BoysToys

[SlowFJH]

We have two boys and a girl (all now teenagers). My daughter was never into dolls and never really liked pink. She was into arts and crafts and loves knitting and sowing. The boys were completely stereotypical (plastic and wooden swords, guns, cars, diggers and tractors, soldiers etc).

We have good feminist friends (with three boys) who banned violent toys for boys. They always gave us the cat's bum face when they visited ours because their boys used to absolutely love playing with my sons' swords and shields. When we went out it for a walk, every stick they found was a gun - despite their parents vocal disapproval.

My friend's boys (now all strapping teenage lads) joke about how their parents banned them from having the toys they always wanted.

We definitely saw differences in toy preferences very early on. My daughter had zero interest in wheeled toys (despite my efforts) but both boys were fascinated by them virtually from day one.

I know my experience is not scientific. But there were some studies several years ago using baby apes (who obviously had not been conditioned by human systems or been exposed to advertising etc). Baby male apes showed a clear preference for mechanical toys over plush toys.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/

I'd love to hear others views on this topic... social conditioning versus biological predispositions.

Vesuvia
The discussion moved on to chess when we were discussing ways of encouraging girls to participate today on 2016. There is no real (or imagined), direct (or indirect) "ban" on women today.

How does that explain the 98:2 disparity that exists today?

Cos patriarchy I know. But what else might it be?

Op, your posts feel really dismissive and rude. I know earlier you said you weren't intending them to be as such so I just wanted you to know how they're being received by me. Maybe other posters agree.

I find it very interesting Thatstoast that you have come on to the thread to tell me that my posts come across as dismissive and rude yet you voice ni objection at all to entire branches of science being called "Evo-bollocks". Is that not dismissive?

I will happily apologise for any specific post of mine that has been rude or an ad hominem attack.

Please quote specifics.

Perhaps SlowFJH might prefer another example of men not standing in the way of women.

Women's football was highly popular during World War I, drawing crowds of many thousands - 53,000 on one occasion.

In 1921 the FA banned women's football, calling on clubs to refuse the use of their grounds to women.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30329606

But hey, the FA was obviously full of enlightened men being very helpful because in 1971, they lifted the ban. So we must all be jolly grateful for their enlightened attitude.

I agree that accusing a fellow scientist of falsifying data is very serious. If you agree that the data and observations are correct - what conclusions would you draw?

Slow - a poster gave a good example just upthread - that there just wasn't a chess club at her all girls school, but there was at the boys school.

How can a girl even know that she's good at chess if she doesn't even get a chance to play? Let alone play against high quality opponents or learn from better players so she could compete?

If you don't get the opportunity to try or improve, how is that not an indirect ban?

How is it not a ban to have the 'real' tournament and the 'womens' tournament? Only very tenacious women would think to go to the non-women's

I would say that the data and observations were correct - but that classifying a pot as feminine isn't, and that the conclusions they draw are a flight of fancy and bias, and nothing to do with the data they found.

But that's just me.

Maybe evo-bollocks upsets someone else but not me personally. I think the person who said it was discussing how it is used to justify patriarchal constructs. I don't think they were criticising science but pseudo science that explains gender difference. I'm correct in saying that a difference in male/female brains has never been conclusively found? Or at least not to the extent that explains the gender divisions we have in our society.

Please quote specifics.

No, I'm busy. Please read back your posts and evaluate your posting style.

Thatstoast
I have reread all of my posts. Unlike several others, I have not made any ad hominem attacks, sworn or resorted to name-calling.

Maybe evo-bollocks upsets someone else but not me personally

It doesn't upset me either. However it does come across as "dismissive" - which you said is not on (at 16:59).

As long as I am staying within MN guidelines - let's stick to the debate rather critiquing style. Or do you only engage in debate with people who adopt an unspecified style that meets your approval?

GreenTomato
I went to my daughter's all girls school and offered to set up a club but was warned there would be no interest. There wasn't.

We can blame history, patriarchy, bias, upbringing, marketing, lack of role models or we can say wow... a 98:2 disparity... I wonder what's going on there.

GreenTomatoJam
I agree with the classification of "pot" as feminine. But nevertheless the data they gathered showed sex preferences for certain toys. If you accept they didn't lie, falsify their results and regardless which toys each sex happened to prefer, what conclusion would you draw?

History, patriarchy, bias...etc.. All the things you listed could go towards explaining the 98:2 disparity. But you don't seem interested in discussing those. You obviously have the answer you're looking for already.

Grimbletart
Sorry I don't know anything about football. Undoubtedly, women were denied opportunities to enter many sports as well as other fields and professions.

We could wait for the past to change (which tends to be rather a long wait in my experience) or we could take pragmatic, practical and productive steps TODAY to get better participation.

WilliamHerschel
History, patriarchy, bias

That's my whole point. Isn't there a risk that any kind of disparity just ends up on blaming things outside of ourselves that we can do little about? Doesn't this actually reduce self-empowerment?

The chess federation was one of the first in the world to actually encourage female participation in its sport and went to pains to create a supportive environment for women to play (hopefully minimising bias, unwelcome attitudes etc). But that clearly doesn't fit the convenient narrative here.."The only reason why FIDE set up the women's championships was to keep women out of the main tournament". This is factually incorrect

Clarification for GreenTomato
I meant to say "I agree with you regarding the classification of pot as feminine"

So what do you think causes less girls and women to play chess and what do you think the answer is?

That's my whole point. Isn't there a risk that any kind of disparity just ends up on blaming things outside of ourselves that we can do little about? Doesn't this actually reduce self-empowerment?

And no. It's very possible to look around at external factors and think what can I do to change those, or how can I push harder against those.

Nigel Short: D. Telegraph 15 April 2015 on women and chess.

"I don’t have the slightest problem in acknowledging that my wife [Rea] possesses a much higher degree of emotional intelligence than I do.

“Likewise, she doesn’t feel embarrassed in asking me to manoeuvre the car out of our narrow garage."

I'd feel bloody embarrassed if I had to ask DH to get my car out of the garage. Perhaps his wife should take some more driving lessons because she is clearly not safe to be on the road, instead of him holding an inadequate driver up as an exemplar of why women (in his view) don't play chess. Because, of course, all men are good drivers…..

Amanda Ross's response:“Judit Polgar, the former women’s world champion, beat Nigel Short eight classical games to three in total with five draws.

“She must have brought her man brain. Let’s just hope Nigel didn’t crash his car on those days, trying to park it. At least this resolves the age-old debate as to whether there’s a direct link between chess-playing ability and intelligence. Clearly not.”

"At least this resolves the age-old debate as to whether there’s a direct link between chess-playing ability and intelligence. Clearly not.”

That's how this topic moved to chess and my encouragement of my daughter and her female friends... In the end I didn't think it was too big of a deal but I think I did my bit.

As has been mentioned earlier - chess takes particular kinds of motivation and opportunity in order to get good. There could be a whole range of factors influencing this - but I don't believe these (e.g. time, practise, social constructs etc) are any different for Chess than they are for bowling, badminton or ice skating.

WRT to the Emotional Intelligence... point made rather clumsily by Nigel Short, I believe there are reliable differences between general populations of men and women in terms of Empathising / Systemising.

In the general population more women tend to have E>S and more men have S>E.

The best chess players (of both sexes) have been shown to have below average Empathising and above average Systemising.

Did you feel very judged by the other parents back when your children were young?
Now you feel vindicated. Those other parents were idiots?

But perhaps their sons had different needs, different personalities, to yours. Maybe when they banned guns it wasn't about you being wrong, but it was right for their family all the same.

To be honest I'm not sure that they can draw any conclusions from that study - as I've said in more than one post.

I think it's more than one study

Meeep
Never said anything about anyone being an idiot. Just observed a difference in approach. Please stick to the facts.

A quick look at the relationship pages of MN would provide additional data to support the view that more women than men are likely to have a higher EQ than SQ

In evolutionary terms it could be argued that there is a survival advantage for the sex that gives birth to and suckles offspring to have E>S.