To pray that smug mothers of little girls are ...

[ReallyTired]

....sent a beautiful bouncing baby boy torando as their second child.

Those of us with two children realise that nature has a huge affect on a child's personality and ablity to behave.

I have two children and both of them are lovely now. However my son was permamently on the move as a two year old and we used to call him captain chaos. He was the sort of kid who would be into every cupboard, had the wooden spoon in the baby olympics or baby ivory league. (ie he had no desire to read Pride and Prejudice at the age of 2)

My daughter has a very different temperment. She is far more compliant, loves drawing jigsaws and isn't a muck magnet. I am sure that if she had been my first I would have been unbearably smug.

Boys take longer to grow up and my son at the age of eleven is lovely most of the time. He is still a muck magnet, but he has plenty of friends and doing well at school.

Oh dear. That's not nice. I have 3 girls and a boy.

DD is a muck magnet.

Imagine the human race wiped out and, in several million years, a new dominant intelligent life form emerges. They find, deep in a peat bog, a perfectly preserved human boy and girl. They look at the physiology and even manage some blood tests and find a slightly different hormonal make up. Then they look at the closest mammal species who survived the extinction event, maybe some monkeys. Then they try to extrapolate how the human boy and girl might have behaved.

Of course their null hypothesis would have been that sex had no impact on behaviour.....not :).

The 'compare us to animals' argument is really weak. Yes, we are like animals in lots of ways. But your hypothetical life form would also assume that we had no developed language/speech.

We are different from our nearest relatives in ways which are massively important to who we are as a species. The similarities are not a reason to assume that, if we don't have an answer, we can fill in the blanks that way.

Amanda,

All I am saying is that it is a sensible place to start. I am not assuming the answers. What I see, however, on this thread (and many others) is the assumption that nature makes no difference to behaviour and no willingness to even question this hypothesis.

Of course we have evolved a long way from our closest relatives but I suspect that still have a fair amount in common with them. We are not apes but we certainly have ape-like qualities.

We do, but my point is that seeing it as automatically a sensible place to start would cause you to reach some pretty ridiculous conclusions - like missing our use of language.

As I've said lots of times on these threads. I don't believe that nature has no impact. I've said that we cannot possibly know if nature has an impact because I've never seen an experiment that adequately controls for nurture, or doesn't have other major flaws in the methodology. Nature could have no impact, some degree of impact or massive impact But unless we stop assuming that there is an underlying core of nature and therefore things are inevitable, we'll never change society enough to find out.

I think that, far too often, the 'its' nature' argument is used as an excuse for our own flaws in gender equality. And (aside from the fact that what could possibly be bad about letting people discover their true selves) based on all those people out there who don't fit the gender template, we could make a lot of people more comfortable being themselves if we continued to try.

Amanda,

I don't think our positions are poles apart.

From a scientific perspective, it is impossible to entirely eliminate nurture or nature. We will always have studies which cannot make conclusions with 100% certainty. Also, how the sexes behave are statistical distributions with a large overlap. So some girls can (obviously) behave like traditional boys and some boys can (equally obviously) behave like traditional girls.

I don't think that pretending boys and girls are identical, though, does any favours to either sex. Clearly, all children should be treated as individuals. The assumption that a girl who wants to be "girly" has been societally conditioned and their parents should try to persuade her otherwise could be equally as damaging to the individual as the parents who try to dress their "boyish" girl in a long dress. And, in a school setting, if certain tactics are more successful with either sex, and the school is not well staffed enough (as most aren't in the state sector) to see every child as an individual, tailoring appropriate teaching to each sex is probably the most beneficial method. Ideally, of course, every child should be treated as an individual and class sizes should be MUCH smaller.

the assumption that nature makes no difference to behaviour and no willingness to even question this hypothesis

Of course nature makes a difference - we are born with different temperaments, hormones and reproduction make a difference - but all this is so intricately entwined with environmental factors that the nature/nurture debate is redundant.

What researchers are questioning is the quality of evidence which supports the idea that certain behavioural characteristics are innate according to gender ie: that girls are calmer, more empathic, nurturing, while boys are 'mini tornadoes '

Because after all we are all born temperament - and that may have been influenced by environmental factors in the womb - it's s process that is so complex, suggesting we are born as a 'blank slate' is wrong in the same way as suggesting girls are born with a liking fr pink.

I have 3 girls but have always wanted a gay son who enjoys clubbing and would enjoy taking his mother shopping.

"Of course nature makes a difference - we are born with different temperaments, hormones and reproduction make a difference - but all this is so intricately entwined with environmental factors that the nature/nurture debate is redundant."

Umm, not really.

www.spectator.co.uk/features/8970941/sorry-but-intelligence-really-is-in-the-genes/

This is about intelligence rather than sex differences but seems like a scary amount is actually genetic. Disappointing because I, I suspect like most parents, like to think my stimulating questioning and conversation is going to make my children intelligent and interesting...

Why not focus on the fact that all children are unique individuals, rather than whether they're boys or girls? If you expect certain characteristics then you're likely to stereotype.

"The assumption that a girl who wants to be "girly" has been societally conditioned and their parents should try to persuade her otherwise could be equally as damaging to the individual as the parents who try to dress their "boyish" girl in a long dress."

I honestly don't think htere have been any posters on this thread trying to do either of those things.

Certainly from my pov, it is almost the opposite. Trying to keep showing my children (both male and female) that they don't have to conform to the stereotypes thrust upon them by their teachers and peers.

eg my dd2. really quite a loud child, when comfortable, although can be prone to shyness. loves rough and tumble, and wants to get stuck into everything. had no concept that eg meccano was for boys and princesses for girls before getting to school. only wears dresses (sensory issues), and loves glitter and sparkles. all well and good.

from the moment she set foot in pre-school, she has been trained up (and yes, I really do mean that) in the 'art' or girlyness. she has been told she can't play out in a nice dress, and when she refused to change into a tracksuit, had to stay indoors. she has been told I would be cross if she got her 'pretty' clothes dirty/messy/covered in paint (blatantly not true, and I had told the school that several times).

she started learning that she should play 'like a girl' not play 'like a boy' (her words). she was steered towards the more sedentary activities, rather than integrated into eg the rough and tumble on the pirate ship in the playgorund ('yes, the boys are quite noisy, come and play here instead' when she showed signs of being a bit timid. her initial shyness in new situations has been extrapolated to 'she's quite a quiet child', and then teachers are shocked when she starts showing her 'true' self.

she encountered girls who wouldn't play with her because her favourite colour is not pink or purple (and, in fact, she changed her favourite colour to fit in - at the age of 4!), and boys who said she couldn't play with them because she is a girl.

none of that is nature. it is all nurture, and it has now been part of dd2's nurture. it has changed who she is, already. she is confused, already, by what she can/can't do (message from home: try your best always, have a go at everything, no such thing as 'toys for boys and toys for girls' etc). I do not accept that this problem has arisen because of my so-called liberal stance. All I am trying to avoid is having a daughter who thinks that she shouldn't be interested in science because it is 'for boys', and equally woodwork, football, rough and tumble, computers, the list goes on.

I can assure you that I will be working equally hard to ensure that my ds doens't think he has to be interested in football, science, rough and tumble etc, unless he actually wants to be.

I aam far from a girly girl myself. I am happy to indulge my dd2 in glitter and sparkles, as long as it is what she wants, and not so that she can fit in with how she thinks others think she should be. There is no reason why she can't play football in a glittery dress, or climb a tree, or do any of the hundreds of things she manages at home in said attire, yet at school the very people who should be ensuring equality of opportunity are the ones coaching her in how to stay looking 'pretty' and not mess up her dress. It is bloody insidious. Because by definition the things which will not mess up how she looks are the less active, less involved stuff. like reading, and stringing beads, and puzzles. oh look, all the stuff that girls are apparently 'naturally' better at - nothing to do with the fact that she has spent more time practising those skills due to outside influence...

Hot,

I see what you are saying but I slightly struggle with the dress issue. No one is forcing her into a dress but you say she has to wear one due to "sensory" issues. What if she were a boy? He would somehow have to find some outdoor clothes which worked around his sensory issues. A dress would not be an option.

I see nothing unreasonable about dictating certain clothes for certain activities. A boy would not be able to play football in his school uniform, he would have to change into sports gear.

The rest of your post all seems fair enough, although your daughter's school sounds unusual. Most schools (and pre schools) these days seem to allow and encourage all children to play with whom and where they want. I too would not want my children (boys) to be only guided to boy-like play. I really wish my older one would calm down a little and be more considered and considerate in how he plays...another story though.

I have never seen (thankfully) girls being guided away from science by teachers (and, en route to being a science teacher, I have observed quite a few science classes). What happens outside the school, though, is another matter. When I suggested to one girl (discussing an experiment) that she might one day discover something original as a scientist, she replied that she could not think of anything worse! However, that definitely did not come from the school

We all develop in an environment from the moment the sperm meets the egg - genes develop in an environment.

you can't just swap the psychology of sex differences for something completely different like the 'intelligence'scales which is also subject to much criticism.

I totally agree Hothere. Children are trained to be their gender. From birth.

The 'training' in gendered behaviour is horrible, and so, so prevalent. It starts earlier than pre-school too. The number of times at toddler groups DD2 has been hit by a boy only for the parent to either say "Don't hit her, little girls don't like it" in the course of their telling off (ah, so your message is that boys hit, but they don't hit girls. I've not come across many toddler boys who are fond of being whacked with a truck either). Or who have rolled their eyes and made some comment along the lines of "boys, what can you do. Don't do that Freddie". All of which are teaching those boys that their violence is somehow part of who they are as boys. DD2 gets told "don't hit. It's not nice." and removed from her game.

Also, the number of people who see confirmation of their beliefs about gender where none exist. For example, group of parents waiting at the edge of some bushes for a coach. Parent A says "ah, typical boys, any chance and they are wielding a big stick", totally ignoring the fact that teh group of 5 comprises two girls and three boys, and they've all got sticks. I said something like "hmmm, I think it's a kid thing not a boy thing" pointing at DD1, only to be met with an impassioned explanation of how her son loves sticks far more than my DD possibly could.

Actually, thinking about it, it starts even earlier than toddlerhood. My DD's were both often mistaken for boys (because they might be wearing you know, red, or blue, or green sometimes ). The comments people came out with altered radically once they were known to be girls. No more comments about strong, all comments about pretty and eyelashes and appearance.

I personally think gendered teaching total rubbish. Assuming that they can't tailor to individuals, schools should be employing a range of teaching methods to allow each child a good chance of something that suits them. Not lumping all the boys together to do running around learning because 'that's what boys need'. I've seen some shocking examples of that a few years ago, but thankfully it seems to be fading now.

Larry - I wasn't guided away from science by my school per se. But I was definitely guided away from physics by the way it was taught. It was all cars and vehicles and gears and cogs. Things that, as a girl, I had spent a lifetime being conditioned away from. I wish they'd spent more time teaching about space and the wonders of the universe. I might not have dropped it like a hot coal then. It makes me sad sometimes to think of the careers I might have had.

Many pre-schools aren't as overt as Hot, but I've seen girls guided away from a particularly rough and tumble game when they become upset, whereas boys are dusted down and sent back in.

larry, the funny hting is, she was used to trousers (rememebr, I told you I'm not a girly girl ). She wore trousers/dungarees/leggings almost exclusively until she was about 3, when some dresses turned up in a hand-me-down bag. and that was it. She hates anything around her waist. So dresses it is.

She is older now, and of course has to comply with school uniform for sports etc. she tolerates it, and is happier once she is back in her uniform dress. the issues I spoke about are not so blatant anymore, now she is in year 2. but it set a pattern from her earliest days at the school (pre-school first, where there was no uniform, and so of course I sent her in 'comfortable clothes for play'. Yet someone else's interpretation of her clothes lead to her beinf restricted in what she did. young children are impressionable, and dd2 had been told to listen to her teachers (actually for stuff like lining up nicely, being quiet at storytime etc, but how was she to know she should listen selectively?) and the damage was done, quite quickly, as she is a quick learner and eager to please.)

so she reserved her rough and tumble, and boisterous play for at home, where she could indulge whaetever she was was wearing (all clothes wash equally easily, imo). and of course, as she has got older and moved into fulltime school, that means her time for these activities is naturally more restricted, and she is still following the same pattern, along with most of the other girls. it takes a very strong willed 3 year old to go against so much training and suggestion from teachers.

I am keeping up the fight at home, and hopefully by the time she is having 'proper' science lessons, she won't be totally gender-trained against them. All the comments about her clothes, and pink etc, are then backed up by walking into a toyshop and all the meccano/science/building toys being in blue boxes, and in the owrst cases in the 'boy' section. it is subliminal, almost, and dd 'naturally' turns towards the colours and sections she has been trained and guided into. and so chooses from a restricted set of toys, and so by the time 'proper' science choices are to be made, she may well be completely and utterly turned off the subject, through a combination of off-the-cuf comments, and social conditioning.

absolutely shocking that our society can be doing this so blatantly.

Amanda, I too have had the comments change as the actual sex of my (various) babies has been made known.

Just yesterday, I was told my 3 'girls' were all the spit of each other (true) and beautiful (also true ). A comment was made about 3 sisters all growing up and sharing clothes etc. So I (quite neutrally) said, 'oh yes, the 2 older ones will, but ds might have other ideas!', and instantly, the checkout lady modified her comments to 'aha! I thought the baby was too loud, and had too much to say, to be a girl!' (wtf? ds was wearing a pink and white striped top, and blue shorts. and babbling away as most 1 year olds do). It was extraordinary - a moment ago he had been one of 3 beautiful and well behaved sisters. Now it was known he is a boy, he had morphed into a loud boisterous boy. Now that is weird (although sadly not uncommon)

You do not infrequently see posts on MN where a poster is worried about the agressive/destructive behaviour of her son but prefaces her remarks with "of course I do realise that boys will be boys" or something similar.

I have never seen a poster starting a thread on aggressiveness in a girl who has felt the need to start with the proviso "of course I do realise girls are like this".

That difference in attitude almost certainly makes a difference in how behaviour is tackled: when a little girl pushes her friend over, the mums are more likely to be shocked and outraged than when a little boy does the same thing.

As the mother of a gentle little boy who did not relish being pushed over by his mates and nobody intervening, I have often regretted this tolerant "oh well boys will be boys, what can you expect" attitude.

I've posted this point on other threads in the past so apologies for repeating myself. My first memory of gender conditioning was in kindergarten, so I was 4 and a few months. When we had PE the teachers always told the boys to move the benches, never the girls. In my childish way I piped up asking why it was always the boys (I was one of apparently "unnatural" females who tore around being very active) and never the girls and "it wasn't fair". The teacher said something about boys being strong and of course I got really cross and objected because I was strong too. All that happened was that I was told off and made to stand in the corner!

It was my lightbulb moment as they say. That's when, although I didn't know it as such at the time, I became a feminist. That was 66 years ago and I have never forgotten that first hard lesson in gender conditioning. I've fought it ever since.

cory, exactly

ds may well turn out to be an agressive toddler (and by that I mean 'normal' pushing and shoving that some toddlers do), but there is no way he should be excused and 'allowed' to do it because he is a boy.

absolutely agree that people find it more if it is a girl, and it is blindingly obvious that attitude has a bearing on how behaviours are tackled, or how much of a behaviour is tolerated/excused.

'boys will be boys' has alot to answer for in aggression/boisterous/rowdy behaviour stakes, but then so does 'girls will be girls' in bitchiness/mean behaviours.

grimble -another perfect, insidious, example of how early and how easily these things can creep in.

I can remember being told when I went to Brownies (this was back in the 70s, abroad, ina society that very much separates and segregates the sexes) that 'girls don't like running and sports' and thinking the 6 year old equivalent of 'wtf?!'

I had 2 older brothers, and my mother was a scout leader. I had spent most of my infancy and childhood joining in with cubs and scouts, and was really excited to be able to join 'my' pack. and then all we did was sewing and cleaning and cooking. I lasted about a month, and went back to being an unofficial cub (this was before girls could be cubs!). much more fun, and they still learned sewing and knitting and cooking etc - I remeber thinking why on earth would anyone want to be a Brownie, when cubs did all the same things, and more

Cory, and as a mother of two aggressive lively horrors girls, I resent the "of course you must have it so easy with girls" line.
Neuroscience shows there is actually no difference between female and male brains.

I love this thread...it makes me proud to be an MNetter. we have like 98% of respondents easily and vocally pointing out what a pile of wank the gender stereotyping in the OP really is.

Not all such threads go so well...but today I love you guys!

Neuroscience shows there is actually no difference between female and male brains

Actually I think there is plenty of evidence that there are differences. This link for instance en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_gender_differences
Also there are peer reviewed studies by for instance Simon Baron Cohen that has shown not only differences between male and female brains but also behavioral differences attributed to the levels of testosterone at birth.