Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

BoysToys

436 replies

SlowFJH · 13/02/2016 11:37

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.

OP posts:
SlowFJH · 20/02/2016 19:58

JW35
Good for you for coming back.

OP posts:
RufusTheReindeer · 20/02/2016 20:13

Just caught that interaction with lweji and happy earlier

Its a shame slow that you seek to control such an interesting thread, very rude in your interaction with some of the posters

AllTheToastIsGone · 20/02/2016 20:20

Surely natural selection works at the level of the species anyway?

Any attribute that confers an advantage will be passed by default to both sexes. It isn't enough to say (random example) men have better hand eye coordination because they needed it to shoot arrows at animals.

Those successful stone age hunters will have passed their genes to both their sons and daughters. Even if only their sons obtained a survival advantage those sons will have gone on to have boys and girls in equal measure.

Surely for an attribute to be further selected to become sex specific (switched on or off by a sex hormone ) it needs not only to be more useful to one sex than another but also actively detrimental to the sex it isn't useful for.

One example that comes to mind is the trade off between muscle mass and body fat. Clearly body fat is critically important for a woman's survival given pregnancy and child birth but a disadvantage for a male without those requirements.

That's the sort of thing that gets switched on or off by sex hormones.

One thing though I am sure of. We are naturally predisposed to categorise people into different groups based on sex, skin colour, religion, social class you name it and assign random attributes to them as a result.

GreenTomatoJam · 20/02/2016 20:25

t I wouldn't think to buy a boy a doll or a girl a transformer unless they showed a keen interest. If boys and girls like gender specific toys then does it matter why

You do know that a transformer is a doll right? It's humanoid/vehicular robot (I had an original optimus prime sp? as a kid btw) - but it's a doll as much as barbie/actionman/power rangers or bratz

And by not buying a kid something based on their genitals, you are contributing to social conditioning (that I thank God my parents didn't subscribe to, or I wouldn't have had my skateboard, robot glove, cars, planes and transformers)

As to fire, I do feel there is a difference between evolution and acquired knowledge - and I think that evolution got us to the point of being able to understand tools (like chimps and crows) but that it was knowledge, passed on, that got us to understand fire.

And as to the first time it was harnessed, that only takes one foolhardy person striking lucky - I don't think evolutionary leaps are needed at all - in fact, it's no more an evolutionary trait than us figuring out tomatoes aren't poisonous.

crappymummy · 20/02/2016 20:28

Thanks for explaining natural selection to me, it was quite unnecessary however, and instead you might have used the time and energy to point out the mutations occurring at which loci on which genes which are linked to evolutionary changes in 'psychology'

This is what I mean by evidence, not just saying, it was natural selection.

With your dog breeding examples, it would be quite possible if a person were motivated, to compare changes to alleles within a breed which have occurred over however many years as some traits were favoured by breeders over others.

Can we do the same with behaviours or cognitive function? Maybe someday, but not quite yet.

DrSeussRevived · 20/02/2016 20:30

Thank you for that post, Toast.

crappymummy · 20/02/2016 20:35

With respect to other cultures, as far as I am aware, indigenous people in north America, particularly Inuit, did not use wheels for transport pre-contact with europeans

AllTheToastIsGone · 20/02/2016 21:05

Slow, I don't think that study necessarily shows a link between testosterone and toys.

Girls with that condition might physically look more similar to boys than girls generally do. As a result they might be treated differently by adults and other children or identify themselves differently and as a result be more likely to chose the set of toys assigned to boys as opposed to those assigned to girls.

Theydontknowweknowtheyknow · 20/02/2016 21:48

I'm afraid where you and will not see eye to eye is if you want me to say social conditioning is 100% of the story.

Oh please! Where did I ever say that social conditioning was 100%? Do you really think that us pesky feminists aren't able to spot a strawman when we see one?

As for your CAH girls, ok let's discuss them shall we? Firstly do you really think that children who are genetically male, present as females and are brought by their parents to participate in a study on the condition of being a genetic male who presents as female are treated exactly the same as girls who are both treated as and presented as females? Really?!

And let's look at the results shall we? The CAH children and the girls both enjoyed dressing up didn't they? The CAH girls as aliens, the girl-girls as witches. Those are cultural icons for each gender. There is nothing innate about either. True, the CAH children didn't show interest in jewellery or fashion but Jewellery and Fashion haven't always been the preserve of females and there are millions of girl for whom jewellery and fashion are things they feel they should be interested in rather than things they actually are interested in.

Don't get me wrong. I should imagine there are differences between boys and girls but your simplistic focus only on that which is innate needs challenging because it is not only innacurate but has the potential to be harmful.

SlowFJH · 20/02/2016 22:24

Crappymummy
You're right that the indeginous peoples of America did not develop the wheel.

They did however develop the other tools I mentioned (stone axes, spears, bows and arrows) and (in South America) some of the most sophisticated architecture and social structures of that era. I don't understand your reference to Europeans. Not all technological advances were simultaneous. Many Asian cultures were far more advanced than the Europeans of the time.

What's your point?

OP posts:
SlowFJH · 20/02/2016 22:41

Theydontknow
Your simplistic focus only on that which is innate needs challenging because it is not only inaccurate but has the potential to be harmful

Please quote my actual words where I have said that this stuff is simple or simplistic and that we should only focus on that which is innate?

Throughout this thread, I have said that toy preferences are likely to be driven by complex and nuanced combination of factors. Societal norms, parental conditioning, TV, marketing, peer group chastisement, traditions, fashions, personal choice and expectations etc etc undoubtedly have a HUGE influence....

I think I have been consistent in acknowledging that.

And in addition to social constructs we should not discount those aspects of our being over which we might have less conscious influence than we think including our genetics, physiology, endocrinology, anthropology, brain structure and a whole bunch of other things.

Is that contentious?

OP posts:
SlowFJH · 20/02/2016 22:55

AlltheToast
I'd be very interested in your views on the variation on part of the MAO-A gene that determines how much of the enzyme is produced. People with a low activity version of the gene suffer a build up of certain neurotransmitters in the brain and are more likely to have committed violent crimes.

OP posts:
Theydontknowweknowtheyknow · 20/02/2016 22:59

And in addition to social constructs we should not discount those aspects of our being over which we might have less conscious influence than we think including our genetics, physiology, endocrinology, anthropology, brain structure and a whole bunch of other things.

Of course not (although we may have more control over brain organisation than we think) however there isn't much we can do about that is there?

The social stuff there is.

SlowFJH · 20/02/2016 23:04

The simplistic accusation is more accurately aimed at those who say (said) all evolutionary psychology is bollocks.

This writer felt the same way but now offers a more nuanced perspective.

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/is-evolutionary-psychology-worthless/

OP posts:
MyCrispBag · 20/02/2016 23:20

SlowFJH

Who actually said that?

russetbella1000 · 20/02/2016 23:26

Slow's determined I'd give him/her that...But I don't agree.

Tbh just skim read various points here but as usual and as someone up thread pointed out, read Cordelia Fine and none of the other nonsense...Smile

It's funny how you can just read a tiny fragment of a post and immediately know you wouldn't get on with a person in RL, although I'm sure you're very nice but just a bit frustrated that you're not convincing others SlowFJH...

Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree but it looks like you're someone who needs to have the last word...

SlowFJH · 20/02/2016 23:28

With regard to the control of fire I personally believe that this was probably a major event in human development (rather just a new skill learned).

All the evidence from the entire animal kingdom suggests that the fear of fire is innate. Any animal will be terrified of fire (even if they have not been "taught" to fear it). The control of fire had a monumental impact on the way humans developed compared with primates - not least because eating cooked food is far more efficient than raw... The psychological aspects of overcoming such a deeply rooted and understandable fear are fascinating.

OP posts:
DrSeussRevived · 20/02/2016 23:42

So the evolutionary aspect there is ... what? That 99 cave people died in the attempt to control fire and the one who didn't lived to pass on the skill?

My history teacher once postulated that cave people might observe that dropped seeds grew better near soil with animal dung than without, and thereby draw conclusions about fertilisers...

SlowFJH · 20/02/2016 23:42

MyCrispBag
Who actually said that?
I think the "Evo-bollocks" challenge was raised by AskBasil. Also see comments from SomeDyke, Muttaburrasaurus and others.

OP posts:
DrSeussRevived · 20/02/2016 23:43

"With regard to the control of fire I personally believe that this was probably a major event in human development (rather just a new skill learned)."

Thanks for clarifying that,

SlowFJH · 20/02/2016 23:44

Thank you Russet
Ad hominem

OP posts:
SlowFJH · 20/02/2016 23:46

DrSeussRevived
What's your view on the control of fire and it's impact on humanity? It sounds like a big "meh".

OP posts:
MyCrispBag · 21/02/2016 00:17

SlowFJH

It looks to me like you realised that you were having a hard time debating your point and decided to disingenuously infer a point you thought you could 'win'.

Grin
DN4GeekinDerby · 21/02/2016 00:23

Neanderthals had bigger craniums. There isn't much evidence to suggest that they had more cognitive abilities. And if you're going to discuss gender differences, reducing it to the two most typical sex genes is still unsound when there are several others that have and continue to exist especially when we as a society define it by body parts and few actually know for certain what sex chromosomes they have. If you want to bring evolution into it, you need to look at all sex gene types that can continue the species - which is far more than XX and XY - and somehow cut out our current social binary in how people beyond those two interact with the world.

All the evolutionary psyc talk reminds me of archaeological sciences about 50+ year ago (or any on TV now) where anything that couldn't be explain was explained as a 'ritual' because that's how they saw earlier people. As a concept it may have merit but in practice it -- and you - are taking fragments to fit a worldview which isn't really how good science is done. But then, science is only as good as the people doing it and interpreting it as anyone with any grasp of science history knows.

We have no idea why the male monkey babies preferred the mechanical toy over the plush. It could simply have been because it was shiny or harder feeling or anything. They could have been influenced by the workers - anyone who has done any research with people or other animals knows how easy we all are to being influenced. The very people wrote it as has been pointed out cautioned against using it as you and the media keep doing.

About American Indigenous nations, the over 600 nations we have records, most of which did not have wheels prior to European colonization is that the differences in tools and choices in technology created can suggest what is more effected by evolution, what is more effected by environment, and what is more effected by culture. Of the largest American Indigenous nations at the time of European colonization, the biggest technologies were mainly in foods (of which most popular parts of the Western diet now rely), landscape shaping, soil maintenance that we still cannot replicate, and many other non-mechanical technologies.

You began by stating that your sons were interested in wheels and not your daughter and that wheels, along with other technological advances, were created because of men's testosterone. Except several hundred nations for tens of thousands of years did not and most of their technological advances which many enjoy today aren't mechanically based as you described. They were not "primitive" [seriously?], at the time of European arrival they had some of the largest cities in the world and the Americas had large, long standing trade routes, there was just nothing that in the environment or culturally for such things -- and apparently nothing in evolution either. There is also no evidence that I know of that suggests that tool making anywhere, even in animals, is strictly a male thing and nothing to suggest that any of these early tool were originally invented by males. That is a leap you are choosing to make. We've already seen in the last decade or so many cases of well known early tombs or constructs attributed to men because of the weapons and armor and tools that turned out not to be so - the people then just assumed so because that is how they saw things and chose to make that leap. They were wrong.

Like archaeological sciences of old/TV, evolutionary psyc today suffers badly from echo chamber syndrome and some of them and especially the media have a lack of humility in admitting that they do not have a clue what something means or that they could be wrong. But then, some of the biggest research universities in this area are still funding research and doctorates into finding which race is "scientifically" smarter or more attractive so maybe it needs someone to unstick them from 50 years ago before it will make real progress. Until they can move beyond that, the evo-psyc that makes it to the general public is better viewed with a high amount of bollocks detection.

In my house, we have a box of nerf guns and crossbows - my partner and I collect them and keeps the ones we won't use or he wont paint in a box for the kids. It goes untouched except when another family who have four girls come over and make everyone play with them. None of my four have interest in wheeled toys except to decorate their block towns. All of my kids love dress up, and building, and electric experiments, and video games and swords. We have an extremely large plush toy collection. My 2 sons are less flexible about what they choose to watch than my 2 daughters - they have their favourites and nothing is going to change their mind without a sulk while the girls are more likely to experiment and try new shows but any of that could just be them rather than their assigned gender. Really, even with kids from 11 to 5, how many times I have to request they take their hands out of their pants is pretty much the same across gender. I notice people laugh and talk about it more if they catch me telling my sons compared to my daughters, but they all do it. Messing with genitals I can see the argument for evolution, but I find it harder with their TV watching habits or lack of interest in wheeled toys.

SlowFJH · 21/02/2016 07:01

DN4

Yes I agree cranium volume alone does not reflect cognitive ability. We know that Neanderthal's tools were far less sophisticated than those of Homo Sapiens. From skull shapes we can infer Neanderthal had smaller frontal lobes.

Don't think I ever said a liking for wheeled toys is directly linked to testosterone. Did I

Re Native Americans
I think you are mixing up some of my points with Crappymummy. I asked for clarification from her about the particular cultures she was referring to and the specific technology that they had not developed. I agree that the development of the wheel may be as a be linked to a huge number of environmental factors e.g. the fact that the horse had gone extinct over there.

Don't think I have ever said tools were only developed by males.

Happy to be quoted using my actual words rather than misrepresentations

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread