Has anyone read, 'Raising boys'? Shocked when i saw it!

[threecurrantbuns]

I walked by this book the other day and had to double take, didnt seem pc to me but after saying so to another mum she talked as if its a well known book.

I have two dds a one ds (my youngest) so maybe thats why ive never come across it until now.

I was shocked at first, thinking surely we should parent our children the same way whether they are boys or girls!??

But now im wondering whether to take a peek at it, i have become curious, i didnt grow up around boys, just had sisters, maybe there is something im missing!?

But Norman you keep saying (and I'm paraphrasing now) 'we are not wired any differently, it's hard to tell the difference between boys and girls at birth etc, and then say 'it's only later, because of conditioning and hormones etc., etc.,...'

You cannot lump hormones in with 'conditioning' when arguing about 'producing' a gendered child, as though both elements equally contrived and therefore equally avoidable.

Hormones are not something that we foist upon a child in order to make it conform to our societal gender expections, it's the other flipping way around! Our expectations have evolved as a result of the most commonly observed differences in behaviour and development that those hormones cause, over hundreds of thousands of years! The hormones are everything in this argument - they are what makes the differences we are talking about! You can't just dismiss them like that.

Try telling pregnant women, or someone having PMT, or ask a teenage boy whether they are affected by hormones

I think they matter hugely, as Nelson says.

The fact that Norman used the word 'tough' for boys made me suspect that they parented girls. Anyone with boys would realise that they are rarely tough.

If Norman was to take one of his girls (if they were appropriate age for pirates-lets put in 7/8yrs) and organise a party for 12 friends, screening them to eliminate the most 'girly', I could 100% guarantee that if he did the same party (using same clothes, same props, same games, same food) the next day for 12 boys (picked at random from any school in the country)the two parties would be completely different.

We are different. I have just made a comment to DH in the kitchen, to which he raised his eyebrows and claimed to be baffled as to where it came from -to me it was logical and I think that a woman would have thought so!

Did you grow up with brothers, Norman?

Right

Hormones play a part in differentiating sexes ( although this is less than clear cut in some cases) and so does conditioning - nowhere have I said society is responsible for hormones, I am saying that hormones produce differences between males and females and so does conditioning.

It doesn't make any sense to ask me how much contact I have had with boys/men as I am just telling you about research, not personal experience

Guides/scouts are an excellent example of gendered conditioning as is the 'boys tough' example - this is a cultural stereotype, in years gone by a boy would be expected to be tough, some would take on this trait because it ws culturally expected of them even though in reality boys are no tougher than girls because we are ^all primarily individuals.

Exoticfruits - boys and girls are different because they are conditioned into gendered roles from the minute they are born. It is impossible to raise a child without this - of course parties will be different as children become gendered from an early age and wi define themselves by society's expectations of their behaviour.

You're welcome lisianthus

FellatioNelson-I take your point about hormones,but I would say that sex hormones are not enough to make a difference between make or female because humans are more complex than that.

Anyway I feel like I sort of hi jacked the thread so feel free to tell me to go away

It is very difficult to explain Norman, I suspect you have no brothers either. The only way for you to understand is to have a boy, and then you would eat your words!

Society, today, doesn't want boys to be so physical, they want them to sit still in the classroom, they don't want them to take risks.On MN the majority want girls, at least one girl anyway.

Scouts isn't producing 'tough' boys. They take physical and mental handicap. They integrate. They do cookery competitions, community work, put on plays as well as the outdoor stuff. They take girls who want to join-many don't want to. They do however use the boy traits and use them in a positive way.

Society doesn't want boys wrestling at all opportunities-but they still do it!

I would bet that your girls and their friends do not playfight everytime they are bored? I would bet they don't get huge enjoyment from always rolling around the floor like bear cubs?

It may depress you no end, but I saw 5 yr old stories, with a broad title, and no name. In every case I was able to tell if it was a boys story or a girls.

The whole conditioning thing is chicken and egg type thing IMO.

I predict that the couple in Canada with the genderless DC will fail.

Anyway-do we want to produce a boy who doesn't fit his own culture?

All 3 of mine have always been called 'kind and caring' throughout school. It doesn't mean that they don't have typical 'boy traits'.

All those who thing there are no differences should plan and take a cub meeting. Whether it is society conditioning or not, success or failure will hang on whether you address the needs of boys.

My friend's DD is 2 yrs old -not very many years to be condititioned-she has already come out with the comment 'I have no time for boys'!! She can tell the difference.

Exotic fruits - I think we will have to call a truce and shake hands on it. But we do agree on the fact that children need to be raised in our culture and I reckon if parents feel this book helps then, fine.

But there is biology ( which is by no means clear cut) and there is environment and the two impact on a child in incredibly complex ways. You have sex as a biological fact, hormones... then you have gender, how this biology is constructed into two genders with different personality traits, behaviours, abilities - it is this construction which I am challenging.

Anyway - it's a fascinating thing, isn't it.

Whatever anyone thinks about the innateness of difference or the whole 'boys should be allowed to run around' thing, what pisses me off is the suggestion that girls shouldn't be given access to this special education where everyone gets to climb trees if they want to. Sitting still, paying attention doesn't suit any 7 year old, particularly - you can get little girls to do it because for whatever reason, they tend to cooperation more. We'd all benefit from a lot more running round and being adventurous and a lot fewer exams.

It is a fascinating subject. I would agree that society conditions it but I still think it is rather chicken and egg.
What is wrong with boys being 'typical boys'-it seems to be frowned on, as if wrong.
Girls are free to climb trees etc if they want to.
You need to realise that we are all different Sparklyboots, as a girl I liked sitting still, paying attention, learning from a book with continual assessment and I didn't want to climb trees. I was free to if I wanted to-no one ever suggested I had to behave differently from my brothers-and girls shouldn't be made to feel that it is more desirable.
I can't think of a field that girls can't go into if they want to.

What retrograde thing has happened, that girls are no longer given access to climb trees? I did this routinely back in the '60's!

Of course we did, no one ever stopped me doing anything that my brothers did-a lot of the time it was my choice not to. But when I was a child you did disappear off for the day on your bike (and there were no mobile phones)and it made no difference if you were a girl or a boy.

What I can't get my head around is that it somehow wrong to be a boy, or that by saying that trying to understand boys you are insinuating that girls can't do the same if they want. Girls can do anything they want these days, join the Scouts, sail around the world single handed,become plumbers, go out to work and have DH at home doing the child care and no one thinks it strange. I can't see what is wrong in having a book to say 'it is perfectly OK to be a boy, and this is a way to use the 'typical' boy characterists to help them become a happy adult. It is only a book, it may not apply to your DS, or you might just find bits helpful. You might use it for your DD.

I just went on Amazon, I discovered there are far more books about raising girls and no one complains!
Without even exhausting the list there were:
Bringing up Girls
Your Daughter by the Schools Association
Raising Confident Girls
Self Esteem for Girls

For some reason all the 'boy' things are seen as more desirable. I was very happy being a girl when I was growing up and wouldn't have wanted my parents to be encouraging me to be more 'boylike'.

As a single parent with a DS I was actively looking for role models for him. I can't imagine the boringness of society if the genders are the same. I can change a plug, put up shelves, ski down a black run-they are just skills, wallpapering a room isn't superior to knitting a jumper and a man is free to knit a jumper if he wishes.

I think it is a good thing that genders have differences and a boy shouldn't be made to feel it is wrong and he can't do typical boy things, if he wishes. (neither should he be forced into them). Everyone is an individual. You take what you want from books. You could equally say about a book like 'Toddler Taming'-not all toddlers are the same and mine doesn't need taming.

It seems to me that people are quite happy for girls to have things to themselves but everything for boys has to be open to girls. (e.g. boys can't become Guides)