Becoming Female: Perspectives on Development

475 Pages·1979·10.29 MB·English

by  Phyllis A. Katz (auth.)

Becoming Female
Perspectives on Development
WOMEN IN CONTEXT: Development and Stresses
Editorial Matina Horner, Radcliffe College
Board: Martha Kirkpatrick, University of California at Los Angeles
Claire B. Kopp, University of California at Los Angeles
Carol C. Nadelson, Harvard Medical School
Malkah T. N otman, Harvard Medical School
Carolyn B. Robinowitz, American Psychiatric Association
Jeanne Spurlock, A merican Psychiatric Association
THE WOMAN PATIENT -MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INTERFACES
Volume 1: Sexual and Reproductive Aspects of Women's Health Care
Edited by Malkah T. Notman and Carol C. Nadelson
BECOMING FEMALE: PERSPECTIVES ON DEVELOPMENT
Edited by Claire B. Kopp
Becoming Female
Perspectives on Developmerlf
Edited by
Claire B. Kopp
University of California at Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
In Collaboration With
Martha Kirkpatrick
University of California at Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California
SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Becoming female.
(Women in context)
Includes index.
1. Women-Psychology-Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Developmental psy
chology-Addresses, essays, lectures. 3. Child development-Addresses, essays,
lectures. 4. Women-United States-Socialization-Addresses, essays, lectures.
Kopp, Claire B. II. Kirkpatrick, Martha. III. Series.
HQ1206.B34 301.41'2 79-9970
ISBN 978-1-4684-3562-7 ISBN 978-1-4684-3560-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4684-3560-3
© 1979 Springer Science+Business Media New York
Originally published by Plenum Press, New York in 1979
Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover lst edition 1979
AII rights reserved
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or·by any means, electronic, mechanica1, photocopying, microfilming,
recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher
Contributors
Shane Adler. Writer and Historian of Fashion, San Francisco, Califor
nia
Sheila Balkan. Department of Sociology, University of California, Los
Angeles, California
Ronald J. Berger • Department of Sociology, University of California,
Los Angeles, California
Beverly Birns • Women's Studies Program, State University of New
York, Stony Brook, New York
Lindsay Chase-Lansdale. Department of Psychology and Center for
Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan
Arline S. Dillman • Graduate School of Education, University of Cali
fornia, Los Angeles, California
Margaret S. Faust. Department of Psychology, Scripps College,
Claremont, California
Norma D. Feshbach • Departments of Education and Psychology, Uni
versity of California, Los Angeles, California
Susan H. Franzblau • Department of Psychology, State University of
New York, Stony Brook, New York
Marilyn F. Graham • Women's Studies Program, State University of
New York, Stony Brook, New York
Lauren Julius Harris • Department of Psychology, Michigan State Uni-
. versity, East Lansing, Michigan .
Tricia S. Jordan. Graduate School of Education, University of Califor
nia, Los Angeles, California
Phyllis A. Katz • Institute for Research on Social Problems, Boulder,
Colorado
v
vi CONTRIBUTORS
Kenneth K. Kidd • Department of Human Genetics, Yale University,
New Haven, Connecticut
Michael E. Lamb. Department of Psychology and Center for Human
Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan
Phyllis R. Magrab • Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown University
Medical School, Washington, D.C.
Julie Marks • Clinical Psychologist, Los Angeles, California
Paul E. McGhee • Department of Child Development and Family
Relations, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas
Charlotte Neumann • Departments of Public Health and Pediatrics,
University of California, Los Angeles, California
Margaret Tresch Owen • Department of Psychology and Center for
Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan
Gloria Johnson Powell. Division of Mental Retardation/Child
Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of California
Center for the Health Sciences, Los Angeles, California
Shirley Sargent • Historian, Yosemite, California
Brian Sutton-Smith • Graduate School of Education, University of
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Thomas S. Weisner. Departments of Psychiatry and Anthropology,
University of California, Los Angeles, California
Preface
Every woman ought to be filled with shame at the thought that she is woman.
-Clement of Alexandria, c. 150-215
The five worst infirmities that afflict the female are indocility, discontent, slan
der, jealousy, and silliness .... Such is the stupidity of woman's character,
that it is incumbent upon her in every particular, to distrust herself and to
obey her husband.
-Confucian Marriage Manual
Nature intended women to be our slaves. They are our property; we are not
theirs. They belong to us, just as a tree that bears fruit belongs to a gardener.
What a mad idea to demand equality for women.. . Women are nothing but
machines for producing children.
-Napoleon Bonaparte
The fact of the matter is that the prime responsibility of a woman probably is
to be on earth long enough to find the best mate possible for herself, and con
ceive children who will improve the species.
-Norman Mailer
Read these quotes and wonder!! Wonder at the strength, tenacity, and
grace of females who have endured outrageous slings and arrows
without becoming violent, uncaring, or incapacitated. Sturdy stuff is
contained in our double X, preserved and nurtured for other, less dis
torted times. The Women in Context series is a reflection of the dawn
ing light slowly illuminating woman as unique in some ways, but nei
ther less than nor more than man. Surely, our imperfect world can well
use all the talents and capabilities that men and women possess.
This volume is the first in the series exclusively devoted to psy
chological developmental issues. Our aim is to present an interpretive
and provocative description of developing femaleness that highlights
vii
viii PREFACE
and elucidates characteristics, dynamics, and processes. Concomi
tantly, we hope to provide orientations that are more appropriate for
female development than perspectives largely generated by and for
males.
This book represents a topical approach to female development,
covering ontogenetic periods from infancy through adolescence. In
cluded are topics that currently spark debate, as well as others that are
inherently interesting but less visible, or arguable. We are, however,
offering neither a compendium nor a polemic of female development. 1
While our orientation is developmental, we draw from anthropol
ogy, genetics, pediatrics, psychiatry, and sociology as well as psychol
ogy. We believe that this diversity provides welcome variation in
theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, and writing
style. The reader will find that some chapters provide considerable
review of data, whereas others are based solely on observation and
commentary.
In essence, the diversity of this volume reflects our own profes
sional stance. Although we are both women intensely interested in de
velopmental issues, we differ in professional orientation. We are, in
fact, an odd couple: a psychoanalyst intrigued by the operation of the
psyche in the clinical setting and a developmental psychologist drawn
to issues of explanation founded in research. Not only do we adhere to
widely disparate theoretical biases, but the very course of our work is
rooted in different techniques. More than once we have debated the
nature of infant memories and long-term consequences. Many times
we have discussed the implications and limitations of research data.
We have, not surprisingly, disagreed about some of the content of this
volume. We are, however, in total agreement about the stimulating
nature of the chapters.
Despite our own theoretical and methodological differences, we
share an enthusiasm for studying and exploring the'development of
young females. Although we want to examine processes and character
istics that are inherently intrinsic to girlhood, we do not want to deny
those that are common to childhood in general. We believe, for ex
ample, that the fundamental laws of developmental growth are pretty
much the same for girls as for boys.\There are no special biologically
based processes that characterize male infancy and childhood from
female infancy and childhood. Nor are there variants in developmental
sequences; all boys and all girls begin life constrained in behavioral
repertoire, limited in knowledge, and totally dependent on others. All
1 Issues pertaining to developing sexuality are addressed in a forthcoming volume in
this series edited by Martha Kirkpatrick.
PREFACE ix
move to childhood and acquire the use of socially mediated language
and the basic tools of culture and begin to understand and use the
rules of society. The progression to childhood and adolescence is inex
orable. Growth, after all, is a characteristic of life and is necessary for
survival and adaptation. Could a breed continue to exist in which
these general developmental processes differed for male and female
members? We think not.
Differences exist, of course, albeit not in ontogenetic sequence,
but rather in biological structure and physiology, some psychological
and behavioral processes, and the social context that surrounds the
sexes. However, that which becomes uniquely female is probably
rooted more in social situation than in biology and physiology. It is
because of biology that some differences appear, but it is a culture's
institutions that interact with males and females, accentuating or
deemphasizing similarities and differences.
For at least several thousand years, and probably longer, the
larger social and cultural environments that surrounded the sexes ~­
scribed sex-role standards and, concomitantly, often proscribed ,op
portunities for females. Frequently stated via the mechanisms of
prayer and religious practice, legal and educational mandates, and
mores concerning personal and body rights, cultural standards have
directly and indirectly informed females of their status, roles, and
tasks. With few exceptions, social consensus has suggested that wom
en's responsibilities were in the spheres of child rearing and food
procurement and/or maintenance. Community elders, represented by
ancient or contemporary forms of religion, law, and medicine, strictly
adhered to and fostered these norms. Consequently, systematic efforts
were directed toward the restriction of females to home settings; as a
corollary, females were not permitted to explore alternatives for voca
tional or avocational pursuits.
Clearly, individual and family variation can be found in any cul
ture. Some family units deviate more from the norm than others;
nonetheless, families must exist in a social setting and are censured
and isolated when extensive digression occurs. However, historical
and contemporary evidence can be found that demonstrates parental
efforts to provide opportunities for their children, particularly females,
where none existed. During the 18th century, for example, a few girls
were educated by their parents when formal schooling was unavaila
ble. Similarly, in contemporary society many parents attempt to pro
vide equal and nonsexist opportunities for their male and female chil
dren. Nonetheless, parents often unknowingly exert discrimination
against daughters. Some of the more subtle forms arise in the course
of expectations established with respect to academic achievement,