Nature or nurture Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Nature or nurture - Essay Example Although at present, the scientific community has tipped the scale towards ‘nature’, an ongoing debate argues that environment is the main factor influencing gender identities of people. This conclusion is drawn from the work of Michael Kimmel, a sociologist who teaches at the University of New York at Stony Brook. Apart from having written on gender in general and men in particular, in â€Å"‘Bros before Hos’: The Guy Code†, Kimmel deals specifically with issues of masculinity. He believes that young men are socialized into their groups and gain ideas of masculinity from the surroundings around them. Studies which have been conducted by James O’Neill, developmental psychologist at the University of Connecticut and social psychologist, Joseph Pleck have shown how little the socializing influences on boys have changed over the years. Kimmel points out how men conform to masculizing influences and perceived masculine behavior because they are anx ious to secure the approval of other men. In the words of playwright David Mamet, women are perceived have such a â€Å"low place on the social ladder of this country that its useless to define yourself in terms of a woman†. Boys tend to identify with their fathers and older male peers and adopt behavioral patterns considered to be â€Å"masculine† in order to win the approval of other men. Freud has put forward the view that an essential part of the process of defining male gender identify is the separation of a boy from his mother and close identification with his father instead. Masculinity is thus achieved through â€Å"repudiation, disassociation and then identification.† To support this argument, psychologists such as Michael Thompson, James Gabarrino and Dan Kindlon also reiterate that a culture of cruelty is created wherein young boys are actively discouraged from crying or showing their emotions. Applying Pollack’s views, a young boy would be pus hed through the influences from other males in his surrounding environment to actively develop the â€Å"mask of masculinity, which is essentially a stoic, unemotional front wherein denying their own emotional needs forms an essential part of framing of gender identity of the boys. In contrast with Kimmel, Hanna Rosin is less certain about the impact of socializing influences and the environment on the development of gender identity. In the â€Å"A Boy’ Life†, Rosin points to the fact that the difficulties transgender children experience, appear to have been exacerbated by parental indulgence. These children take on role-playing at a very early age – usually the role of the opposite sex – and persist with it. The writer also maps the recent preoccupation with biology in the area of human identity and the theories of gender as a social construct. Both Rosin and Kimmel offer a disturbing view of the motivation of peers, parents, communities and professiona ls. These people involved in the negotiation of gender identities, in which a mix of fear of rejection, a need for normalcy and peer approval, and professional ambition leads to a single-minded consideration. Parents, driven by fear of their children’s rejection by society and constant social affirmation

Why Women Should Not be Allowed in Active Combat Duty Essay

Why Women Should Not be Allowed in Active Combat Duty - Essay Example They are admirable in the way they acquit themselves in times of conflict and split second decision making and maybe, just maybe -- we might even have a female president some day. Women still have lofty ambitions when it comes to more things that they hope to do in terms of male equality and, along with the presidency, fighting alongside men in active combat is still one glass ceiling they cannot break. Although there already exists cracks in that particular ceiling, I do not believe that women should ever be allowed to see active combat for a number of valid reasons. There are two main reasons that women should not be allowed in combat according to Robert Bork (qtd. in Sowin). Those reasons are: 1. Putting women in combat is crucial to women’s self-esteem and to men’s respect for women. (That has never been true in the past and it is impossible to see why it should be true now.) 2. Combat roles are important to military advancement. The above arguments are all based up on the way that women are traditionally viewed in our society. Women's rights activists protest the idealization of the female role in society because it makes them seem like fragile, emotionally weak people who do not have any desire or capability to defend themselves or others. By joining the military and joining active combat, women feel that they are an equally strong sex and are capable of fighting the good fight also. This is one case wherein the intentions may be sound, but the execution will always be weak. The reality of women in the military is that they are given preference and leeway in most streneous and taxing activities because women do not have the same stamina as men. In fact, women who train in West Point and other military institutions are not made to compete against other men or by male standards, they are only measured in terms of capabilty against other women. This can prove to be detrimental on the battlefield where they fight alongside men who are faster and stronger but are then held back in order to allow the women to catch up. (Sowin Why Women Should Not Be Allowed in Combat). Gender norming and lowering the training standards in order to allow women to pass is a disservice to our world class soldiers who are expected to lead on the battlefield. Women are still thought of all over the world, most specially in the Muslim territories as being weak and dependent on the male species. Majority of the modern women have managed to change that idea by proving that they can be emotionally and physically strong in various ways. I take my hats off to those women. However, fighting in an active battlefront requires much more than just marathon training and endurance tests. There are those who take on the point of view that : Women are not suited by temperament or by physical characteristics for the highly aggressive, ultra-violent pursuit of victory in battle. Much of an army’s success depends upon intimidation of the enemy. A force compo sed of women is far less intimidating than one consisting of macho men. Intimidation of the enemy saves lives in wartime. (Women Should Not Be Allowed in Military Combat). Consider if you will, that the enemies of our nation field burly, scary, and brainwashed men into battle. They live to intimidate the weak. The simple glare of of their eyes, flare of the nostrils, or clearing of the throat is designed to instill fear into any enemy be he male or female. Fighting a war does not allow for segregation of the sexes in order to effectively fight the battle. It is man vs. woman in most cases and, no matter what Hollywood says about G.I. Jane, a woman can easily be taken down by a well trained and strength enhanced enemy. This will then pose a problem for the team who will