'Boys and girls are different' - how to respond?

[Lottapianos]

I'm a feminist and I believe that perceived gender differences are down to social conditioning, including in very young children. I'm also an Early Years professional and I work with children aged 0-4 years old.

I have a colleague who often makes comments about 'innate' gender differences: 'boys and girls really are different', 'boys need access to outdoor play more than girls do', 'boys find listening more difficult', 'boys are less likely to be interested in books than girls are'. The listening and books theories I tend to agree with, not because of innate differences, but because adults' expectations of boys and girls are so hugely different, and young children pick up on this and behave accordingly.

All of this bothers me a lot. She's a very experienced and brilliant colleague and I have a lot of respect for her, but I am very anti-biological essentialism as I feel it restricts the development of all children (and adults) by putting people into boxes. I would like to be able to challenge what she says but I don't feel confident enough at the moment.

Anyone got any thoughts on this or any counter-arguments that I could use? I'm tempted to just throw Cordelia Fine's 'Delusions of Gender' at her!

Does it actually matter? I mean, could you conclusively prove your argument that there are no innate gender differences, without some sort of completely unfeasible and unethical trial?

Isn't it more important to react to the situation you are actually in. Eg if the boys are less likely to be interested in books, to find ways to interest them in books, so that their development isn't restricted?

If you think an overt discussion is going to work, go for that.

But if you think she'll react badly, have a discussion about high/low expectations affecting children's academic or developmental achievements.

Then drop in at the end, "Of course, that's true of gender, too."

The Cordelia Fine book would be a good start, seriously. It is worrying if she is basing her practice on unsound, unsubstantiated evidence. For example, if she genuinely believes that boys need access to outdoor play more than girls (wtaf?) then this may influence how she arranges activities for children in her care and the differing messages she gives to boys and girls when she engages with them.

If she expressed similiar "biological determinist" views about say, working class and middle class, black and white or disabled and non disabled children, surely you would feel compelled to put her right. I would suggest the same applies here.

Sorry, that doesn't really help with the contents of your discussion. But going at it softly and first establishing the notion that expectations affect outcomes may work better than trying to introduce that simultaneously with challenging her dearly held beliefs.

cornflakegirl, yes I think it does matter a lot. Obviously individual children are different and if some are less interested in books for whatever reason, then they (and their parents) do need extra support to access books and see them as an interesting thing to do. However, I don't find it helpful to think about child development in such a restrictive way - 'boys do this, girls do that' - children (like adults) are different and I think the people supporting them should avoid putting them into boxes based on their biological sex.

SerialKipper, that's a good idea. I know that she and I are on the same page about the importance of parental expectations in relation to academic achievement etc so that may be a good way in. Thanks

'For example, if she genuinely believes that boys need access to outdoor play more than girls (wtaf?) then this may influence how she arranges activities for children in her care and the differing messages she gives to boys and girls when she engages with them'

I'm glad you're thinking WTAF too KRITIQ
Clearly it would affect the different messages she gives to boys and girls she works with and I find that worrying and in fact, discriminatory.

Lottapianos this is so interesting. I don't have any arguments for you, only a vague sort of question!

I am not teaching staff but I work in an all-girls primary school where I hear a lot from my colleagues that single-sex schools are a good idea because boys and girls learn differently, they need different environments / stimuli / teaching methods in order to thrive, things like that. One even told me about a study (don't ask me to provide a link, I have no idea, this is all second hand from my teacher colleagues) that showed that the ideal room temperature for learning (!) for boys was significantly lower (or was that higher) than for girls.

I have 2 girls myself and have always loved that they are not girly girls to be honest. I do agree with you about pink/blue, dolls/trucks, ballet/football, all those sorts of things. The reading and books thing your colleague says has got to be rubbish IMO - but again, no facts to back it up, just a gut feeling!

Wow I am really waffling here. Sorry. But do you reckon that these "learning differences" honestly put forward by my colleagues would count as perceived gender differences or are they more fundamental than that?

You are in a great and unique spot in your Early Years setting to observe these things, so I hope you don't mind me showing my ignorance and asking!

"Boys and girls are different..."

Er yes, Esteemed Colleague, they have different genitalia and have been exposed to different levels of sex-related hormones - but that doesn't mean they should be stereotyped according to our social expectations, should it?

If anything, it would be more useful to reverse those stereotypes and encourage girls to take part in more physical play (if they need encouraging) and boys to practice building up their ability to focus on tasks needing fine motor skills and concentration (if they need encouraging). Surely it's better for us as early years professionals to encourage boys and girls to develop as rounded individuals with the full range of skills and activities available to them?

Or something along those lines....!

Hearts I found Lise Eliot's book Pink Brain, Blue Brain to be very interesting about the issues you mention in your post - highly recommended if you want to explore the area further
(Not to mention Cordelia Fine's excellent tome, as mentioned further upthread...)

Thanks Immaculada, I will look for those. Apart from some very vague "I hate pink, so glad DD2 is not a fairy-princess-ballerina, bloody hell DD1 YES you are joining the football club" type of musings, this is not an area I have given a ton of thought to. Now that I am working in an all-girls school (and for sake of completeness should mention that DDs also go to a girls school) I am finding it very interesting.

Time to educate myself methinks.

I agree boys and girls are different. I would respond that 'yes they are aren't they, just be careful that you don't limit either one by what you may believe those differences are'.

You can believe gender differences are down to social conditioning if you want to, but biologically, boys are born different to girls. Their brains are wired differently, their hormones are expressed differently, their muscles are structured differently.

I have not noticed that boys need more outdoor play than girls or that boys under four are less likely to be interested in books.

I am aware that older boys are often less interested in fiction books than older girls but I have not noticed this is the case with preschoolers.

Why do boys under 5 need more outdoor play than girls? Is it something to do with sunlight, touching grass or what?

'But do you reckon that these "learning differences" honestly put forward by my colleagues would count as perceived gender differences or are they more fundamental than that?'

Hearts, that's a really interesting question. I'm not a teacher or any kind of education expert but I do think that we significantly underestimate just how many signals we send children right from birth about how we expect them to behave and respond based on their biological differences. I have heard lots in recent years about the 'feminisation' of education and how schools now teach in a way that 'favours girls' - all of which has made me seriously but I don't have any hard evidence to back up my feelings. I remember a MNer on another thread saying that years ago, when boys were doing better than girls in maths and science, it was deemed to be because boys were naturally 'better' at those subjects. Now that girls are doing better, all of a sudden we're 'failing boys' - cue much hand-wringing that was notably absent when girls were falling behind!

In my limited experience of eduation theory, I understand that there are different types of learning styles (like visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) which differ from person-to-person but do not correlate to that person's sex. So to finally answer your question, I would say that the 'learning differences' your colleagues report are a function of seeing their pupils through a gender-stereotype world view, and possibly seeing patterns that are not really there.

That book is going straight on my Amazon list, Immaculada - thank

'Their brains are wired differently, their hormones are expressed differently, their muscles are structured differently'

colditz, could you give an example of the brain-wiring and hormone-expression that you think is hard-wired? Genuinely curious.

Obviously boys and girls' bodies are different I was thinking more of perceived differences in their behaviour, play, interests and communication skills

This is interesting - I went on a course a few years ago at the local SureStart aimed at the mothers of boys and helping them to understand the differences. I'll have to dig out the handouts and have another look at them, I can't remember off the top of my head what the gist was. Went for the creche and the biscuits

It is because little boys are strong, vigorous, adventurous and lively, and need a lot of exercise every day.

Girls OTOH are weaker physically, quieter, and more suited to sedentary activities. They do not need the same level of physical exercise and are better suited to activities like crafts, reading and sitting quietly.

That was in reponse to seahouses question, hopefully have answered it for her.

I'm with colditz. Of course boys and girls are different, but that doesn't mean all girls are the same of all boys are the same, but there are certain differences that are hard-wired.

Plenty of research and evidence out there, just google it Lotta.

Your colleague is wrong to stereotype so much, but male and female humans are different.

seahorses I agree. My DS - 2.5 - happily plays with everything his sister played with at the same age and in the same way. But people notice when he picks up his trains and when he doesn't really like drawing - and they comment on it. But they didn't notice when my DD enjoyed trains and didn't like drawing. What they noticed about her was when she played with dolls (rare) or did imaginary play.

The real gender stuff happened in our house the day my DD started school - that very day she started to take an active interest in pink which, up until that point, she had not realised was a significant colour.

To answer the OP it might be difficult to challenge her directly because she obviously has beliefs about these things which she feels are perfectly scientific (although I don't agree). One way might be just to make a point of commenting on the girls who seem particularly to enjoy outdoor play and the girls who seem to need extra help with listening. And likewise the quieter boys who enjoy listening etc. I also don't like the biological essentialism you describe but I think it's like trying to persuade people about your religion - people are very fixed in their view. So perhaps you might have to settle for making your point through observations that are just not in accordance with her theory so that you know you are doing your best to make sure some children don't fall between the gaps and possibly one day forcing open a chink in this armour.

Also worth bearing in mind that her comments come from a good place about wanting to adjust learning styles to the individuals concerned.

Oh thanks SardineQueen, that's cleared it all up perfectly. Can't think why I was so troubled by it all in the first place
IMHO there is a link between all this gender stereotyping of tiny children and gender stereotyping of grown adults, which I would argue absolutely no-one benefits from ultimately. It's a huge component in misogyny and homophobia too.

sardinequeen, it's funny isn't it, how girls like crafts and reading and boys, as we all know, do not. But it's boys who go on to dominate the worlds of art and literature as adult endeavours.

I wonder what on earth could be happening there?

Boys are born with 30% more muscle.

Boys who do not get sunlight are at significantly higher risk of vitamin d deficiency than girls, leading to rickets. True. Honest.

And, erm, girls have to have daily access to glue and glitter, otherwise they will not grow up to be Barbie.

The access to grass thing is a fallacy, and likely to have been influenced by what your colleague is smoking.

HTH.

overmydeadbody, same question to you - can you give some examples of differences that you feel are hard-wired?

MN opinion and experience is much more interesting than Google . From what I'm read of the Cordelia Fine book, there is also plenty of research to suggest that perceived differences in boys and girls are actually down to social conditioning! Women doing worse on maths tests than men was one example