Q1 Does same-sex parenting affect the child's sexual orientation?
Q2 Can you think of any benefits to same-sex parenting over more "traditional" heterosexual parenting?
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Same sex parenting
The main thing that comes to my mind when I think about this debate over same sex parenting is the term parenting. I think that the most important thing to consider is good parenting, not necessarily what gender the parents are. There is so much bad parenting in existence these days that I don't think we should necessarily discriminate against those who are willing to fight so hard to become parents themselves. It can be such a process today for a same sex couple to adopt and if they are willing to do this, they are most likely going to make great parents. Another thing to consider is the amount of children that need adopted. I also hear a lot of people say that same sex parenting will confuse their child in terms of sexual orientation. But in saying this, that would be saying that sexuality is purely environmental which i don't necessarily think is the case. There are some possible negative outcomes that could occur such as lack of a mother figure or father figure that can be very important in a child's development. Another risk they make is subjecting that child to ridicule from other children and classmates. I have personally seen this when i was in middle school and i know it can be a huge problem. But regardless of any of these possible down-sides to same sex parenting I can say without any doubt that many same-sex couple will make much better parents than some "traditional parents" will. Like I said before, there is so much bad parenting happening these days.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Gay and Lesbian Parents
One of my majors is Family Science. Recently, gay and lesbian couples have been becoming more prominent in the textbooks than ever before. One thing that my professors and the books keep repeating is that gay and lesbians make very suitable parents. In fact, their children tend to go outside of their gender roles. Females tend to pursue more “masculine” career such as executive and administration work. Males tend to be more sensitive and carry other feminine traits.
I think instead of fighting and not allowing gays and lesbians to adopt, we should instead focus on the importance of a strong family. Having a mother and a father doesn’t automatically put you in a strong family, there are many other characteristics that go into. It would be much healthier for a child to be put into a family with a same-sex couple than a family where there is abuse present.
The only thing the opposition, I feel, has going for them is their hold on “traditional families.” Though a respect this value, I do not agree with it. We are in a time where a “traditional family” almost does not exist. We are okay with single mothers and fathers adopting, something that is on the rise and something I’m completely for (when you are ready and don’t have a partner, why not?), but we won’t allow two people adopt a child and give them a home simply because they are of the same sex? I’m sorry, this seems silly to me.
Questions
Do you think that lack of traditional gender roles in the family would make a child not follow traditional gender roles, or do you think that society and the media would influence them as well?
Outside of same sex couple adopting, do you think single individuals should be allowed to adopt?
I think instead of fighting and not allowing gays and lesbians to adopt, we should instead focus on the importance of a strong family. Having a mother and a father doesn’t automatically put you in a strong family, there are many other characteristics that go into. It would be much healthier for a child to be put into a family with a same-sex couple than a family where there is abuse present.
The only thing the opposition, I feel, has going for them is their hold on “traditional families.” Though a respect this value, I do not agree with it. We are in a time where a “traditional family” almost does not exist. We are okay with single mothers and fathers adopting, something that is on the rise and something I’m completely for (when you are ready and don’t have a partner, why not?), but we won’t allow two people adopt a child and give them a home simply because they are of the same sex? I’m sorry, this seems silly to me.
Questions
Do you think that lack of traditional gender roles in the family would make a child not follow traditional gender roles, or do you think that society and the media would influence them as well?
Outside of same sex couple adopting, do you think single individuals should be allowed to adopt?
Gay and Lesbian Parents
I believe that gay and lesbian partners can be just as effective, if not more so, than their heterosexual counterparts when it comes to raising children. There is a wealth of research that supports the well-adjustedness of children of lesbian couples in particular. I believe this because one of my close friends, Zach Wahls, is the product of a same-sex parent family, and he is one of the most accomplished and well-adjusted people I know. The rest of America seems to agree. The ability to raise a child is the ability to provide a stable and safe environment that fosters growth. This is substantiated by numerous social science studies about same-sex parenting, as outlined in the APA's statement. Additionally, I find Dailey's main argument against same-sex parenting, that the sexual behaviors of gay and lesbian couples are inappropriate for children and that those individuals should not be parents, to be ludicrous and offensive. I take issue with the discriminatory claim that heteronormative sexual relations are totally appropriate to flaunt in front of children, but for some reason homosexual love and sex is taboo. ALL sexual behavior is inappropriate for children. Children rarely see their parents engaged in sexual acts, thus making the argument irrelevant to child rearing. But, if we were to follow Dailey's argument through, no one should be a parent because sexual behavior is inappropriate for children.
NO MORE CHILDREN EVER!
The APA is spot on for this one.
Gay's and Parenting
I think that gay and lesbian partners can make great parents. If anything I believe that they can be better than some of the heterosexual parents in today’s society. Not every family in today’s society is your model nuclear family and many families are blended and have very diverse roots. I think that homosexual parents might even do a better job of loving their children because they chose to adopt them and it wasn’t one of those oops we had a kid deals because we don’t know how to practice safe sex. The truth of the matter is a parent is a parent none the less and there are plenty of children in today’s society that are looking for a good home with a family to love and support them.
The only problem with homosexual parents might be a sort of lack of identity for a young child. Not having a “father figure” to show them masculine traits and a “motherly figure” to show them how to develop and create a more feminine side might be a little problematic for some children. Another problem for these children might be the ridicule they have to endure from their fellow peers and classmates. More and more this violence and torment is being directed towards younger and younger crowds causing children to feel a sense of hopelessness due to their sexual orientation. It wouldn’t take long for other children their age to realize that a friend has two dads or two moms and you can only imagine some of the things that would be said to them. These would be about the only downsides I see to having two homosexual partners raise children. Side effects aside I think that regardless a homosexual couple could serve as a beacon for children who aren’t able to say that they have a family of their own.
Do some of the side effects such as ridicule for younger children outweigh the benefits of a loving family?
Should homosexual couples not be able to adopt children since they gave up the ability to have children of their own based on their sexuality?
The only problem with homosexual parents might be a sort of lack of identity for a young child. Not having a “father figure” to show them masculine traits and a “motherly figure” to show them how to develop and create a more feminine side might be a little problematic for some children. Another problem for these children might be the ridicule they have to endure from their fellow peers and classmates. More and more this violence and torment is being directed towards younger and younger crowds causing children to feel a sense of hopelessness due to their sexual orientation. It wouldn’t take long for other children their age to realize that a friend has two dads or two moms and you can only imagine some of the things that would be said to them. These would be about the only downsides I see to having two homosexual partners raise children. Side effects aside I think that regardless a homosexual couple could serve as a beacon for children who aren’t able to say that they have a family of their own.
Do some of the side effects such as ridicule for younger children outweigh the benefits of a loving family?
Should homosexual couples not be able to adopt children since they gave up the ability to have children of their own based on their sexuality?
Gay & Lesbian Parenting
Many believe gay & lesbian's cannot be sufficient parents for a number of reasons. I do understand where many people can think not having a mother or a father in their life can affect their upbringing. I, personally, don't understand why somebody cannot have two mothers or two fathers. Many time's in a heterosexual upbringing children are raised by either one mother or one father, and often have a close friend of the parents or an aunt/uncle helping to raise them. So , for example, if a mother is widowed and her close friend ( who is a woman) becomes some sort of second mother figure to this child because it is hard for a single parent, is this wrong?
This mother cannot help that her husband has passed away , and needs help in some ways raising her child so she reaches out to a friend , does the friend have to be male? Likewise if this would happen to a man. And trust me there are TV shoes and movies that point this out. There should be no reason gay's or lesbian's should not be able to have children, they aren't any different then somebody who is heterosexual ( except for their sexual preferences). Many children turn out gay or lesbian with heterosexual parents. Which brings me to my last question, Do you think having gay or lesbian parents influence affect a child' sexual preference?
This mother cannot help that her husband has passed away , and needs help in some ways raising her child so she reaches out to a friend , does the friend have to be male? Likewise if this would happen to a man. And trust me there are TV shoes and movies that point this out. There should be no reason gay's or lesbian's should not be able to have children, they aren't any different then somebody who is heterosexual ( except for their sexual preferences). Many children turn out gay or lesbian with heterosexual parents. Which brings me to my last question, Do you think having gay or lesbian parents influence affect a child' sexual preference?
Gay and Lesbian Parents
I believe that the question of whether gay and lesbian couples can be appropriate parents is trivial. The obvious answer is yes. But the same can be said for the question, can gay and lesbian couples be inappropriate parents? I believe this question shouldn't be answered for a group of people. Each couple, gay or straight, should be reviewed and investigated according to the same procedure. If the couple can love and support a child and give this child shelter they have every right to adopt a child. I find it kind of disturbing that there are so many children out there who would do anything to be loved and have a family, but we as a society sometimes think that they would be better off alone than with a gay or lesbian couple that would provide for them.
I think that the reason for people to not accept the idea that gays and lesbians can be appropriate parents is just the fact that people are opposed to change. A change of this magnitude will take a lot of arguing and a lot of convincing. Gays and lesbian parents and their children are definitely under the microscope and you can bet that if a child has any type of behavior problem it will automatically be blamed on his/her parents, as is the case with most children. I believe that in 10 years or so this conflict will be close to resolved, and a significant amount of gay and lesbian couples will be able to adopt.
Questions:
Is a gay or lesbian couple adopting looked at the same way as a couple using a surrogate or donor to have a child of their own?
Where does this problem lie in a list of all the issues that are going on in the U.S.A. today?
I think that the reason for people to not accept the idea that gays and lesbians can be appropriate parents is just the fact that people are opposed to change. A change of this magnitude will take a lot of arguing and a lot of convincing. Gays and lesbian parents and their children are definitely under the microscope and you can bet that if a child has any type of behavior problem it will automatically be blamed on his/her parents, as is the case with most children. I believe that in 10 years or so this conflict will be close to resolved, and a significant amount of gay and lesbian couples will be able to adopt.
Questions:
Is a gay or lesbian couple adopting looked at the same way as a couple using a surrogate or donor to have a child of their own?
Where does this problem lie in a list of all the issues that are going on in the U.S.A. today?
Don't forget about Bob Jones U!
If college students were representative of the United States population, I am quite certain this particular gender issue would be excised from "Taking Sides." Recent surveys have shown there's almost universal approval from both liberal and conservative university students of homosexual marriage and, by implied extension, belief that they can raise and support offspring. However, both the uneducated and the older generation still tends to be split on the issue. Emblematic of the anti-gay marriage movement is the tabloid-esque conservative media.
As you can see from the above link, religion plays a major role in why there still exists opposition to homosexual marriage. I'm seriously surprised Dailey didn't just flat-out say "IT'S SINFUL, THEREFORE BAD," although his slipshod arguments weren't too far off. Overall, rather than debating within a collegiate atmosphere of whether we think homosexual couples can make good couples, we should pool our collective minds together to determine how we can respectfully enforce the right for homosexuals to marry and raise children on a national level. That way, we're actually accomplishing something, rather than just debating a topic we largely (possibly, at least in this class, universally?) agree on.
1.) How would you address the arguments of someone who uses religion to discredit homosexual marriage?
2.) How would you address the arguments of someone who implies that homosexuals tend to be more "immoral" than heterosexuals?
Parenting...sexual orientation does NOT matter!
I think that same-sex couples should be allowed anything and everything that heterosexual couples are allowed, including adoption. I have always been for same-sex marriage and majority of people who do marry want to raise children.
By reading opposing sides, I noticed that Dailey barely says anything about how same-sex parents are inadequate. All he does is talk about where same-sex households are and who supports the relationships.
There are both adequate and inadequate parents within heterosexual relationships. I honestly do not see how someone who is attracted to the same sex is predetermined to be inadequate. I know that people say, oh well they will have a hard time growing up. First problem being that kids will be teased about their parents, who isn't teased as a child for whatever reason? I know I was teased as a child, not every family is the same. Second problem being that kids will have a hard time identifying themselves, once again what child has a an easy time finding themselves.
There is no point in arguing this, especially if there isn't enough research.
Do you think that if research on gay and lesbian parents were conducted from a positive view, the results would be different?
How can we get more people to respect people who are in same-sex relationships?
By reading opposing sides, I noticed that Dailey barely says anything about how same-sex parents are inadequate. All he does is talk about where same-sex households are and who supports the relationships.
There are both adequate and inadequate parents within heterosexual relationships. I honestly do not see how someone who is attracted to the same sex is predetermined to be inadequate. I know that people say, oh well they will have a hard time growing up. First problem being that kids will be teased about their parents, who isn't teased as a child for whatever reason? I know I was teased as a child, not every family is the same. Second problem being that kids will have a hard time identifying themselves, once again what child has a an easy time finding themselves.
There is no point in arguing this, especially if there isn't enough research.
Do you think that if research on gay and lesbian parents were conducted from a positive view, the results would be different?
How can we get more people to respect people who are in same-sex relationships?
Gay and Lesbian Parenting
I believe homosexuals should be allowed to be parents, whether it's just one parent, or a couple, they should be allowed that right. To say that a child from a homosexual family will not have a difficult time growing up would be foolish, but in this day and age what kid doesn't have a tough time? I think it's all about how you look at it and how you communicate. Growing up children need direction, they need to be taught certain things which help form their social identity. Since social identity is typically decided by society and reinforced through our communication with that individual, I think that as long as that child can find that identity they'll be okay. Easier said then done, yes, but if a homosexual couple wants to raise a child, they definitely need to make sure that child grows up understanding both the heterosexual and homosexual world. They need to be able to communicate to others who they are and be able to form their opinions.
It's a challenge for homosexuals to raise children, but it's also a challenge for both heterosexual couples and single parents, its a challenge for everyone. So with every challenge, one needs to figure out how to overcome it and be the best that they can be. Different parenting styles mean different challenges. For instance, a heterosexual couple has a child but the dad is away at war, in this case, the mother is left alone to raise the child, so she needs to figure out the best way to raise her child without a strong male figure so that he/she can grow up understanding the world so they're not struggling. Maybe in this example, the mom can find a male figure that the child can hang around with so they can understand life from the male perspective, however this doesn't need to happen, but its just an idea that the parent can use to help raise her child the way she sees fit.
Coming back to gay and lesbian couples raising children, I think that they can be adequate parents, it just means figuring out the best way to raise that child so that their child's needs and wants are fulfilled. When looking at both arguments I find that Dailey does not have a lot of evidence to support his claims, yes he does reference studies that support some of his claims, but his argument leaves gaping holes. As for the yes claim from the American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives they do a much better job.
In conclusion, times are changing like they always do, homosexual parenting is on the rise and it's gaining support so I think we all need to get on board with this idea and work with it like everything else. Not everyone has to agree with it, but were all different and it would be a miracle if everyone could agree on something anyway. Every family is going to face challenges and they will all need to be ready to face those difficult questions, so they need to make sure they are communicating instead of leaving the children in the dark. Think about it, if a gay couple wants to adopt they have to go through many steps, whereas if a teen girl gets pregnant and has a child she doesn't, so my question is:
Q1: Who will do a better job at raising a child, the teen girl who accidentally got pregnant, or the gay male couple who has been trying to adopt a child for awhile?
Q2: What's more important, they child being taken care of in a loving family or allowing unfit heterosexual parents to be parents?
It's a challenge for homosexuals to raise children, but it's also a challenge for both heterosexual couples and single parents, its a challenge for everyone. So with every challenge, one needs to figure out how to overcome it and be the best that they can be. Different parenting styles mean different challenges. For instance, a heterosexual couple has a child but the dad is away at war, in this case, the mother is left alone to raise the child, so she needs to figure out the best way to raise her child without a strong male figure so that he/she can grow up understanding the world so they're not struggling. Maybe in this example, the mom can find a male figure that the child can hang around with so they can understand life from the male perspective, however this doesn't need to happen, but its just an idea that the parent can use to help raise her child the way she sees fit.
Coming back to gay and lesbian couples raising children, I think that they can be adequate parents, it just means figuring out the best way to raise that child so that their child's needs and wants are fulfilled. When looking at both arguments I find that Dailey does not have a lot of evidence to support his claims, yes he does reference studies that support some of his claims, but his argument leaves gaping holes. As for the yes claim from the American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives they do a much better job.
In conclusion, times are changing like they always do, homosexual parenting is on the rise and it's gaining support so I think we all need to get on board with this idea and work with it like everything else. Not everyone has to agree with it, but were all different and it would be a miracle if everyone could agree on something anyway. Every family is going to face challenges and they will all need to be ready to face those difficult questions, so they need to make sure they are communicating instead of leaving the children in the dark. Think about it, if a gay couple wants to adopt they have to go through many steps, whereas if a teen girl gets pregnant and has a child she doesn't, so my question is:
Q1: Who will do a better job at raising a child, the teen girl who accidentally got pregnant, or the gay male couple who has been trying to adopt a child for awhile?
Q2: What's more important, they child being taken care of in a loving family or allowing unfit heterosexual parents to be parents?
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Er body in da club raisin' kids now
I believe gay or lesbian parents can be just as good, or looked at differently, just as bad, as traditional parents. First of all, being a good parent has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I've heard of gay parents that were really great at parenting, and I've also heard of traditional parents that didn't have a clue how to raise children. Which brings me to my second point; it's all about the love, baby. Whether gay, lesbian, or straight, it all depends on the deep, caring relationship that exists between the guardians and the child. If that's not there, you can't be a good parent, easy as that. Communication is also a vital part of parenting. Children and their guardians have to be on the same page at all times. It may make the child mad, but in the end it's beneficial and in the best interests of the child. These are just some examples of good parenting. It really doesn't matter what orientation the guardian is, as long as certain aspects of raising a child are met, as listed above.
However, even if the relationship between child and adult is great, that doesn't mean it's a happy ending after all. I'm sure at some point, the child will be asked about their mother and father, as the heteronormative society takes hold. A gay or lesbian couples' child's answers may shock people and make them think differently about them. It's not fair, but at some point it will become an awkward subject for the child, but it's just a part of life.
Question:
1) What might be harder for a child that has gay or lesbian parents: not relating to the parents about values, or having it be known in school about that child's parents?
2) Is there a substantial difference in parenting styles between lesbian and gay parents? How might this affect the child's development?
However, even if the relationship between child and adult is great, that doesn't mean it's a happy ending after all. I'm sure at some point, the child will be asked about their mother and father, as the heteronormative society takes hold. A gay or lesbian couples' child's answers may shock people and make them think differently about them. It's not fair, but at some point it will become an awkward subject for the child, but it's just a part of life.
Question:
1) What might be harder for a child that has gay or lesbian parents: not relating to the parents about values, or having it be known in school about that child's parents?
2) Is there a substantial difference in parenting styles between lesbian and gay parents? How might this affect the child's development?
Gay and Lesbian Parents
I agree with what others have said. I really can't believe this is a serious issue. Not only does Dailey fail to use evidence to back up his claims, all his claims themselves have no relevance to the topic at hand. Not to mention that he bashes gay rights activists and "the gay agenda," considering that he works for a notoriously anti-gay organization and is the author of books like Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle. His point isn't even that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, his stance is that they should have essentially no heterosexual-equivalent rights whatsoever because of their supposed abusive nature and promiscuity, which again, he has no evidence to support. As a matter of fact, the APA, which is a scientific organization, not religious like the Family Research Council Dailey works for, claims that no such studies even exist to back 'ol Timmy's claim.
The only thing he halfway proves is that gays and lesbians have higher rates of depression and related mental illnesses. The only problem is that studies have shown this is because of people, such as Dailey himself, who routinely belittle, bully, and discriminate against homosexuals, leading many to believe that there is something wrong with them when there isn't.
The fact of the matter is, even if gays and lesbians were less good at parenting than heterosexual couples (which again, they are not), they are still better than no parents at all for the 463,000 children in the U.S. foster care system alone. Two men, or two women, are better role models than being tossed from home to home.
Questions:
1) Flip side, do straight parents make good parents for homosexual and bisexual children? They can't relate with many of the struggles their child will go through.
2) Do people who fall outside the gender binary in any way make equally good parents?
Everybody needs somebody to love
I don't think it's that easy to just say yes or no to this issue because the people I have met that grew up in a same-sex household. Most people are so afraid that saying no would hurt somebody's feeling that there would an overwhelming yes to this issue. I think that Homosexual couples are more then adequate to raise a chid in a loving and nurturing environment, but on the opposite side of the coin the child could be raised in a very dysfunctional home... but the same thing could be said of straight couples. The problem for me from only saying yes is that it can get confusing for a child later in life. No matter how progressive some of us may say we are there is an overwhelming portion of the population that would not accept it and actually make the child's life hell. Now is that the parent's fault? No, but there's a lot of things that a parent can't do to protect their children 24/7. About 10 years ago I use to work with this kid who was raised in a same sex marriage. This kid was, to say the least, an odd duck. After I got to know him, he revealed that he was just angry because he was teased so much. Not to say that it's his parents fault, but his mothers can't be there to protect him 24/7. It can be very confusing for a teenager who wants to fit in, but can't because the other kids want to make fun of him for growing up with a, "Couple of Lesbos." There was a lot of things the guys around the shop had to teach him. These were things that we thought was common sense, or so I thought until I met him. Most men are taught that we shouldn't cry about our problems all the time. I mean really cry. He was confused why the girls he was dating always ended up dumping him after a while. Now most people in the class might interject and say I'm wrong on this, but it's been my experience that if a guy is way to open about his feelings and has no backbone then the girl, who might have thought it was refreshing at first, ends up getting bored with it and moves on. As my friend Patrick once said, "I don't want to date a guy who's cries all the time and shares their feeling with me every chance they get. If I was going to do that, then I would just date women."
All in all, he wasn't a bad guy, just took a long time for him to get over the years of emotional abuse that the other kids had put him through.
I also dated a girl who grew up with two moms. Now she was ok, but her brother... not so much. He was just like the last kid I described. He was angry, and again, it was hard for him to find a social identity that would allow him to fit in. I also think it's important that every child should have a positive male role model in their life, especially young boys. Being a teenager is tough enough on both sexes and it's hard to take advice about the body changes that are happening in your life from the opposite sex. I mean what mom really wants to explain, and what boy wants to hear it, that the body changes are normal and the random boners that they're getting is normal and will go away. Now I can't say that this is an issue that every child has coming from a same-sex home. In these two instances the parent's family had disowned them and they had to do everything by themselves.
Children are amazing in that they can adapt to almost every situation. As long as the home they grow up in is stable and they are loved it doesn't really matter if they have same-sex parents. It's just when they get older and the outside pressures make it harder on them. Now the world has changed a lot in the last decade. More people are understanding about the whole issue, and less likely to make fun of them for it, or at least it'll be easier to find people who do understand or don't care. There are countless children who grew up in a traditional family who were abused and had promiscuous parents that were terrible role models. I don't think that argument really holds a lot of salt these days. I think as the world is starting to become more understanding and exposed to it, Neil Patrick Harris is a good example, this will be less of an issue.
The video below is a great clip about the whole issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
1) After watching the video did you feel like affirmed or changed your belief on what a family really is?
2) Does any of this even matter to any of you?
All in all, he wasn't a bad guy, just took a long time for him to get over the years of emotional abuse that the other kids had put him through.
I also dated a girl who grew up with two moms. Now she was ok, but her brother... not so much. He was just like the last kid I described. He was angry, and again, it was hard for him to find a social identity that would allow him to fit in. I also think it's important that every child should have a positive male role model in their life, especially young boys. Being a teenager is tough enough on both sexes and it's hard to take advice about the body changes that are happening in your life from the opposite sex. I mean what mom really wants to explain, and what boy wants to hear it, that the body changes are normal and the random boners that they're getting is normal and will go away. Now I can't say that this is an issue that every child has coming from a same-sex home. In these two instances the parent's family had disowned them and they had to do everything by themselves.
Children are amazing in that they can adapt to almost every situation. As long as the home they grow up in is stable and they are loved it doesn't really matter if they have same-sex parents. It's just when they get older and the outside pressures make it harder on them. Now the world has changed a lot in the last decade. More people are understanding about the whole issue, and less likely to make fun of them for it, or at least it'll be easier to find people who do understand or don't care. There are countless children who grew up in a traditional family who were abused and had promiscuous parents that were terrible role models. I don't think that argument really holds a lot of salt these days. I think as the world is starting to become more understanding and exposed to it, Neil Patrick Harris is a good example, this will be less of an issue.
The video below is a great clip about the whole issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q
1) After watching the video did you feel like affirmed or changed your belief on what a family really is?
2) Does any of this even matter to any of you?
...
Honestly, there should not even be an argument over this. All parents, if fit to care for someone else, should be allowed to adopt a child. The NO side of the argument to this topic doesn't prove anything to me. If a person has the ability to provide for, love, and support a child they should be able to adopt no matter what their sexual orientation is. It's wrong to single out lesbian and gay couples when it come to idea of being a parent. Many families have children that they cannot support, nor care for but they are still allowed to be parents. Angelina and Brad were allowed to adopt several children even though they are plagued by the media, and have busy social lives... which I think could be more detrimental towards a child then having two mothers. For me there is no debate here whatsoever because I believe that if you are a homosexual couple and you are prepared to take on the struggle of identifying your adopted family then you should be allowed. For parents to adopt a child in the United States they have to go through extensive mental health testing and meet many requirements, so if a homosexual couple looking to adopt can pass these requirements then why should they be denied the ability to adopt a child. Seriously, there isn't an argument here, to me if you can handle it, then you should be allowed to adopt.
DQ:
1. If you were a homosexual couple looking to adopt, how do you think you would go about communicating your family identity to outsiders?
2. If you are for the No side of this debate, not trying to be intrusive, what reasons do you have for you decision?
DQ:
1. If you were a homosexual couple looking to adopt, how do you think you would go about communicating your family identity to outsiders?
2. If you are for the No side of this debate, not trying to be intrusive, what reasons do you have for you decision?
Of course...
Of course homosexual couples can be appropriate parents. After reading both sides of this argument my thoughts remained unchanged. As was stated so clearly in the postscript there are far more factors that go into good parenting than simply sexual orientation. To say that gays and lesbians simply cannot be appropriate parents is absurd.
The argument against homosexual parenting talks about promiscuous lifestyles chosen by them being inherently immoral. However, even if we concede that those lifestyles are immoral, there is no reason that would influence the children. As the APA stated, just because a child is raised by a heterosexual couple doesn't guarantee the child will end up being heterosexual. As such, a child being raised by a homosexual couple doesn't guarantee the child will be homosexual.
On the point of promiscuity I think that anyone becoming a parent needs to understand appropriate behaviors to put on display for a child. There needs to be a certain level of awareness that comes along with the additional responsibility, and I feel that homosexual parents are capable of being just a conscientious of this as heterosexual parents.
I especially think that adoption should not be restricted from these couples. Foster homes are in poor conditions and even if you argue that heterosexual parents are more appropriate for child-rearing, I would argue that a dedicated homosexual parenting pair is much more appropriate than having the child jump from foster family to foster family waiting for the "perfect" heterosexual couple.
1. Do feelings change if we discuss homosexual couples having their own biological children rather than adopting?
2. How in the world did a judge come to the conclusion that a heterosexual couple, where the father was convicted of second-degree murder and accused of sexually molesting the daughter from his first marriage, was better suited to raise a child than a lesbian couple? Is a male influence on a child really so important that it can even come from such an abomination of a man?
Gay and Lesbian parents
The articles that we had to read this week were both good and interesting reads. As for the first article saying that homosexual couples can be parents I agree. I agree with the author on the fact that just because a child grows up without a male or a female parent does not mean they are going to struggle in their life. This fact or hypothesis that a child will struggle without having a distinct mother or father in their life just seems to be nonsense to me. I thought it was interesting that the author mentioned that there is not a whole lot of research done on this project. Coinincedently, this idea of same sex parents is what my research is revolving around. So my question for you is...What if there was a lot of research out there saying that homosexual parents fulfill the child's needs and more....Do you think that people in society today would still believe that homosexual parents for a child is a struggle and hurtful to their development as an adult?
What I believe is that people today will reject any statistic they do not morally agree with. So, I think people, even if proven that homosexual parents does not effect a childs development, will still say no that homosexual parents are not benefical for the child. What I also drew from the articles is that most people see it okay for people to be raised by a single parent. What I do not understand here is that fact that one parent (either mom or dad) is out of the picture.... just like in a homosexual relationship. However, what either author forgets to ask or ponder is that fact that The child who is being raised by homosexual parents is still recieving love, a parent 2nd parent figure, and a role model under a household that the child being raised by a single parent may not be recieving. The question about whether or not are homosexual parents "good" parents is one that is hard to answer because what qualifies a set of parents as "good" and who says that heterosexual parents are all "good" parents.
Without having any strong research or personal experience I cannot put my opinion on this topic. What I do think is that people should not judge when there is no hardcore evidence. I understand that children are not "subjects" and should not be put in a trail and era situation, but in order to learn more about this topic it needs to be legal and okay.
What I believe is that people today will reject any statistic they do not morally agree with. So, I think people, even if proven that homosexual parents does not effect a childs development, will still say no that homosexual parents are not benefical for the child. What I also drew from the articles is that most people see it okay for people to be raised by a single parent. What I do not understand here is that fact that one parent (either mom or dad) is out of the picture.... just like in a homosexual relationship. However, what either author forgets to ask or ponder is that fact that The child who is being raised by homosexual parents is still recieving love, a parent 2nd parent figure, and a role model under a household that the child being raised by a single parent may not be recieving. The question about whether or not are homosexual parents "good" parents is one that is hard to answer because what qualifies a set of parents as "good" and who says that heterosexual parents are all "good" parents.
Without having any strong research or personal experience I cannot put my opinion on this topic. What I do think is that people should not judge when there is no hardcore evidence. I understand that children are not "subjects" and should not be put in a trail and era situation, but in order to learn more about this topic it needs to be legal and okay.
Same-sex Parenting
This is a difficult topic for me to form an opinion about, especially because there is not a lot of research about it. The Taking Sides book had a decent amount of information about same-sex couples, those living in the same household, and the number with children. But there is little information on the results of same-sex parenting. Dailey spends half of his article simply talking about how the data for same-sex households is incorrect, and the rest talks what he thinks would make homosexual couples poor parents. I don't entirely support either side of this issue. I think if homosexual couples desire to be parents and honestly believe they are capable of supporting a child, they should be able to raise a child. The question about whether the lack of a fatherly figure or motherly figure will affect a child pertains to more than same-sex couples. Many families lack one of the parental roles. Other people can fill in for those roles as needed. Furthermore, family roles are becoming more fluid. My worries lie in if the couple is ready to face the questions, attitudes, and controversy they will inevitably and unfortunately face in the world we life in. My other worry is the child's experience. I do not doubt that a same-sex couple can provide an extraordinary childhood experience, but I worry about the questions, pressure, jokes, and condescending language a child may go through. We've heard about homosexuals being teased, tormented, and harassed to the point of dropping out of school, depression, or even suicide. I worry a child's peers could have the same effect on a child with same-sex parents. I believe this area of same-sex parenting needs to be studied more. Even more importantly, I think society needs time to adapt to the idea of same-sex couple parenting, understand its dynamics, and realize that it can be either a positive or negative experience, just like heterosexual parenting can be both positive and negative.
1) Do you know anyone who was raised by a same-sex couple? What was their experience like?
2) Do you think some states provide a better climate for same-sex parenting?
1) Do you know anyone who was raised by a same-sex couple? What was their experience like?
2) Do you think some states provide a better climate for same-sex parenting?
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Zach Poss-2/25/2011-Lesbian and Gay Parenting
Can Lesbian and Gay couples make appropriate parents for children?
Having grown up in a family that shared nearly all household duties, I never knew much of a difference in who did what so long as it got done. Even the differences that did exist, the things that were only done by one parent or the other, could be explained by expertise. Of course my father was the only one who worked on cars, he was a mechanic by trade. My mother was in charge of how we looked, she is a cosmetologist. However, we remodeled our house several times, and my mother played nearly as vital a role in the work that got done as my father did, and they both had input on the design. My father always cooked and did laundry and dishes and cleaned just like my mother. Those views trickled down to us, so even though my parents came from households that were more strictly structured in regards to duties, I think it is more modern for families to share responsibilities.
That being said, the arguments presented by both sides of the issue of homosexuality seem to suggest that common beliefs center around the idea that certain duties (parenting) are in fact separated as they pertain to heterosexual relationships versus homosexual ones. Those opponents of discrimination of adoption rights to homosexuals (APA) center their support on the lack of evidence correlating the effects of homosexuality on child rearing. However, the lack of evidence does not suggest that a correlation doesn’t exist, but rather that experience is needed. While I do agree with the APA’s conclusions that homosexuality is not a mental illness, that lesbians are no less maternal than other women based on orientation, and that being in a homosexual relationship does not demand any more time than a heterosexual relationship, I do not necessarily agree that no correlation exists. However, I also do not believe that discrimination regarding adoption should occur. While I believe that children would benefit from the variance in viewpoints that a typical heterosexual relationship provides, it cannot be said that no homosexual relationships can provide this as views are a construction of one’s intersectional identity. And while I have a hard time believing, as nearly all homosexual individuals are teased/taunted in their lifetime, that children with homosexual parents are likely to be taunted for this reason on top of any others that so many kids are bullied for, I also believe that intolerance is the basis for most problems.
Those opponents to homosexual adoption provide mostly misguided arguments. Just because some states prohibit the adoption does not imply the moral correctness of the act itself. Regardless of the inflation of the numbers presented by proponents, there are still many homosexual couples that desire to and could in fact provide a better home than many heterosexual couples. They even go so far as to say that homosexuals are incapable of being in a committed, monogamous relationship and that the roles of parent and homosexual partner are mutually exclusive, that trying to fill both roles only promotes instability (they provide no evidence to substantiate these claims). While I self identify as heterosexual and therefore prefer that relationship with children, I can see no concrete evidence to support the discrimination of the latter. The only way to gather support for either side is to allow this adoption to occur and given the number of kids looking for loving homes, it is even more wrong to deny based on sexual orientation.
Those currently making the laws and rulings regarding child placement (i.e. Florida case) are members of the older generations that saw different, and obviously less tolerant values and ideals. Will members of younger generations be more tolerant than their predecessors when law is based so deeply in precedent? Is a separation of morality from religion and historical view possible? Is it practical?
Having grown up in a family that shared nearly all household duties, I never knew much of a difference in who did what so long as it got done. Even the differences that did exist, the things that were only done by one parent or the other, could be explained by expertise. Of course my father was the only one who worked on cars, he was a mechanic by trade. My mother was in charge of how we looked, she is a cosmetologist. However, we remodeled our house several times, and my mother played nearly as vital a role in the work that got done as my father did, and they both had input on the design. My father always cooked and did laundry and dishes and cleaned just like my mother. Those views trickled down to us, so even though my parents came from households that were more strictly structured in regards to duties, I think it is more modern for families to share responsibilities.
That being said, the arguments presented by both sides of the issue of homosexuality seem to suggest that common beliefs center around the idea that certain duties (parenting) are in fact separated as they pertain to heterosexual relationships versus homosexual ones. Those opponents of discrimination of adoption rights to homosexuals (APA) center their support on the lack of evidence correlating the effects of homosexuality on child rearing. However, the lack of evidence does not suggest that a correlation doesn’t exist, but rather that experience is needed. While I do agree with the APA’s conclusions that homosexuality is not a mental illness, that lesbians are no less maternal than other women based on orientation, and that being in a homosexual relationship does not demand any more time than a heterosexual relationship, I do not necessarily agree that no correlation exists. However, I also do not believe that discrimination regarding adoption should occur. While I believe that children would benefit from the variance in viewpoints that a typical heterosexual relationship provides, it cannot be said that no homosexual relationships can provide this as views are a construction of one’s intersectional identity. And while I have a hard time believing, as nearly all homosexual individuals are teased/taunted in their lifetime, that children with homosexual parents are likely to be taunted for this reason on top of any others that so many kids are bullied for, I also believe that intolerance is the basis for most problems.
Those opponents to homosexual adoption provide mostly misguided arguments. Just because some states prohibit the adoption does not imply the moral correctness of the act itself. Regardless of the inflation of the numbers presented by proponents, there are still many homosexual couples that desire to and could in fact provide a better home than many heterosexual couples. They even go so far as to say that homosexuals are incapable of being in a committed, monogamous relationship and that the roles of parent and homosexual partner are mutually exclusive, that trying to fill both roles only promotes instability (they provide no evidence to substantiate these claims). While I self identify as heterosexual and therefore prefer that relationship with children, I can see no concrete evidence to support the discrimination of the latter. The only way to gather support for either side is to allow this adoption to occur and given the number of kids looking for loving homes, it is even more wrong to deny based on sexual orientation.
Those currently making the laws and rulings regarding child placement (i.e. Florida case) are members of the older generations that saw different, and obviously less tolerant values and ideals. Will members of younger generations be more tolerant than their predecessors when law is based so deeply in precedent? Is a separation of morality from religion and historical view possible? Is it practical?
Gay & Lesbian Parenting
Growing up and being raised by a mother and father I never really thought about or know what it would be like to be raised in a house with a gay or lesbian parent. But after reading this article I really thought more about how it could affect my life and how my life may have been different. Growing up my father was the one who worked the 9-5 job and my mother would stay home with us kids. Growing up I was never sat down and talked about being in a heterosexual relationship,because my parents probably just thought I realized it was the right thing to do because that is the type of house I was raised in. Growing up in a gay or lesbian household would and can have an impact on your life I think. Like the American Psychological Association pointed out, children raised in a gay or lesbian home may show more concern in gender identity or gender/sex role behaviors. It can also affect their development of sexual identity and they might often experience difficulty in social relationships.
By growing up and being raised by a mother and a father I was able to get the experience just about every child gets. I was able to have a loving mother and father around me my whole life, bust most importantly to me it was having a father figure. Growing up as a young boy I was always looking up to my father to show me how to do things or teach my new things I didn't know. The same went for my sister, she was always following my mom around and watching her do the things she did so she could learn them and use what she learned later on in life. Without having a mother and father figure in the house growing up it would be difficult to learn everything a young boy or girl should learn growing up.
One thing I thought was very interesting from this article that I had never heard about before was about the story of the parents in Florida. I am way more for a heterosexual household than I am for a homosexual household, but I don't know if I agree with the judges ruling on that particular case. Even though the mother had become a lesbian she still should have received custody of the child, due to the fact the father was in prison for murder and sexually molesting or another child.
Questions:
1. Is there any advantage to being raised in a gay or lesbian household?
2. Should be there a stricter law when it comes to same sex couples adoption and second parent adoption?
By growing up and being raised by a mother and a father I was able to get the experience just about every child gets. I was able to have a loving mother and father around me my whole life, bust most importantly to me it was having a father figure. Growing up as a young boy I was always looking up to my father to show me how to do things or teach my new things I didn't know. The same went for my sister, she was always following my mom around and watching her do the things she did so she could learn them and use what she learned later on in life. Without having a mother and father figure in the house growing up it would be difficult to learn everything a young boy or girl should learn growing up.
One thing I thought was very interesting from this article that I had never heard about before was about the story of the parents in Florida. I am way more for a heterosexual household than I am for a homosexual household, but I don't know if I agree with the judges ruling on that particular case. Even though the mother had become a lesbian she still should have received custody of the child, due to the fact the father was in prison for murder and sexually molesting or another child.
Questions:
1. Is there any advantage to being raised in a gay or lesbian household?
2. Should be there a stricter law when it comes to same sex couples adoption and second parent adoption?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Gay and Lesbian Parenting
Are gay and lesbian couples adequate to raise children? this has been an on going question in society for quite some time. the idea that is presented to society, would be a child to have two moms, or two dads. is this not a good environment for a growing child to develop in? well, I'm going to be very honest...i don't know. i really don't think any of us really do know the answer- we all have opinions, but that doesn't give us the correct answer...but i think if i had to dig deep deep down and pull out some emotion and bias towards this situation, i can see that there may be some concern.
I say this in the aspect of the child in the real world. we live in a society that is very judgmental... the child may be looked at as an outsider- although this isn't right- it is true the child maybe ridiculed for this situation. although this isn't right, this is something that happens in everyday life. I went to school with a family that had two moms and i would hear kids talk about them behind their back and make fun of them. i didn't think this was right, but know that this happens when people don't understand something, and something is foreign to them, instead of trying to understand the situation- they look at them as weird or bad.
But in rebuttal, the child may be taught to be more open to alternative things in life, and have a broader out look on life. in regard to the parents- they are people just like everyone else and should not be punished by not being able to have children- that is morally wrong. everyone is entitled to love, life, and the pursuit of happiness- to say that someone who is homosexual is not allowed to have/raise a child, i feel, is wrong.
QUESTIONS:
1) do you think that a child raised by homosexual parents could influence the child to be a homosexual?
2) do you feel it is wrong to judge someone on their parenting skills due to their sexual orientation?
Friday, February 18, 2011
Issue 5-- Culture and Sex Differences in Communication
While I do think that biology has some impact on the communication styles of males and females, I think that culture has a much stronger influence. Ultimately, I would answer that socialization has much more influence on communication styles than biology. I respect and to a certain extent agree with Brizendine's arguments about women being hardwired to recognize faces because they are meant to connect, while males have a tendency to create competitive situations. However, these biological foundations are strongly reinforced and sometimes completely convoluted by environment and culture. I believe that the initial seeds for these typified gender normative behaviors and communication styles were probably influenced by the miniscule biological differences between males and females, but I think that the primary source of sex differences in these areas is socialization. Babies are socialized into binary genders by sex before they are even born when parents decorate a nursery in pink or blue, and the box only gets smaller from that point in terms of what is appropriate expression for each sex. I also find Allen's arguments about communication styles and the overt messages about the power dynamic between men and women very convincing. There is not biological explanation for the dominance that males exhibit in communication when compared to females. Connection may be biologically explained, but you can connect without submitting. I think this is a really important point. I also think that examining the communication styles of those who are biologically male or female, but have been socialized to reject gendered communication (or have chosen to reject it), such as gay men and lesbians, also support this theory.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Fifth Issue
As has basically become a trope in psychology today (i.e., psychology of the present day, not the magazine “Psychology Today,” which shares about as much with academic psychology as kool-aid spiked with everclear shares with a good Port wine), traits in an individual are usually a fusion of “nature” (biology) and “nurture.” There’s very little debate that some concoction of the two exists; however, an accurate measurement for either is currently lacking, since, as I’ve said before, moral empirical social science is basically impossible. So the debate rages on…
What we have in issue 5 are two deceptively complex articles that can easily be boiled down to opinionative arguments; Allen’s position, which states that communication is essentially cultural and a construct of society and Brizendine’s position, who, while admitting there is a certain degree towards socialization, says that the larger role is biological in nature.
There is compelling evidence towards both sides, and I don’t entirely see why the two can’t meet in a sort of ‘happy medium.’ Brizendine provides largely irrefutable biological evidence that simply cannot be entirely overlooked. However, often her application towards gendered communication lacks a bridge—I feel that’s where Allen can come in. For example, while it’s certainly true that hormonal changes are likely to affect one’s personality in a very direct manner, were it not for specific normative sociological structures built around pubescent women, they would not reflect their current gendered communication. In my opinion, this particular fusion can be applied amply to just about every point both authors make.
Q1: Both authors seem to agree more than they disagree on most of their steps to their admittedly different conclusions. What might some of those “agreed steps” be?
Q2: Do you think that the “genderedness” currently present in communication will adapt over time, as communication continues to evolve?
issue 5
Issue 5
Looking at both sides of the issue I choose to follow and believe that the no side is right. Culture is the not the primary source of sex difference in commutations styles. I do think that culture plays a major role in developing different communication styles but it is not the most important.
i agree with Brenda Allen that the most important is socialization and privilege leads to different communicating styles. learning from a young age we are socialized different from being eight a boy or girl. that is not we are also socialized by race, class, and gender. all these socialization are the primary reason of different communication styles. these socialization get internalized by people and then shown in different groups people tend to be identified with.
i thought culture included socialization and identity?
Issue #5
I do believe that society is the source of sex differences in our culture and in communication. According to Brizendine, male and women brains are 99% similar and the one percent of our chromosomal make up that is different does account for alot. However, we were all created the same and I do believe that our culture and society has made the perceptions on communication between men and women are due to how the genders are perceived. The media makes women look like they are just dependent, people who need the stability of a man. Men talk to women in certain ways, they talk down to them, make them feel inferior and they use communication as a means to assert their ideas and thoughts on other people. So i do believe that culture is the primary reason that there are so many sex differences in the area of communication.
Issue #5
Thinking about both sides, I would have to agree with the fact that we are socialized into the way that we go about communicating. It is obviously an issue that each sex has, sometimes we can't find ways to communicate efficiently to each other. So is culture the primary source of sex differences in communication styles? Yes. How each person is brought up in different cultures has a huge influence on how they will communicate throughout their life. The difference between girls and boys and how they are treated at an early age is a good indicator of this. Girls are told to express themselves through emotions, and for many of us those emotions are accompanied by words. Boys in many cases are taught to suck up their feelings and therefore don't share whats on their mind if somethings bothering them. I don't know if I believe that women say as many more words per day as they say but I do think that daily activities at work and in social groups is part of this. When I hang out with girls its mostly gossip sessions and what's going on in life. The group of guys that I hang out with are loud, but not in a strict conversational style... more of a competitive nature. I don't think its completely a biological phenomenon. Ofcourse women are overdosed with estrogen and they say that accounts for the excessive chatter, but I think that this can go either way. If a boy is brought up in a household that encourages him to be open and communicate frequently then his communication style can be on point with a girls communication style. The reason we study communication styles and tendencies is to help discover and manage the problems that happen in our everyday communication, especially between sexes.
DQ:
1. In your household growing up were you encouraged to express yourself verbally?
2. If you think that it is a biological factor that the sexes have different communication styles what part of the arguement won you over?
DQ:
1. In your household growing up were you encouraged to express yourself verbally?
2. If you think that it is a biological factor that the sexes have different communication styles what part of the arguement won you over?
culture vs. bio
After watching the video in class, i really thought about the idea of culture vs. biological aspects in gender...In essence, everyone has different biology and different DNA, but gender is universal. different nations have all kinds of different types acts towards different genders. for example in some cultures, women are ordered to cover their face and legs with clothing. in other cultures it is attractive if women wear less clothing and expose themselves. but one thing remains the same through out the universe...and that is that mean have one single image and idea on what it is to be a man. what I'm saying is ever since the roman empire there has been an image of men to be strong, powerful, independent, successful, and tough. so in my understanding women are looked at and addressed differently from culture to culture. but men remain to have a similar universal image. So this got me thinking further about the idea of people who do not fit into their roles and stray from the norm? the women who speak their minds are bitches in a mans eye, and most women. and when a man speaks his mind, he is looked at as the man, and women go along with it, but think they are dicks...so there is this double standard in the American culture, that i feel is being broken day by day. especially in the past 20 years- women have been doing the jobs that men have done for a long time, and are trying to reach a point of respect.
1. give an example of how women have changed in their gender role in the past 20 years.
2. give an example of how the media has lead the public to believe that men are to be strong, tough, and independent.
Boys Don't Cry
I find it interesting that the issues that we take on usually one side will use biology as the backbone of their argument. Another interesting thing I noticed was Louann's debate is about 2 pages less then Brenda's take on the issue. I found myself agreeing with Louann Brizendine's approach over Brenda Allen. I just felt that Louann seemed to get to the heart of the issue on her side, and Brenda seemed to throw in a lot of different filler without looking at the history behind the facts she was using and by only looking at the issue from a western point of view instead of global view.
One issue I had with Brenda Allen's argument was, "'English is a patriarchal language."' "However as they aslo note, we did not invent this male dominated language; we inherited it." (Pg.98). Of course we inherited it, but I think that she also should have looked at other languages and that would have made her argument stronger. For example Asian Languages have a very distinct way of how they refer to each other. There's a male and female way of addressing one another. In Korean to call someone an older brother or sister males use the word Hyung(M) and Noona(F), and females use the word Oppa(M) and Onni(F). The same goes for Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian ect. Now looking at this would you say that Asian society is less sexist then American society? The answer is that Asian society is very male dominated and from a western point a view... sexist. Now things are changing in Asia, but because they are a society raised in Confusisim change is much slower. When I was last there in 2007 I found that the whole issue with male and female issues is harkened back to how women were treated back in the late 1970's and 1980's.
Another issue I found with Brenda's argument was the whole issue of race, "...In 1795 a German scientist named Johann Blumenbach constructed a system of racial classification that arranged people according to geographical location and physical features.... Placing Caucasians in the most superior position." (Pg. 96). What she fails to mention that was common thought back then and actually since the colonization of the Americas. White Europeans would reference the Noah's Story in the bible as why Slavery against a certain race was ok. A condense version of this story is that Noah's middle son Ham accidentally saw his father naked after Noah had passed out from drinking too much wine. Afterwards he told his brother Josphet (Elder) and Shem (Younger) and they covered him up without looking at his 600 year old body. The next day the brothers told on Ham and Noah cursed his son. From this point on the son's of Ham will now be the slaves of Josphet and Shem's sons. Josphet went off to populate Europe, Shem the Israelites, and Ham Africa and Asia. The ancient world did not care of color. In the bible Moses marries a woman of Kush or a black woman. It has no mention of her color anywhere, but the Kushites were from Central Africa and considered the decedents of Ham. Normally i don't use the bible to make a point in an argument, but in the world that Johann Blumenbach was from it was the way of thought. I bring up the point with Moses is that just like we do today, people back then took the information given and left things out. I also found her argument weak on the simple fact that she primarily look at race as color. I can't blame her too much because she is a product of her environment as well. In the Western World, especially America, that's how most people look at the issue... Who's white and who's not. But racism is prevalent in the rest of the world. For example, call a Mexican a Cuban and you're looking for a fight. Even though most Americans say they have a hard time telling apart Asians, Asian societies actually hate each other. The Chinese and Koreans still feel hate towards the Japanese, and the the big 3 of the East Asian world looks down on other Asian societies such as the Vietnamese and Philippinos. The Hutus and Tutsis killed each other and there's nothing to compartmentalize by color or physical features. For me, by not looking at the issues and looking at it with a more worldly view hurt her argument.
Personally I don't think there is a yes or no with this issue, but a combination.
I think that biology is a huge part on why we act the way we do and how men and women process information, but society or individual cultures reinforces it. For the most part people are ok with this gender segration. It's easier to accept then to buck the system. For example, most Americans are ok with waiting in line then trying to rush to the front.
Questions
1) Did anybody agree with Brenda Allen's look at Compartmentalization?
2) Do most of you get uncomfortable when race is brought into the issue?
One issue I had with Brenda Allen's argument was, "'English is a patriarchal language."' "However as they aslo note, we did not invent this male dominated language; we inherited it." (Pg.98). Of course we inherited it, but I think that she also should have looked at other languages and that would have made her argument stronger. For example Asian Languages have a very distinct way of how they refer to each other. There's a male and female way of addressing one another. In Korean to call someone an older brother or sister males use the word Hyung(M) and Noona(F), and females use the word Oppa(M) and Onni(F). The same goes for Chinese, Japanese, Indonesian ect. Now looking at this would you say that Asian society is less sexist then American society? The answer is that Asian society is very male dominated and from a western point a view... sexist. Now things are changing in Asia, but because they are a society raised in Confusisim change is much slower. When I was last there in 2007 I found that the whole issue with male and female issues is harkened back to how women were treated back in the late 1970's and 1980's.
Another issue I found with Brenda's argument was the whole issue of race, "...In 1795 a German scientist named Johann Blumenbach constructed a system of racial classification that arranged people according to geographical location and physical features.... Placing Caucasians in the most superior position." (Pg. 96). What she fails to mention that was common thought back then and actually since the colonization of the Americas. White Europeans would reference the Noah's Story in the bible as why Slavery against a certain race was ok. A condense version of this story is that Noah's middle son Ham accidentally saw his father naked after Noah had passed out from drinking too much wine. Afterwards he told his brother Josphet (Elder) and Shem (Younger) and they covered him up without looking at his 600 year old body. The next day the brothers told on Ham and Noah cursed his son. From this point on the son's of Ham will now be the slaves of Josphet and Shem's sons. Josphet went off to populate Europe, Shem the Israelites, and Ham Africa and Asia. The ancient world did not care of color. In the bible Moses marries a woman of Kush or a black woman. It has no mention of her color anywhere, but the Kushites were from Central Africa and considered the decedents of Ham. Normally i don't use the bible to make a point in an argument, but in the world that Johann Blumenbach was from it was the way of thought. I bring up the point with Moses is that just like we do today, people back then took the information given and left things out. I also found her argument weak on the simple fact that she primarily look at race as color. I can't blame her too much because she is a product of her environment as well. In the Western World, especially America, that's how most people look at the issue... Who's white and who's not. But racism is prevalent in the rest of the world. For example, call a Mexican a Cuban and you're looking for a fight. Even though most Americans say they have a hard time telling apart Asians, Asian societies actually hate each other. The Chinese and Koreans still feel hate towards the Japanese, and the the big 3 of the East Asian world looks down on other Asian societies such as the Vietnamese and Philippinos. The Hutus and Tutsis killed each other and there's nothing to compartmentalize by color or physical features. For me, by not looking at the issues and looking at it with a more worldly view hurt her argument.
Personally I don't think there is a yes or no with this issue, but a combination.
I think that biology is a huge part on why we act the way we do and how men and women process information, but society or individual cultures reinforces it. For the most part people are ok with this gender segration. It's easier to accept then to buck the system. For example, most Americans are ok with waiting in line then trying to rush to the front.
Questions
1) Did anybody agree with Brenda Allen's look at Compartmentalization?
2) Do most of you get uncomfortable when race is brought into the issue?
Issue Five: Culture vs. Biology in Comm Differences
First of all, I would like to mention that the book has the positions backwards. Allen is saying culture is the biggest influence, Brizendine is arguing for biology. Just wanted to get that out there since it really was bothering me.
At any rate, I feel like Brenda Allen had more substantial evidence to back up her point. I also tend to agree with her position more. While I agree that Brizendine is correct in saying that biology has an influence in communication, I think the more substantial reason is culturally based. I'm more inclined to believe that the culture we interact with and within on a daily basis has more effect on how we communicate than a difference of less that 1% in our DNA. Also, if culture is the main reason people communicate how they do, this accounts for the difference in styles between social groups, in addition to men and women. Biology can make no such claim, since Asian womens' brains and Caucasian womens' brains do not have the 1% difference in DNA that men and women apparently do. Their brains are far more similar, yet still experience vast differences in communication styles due to culture.
Plus, I would like to relate this to knowledge I discovered outside of class, that suggests that lesbians have a brain structure similar to heterosexual males, and gay men have brain structures similar to heterosexual women. By Brizendine's reasoning then, lesbians should communicate like men, and vice versa. However, I've known several homosexual and bisexual individuals who communicate like their heterosexual peers of the same sex (I've noticed this particularly true of so-called "femme" and "lipstick" lesbians, and bisexual men and women). I assume this is because they were raised in a heteronormative culture, who told them how to communicate as women/men, regardless of, or unaware of, their sexual orientation and brain structure.
But again, we run into the problem that culture and biology both have so much influence on identity and communication that it is almost impossible to isolate one from the other.
Questions:
1) What do you think would happen if a child were raised in an entirely gender-neutral culture?
2) Would that be detrimental to the child's growth and development to deprive them of that construct/aspect of identity?
3) How would Brizendine account for feminine communication of some lesbians/masculine communications of some gay men?
Issue 5: Differences in Communication Styles
When I first glanced at this issue, I was pretty sure that society was the main influence on communication styles. I also noticed Allen had much more to talk about and figured there wasn't much evidence to back up Brizendine's side. However, as I was reading I leaned more towards communication style being something we are born with. I believe both have an influence on communication style in different ways. I actually felt like the arguments didn't offer evidence that contradicted each other very much. I felt they were offering two opinions that work in conjunction.
I identified well with Brizendine's argument. I felt like my communication style and personality changed with hormones and with age. At a younger age, girls hang out with girls for the most part, but what causes the change when they start to "like" guys? It could be societal pressures, but I feel it comes with a change in hormones. Within my group of friends, those girls that hit puberty first were the first ones to start viewing guys in a romantic way. That may not be the experience everyone has, but it is one way I relate to Brizendine's stance. I also enjoyed the "Why the Teen Girl Brain Freaks" section. I felt like my communication style was out of my control during my teen years. Like Brizendine noted, I went from being a nice little girl to one who would be up and down with emotions and communication, especially around my family. I don't think it was society's pressure to act in this way. My emotions and communication often surprised myself as well as my family! On the other hand, I also agree that there are a lot of power dynamics within communication. I was intrigued by the section where Allen talked the order we place titles such as boy and girl and his or her. Another valid point was the use of derogatory words, especially feminine words used in a derogatory manner towards men. As I stated before, I believe both sides are relevant.
Q1) Are there any other examples (beside those in the book) you can think of that use language or communication style to demonstrate power?
Q2) Which side do you personally identify more with? Or is it a combination of both?
I identified well with Brizendine's argument. I felt like my communication style and personality changed with hormones and with age. At a younger age, girls hang out with girls for the most part, but what causes the change when they start to "like" guys? It could be societal pressures, but I feel it comes with a change in hormones. Within my group of friends, those girls that hit puberty first were the first ones to start viewing guys in a romantic way. That may not be the experience everyone has, but it is one way I relate to Brizendine's stance. I also enjoyed the "Why the Teen Girl Brain Freaks" section. I felt like my communication style was out of my control during my teen years. Like Brizendine noted, I went from being a nice little girl to one who would be up and down with emotions and communication, especially around my family. I don't think it was society's pressure to act in this way. My emotions and communication often surprised myself as well as my family! On the other hand, I also agree that there are a lot of power dynamics within communication. I was intrigued by the section where Allen talked the order we place titles such as boy and girl and his or her. Another valid point was the use of derogatory words, especially feminine words used in a derogatory manner towards men. As I stated before, I believe both sides are relevant.
Q1) Are there any other examples (beside those in the book) you can think of that use language or communication style to demonstrate power?
Q2) Which side do you personally identify more with? Or is it a combination of both?
Issue #5
When it comes to finding the reason for sex differences in communication styles I find it almost impossible to pick on side or the other. The fact is that we will never know which causes a difference in communication styles in Men and Women because we cannot view the differences with out look at both the biological and culture influences.
I found what Lauren Brizendine wrote very interesting and surprising. Coming in, I was probably leaning a little more to the aspect of culture. However, Brizendine made some really good points. Her discussion about males and females level of estrogen and testosterone. Her concept that women being more focused on harmonious relationships and it’s relation to an evolutionary hard-wiring. That fact that women focus more on peace allowed them to survive and help raise children because they could easily read how another person was feeling or needed.
On the other side, Brenda J. Allen says, “We learn communication styles and and rules based upon our membership in certain groups, and we communicate with other people based upon how we have been socialized about ourselves and about them.” I would have to agree with most of this statement. I agree that we do learn how to communicate through interaction with others and how we participate in certain groups. How often do we find ourselves (though unwillingly) saying something and right after thinking that we sounded just like our parents?
However, I think of we are who are from the start. For example, I have always been a little shier. Even as a baby, I was shy and this is something that has not changed in my existence. So, I think there is a balance of who we are and what what learn that contributes to our communication styles. Then, adding in evolutionary hard-wiring we get what we get.
Questions:
- Do you think our physical differences affect our communication differences (Women are smaller and therefore have a more passive communication style)?
- Do you change your communication styles depending on what group setting you are in?
I found what Lauren Brizendine wrote very interesting and surprising. Coming in, I was probably leaning a little more to the aspect of culture. However, Brizendine made some really good points. Her discussion about males and females level of estrogen and testosterone. Her concept that women being more focused on harmonious relationships and it’s relation to an evolutionary hard-wiring. That fact that women focus more on peace allowed them to survive and help raise children because they could easily read how another person was feeling or needed.
On the other side, Brenda J. Allen says, “We learn communication styles and and rules based upon our membership in certain groups, and we communicate with other people based upon how we have been socialized about ourselves and about them.” I would have to agree with most of this statement. I agree that we do learn how to communicate through interaction with others and how we participate in certain groups. How often do we find ourselves (though unwillingly) saying something and right after thinking that we sounded just like our parents?
However, I think of we are who are from the start. For example, I have always been a little shier. Even as a baby, I was shy and this is something that has not changed in my existence. So, I think there is a balance of who we are and what what learn that contributes to our communication styles. Then, adding in evolutionary hard-wiring we get what we get.
Questions:
- Do you think our physical differences affect our communication differences (Women are smaller and therefore have a more passive communication style)?
- Do you change your communication styles depending on what group setting you are in?
Issue 5: Culture and Sex Differences
Is culture really the primary source for sex differences when it comes to communication? When you think of men and women and how the typically communicate with one another you normally think of the women doing most the talking. I know for as long as I can remember I have always pictured the women being the more "talkative" one and the one instigating the conversation. But is that always how it works? It might appear that men and women have brain differences when it comes to communication styles, but they really are similar in many ways. Its more about what type of personality someone has and how much they like or want to talk or communicate. People are often shy and don't like to talk around people they don't know, or there are people like me who really dosent care who is around or listening I like to talk. One point that Brizendine brought up was when she mentioned how women are always gossiping and telling secrets to each other. She also brought up the point that all men have noticed, when a girl goes to the bathroom she absolutely has to have a girlfriend go with her otherwise she probably won't go. I've never really understood why that is and I have never really stopped to ask a girl why it is. Something else Brizendine mentioned was how a teen girls brain will often freak out over things. I agreed with pretty much all the points Brizendine made, except there was one thing I really didn't know how I felt about it. She mentioned that women speak about 20,000 words a day and men only speak about 7,000 words a day. But then after a study conducted by Matthias Mehl, he found out its more about 16,000 words for women and 15,000 words for men.
One thing that I thought was interesting that Brenda Allen talked about was the social identity theory. The social identity theory is about how humans have the tendency to label themselves and others based on individual and group identity. I really thought that theory was interesting because in many cultures you can tell when one group or individual is thinking or talking about another group and comparing themselves to each other. People of the same sex and even the different sex are constantly comparing themselves to the things and people around them. That is one way stereotypes are created among people which leads to communication differences. She also talked about how power matters when it comes to social identity and classification. There are many different level or power and social identity can be completely different on each level.
Questions:
1. How can power change the communication style a man or women uses?
2. How can the communication styles between the sexes change from one culture to another culture?
One thing that I thought was interesting that Brenda Allen talked about was the social identity theory. The social identity theory is about how humans have the tendency to label themselves and others based on individual and group identity. I really thought that theory was interesting because in many cultures you can tell when one group or individual is thinking or talking about another group and comparing themselves to each other. People of the same sex and even the different sex are constantly comparing themselves to the things and people around them. That is one way stereotypes are created among people which leads to communication differences. She also talked about how power matters when it comes to social identity and classification. There are many different level or power and social identity can be completely different on each level.
Questions:
1. How can power change the communication style a man or women uses?
2. How can the communication styles between the sexes change from one culture to another culture?
Issue 5
Issue number five is centered around the woman’s brain and how it is developed to reflect their communication style. The first half of the argument is brought forth by Brizendine. In her argument she explains the biological impacts of child bearing and their effects on an unborn child. She brings forth important facts that show the fetus of a boy and a girl are identical until the 8th week of pregnancy. It is during this 8th week that baby boys are introduced to a heavy dose of adrenaline. This adrenaline kills certain brain cells and reorganizes the young child’s brain forcing it to reconnect in other areas. Since girls are not introduced to this dose of adrenaline they are able to continue building their bridges from right brain to left brain without the destruction of brain cells. Brizendine gives these connections between right and left brain the reasoning for difference in communication styles.
The other half of the argument comes from a woman with the last name of Allen. She claims that the differences between men and women’s communication styles come from a societal influence and are not related to biology and what happens inside the mother’s womb. Based on this she argues that this communication styled is learned from birth and that communication is a performed act like the gender performance we discussed earlier in the semester. This starts at birth when those surrounding the newborn treat the baby in different ways merely based on the sex of the baby. From then on the baby learns and adapts to the expectations of those surround him or her based on the way they are interacted with. Not only does a person learn their gender in such a way but they also learn how to communicate based on gender expectations.
I guess I really can’t argue one way or another when determining who is right and wrong on this subject because I think both play a key role in determining a woman’s communication style. Having a background in engineering I tend to agree with Brizendine a little more. I believe seeing how my knowledge of physics and chemistry and how they are applied to everyday life I think that there is a biological factor that helps determine a communication style before birth. With regards to what Allen has found in her findings I believe society plays a pivotal role in reinforcing these basic principles that were found on a biological scale. Regardless of who is right and wrong women definitely have a different communication style than men. It doesn’t matter whose brains or bigger or who has the larger vocabulary because each style of communication seems to work fairly well for that gender.
Should men and women have a more similar style of communicating?
Is a lack of power evident in a woman’s communication style?
The other half of the argument comes from a woman with the last name of Allen. She claims that the differences between men and women’s communication styles come from a societal influence and are not related to biology and what happens inside the mother’s womb. Based on this she argues that this communication styled is learned from birth and that communication is a performed act like the gender performance we discussed earlier in the semester. This starts at birth when those surrounding the newborn treat the baby in different ways merely based on the sex of the baby. From then on the baby learns and adapts to the expectations of those surround him or her based on the way they are interacted with. Not only does a person learn their gender in such a way but they also learn how to communicate based on gender expectations.
I guess I really can’t argue one way or another when determining who is right and wrong on this subject because I think both play a key role in determining a woman’s communication style. Having a background in engineering I tend to agree with Brizendine a little more. I believe seeing how my knowledge of physics and chemistry and how they are applied to everyday life I think that there is a biological factor that helps determine a communication style before birth. With regards to what Allen has found in her findings I believe society plays a pivotal role in reinforcing these basic principles that were found on a biological scale. Regardless of who is right and wrong women definitely have a different communication style than men. It doesn’t matter whose brains or bigger or who has the larger vocabulary because each style of communication seems to work fairly well for that gender.
Should men and women have a more similar style of communicating?
Is a lack of power evident in a woman’s communication style?
Culture and Sex Differences
Is culture the Primary Source of Sex Differences in Communication Styles? To put it frankly, who knows? There have been studies that support each side of the argument. I cannot personally say specific cultures dictate specific gender roles. I have to agree with Brizendine that there are sex differences between men and women from birth. Although she did not have many studies to back up her statement , it is a personal belief I have had ever since I was presented this topic area.
Allen makes very good points when talking about culture influence, and in some ways culture does very well influence the way we dress, and the things we are interested in (twilight , harry potter etc.). But , in my personal opinion, it is not say to say culture defines what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. There are many cultures all around the world who view women the same as US culture, and same goes with a man. We don't very well have the exact same media influence or ideologies, but some may be similar.
Until somebody puts human subjects in solitary , and does not let culture or media influence them, we will never know the truth. And we hope for Human Rights sake that this will never happen, but until it does one person cannot determine whether or not it is biological or cultural.
What person would it take to influence you the correct answer on this stance?
If this is a cultural influence, then are those who act differently then men and women are supposed ( how society thinks they should act) to act unaffected by culture?
Allen makes very good points when talking about culture influence, and in some ways culture does very well influence the way we dress, and the things we are interested in (twilight , harry potter etc.). But , in my personal opinion, it is not say to say culture defines what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. There are many cultures all around the world who view women the same as US culture, and same goes with a man. We don't very well have the exact same media influence or ideologies, but some may be similar.
Until somebody puts human subjects in solitary , and does not let culture or media influence them, we will never know the truth. And we hope for Human Rights sake that this will never happen, but until it does one person cannot determine whether or not it is biological or cultural.
What person would it take to influence you the correct answer on this stance?
If this is a cultural influence, then are those who act differently then men and women are supposed ( how society thinks they should act) to act unaffected by culture?
Communication and Cultures
When Brizendine first talks about what makes women essentially women it reminded me of the last issue that we talked about. The last issue on math and science had a lot to do with the question if there are or they are not gene differences that make men able to become more successful at math and science than women. So, when she first writes about how women and men having 99% of the exact genetic coding but there are still differences between the genders I was less surprised than before. But, I still do not fully understand what this had to do with the fact that culture is the primary source of sex differences.
Then when I went on to read that women back in time had to protect themselves and fight off cavemen from attacks somethings started to make sense. Back in time women had to be strong like men and in order to survive in the wild they could not be peaceful, nice, and giving. Because if they were then they would have lost food, possibly their children, and their shelter. Women and men had to essentially act the same as one another. What this demonstrates is that in this culture men and women were not different in ways that they interacted with one another but compared to another culture ... for instance this past decade lots of women want to create and have peaceful and harmonious relationships. So if a girl in the 21st century was put in the era of the caveman they would not know how to act. They would try and make everything flow and get along with everyone instead of fighting and protecting themself.
What I also found interesting is that in the 21st century it is more acceptable and expected for women to talk more than men. I mean I have always figured this was the case, but when I saw the statistic that women speak 250 words per minute compard to 125 for men typically I was a little shocked. One question that I want to propose is to the men.... Does it annoy you that women these days have a lot to say and tend to dominate the conversation more? Or is it intimidating? Why or why not? The reason why I propose this question is because after that statistic, the author goes on to write how back in the colonial era men did not like this and they would torture women because of talking.
Also, what I found interesting was the fact that women do not like to act out of anger and that is why they talk to people before actually doing an action. However, women when they start to speak out of anger their words tend to be way more harsh. It is almost like women unleash feary on others and their words are more powerful. This then made me think of times when I have been upset at my sister and I just pretty much ripped her a new one. So a question that I ask the women...Do you agree with the fact that as American women when we are angry the use of powerful words comes into play? (As if we know how to hit a person where it hurts the most) Do you think that if you moved to another culture it would be difficult for you to surpress your anger before expressing it to someone?
Then when I went on to read that women back in time had to protect themselves and fight off cavemen from attacks somethings started to make sense. Back in time women had to be strong like men and in order to survive in the wild they could not be peaceful, nice, and giving. Because if they were then they would have lost food, possibly their children, and their shelter. Women and men had to essentially act the same as one another. What this demonstrates is that in this culture men and women were not different in ways that they interacted with one another but compared to another culture ... for instance this past decade lots of women want to create and have peaceful and harmonious relationships. So if a girl in the 21st century was put in the era of the caveman they would not know how to act. They would try and make everything flow and get along with everyone instead of fighting and protecting themself.
What I also found interesting is that in the 21st century it is more acceptable and expected for women to talk more than men. I mean I have always figured this was the case, but when I saw the statistic that women speak 250 words per minute compard to 125 for men typically I was a little shocked. One question that I want to propose is to the men.... Does it annoy you that women these days have a lot to say and tend to dominate the conversation more? Or is it intimidating? Why or why not? The reason why I propose this question is because after that statistic, the author goes on to write how back in the colonial era men did not like this and they would torture women because of talking.
Also, what I found interesting was the fact that women do not like to act out of anger and that is why they talk to people before actually doing an action. However, women when they start to speak out of anger their words tend to be way more harsh. It is almost like women unleash feary on others and their words are more powerful. This then made me think of times when I have been upset at my sister and I just pretty much ripped her a new one. So a question that I ask the women...Do you agree with the fact that as American women when we are angry the use of powerful words comes into play? (As if we know how to hit a person where it hurts the most) Do you think that if you moved to another culture it would be difficult for you to surpress your anger before expressing it to someone?
Biological or Cultural Differences
I feel like this issue isn't necessarily a "pick-a-side" issue. It seems like saying these communication differences between men and women are completely biological, or completely cultural, is completely absurd. I believe that these differences are a combination of both factors.
Certainly Louann Brizendine raises several valuable facts regarding the biological developmental differences between male and female brains. For instance, she says we know female brains have larger communication centers than male brains. She explains that the brains are nearly identical until eight weeks old, at which point male brains kill off some cells in the communication center and develop cells in the aggression center. It certainly seems likely that there is some truth to this, but to say that this is the entire reason for our communicative differences seems a little harsh.
After all, Brenda Allen tells us that our social identity is a construct of social influences. From our earliest days of childhood we are immediately influenced by society: boys in blue and girls in pink. Growing up these pressures continue to affect us. Men are taught to be tough, independent and aggressive...the "strong-silent type." Women, on the other hand, are taught to be more communicative. They're told to share their feelings and to develop close relationships.
The rapport/report communication methods are certainly apparent, and there is a fairly clear divide between men and women. However, there are men that have rapport-style communication, and there are women using the report style. For this reason I would argue that these communicative differences start in the brain, but are perpetuated by society. I don't believe the brain dictates your communication style, but it certainly nudges it in one direction or the other.
Questions:
1. Why does this question have to be viewed in a this-or-that manner?
2. Is there a need to change communication styles to meet in the middle, or can we continue to have this rift in our language?
Sex, Culture or Both?
Is culture the primary source of sex differences in communication styles? Yes or no? I honestly think that sex and culture impact each other, when it comes to anything, especially communication. In the article, both Brizendine(yes) and Brenda(no) have good points in their arguments.
Brizendines overall point is, men and womens brains are different, therefore they work differently. I believe that our brains are different. You can see this by just looking at men and womens physical attributes, in general. I am not saying that one is better than the other but that we are different.
Brendas overall point is, your culture and socialization are the key impacts of communication. I believe this to be true as well. I find myself talking differently, depending on the person I am talking to and the context that I am in.
In all, I think that both have an impact. If I am with both a male and a female that I would consider the same culture as myself, I still speak to them differently. If they are male I tend to talk louder and deeper and vice versa if I am speaking to a female. Yes, I do know there are other variables but from my experiences this what I believe to be true.
Q1:If someone is transgender, how do they overcome their biological sex tendencies?
Q2:Do you have a personal experience in which you felt you said something in a certain way because of their gender? If so do you think it was a biological instinct or learned?
Brizendines overall point is, men and womens brains are different, therefore they work differently. I believe that our brains are different. You can see this by just looking at men and womens physical attributes, in general. I am not saying that one is better than the other but that we are different.
Brendas overall point is, your culture and socialization are the key impacts of communication. I believe this to be true as well. I find myself talking differently, depending on the person I am talking to and the context that I am in.
In all, I think that both have an impact. If I am with both a male and a female that I would consider the same culture as myself, I still speak to them differently. If they are male I tend to talk louder and deeper and vice versa if I am speaking to a female. Yes, I do know there are other variables but from my experiences this what I believe to be true.
Q1:If someone is transgender, how do they overcome their biological sex tendencies?
Q2:Do you have a personal experience in which you felt you said something in a certain way because of their gender? If so do you think it was a biological instinct or learned?
Issue 5
Are our communication styles biologically determined at birth or does socialization lead us to communicate in certain ways? Brizendine argues that our communication style is decided at birth, that because of biological differences men and women will talk differently. She says that male and female genetic coding is almost 100 percent the same, however the difference lies within the size of the brain. Males and females brains are distinguished at 8 weeks old when males experience a testosterone surge that kills of some cells in the communication centers and growing more cells in the sex and aggression centers. Whereas female brains grow more connections in the communication centers and areas that process emotion.
This biological difference can explain why communication styles are different, women are so affected by emotions that it can shape their realities, it leads them to be more caring, vulnerable and interested in building relationships. Whereas boys tend to use language to command others and get things done, they are task oriented, however biology can't be the only reason men and woman's communication styles are different, socialization is also to blame.
Social identity are aspects of a person's self image derived from the social categories to which an individual perceives themselves as belonging. These social worlds are divided into groups and then interpreted back to them within those social contexts. So we learn to communicate differently depending on what group we are in. Like Brizendine argues, Allen agrees that these differing communication styles begins at birth. What Allen says is that depending on your sex at birth you are given an identity which is reinforced over and over again and that typically leads to how one identifies themselves. I agree that we learn our communication styles based on social interactions within varying groups and we communicate with other people based on how that socialization has shaped us. So through interactions with others within a variety of social contexts, we become who we are and communication follows.
With these two arguments I can't say that I agree with one more than the other. I believe that our culture and our socialization are a huge part of who we are and it plays a role in many many aspects of our lives, however you can't ignore the biological facts. There is a reason why men and women are different and those reasons are due to many things. To pinpoint it to one category would be ignorant. Biology and socialization can help explain who we are and why we are the why we are, but it can't be limited to just that. We are a complex people and so should understanding and explaining it should be.
Q1) At what stage during pregnancy or birth do we start to see differences in males and females?
Q2) What other reasons are there to explain our communication styles?
This biological difference can explain why communication styles are different, women are so affected by emotions that it can shape their realities, it leads them to be more caring, vulnerable and interested in building relationships. Whereas boys tend to use language to command others and get things done, they are task oriented, however biology can't be the only reason men and woman's communication styles are different, socialization is also to blame.
Social identity are aspects of a person's self image derived from the social categories to which an individual perceives themselves as belonging. These social worlds are divided into groups and then interpreted back to them within those social contexts. So we learn to communicate differently depending on what group we are in. Like Brizendine argues, Allen agrees that these differing communication styles begins at birth. What Allen says is that depending on your sex at birth you are given an identity which is reinforced over and over again and that typically leads to how one identifies themselves. I agree that we learn our communication styles based on social interactions within varying groups and we communicate with other people based on how that socialization has shaped us. So through interactions with others within a variety of social contexts, we become who we are and communication follows.
With these two arguments I can't say that I agree with one more than the other. I believe that our culture and our socialization are a huge part of who we are and it plays a role in many many aspects of our lives, however you can't ignore the biological facts. There is a reason why men and women are different and those reasons are due to many things. To pinpoint it to one category would be ignorant. Biology and socialization can help explain who we are and why we are the why we are, but it can't be limited to just that. We are a complex people and so should understanding and explaining it should be.
Q1) At what stage during pregnancy or birth do we start to see differences in males and females?
Q2) What other reasons are there to explain our communication styles?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Sex, Hormones, and Communication Oh My!
Is the difference in communication styles ingrained into our heads at birth, or does it have to do with the social aspects of modern-day society? While this topic has been argued till the cows come home, both arguments make a compelling case. Brenda argues that ancient social factors are to blame. As the history of the human goes back to the caveman ages, men have communicated differently than women, and it's because of this tradition and social factors that they still do so today. This, however is contrary to what Louann believes, in that men and women are born with differences.
Findings have shown that both men and women have identical brains at birth, and this makes sense as all babies start off as female. A random increase in testosterone causes the communication cells of the brain to shrink, while the aggression and sex cells expand, turning the baby into a boy. This almost clearly states the men and women have different brains from the start. It's the same reason men are more apt at math and sciences; because their brain developed toward that direction before birth. As compelling as this is, I don't believe it's the main reason of difference in communication styles.
As young boys and girls turn into young men and women, their bodies start producing hormones. These hormones are enough to cause drastic mood swings and reactions to things that usually wouldn't cause a stir. While both sexes get these, women respond more drastically to different hormones, and thus respond differently to outside social factors. Society accepts the fact that this is "normal" and has already changed the way women are allowed to communicate.
Overall, there's some truth to both theories. Men and women are born with diffences in brains, but society and social media have also changed expectations of how both sexes are supposed to react toward one another. There will never really be a way to test this, unless an actual experiment was done that involved a man and a woman with no other outside interaction for the duration of there lives.
Questions:
1) How do hormones have an affect on each sex?
2) Is there really a way to prove either of the theories?
Findings have shown that both men and women have identical brains at birth, and this makes sense as all babies start off as female. A random increase in testosterone causes the communication cells of the brain to shrink, while the aggression and sex cells expand, turning the baby into a boy. This almost clearly states the men and women have different brains from the start. It's the same reason men are more apt at math and sciences; because their brain developed toward that direction before birth. As compelling as this is, I don't believe it's the main reason of difference in communication styles.
As young boys and girls turn into young men and women, their bodies start producing hormones. These hormones are enough to cause drastic mood swings and reactions to things that usually wouldn't cause a stir. While both sexes get these, women respond more drastically to different hormones, and thus respond differently to outside social factors. Society accepts the fact that this is "normal" and has already changed the way women are allowed to communicate.
Overall, there's some truth to both theories. Men and women are born with diffences in brains, but society and social media have also changed expectations of how both sexes are supposed to react toward one another. There will never really be a way to test this, unless an actual experiment was done that involved a man and a woman with no other outside interaction for the duration of there lives.
Questions:
1) How do hormones have an affect on each sex?
2) Is there really a way to prove either of the theories?
Zach Poss-2/18/11-Cultural Influence on Communication Styles
The fact that debate is entirely black and white, that one must choose a side in the determination of research results, speaks volumes as to why differences exist in the first place. As Brizendine pointed out in her opening argument, biological differences do exist between men and women and though subtle, though far outnumbered by the similarities, those differences can be profound. Brain size in men is proportionally larger to women’s, as are nearly every other organ in the human body, while a woman’s brain is more dense than men’s. Brizendine also points out that men and women typically use different areas of the brain in communicating the same thoughts, feelings, and ideas as well as in problem solving situations. However, Brizendine offers no concrete evidence that empirically supports exactly what effects the biological differences in the brain have on communication styles. Though men and women use different areas of the brain to solve problems, there is no research presented that describes the effects of using the different areas on communication style, or on any other facet of identity for that matter. She instead focuses her attention on the incredible effect of hormones on women. She states that hormones enlarge the communication center of the brain and therefore, women use more words that men, more quickly than men. It is obvious to her then, that the reason men become violent due to the frustration at being unable to match women’s abilities with words. Also, due to the fact that women love to talk so much, the level of pleasure chemicals excreted by the brain during communication makes that activity the next best thing to sex for them! To Brizendine, women are instinctually passive and shut down to avoid conflict as much as men try to push for it, and therefore women are physically unable to control their emotions, which is why their brain freaks out when put in these situations. While I agree that the numerous differences that exist between the sexes probably account for some differences in communication style, and while I do agree with her portrayal of women as crazy (men are just as crazy to women, I’m sure), she is overly eccentric in her belief in hormones to say the least.
Brenda Allen, however, fully supports the idea that differences are entirely culturally based. I agree with her points that treatment of people is defined by the social categorization every person receives at birth, that messages given to shape identity is biased largely by perceived gender stereotypes. This idea of essentialism, that stereotypes are given and hegemonized is definitely legitimate, as is the fact that such identities are subject to change over time, that this hegemony can be overcome. However, Allen also argues that the English language is discriminatory based on the fact that, to her mind, there are more insults to describe women than there are for men. She states that women use passive expressions innately, rather than for typically dealing with more aggressive people or out of politeness. Evidence is even given that the communication differences are entirely situational which seems to conflict with the idea that differences exist at all. Furthermore, any insight I may have on the situation, of not being empathetic to her viewpoint is disregarded as I would be considered “privileged.” Overall, I feel like both women presented poorly constructed arguments, but that parts of both are legitimate. Some differences exist between men and women, and some of those differences are biological while some are cultural.
How much is the difference in communication styles is accounted for by dealing with persons of a different (passive vs. aggressive) personality? Are women typically more passive and just varying their style of communication to placate the typically more aggressive males and to be polite to other females?
Brenda Allen, however, fully supports the idea that differences are entirely culturally based. I agree with her points that treatment of people is defined by the social categorization every person receives at birth, that messages given to shape identity is biased largely by perceived gender stereotypes. This idea of essentialism, that stereotypes are given and hegemonized is definitely legitimate, as is the fact that such identities are subject to change over time, that this hegemony can be overcome. However, Allen also argues that the English language is discriminatory based on the fact that, to her mind, there are more insults to describe women than there are for men. She states that women use passive expressions innately, rather than for typically dealing with more aggressive people or out of politeness. Evidence is even given that the communication differences are entirely situational which seems to conflict with the idea that differences exist at all. Furthermore, any insight I may have on the situation, of not being empathetic to her viewpoint is disregarded as I would be considered “privileged.” Overall, I feel like both women presented poorly constructed arguments, but that parts of both are legitimate. Some differences exist between men and women, and some of those differences are biological while some are cultural.
How much is the difference in communication styles is accounted for by dealing with persons of a different (passive vs. aggressive) personality? Are women typically more passive and just varying their style of communication to placate the typically more aggressive males and to be polite to other females?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Biological or Social Differences
Since I have just finished constructing an argument for biological differences I suppose that is the stance I should take. I take this stance, not with shame or humiliation, but with an understanding of the argument that goes with it.
I'm going to assume that everyone read the case and understands that this argument does not mean that women cannot do these tasks. It simply means that men are predisposed to the fields of math and science, and that predisposition comes from a biological difference rather than a social one.
First, we know that there are places biologically that these differences could originate. Receptors for hormones on the brain and the cerebral cortex are one possibility. Steven Pinker says there are also many other differences between female and male brains including size, density of cortical neurons, degree of cortical asymmetry and the size of the hypothalamic nuclei.
We know that male and female behavioral differences are biological rather than societal for a number of reasons. If we analyze the John/Joan case we know that he continued to show male behavior patterns even though society knew him and treated him as a girl. We also could consider the universality of male tendencies to be competitive, and female tendencies to be nurturing.
These differences are only relevant when put into the context of math and science learning, but as Pinker pointed out studies have been done that show males performing better in "mental rotation, spatial perception and spatial visualization." These three skills have factored heavily into many scientists breakthroughs.
To look at all this valuable data and still say that there is no biological component is simply absurd.
However, despite this argument I still believe we should not change our education system to reflect these tendencies. After all, what if the person that invents the cure of cancer is a woman. She had the motivation and the drive to overcome the biological difference, and for us to say that she should not go into the field simply because she is biologically not the perfect person to go into the field would be a terribly huge mistake. Women are capable of doing just as well as men in these fields, even surpassing men, but to do so they are having to overcome a biological hurdle.
Blog #2 Math and Science
I personally do not think that men are more predisposed for math and science. Yes I know the statistics show that more men are in the math and science fields, but I think that women have just as much capacity and ability to as men do. However, I feel that with societies pressures and norms, more women don't tend to go towards the science and math career fields because they will be looked at as sort of an "outcast" or a deviant from the norm.
I feel that women are as capable as men to do careers dealing with math and science. For instance, I know a few women who are chemistry or biology or even biochemistry majors, they are very intelligent women who I believe will go a long ways in their career aspirations. But we all can say we have done it, when we talk to somebody or ask them what their major is and if they are a female and say biochemistry, we think wow, are you crazy. But truthfully, we are the crazy ones for even having that thought in our heads. women can do just as much as men and I think any woman who wants to be a biochemist or a rocket scientist should. It is just sad that women tend to shy away from those fields because of the norms, and the same goes for men, they tend to shy away from the women professions like nursing, secretariat work etc.
I feel that women are as capable as men to do careers dealing with math and science. For instance, I know a few women who are chemistry or biology or even biochemistry majors, they are very intelligent women who I believe will go a long ways in their career aspirations. But we all can say we have done it, when we talk to somebody or ask them what their major is and if they are a female and say biochemistry, we think wow, are you crazy. But truthfully, we are the crazy ones for even having that thought in our heads. women can do just as much as men and I think any woman who wants to be a biochemist or a rocket scientist should. It is just sad that women tend to shy away from those fields because of the norms, and the same goes for men, they tend to shy away from the women professions like nursing, secretariat work etc.
Math and Science
When it comes to the discussion of the difference in the cognitive abilities of men and women in the field of math and science many things come to mind, but when it all comes down to it i can truely see both sides of the arguement. Here is why, it has been shown though many studies show that men have more of a natural abalitiy when it comes to math reasoning. Many people believe that men are extremely overrepresented at the highest level in math and science careers.
It all begins early on in preschool as well as elementary school, men and women prove to provide equal test scores all the way through college. While on another note, many scholars tend to believe that society tends to "dumb" women down to fit gender roles as early on as 3rd grade. Men and women have proven in studies across all species that we communicate differently both verbally and non verbally. Women have been shown to be able to handle verbal tasks better, as well as they show better memory, while mastering verbal fluency and articulation.
Q1: What area of study will the next female breakthrough be in math and science?
Q2: Why, if at all? Do men have the upper hand in the math field more than the science field?
It all begins early on in preschool as well as elementary school, men and women prove to provide equal test scores all the way through college. While on another note, many scholars tend to believe that society tends to "dumb" women down to fit gender roles as early on as 3rd grade. Men and women have proven in studies across all species that we communicate differently both verbally and non verbally. Women have been shown to be able to handle verbal tasks better, as well as they show better memory, while mastering verbal fluency and articulation.
Q1: What area of study will the next female breakthrough be in math and science?
Q2: Why, if at all? Do men have the upper hand in the math field more than the science field?
Societal Pressure on Careers
I think both Pinker and Spelke present good arguments. I can not choose just one side to support, but I lean a more towards Spelke. I believe differences in math and science, as well as other areas of study or intellect, can be attributed to biological differences and socialization. First of all, many studies have shown that men are better at some aspects of math while women are better than others. It's great to hear that both men and women excel in certain areas, as to not simply say, "men are better at math, period." If men and women both excel in certain areas, women have similar grades to men (if not better) throughout high school and college, women graduate with more bachelor degrees in those areas, then why don't we see women in related careers? I believe that question has to do with socialization and the gender pressures we face every day. Women may feel the pressure to care for a family and not pursue careers. Men are typically pressured by society to focus on a career. Our society puts these pressure on men and women, but these pressures have lessened recently. More men are the caretakers of families, while more women are focusing on careers before family. The study about the professors who were biased against the applicant when they thought it was a woman proved how society has influenced our minds. Those professors weren't trying to discriminate. But they have been raised in a society that sends the message that a man would be the best option for a science or math position. Hopefully the future will provide the answer to whether differences in math or science are biological. As I stated before, I believe there are some biological reasons for the difference. But, if women have more careers in math and science in the future, I think it is a representation of the changing views of society. And it's off to a good start as women are taking more and more jobs in math and science.
Have you caught yourself being surprised or impressed by a woman engineer or a male nurse (or any other occupation that is dominated by a particular gender)?
Have you been pressured throughout your life to take up a certain career? Or discouraged from something because few of your gender have taken that path?
Have you caught yourself being surprised or impressed by a woman engineer or a male nurse (or any other occupation that is dominated by a particular gender)?
Have you been pressured throughout your life to take up a certain career? Or discouraged from something because few of your gender have taken that path?
It's just science.
I thought both side had convincing arguments, but I'm going to side with Steven and say yes there is a biological difference. I touched on this on my last blog post. It's a way that men and women have evolved since our times of a society of hunter/gatherer. There have been many tests where it shows that men and women are wired different. Our brains, for example, have different areas that has developed more then others. Men tend to use more of their left side of their brains where as women tend to use both hemisphere equally. Which would explain that more women tend to multi-task better then men. Yes it's true that men have larger brains then women, but most scientists agree that there is no evidence that the size difference makes men smarter.
With that being said, there have been many tests that show that men are better at mathematical and spacial reasoning then women. In most men's brain the IPL (Inferior Partial Lobule) is larger. This has been proven with MRI and brainwave scans. Women have a more developed language center and tend to process language in both hemisphere of their brains. Another thing that sets us apart is that men tend to deal with stress in a more rational state then women. When we're both introduced to stress our brain releases a chemical/hormone called oxytocin. Estrogen tends to enhance it's effects, while testosterone will help negate a lot of the effects. Women also have a larger Deep Limbic System, and are much more in tune with their emotions then men. I'm not saying that women are inferior then men or vice versa, but I am saying that we are biologically different and it does play into how we process information.
Now Elizabeth Spelke brings up a great counter argument to Stephen's argument, "But the question on the table is not, Are there biological sex differences? The question is, Why are there fewer women mathematicians and scientists?" (Pg. 60) I think that the two are intertwined with one another. To get at the actual root of the question you have to look into the science behind the answers. It gives us another outlook then just trying to prove our point with only hearsay. Now I do believe there is a huge discrimination in these fields against women. Is it all justified? No. Over the course of the last 50 years women are becoming more educated in these fields. It also helps that we're still evolving and with the introduction of a math and sciences to women the differences will eventually disappear. The brain in an interesting organ. It's constantly adapting and changing, and we pass on those traits to our children. Dr. Melissa Hines did a gender study that involved monkeys. It showed that the male monkeys prefer the mechanical (boy) toys and the female monkey's preferred the dolls. It's because our brains are hardwired that way.
"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science." - Ron Burgundy
Questions
1) Do you think that we as a species is still evolving?
2) Do you think that women will ever dominate the math and science fields?
With that being said, there have been many tests that show that men are better at mathematical and spacial reasoning then women. In most men's brain the IPL (Inferior Partial Lobule) is larger. This has been proven with MRI and brainwave scans. Women have a more developed language center and tend to process language in both hemisphere of their brains. Another thing that sets us apart is that men tend to deal with stress in a more rational state then women. When we're both introduced to stress our brain releases a chemical/hormone called oxytocin. Estrogen tends to enhance it's effects, while testosterone will help negate a lot of the effects. Women also have a larger Deep Limbic System, and are much more in tune with their emotions then men. I'm not saying that women are inferior then men or vice versa, but I am saying that we are biologically different and it does play into how we process information.
Now Elizabeth Spelke brings up a great counter argument to Stephen's argument, "But the question on the table is not, Are there biological sex differences? The question is, Why are there fewer women mathematicians and scientists?" (Pg. 60) I think that the two are intertwined with one another. To get at the actual root of the question you have to look into the science behind the answers. It gives us another outlook then just trying to prove our point with only hearsay. Now I do believe there is a huge discrimination in these fields against women. Is it all justified? No. Over the course of the last 50 years women are becoming more educated in these fields. It also helps that we're still evolving and with the introduction of a math and sciences to women the differences will eventually disappear. The brain in an interesting organ. It's constantly adapting and changing, and we pass on those traits to our children. Dr. Melissa Hines did a gender study that involved monkeys. It showed that the male monkeys prefer the mechanical (boy) toys and the female monkey's preferred the dolls. It's because our brains are hardwired that way.
"I'm a man who discovered the wheel and built the Eiffel Tower out of metal and brawn. That's what kind of man I am. You're just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It's science." - Ron Burgundy
Questions
1) Do you think that we as a species is still evolving?
2) Do you think that women will ever dominate the math and science fields?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)