evaluate the nature/nurture debate in relation to gender?

Answer 1

I feel as though females are more prone to be a product of their nurturing where as males are less so nurtured, but more a product of nature. It's more socially acceptable, perhaps because of the 'women's lib' movement for girls to 'be whatever they want to be' and so, girls are nutured with that in mind. Boys, on the other hand, never really have that drilled into them and just sort of become what they're going to become.

Who really knows...I am sure both genders are a product of both and of neither. I don't know if there really is an across-the-board answer.

Answer 2

Female's are more nurturing, males are more nature. But, I think it goes deeper than just gender. You have enviroment thrown in there. A person that was raised in a military home for instance is more apt to be less nurturing and more nature. It is case by case, no two people are the same, nor are they going to do the same no matter gender, age, race, upbringing, education, etc.

Answer 3

Their is no debate in science. The variance between the sexes is there before birth. This is a description of what is, not a prescription for what should be. Only in the social sciences is there not only debate, but the use of the term " gender " when "sex " is meant

Answer 4

nicely, nurture will selection between genders through fact mother and father will opt to develop their infant to be like their gender; activities for boys, and outfits for women. Nature does not exchange between genders through fact it quite is all from mother and father, in spite of the shown fact that it ought to alter between siblings through fact of ways the chromosomes chop up

Answer 5

Studies have found differences in the development of brains and behavior correlating with male/female hormones.

Answer 6

I think we are all a product of our environment regardless of gender. Any theories always bring around heated debate because we all believe different things. I dont think we are even born with the ability to smile...I think that is taught to us as well. I believe the only things we are born with (nature) are responses to stimuli, eg react to pain or distress by screaming or crying. If you left a baby in its crib from the time it was born without any human contact, and had a robot feeding it and changing it, then the baby would learn nothing about emotions. If they were kept away from human beings all their life, then how would they know they were human at all. How would they even know if they were male or female. As they grew older the only thing they would know is that they were different to their robot carers....they certainly wouldnt be able to talk, so I wonder whether that baby would take on a robot appearance because thats all it has been exposed to, and if that is their world, how would they know anything different?

Our brain is the most advanced computer on earth, but just like man made computers it is only as good as the information programed into it (nurture).

I dont think we will ever know for sure about the nature/nurture theory because to test it out would be inhumane, eg, keeping a baby away from human influences to see if they do in fact know how to smile without ever seeing anyone smile. How would we ever know if that baby would ever feel love, hate, pleasure if they have never been exposed to it.

I think you just have to look at abused kids to discount the theory of nature being the cause of their strange behaviours. Their strange behaviours and the way they react was because of something they leaned from others.

Male and females are different for sure, we feel things differently, but is that because we are treated differently from birth, or is it natural? I dont think that can ever be answered. There have been numerous psychiatrists who have tried to prove the nurture theory, by removing the genitals of a male child and raising that child as a female. In the majority of cases, it turns out badly and the child will suffer emotional problems...is this because they naturally know they are male, but look like a female? I dont think so, I think its because the psychiatrist is involved in their life and because this child is exposed to other children, then seeing a psychiatrist on a regular basis would infer to that child that they are different, that there is something wrong with them. Maybe if they were left alone, they would consider themselves lesbians. Who knows...but I wonder if a male child had his genitals removed so he looked like a girl, but was raised without any human contact, would there be any problems at all?

It is only my opinion of course....I just believe we are the people we turn into by the influences we come across every day. If we were not exposed to other human beings our entire lives, then how would we know anything. Its like a blind man....if born blind how would he even know what anything looked like....hes never seen or experienced it...he relies on his other senses, like smell, but how would you explain to a blind man what a flower looks like..., how would you explain the colour pink....hes never seen colours.

So, until tests can be carried out on a baby from the moment of birth, depriving them of any human contact their entire lives, then I dont think we will ever know for sure whether nature or nurture is responsible in determining who that person is and how they respond. I personally think nature is not responsible for much at all in determining a persons "personality".....its all nurture.