The Role Of Biology Vs. Social Construction In Gendered Behavior

8 Pages 2074 Words

y quotes an “empirically well-documented” explanation of how male and female primates come to display different behavior patterns. He cites rearing environments of rhesus monkeys that were reviewed by Wallen in 1996. This research, he concludes, shows how the monkeys were reared modified the effects of prenatal hormone experience on their sex-dimorphic behavior. He bases this theory on androgen exposure on the research conducted with the rhesus monkeys, as well as girls with CAH.
In Udry’s actual study, he cites the basic hormone model, and shows that in the sample of women he studied, the mother’s prenatal hormones have an effect on the gendered behavior of their adult daughters thirty years after data was originally collected. Scientific statements such as “SHBG has no effects on behavior except through binding testosterone, [therefore] the more SHBG, the less testosterone effect and thus the more feminine the woman’s behavior” seemingly solidify Udry’s case.
According to the results of questionnaires answered by a portion of the women in the study, he concludes that women with low exposure to androgen responded to their mother’s encouragement of femininity; their “typical” gendered behavior in adulthood was feminine. This measurement of “feminine” is based on a series of characteristics Udry feels are “feminine”, such as putting on makeup and wearing jewelry. Women with high levels of androgen exposure in the womb, however, were not effected by their mother’s encouragement of femininity and remained “more masculine than average.”


Miller and Costello, two sociologists from the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, in their article “The Limits of Biological Determinism”, challenge Udry’s study and his seemingly sexist and anti-feminist position on the issue. They point out that he is merely commenting on the long scientific tradition of biological determinism. By explaining ...