The argument for NATURE believes that certain traits--physical, emotional, psychological--are innate. They are biological and things we have no control over.

The argument for NURTURE believes that certain traits--physical, emotional, psychological--are caused by environment. Therefore, we do certain things because we have been trained to do them that way, or we see them being done a certain way.

So, which side is right? NATURE or NURTURE?

Let's take them one at a time. Why don't we start with NATURE? For the longest time, people argued that nature was the reason men and women were the way they were. For example, women are just naturally passive, men are naturally better at math. (You can see how airtight this argument is. Note: sarcasm)

Then, with the rise of the women's movement in the 1960s, a lot of people began to question how big a role NATURE actually played. Wasn't NURTURE just as strong an argument? If women are constantly told they are supposed to be passive, and the virtue is viewed as an attractive quality for women which is also a stereotype reinforced in the media, is it no surprise that girls and women begin to act more passive than men?

And, this argument goes beyond personality traits. For example, the color pink is mainly associated with females. If a boy painted his room pink, people might think it was a little weird...

So, where does this relationship begin? Well, for starters, the second a baby girl is born, she is placed in a pink blanket in the hospital. Boys get the blue blankets. Gendering begins early--even while babies are in the womb.

The two camps still fight, but many people now believe that NURTURE plays a huge role in the way we understand GENDER. What do you think?