The sociocultural theory had interesting ideas about gender identity formation. I think it is true that young children are encouraged to adopt culturally-accepted gender roles. For example, starting even before children are born, parents often buy blue-themed clothes and room decorations if they are expecting boys and pink ones for girls. This continues into early and middle childhood with the types of clothing children wear, toys they play with, and accepted behavior. For example, people tolerate more active personalities in boys and write it off with the saying “boys will be boys.” However, I don't think the cultural influence of assigning gender roles is as clear-cut as it appears. For example, my nana tried her hardest to get me to enjoy playing with dolls. She bought me everything from collector's dolls to Barbies to American Girl dolls, and I didn't like playing with any of them. I preferred playing with plastic dinosaurs and my brother's Legos. The toys I liked playing with would probably be classified as androgynous. Even so, the way I played with them was more feminine than the way my brother played with them. When we played with Legos together, he would build tanks, guns and spaceships, and I would build houses and “lands” for Lego people to live in. Then he would use his tanks, etc to blow up my Lego land. At the time it was upsetting, but looking back at it makes me laugh. Even when I was playing with androgynous toys, I played with them in a more feminine way (nurturing the Lego people and making sure they had good houses, food, and pets). This makes me wonder if a truly androgynous balance can be achieved when other genetic, behavioral, and cognitive gender development also play a part. And if it could be achieved, would it be a good thing? Or would that person feel like an outcast in a society that embraces gender-roles?
No comments:
Post a Comment