It's an argument that is far from being resolved: Biology is used to support the perceived roles of men and women. For example, "men are naturally more equipped to be soldiers and fight on the front lines (because they're men)", or "women are naturally suited to stay at home and cook (because that's what women are supposed to do)".

What's frightening is that these views of perceived gender understanding (or "misunderstanding" more often than not) have been the norm for much of the 20th century! In fact, not until the early 1990's did research introduce a new concept to the perceived way of thinking. Termed "biological determinism" the concept tried to prove a wide variety of behaviours among members of each sex, or simply put, how masculinity and femininity relate to each other in different environments.

For example, the young girl who is so adapt at cooking and cleaning, will react differently if handed an M16 and placed on the front lines. And that 220 pound defensive tackle? Take him off the football field and place him in a nursery with 15 little 2 year olds and you'll see a different set of characteristics emerge.
Conversely, it has also been widely circulated that perceived gender behaviour is not something a person is born with, but rather is a result of a person's social conditions. The perceived actions and roles of  little boys and girls - and how they learn to act in a masculine or feminine manner - comes to them by the ideals and beliefs passed down from father and mother, siblings and peers.

So the question comes then, "Does one act out the roles assigned them by society or do these roles change depending on environment?"  Does a male have a natural proclivity to find a woman and copulate despite his environment? Does the female have a natural proclivity to wait patiently for the male? Heavy questions without clear cut answers!

Other studies have shown that males and females - left to their own devices - will innately "construct' a gender identity that suits them. Take the little boy and little girl and place them in a room full of dolls and plastic carpentry tools. The little boy may find the dolls amusing. The dolls represent a "friend' to him and provide him company. But his DNA may dictate (at some point) that he find the carpentry tools fascinating. And the little girl? Will she too abandon the gentleness of the dolls and sway towards the more masculine carpentry tools?

The other train(s) of thought is that we - as individuals - are or are not impacted and shaped by the media. Rather we glean from television, radio, movies and video games the elements we find so appealing. Te belief in some circles is that we adopt different masculine and feminine traits depending on our situations and needs. Our perceived gender understandings change over time with maturity and life experience.

And so it goes. No longer can we say "men are men and women are women and never the two shall meet". Better now to say, "Men and women can interchange roles and behaviours are they see fit in order to accomplish specific goals and objectives".