Social and Developmental Theories of Gender
The concept of childhood gender nonconformity assumes that there is a correct way to be a girl or a boy. There are a number of social and developmental perspectives that explore how children come to identify with a particular gender and engage in activities that are associated with this gender role.
Psychoanalytic Theories of gender emphasize that children begin to identify with the parent, and that girls tend to identify with their mothers and boys with their fathers. The identification is often associated with the child’s realization that they do not share the same genitals with both parents. This discovery leads to penis envy in girls and castration anxiety in boys. Freud’s theories are valuable in that they sparked new conversations surrounding sexuality and gender. However, there is not much empirical evidence to back up Freud’s theories.
Social learning theory emphasizes the rewards and punishments that children receive for sex appropriate or inappropriate behaviours. One of the criticisms of social learning theory is that it assumes that children are passive, rather than active participants in their social environment.
Cognitive development theory argues that children are active in defining gender and behaving in ways that reflect their perceptions of gender roles. Children are in search of regularities and consistencies in their environment, and the pursuit of cognitive consistency motivates children to behave in ways that are congruent with the societal constructions of gender.
Gender schema theory is a hybrid model that combines social learning and cognitive development theories. Bem argues that children have a cognitive readiness to learn about themselves and their surroundings. They build schemas to help them navigate their social world, and these schemas form a larger network of associations and beliefs about gender and gender roles.
Read more about this topic: Childhood Gender Nonconformity
Famous quotes containing the words social, theories and/or gender:
“That children link us with the future is hardly news. . . . When we participate in the growth of children, a sense of wonder must take hold of us, providing for us a sense of future. Without the intimation of concrete individual futures, it is hardly worth bothering with social change and improvement.”
—Greta Hofmann Nemiroff (20th century)
“Philosophers of science constantly discuss theories and representation of reality, but say almost nothing about experiment, technology, or the use of knowledge to alter the world. This is odd, because ‘experimental method’ used to be just another name for scientific method.... I hope [to] initiate a Back-to-Bacon movement, in which we attend more seriously to experimental science. Experimentation has a life of its own.”
—Ian Hacking (b. 1936)
“Most women of [the WW II] generation have but one image of good motherhood—the one their mothers embodied. . . . Anything done “for the sake of the children” justified, even ennobled the mother’s role. Motherhood was tantamount to martyrdom during that unique era when children were gods. Those who appeared to put their own needs first were castigated and shunned—the ultimate damnation for a gender trained to be wholly dependent on the acceptance and praise of others.”
—Melinda M. Marshall (20th century)