Gender Socialization

Gender Socialization Rahilly, Elizabeth P. 2015. ‘‘The Gender Binary Meets the GenderVariant Child: Parents’ Negotiations with Childhood Gender Variance.’’ Gender and Society 29 (3): 338–361. https://doi.org /10.1177/0891243214563069. Randles, Jennifer M. 2017. Proposing Prosperity: Marriage Education Policy and Inequality in America. New York: Columbia University Press. Risman, Barbara J. 2004. ‘‘Gender as Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism.’’ Gender and Society 18 (4): 429– 450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265349. West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. ‘‘Doing Gender.’’ Gender and Society 1 (2): 125–151. https://doi.org /10.1177/0891243287001002002. Williams, Joan. 2001. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do about It. New York: Oxford University Press. Gender Socialization JEFF A. NELSON Graduate Student, Department of Sociology California State University, Northridge MICHAEL J. CARTER Associate Professor, Department of Sociology California State University, Northridge Gender socialization indicates the process of teaching and learning attitudes, behaviors, and norms that are expected by males and females. Gender socialization begins prior to birth and continues throughout the life course, with much of the formative impact occurring during early childhood and adolescence. Gender socialization refers to how socialization agents (e.g., families, schools, peers, and mass media) guide individuals in distinct directions according to prevailing and culturally accepted gender norms. Perspectives on gender socialization in families can be classified four ways: the parent effect perspective, the child effects perspective, the reciprocal socialization perspective, and the systemic-ecological perspective (Peterson and Hann 1999; Peterson and Rollins 1987). The parent effect perspective is the most common and addresses how parents as primary caregivers socialize gendered traits and behavior in children. The child effects perspective reverses this order, focusing on how children socialize parents, such as how the birth of a child may push mothers and fathers into respective feminine and masculine caretaker roles. The reciprocal effects perspective examines how both children and parents influence one another reflexively, emphasizing that gender socialization is mutually tied to both entities. The systemicecological perspective considers all family and gender socialization to be embedded in an external environment; this perspective treats families as unique social systems in 404 which multiple sources simultaneously socialize both parents and children. Socialization agents impose gender on children through gendered emotion display rules, involvement in gendered activities, and disparate academic expectations for boys and girls in the early stages of social development. Gender and Emotion Display Rules Emotion display rules are guidelines or norms that define appropriate ways of feeling and displaying emotions in different settings (Cassano, Perry-Parrish, and Zeman 2007; Ünal 2004). Primary caregivers often teach children proper ways emotions are to be displayed, though what is appropriate tends to be different for males and females. Males are often taught that to be masculine is to be strong and tough, whereas females learn that femininity involves being caring, compassionate, and nurturing. Although research has revealed males and females to be similar with regard to emotionality (i.e., the ability/capacity to feel various emotions), emotion display rules are gendered, with individuals generally taught that some emotions are more appropriate for males and some for females. For example, boys and girls are socialized to comprehend and display sadness and anger in differing ways. Boys are often socialized to suppress or change feelings of sadness, whereas girls are often socialized to recognize, show, and respond to sadness. Likewise, male children are often socialized to believe that expressing anger reinforces masculinity, whereas females are often viewed negatively for visibly expressing anger, as it is considered unfeminine behavior. The relationships parents form with children affect the ways in which sons and daughters understand gender. The response a parent has to a child’s emotion display teaches children what behaviors are acceptable. Fathers tend to provide a muted response to their children’s sadness, whereas mothers typically provide words of encouragement aimed at eliminating negative emotions. Caregivers utilize this language to encourage ‘‘masculine’’ emotions for boys and ‘‘feminine’’ emotions for girls. By expressing negativity toward displays of sadness in boys and anger in girls, children are more likely to handle and display (or not display) that emotion accordingly in future situations. A child’s understanding of emotion display rules is also reinforced by teachers and peers in schools. Boys who display sadness and girls who display anger are likely to be negatively sanctioned (informally) by teachers and peers. Emotion display rules are thus powerful socializing mechanisms that influence what is considered appropriate for a given gender. Gendered Activities Past research has shown that masculinity is more defined by what is not feminine rather than femininity being defined by what is not masculine. In other words, the degree to which MACMILLAN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FAMILIES, MARRIAGES, AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS Gender Socialization masculinity is defined by the opposite of femininity is greater than the degree to which femininity is defined by the opposite of masculinity. Interestingly, behavior that deviates from gender expectations is typically more discouraged for boys than girls. Because femininity is viewed as a weakness in boys, it is less accepted than masculine traits in girls. It is assumed that boys who display feminine traits will become increasingly feminine, whereas girls who exhibit masculine traits are predicted to outgrow such tendencies with age. Because of these assumptions, caregivers often socialize children differently by encouraging involvement in specific activities and the use of genderappropriate toys (Emolu 2014; Freeman 2007). Caregivers who approve or disapprove of specific activities and toys greatly affect the ways children come to learn what is socially acceptable for boys and girls. For example, young boys are often encouraged to play with toy cars, plastic guns, and action figures. These toys are aligned with masculine traits that are seen as appropriate for male children. On the contrary, girls are often encouraged to play with more ‘‘feminine’’ toys, such as dolls and playhouses. These alternate choices in play styles are supported by the fantasies that children explore; boys tend to prefer physical play in action and fantasy, whereas girls enact nurturing aspects in activities, such as playing ‘‘house.’’ Methods of play contribute to how children understand the roles that masculinity and femininity play in society (Thorne 1994). activities act to influence students’ understanding of gender in a more implicit way. Academic expectations placed on students also commonly vary by gender and are often created by behavioral assumptions established by a teacher. In schools, ‘‘following class rules’’ is often a valued and rewarded behavior. Teachers tend to have lower expectations for students who do not follow rules and receive unsatisfactory behavior grades. Because female students tend to receive higher behavior scores in early years of schooling, young girls often have higher academic expectations placed on them than boys of similar age. This bias results in teachers having less tolerance for negative behavior from male students, and an increase in the assumption that boys have less academic capability than girls. Although high academic expectations relate to perceived behavior, boys are more likely than girls to exhibit inappropriate behavior, resulting in a gap in expectations for males and females (Bennett et al. 1993). Primary caregivers also socialize implicit gender role stereotypes regarding career fields via activities and toys that are considered to be ‘‘for boys’’ and those that are ‘‘for girls.’’ Toys intended for boys often align with careers in science and mathematics, whereas those for girls often support the nurturing role of a mother or friend. This establishes a framework for future career fields that are deemed appropriate for a given gender. In short, primary socializing agents such as the family have the ability to present an understanding of society’s gender roles via approval and disapproval of certain toys and activities. Popularity among peers in school is affected by the interactions between teachers and students (Bennett et al. 1993). Boys are more likely to be negatively sanctioned by teachers owing to the expectation that boys should be outspoken, as opposed to the assumption that girls are expected to display a higher level of empathy in attitudes toward caregivers (Adler, Kless, and Adler 1992). Although teachers promote positive behavior, male students tend to disapprove of fellow male students’ obedience to teachers. This interaction between students and teachers socializes children with the idea that following rules is more closely aligned with feminine behavior. Boys learn that good academic performance is not considered to be masculine, which often results in the avoidance of pursuing high academic scores. The stigma regarding academic achievement does not exist for female students, which allows more positive interactions to occur between teachers and girls. In short, socialized traits that are taught to be associated with masculinity and femininity have an impact on the ways in which students engage with and are perceived by teachers, and how students perform in school. Gender and Academic Expectations Conclusion Teachers in schools are also significant facilitators of gender socialization, as they routinely establish a system of segregation in schools by organizing children and promoting activities based on gender (Chen and Rao 2011). These biases and the segregated activities that take place in school establish a hidden curriculum, which socializes boys and girls differently based on gendered expectations. For example, in schools, gender-based assigned seating and ‘‘girl versus boy’’ task-oriented games convey to children that there is a difference between males and females. Although teachers may not explicitly include teaching gender norms in the curriculum, their organizational techniques and Gender socialization refers to the process of teaching and learning gender-appropriate attitudes, behaviors, and norms. Caregivers in both families and schools have a profound impact on children and how boys and girls learn to be masculine and feminine. Gender is socialized in a variety of ways, such as how parents teach children appropriate emotion display rules and what activities are appropriate for them based on their sex. Teachers in schools also socialize boys and girls differently, with varying degrees of academic expectations applied to each gender, leading boys and girls to have differing aspirations with regards to academic success. Primary caregivers such as parents and teachers are thus key MACMILLAN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FAMILIES, MARRIAGES, AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS 405 Gifted and Talented Children socializing agents who contribute greatly to the creation and maintenance of a gendered society. Feminism; Gender Norms; Parent-Child Relationships entries; Peer Relationships; Sexual Minorities. SE E A LS O BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Patricia A., Steven J. Kless, and Peter Adler. 1992. ‘‘Socialization to Gender Roles: Popularity among Elementary School Boys and Girls.’’ Sociology of Education 65 (3): 169–187. Bennett, Randy Elliot, Ruth L. Gottesman, Donald A. Rock, and Frances Cerullo. 1993. ‘‘Influence of Behavior Perceptions and Gender on Teachers’ Judgments of Students’ Academic Skill.’’ Journal of Educational Psychology 85 (2): 347–356. Cassano, Michael, Carisa Perry-Parrish, and Janice Zeman. 2007. ‘‘Influence of Gender on Parental Socialization of Children’s Sadness Regulation.’’ Social Development 16 (2): 210–231. Chen, Eve Siu Ling, and Nirmala Rao. 2011. ‘‘Gender Socialization in Chinese Kindergartens: Teachers’ Contributions.’’ Sex Roles 64 (1–2): 103–116. Emolu, Esra. 2014. ‘‘Play, Toys and Gender Socialization.’’ Journal Plus Education 11 (2): 22–30. Freeman, Nancy K. 2007. ‘‘Preschoolers’ Perceptions of Gender Appropriate Toys and Their Parents’ Beliefs about Genderized Behaviors: Miscommunication, Mixed Messages, or Hidden Truths?’’ Early Childhood Education Journal 34 (5): 357–366. Peterson, Gary W., and Della Hann. 1999. ‘‘Socializing Children and Parents in Families.’’ In Handbook of Marriage and the Family, 2nd ed., edited by Marvin B. Sussman, Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Gary W. Peterson, 327–370. New York: Plenum Press. Peterson, Gary W., and Boyd C. Rollins. 1987. ‘‘Parent-Child Socialization.’’ In Handbook of Marriage and the Family, edited by Marvin B. Sussman and Suzanne K. Steinmetz, 471–507. New York: Plenum. Thorne, Barrie. 1994. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Ünal, Halime. 2004. ‘‘The Role of Socialization Process in the Creation of Gender Differences in Anger.’’ Kadin/Woman 2000 5 (1–2): 25–41. Gifted and Talented Children MELISSA KONIVER Postdoctoral Fellow Children’s Center for Psychiatry, Psychology, and Related Services, FL ANGELA GARCIA Predoctoral Intern, South Florida Consortium Internship Program Nova Southeastern University, FL RALPH E. CASH Professor, College of Psychology Nova Southeastern University, FL 406 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. What are some characteristics associated with students who are considered gifted and talented? 2. Why may gifted and talented students underperform according to their ability standards? How can teachers and others help to minimize underperformance? 3. How does family cohesion and adaptability play a part in fostering social competence in gifted and talented children? What methods can families employ to help develop these children’s social competence? 4. What are the characteristics of gifted motivation and how do children classified this way compare to their nongifted peers? SARAH VALLEY-GRAY Professor, College of Psychology Nova Southeastern University, FL Children labeled gifted and talented are those ‘‘with outstanding talent who perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experiences or environment’’ (US Department of Education 1993, 3). Children who evidence such exceptional abilities compose 3 to 5 percent of the school-aged population (depending on how ‘‘gifted and talented’’ is defined). These children may be advanced in their intellectual ability; demonstrate academic acceleration, usually in multiple domains; and/or evidence extraordinary creativity. Other characteristics commonly associated with giftedness include a high level of language and reasoning skills and exceptional long-term memory (Pfeiffer 2012a). Gifted and talented children are frequently described as being perfectionistic, idealistic, and highly sensitive to their own expectations and those of others, and having more advanced problem-solving and linguistic skills when compared to their same-age peers (Webb et al. 2007). Characteristics of Gifted Children In addition to having higher levels of general intellectual ability and overall academic skills, gifted and talented students may have preferred areas of study. Those who are highly gifted academically may have excellent memorization skills, advanced comprehension, and an insatiable desire to read and learn more about an area of special MACMILLAN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FAMILIES, MARRIAGES, AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS