Myth of pink brain blue brain

Sorry, I'll stop bothering you with stupid questions.

Nolove, Cheers!

So we're all agreed that gender stereotypes can dictate choices. Do we all think that choices reinforce gender stereotypes?

In noloves example and others I have seen that are similar, the girls come out of school with stem qualifications. They are shocked to discover that not everyone thinks like them. They enter the world of sexism and their determination to have a stem career gradual erodes.

Perhaps this is an issue of quantity.

The more girls who do it, the greater the numbers taking up their career, the quicker the balance gets adjusted.

Thus, females will gradually get in to a situation where they are instrumental in dictating national policy as 50% of the decision-makers.

And vice versa for boys. They will be instrumental in formulating say parental leave policy, with the surefire knowledge that many men will need to take it up.

Assasinated, I covered this in my earlier posts. Here:

Hate to say it, but this is further complicated by Epigenetics, that is altered gene expression caused by environment, being able to be passed from parent to child. So some (sex determined) differences could be 'innate', that is present at birth, within some societies/pockets of society but not to others as a result of environment.

And here:

But don't forget Epigenetics is good also, as it shows that the right socialisation can impact more than a single generation. It does show how important socialisation is - it actually rewrites our biology to some extent. However this does mean though, whilst extremely worthwhile, it might be harder to tackle rigid gender stereotypes within very traditional (pockets of) societies, as people can be essentially biologically adapted, at least in part, to some of them.

And here:

However brain plasticity means that marked differences in the socialisation of males and female could potentially result in physiological differences. The New Scientist article, I made reference to in my previous post, IIRC found that men in societies that had more 'traditional' gender stereotypes had different levels of testosterone which is linked to aggression.

It's certainly pervasive and will take some time to break down, not least with the current regressive thinking around the subject clearlytobeclaret!

with the epigenetic factor, I think the stereotyping is somewhat inbuilt, it starts before birth!

How do you mean? What sort of stereotyping do you mean? Is there evidence for this?

Nolove, arrrrghh! Sorry!

Nomine, with the epigenetic factor, I think the stereotyping is somewhat inbuilt, it starts before birth! But that goes not mean stereotypes cannot be broken down, it might just take more work.

I don't think mixed education is the problem and ideally I'd like there to be no need for single sex education and all schools to be mixed. The problem is gender and gender stereotyping which starts almost from birth and in my opinion is becoming further entrenched at the moment.

Sorry, Nolove.

Because you just mentioned one documentary which included one visit, Nomine. My point is mixed education does not necessarily reinforce gender stereotypes. It does not have to be this way. Mixed education is not the problem. It is the way that mixed education is delivered that can be the problem or solution.

I don't entirely see how that proves anything when it evidently is the case for many.

She asked the pupils if any of them were considering STEM subjects - none of the girls were. When she asked them why answers included "they're too hard", "they're more subjects for boys", "girls aren't really good at them", "challenging subjects are for the boys". When asked to describe what they pictured a scientist as, all the girls and boys said a man.

I went to a mixed school. That is not how I felt or my female peers.

I'm not sure who's seeking to do that claritytobeclear. The current situation is definitely restrictive and reductive.

I completely agree in allowing both boys and girls to choose roles. But until those roles are not dictated by gender stereotypes, they are not decided on in a vacuum

Agreed, Datun. But the only way to have a vacuum is for there to be nothing around, no culture, no one else's influence. That's not going to happen is it? Well, I wouldn't want it to.

There was a documentary I've mentioned on this board before a couple of years ago by Professor Alice Roberts featuring a visit by her to a mixed secondary school. She asked the pupils if any of them were considering STEM subjects - none of the girls were. When she asked them why answers included "they're too hard", "they're more subjects for boys", "girls aren't really good at them", "challenging subjects are for the boys". When asked to describe what they pictured a scientist as, all the girls and boys said a man. To have had that attitude ingrained is certainly not giving them a free choice.

I completely agree in allowing both boys and girls to choose roles. But until those roles are not dictated by gender stereotypes, they are not decided on in a vacuum.

Nolove, no of course stereotypes are restrictive and reductive. However purposely seeking to encourage opposite stereotypes being seen as a higher priority than individual autonomy could potentially be just as restrictive and reductive. Opposite stereotypes are still stereotypes. This was my point. There needs to be balance.

My point was about how stereotypes are holding people back and influencing choice making it not a free one rather than on the merits or otherwise of single sex schools. It's not "devaluing abilities" to say that gender stereotypes (and imposition of gender generally) is holding children back from a young age and pushing them towards certain subjects/behaviours.

Sorry, my last post should have been addressed to Nolove

That freedom doesn't exist at the moment due to gender stereotyping and roles persisting.

So how do we attain freedom, in this context, Datun? Surely not by devaluing genuine choices, ignoring genuine abilities or devaluing them, just because they fall into traditional gender stereotypes? That is not freedom.

Single sex schools might be good in creating a bit of a bubble where girls frequently ignore gender stereotypes and specialise in STEM subjects and boys in the arts. However they do nothing towards bridging any divide between the sexes, whereby the opposite sex is seen as something 'other'. If we want more understanding and compassion between the sexes surely being able to coexist in the same room is a start.

Equally, allowing boys and girls the freedom follow the interests they have chosen

That freedom doesn't exist at the moment due to gender stereotyping and roles persisting. This is shown by the fact that in single sex schools take up of such subjects is completely different: girls choosing STEM subjects in high numbers and boys choosing arts subjects in similarly high numbers.

"Traditional female roles" are not "female roles", they're just ascribed to women and girls by a society which seeks to preserve the status quo.

Datun

Raising children child centrically, is just that. You can either reinforce or not reinforce, or simply not have it on your radar at all . It doesn't dictate the way you're going to raise them

I don't think what I was saying, being child-centric child as a response to rejecting stereotypes, counteracts this. Rejecting stereotypes can mean the qualities they dictate can either be encouraged or not, it just means that the stereotypes are not what are dictating those qualities. For example someone could acknowledge that not all women want to be mothers and that this is fine (not 'unnatural' or anything), thus rejecting some traditional stereotypes, but equally recognise and encourage their daughter's desire to become a mother.

Campaigning to encourage girls into stem subjects, is actually doing something. Encouraging boys to cook for themselves, sew up their own clothes, etc, dismantles the roles dictated by the notion of gender stereotypes.

Equally, allowing boys and girls the freedom follow the interests they have chosen, is not doing nothing. If these interests are not dictated by gender stereotypes, they are just as valid to feminism, even though they might fall into traditional gender stereotypical ones for their sex. Surely traditional female roles should not be devalued because they are traditionally female? Surely these roles have no requirement to be validated by males choosing to do them?

Could it not be that a child centric upbringing leaves a void when they suddenly go out into the world to, say, university?

I think this could be true. Individualism can be lonely for people.

Also the number of children who don't conform to playing with the toys ascribed to their gender is so great, despite parents being pushed towards buying specific ones with marketing and so forth, it's clearly nonsense. I always loved playing with toy cars and other toys which I've only more recently discovered some think are "boys' toys" and I'm far from an anomaly. One of my brothers also did, the other had no interest. It's ridiculous to suggest this is determined by sex.

fakenamefornow

That study has been around on here before. I don't understand how a preference for boys toys can be innate, when those boys toys have only been invented in the last 70 years.