a major role in gender construction (Devon 675).
According to Deborah Blum (678) in her article The Gender Blur, the role of the innate in determining gender cannot be ignored. As an example, she gives the example of toys the two year old son preferred as proof of the role played by nature in the construction of gender. Blum also proceeds to argue that indeed both nature and nurture actually play significant roles in the construction of gender, and an understanding of how these two factors intertwined to bring about one’s gender construction was actually key to understanding the gender differences that exist, even within a single household.
Blum (679) also cites the input of an endocrinology professor from Berkeley, over the role played by hormones when it comes to the determination of one’s gender. More so the fact that males generally display more aggressive behavior that is uncharacteristic of their female counterparts, a trait that even though not taught, is generally accepted within society. This therefore according to Blum, shows that biology plays a big part in the development of an individual’s gender identity, and can therefore, not be ignored as a key player in the construction and development of one’s gender.
Personally, I do agree to an extent with the notion that gender identity depends quite significantly on how we view ourselves as individuals, on the basis of a lens provided by society, a fact that is perhaps best illustrated by the increasing affinity for same sex relationships, which actually challenge the traditional definition of romantic relationships as being between two individuals of the opposite sex.
Works Cited
Blum, Deborah. The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over?
Devor, Aaron. Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes.
Maasik, S. and Solomon, J. Signs of Life in the USA: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. Bedford, 2002.
