'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!

I also remember a similar, quite old experiment, I probably heard about it 20 or so years ago. When the same baby was in pink, people said that she is pretty and gentle and any cries were interpreted as sadness or discomfort. If the baby was in blue, it was described as big and strong and crying meant the baby was angry. If we start treating babies differently from the minute they are born, it's quite difficult to claim that "boys and girls simply are different, fact!".

I have only skim read the thread, sorry if this is repetitive.

Lotta if I were you I would not try to convince your colleague that there are no innate differences between boys and girls - you won't succeed I expect

What you could do, though, is focus on the fact that there will always be exceptions to (what she perceives to be) the "rule". So for example there are sporty, messy, boisterous girls, and studious, quiet boys. And any division into "boys activities/girls activities" or "boys toys/girls toys" etc would be unsuitable for those exceptions.

So, you could then suggest that it's more important to tailor activities/toys/etc according to what the individual children are actually like, rather than assumptions based on their gender - in case they are an "exception to the rule".

She can't disagree with that, surely?

minipie I think you're probably right that I've got no chance of convincing her otherwise!

I have been fascinated on this thread by how invested people are in their belief that boys and girls are different - another poster mentioned it being similar to a religious belief in that it's so hard to present an alternative opinion and have it taken seriously. Other posters upthread have said things like 'boys and girls are different. Because they are. Because they just are. I have a boy and a girl and they are completely different. So there' This discussion really seems to hit a nerve with some people and people get really irked when you suggest that not all baby girls are born liking pink and not all baby boys are predisposed to playing with trains and cars.

I think that in general some parents hold on very tightly to the theory that you get the kids you're given, and that their environment (including of course, you as the parent) is much less important than what their child is 'innately' like. I guess that's a slightly different topic and maybe merits a completely different thread!

Yy lottapies. I have a DS (5) and a DD (2.5) and they are different but their sex is the least of it. DS is currently sitting quietly playing a game my DD is, well I'm not quite sure what she's doing but it involves leaping on and off the sofa, shrieking and shouting and then throwing a cushion. This is par for the course but I am frequently told how quiet and good DD is and how boisterous and noisy DS is. It's as though they aren't allowed to step out of their proscribed roles, whatever they do they get put back in their boxes

Haplesshousewife

"My gut instinct (not backed up by any science) is that there are subtle differences between the sexes but that these are accentuated by the way we (as a society) tend to treat them and that it's a sliding scale with a lot of crossover in the middle, not a black and white issue."

You are spot on.

Minipie - I agree - there is no need to argue for no innate difference in order to argue to treat people as individuals.

As social creatures we cannot deny both the natural and nurtured differences between the sexes, just should not be defined by them. We should be equal and different.

I suppose if I was going to try to answer your colleague's point (and I often don't bother - people tend to only listen to things that confirm their world view) I would go back to first principles i.e. where behaviour comes from in the first place, starting with Immaculada's point about neural plasticity.

There's a definite tendency in the media and to beyond to see any putative 'brain' differences as innate. 'Hardwired' is often used as a synonym for innate, but actually it means something quite different. Children's brains are incredibly responsive to learning and experience, and the 'hardwiring' happens over the whole developmental course. So early behavioural differences tend to be based on a complex interaction between epigenetic, biological and experiental factors.

Even adult brains can adapt and change to circumstances e.g. regaining language function following a stroke, but they are far less plastic (malleable, responsive) than those of children. Cognitive neuroscientists (e.g. Annette Karmiloff-Smith) have argued for several decades that children's brains and behaviour cannot be understood as pre-modulated analogues of adult brains and behaviour. The exciting part of children's behavioural development, for me at least, is its probablistic nature. You truly get out what you (and your child, and your child's carers) put in.

Having one of each sex is the worst way to 'prove' that boys and girls are different. You'll start looking for anything that backs up your cultural assumptions. Having 2 the same is a much better way of challenging stereotypes, as you have to admit that differences in behaviour are down to individual personality not gender.

The poster who said some people have an awful lot invested in the concept of boys and girls being different, and refuse to listen to any evidence to the contrary, was spot on.

'Equal but different' is a horrible phrase btw - it was the way the apartheid state in S Africa described their policies. Individual people are different from one another, there is no 'girls are like this, boys are like that' - any particular girl is going to be different from any other human being, male or female, but will have been socialised to such an extent that she knows what behaviour is praised in girls and treated as 'natural' in girls. She may or may not choose to conform.

FWIW (and I do know the plural of anecdote is not data) I have an only ds and my sister has an only dd. My ds likes quietly doing things that require fine motor skills - only dh has directed him into painting warcraft and dungeons and dragons models instead of, I dunno, embroidery. ds is generally well behaved. My niece likes anything loud, noisy and energetic and is loud, noisy, energetic and naughty. BUT they are human beings not stereotypes - ds can be naughty, dniece good, ds can be loud, dniece quiet (although in her case you to tend to think 'um, dniece is rather quiet, better go and find out what she's up to.)

Edam -

I agree "equal but different" is not a good phrase but I don't think it comes from apartheid (which never claimed to be about equality).

'Separate but equal' is how the American Jim Crow segregation laws were described - as in states said they provided 'separate but equal' public services to black and White people.

'Different but equal' is how some religious people describe their views - as in God made man to be the head of the household and the provider and women to be the nurturer and the two roles are different but equal.

Both concepts are nasty.

I don't think the biology of nature and nurture says anything like that.

It says something like - there are some differences on average between men and women as a group which are genetically inherited, and a large interaction between nature and nurture.

If I had to come up with a snappy slogan it would be something like:

People are varied, treat them as individuals with equal rights.

You could be right, Himalaya, maybe I'd mis-remembered separate but equal.

Agree, just treat people as people, not things that must fit into pre-determined categories of 'member of group X must have these characteristics'.

Agree with edam and Himalaya - treating people as individuals is definitely the way forward. I think that putting people into boxes based on gender, race, sexuality, religion, profession is a dangerous way forward and is the root of all sorts of nasty stuff like racism, homophobia, sexism etc

Agree that girls behave in a typically "girly" way because they receive praise for doing so. The apartheid policy was "separate development".

Haven't read, BUT if you are dealing with reasonably intelligent adults you could try responding with

Maybe boys and girls are different, but even if they are as different in as men and women are in height then there is a lot of overlap so it would be silly to treat them as two separate groups where every girl is exactly "girly" and every boy is exactly "boyish".

Just like there are tall women and short men there are girls who like/are good at things you call "boy things" and boys who like/are good at "girls things".

If your child was naturally one of those children then it wouldn't be very nice to think that you had pushed them into a stereotype that was against their natural inclination just because that's what you thought boys/girls should be like, would it?

I had an interesting experience the other week. DS is 2.5 and has a head of golden curls and quite a chubby angelic face. I took him out in a yellow coat and blue hat, green board shorts and brown shoes. He was repeatedly mistaken for a girl by some people and seen as a boy by others. His behaviour was pretty much static throughout except for one tantrum at the end.

When people thought he was a girl he was told:

'Are you being good for your mum?'
'You stand there nice and quiet like a good girl'
'You are being very quiet and well-behaved aren't you'
'Having fun shopping with your mummy?'
'Oh is she hungry?' (to explain bad behaviour)
'I do like a girl who knows her own mind' (DS was being demanding)

When people thought he was a boy he was told:

' Come on, be quiet now'
'Behave yourself for mummy' (tantrum)
'Boys are so boisterous aren't they'
'Oooh he is a noisy one isn't he'
'Shopping isn't much fun is it lad, don't worry mummy will take you home soon'

I am used to my daughter being mistaken for a boy, she prefers a particular style of clothing, but I have never had such a prime example of the different ways society treats the different genders and how they are expected to behave.

That's really interesting, R2.

And it's so ingrained in us all, too. I find myself on the point of saying things like that sometimes even though I KNOW about the whole gender-labelling thing. No wonder people don't often question it....

Given that we mainly seem to be in agreement that boys and girls are individuals, with some average differences as males or females, but that you shouldn't restrict to boys to 'boy' things and girls to 'girl' things ... It does make me wonder if single sex schools are defensible?

I mean girls may on average do better at girls schools etc... but if one boy would be better suited to a historically girls school, or one girl in a historically boys school how can we justify discrimination against that individual on the basis of the average of their sex?

Different, as we all are, irrespective of all our attributes, but equal.

Treating everyone as individuals would be marvellous if we lived in a gender blind society, but we don't. As is evident we live in a society that places gender expectations on children from birth. So trying to individually to treat individuals as such, is a drop in the ocean and will do near nothing to prevent society's influence. Hence the need for feminism. Giving boys and girls the same messages about the issues they will face will not equip girls to deal with and challenge the sexism they face, nor boys to step outside of the 'man box'.

Alicehurled - I'm not sure if your point is in response to my question about single sex schools?

I agree that girls and boys do need to hear different things targeted at challenging fixed expectations of masculinity and femininity, but I'm still not sure if this justifies discriminiation on school entry.

It's like kids from an ethnic minority need to hear somewhat different messages and skills about dealing with racism than kids from the majority ethnic group.....but we wouldn't countenance all black or all White schools to do that.

It was a general point to individuals acting individually to develop individuals as being the solution.

In Cordelia Fine's book she points out that females in a mixed environment tend to downgrade their expectations and conform more to stereotyping.

I can't help wondering if providing an all female learning environment provides some freedom from these limitations.

In a society where gender was irrelevant it would be foolish to have single sex education, but in the heavy stereotyped world we live in there is something to be said for setting young women apart and teaching them self-worth, achievement and how be confident in their own abilities and bodies.

For another perspective, it seems we in the UK are more fussed about gender differences and emphasising them (in teaching, ourselves as parents) than in other countries. My husband is not from the UK and finds this obsession over gender really weird, and he noticed it cropping up/people commenting on it very early on. This might be partly because he looked after our girls a lot and so tended to do what to him were normal things, but others saw them as sterotypically male, such as teach them to climb up ropes, encourage physical risk taking, in addition to the usual ballet lessons or whatever.

He also says in Japan, maths is often considered something girls are good at. So, all this 'men's brains are hardwired for stats' wouldn't make sense over there. This article explains why girls do as well as boys in maths in countries with high gender equity:

sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2011_12_16/caredit.a1100139

Interesting point is that it's the boys who are currently reacting to stereotype threat/expectations during schooling (and possibly girls experiencing stereotype lift) as they are the lower academic achievers at this stage and have been for some years now.

So while an all female learning environment provides some freedom from these limitations I don't think the limitations are generally academic as such. Girls may do better in sports in an all-female environment, perhaps.

It's possible that boys may do better nowadays in single-sex education compared to co-ed, but I'm not sure (it certainly used to be the other way round).

That said, I'm not convinced that single sex education is the best way to go as I think we should be working at integrating the sexes rather than increasing their (largely perceived) "otherness".

It might free girls from sexual bullying/harassment in the school environment, but other types of bullying tend to be rife in all-female environments, so it doesn't mean they won't be impeded by this kind of unwelcome peer pressure/ostracisation etc. Certainly, the worst bullying I ever experienced was from other girls.

I agree IC - I think single sex schooling is a hangover from the days when Education was mainly for boys, and girls schools were a reaction to that. Now I think it's an anachronism to have education for boys and education for girls.

School places ought to be equal opportunity by race, sex, class, parents religion etc...