to think boys really ARE different to girls and it's not just nurture?

[Shovelnotspade]

I went into parenthood armed with a first degree in psychology (combined with philosophy) and the notion that until puberty, little boys and little girls are the same and any differences are simply nurture.

I have 3 boys, 4 including DH's son from his first marriage and to me, they're so different to girls I can't believe it!

My SIL came over with her 5 and 4 year old girls to play with my 3 and 2 year old boys - they live in the US so we don't see them often and hers say nicely and did crafting, played with my old dolls, and decorated biscuits. Mine did not stop shouting and running. At all. I wouldn't change them for the world and am used to having to think of them as having a LOT of energy and a short attention span but SIL looked amazed and offered me lots of largely pointless tips.

I hate generalisations (generally ) but in my experience, at this age, little boys need far more supervision!
AIBU?

I can't see what is wrong with it-people are comfortable with their own culture. I remember with the Canadian couple who were bringing up as gender neutral that girls had a problem with the 'girl-boy', as they put it. They were not comfortable with him.

I don't think there is anything WRONG with boys being different to girls, it is just from my experience, and other people that I know, nurture does seem to have a big impact on chilldren, especially at the very young ages that the OP is referring to, and it is quite possible that at least part of the reason that her children did not stop 'shouting and running' all afternoon is because that is how they always behave, that is how their brothers behave, and were they girls the OP or 'well meaning' others would probably have earlier on made noises that it wasn't appropriate (whether it is appropriate for boy or girl of that age to behave like that is another thread). If the SIL had a little boy of the same age it is quite possible that he would conform to the norms of that family and sit doing craft.

In many ways ds is very much a boy, e.g. his willie stretching endeavours, his interests in knights and dinosaurs (but that is probably becuase many of his presents revolve around them as it is a sector of our toy collection which was lacking). He shows little interest in cars although he does enjoy building train tracks and lego - almost as much as the girls do. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a boy and behaving like one, and maybe he will end up being either gay or more feminine than most boys, or maybe the early influence of us girls will even out once he starts school and his testosterone kicks in and he will spend his days shouting and running. He very much identifies himself as a boy, but as the behavioural boundaries are already blurred in our household he is not 'typical'. For the moment though, he and thousands of other 2 and 3 year old boys aren't that distinuishable from 2 and 3 year old girls brought up under similar circumstances.

I don't like the theory that it's all nurture, seems completely wrong to me.

Have only skimmed this thread, but like the OP I have a psychology first degree.

Where is the OP, by the way?

My experience of my four DC - DD, DD, DS, DD - was that they were all exactly the same in babyhood, as toddlers, and in primary school, until puberty, then DS was slightly more "boyish", but interestingly, one of my DDs was told at school that she thought "like a boy".

I did not expect to see differences. Guess what? I didn't.

They all had trains, cars and dolls, and were dressed neutrally.

I agree with Folkghoul and probably others too... yep, just looked back a bit, so 3 bunnies, jamie and procasstinator too.

I don't think thy are exactly the same until puberty. They play together quite happily until they are about 6 years and then they tend to play separately (in general) and you will get best friends, of the same sex, all girl parties and sleepovers etc. At puberty they will come back together and parties will be mixed etc.
Humans are social and they read social signs- those who have problems with friendships are the ones who can't read the signs.
Boys seem to have the problems because people don't like the typical boy attributes and yet a girl is applauded for having them! I can't see what is wrong with them for either sex.
I get so bored with the people who try and have a neutral gender child- you know full well it will be a boy- and so far it has turned out to be a boy. This is because it is socially acceptable for a girl to have typical boy traits but, to many people, it isn't socially acceptable for a boy to have typical girl traits. No one will give it a thought if a girl goes out dressed as Bob the Builder but they will have opinions if a boy goes out dressed as a fairy.
In the same way there are parents who try and deny a girl the things she wants- there was a poor poster on here who had spent her entire childhood dressed in brown- she never got anything pretty!
I don't see anything wrong in being different. I think we should just let them get on with it without trying to influence. If a boy wants to dress as a fairy - whatever not? The children will know the gender- the difference is far more subtle than toys and looks. My friend's son had long blonde hair in a pony tail through most of his childhood and he had a period of wearing a kilt. He got mistaken for a girl, but not once you got to know him - and girls never got it wrong.

Why not let them choose what to wear- why neutrally? They tried it in China and it didn't work.

yy exotic, I agree with you. When I said neutrally,I just meant against the stereotypes. Didn't mean anything

Flip!

Posted before I had finished typing.

Now cannot remember what I was in the process of writing.

Sorry.

I am quite happy with neutral - if the children have chosen it. I just can't stand the pushing of it onto children by parents with an adult agenda. If a girl wants a pink party dress it is much better to get her one- she will probably pass through the phase. I have a friend who was the despair of her mother- she would never look pretty or wear a dress- it was her choice. Social engineering always backfires.

Yes, absolutely. Not talking about social engineering. Passing through a phase is something I completely understand.

exotic, but parents who buy loads of pink for their daughter are equally pushing an adult agenda. All parents make choices for their children. Buying neutral clothes is no more of a choice than buying pink, or blue.

FWIW I took ds to see a preview of the new Tinkerbell film yesterday - I was offered the tickets and took my niece and my sister. I'd been slightly concerned that ds might hate it, being a 9yo boy, or be embarrassed but actually he loved it. As did my niece. (There are male characters but I was alive to the fact it was a film about fairies which is not generally regarded as a suitable subject for boys - certainly there are boys in my son's class who would be horrified at the idea and probably tease ds for going.) ds did turn down the goody bags, though, they were covered in pink glitter and Disney fairies and full of fairy-themed stationery. A step too far even for a fairly well-balanced 9yo who still has friends who are girls!

I think it unfair that there is a double standard and girls can easily be different and have the choice of the entire range. They can join Cubs, play football, wear all colours, never wear a dress-I could go on and on and on-no one will turn a hair. Sadly a boy is straight jacketed -he can't join Brownies (they won't have him) I have never seen one in a netball team, they don't generally wear pink. I think that they are the ones who have it tough-so much is closed off. e.g. J K Rowling used initials so that boys would read her.
Parents are well advised to leave well alone-if a girl likes pink then she might as well work through it, if a boy wants to dress as a fairy then let him do it.
I still think that it is nature-if you got identical twins brought up in vastly different ways with different families I expect you would still find they were alike.

A teacher of many years in a secondary school told me she preferred boys as they were more open and obvious whereas many girls could be devious ,manipulative and underhand. It was a woman teacher.

It's very sad that a teacher, of all people, can be so prejudiced. People tend to see the evidence that confirms their own view of the world and ignore that which doesn't. If you are aware of that prejudice, you can try to overcome it. You'd expect an educationalist to be both aware and trying to overcome her prejudices. I'm sure she's had plenty of female pupils who are open and honest and plenty of boys who are devious, she's just chosen to focus on those that confirm her chosen stereotype.

I mean, if that was generally true, there'd be no male politicians, FFS.

Edam
The teacher meant she found the boys on the whole easier to discipline/teach during her many years of teaching experience.

The boys are straightforward/girls are manipulative thing is partly due to differing perception of behaviour, and partly due to the maturity gap. I taught mainly 16-19yo boys for quite a long time, and found them to be cruel and devious, although they did have some good qualities. In other words, how girls often are at 14/15.

Testosterone
Read on a medical website, that men have a normal ,in a non- aroused state, 300 units of it in their blood, women around 28. I have used the term units as have forgotten the actual word used. In men the testosterone increases during sexual arousel, aggression and high performance activity. And" that testosterone puts the M into Macho- producing all that is male - powerful muscles, thicker/tougher skin, facial hair etc etc.
Have watched documentaries on womwn who want to be come men and their progress with their treatment. Given testosterone and oestragen blockers in the initial stages, and in 6 months they had changed visiually into men with no femininity to be seen. Voice deepened, facial hair, broad masculine shoulders and muscly arms, even their bones bulked up and hands got bigger.
One developed a male bald patch on her head, which was genetic on the male side of her family.

With a degree in psychology I'd expect a better understanding of what constitutes evidence than that demonstrated in your OP.

I taught the same classes as her, 11-16, but had more difficulty with the boys being silly, and the girls more mature I had no problem with. She did not have children and I had a teenage daughter so found I could relate to girls better

digerd - your second post makes the teacher sound reasonable but the words 'devious ,manipulative and underhand' in your first post were really nasty. That's what made me write that she was prejudiced. Incredibly judgmental language to use about half her pupils just on grounds of gender. If someone made the same point but using race, they'd be condemned - and quite right too. Sort of thing where girls are described as 'devious, manipulative and underhand' while boys are described as clever and successful for displaying exactly the same behaviour...