Despite social pressure, boys and girls still prefer gender-typical toys(bigthink.com)
bigthink.com
Despite social pressure, boys and girls still prefer gender-typical toys
https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/gender-stereotyped-toys
97 comments
The article doesn't suggest social pressure in the form of making fun. On the contrary, it suggests social pressure in encouraging girls to play with boys's toys and vice versa, although the former more than the latter:
> A 2017 survey from Pew Research Center found that a majority of Americans considered it a "somewhat or very good thing" to steer kids toward toys and activities traditionally associated with the opposite gender (though respondents were less enthusiastic about doing so for boys than girls).
> A 2017 survey from Pew Research Center found that a majority of Americans considered it a "somewhat or very good thing" to steer kids toward toys and activities traditionally associated with the opposite gender (though respondents were less enthusiastic about doing so for boys than girls).
That survey result has very little to do with the assertion that there is such a social pressure. All it implies is that respondents think it would be nice if there were.
You do realise that any steering parents apply to their children is social pressure, right?
My point is that there might be unconscious biases at play in parents, no matter what they might respond to a survey. It's not feasible for parents to account for 100% of their behavior when it comes to something as unimportant as this. IMO, this is something that just can't be determined scientifically.
Why do you think those parents think that? Would any parent have thought that 50 years ago? No way.
> Would any parent have thought that 50 years ago?
Yes, not only was parents doing that recognized as common-but-not-dominant thing 50 years ago (as a near-50 GenXer, I was aware of it existing and being perceived by adult society that way as a kid), it was even before that a popular media cliche leveraging a social trope that it was a real if eccentric recurring pattern (especially by fathers without sons toward girls) even earlier.
Yes, not only was parents doing that recognized as common-but-not-dominant thing 50 years ago (as a near-50 GenXer, I was aware of it existing and being perceived by adult society that way as a kid), it was even before that a popular media cliche leveraging a social trope that it was a real if eccentric recurring pattern (especially by fathers without sons toward girls) even earlier.
>probably goes back tens of thousands of years
I think you're off by several orders of magnitude, but yea it goes back a long way lol
I think you're off by several orders of magnitude, but yea it goes back a long way lol
I’m a father of fraternal twins who will be 25 this year. One boy, one girl. My wife wanted to raise them in a gender-neutral environment - provide “boy” toys and “girl” toys and let them play with whichever they wanted. My wife was a stay-at-home mom so the kids never went to daycare.
What happened?
My daughter played with baby dolls - mothering them and taking care of them. My son? He ran around the backyard using sticks as guns. He also liked to use Barbie dolls as hammers.
My wife and I learned there’s some things girls like to do and some things boys like to do. It appears to be biological. We’ve known a few other couples who tried the same thing and had similar results. Leads me to believe the difference between the sexes is nature, not nurture, and probably goes back tens of thousands of years.
What happened?
My daughter played with baby dolls - mothering them and taking care of them. My son? He ran around the backyard using sticks as guns. He also liked to use Barbie dolls as hammers.
My wife and I learned there’s some things girls like to do and some things boys like to do. It appears to be biological. We’ve known a few other couples who tried the same thing and had similar results. Leads me to believe the difference between the sexes is nature, not nurture, and probably goes back tens of thousands of years.
Yep, the fact that this question is even being asked shows that flawed assumptions have been made.
We don't even have to get into the nature/nurture debate: It's possible that your daughter learned to play baby dolls by watching and imitating her mother. This counts as socialization according to these nature/nurture studies, but ...
To attempt to take away the human being from society, from parents, etc., and find out what this human being would do outside of human society is an act of extreme cruelty, because human beings cannot grow up and function in total isolation. This is why, although science can be applied to specific biological processes such as reflexes, it will never be able to describe a person or a person's behavior. This is why psychology and sociology are considered "soft sciences".
We don't even have to get into the nature/nurture debate: It's possible that your daughter learned to play baby dolls by watching and imitating her mother. This counts as socialization according to these nature/nurture studies, but ...
To attempt to take away the human being from society, from parents, etc., and find out what this human being would do outside of human society is an act of extreme cruelty, because human beings cannot grow up and function in total isolation. This is why, although science can be applied to specific biological processes such as reflexes, it will never be able to describe a person or a person's behavior. This is why psychology and sociology are considered "soft sciences".
There absolutely is a genetic basis for behaviour though. A bird doesn't sing because it likes music. But because genes that exhibit that trait have a competitive advantage. And the same kind of thing can be seen in humans, and most keenly in babies and toddlers. Suddenly something happens in their brain and behaviours emerge by instinct.
There could easily be a genetic basis for why girls and boys like different things. And that is interesting. And obviously other factors play a role (like TV and siblings). The mistake is to believe that this is somehow a restriction on free will. The amazing thing about humans is out ability to break out of our genetic mold. The robin can never make rock music, but we can.
Also, no one is suggesting that we isolate some kids on a desert island to see what would happen. But there is nothing wrong with running that thought experiment! And maybe that understanding can help us break out of our genetic mold. We might be able to catch bad instinctive behaviours in ourselves and moderate them.
There could easily be a genetic basis for why girls and boys like different things. And that is interesting. And obviously other factors play a role (like TV and siblings). The mistake is to believe that this is somehow a restriction on free will. The amazing thing about humans is out ability to break out of our genetic mold. The robin can never make rock music, but we can.
Also, no one is suggesting that we isolate some kids on a desert island to see what would happen. But there is nothing wrong with running that thought experiment! And maybe that understanding can help us break out of our genetic mold. We might be able to catch bad instinctive behaviours in ourselves and moderate them.
Memory in gene expressions might even account for the difference. Gene expressions can change during a lifetime and across a couple of generations (ie. memory of famine can last 2 generations in gene expression). There are outliers that go against the norms, so seems not hardcoded on chromosone level.
Funnily, this would make both "camps" correct!
Funnily, this would make both "camps" correct!
It would be interesting if environmental factors had unexpected consequences down the line at a population level. Like famine leading to behavioral changes and effecting world events. There could be very compelling evidence out there to support claims like that, although obviously very difficult to establish causality.
I wouldn't be surprised to find gene expressions making Western-style education and standardized tests sub-optimal for whole swaths of people (hypothesis). Imagine if your very makeup go against what you're told should be just routine, but it goes against your innate body-mind preferences. Imagine that for whole tribes of people, and that maybe there are better paths more optimized to grow and educate different populations. Being able to communicate the gap or avoid misgivings, would be next to impossible.
A discussion of such would be less about identity, and more about who-we-shall-become, the evolving versions of ourselves, though also respecting heritage.
This is only possible with trust and common ground.
A discussion of such would be less about identity, and more about who-we-shall-become, the evolving versions of ourselves, though also respecting heritage.
This is only possible with trust and common ground.
My sister had the exact same experience with fraternal twins. She was very vocal about providing gender neutral environment.
My children were not twins but both were decidedly birth gender centered.
There was a time my daughter asked for tools and matchbox cars which I promptly gave her when she returned from school. She played with them for a week and went back to polly pockets.
This is obviously not the case for everyone. However, from experience it is biologically driven.
My children were not twins but both were decidedly birth gender centered.
There was a time my daughter asked for tools and matchbox cars which I promptly gave her when she returned from school. She played with them for a week and went back to polly pockets.
This is obviously not the case for everyone. However, from experience it is biologically driven.
It’s irritating that this is still a thing, even now.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge gender preferences?
While also acknowledging that it in no way implies competence in career and business?
Why is it so hard to acknowledge gender preferences?
While also acknowledging that it in no way implies competence in career and business?
The thing is it may also explain preferences in other areas, which may affect interest and competence. It is good to have some gender balance in most workplaces, and imbalance may worsen work conditions. Balance can make it more attractive for the opposite sex in general, not just for the outlier few.
Yes, but forcing balance via quota; or taking a naive approach like shoveling comp
sci to girls; is taking a hammer approach to a very nuanced problem.
Programming used to be done by women. At some point it flipped, but even in the 1980s there was clearly greatness https://www.fastcompany.com/90151279/the-woman-supercomputer...
Though note that the above designer went off to become an artist.
Rather than forcing the issue, the question that ought to be asked is what made/makes a former mostly-women dominated field appear so unappealing to women today?
I should also point out to that high paying and very physically demanding jobs such as nursing are dominated by women.
The issue can be as simple as a image problem. Kids, who wants to be lazy, mostly alone in front of a screen, and solving problems quietly, and get paid well for it?
Of course, no one will even ask this question if it’s career suicide to do so.
Programming used to be done by women. At some point it flipped, but even in the 1980s there was clearly greatness https://www.fastcompany.com/90151279/the-woman-supercomputer...
Though note that the above designer went off to become an artist.
Rather than forcing the issue, the question that ought to be asked is what made/makes a former mostly-women dominated field appear so unappealing to women today?
I should also point out to that high paying and very physically demanding jobs such as nursing are dominated by women.
The issue can be as simple as a image problem. Kids, who wants to be lazy, mostly alone in front of a screen, and solving problems quietly, and get paid well for it?
Of course, no one will even ask this question if it’s career suicide to do so.
80's became a huge boom to individuality and cut-throat competition, just saying.
What does the 1980s being cutthroat have anything to do with the topic at hand?
Sorry forgot explanation.
Alphamales tend to create and thrive in such workplace environment, to detriment of everyone else.
Alphamales tend to create and thrive in such workplace environment, to detriment of everyone else.
>My wife and I learned there’s some things girls like to do and some things boys like to do.
I don't have twins but I agree with this statement to a point. My daughter loves her Playmobil fire truck to the point that she slept with it a few times when she first got it. Her favorite stuffy was a frog for a while, until she started daycare and then we noticed interest in dolls growing.
I guess what I'm saying is that from my experience, social cues are much more powerful than people often like to think.
I don't have twins but I agree with this statement to a point. My daughter loves her Playmobil fire truck to the point that she slept with it a few times when she first got it. Her favorite stuffy was a frog for a while, until she started daycare and then we noticed interest in dolls growing.
I guess what I'm saying is that from my experience, social cues are much more powerful than people often like to think.
That's informative. In fact I bet physiology plays a strong role in our preferences whether or not we consciously realize it.
I was watching a documentary lately where some group of fish spent days climbing up the rock behind a waterfall with very low rates of success to lay their eggs. It felt incredible some code in their genes affects them at a point in their life where their utmost goal becomes swimming upstream no matter the dangers and they prefer doing that to, well, enjoying life in the sea.
I was watching a documentary lately where some group of fish spent days climbing up the rock behind a waterfall with very low rates of success to lay their eggs. It felt incredible some code in their genes affects them at a point in their life where their utmost goal becomes swimming upstream no matter the dangers and they prefer doing that to, well, enjoying life in the sea.
Just for a fun question: were the kids exposed to societal pressure in the form of, for example, other kids or YouTube or movies, that may have had an impact?
I am hoping this is a rhetorical question as no one lives in a vacuum. The point is what they take away from these experiences and that tends to be driven heavily by biology.
Just a fun question for you, have you raised children? At least one of each sex?
Just a fun question for you, have you raised children? At least one of each sex?
I have not raised children; but very young children can tell gender apart from other kids ("Cooties, eeewww"), and they may be wanting to emulate the person of the same gender as them doing things like play with guns as sticks, etc.
The conclusion made: that one gender likes to play with guns, the other likes to be nurturing, aren't necessarily binding, is why I brought up external factors.
The conclusion made: that one gender likes to play with guns, the other likes to be nurturing, aren't necessarily binding, is why I brought up external factors.
It is really tough to draw conclusions until you have spent every moment of your life with a very young child. Initial interests/behaviors and the intensity of those interests/behaviors are most often gender centered. I am talking 10mo+.
At this age they have had very little social interaction/pressure and begin to behave in very gender specific ways. To ignore biology in this case seems short sighted especially in the context of evolution and every other mammalian species on the face of the earth. I can point out the boys and girls in a litter of puppies at 4 weeks. They just behave differently.
( Again, so I don't get flamed, this is not a 100% statement because biology is distinctly individual but the tendency significantly overwhelming ).
At this age they have had very little social interaction/pressure and begin to behave in very gender specific ways. To ignore biology in this case seems short sighted especially in the context of evolution and every other mammalian species on the face of the earth. I can point out the boys and girls in a litter of puppies at 4 weeks. They just behave differently.
( Again, so I don't get flamed, this is not a 100% statement because biology is distinctly individual but the tendency significantly overwhelming ).
This makes some sense, but your analysis assumes that observed parental gender roles aren’t responsible for the patterning you describe before 1yr. I’d be more convinced of an analysis of child rearing in a “gender neutral environment” created by those who do not have the gender they were assigned at birth. Do these patterns still occur? I’d be more inclined to buy a biological explanation then, but without that, all you’re telling me is that a 10mo baby is extremely adept at absorbing patterns from their parents.
This would assume that the father for instance is crashing cars into each other, wrestling his friends, shooting at the neighbors, jumping off the back of the couch, tearing heads off of dolls, etc.
Most of the behaviors I am discussing are not patterned by a parent in anyway.
Most of the behaviors I am discussing are not patterned by a parent in anyway.
> observed parental gender roles aren’t responsible for the patterning you describe before 1yr
How does a baby of less than 12 months recognise its own gender in either of the parents?
How does a baby of less than 12 months recognise its own gender in either of the parents?
Parents recognize their own gender/sex in the baby, and babies can easily pattern off of differing levels of attention or different kinds of moment-to-moment emotional feedback.
What's the process of evaluating whether a kid's gender matches their sex. You can easily check their sexual organs and/or measure their hormonal levels (if they differ at all at that age) at least.
Other than the physiology are you going to ask a kid "hey, do you feel like a boy or a girl?" Because it isn't clear to me what that question means exactly and whether a kid can answer that.
Other than the physiology are you going to ask a kid "hey, do you feel like a boy or a girl?" Because it isn't clear to me what that question means exactly and whether a kid can answer that.
To state the obvious, no one knows what it is like to be someone else. We can compare what interests us, motivates us etc and say "I am more like that person than this other person". So I suppose the question might be framed in that way?
> I’d be more convinced of an analysis of child rearing in a “gender neutral environment” created by those who do not have the gender they were assigned at birth
I agree with you about some stuff, but you're wrong about this. Transgender people aren't magically free of gendered societal influences. Some are shitty sexists who prefer strict gender roles. Speaking as a transgender person.
I agree with you about some stuff, but you're wrong about this. Transgender people aren't magically free of gendered societal influences. Some are shitty sexists who prefer strict gender roles. Speaking as a transgender person.
This is very fair, and I could have phrased with more nuance. Upon reflection I'm actually not sure how I could be convinced that you'd raised a child without gender influence.
> I have not raised children
Find another post to comment on then
Find another post to comment on then
>very young children can tell gender apart from other kids
2 and 3 year olds can't. By 4 they can.
2 and 3 year olds can't. By 4 they can.
When my kids were very young (3 years?), they had a hard time telling gender apart, including their own. It may seem absurd to an adult, but from a toddler's point of view, grouping granny/mom/sister as one and grandpa/dad/brother in another is simply not very useful. They have to individually memorize "Yes, mom is a woman, and dad is a man" before they finally understand the concept.
So I don't think social pressure affects choices of play - a toddler will happily play with cars or dolls while they don't even know they're boys/girls.
So I don't think social pressure affects choices of play - a toddler will happily play with cars or dolls while they don't even know they're boys/girls.
A young boy I know loves playing with toy weapons.
He also loves playing cook, and playing "taking care of the baby" with a doll.
Luckily, he's allowed to.
He also loves playing cook, and playing "taking care of the baby" with a doll.
Luckily, he's allowed to.
> Luckily, he's allowed to.
I'm not sure I've heard of kids not being allowed to play with something (except for sex and dangerous or precious items). Also, if a child wants to play with a doll or a gun, any object will do, if needed.
I'm not sure I've heard of kids not being allowed to play with something (except for sex and dangerous or precious items). Also, if a child wants to play with a doll or a gun, any object will do, if needed.
There are definitely many people who will anywhere from dissuade to scold a child for playing with toys that don't fit that person's idea of a "gender appropriate" toy.
I believe it- there's always people doing stupid things-, I just don't have any first or second hand experience of it, just hearsay. So I can't say how common it is.
Also, as I kid I was dissuaded and scolded for playing with many things- nothing really worked, I still had great fun with fire and live 220V cables :).
Also, as I kid I was dissuaded and scolded for playing with many things- nothing really worked, I still had great fun with fire and live 220V cables :).
But were you shamed, by peers or parent?
Even a funny look or surprise will be cues children pick up immediately. Not that social conditioning is a bad thing, but humans just don't survive in a bubble.
Even a funny look or surprise will be cues children pick up immediately. Not that social conditioning is a bad thing, but humans just don't survive in a bubble.
> Luckily, he's allowed to.
Nobody I know of, on any side of this debate, has argued against letting kids choose what they want to do. The problem is when "my child likes playing with dolls" suddenly becomes "time to cut off my child's penis".
Nobody I know of, on any side of this debate, has argued against letting kids choose what they want to do. The problem is when "my child likes playing with dolls" suddenly becomes "time to cut off my child's penis".
Are you able to cite an example of this particular, direct consequence?
I find it amazing people learn this parents?
Did your parents not tell you this? Did you not have friends who were parents?
Not trying to insult, but this reminds me of mothers I know who think boys are just girls with penises and are horrified when the boys pick up sticks and want to brain each other.
I have seen many examples where giving a boy a sword is “teaching him violence” but lecturing him over and over that swords are hurtful is someone “letting his natural gentleness come out”.
Did your parents not tell you this? Did you not have friends who were parents?
Not trying to insult, but this reminds me of mothers I know who think boys are just girls with penises and are horrified when the boys pick up sticks and want to brain each other.
I have seen many examples where giving a boy a sword is “teaching him violence” but lecturing him over and over that swords are hurtful is someone “letting his natural gentleness come out”.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> He ran around the backyard using sticks as guns.
Since sticks (in nature) have none of the function of guns, this is certainly a learned behaviour from social observation.
Since sticks (in nature) have none of the function of guns, this is certainly a learned behaviour from social observation.
Two genders can observe the same thing, but attach different levels of importance to the observation, and have different preferences for imaginative play based on what they’ve observed.
Any two people will certainly attach different levels of importance to what they observe, I agree.
Given that this behaviour was learned by observation, society's existing gender norms - and specifically those around guns - would also have been observed and learned. We can't separate these, in this anecdote.
Would we not expect to observe the son to engage with more caring play if the stay-at-home parent (primary carer) had been the dad?
Given that this behaviour was learned by observation, society's existing gender norms - and specifically those around guns - would also have been observed and learned. We can't separate these, in this anecdote.
Would we not expect to observe the son to engage with more caring play if the stay-at-home parent (primary carer) had been the dad?
[deleted]
>> He ran around the backyard using sticks as guns.
> Since sticks (in nature) have none of the function of guns, this is certainly a learned behaviour from social observation.
Certainly part of it, but I'd bet if you gave the girl a stick to play with, she'd probably start doing something like pretending it was a baby. The specific behaviors are learned, but the preferences may not be.
I suspect that if you manged to raise some boys and girls a a completely gender neutral environment without those social influences, they'd spontaneously invent primitive and somewhat disorganized versions of the same behaviors (sort of like with language, e.g. a critical mass of deaf children will spontaneously invent a sign language together if they're not taught one).
> Since sticks (in nature) have none of the function of guns, this is certainly a learned behaviour from social observation.
Certainly part of it, but I'd bet if you gave the girl a stick to play with, she'd probably start doing something like pretending it was a baby. The specific behaviors are learned, but the preferences may not be.
I suspect that if you manged to raise some boys and girls a a completely gender neutral environment without those social influences, they'd spontaneously invent primitive and somewhat disorganized versions of the same behaviors (sort of like with language, e.g. a critical mass of deaf children will spontaneously invent a sign language together if they're not taught one).
>Certainly part of it, but I'd bet if you gave the girl a stick to play with, she'd probably start doing something like pretending it was a baby.
Do you have children?
Do you have children?
If your claim is that gender differentiated behaviour in children is spontaneously observed due only to nature, why do you need to invent an example? You've never seen a girl play with a stick like it's a baby, because that's not a thing that girls typically do (I doubt you can find a single example of this).
Girls treat the outdoors generally the same as boys do, and iirc are recorded climbing trees in the same numbers.
Girls treat the outdoors generally the same as boys do, and iirc are recorded climbing trees in the same numbers.
How about a chimpanzee? The young females have been observed to use sticks as dolls, playing with them like babies. The young males tend to use sticks as tools and weapons.
IMHO, this ends the argument.
IMHO, this ends the argument.
The article that I'm reading claims that boy chimps like to play with toy trucks:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/101220-chi...
You're gonna therefore have to explain to me why you think this is natural behaviour. Since, as I understand, trucks were invented by humans.
Isn't it just that chimpanzees are social and have been cued by human expectations, their captors and immediate relatives?
You're gonna therefore have to explain to me why you think this is natural behaviour. Since, as I understand, trucks were invented by humans.
Isn't it just that chimpanzees are social and have been cued by human expectations, their captors and immediate relatives?
I have ABSOLUTELY seen many young girls (3-7 yo) playing with sticks or similar objects as if they are babies / dolls.
In communist Romania of my youth, where toys were sparse.
In Egypt nowadays, in poor families who can't pay for toys.
In communist Romania of my youth, where toys were sparse.
In Egypt nowadays, in poor families who can't pay for toys.
> It appears to be biological.
Even assuming "its biological", that means that every single boy in the country must be disposed to liking guns, and every single girl must like to mother baby dolls?
And you'd think that a community of "Hackers" would be a bit less concerned about what the bulk of the population does and a bit more interested in the outliers.
Even assuming "its biological", that means that every single boy in the country must be disposed to liking guns, and every single girl must like to mother baby dolls?
And you'd think that a community of "Hackers" would be a bit less concerned about what the bulk of the population does and a bit more interested in the outliers.
A biological effect on character doesn’t rule out outliers.
I’m not sure what u are trying to say tbh. Conceding there is something biological at play doesn’t mean no boy is ever allowed to play with a Barbie.
I’m not sure what u are trying to say tbh. Conceding there is something biological at play doesn’t mean no boy is ever allowed to play with a Barbie.
Honestly, I'm quite surprised by how much people here seem to think it's biological. It seems to me there is no way society's slight move toward encouraging gender-neutral playing isn't still strongly offset by the pervasive culture of machismo and femininity. The second your boy steps foot into school, if he's wearing something pink or playing with a doll, other boys will make fun of him. A single incident like that is a plenty strong incentive to stick with same-gendered toys.
Have you raised kids? If not you may be surprised by the experience when you do so.
It is unconscionable in 2021 that stereotypes can still exist. Why are certain aisles in toy stores bright pink and geared towards one group? Why are certain aisles in toy stores geared with toys revolving around shooting things? Everybody should have the choice. We should all do our part. I'm trying to do my part to help achieve TRUE EQUITY in all communities. Did you know that just 2.3% of United States plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters are women? Why is nobody talking about this gross inequality? How many young girls have been discouraged and had their dreams of helping their communities in this way denied? I intend to start local and give my daughter a choice. She will have every right to play with pneumatic and hand drills, impact wrenches, band saws, hand clamps, air compressors, as well as G.I. Joe Action Figures and Polly Pocket Playhouse if she chooses. Lean in and help everybody achieve their true ambitions and calling.
Why do you think bright pink aisled are geared towards one group? Everyone can like pink, I'm sure the people working in toystores are happy to sell pink dolls do boys or plastic guns and soldier dolls to girls.
I’d bet the lunch I’m about to eat that the bright pink aisle will predominantly contain imagery of girls or toys typically played with by girls.
For it to be geared towards both boys and girls, it would need to be bright pink with equal imagery of boys and girls, and equal amounts of toys played with boys as well as girls.
Come on, it’s like saying barbie dolls aren’t girls toys. I mean, sure, boys aren’t usually incapable of playing with them, but that’s also irrelevant.
For it to be geared towards both boys and girls, it would need to be bright pink with equal imagery of boys and girls, and equal amounts of toys played with boys as well as girls.
Come on, it’s like saying barbie dolls aren’t girls toys. I mean, sure, boys aren’t usually incapable of playing with them, but that’s also irrelevant.
Funny enough, the association between pink and girls is quite recent. In the middle ages that was not the case so you it would not be that that strange to have a knight being pink-dressed. (unfortunately I cannot find any reference at the moment, so you have to trust me on this)
I think there's one expectation in society about what certain groups of people like. (For example, pink dolls are just for girls, boys can't be into dollhouses, or girls just aren't interested in deep sea fishing, or what have you)
But I think everybody should have the opportunity to live their life and choose the toys they wish as I pointed out. As long as it fixes inequalities and leads to true equity, I'm all for it.
But I think everybody should have the opportunity to live their life and choose the toys they wish as I pointed out. As long as it fixes inequalities and leads to true equity, I'm all for it.
Unless there is somebody there blocking a boy or a girl from reaching a certain aisle, stereotypes are no issue. Yes, there are aisle that are predominantly pink and full of princesses, and others that are full of soldiers and weapons, but in the end... who cares ? Assuming that one is about girls and the other is about boys is itself sexist.
For example, ,my daughter loves dressing like a princess and using make-up, despite the mother hating both. On the other side, she really loves playing with trucks, scrapers etc. Shall I nudge her towards one topic or the other so that she will be "gender neutral" ? No, who cares. Whatever she likes is fine.
The ones having social pressure are not the kids, but the parents. "oh my God if I am going to give a doll to my daughter I will be a sexist bad parent". no, really, give her what she likes more,does she likes dolls ? Give her that. Does she prefer being an and engineer ? Good, give her the tools that she asks for, as long as it is what SHE wants, not you want.
If this means confirming some stereotypes.... well too bad, you're supposed to make your daughter happy, not some statician.
(disclaimer: I have a single daughter and probably I won't have any more kid so I guess I'm project on her also what I would like to have from a male kid... still as long as she is happy I am fine, regardless of whatever she wants to do of her life)
For example, ,my daughter loves dressing like a princess and using make-up, despite the mother hating both. On the other side, she really loves playing with trucks, scrapers etc. Shall I nudge her towards one topic or the other so that she will be "gender neutral" ? No, who cares. Whatever she likes is fine.
The ones having social pressure are not the kids, but the parents. "oh my God if I am going to give a doll to my daughter I will be a sexist bad parent". no, really, give her what she likes more,does she likes dolls ? Give her that. Does she prefer being an and engineer ? Good, give her the tools that she asks for, as long as it is what SHE wants, not you want.
If this means confirming some stereotypes.... well too bad, you're supposed to make your daughter happy, not some statician.
(disclaimer: I have a single daughter and probably I won't have any more kid so I guess I'm project on her also what I would like to have from a male kid... still as long as she is happy I am fine, regardless of whatever she wants to do of her life)
Not sure if the people below just did not read your entire comment, or if their sarcasm detector is broken.
I like to also point this out whenever someone mentions that only "X" percent of women are <insert male-dominated field here>. 97% of loggers are men, at least they were the last time I looked at that statistic. Grossly unfair to women. We must achieve gender parity in logging. Women have just as much right to be crushed to death by giant multi-ton trees and mutilate their limbs with horrible chainsaw accidents.
I like to also point this out whenever someone mentions that only "X" percent of women are <insert male-dominated field here>. 97% of loggers are men, at least they were the last time I looked at that statistic. Grossly unfair to women. We must achieve gender parity in logging. Women have just as much right to be crushed to death by giant multi-ton trees and mutilate their limbs with horrible chainsaw accidents.
It is unconscionable in 2021 that gender stereotypical examples to point out gender stereotypes can still exist. Did you know that just 2.3% of United States preschool and kindergarten teachers are men? Why is nobody talking about this gross inequality? Right from the start, when our little humans are the most vulnerable and influenceable, they are denied gender balanced care, examples and behaviours. How many young boys have been discouraged and had their dreams of helping their communities in this way denied?
The kids don't know it is "geared towards one group", they choose it on their own. As a father of a daughter, like myself, you should be well aware of how this typically works.
Whatever modern non-normativity pressures might possibly exist, the status quo is that male and female role models in society embody different characteristics. Looking out at the world & seeing what people who look like you do, what roles they embody matter.
Different angle, but former & new CEO of TSMC Morris Chang, in a 2014 interview, talks about how he came to semiconductors: he looked around at what other asian businessmen were doing, switched from Harvard to MIT because no opportunities, examples open to him, & saw "no chinese American politicans, no chinese-american even businessman" (1949)[1]. Obviously this is no longer 1949, equal rights is literally the rule of the land in a fair part of the world. But it's a strong story of role models mattering, of doing what you see. And there are definitely still gender-roles prevalent within society, roles taken by masculine figures, roles taken by feminine figures, and people looking in the mirror are like to understand, to see themselves forward on paths where they can already see people who resemble themselves succeeding. Disrupt this, please, but to me, the pressures towards non-normativity are greatly outranked by the evidences & pressures of what we already see in the world.
Last, I'll throw in a shout out to Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota[2] series. It's a wonderful story from a Renaissance history professor, of a post-geo-governmental sci-fi world, of politics & great events. One of the interesting flourishes of the book is that the world has largely decided to make gender taboo. To adopt a willful genderblindness, to try to treat everyone equally, to regard to everyone with non-gendered pro-nouns. The world has worked to undo the pre-dispositions set up, actively, rather than merely requiring a legal treatment. It's an interesting detail of the world, & causes no end of tension & complications for the characters of course, which is just one part of this wonderful interesting highly interwoven saga. It speaks to the difficulty of the social science happening in this article, to the impossibility to build a control group that could ever test out how sex shapes us, because so much of society is suffused with it. Even in the Terra Ignota world, where a agendered Puritanism has taken over, the old roles still have root, even though they are illegal, & must hide. When people talk about their anecdotes of boys & girls having different behaviors, I think they must just be so blind to how much influence, how many opportunities for messaging, how much of a status quo the world has, how much they are up against to provide that equal chance.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEh3ZgbvBrE#t=29m https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25611648
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Ignota
Different angle, but former & new CEO of TSMC Morris Chang, in a 2014 interview, talks about how he came to semiconductors: he looked around at what other asian businessmen were doing, switched from Harvard to MIT because no opportunities, examples open to him, & saw "no chinese American politicans, no chinese-american even businessman" (1949)[1]. Obviously this is no longer 1949, equal rights is literally the rule of the land in a fair part of the world. But it's a strong story of role models mattering, of doing what you see. And there are definitely still gender-roles prevalent within society, roles taken by masculine figures, roles taken by feminine figures, and people looking in the mirror are like to understand, to see themselves forward on paths where they can already see people who resemble themselves succeeding. Disrupt this, please, but to me, the pressures towards non-normativity are greatly outranked by the evidences & pressures of what we already see in the world.
Last, I'll throw in a shout out to Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota[2] series. It's a wonderful story from a Renaissance history professor, of a post-geo-governmental sci-fi world, of politics & great events. One of the interesting flourishes of the book is that the world has largely decided to make gender taboo. To adopt a willful genderblindness, to try to treat everyone equally, to regard to everyone with non-gendered pro-nouns. The world has worked to undo the pre-dispositions set up, actively, rather than merely requiring a legal treatment. It's an interesting detail of the world, & causes no end of tension & complications for the characters of course, which is just one part of this wonderful interesting highly interwoven saga. It speaks to the difficulty of the social science happening in this article, to the impossibility to build a control group that could ever test out how sex shapes us, because so much of society is suffused with it. Even in the Terra Ignota world, where a agendered Puritanism has taken over, the old roles still have root, even though they are illegal, & must hide. When people talk about their anecdotes of boys & girls having different behaviors, I think they must just be so blind to how much influence, how many opportunities for messaging, how much of a status quo the world has, how much they are up against to provide that equal chance.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEh3ZgbvBrE#t=29m https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25611648
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Ignota
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrogen
Do you think these maybe have more to do with causing those differences in the first place?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrogen
Do you think these maybe have more to do with causing those differences in the first place?
if you are under 11 this basically doesn't apply in even the slightest sooo yeah I think it's full of shit.
after that, I think the expression of these hormones is again confined to societal patterns, that keep us from understanding the real impact of these chemicals in any objective sense. it's convenient cheap & easy to convince yourself you know the impact of these chemicals, that it leads to this behavior or that, and while yes there are differences for sure, I place far more emphasis on the straightjacket of society & the limited roles it's even willing to consider than I do the impact of the hormones. I think there's many potentials for how these could be expressed that are simply denied, excluded.
that parents are so confident their kids have such strong gender biases well before the significant bio-chemical differences start to emerge, that's a huge red flag on this all. we have nearly no ability to grapple with the real impacts.
after that, I think the expression of these hormones is again confined to societal patterns, that keep us from understanding the real impact of these chemicals in any objective sense. it's convenient cheap & easy to convince yourself you know the impact of these chemicals, that it leads to this behavior or that, and while yes there are differences for sure, I place far more emphasis on the straightjacket of society & the limited roles it's even willing to consider than I do the impact of the hormones. I think there's many potentials for how these could be expressed that are simply denied, excluded.
that parents are so confident their kids have such strong gender biases well before the significant bio-chemical differences start to emerge, that's a huge red flag on this all. we have nearly no ability to grapple with the real impacts.
Puberty is the third surge of sex hormones. The first is prenatal, and the second
- called "minipuberty" - typically occurs before six months in boys and before two years in girls.
Some discussion in this paper: https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/508329
(and, yes, it's skeptical that hormones significantly influence behavioral differences between boys and girls - but it's clear that boys and girls have gone through different hormonal trajectories even early in life).
Some discussion in this paper: https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/508329
(and, yes, it's skeptical that hormones significantly influence behavioral differences between boys and girls - but it's clear that boys and girls have gone through different hormonal trajectories even early in life).
[deleted]
I give my daughter ample opportunities to use hand tools to work on R/C trucks, and generally play with any stereotypical "boy stuff" (I have a lot of stuff like that since I'm just a 40 year old 12 year old) with me from birth, way before any external influences of TV or outside influences.
Guess what, she still prefers to take care of her toys in a sterotypical maternal way - animals, dolls, etc. Both options have always been there. The article rings true to me.
Another is the difference in interest in video games. The thinking has been that video games just haven’t been tailored to girls’ interests. Which actually is admitting a gender distinction. Anyway I tried my best to find games my daughters would enjoy, with some success.
But the video game mania of every nephew of mine was on a completely different level. With them it always became an issue for their parents to intervene and moderate.
But the video game mania of every nephew of mine was on a completely different level. With them it always became an issue for their parents to intervene and moderate.
It doesn't matter how many game genres I expose my son to - RPGs, puzzle, space, adventure, sports, visual novel... No matter what, he goes back to blowing zombies away in Call of Duty Multiplayer. He could do that for 12 hours a day if I let him. Interestingly, he otherwise enjoys intellectual and artistic pursuits, but I feel there is some deep instinct showing its face in his game preferences.
I have to disagree, it's not a matter of preference, it's a matter of what they are exposed to.
We have dolls, lego, duplo, mechas and a big "kitchen".
We live far from family and none of my friends here has kids, so my daughter plays with me a good chunk of the time (I work from home) and with mom. Mom doesn't like dolls, but she puts an effort into showing her. I get just bored with those, so we play with boy toys.
She get a little bit of interest in dolls to pretend she is cleaning her little brother, but most of the time she plays with duplo, although she does put to bed the characters in there.
There is no one saying "princess princess", so her favourite character in Frozen is Frozen Marshmallow (the big snow monster), she likes singing though.
Again, it's all a matter of exposure and it comes heavily from who she plays with the most. In our case, me and my wife are the people she sees the most (and COVID obviously pushed that even further).
Oh and yes of course we want a gender neutral environment. Now that I think of it, she also sees me changing diapers, so maybe she is pretending to be me.
We have dolls, lego, duplo, mechas and a big "kitchen".
We live far from family and none of my friends here has kids, so my daughter plays with me a good chunk of the time (I work from home) and with mom. Mom doesn't like dolls, but she puts an effort into showing her. I get just bored with those, so we play with boy toys.
She get a little bit of interest in dolls to pretend she is cleaning her little brother, but most of the time she plays with duplo, although she does put to bed the characters in there.
There is no one saying "princess princess", so her favourite character in Frozen is Frozen Marshmallow (the big snow monster), she likes singing though.
Again, it's all a matter of exposure and it comes heavily from who she plays with the most. In our case, me and my wife are the people she sees the most (and COVID obviously pushed that even further).
Oh and yes of course we want a gender neutral environment. Now that I think of it, she also sees me changing diapers, so maybe she is pretending to be me.
Why is it suddenly so hard to accept that there exist psychological differences between genders as well as undebatably there are physical? The need for discussion about this is really mind boggling to me, considering that the crowd here is supposed to be intelligent and reasonable and not either-wingly and emotionally loaden. The discussion doesn't seem to be about equality of rights and importance anymore. What the hell is happening?
Edit: sorry for the rant. Both the article and majority of the comments are a reasonable discussion. "But you get where I'm coming from"
Edit: sorry for the rant. Both the article and majority of the comments are a reasonable discussion. "But you get where I'm coming from"
Because some people have decided to take an all-or-nothing approach to "all people are equal". Imagine if during the social justice movement of the mid 20th century, we saw people saying "actually, there's no such thing as black and white, everybody has the same skin color", in an attempt to show that the races are valued equally as humans. That would be absurd. And yet that's what is now happening with gender.
I agree with the sentiment. I think the issue is that society is finally trying to fix some longstanding inequities but in many areas we have overshot the response and are due for recalibration.
[deleted]
I notice the commenters who agree that it seems to be biological are the ones who actually have children.
I have a two year old. He was raised with gender neutral toys and due to the pandemic largely in isolation from the rest of society for the last year with a lot of time spent with both parents. Moreover as the father I don't show strong interest in “typical” male interests like cars or football.
The first time my son saw a digger, he was hooked. He is completely enthralled with construction vehicles- dumper trucks, cement mixers etc. His favourite colour of Play Dough is "mud". He has dolls but they hold limited interest over his toolbench.
Before having children I would have said it was largely societal. But I've watched my son show strong preference to "boy" hobbies since he was able to show interest in anything and it was really quite surprising how "boyish" he turned out to be considering we tried to give him equal opportunity for all activities. Of course you can never rule out external influences entirely but I remain convinced the difference is biological.
I have a two year old. He was raised with gender neutral toys and due to the pandemic largely in isolation from the rest of society for the last year with a lot of time spent with both parents. Moreover as the father I don't show strong interest in “typical” male interests like cars or football.
The first time my son saw a digger, he was hooked. He is completely enthralled with construction vehicles- dumper trucks, cement mixers etc. His favourite colour of Play Dough is "mud". He has dolls but they hold limited interest over his toolbench.
Before having children I would have said it was largely societal. But I've watched my son show strong preference to "boy" hobbies since he was able to show interest in anything and it was really quite surprising how "boyish" he turned out to be considering we tried to give him equal opportunity for all activities. Of course you can never rule out external influences entirely but I remain convinced the difference is biological.
Great insight. I'm blown away by the amount of nonsense I hear about child rearing from people who had minimal contact with young children. A lot of theories quickly get destroyed when you get schooled by your own child!
My 4yo and 2yo girls are also enthralled with diggers. I think there's just something about big equipment that's impressive.
This is a really good book on the subject :) was both their favorite for quite a long time:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/228537/digger-dozer...
This is a really good book on the subject :) was both their favorite for quite a long time:
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/228537/digger-dozer...
Obviously. Children are pure and not spoiled with current agenda.
[deleted]
Less social pressure to play with gender-sterotypical toys != social pressure to play with opposite gender toys.