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.

I was answering your questions about which tools were not developed by all cultures. Sorry to have confused you in so doing.

you seem to paint evolution as a steady march toward some exalted state- primates, then early hominids, then us as though these others are our predecessors, our less evolved relatives

this is a really weird way of looking at species diversity

Sorry SlowFJH Perhaps I misread the thread then. I had understood from your posts that male children had a preference for mechanical toys, and that this is consistent with evolutionary psychology and that this discipline had valid explanations for it

I am not the only poster under that impression however

Are you saying something completely different? Could you please clarify

DN4
Re Native Americans
They were not primative [seriously?] at the time of European arrival

Who ever said they were?

Please re-read my post from 20.2.16 at 22:24.

The West has a lot to learn from culters that might have developed technologies differently.

Sp cultures

Slow, I do think physical aggression is a plausible candidate for a sex specific difference. That's because it's clearly an attribute that could be useful to a man but detrimental to a woman based on the fundamental difference that women have children and men do not. Provoking people into fights who are bigger and stronger whilst physically vulnerable through pregnancy is not a good survival strategy.

My problem with a lot of evolutionary theories about sex differences is that they seem like illogical puesdo science mainly based on prejudice.

So for example at a party the other day some one told me that they had been to a conference and had been told that women are better at multi tasking that men because women used to be gatherers and men used to be hunters so women had to do lots of things at the same time but men only one.

I had a number of objections to this theory.

1. Are women actually better at mutitasking anyway? ( I suspect that they are not and this is used at an excuse to load them with dull tasks at work while their male colleagues get on with the important stuff)
2. Assuming it even exists why did the ability to multitask become sex specific? What was the survival detriment to men of being able to carry out multiple tasks?
3. How much do we know about sex roles on early societies and how they varied across time and culture anyway?

Crappymummy
Very happy to clarify and do let me know if this is not clear.

Toy preferences are undoubtedly influenced by a huge number of social and cultural factors (including parental biases and influences, societal pressures, peer group chastisement, marketing, TV and a whole lot of other things).

In addition to the above, we cannot ignore those aspects of who we are and what has made us who we are - over which we may have less conscious control.

Here are just a few factors that I believe could also be playing a role in toy preferences

CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION. THIS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST

Hormones
On average boys and men have between 5-10 times as much testosterone in their bloodstream than girls and women. During periods of early development, gonadal hormones - particularly androgens influence sex differences in rough physical play in both human and non human primates.

Brain Differences
There are reliable sex differences in the general population in terms of Empathising and Sytemising. The nucleus in the anterior preoptic portion of the hypothalamus is twice as large in men as it is in women (See Blum 1997, Geary 2010, Panksepp 1998). This region is covered with testosterone receptors. The hypothalamus controls the pituitary gland which in turn instructs the testes and adrenal gland to make yet more testosterone.

Evolutionary Psychology
Male infants show a greater attraction (on average) to toys involving movement. Female infants show a greater interest (on average) in toys representing animals.
Testosterone is linked to the drive for competing, status and social dominance. The most visible clue to physical dominance - height is, to this day, still correllated with sexual attractiveness as well as success in professional and political realms. There is a correlation between squareness of jaw line and the eventual military rank attained by male graduates of West Point.Teenage boys take more physical risks when there are girls present. There is clear gender gap in areas such as over-confidence, violence, risk-taking and group vs group hostility. I do not believe tools were only made by men. I do believe something dramatic happened in the evolution of hominid and human brains to set us apart in areas such as collaboration, language and technology (and that this started with the control of fire). I do not believe evolution is a linear progression. I do believe we have lots to learn in this field even though we don't have a time machine to provide definitive evidence.

Heredity
The IQs and likelihood to commit violent crime in adopted children correlates more with their biological siblings than their adoptive ones. Studies of identical twins separated at birth show that the "blank slate" theory (nurture trumps all) does not hold true.

Brain Physiology
Recent research suggests that the dramatic changes in the personality of Henry VIII may have been caused by specific jousting injuries. A bump on the head may have changed the course of world history. The story of Phineas Gage contributed to the identification of specific regions of the brain that influence Rage and Fear (both of which in turn influence the taking).

A nuanced and complex mix
So hormones, brain structure, DNA, physiology, anthropology, psychology and yes our evolutionary history mean it's complicated.

I believe it is unscientific to say "Oh of course, my own psychological processes have evolved but evolutionary psychology is bollocks". How can you have one without the other?

I have not said "Wheels cos testosterone alone" or "Pink cos pickin berries". In fact I have called out such misrepresentations. I think they are ideologically motivated by people when it dares to question "Cos Patriarchy".

I don't believe in "banning" children from playing with the toys they are attracted to (as long as they are safe). I do believe in allowing children to have access to toys which are non-stereotypical for their sex.

I personally would not "cordon off" any section of the toy shop (e.g. guns and swords) to my sons or daughter.

Let me know if any of the above is not clear.

It doesn't suit your argument maybe slow, but people are perfectly entitled to be of the opinion that the current state of the study of evo-psych is bollocks without denying that the brain is evolved or being 'unscientific' whatever that means.
And we have established that you won't let your kids play with anything they like because you adhere to age guidelines. Don't see why that gives you any high ground over those of us who hold stronger opinions against the appropriateness of violence in play. We just have different limits.

Slow, have you read anything by Cordelia Fine, Gina Rippon or Daphna Joel?

"However the fact that violence and violent crime for example is a predominately male problem in every culture and throughout history is pretty compelling evidence."

But evidence for what? Which came first, the patriarchy or the propensity/need/meme/whatever for violence? Just because it is old doesn't mean it is innate!

"THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF PATRIARCHY" from 1995 by Barbara Smuts looks interesting, I confess I haven't read it all yet! OF course, Gerda Lerner, "The Creation of Patriarchy" doesn't blame it all on biology either.

The patriarchy is old, very old, because unfortunately bloody efficient at propagating itself and stopping women from altering things.

How old would you guess?

AskBasil suggested 6-10,000 years. Older than that?