In early childhood it is apparent that children tend to play with other children of the same gender, more so than the opposite sex. Studies indicate that by three years of age, children begin showing preference in playing with children of the same gender, a phenomenon described as gender segregation (Fouts, Hallam, & Purandare, 2013). Some researchers have suggested that gender segregation occurs universally and have identified it as a result of early socialization through play, which leads to the gender segregated social outlook (Fouts et al., 2013). The purpose of this paper is to explore reasons why children’s playmates are the same sex and provide evidence supporting gender difference in play. According to Maccoby (1998) in the initial two years of life children do not spend much time with children who are their own age.
Not til more recent times have these expectation changed letting women or men be anything they want to be. However many social views are influencing parents and young adults. Parents have different expectations for their sons or daughters because from a young age kids are forced into gender roles, stereotyping genders, and following the “traditional” way. Gender roles are either implied or forced on kids from a young age. According to The New York Time, “ At young ages, when parents most often search about possible giftedness, girls have consistently been shown to have larger vocabularies and use more complex sentences”.
The documentary “The Pinks and the Blues” and the podcast “Can a Child be Raised Free of Gender Stereotypes” discuss the unconscious gender stereotypes and assumptions that our culture places upon children. Children are enculturated with ideas about who they should be, how they should think and behave, and this enculturation has distinct effects upon the child psychology and way of living in the world. The viewer is left with the question: Is it possible to raise a child without gender stereotypes? “The Pinks and the Blues” states that gendered treatment of children begins within 24 hours of the child’s birth. Descriptors for male infants and female infants were different, with boys being labeled as big, strong, and alert while girls were labeled as being delicate, petite, and inattentive.
His theory is helpful for child development and adults too. The five Erikson’s stages of development are trust vs. mistrust, autonomy vs. shame and doubt, initiative vs. guilt, competency vs. inferiority and the last one is identity vs. role confusion. Freud and Erik’s theories have some similarities and differences in some stages of development. In the first stage of Freud’s theory he says oral stage is the weaning process where the child must become less independent upon caretakers. At the stage of 1st year Eric says it’s the stage of trust vs. mistrust.
As seen from the case of McKenna Pope’s brother above, gender-specific toys perpetuate the belief that girls and boys should possess different skills and aspirations. This diminishes the rich educational potential of toys in children’s development. In this report, toys refer to the variety of games (eg board games, card games, puzzles, video games) and toys (eg dolls, trucks, playhouses). Our research shows that the role of toys is to enable children to develop freely, through the attainment of various skills and embodiment of desired aspirations. The holistic skills which toys develop include the social, physical, cognitive and emotional aspects , while desired aspirations is shaped by the ability of toys to enhance imagination and creativity .
Girls are seen as more delicate and are given toys like dolls and kitchen sets to play with. They are urged to act in a slick, calm and appropriate way. Boys are given toys like trucks and weapons and are urged to be more dynamic. Parental impact is great during early stages and early adolescence however by 5 to 6 years, friends, school and media impact assume control. There are many ways by which girls and boys are relied upon to carry on among their friends and deviation from this part can prompt to being excluded.
The results were that there was no etiological difference when place advantage verse disadvantage situation. However, when the placed with a teaching environment, there was a slight difference. It showed the girls would be more influenced by their genetics and boys would be more influenced by their environment when it came to anti-social behaviors. So while there might be any difference in etiology when in a public place between boys and girls,
Gender of children has been found to have an effect on their choice of influence strategy. The following reviews explore the dimensions of the gender based differences which may have an influence in family decision making. McNeal and Yeh, (2003) found that boys are seen to be further influential for products like video games, entertainment and fun items, whereas, girls influence high in household items like cloths, bakery items and writing papers. Manchanda and Moore-Shay (1996) classified influence strategies into three main types as high, low and moderate power strategies. Girls use little power or weak strategies more often than boys do towards their parents Boys have higher influence in pestering than girls.
Observational Study: Clothes and Genderic Stereotypes Introduction “Pink is for girls; blue is for boys.” This sentence is not just a proverb. It is a cultural phenomenon that has been creating genderic stereotypes since the 1940’s (Maglaty, 2011). Clothing options that are available for children not only affect their style, but also the way they express their identity. My research question stems from my interest in the effect of culture and, by extension, clothing options, in the expression of identities especially among children. In this research study, I explore the cues that children’s clothing convey about the perceived identity and expected personality of boys and girls.