The Role Of Biology Vs. Social Construction In Gendered Behavior

His stance is that the effect on women of their childhood gender socialization is constrained by the biological processes that produce “natural” behavior predispositions. The theoretical biological model he follows states that this exposure to androgens while in the womb (namely in the second trimester) masculinizes the individual’s reproductive organs and nervous system. Udry relies on evidence based on animal and human studies that conclude the effects of testosterone in the prenata

l period are thought of as “organizational”; these effects, he states, are more or less permanent on the structure of the brain and therefore have great bearing on the person’s future behaviors. By highlighting evidence that in puberty, testosterone increases greatly in males and slightly in females, he brings up the point that the behavioral effects of this testosterone at puberty are thought to have an “activating” effect on prenatal structures of the genitalia and nervous system.

Udry quotes Kemper (1990) and his speculation that rises in the overall female testosterone levels are in response to the women’s movement, and may be a cause of the rising divorce rates in the U.S. around 1960.

Miller and Costello cite that contemporary neuroendocrinologists point out the danger of using the term “sex hormones” because it’s misleading. These hormones also regulate many other body parts in growth and development. Reinisch, Ziemba-Davis, and Sanders (1991), who Udry bases part of his research on, claim that only “slightly different” behaviors can be attributed to men and women from the exposure to androgens. Miller and Costello continue by stating that “The problem with studies such as these is that ‘the human brain is treated largely as a black box with prenatal hormone input and later behavioral output’ (Doell and Longino 1988).” “Small variations in brain morphology cannot explain phenomena such as wage level, who drives on a date, or division of labor in the home, since each of these phenomena is mediated by social factors,” they claim. They also bring up that Udry’s study may be tainted by bias because of his “biological determinist” standpoint shows why he presumes physical causation for widely-accepted ideas about race and gender in modern society.

E.L. Cerroni-Long, in Futures, takes an anthropological approach in explaining sex dimorphism. Cerroni-Long discusses the characterization of our species through out sexual-dimorphism; the biological differences between males and females are what make us unique. This is also what has caused our world to develop the way it has. Cerroni-Long discusses the “goddess” society – those matriarchal societies and cultures that appeared on earth well before our time. These societies were eventually destroyed because of the trend towards pastoral farming, climate changes, and violent nomadic tribes. Men and women had very different roles and places in each of these societies, and it is the patriarchal society that has remained over the past several thousand years, and the reason why women have been in their passive position for so long, embodying traditional passive femininity. Cerroni-Long, while hoping for a change in the way our culture views the two sexes, says this, “Human dimorphism does not lead to the emergence of "opposite" sexes; rather, it produces two close, complementary varieties of the same type of organism. Thus, sexual dimorphism constitutes a template of the various forms of differentiations our species reveals…”

One of the pro

Some topics in this essay:
Richard Udry, Cerroni-Long Futures, Value-Free Science”, Costello Risman, Li Wade, Udry’s According, According Freese, Doell Longino, Miller Costello, Biological Determinism”, miller costello, gendered behavior, udry’s study, freese et al, behavior patterns, et al, androgen exposure, rhesus monkeys, prenatal hormone, udry quotes, nervous system udry, mother’s encouragement femininity, “feminine” ideals,