Gender and relationships: Beyond the peer group.

Abstract

Shannon-Lee Meyer, Christopher M. Murphy, Michele Cascardi, and Beverly Birns State University of New York at Stony Brook Maccoby (April 1990) cogently described important social-interaction effects of gender in childhood, supplanting the tra- ditional approach to gender socialization grounded in the study of individual dif- ferences. Arguing that the peer group pro- vides the primary setting for differential socialization of boys and girls, Maccoby cited research that indicates that boys and girls behave differently depending on the gender composition of a dyad or group. Boys in all-boy groups increasingly display competitiveness, dominance, and asser- tiveness. Girls however, only display the passivity commonly attributed to them when they are in the presence of boys. In mixed-sex dyads, boys dominate and girls increasingly find these male strategies aversive. Maccoby asserted that reliable sex differences become entrenched in peer interactions and extend into adult rela- tionships. Although her description of the im- portance of social interaction in the de- velopmental process is compelling, we are troubled by Maccoby's denial of other meaningful sources of influence on the development of gender-distinct styles of interaction. Her developmental account implies that the peer group operates in a social vacuum and constitutes a sexist culture unto itself. However, available research indicates that virtually all of the major sources and agents of socialization promote significant differences in behavior beginning in in- fancy. Moreover, there are at least three major contributors to the gender-differ- entiated peer relations described by Mac- coby: (a) Mothers and fathers behave quite differently toward boys and girls, (b) chil- dren in two-parent families observe pa- rental interaction that reflects the way most men and women relate to each other in mixed-sex dyads or groups, and (c) the culture conveys distinct messages to chil- dren about the differential expectations for male and female behavior. Perhaps the most compelling evi- dence for differences in parents' behavior toward boys and girls' comes from Jean Block (1984). Her work reveals consistent sex-of-child differences in child rearing that begin in infancy and extend through- out childhood. These distinctions are found along a variety of dimensions and are plausibly related to differences in power and assertiveness observed in boys and girls. Parents respond more often to their infant sons' vocalizations, whereas they reinforce daughters for being quiet. Par- ents continue to reinforce sex-role-con- gruent behavior with toddlers in the form of play and toy selection. In general, boys' toys and play encourage activity and in- volvement with the world outside the home, providing objective, contingent feedback. In contrast, girls' toys and play foster engagement with the social world, providing subjective, noncontingent feed- back (Block, 1984). Boys, compared with girls, learn that the world responds to them more often and more contingently, that what they do invokes a response from those around them, and that their needs will be met. It is not surprising then, that a sense of entitlement (Birns & Leo, 1989) may lead to boys' increasing asser- tiveness when they don't get what they want. Girls are responded to less often and only when in close proximity to an adult, and thus it seems logical that they would have an aversive reaction to boys who are more assertive and dominating, and whom they cannot influence politely. Apart from boys' and girls' differ- ential treatment by parents, Maccoby (1990) also downplayed and idealized what they observe from parents. She presented a quixotic image of the American family that is both dismaying and naive; contrary to her rosy depictions, 50% of marriages end in divorce, and violence within