tired, angry and in need of a quick fix...

[entropygirl]

Hi all,

I know I promised to read the books recommended here but I have a full time job and PND and its not looking like its going to happen soon....

So please could people confirm or deny the idea I have in my head that male and female babies brains are identical until we start to force our prejudices on them? (If the answer is that it's complicated then I can take that! I'm a scientist :))

I am getting madder every day that S'buries split baby grows by sex. I mean the only baby product I can imagine it would be worth differentiating male and female for would be nappies and as far as I know they don't. SO QUIT IT!

On the plus side I emailed the people advertising the Boys Future Star T-Shirt
on
www.mumsnet.com/christmas/top-childrens-christmas-presents-2011

and asked them why exactly it was only suitable for boys and they have apologised and renamed it 'kids' on their website.

Small steps...small steps....

I think the research is not conclusive (that sounds sciency, right?). IIRC Cordelia Fine cites all sorts of people making out they are different and trashes it all, basically.

I didn't want to leave you unanswered but hope soemone more knowledgeable will be along soon.

I'm so sorry you're havign a rotten time .. sending lots of nice feministy support thoughts your way.

There are physiological differences between male and female brains, e.g. male brains are larger.

The fact that male brains are larger on average might be down to the fact that male babies are slightly larger on average than female babies.

Difference in brain size has nothing to do with difference in intelligence. However you might measure it. Boys are not more intelligent than girls, even though they are bigger on average.

True.

Even accounting for height/weight differences, male brains are on average larger than female ones.

But, yes, of course - the size has no impact on intelligence or behaviour.

Paper in Science by Hyde et al summarises research on cognitive differences. From what I remember, boys are on average a tiny bit faster at mentally imagining rotating Lego blocks. And boys consistently score higher on violence / aggression. All other factors (iq, language, maths etc) show no gender differences.

Wow, can't believe I'm about to post in Feminism. Please be gentle with me...

I reads book some years ago called Why Men Can Only Do One Thing At A Time And Women Never Stop Talking, which explained in a humorous way why male and female brains are different. It's apparently all to do with evolution and adaptation in our roles as hunters and child bearers.

Once I'd read this I stopped getting quite so riled/upset with DP about some stuff and put it down to his different way if thinking/understanding of situations. I still laugh at him not being able to spot something he's looking for when it's right in front of him but then he laughs at me having to turn a map around when I'm using it.

But yes, I hate gender stereotyping that shops do with clothes too and often bought DD stuff that was considered 'boys wear'. When they're that young it really is pointless.

it gets worse at Sainsburys...

They label navy sweat pants as 'boys' - not just in the aisle but on the clothing. Seem unisex to me and I bought them for dd's pe lessons. Same labelling for an orange t-shirt.

Are these really 'boys' clothes? Can my 5 yr old not wear these colours? Similar sweats for older girls are much thinner material and labelled 'yoga pants' Nothing to keep a girl warm while doing exercise outside.

So, Op, I agree but have no idea about baby's brains. I just know that babies, toddlers and small children have the same shape bodies and need the same shape clothes.

I like the idea of your emailing campaign to ask why!

I get cross at JL too, with their labelling 'boy' and 'girl'. Seen some lovely trousers that would suit DD down to the ground but I cannot bring myself to buy them for her with 'boy' on them. I really need to get a grip and just cut the label out, don't I.

Cordelia Fine's book is pretty good at showing how the brain's plasticity allows us as a culture to develop differences between the sexes that nature did not place there. And she points out a lot of the assumptions and poor practices that have lead scientists to make false claims about gender/sex and the brain. But I'm pretty sure she doesn't say there are absolutely no physical differences (on average - it's all continuums).

Neuroscience is advancing so much these days. It is showing that there is a difference between biological differences and innate differences. The anatomy and physiology of our brains is not set at birth. Our brains change to adapt to the environment- you can see evidence of this in people who have had brain injuries/surgery.

So, applying this to gender differences, if boys don't ever practice doing activities which develop the links between the 2 hemispheres then the brain will adapt and they will lose the ability- it is like the muscle loss a sedentary person will suffer.

Therefore these new studies have shown that what we think are innate gender differences are in fact environmental.

MrsWembley - you might enjoy Cordelia Fine's book. She debunks the 'evidence' that books like you read present. Men and women may well behave differently, but this does not mean it's innate. And the differences rather conveniently get presented in ways that keep men and women in rather traditional roles. Feminists would suggest that this is part of the problem, that those books are written within a political context which perpetuates inequality.

I can see why a book like that might help explain in a useful way how gender roles are socially constructed, but the connection they make to these things being innate, therefore unchangeable and therefore a women's role is not worth fighting is innately political.

Welcome to feminism btw

(And yes, buy the trousers!)

There are a couple of tiny innate differences, but on most measures there's no difference between baby boy and baby girl brains and even where there is the statistical difference is really, really, really small.

I buy "boy" clothes for the DDs all the time. And I used to buy some of the plainer "girl" things for DS before he learned to read (hmm, haven't tried cutting the label out...).

Agree with the Wild one - those books are either a handbook for gender stereotyping or a useful guide to human interaction in the here and now, depending on where you stand on the gender differences thing.

I have the Why Men Are Arses and Women Are Useless book somewhere in the house and I would love to have the time to do a thread deconstructing it.

OP - if you search on here, Cordelia Fine did a webchat and I think there was a thread discussing her book.

Ooo 'The Wild One' I like that!

And like the sound of that thread.

Thanks for all the replies....I would be amazed if there are not at least a small number of small physiological differences in babies brains, but the consensus does indeed seem to be that all the main differences you see between male and female toddlers are down to societal conditioning...or maybe Im just reading what I what to into the answers :)

tried an AIBU on this and there was a split

Lots of people saying its fine to split baby gros by sex and that it isnt sexist for supermarkets to 'indicate' which colours or toys they think girls should be interested in.

But also lots of people agreeing that it is an issue.

My take is rapidly becoming that you cant expect equality in adult society if the very first message you give to babies is that girls and boys are different.

Probably not identical.

But there are probably differences between individual babies' brains that are not related to gender.

If we're not sure what is cultural and what is inbuilt, it's safer to treat each baby as an individual and not make assumptions about what they will like or be good at.

Cordelia Fine is a very good book, very interesting and sciency.

Mind you, boy and girl babies and toddlers were dressed more-or-less identically up until 1910 or so (gender difference in clothes for the under-4s is a pretty new thing, taking a long-term view) and that didn't seem to result in a golden age of sexual equality.

The majority of people I meet casually do tend to assume that DD2 is a boy.

Yes, Cordelia Fine's book is very good at unpicking this issue and blasting holes in the pop-science studies that claim there is a huge "natural" gulf between boys and girls when there isn't. It's been a while since I read it, but I seem to recall that she suggests there are as many biological differences between children of the same sex as there are between sexes - for example linked to genetic backgrounds.

I think the marketing of clothing, toys, etc. specifically for girls and boys is a ploy to make more money. If you convince parents they can't hand clothes down from a male child to a younger female child or visa versa, they'll sell twice as many clothes to one family - ditto for toys and games. Problem is, it reinforces for parents, children and society at large that certain colours, certain activities, certain interests and even certain aspirations are appropriate only for one sex or other. While that concept isn't new, the use of clothes, toys, games, etc. as indicators IS something that's only happened in the bast 10 or 20 years or so.

Trust me - I recently looked at a group photo of myself and a bunch of 5-10 year olds from the mid 1970's and we were wearing every colour of the rainbow which most clothes definitely fitting the description of "unisex."

Does it honestly really matter at all though if something you want is in the boys or girls clothes section. Surely you would just buy the thing if you like it.

I am female, yet I often buy mens t-shirts and sweatshirts if I like them.

squeaky I think that all adverts showing girls in pink playing with dolls and all adverts showing boys in blue building lego is the same as all movies showing women as secretaries and men as bosses.

Just because the whole world is implying women are worth less and cant do certain jobs doesnt of course mean that women actually are worth less and of course they can do any job they want. But it still causes problems and bias.

So advertising clothes as for boys or for girls does not of course stop you from doing the opposite but it reinforces the idea that girls are essentially a different species to boys when they are really only very slightly different indeed.

In asda they are selling packs of board books called something like "What I want to be..."
the "boys'" one has fireman, policeman, pirate etc
Girls' has fairy, princess, ballerina
urgh

Now, Stealth, it's that kind of thing that makes me go out of my way to do the opposite of what I'm told. If my DD wants to be a fireman I will be incredibly proud and if my DS wants to be a ballet dancer I will cry with pleasure at all the beautiful performances I will get to see.

it's not even the stereotypical gender roles. It's also that the boys' one had real jobs in it (apart from maybe pirate) whereas the girls' one had only fanatssy type stuff in, I think. One of them may have been "nurse" I suppose- will look next time

I was disappointed in the GLTC catalogue for the 'girls' and 'boys' role-play sets ... in some ways they're a lot better than other retailers when it comes to stereotypes but that's not saying much.

Recently discovered the Pink Stinks campaign and will be shopping from their recommended websites from now on wherever possible.