Category: Gender Differences

In the Netflix series 13 Reasons Why, the main character Hannah Baker violently completes suicide after experiencing bullying and sexual assault. She leaves seven cassette tapes of the 13 reasons why she completes suicide. The Netflix series received significant backlash from the mental health community for its graphic and sensationalized treatment of suicide. The controversy that followed the airing of the film made me think about various motives that cause people to take such dramatic action. A common belief of the clinical community links more violent suicides with motives of revenge and feelings of anger. In this paper, I will be investigating the empirical evidence of whether the means of suicide provide an indication of the motives responsible for the act. Can we infer motives from the selection of means? I will also be addressing to what degree suicide notes offer insight into motives.

There are 12 common methods for completing suicide. These 12 methods include self-poisoning by psychotropic drugs, self-poisoning by other drugs, self-poisoning by other means, hanging/suffocation, electrocution, strangling, car crash, drowning/submersion, firearms, being overrun, stabbing by sharp instruments, and jumping from high places.

Recently, the internet has been used to provide options for those experiencing suicidal ideation. These individuals search methods to complete suicide. “Correlations were conducted between Google search frequencies and the number of suicides for all suicide methods and gassing suicides stratified by gender and age” (Paul, 2017, p. 3). Female suicides in Germany increased between 2007 and 2015. These females were between the ages of 25 and 44. In 2007 from 2015 there was also an increase in self-poisoning due to gases. Google searches of self-poising were found to be correlated with gassing methods. These methods included helium, argon, and nitrate. Gassing methods were statistically significant in young males and older women. Males on average, were 25 years of age or older, and females were 65 years of age or younger. Recent years have shown a sudden rise in gassing methods used to complete suicide in European countries (Paul, 2017).

Statistically, men write more suicide notes than women. Men are also more likely to use more lethal methods than women. One perspective suggests women should own firearms for protection. Therefore, women may consider more lethal methods when completing suicide. Callanan notes, studies have shown that suicide risk is linked with a higher number of firearms in an individuals home. Typically, more men own firearms. Men are most likely to use firearms to complete suicide; whereas women are more likely to attempt suicide, and they typically use methods that involve poisoning. Usually, there is a greater chance of rescuing those who attempt suicide by poison. A common belief about those who use less lethal methods is that it is a cry for help. However, “a psychological autopsy of 141 male and female suicide victims found no gender differences in intent to die” (Callanan, 2012, p. 858). Thus, a third explanation suggests women are more likely to use poisoning methods so they do not disfigure their faces. It is hard to test this claim directly, but it would follow societal influences on female appearance.

There were 621 confirmed suicides in this study. Race was examined in this study, as “More than 90% of suicide victims in [the] sample were white” (Callanan, 2012 p. 861). Significantly, more men died by suicide. Only 141 women completed suicide. The most common method used in this study was firearms. In the article “Content differences,” Lester found that those who used guns as a method to kill themselves expressed less sadness in suicide notes. On the contrary, those who used gases as well as those who used solid and liquid methods expressed more sadness written in their notes. The word “down” was used more frequently when notes written by those who completed suicide using self-poisoning methods. Notes written by women were more about positive emotions and significant others. These notes were also more “present-oriented.” Notes written by women were more likely to use “we” pronouns (Lester, 2010).

More often Women are diagnosed with depression and mood disorders. Depression is diagnosed more frequently in first-world countries. Suicide is declining in other first-world countries; however, suicide rates are rising in the United States. Strong individualism is suggested to play a role in suicidal behavior. The United States has less social and economic support. This fact may suggest why it has a high suicide rate. United States citizens participate in riskier behaviors such as overeating and gun violence. “[Social Media and pop culture] can exacerbate bullying, romanticize suicide, and provide harmful content about suicide methods, says Deborah Stone of the US Centers for Disease Control” (Caghlan, 2018). For instance, 13 Reasons why received significant backlash for romanticizing suicide. This graphic content leaves viewers at risk for suicidal contagion and “downplays the cognitive distortions of depression [and other risk factors for suicide]” (Jacobson, 2017). This series gives the message that suicide is an acceptable and logical decision in cases of revenge, a fact which leads me to my initial question of whether the means predict the motive. In the series 13 reasons why, Hannah Baker’s suicide would be categorized as both bloody and messy. Based on her cassette tapes, it seems as if her motives and reason for suicide completion are rooted in feelings of anger and revenge. Suicide notes (and in Hannah Baker’s case, “cassette tapes”) display the genuine feelings of those who are suicidal (Caghlan, 2018).

Suicide notes gives families and researchers the chance to interpret the motives. Notes are reflective of how those individuals feel before completing suicide. Thirteen studies were reviewed, and there were no significant differences between suicide note-writers and non-writers. There have been inconsistent findings. For example, some studies found that older people were more likely to leave a note whereas other studies found that “younger people were more likely to do so” (Cheung 2015). However, Cheung’s study has found that people who complete suicide are more likely to live alone. In the research report “Late-Life suicide”, 94% of those who completed suicide, left a note behind. The individuals who left notes were more likely to be white and female. They were also more likely to use less violent methods. Non-violent methods include, poisoning, overdoses, and carbon monoxide inhalation (Cheung 2015).

Sixteen of these people addressed their notes to their family and friends. Notes were grouped into three categories. These three categories include apologies, appreciation or final goodbyes and anger. Anger was usually expressed towards a significant other. In this research report, suicides were completed due to illness, poor quality of life, and the inability to function independently. This study may not generalize to the population because it only assesses those who complete suicide later in life.

According to Osman, anger is a major risk factor for suicidal behavior. Four studies were conducted to develop and cross-validate scores. In these studies, The Suicide Anger Expression Inventory-28 (SAEI-28) was used to evaluate suicide rumination, maladaptive expression, reactive distress and adaptive expression. There was a moderate to significant correlation between suicidal behavior and rumination. Maladaptive expression, or negative behavior patterns were linked with higher levels of aggressive and impulsive behavior. Adaptive expression is associated negatively with suicidal ideation. The more an individual expresses his or her thoughts and feelings the less suicidal behavior they exhibit. Suicidal behavior is moderately correlated with reactive distress. Reactive distress is “negative beliefs about circumstances or consequences” (Osman 2010). Reactive distress can also be referred to as internalized anger. Reactive distress, or internalized anger, is also associated with a lack of social support and self-esteem. Clinically referred youths who have attempted suicide are more likely to express higher levels of aggression and hostility. Depression, impulsivity, hopelessness, and management of negative feelings are psychological constructs that were correlated with suicidal behavior (Osman 2010).

International data shows that those under 25 die by suicide. Suicide is a leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults. Suicide is ten times higher among those who self-harm. Samples were drawn from two psychiatric hospitals. Subjects were only eligible if they had attempted suicide between the ages of 15 and 25. Subjects were interviewed about their experience and emotions before and after their suicide attempt. There were five common themes by those who attempted suicide. The first theme was negative emotions towards themselves. The second theme was a lack of control over their lives. The third theme was “perceived impasse in family and peer relationships” (Orri 2014). The fourth theme was communication, and the fifth theme was revenge.

In the first theme “negative emotions towards the self”, participants stated that they devalued themselves. Shame and guilt were feelings most frequently reported. Typical symptoms of depression were “loneliness and loss of meaning in their lives”(Orri 2014). Suicide was seen as a choice of salvation to free themselves of feeling trapped in their negative emotions.

The second theme was a need to have control over their lives. In the first theme, participants mentioned feeling entrapped in their lives. Nearly half of the adolescent participants cut themselves. Cutting was used as a mechanism to exert a false sense of control over their lives. The participants who felt a lack of control in their lives described experiencing feelings of anger. Participants who self-harm may provide insight for future research on anger and self-harm, as well as, anger and suicide.

The third theme is “perceived impasse in interpersonal relationships”. Participants felt a lack of acceptance by their families and “described rigid and overwhelming family dynamics” (Orri 2014). The fourth theme is labeled as “communication.” These participants did not have healthy interpersonal communication.

The fifth theme is “revenge”. Orri notes “Several adolescents explained the aggressiveness of their act as a way to make other people feel guilty” (2014). Essentially, revenge is the plot of 13 reasons why. Hannah Baker violently completes suicide, and she blames other people for her decision in the seven cassette tapes she leaves behind. This study concludes that “revenge assumes a particular role that appears to have been neglected by both clinicians and researchers until now, and further research should address this issue” (Orri 2014). Unfortunately, this study does not mention the methods participants used to attempt suicide. However, Orri does provide evidence that motives can be driven by feelings of anger and revenge.

Violent suicide attempts include hanging, firearms, car crashes and electrocution. Violent suicides are three to four times more prominent in men. Ludwig’s notes that in the study Personality organization in borderline patients they “found that patients with a history of suicide attempts had higher aggression scores. The study also assessed “anger, aggressions and temperament via several interview inventories they tried to associate these traits with violent/non-violent suicide attempts, but no significant correlation was found” (Ludwig). In the study Baus chose 71 patients from an outpatient unit. These participants were between the ages of 18-60. There were 68 patients diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. According to Baus, aggression is a primary personality trait in those with borderline personality disorder. Violent behavior and suicide were significantly associated as well as violent behavior and self-harm. However, the person’s emotional state is not associated with how violent the suicide was (Baus 2014).

In conclusion, the reasons people complete suicide are not indicative of how violently they carry out the act. However, there is little research on the link between violent suicides and feelings of anger and revenge. Future research may contradict current research. For now, it is safe to conclude that motives do not determine means. Unlike what is portrayed in the media, evidence contradicts the common belief that violent suicides are linked to feelings of anger and revenge. Violence and blood mess do not signify any specific emotion or reveal state of mind.

Masculinity is an expression of traits that are generally exhibited by men. Society has a strict view of masculinity, thereby causing men being expected to display strength, confidence, ambition, leadership and similar traits. Masculinity is typically described in three main ways; healthy, toxic, and hyper masculinity. Healthy masculinity has a positive impact on a man and society, toxic masculinity has a negative impact on a man and society and hyper masculinity is an extreme expression of toxic masculinity.

Healthy masculinity is an expression of being a man that has a positive impact on a man and society. Healthy masculinity is based on a man’s mental, social and physical well-being. A man who exhibits healthy masculinity mentally will maintain their mental health and develop and maintain his sense of self through spirituality or religion. A man who exhibits healthy masculinity socially will work to develop and maintain healthy relationships with people. He would not exude those traits to enforce dominance over others. Men are expected to have strength therefore men who exhibits healthy masculinity physically will consistently exercise and eat a nutritious diet to maintain their physical strength. This helps society when physical strength is needed to solve problems like helping a neighbor remove a fallen tree after a storm or helping someone push his or her broken car off the road.

Toxic masculinity is an expression of being a man that has a negative impact on a man and society. Toxic masculinity is based on the idea that a man should always display strength no matter how it affects a man’s well-being or the well-being of the people a man interacts with. This leads to men holding in their emotions, being reluctant to ask for help, and abusing sex with women.

The emotions of sadness and fear are typically suppressed in men because sadness and fear portray lack of strength in men. According to Weiss, “patriarchal beliefs/toxic masculinity create contexts insisting boys/men not show emotion.” When people display sadness, they may express sadness by crying. When people cry, they display to everyone around them that something is deeply affecting them. Men do not want their tears to show because they do not want their feelings to show a sign of weakness to others. When people show fear in a situation, they demonstrate to everyone around that they are worried about something bad, or they do not have courage in their situation. Men do not want to fear to show that they are not strong enough to face the situation they are in. Also, it is important to not conceal emotions because holding in emotions can lead to stress which takes a toll on a person’s body.

Another product of toxic masculinity is men being reluctant to ask for help. Men can interpret help as a sign of weakness because they cannot solve their problems on their own which shows lack of strength. Help is necessary for humans. Ever since we were born, we needed help from our parents, family, and community to survive everyday life and grow as a person. For example, when a baby is born, the baby is dependent on the help it receives from its parents for food, shelter, and cleanliness. Another example of not asking for help that has a negative impact on men is men not seeking mental health resources. According to Weiss, “Mental health stigma and toxic masculinity make it extremely difficult for men to acknowledge that they need help or seek it out.” Reluctance to help can be detrimental to a person’s mental health which can lead to damaging consequences to a person and the people him or her interacts with on a daily basis.

One of the most devasting effects of toxic masculinity is how it leads men to abuse sex with women. Toxic masculinity perpetuates the notion of sex increasing a man’s value. This leads to men seeking out sex for status. A consequence of this is men engaging in rape. Men can overwhelm women with their strength and rape to seek out sex. Toxic masculinity can also encourage unhealthy sexual relations. For example, there was an inappropriate sexual relationship between a teacher and her 13-year-old student (O’Malley 5). According to O’ Malley, “not surprisingly, comment after comment about this story follows the same pattern: “hot for a teacher”, “I wish I could go back to high school”, and “lucky son of a b*tch.” The comments from this incident endorsed the relationship even though the boy was not old enough for a sexual relationship and the teacher was out of line for having sexual relations with boy.

Hyper masculinity is an extreme expression of toxic masculinity. Hyper masculinity takes toxic masculinity to a higher level which leads to devastating outcomes to society. An example of this can be drawn from the rape case of Brock Allen Turner (O’ Malley). This case highlights a combination of hypermasculinity with white male privilege. Brock Tuner was arrested for raping an intoxicated woman (O’ Malley). The judge in the case “sentenced him to six months in a county jail” because “a prison sentence would have had a severe impact on him (O’Malley).” Brock Tuner’s father had the audacity to write a letter of how the consequences of his son’s actions were too harsh and negatively affected Brock even though he raped a woman. (O’Malley). In his letter he stated, “That is a steep price to pay for 20 minutes of action (O’ Malley).” Rape is one of the most catastrophic actions a person can do upon another. Victims of rape suffer for years with psychological damage. It is unfortunate how hyper masculinity influenced the judge and Tuner’s father causing them to dismiss the brutality of the rape and how it negatively affected the victim in order to help save Tuner from consequences of his action.

Toxic masculinity is very harmful for both men and women. For men, toxic masculinity causes unnecessary stress on men. Toxic masculinity causes men to internalize their emotions which leads to stress. It causes men to be reluctant to ask for help. Help can destress many different types of situations. Also, toxic masculinity can put pressure on men to have a muscular body and be pressured to have sex with women. For women, toxic masculinity makes women vulnerable. Men can be inclined to assert dominance over women to show their strength. In addition, toxic masculinity also objectifies women as sexual objects and adds fuel to rape culture.

Feminism can be useful in fighting toxic masculinity. In essence, feminism is equality and equity for all the sexes. This would lead to certain traits to not define a particular sex. Toxic masculinity influences men to stay away from displaying traits stereotypically depicted by women. Men would be able to express any trait without worrying about their manhood being challenged. Also, men would be able to show their emotions or ask for help without the judgement of toxic masculinity.

In conclusion, healthy masculinity has a positive impact on a man and society. Toxic masculinity has a negative impact on a man and society. Hyper masculinity is an extreme expression of masculinity. Toxic masculinity is very harmful for both men and women. Feminism can be useful in fighting toxic masculinity. Ultimately, masculinity is not always bad. When used properly, masculine traits balance feminine traits and vice-versa. What is bad is when toxic and hypermasculinity negatively affect society. Toxic masculinity and hypermasculinity need to be combated for the benefit of society.

Over the past two decades hegemonic masculinity has had a tremendous smash upon gender studies especially in the social sciences. Hegemonic masculinity was distinguished by negatives such as toughness, aggressiveness, excessive risk taking and emotional illiteracy. When we talked about structural violence, we found perception, suppression and pain because of structural violence relationships, such as the civil, social and economic relations of public policy. It guides us together in a single abstraction issues as multiple poverty and income inequality, inadmissible living and unacceptable economic and trade policies that doesn’t help the communities. Instead they feel like this institutionalized is a form of discernment, rejection of civil rights, sickness, or disability caused by inaccessible health care, and as a resulted from confrontation and extermination, and for this controversy, likelihood of liability to crime and insecurity of crime. Hegemonic masculinity is an application of structural violence that was separate directly from the people, and it is part of a wider technique and procedure in which act upon people, communities, and the nation. (“Center for Crime and Justice Studies, Langley Lane, Vauxhall 2009”).

Throughout history, social roles have always been clearly seen and present. One of the most important roles in the society is that of gender roles. The gender roles were defined as social roles assigned to each sex, and those roles be represented as masculine and feminine. The gender roles always earned early in a person’s childhood throughout their lives. The gender roles of a person are normally taught by their parents, family members and friends. The society always wants the child to find their sex at a young age, such as, if they want to use the restroom or do certain things, they should know how to identify themselves. (‘Gender and Sexuality class PowerPoint 2018 ‘).

When a baby is born, gender socialization always takes place. The Parents dress a male baby in blue and a female baby in pink even know years ago it was the opposite of that. When the girls are young, they are given Babies, and taught to play House. But, when the boys are young, they are given a toy truck, and we taught to play a sport that goes with their gender, like basketball, baseball, and soccer. For some parents by age of two, they started talking to their children and give them a better understanding of what their gender is. Years ago, as a woman your job in the house was to take care of your children’s and take care of the house while your husband is always at work. Recent legislation has slightly reduced the binds of gender roles, like allowing women to vote and enjoy the same rights as men for the most part. Gender roles are still very much present in today world, but those roles are maybe starting to blur in a slender way. (‘Gender and Sexuality class discussion and PowerPoint’).

Women are started becoming more widely accepted in professions that are masculine such as doctor rather than a nurse or a lawyer, engineer. Although, women’s expansion in the workforce is evident, there is still a hard time knowing that women must face that men do not. Even if women can occupy the same job as a man, her paycheck is generally less even though they have the same degree and they are doing the same job. Over the years there are many decisions some politicians made when it’s a comes to the laws to help level the playing field for women, but even the laws cannot fully make the best decision on these issues. (Coy, Peter, and Elizabeth ‘Bloomberg Business week Politics and Policy June 2012’).

During half of the 19th century in the United States of America they had a characteristic of masculinity such as heterosexuality, occupational achievement, physical force, control and familial patriarchy. We discovered masculinity by defining power in force and control, because we think that men are more naturally mature, and they have physical body more than women. When they see a baby boy, they always say he’s a strong boy, because we used the man body to represent power and that’s why they always on top of everything. In my realization I feel like that how inequality come up in this subject. We as a woman feel like we can never do what men does, but throughout the past years I started to see a changed. I feel so proud because the society started to see and analyzed things differently for the better. (‘Regulating the Action class PowerPoint’).

Before explaining variances between genders, it is essential to differentiate between the terms gender and sex. The terms sex and gender had been used interchangeably for centuries. In 1949 a French author, Simone de Beauvoir in her book (The second sex) defined the terms sex and gender differences. She mentioned, “One is not born, but becomes a woman” (as cited in Butler, 1986, p.35). Generally, a person’s sex is determined by his/her biological and genetic state. Males and females are both born with the same 46 chromosomes except for the fact that a pair of sex chromosomes differ in males and females. A pair of XX sex chromosomes determine a female’s sex, while a pair of XY sex chromosomes define a male’s gender (Butler, 1986). However, gender refers to the social and cultural state of each sex in society. The concept of gender is mostly defined by those behaviors, personality traits, and social positions that society attributes to being female or male (Butler, 1986). A person’s sex assigned at birth may not always correspond with his/ her gender in this case the person is known as transgender (Butler, 1986). Transgender people may bear with male sex chromosomes but their characters, social interactions, and other gender identities work like a female or vice versa.

Gender differences have been the subject of research in psychology and other fields for several years. These studies show that despite significant biological dissimilarities men and women tend to display different behaviors. To avoid conflict and misunderstanding in social interactions it is essential for every individual to know each gender’s natural and cognitive differences and be able to treat people based on their natural differences. This research paper describes gender differences in personality, communication style, and brain based on scientific research.

Empirical experiments and surveys demonstrate that men and women typically display different personalities. Psychological “studies consistently reveal that males are more aggressive than females both physically and verbally” (Parkash & Flores, 1985, p.2). The reason behind males’ aggressive personalities can be cultural aspects. From an early age male aggression is considered completely normal, whereas girls are trained to think, “They may not behave in certain ways and directly punished for aggressive behavior, that actively discourages them from displaying aggression” (Parkash & Flores, 1985, p.2). Psychologically, this trend encourages males to act more aggressively than females. Moreover, from a biological perspective, the level of testosterone (a hormone that activates the subcortical areas of the brain to produce aggression) in males is higher than in females which makes men behave more aggressively (Zaidi, 2010). In general, women are more likely to avoid hostility and conflict than men. “More women value the development of altruistic, reciprocal relationships, which by definition require empathizing. In contrast, more men value power, politics, and competition” (Zaidi, 2010, p.7). Therefore, men can be referred to as tough-minded, risk-prone, and assertive gender, while women as agreeable, altruistic, and warm gender.

Individuals’ behaviors are highly influenced by their ability to handle or express their emotions. The concept of emotion simply indicates the extent to which one expresses anger, joy, fear, disgust, and sadness. Psychologically men and women present dissimilar emotions. Research studies indicate that “women usually experience a higher level of emotions, in particular, positive emotions and internalizing negative emotions such as sadness and anxiety”; for instance, mothers tend to express emotions that are more positive and make the family delighted rather than negative and sad feelings (Guidice, 2015, p. 752). Men in contrast, “express greater levels of anger than women” (Guidice, 2015, p. 257). Because anger is referred to as masculine behavior, men easily express their anger and even use physical violence when they are angry. A research finding shows that people tend to present different levels of emotions when they are in public. Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) experimental study shows that women were unlikely to demonstrate their anger in others’ presence; however, in solitary state women express the same level of anger as men (as cited in Parkash & Flores, 1985). Men, on the other hand, expressed an indifferent level of anger in both circumstances (Parkash & Flores, 1985). Overall, women are emotionally unstable, while men are cold-hearted and emotionally stable.

Men and women vary in verbal and nonverbal communication. Giudice (2015) states in his article that, “females enjoy a general advantage in communication skills, both in the verbal domain and in the production and decoding of nonverbal displays” (p.6). In fact, men use only the left hemisphere of their brain while communicating; yet, female brains function more efficiently by engaging “emotions and feelings to aid the productivity of their language” (Zaidi, 2010, p.7). Therefore, women perform better in communication and verbal fluency tasks. It can be a reason for occupying females for jobs that require verbal and articulating skills such as meeting planners, secretaries, and teaching positions. Men in contrast, usually communicate efficiently, direct, and based on a clear purpose (Giudice, 2015). Though women happen to ask a lot of questions, men are more likely to solve problems. As a matter of fact, women are more interested in analyzing a problem rather than solving that. Overall, “males tend to communicate more assertively”, and direct, while females tend to speak more “affiliative” and descriptively. (Giudice, 2015, p.754). Despite, all these differences in male and female communication styles, each of them is equally advantageous and useful in its own way. Sometimes it is necessary to speak clearly, directly, and to the point; however, other times we may need to analyze things with details.

Gestures and body language convey half of the message throughout the communication. Men and women tend to covey different meanings when they use nonverbal language. For example, eye aversion seems perfectly common for men, though for women eye aversion simply shows disrespect and less attention (Guidice, 2015). Men rarely make eye contact, and long-lasting eye contact conveys the message of hostility and opposition, while it is usual for women to keep eye contact until the end of the conversation (Guidice, 2015). In a discussion, women nod just to show that they listen and pay attention to the speaker whether they agree or disagree. Men, in contrast, nod only if they agree (Guidice, 2015). Moreover, women not only use a lot of facial expressions but also can understand them better than men (Guidice, 2015). According to Wingenbach studies women show and determine facial emotions faster and more accurately than men (as cited in Guidice, 2015). Thus, while communicating with men and women these differences have to be considered.

Psychological researches indicate significant gender differences in lying behavior. Jung and Vranceanu (2017) exercised an ultimatum game experiment to investigate lying behavior in men and women. This experiment examined pairs of (woman, woman), (woman, man), and (man, man). The findings of this study suggest that men tend to state the largest lies when paired with women; however, the frequency of lying is similar in mixed groups compared to homogenous groups. On average, whatever the gender of the partner is, the amount of lies submitted by men is higher than the number of lies submitted by women. In general, women are more prone than men to state an “altruistic white lie,” causing a loss for themselves for the benefit of the receivers; however, men tend to tell selfish lies more often than women do.

“The male and the female brains show functional and biochemical differences in all stages of life” (Zaidi, 2010, p.1). Varieties of studies confirm that male brains are about 10% larger than female brains and weigh 11-12% more than female brains but the stereotype that men are smarter than women is not accurate (Zaidi, 2010). In fact, a female brain reaches maturity one or two years before boys (Zaidi, 2010). Men’s larger brain size is due to their larger physical structure of men. Males’ larger muscle mass and body size require more neurons to control them (Zaidi, 2010). In spite of differences in size, both sexes are equal in intelligence. Male and female brains have the same capabilities but tend to operate differently.

Men and women use different parts of the brain to encode memories, sense emotions, recognize faces, solve certain problems, and make decisions (Zaidi, 2010). The brains of women process verbal language simultaneously in the two sides of the frontal brain; however, the male brain tends to process it on the left side only (Zaidi, 2010). Male brains separate language, on the left, and emotions on the right, which may be the reason that male-oriented brains, hardly express feelings. Nevertheless, the female’s emotions are in both hemispheres (Zaidi, 2010). It helps the female brain to express feelings easily. Biologically, men seem to think with their grey matter, which is full of active neurons; however, women think with white matter, which consists more of connections between the neurons (Zaidi, 2010). In this way, a woman’s brain is a bit more complicated in setup, but those connections may allow a woman’s brain to work faster than a man’s (Zaidi, 2010). “Men relied on just one small area on the left side of the brain to complete the task, while the majority of women used areas in both sides of the brain”; therefore, men can focus on one task at a time only, while women can handle multi tasks simultaneously (Zaidi, 2010, p.7).

In conclusion, if there are variances in each gender’s appearance there have to be differences in the way each gender behaves. The history of differences in gender goes back to labor division when human beings decided to divide labor between genders. They divided laborers based on their abilities. As men are physically strong and able to focus well they started working out and hunting. Based on the perception that women have an advantage in multitasking, they preferred to do house chores because house chores require multitasking skills. As society developed, the idea that women should do house chores and men work outside has not changed much in some parts of the world. However, in countries where women work outside they are mostly occupied with the jobs that best suit their abilities or jobs that both women and men can perform equally. The fact that there are significant differences between genders does not express that one gender is superior to another gender. As there is more than one way of getting the same outcome each gender can be different but have the same outcome. Every gender’s performances are appreciable and worthy in their own ways. As it is a short research paper, it does not include the effect of technology on gender differences. Further research on how gender differences are influenced by social media and technology will be interesting.

References

1. Butler, J. (1986). Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex. Yale French Studies. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469291/
2. Giudice, D, M. (2015). Gender Differences in Personality and Social Behavior. ResearchGet. Retrieved From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274956064
3. Jung, S., & Vranceanu, R. (2017). Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in Lying Behaviour. Revue économique,68(5), 859-873. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/90013493
4. Prakash, V., and Flores, C, R. (1985). A Study of Psychological Gender Differences: Applications For Advertising Format’. Association for consumer research. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6390/volumes/v12/NA-12
5. Zaidi, Z. (2010, April). Gender Differences in Human Brain. AnatomyJournal. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228549134_

Deconstructing the notions of centrality and marginality against the background of masculinities embosses the suspicion that what is at the centre often hides a repression. Toxic Masculinity as a concept finds its origins in the objective of cultivating a tolerance of variance in masculinities. However, its integration into modern feminist discourse has been preceded by an operation of binaries being put into place. The popular usage of Toxic Masculinity as an explanation carries the presupposition of an explainable society and an explaining subject. Locating social ills in the performance of Toxic Masculinity places an unquestionably good man against the ‘toxic’ man. The material sedimentation of this boundary can be found in the social media responses to the Me Too movement in India. The determinations of the “toxicity” of masculinity are changeable by what lies at the centre. Instead of being symptomatic of a normalised patriarchal social setting, Toxic Masculinity, thus, acts as a reinforcer of hegemonic masculinity. In order to maintain the consistency in explanation, reactionary narratives are changed to fit popular imaginations of Toxic Masculinity. The locus of accountability is placed beyond individual actors. A repressive tolerance of different masculinities can be found at the centre that allows for Toxic Masculinity to function as a cultural explanation. Emerging from the integration into feminist discourse is a response to Feminism that allows for easy co-optation into patriarchal institutions.

This paper will explore the relations between the known and the unknown in terms of masculinities and the formulation of cultural explanations for social ills. The operationalisation of binaries by the concept of Toxic Masculinity will be put to question. The social media activity surrounding the Me Too movement in India will be studied to demonstrate how Toxic Masculinity reinstates patriarchal assumptions. The language of centrality has carved a changeable boundary between the good and toxic man.

An act that is implicit in any feminist activity is the deconstruction of the opposition between the private and the public (Spivak, 1979). The existing public structures are able to sustain themselves in the face of this social deconstruction by emphasising upon how the very act of deconstruction is a private, individuated act which is not universally applicable to all. The demands placed against an ‘alternate’ cultural explanation are of universal relevance. Such demands function on the assumption that the current cultural explanation came into existence because of mutual consent and has proved its effectiveness through its sustenance. Gramsci’s ideas of hegemony divulged the guarded forces that maintain cultural explanations. By quoting her personal experience, Spivak emphasises upon how an invitation to the ‘centre’ comes at the price of exacting the language of centrality (Spivak, 1979). To contribute to the public truth, the private experience is highlighted in its occasionality and difference. Selective entry of the inhabitants of the margin is made to happen to co-opt marginalized into the exclusionary process. These perfunctory efforts of representation are aptly recognised as Tokenism.

It’s imperative to note the forces that operate within the realm of feminist deconstruction to effectively understand how concepts that emerge as consequences of feminism become reactionary towards it.

The feminist discourse of femininity being a social construction of gender and thus being problematic in the normative expectations it carries has been widely accepted. Men’s lives, on the other hand, have not usually been seen as gendered at all. The public truth of masculinity deems it to be a container standardized by biology which fits all ‘normal’ men. ‘Maleness’ is translated into masculinity through measurable psychological traits and physical attributes. We can see and experience expected masculinity as long as one stays within this container. This natural claim has been challenged by many cultural explanations. By linking tangible ‘performances’ masculinity to intangible cultural values, masculinity has been reinterpreted as a diverse, mobile construction that is interpolated by cultural, historical and geographical locations.

The socialisation into femininity has been accepted as a cultural process, which one can, thereby, oppose. The centrality of this nominally marginal explanation withdraws attention from how similar discourse and research in terms of masculinity is lacking. Masculinity is not ‘commonsensically’ is not regarded as a social construction and thus not scrutinised as ‘problematic’. Even the cultural explanations of masculinity often are linked to natural, innate, biological make-up to explain individual behaviour in social terms. The language of centrality has to be used to convey what is consciously side-lined. The ‘man’ is reimagined as a victim/a pioneer (as one may choose to view it) of his natural forces.

The explosion of a uniform imagination of masculinity has been made inevitable owing to the sexual liberation movement. Masculinity being regarded as a ‘singular-plural’ where it is indexical of experiences of class, subculture, age and ethnicity to incorporate the variance in experience can be regarded as recent development in social history.

A term that has been the harbinger of this change is ‘Toxic Masculinity’. Popularly understood as conformity to a traditional, archetypal role of masculinity which justifies aggression, glorifies violence and is thus, narrow it its scope of emotional expression. Terry Kupers has defined Toxic Masculinity as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence” (Kupers, 2005). Toxic Masculinity being wide in cultural circulation makes it a potent agent of change. This potency, however, has been exploited in reactionary terms.

The problem with Toxic Masculinity is that it assumes that there is a masculinity that is not ‘toxic’. The presumption that all other masculinities are free from the ‘toxic’ cultural and social impact is implicit. For adequate integration of the marginalised explanation of masculinity being a construction, an operation of binaries is put to use. The previously discussed oppositions to cultural explanations of masculinity found their basis in the refusal to accept the imagined, universal masculine experience to be ‘problematic’. The anxieties thus raised are addressed by introducing a moral cleavage in the variants of masculinities.

Masculinity that is ‘toxic’ is thus occasional, but found and explained universally. What we place on the margins now is the performance of a regressive, harmful masculinity where all other forms of masculinity are placed at the centre. It gives the illusion of displacement from the recognized status quo but placed under a scrutinising eye reveals the shifting limit of this displacement. As observed, in such a discourse, masculinity still unquestionably inhabits the centre, in a unified diversity. It confirms the suspicion that often what lies at the centre is a repressive tolerance of the margins.

Hegemonic masculinity is able to attain and maintain its position as a cultural expression when hegemonic representations win ideological consent and alternative constructions are either beaten down, ridiculed or absorbed. To maintain the consistency loop of the masculine experience being the ideal universal experience, the ‘problematic’ aspects are recognized to address the criticisms but placed in another container determined by nature where aggressive tendencies are explained through biological make-up. As previously noted, a ‘natural’ justification is being offered to a cultural explanation.

Toxic Masculinity creates the dichotomy of the good and the toxic man along the lines of morality. Morals are subject to geographical locations and corresponding cultural norms yet the spread of Toxic Masculinity as a part of pop-culture in a globalized world attempts to explain the social ills caused by a regressive masculinity in a unilateral way. It is pre-emptory to note that the performance is not limited to male actors, however, popular imaginations and representations attempt to the human appeal to have a self that can control knowledge while residing a world that can be known. When concepts and words seep into popular culture from the academic realm, the nuances are forsaken for the purpose of simplification.

The globalized world reasserts its communicative abilities and global impact through social media. Th effectiveness of online information dissemination is undeniably observable in terms of the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement is an international model of resistance towards sexual misconduct, harassment and assault that allows survivors to use social media to do public confrontations, while maintaining their anonymity. The #MeToo movement uses the online sphere to create healing spaces, increase accountability and initiate conversations on consent. It provides a forum of alternative justice when tangible proofs are not available where the dispute is settled in a public setting. Thus, it addresses the legal loopholes which normalize sexual misconduct in dubious situations. As the rendering of legal justice is not a primary objective, the public reactions to the accusations show the moral compass of the society.

A study of the online reactions to the #MeToo movement in India is thus a potent source of information for the politics of Toxic Masculinity in the Indian context. When someone is accused of misconduct, the public belief in such allegations is a question of trust (Folmer & Baldwin, 2019). The formulation of the public truth for this private experience is dependant upon the credibility of the accuser, evaluations of the resemblance of the survivor’s narrative to our understanding of sexual misconduct. The lack of discourse around consent in India prior to this movement explains the disbelief that the first cases of the #MeToo movement in India were met with. This dissonant reaction found a resolution is the rising significance of #BelieveSurvivors.

An important observation is the semblance in the responses of the accused. The reactions to being ‘called out’ on social media can be codified into apology and denial. What is typically contrasting about the reactions of individuals accused in India is the reticent fusion of these two seemingly disparate responses.

We can use the model constructed for explaining how Toxic Masculinity has been co-opted for maintaining the centrality of the universal masculinity without it being deemed problematic on these responses. It in notable that the apology precedes the denial of accusations. While the apologies focus on the feelings of the accusers, the denial attempts the respectability of the accused. A dichotomy of the good and the toxic man is thus being reinstated. The good man cares for how the accused has ‘perceived’ the situation. However, only the ‘toxic’ man would be capable of performing the acts that would make the accused feel violated. The individual actors use their apologies to distance themselves from their alleged behaviour. The accused the language of the centre to address the occasional, marginalised occurrence of sexual misconduct.

The discussion of these responses doesn’t aim to comment upon the ‘truthfulness’ of these accusations but seeks to reveal the tacit operation of binarization. The computation of the marginalisation of the ‘toxic’ man is positivistic as it benefits masculinity as a whole. An undifferentiated explanation to sexual misconduct is provided in the form of Toxic Masculinity. The presence of toxicity to blame enables one to rid themselves of personal accountability and enables the society to limit the displacement of status quo. The moral cleavage of toxicity interacts with all other indexical factors of masculinity. Thus, a heterogenous explanation with discontinuities shall become a destabilizer of current power relations.

Before explaining variances between genders, it is essential to differentiate between the terms gender and sex. The terms sex and gender had been used interchangeably for centuries. In 1949 a French author, Simone de Beauvoir in her book (The second sex) defined the terms sex and gender differences. She mentioned, “One is not born, but becomes a woman” (as cited in Butler, 1986, p.35). Generally, a person’s sex is determined by his/her biological and genetic state. Males and females are both born with the same 46 chromosomes except for the fact that a pair of sex chromosomes differ in males and females. A pair of XX sex chromosomes determine a female’s sex, while a pair of XY sex chromosomes define a male’s gender (Butler, 1986). However, gender refers to the social and cultural state of each sex in society. The concept of gender is mostly defined by those behaviors, personality traits, and social positions that society attributes to being female or male (Butler, 1986). A person’s sex assigned at birth may not always correspond with his/ her gender in this case the person is known as transgender (Butler, 1986). Transgender people may bear with male sex chromosomes but their characters, social interactions, and other gender identities work like a female or vice versa.

Gender differences have been the subject of research in psychology and other fields for several years. These studies show that despite significant biological dissimilarities men and women tend to display different behaviors. To avoid conflict and misunderstanding in social interactions it is essential for every individual to know each gender’s natural and cognitive differences and be able to treat people based on their natural differences. This research paper describes gender differences in personality, communication style, and brain based on scientific research.

Empirical experiments and surveys demonstrate that men and women typically display different personalities. Psychological “studies consistently reveal that males are more aggressive than females both physically and verbally” (Parkash & Flores, 1985, p.2). The reason behind males’ aggressive personalities can be cultural aspects. From an early age male aggression is considered completely normal, whereas girls are trained to think, “They may not behave in certain ways and directly punished for aggressive behavior, that actively discourages them from displaying aggression” (Parkash & Flores, 1985, p.2). Psychologically, this trend encourages males to act more aggressively than females. Moreover, from a biological perspective, the level of testosterone (a hormone that activates the subcortical areas of the brain to produce aggression) in males is higher than in females which makes men behave more aggressively (Zaidi, 2010). In general, women are more likely to avoid hostility and conflict than men. “More women value the development of altruistic, reciprocal relationships, which by definition require empathizing. In contrast, more men value power, politics, and competition” (Zaidi, 2010, p.7). Therefore, men can be referred to as tough-minded, risk-prone, and assertive gender, while women as agreeable, altruistic, and warm gender.

Individuals’ behaviors are highly influenced by their ability to handle or express their emotions. The concept of emotion simply indicates the extent to which one expresses anger, joy, fear, disgust, and sadness. Psychologically men and women present dissimilar emotions. Research studies indicate that “women usually experience a higher level of emotions, in particular, positive emotions and internalizing negative emotions such as sadness and anxiety”; for instance, mothers tend to express emotions that are more positive and make the family delighted rather than negative and sad feelings (Guidice, 2015, p. 752). Men in contrast, “express greater levels of anger than women” (Guidice, 2015, p. 257). Because anger is referred to as masculine behavior, men easily express their anger and even use physical violence when they are angry. A research finding shows that people tend to present different levels of emotions when they are in public. Maccoby and Jacklin’s (1974) experimental study shows that women were unlikely to demonstrate their anger in others’ presence; however, in solitary state women express the same level of anger as men (as cited in Parkash & Flores, 1985). Men, on the other hand, expressed an indifferent level of anger in both circumstances (Parkash & Flores, 1985). Overall, women are emotionally unstable, while men are cold-hearted and emotionally stable.

Men and women vary in verbal and nonverbal communication. Giudice (2015) states in his article that, “females enjoy a general advantage in communication skills, both in the verbal domain and in the production and decoding of nonverbal displays” (p.6). In fact, men use only the left hemisphere of their brain while communicating; yet, female brains function more efficiently by engaging “emotions and feelings to aid the productivity of their language” (Zaidi, 2010, p.7). Therefore, women perform better in communication and verbal fluency tasks. It can be a reason for occupying females for jobs that require verbal and articulating skills such as meeting planners, secretaries, and teaching positions. Men in contrast, usually communicate efficiently, direct, and based on a clear purpose (Giudice, 2015). Though women happen to ask a lot of questions, men are more likely to solve problems. As a matter of fact, women are more interested in analyzing a problem rather than solving that. Overall, “males tend to communicate more assertively”, and direct, while females tend to speak more “affiliative” and descriptively. (Giudice, 2015, p.754). Despite, all these differences in male and female communication styles, each of them is equally advantageous and useful in its own way. Sometimes it is necessary to speak clearly, directly, and to the point; however, other times we may need to analyze things with details.

Gestures and body language convey half of the message throughout the communication. Men and women tend to covey different meanings when they use nonverbal language. For example, eye aversion seems perfectly common for men, though for women eye aversion simply shows disrespect and less attention (Guidice, 2015). Men rarely make eye contact, and long-lasting eye contact conveys the message of hostility and opposition, while it is usual for women to keep eye contact until the end of the conversation (Guidice, 2015). In a discussion, women nod just to show that they listen and pay attention to the speaker whether they agree or disagree. Men, in contrast, nod only if they agree (Guidice, 2015). Moreover, women not only use a lot of facial expressions but also can understand them better than men (Guidice, 2015). According to Wingenbach studies women show and determine facial emotions faster and more accurately than men (as cited in Guidice, 2015). Thus, while communicating with men and women these differences have to be considered.

Psychological researches indicate significant gender differences in lying behavior. Jung and Vranceanu (2017) exercised an ultimatum game experiment to investigate lying behavior in men and women. This experiment examined pairs of (woman, woman), (woman, man), and (man, man). The findings of this study suggest that men tend to state the largest lies when paired with women; however, the frequency of lying is similar in mixed groups compared to homogenous groups. On average, whatever the gender of the partner is, the amount of lies submitted by men is higher than the number of lies submitted by women. In general, women are more prone than men to state an “altruistic white lie,” causing a loss for themselves for the benefit of the receivers; however, men tend to tell selfish lies more often than women do.

“The male and the female brains show functional and biochemical differences in all stages of life” (Zaidi, 2010, p.1). Varieties of studies confirm that male brains are about 10% larger than female brains and weigh 11-12% more than female brains but the stereotype that men are smarter than women is not accurate (Zaidi, 2010). In fact, a female brain reaches maturity one or two years before boys (Zaidi, 2010). Men’s larger brain size is due to their larger physical structure of men. Males’ larger muscle mass and body size require more neurons to control them (Zaidi, 2010). In spite of differences in size, both sexes are equal in intelligence. Male and female brains have the same capabilities but tend to operate differently.

Men and women use different parts of the brain to encode memories, sense emotions, recognize faces, solve certain problems, and make decisions (Zaidi, 2010). The brains of women process verbal language simultaneously in the two sides of the frontal brain; however, the male brain tends to process it on the left side only (Zaidi, 2010). Male brains separate language, on the left, and emotions on the right, which may be the reason that male-oriented brains, hardly express feelings. Nevertheless, the female’s emotions are in both hemispheres (Zaidi, 2010). It helps the female brain to express feelings easily. Biologically, men seem to think with their grey matter, which is full of active neurons; however, women think with white matter, which consists more of connections between the neurons (Zaidi, 2010). In this way, a woman’s brain is a bit more complicated in setup, but those connections may allow a woman’s brain to work faster than a man’s (Zaidi, 2010). “Men relied on just one small area on the left side of the brain to complete the task, while the majority of women used areas in both sides of the brain”; therefore, men can focus on one task at a time only, while women can handle multi tasks simultaneously (Zaidi, 2010, p.7).

In conclusion, if there are variances in each gender’s appearance there have to be differences in the way each gender behaves. The history of differences in gender goes back to labor division when human beings decided to divide labor between genders. They divided laborers based on their abilities. As men are physically strong and able to focus well they started working out and hunting. Based on the perception that women have an advantage in multitasking, they preferred to do house chores because house chores require multitasking skills. As society developed, the idea that women should do house chores and men work outside has not changed much in some parts of the world. However, in countries where women work outside they are mostly occupied with the jobs that best suit their abilities or jobs that both women and men can perform equally. The fact that there are significant differences between genders does not express that one gender is superior to another gender. As there is more than one way of getting the same outcome each gender can be different but have the same outcome. Every gender’s performances are appreciable and worthy in their own ways. As it is a short research paper, it does not include the effect of technology on gender differences. Further research on how gender differences are influenced by social media and technology will be interesting.

References

1. Butler, J. (1986). Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex. Yale French Studies. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4469291/
2. Giudice, D, M. (2015). Gender Differences in Personality and Social Behavior. ResearchGet. Retrieved From https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274956064
3. Jung, S., & Vranceanu, R. (2017). Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in Lying Behaviour. Revue économique,68(5), 859-873. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/90013493
4. Prakash, V., and Flores, C, R. (1985). A Study of Psychological Gender Differences: Applications For Advertising Format’. Association for consumer research. Retrieved from http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/6390/volumes/v12/NA-12
5. Zaidi, Z. (2010, April). Gender Differences in Human Brain. AnatomyJournal. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228549134_

Deconstructing the notions of centrality and marginality against the background of masculinities embosses the suspicion that what is at the centre often hides a repression. Toxic Masculinity as a concept finds its origins in the objective of cultivating a tolerance of variance in masculinities. However, its integration into modern feminist discourse has been preceded by an operation of binaries being put into place. The popular usage of Toxic Masculinity as an explanation carries the presupposition of an explainable society and an explaining subject. Locating social ills in the performance of Toxic Masculinity places an unquestionably good man against the ‘toxic’ man. The material sedimentation of this boundary can be found in the social media responses to the Me Too movement in India. The determinations of the “toxicity” of masculinity are changeable by what lies at the centre. Instead of being symptomatic of a normalised patriarchal social setting, Toxic Masculinity, thus, acts as a reinforcer of hegemonic masculinity. In order to maintain the consistency in explanation, reactionary narratives are changed to fit popular imaginations of Toxic Masculinity. The locus of accountability is placed beyond individual actors. A repressive tolerance of different masculinities can be found at the centre that allows for Toxic Masculinity to function as a cultural explanation. Emerging from the integration into feminist discourse is a response to Feminism that allows for easy co-optation into patriarchal institutions.

This paper will explore the relations between the known and the unknown in terms of masculinities and the formulation of cultural explanations for social ills. The operationalisation of binaries by the concept of Toxic Masculinity will be put to question. The social media activity surrounding the Me Too movement in India will be studied to demonstrate how Toxic Masculinity reinstates patriarchal assumptions. The language of centrality has carved a changeable boundary between the good and toxic man.

An act that is implicit in any feminist activity is the deconstruction of the opposition between the private and the public (Spivak, 1979). The existing public structures are able to sustain themselves in the face of this social deconstruction by emphasising upon how the very act of deconstruction is a private, individuated act which is not universally applicable to all. The demands placed against an ‘alternate’ cultural explanation are of universal relevance. Such demands function on the assumption that the current cultural explanation came into existence because of mutual consent and has proved its effectiveness through its sustenance. Gramsci’s ideas of hegemony divulged the guarded forces that maintain cultural explanations. By quoting her personal experience, Spivak emphasises upon how an invitation to the ‘centre’ comes at the price of exacting the language of centrality (Spivak, 1979). To contribute to the public truth, the private experience is highlighted in its occasionality and difference. Selective entry of the inhabitants of the margin is made to happen to co-opt marginalized into the exclusionary process. These perfunctory efforts of representation are aptly recognised as Tokenism.

It’s imperative to note the forces that operate within the realm of feminist deconstruction to effectively understand how concepts that emerge as consequences of feminism become reactionary towards it.

The feminist discourse of femininity being a social construction of gender and thus being problematic in the normative expectations it carries has been widely accepted. Men’s lives, on the other hand, have not usually been seen as gendered at all. The public truth of masculinity deems it to be a container standardized by biology which fits all ‘normal’ men. ‘Maleness’ is translated into masculinity through measurable psychological traits and physical attributes. We can see and experience expected masculinity as long as one stays within this container. This natural claim has been challenged by many cultural explanations. By linking tangible ‘performances’ masculinity to intangible cultural values, masculinity has been reinterpreted as a diverse, mobile construction that is interpolated by cultural, historical and geographical locations.

The socialisation into femininity has been accepted as a cultural process, which one can, thereby, oppose. The centrality of this nominally marginal explanation withdraws attention from how similar discourse and research in terms of masculinity is lacking. Masculinity is not ‘commonsensically’ is not regarded as a social construction and thus not scrutinised as ‘problematic’. Even the cultural explanations of masculinity often are linked to natural, innate, biological make-up to explain individual behaviour in social terms. The language of centrality has to be used to convey what is consciously side-lined. The ‘man’ is reimagined as a victim/a pioneer (as one may choose to view it) of his natural forces.

The explosion of a uniform imagination of masculinity has been made inevitable owing to the sexual liberation movement. Masculinity being regarded as a ‘singular-plural’ where it is indexical of experiences of class, subculture, age and ethnicity to incorporate the variance in experience can be regarded as recent development in social history.

A term that has been the harbinger of this change is ‘Toxic Masculinity’. Popularly understood as conformity to a traditional, archetypal role of masculinity which justifies aggression, glorifies violence and is thus, narrow it its scope of emotional expression. Terry Kupers has defined Toxic Masculinity as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence” (Kupers, 2005). Toxic Masculinity being wide in cultural circulation makes it a potent agent of change. This potency, however, has been exploited in reactionary terms.

The problem with Toxic Masculinity is that it assumes that there is a masculinity that is not ‘toxic’. The presumption that all other masculinities are free from the ‘toxic’ cultural and social impact is implicit. For adequate integration of the marginalised explanation of masculinity being a construction, an operation of binaries is put to use. The previously discussed oppositions to cultural explanations of masculinity found their basis in the refusal to accept the imagined, universal masculine experience to be ‘problematic’. The anxieties thus raised are addressed by introducing a moral cleavage in the variants of masculinities.

Masculinity that is ‘toxic’ is thus occasional, but found and explained universally. What we place on the margins now is the performance of a regressive, harmful masculinity where all other forms of masculinity are placed at the centre. It gives the illusion of displacement from the recognized status quo but placed under a scrutinising eye reveals the shifting limit of this displacement. As observed, in such a discourse, masculinity still unquestionably inhabits the centre, in a unified diversity. It confirms the suspicion that often what lies at the centre is a repressive tolerance of the margins.

Hegemonic masculinity is able to attain and maintain its position as a cultural expression when hegemonic representations win ideological consent and alternative constructions are either beaten down, ridiculed or absorbed. To maintain the consistency loop of the masculine experience being the ideal universal experience, the ‘problematic’ aspects are recognized to address the criticisms but placed in another container determined by nature where aggressive tendencies are explained through biological make-up. As previously noted, a ‘natural’ justification is being offered to a cultural explanation.

Toxic Masculinity creates the dichotomy of the good and the toxic man along the lines of morality. Morals are subject to geographical locations and corresponding cultural norms yet the spread of Toxic Masculinity as a part of pop-culture in a globalized world attempts to explain the social ills caused by a regressive masculinity in a unilateral way. It is pre-emptory to note that the performance is not limited to male actors, however, popular imaginations and representations attempt to the human appeal to have a self that can control knowledge while residing a world that can be known. When concepts and words seep into popular culture from the academic realm, the nuances are forsaken for the purpose of simplification.

The globalized world reasserts its communicative abilities and global impact through social media. Th effectiveness of online information dissemination is undeniably observable in terms of the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement is an international model of resistance towards sexual misconduct, harassment and assault that allows survivors to use social media to do public confrontations, while maintaining their anonymity. The #MeToo movement uses the online sphere to create healing spaces, increase accountability and initiate conversations on consent. It provides a forum of alternative justice when tangible proofs are not available where the dispute is settled in a public setting. Thus, it addresses the legal loopholes which normalize sexual misconduct in dubious situations. As the rendering of legal justice is not a primary objective, the public reactions to the accusations show the moral compass of the society.

A study of the online reactions to the #MeToo movement in India is thus a potent source of information for the politics of Toxic Masculinity in the Indian context. When someone is accused of misconduct, the public belief in such allegations is a question of trust (Folmer & Baldwin, 2019). The formulation of the public truth for this private experience is dependant upon the credibility of the accuser, evaluations of the resemblance of the survivor’s narrative to our understanding of sexual misconduct. The lack of discourse around consent in India prior to this movement explains the disbelief that the first cases of the #MeToo movement in India were met with. This dissonant reaction found a resolution is the rising significance of #BelieveSurvivors.

An important observation is the semblance in the responses of the accused. The reactions to being ‘called out’ on social media can be codified into apology and denial. What is typically contrasting about the reactions of individuals accused in India is the reticent fusion of these two seemingly disparate responses.

We can use the model constructed for explaining how Toxic Masculinity has been co-opted for maintaining the centrality of the universal masculinity without it being deemed problematic on these responses. It in notable that the apology precedes the denial of accusations. While the apologies focus on the feelings of the accusers, the denial attempts the respectability of the accused. A dichotomy of the good and the toxic man is thus being reinstated. The good man cares for how the accused has ‘perceived’ the situation. However, only the ‘toxic’ man would be capable of performing the acts that would make the accused feel violated. The individual actors use their apologies to distance themselves from their alleged behaviour. The accused the language of the centre to address the occasional, marginalised occurrence of sexual misconduct.

The discussion of these responses doesn’t aim to comment upon the ‘truthfulness’ of these accusations but seeks to reveal the tacit operation of binarization. The computation of the marginalisation of the ‘toxic’ man is positivistic as it benefits masculinity as a whole. An undifferentiated explanation to sexual misconduct is provided in the form of Toxic Masculinity. The presence of toxicity to blame enables one to rid themselves of personal accountability and enables the society to limit the displacement of status quo. The moral cleavage of toxicity interacts with all other indexical factors of masculinity. Thus, a heterogenous explanation with discontinuities shall become a destabilizer of current power relations.

The ‘serial killer’ terms reign deep fear in the hearts of the majority of the population. Traditionally, the acts have been associated with males with women perceived to be conventionally caring and are compassionate to their fellow human beings and thus incapable of serial killing. However, in the recent past, the number of female serial killers is almost leveling that of males. In another instance, serial killing tactics and strategies are distinct as gender characteristics. Various studies have explained the differences through evolutionary features, male were hugely hunters and women taking the roles of gatherers (Wilson, Tolputt, Howe & Kemp, 2010; Farrell et al., 2013). As a result, the men have a tendency of stalking stranger victims motivated by an urge to mate and keep objects that resemble such a crime such as a victim’s body parts, watches, or cloths. Female offenders, on the other hand, are characterized by victimizing people well known to them motivated by the need to revenge or to “collect profit.” It is upon such differences that this paper will dwell on to show some distinct consistencies between male and female serial killers.

On the first note, before becoming serial killers, majority of the female serial killers have a history of fraud, theft money embezzlement as they are motivated by material gains. Even though they engage in serial killing for cash rewards, others are motivated by the desire of seeking attention as well as sympathy after the demise of somebody they once cared for (Miller, 2014). Most surprisingly, the majority find job as caretakers in the centers of care for senior citizens which give them a better opportunity to perpetuate their ulterior motives to such vulnerable populations. Male serial killers, on the other hand, have had a troubled childhood as well as mental health challenges that drive them in maiming as well as killing their victims.

Secondly, the female serial killers to proceed with her egregious acts in a specified place that they are familiar with which is a reflection of the women’s movements in the traditional and hunter-gatherer culture where they majorly collected fruits and berries. A study by Farrell et al., (2013), for instance, reported that over 44% of female serial killers did not migrate after committing their atrocities. When compared to the male hunters who often moved longer distances in search for prey, women as gatherers are tethered to a similar region in collecting fruits as well as plants within such regions. They never walked longer distances in public view but isolate their victims in their places of work or even in their homesteads. One case is Dorothea Puente who was working as a landlady in the Sacramento boarding house killed after robbing her elderly guests (Miller, 2014). She was a prototypical hedonist female serial killer motivated to gain material benefits from her victims under her care.

In certain occasions, female serial killers normally propagate their killing desires in collaboration with male or form part of a serial killing team. Under such a condition, the female exhibit more loyalty and serves the subordinate role of identifying the victims in an effort of pleasing the dominating male accomplice. Gerald and Charlene Gallego are a case example of a husband and wife serial killing collaboration where the duo killed 10 victim’s majority of whom were female girls they kept as sex slaves before killing them (Keeney & Heide, 2000). The selection of the victims was solely based on the sexual desire of Gerald Gallego who had more authority among the two in such a relationship of killings. A notable feature in a joint female and male serial killing is that dominance is still maintained by the male serial killer which points to the conventional male and female power differences that suppress the motivation of the female serial killers.

One exception point worth noting about female serial killers is with regards to Aileen Wuornos, a notorious highway commercial sex worker who murdered her victims in the outdoors other than in seclusion (Keeney & Heide, 2000). She also used gun other than poison which is typical of female serial killing. In addition, she also targeted strangers other than their families, and friends and was more inclined to personal glory as well as vengeance. It is, therefore, important to note that Aileen Wuornos rose to fame as one of the fierce serial killers due to the fact that she “killed like a man” (Keeney & Heide, 2000). As a result, female serial killers were portrayed by the mainstream media as deranged man based on the age-old societal belief that women were incapable of committing crimes of such nature. On the contrary, male serial killers exhibited their evolutionary masculinity in advancing their killing escapades.

Male serial killers have also exhibited a greater level of stalking of their unfamiliar victims with a major motive of killing them, majorly for sexual advances. Male serial killers tend to stalk, follow, and wait for the most opportune time to attack unfamiliar victims forcing them into submission. Such a condition is suggested by Mullen, Pathe & Purcell, (2000) to be predatory which was characteristic of an ancient man in his quest for food in a foraging environment. Similar opinions are shared by Duntley & Buss (2012) who reported that such stalking is characteristic of earlier man’s hunting escapades that followed persistency and patience in monitoring the victim’s routine practices, surprise attacks and the use of weapons. Women serial killers, on the contrary, are figurative “gatherers” of victims they are familiar with, the majority of who are closer relatives and their own children. A study by Farrell et al. (2013) reported that 80% of the female offenders were familiar to their killers with majority within their foster care. The study continued to note that the remaining 20% are the serial killer’s acquaintances, strangers and ex-lovers. Specifically, they target children as well as the elderly who are defenseless, under their care.

In another instance, male serial killers are associated with subjecting their victims into intense torture before death through disarticulation as well as victims’ butchery. It is in the same manner that a man was accustomed to, in the ancient period, disfiguring their prey into forms that makes it easy to carry or throw away or for easier storage for the sustenance of pleasure. In addition, they are prone to reserve “trophies” of their successful hunting that range from clothing, body parts, jewelry or victim’s blood for future fantasies (Keeney & Heide, 2000). Majority of the conventional hunters’ reserve trophies to memorize their successful kills like antlers in a similar manner that the ancient and soldiers of war in the modern period keep skulls of their disenfranchised enemy. Female serial killers, on the contrary, use non-violent strategies in killing their victims. The majority are prone to the use of poison and shooting their victims. In “The Sioux City,” 1925, Journal, Harrison, Hughes & Gott, (2019) reported that a remorseless woman poisoned 8 people comprising six teenagers half of which were her biological children. She stated that, “They bothered me, so I decided to kill them” (Keeney & Heide, 2000). The implication is that even though women’s serial killing are similar in extent to that f males, they exhibit some level of concern by avoiding witnessing prolonged pain to their victims. Such an act exposes the compassionate nature of women as well as their level of responsibility that is unable to sustain experiencing sustained torture. It also depicts the true motherhood character exhibited amongst the females.

Furthermore, a major motive for female serial killers is profits. Despite the depiction of male serial killers to exhibit aggravated violence, female serial killers are also violent and can show no piety towards others. The women’s aggression is highly intense, especially in conditions that require some level of defense, fight for the scarce resource (Keeney & Heide, 2000). They are accustomed to murdering their spouses or any other individual in exchange for monetary benefits which can be either in the form of insurance or familial inheritance tussles before proceeding to another person. A study by Harrison, Hughes, & Gott, (2019) deduced that majority of the serial killers are serial monogamists who have been married between 3 to over six times. They kill their spouses to be the heirs of the deceased estates shifting from one husband murder to another for similar reasons. They tend to conform to their ancestral forms which were marred by “gathering” resources in securing the sustainability of their families. Male serial offenders, on the contrary, are majorly motivated by sex with almost a third of male serial killers depicting higher levels of hyper-sexuality. They are likely to resort to sadistic sexual encounters that comprise of mutilation, binding, or even humiliation. Various studies have compiled evidence that suggests that male serial killers engage in necrophilia with some section pay visit to the decomposing body of the victim for the purpose of sexual contact. This is in contrast to female serial killers who are prone to quietly kill their victims without using any form of violence that can take the form of maiming or butchering the victims. It is less likely to encounter a woman serial killer who sexually assault a corpse or display any form of cannibalism or vampire-related behaviors. However, the female offenders have a history of negative sexual encounters such as sexual molestation.

Majority of the male serial killers are highly linked to those who are deficient of mates. In addition, more male offenders were either from a socioeconomically deprived background with limited education when compared to their female counterparts. Such an observation is commensurate with the 2005 Federal Bureau of Investigation survey that reported that demystified the media belief that the majority of the offenders are “evil geniuses” (Ferguson, et al., 2003). It is similar observation that can be attributed to the increasing number of male serial killers who have adopted since stalking, laying traps, as well as the separation of female victims from their protective relatives as well as social settings, will likely elevate the opportunities for sexual exploitations. It is also perceived to be associated with reduced coercive associated costs that rely on fitness. Such an approach adopted by stalkers including spying, monitoring as well as recording the trends of the prey’s social network have the capacity to enhance surprise attacks with a minimal amount of retaliation (Ferguson, et al., 2003). The women, on the contrary, are more motivated by the end result and not the process of killing. They are typical of strangling, poisoning or smothering their victims. They are also tactful and use their charms to waylay unsuspecting males. They appear to be motivated by sex which leads to the segregation of the male victim from the majority where they plan to execute them.

Surprisingly, majority of the male serial killers are prone to attending the funerals of their victims as a strategy to relieve the murder as well as future material for fantasy experiences. They routinely return to the graves of their victims either formally or under disguise, especially amongst the murderers who were motivated by the desire for emotional as well as psychological wellbeing. Some women serial killers also resort to killing to satisfy their desire of seeing their victims get buried (Ferguson, et al., 2003). The famous Martha trials, for instance, confessed that she had an irresistible urge to attend funerals and whenever there were no funerals in her neighborhood, she had a greater drive to create through killing them. However, most of the women serial killers are not willing to attend the funeral of their victims which suggests some level of remorse or level of guilt that preoccupies their mind after committing the act. Kerry Daynes, a consultant forensic psychologist, for instance, report those female serial killers are highly “practical and clean” in their murders (Ferguson, et al., 2003). They resort to adequate violence in satisfying their killing needs and once done they don’t pursue the deceased more.

On the weapon use in maiming as well as killing their victims, male serial killers have a tendency of the use of hands-on strategy through the adoption of knives as well as other non-sharpened objects in perpetuating the crime (Ferguson, et al., 2003). They are motivated by the need to depict greater use of internal power or domination of the victim while killing them. The popular methods comprised of asphyxiation, stabbing, shooting in close ranges and using a blunt force as well as poisoning. However, female serial killers preferred poisoning, especially where the victim is perceived to be more powerful than the female serial killer.

Male-associated serial killing can be linked to fitness psychology’s extreme byproduct since failure to murder was initially attributed to diminished status, entrenched retribution or even punishment by the ancient populations. It is the same fear that has preoccupied certain male serial killers to affirm their authority in their social spaces. Consequently, the majority of the victims to male serial killings are women in their prime ages. Similar sentiments are shared by Archer (2004) and Wilson, (2007) that suggest that larger and heavily built and aggressive males subjects women into sexual coercion owing to the evolutionary environment adaptedness. Men who are economically deprived are at greater threat from the advancing status of women with Haggerty (2009) reporting that the bragging of male serial killers can be attributed to such gender tensions. Female serial killers, on the other hand, mostly kill the older as well as children which are normally considered as allomothering gone sour. Murdering persons with blood relations is of course, a demonstration of the antithesis of reproductive fitness.

Male serial killers are easy to be detected and apprehended when compared to their male counterparts. This is in the backdrop of the fact that one in every six serial killers in the United States is a woman but the statistics points to higher serial killing prevalence in males than females. This might be attributed to the perception that women are less likely to depict aggression than their male counterparts as society views them as “nurturing caregivers” (Ferguson, et al., 2003). In addition, they normally execute their killings under quietness with the majority of their victims their close relatives as well as their own children or spouses. Other than the “quiet killing,” is the reality that majority of the women serial homicides achieve their objective without any form of confrontation when compared to their male counterparts (Ferguson, et al., 2003). Since the female serial killers were identified, for instance, few of them were perceived to have the capacity to mutilate the bodies of their victims which is likely to raise an alarm and thus can go for long without being detected.

Even though the current crop of serial killers is motivated by similar reasons, the gender elements do not fail to distinguish the two. Current research, for instance, suggest that majority of the serial killings undertake to pursue their acts as a means of expressing their rage as well aa control. In Female Serial Killers, for instance, there is a perception that stealing of some of the property of the victims by the typical “black widow” suggests some motivations for material gain but the collection of souvenirs by the male perpetrators, in contrast, connotes the urge to sustain the control even after the death of the victim. In another context, even though conventionally, the “black widow” is seen as a reflection of the ancient Victorian, the overall intention of the perpetrator is influenced by gender (Ferguson, et al., 2003). Generally, the motives of female serial killers are vision oriented while those of their male counterparts are hedonistic.

Amongst the male serial killers, the majority are the elder son in their families. This implies that they have been subjected to deprived motherly or fatherly care and are thus bitter. In addition, the majority have been raised up in broken homes like that of divorced parents, widows or widowers, adopted or single mothers or fathers. In contrast, most of the female perpetrators are from stable backgrounds but have been suggested to be predisposed to mental health problems such as bipolar disorder or have experienced heartbreak from their lovers who have left them with children to singlehandedly care for (Ferguson, et al., 2003).

In conclusion, gendered serial killing differs in various forms. Female serial killers are quiet killers, kill in familiar territory, are familiar with their victims, and are not accustomed to attending the funeral of their victims. In addition, they are motivated by the material gains from such murders. Their skills are typical of the gathering nature of the female gender in the ancient periods. Their male counterparts depict a greater level of aggression, move longer distances to stalk their victims, kill strangers, and are motivated by the search for mates or sexual exploitations.

References

1. Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322.
2. Duntley, J. D., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The evolution of stalking. Sex roles, 66(5-6), 311-327.
3. Farrell, A. L., Keppel, R. D., & Titterington, V. B. (2013). Testing existing classifications of serial murder considering gender: An exploratory analysis of solo female serial murderers. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(3), 268-288.
4. Ferguson, C. J., White, D. E., Cherry, S., Lorenz, M., & Bhimani, Z. (2003). Defining and classifying serial murder in the context of perpetrator motivation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(3), 287-292.
5. Haggerty, K. D. (2009). Modern serial killers. Crime, Media, Culture, 5(2), 168-187.
6. Harrison, M. A., Hughes, S. M., & Gott, A. J. (2019). Sex differences in serial killers. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences.
7. Keeney, B. T., & Heide, K. M. (2000). Gender Differences in Serial Murderers (From Serial Killers, P 54-63, 2000, Louise Gerdes, ed.–See NCJ-182588).
8. Miller, L. (2014). Serial killers: I. Subtypes, patterns, and motives. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(1), 1-11.
9. Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and their victims. Cambridge University Press.
10. Wilson, D. (2007). Serial killers: hunting Britons and their victims, 1960 to 2006. Waterside Press.
11. Wilson, D., Tolputt, H., Howe, N., & Kemp, D. (2010). When serial killers go unseen: The case of Trevor Joseph Hardy. Crime, media, culture, 6(2), 153-167.

We sometimes hear that men and women come from separate planets and regard it as a joke. Indeed, it is one. Nevertheless, it is based on a true theory about male and female differences, which we can observe on a daily basis in our lives. The talks, discussions and researches on the topic were made throughout the history of humanity, giving different results, which depended on the epoch and the aim. Regarding psychological approach, it is possible to state that the differences actually exist, in spite of what feminists’ parties say.

When we contemplate gender problems, we often refer to the political issues. It is not the best way to determine the essential diversity between genders. The battle for equal rights, which lasted up to the present day, makes one think that women are the same as man, “no worse and no better”, or just “no worse”, as they use to put it. It is a fair point, but only from the legal point of view. The mental differences are hidden much deeper than political layers are.

If we trace history back to ancient cavemen, we would see entirely different functions in society. And the different functions determine a different lifestyle and, how it is shown in the further history, different mental evolution. Biology here also matters. Having a certain capability, higher than women’s, men carried out duties due to their abilities and separated themselves from females into different society layer. In the times when this diversity emerged an assumption was also born. This assumption was that “men are strong” and “women are weak”. In centuries in ended up with women equaled to animals, especially in the countries where slavery was sound. And that couldn’t help leaving its mark on the further evolution of women in society.

To continue the view into history, let’s mention that throughout the Middle Ages women seldom carried out men’s work. A specter of tasks that were on men’s shoulders, beginning with splitting logs and ending with running wars, could not be acceptable for women. Certainly, there were exceptions. Nevertheless, if to look into the essence, exceptions are just a small part that does not defy the rule’s accuracy. The mental separation was in the very upbringing. As an example, let’s look at the people of Vikings: girls were taught to help mothers to handle housework, to look for animals, while boys, being nine or ten years old, were wielding a sword or an axe. And such order ruled not only among Vikings.

Closer to the present days we see a historical-based gender discrimination. A social injustice arose, giving birth to feminist’s movement and researches on masculinity and men (Collier, 2010). The new age gave perspectives to social freedom that was used not only by feminists, but also by black people. Racism here also has meaning. It was hard enough to be black, but to be a black woman was much harder. Everyone who’s got through black people’s history in America definitely came across a story about a woman, who was arrested for refusing to yield her place to a white man on a tram. It lasted long before the war for rights gave fruits, making women and men equals. Still, it was not that simple for the female part of society to adapt to new jobs. Women as office workers, for instance, faced serious challenges in 1960’s (Marcovitch, 2012). Sad but true, these discriminations are still not fully erased. It is spoken today that men are less masculinists than women are feminists, and it has reasons to be so. Being more offended in centuries, they tend to be more aggressive as for defending their rights. And that also lives a mark on the moral way of women, so more the reason for a mental difference to exist.

If to step away from a pure historical analysis, researchers believe that gender issues have much to do with geographic factor (Zirin, Livezeanu, Worobec, & Farris, 2015). The basic needs of society are in a way determined by the climatic situation of their living area. That, in turn, determines what efforts (if any) should be made to survive. And this cannot avoid influencing traditions and culture of peoples, same as pointing out woman’s role in them. Let us assume that women stand higher than men in some culture. Not being discriminated, they are still socially separated from males, which also isn’t good for a total gender’s equality.

Nowadays we see what problems women confront in their common routine life. They are mostly the same as men have: where to work, what to buy, whom to marry and so on. Still, being equal, they are different. What matters the most, they have different thinking. Even the language they use is somehow other (Speer, 2011).

History shows us a chain of reasons for females to be a bit different. Indeed, so much-needed equality does not mean total alikeness. Gender differences have a serious background that cannot be easily forgotten not my men, nor by women. And both sides learned their lessons. Yet, let’s not forget that being different is not the same as being bad.

Reference

Collier, R. (2010). Men, law and gender: Essays on the ‘man’ of law. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Marcovitch, H. (2012). Mad men, women, and children: Essays on gender and generation. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Speer, S. (2011). Conversation and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zirin, M., Livezeanu, I., Worobec, C., & Farris, J. (2015). Women & gender in Central and Eastern Europe, Russia, and Eurasia a comprehensive bibliography. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

Introduction

As noted by Martin & Dinella (2012), there is congruence between personal gender stereotypes and behaviors among children at the age of nine. Apparently, they begin to develop gender differences at an early age and most of them are already inclined to specific habits and behaviors that define their gender at this age. Research done by Martin & Dinella (2012) shows that less congruence is exhibited in girls who are tomboys and those who are not. This is influenced by different factors, which include the non-normative interests in tomboys. This paper will be discussing the gender difference in children, their social development, and stereotypes about activities and preferences.

Gender differences

Based on gender, children have different preferences in terms of beliefs, desires and feelings. These disparities are caused mostly by biological factors although others such as environmental and social factors contribute to the same. Children are subjected to a phenomenon known as Gender Typing, which shapes their behaviors, motives, and values. Through gender typing, they get to learn the culturally acceptable and appropriate behaviors for their gender. At this stage, boys and girls are taught how to behave appropriately to depict the characteristics of their gender inclination.

Martin & Dinella argue that some of the presumed variances between boys and girls are real while others are simply based on mythical assumptions (2012). For instance, boys are more masculine compared to girls who on the other hand have an enhanced understanding in early verbal skills. Gender disparities are greatly influenced by biological occurrences, which include hormones and literate levels of the brain (Martin & Dinella, 2012). Hormones are responsible for organizing biological disposition for children to display masculine or feminine characteristics.

Stereotyping and social development

Children grow amidst mythical beliefs that define their gender depending on different cultural values. For instance, boys are expected to show resilience, independence, assertiveness, as well as competitiveness (Pascual-Sagastizabal et al., 2013). Girls on the other hand are expected to be passive, sensitive, supportive and emotional (Pascual-Sagastizabal et al., 2013). However, gender roles and beliefs are gradually changing with the new generation paying less attention to some of these cultural values. Nonetheless, it is also imperative to note that cognitive factors in gender differences also play a major part in shaping the roles of boys and girls. When gender information is offered to both boys and girls, it automatically modifies their understanding and roles in their respective sexual characteristics. Therefore, stereotyping affects social interaction and development among both boys and girls.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed how gender roles are influencing children at a young age. The causes of gender disparities are clearly outlined in the paper as well as the gender roles concerning both boys and girls. The paper has also identified some of the major stereotypes that are associated with both boys and girls. In addition, the real characteristics based on biological formation have also been identified in the paper. As discussed above, stereotyping has a direct impact on the level and manner of social development in children. This is also true with cognitive factors, which include gender information. The paper outlines the different factors that are primarily responsible for shaping gender roles for both boys and girls. Gender disparities, social development, and stereotyping with regard to gender roles have been discussed extensively in this research.

References

Martin, C., & Dinella, L. M. (2012). Congruence between gender stereotypes and activity preference in self-identified tomboys and non-tomboys. Archives Of Sexual Behavior, 41 (3), 599-610. Web.

Pascual-Sagastizabal, E., Azurmendi, A., Sanchez-Martin, J. R., Braza, F., Carreras, M. R., Munoz, J. M., & Braza, P. (2013). Empathy, estradiol and androgen levels in 9-year-old children. Personality and Individual Differences, 54 (8), Web.