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.

The cause and effect point is really interesting. I was not aware that even winning a game of chess causes an increase in testosterone. I thought it was only physical games that did this.I am happy about this!!

The article says that the body produces more testosterone in certain situations. So we can't be 100% be sure as to what is cause and what is effect.

Also, simply injecting testosterone into a person does automatically make them violent. I'm not surprised by that.

Very interesting point at the end though.

McAndrew's work demonstrated that one surefire way to raise a man's testosterone level is to allow him to handle a gun

Could this explain why my friends boys were so keen to play with the toys (swords and guns) that they were denied at home?

Sorry that should say does NOT automatically make them more violent

I have two girls. They like scooters, bikes, Minecraft, card games, furry animals, dolls, cars, meccano, make believe of all sorts, dancing and magic tricks.

They also like cooking, DIY, swimming, playing out with the local kids and having friends over.

They like what they have been exposed to and have adults encourage them to do. We live in a less gendered place than our UK counterparts and the children we know here are more like the children of my own generation - that is less marketed to along gender divisions and less aware of gender.

Maybe.
Having trained in personal defence, I sort of had withdrawal symptoms at some point when I felt like fighting someone. Not aggressively or in anger but I craved the activity.

Either habit or the activity raised some hormone levels, who knows?

ThatStoat

I was prompted to start this topic because my good friends three sons visited us recently. They remarked how much they enjoyed playing with the toys at our house. All three of them said that with their own children they probably wouldn't "ban" certain toys (as their parents had done) but rather let the child make up his or her own mind.

I tend to agree with this (as long as the toy is safe). Just wondered what others thought.

Sorry ThatsToast not ThatStoat

Lweji
A quick saliva test is all you need to show that the winning side on a game of rugby has their testosterone levels go up and the losing side's go down. So I wouldn't be surprised.

I could tell when my sons seemed to be craving rough and tumble play.

I saw the baby monkeys on a programme was fascinating and very cute. I have girls dd was never into dolls or girly toys she liked cars and lego bionacles and dinosaurs Dd2 liked all things girl but loves super hereos and both are quite geeky I never banned toys I just let them develop their own interests, now as young adults they seem well rounded like dressing up make up and Batman

I bought Dd1 a dolls buggy and she would turn it upside down and try and take the wheels off

My brother used to turn his pedal car upside down and pretend it was a sewing machine.

I think the thing is that we can't know what is innate because social forces are so influential. Things that are attributed to being innate are probably far more likely to be conditioned.

Also as that article intimates you can't take a hormone in isolation. Let's look at hormones during pregnancy/giving birth. They have often been used to explain PND. Yet if you look at real life situations that surround women with newborns: complete upheaval of life as they know it; a small person completely dependent on them; various societal pressures; lack of control; lack of support from family, friends and/or partner; possible isolation from family/friends and suddenly the picture looks far more situational than hormonal.

Similarly with testosterone.

I grew up in the 70s where girls were girls I liked my boys cousins cars and starwars toys was never allowed them it pissed me off so i just let my own girls choose their toys

I don't feel I know enough about this to give an informed opinion, although what Lweji has been saying seems to make sense.

Completely anecdotally though, my DD did go through a 'cars and things with wheels' stage, but much later on (around 4 years old). We only spotted it because we had lots of DS's old cars dotted around the house. She didn't and still doesn't play with them at school ("because they are for the boys" ) but loves playing with her Hotwheels overpriced plastic crap sets at home.

As I said, it's completely anecdotal, but it does make me wonder whether it's not so much a case of boys tending to be drawn to fast-moving things, but rather a case of boys tending to be drawn to fast-moving things at an earlier age.

Sorry to harp back to testosterone again, but as an owner of animals (horses, dogs, cats), all of which have been castrated, I can honestly say that aggression or the prevention of aggression has never even been a factor in my decision to do so. The cats and dogs were done because I'm a responsible pet owner who doesn't want to contribute to the problem of unwanted animals in rescues and the horse because I didn't want him to have a miserable life shut up in a box for the safety of the mares on the yard and only allowed out to graze in a single tiny paddock (I live in London, where turnout space is at a premium). Also I didn't want to hack out being constantly worried about him running off with me should he scent a mare in season. I neutered all my animals, whether male or female, and didn't notice an appreciable difference in either sex's behaviour. My three cats still tear lumps out of each other when the mood takes them...

I have never come across anyone who neutered an animal to 'stop aggression' , in fact my yard owner (who had a prize winning Welsh C stallion who was a little arsehole) always said that neutering him wouldn't make a ha'porth of difference as that was his personality and as an adult horse he'd still try to mount mares even without the equipment. And she was a well respected breeder with many years experience. The honest truth was that she had no intention of breeding him as he had such a shitty personality, but her husband wouldn't allow him to be gelded. Psychoanalyse that one...

*actually it was whilst she was at nursery, so about 3.5 years. She'd never shown any interest in them before this, despite being given lots and having her DB's ones around the house.

SitsOnFence Actually, your conjecture doesn't require any sex difference in how early an interest is developed, just some variability and an age (preschool?) at which suppression comes into play for one sex but not the other. That alone would be sufficient to result in a marked difference.

Re: suppression, it doesn't have to be particularly active. It just has to be a lack of encouragement. It's remarkably wearing to swim upstream as a small child even if your parents are very supportive of whatever you want to do.

Lovecat
Wouldn't you agree that if a colt is castrated (before he reaches maturity) - the geldling is ikely to be easier to handle and ride than a stallion?

Which animal is more likely to damage fencing etc (especially if there is a mare in the next field). That's behaviour isn't it?

Why did farmers historically only keep one ram for their flock rather than a few? Why do farmers put up warning signs if there is a bull or ram in an enclosure (but not for cows and ewes).

Do you think a couple of cockerels would play nicely around the hens and agree like gentlemen when competing for their affections ?

By the way I agree that castration of a mature stallion would not make much of a difference to temperament and behaviour. By that time he will have developed fully and learned what is "normal" and may have residual testosterone.

Colts are normally castrated before they are three I believe.

Scallops
I'm glad you're back. I was curious about about a comment you made yesterday. .

Oh actually they do have their testicles removed? Who knew? Learn a new thing everyday. And here's me who grew up on a farm

Were you joking? Tell me you DID know what castration involves.

I understood the testicles were not removed, but the vessels above them crushed. This leads to them atrophying away, but not actually removed in the process.
Most castration is to prevent inferior animals mating, so only the best bred rams mate with the ewes, for example.

AFAIK, in many cultures, bull castration is followed by a meal usually called an euphemism such as Rocky Mountain oysters, criadillas, and so on.

Caroldecker
The question was directed to Scallops.

Lweji
Rocky Mountain Oysters.. haven't tried them myself. But I hear they are quite a delicacy.

carol's correct, in farming they band or crush the testicales so they atrophy and fall off. This is done to all but a very few in order to make them fatten up more quickly, so they earn money for the farmer instead of standing about in fields forever costing money.

A few males are kept intact for breeding purposes, females are kept for this purpose as well. Too many intact animals cause problems within the bloodlines, especially in horses and cattle. Because animal husbandry. Any reduction in sex driven behaviours are a by product and not the main concern. Just because scallops didn't answer, doesn't mean you get to be rude to carol!

Dogs, cats and other pet animals undergo a different procedure, where the scrotum is incised and the testes are popped out, ligated and removed. None of these are done in order to prevent aggression. It is done to prevent disease, to help prevent wandering and help prevent theft of valuable pedigree animals for breeding purposes. Aggressive animals tend to be so because they have been poorly trained, this is, in mine and various other poster's experience nothing to do with being castrated.

While testosterone is one of the hormones involved with aggressive behaviour, it's not the only one by a long shot. This need to concentrate on it as the sole cause of aggressive behaviour is odd.

The example of the elevated amount of hormones post rugby is a good one for showing that correlation does not equal causation. There will also be raised levels of endorphins, glucagon and epinephrine present, amongst many other hormones. There will also be depressed levels of other hormones present, the idea that it's only testosterone causing aggression is simplistic and facile. There's also the salient point that several posters have stated that the friend you mention so derogatorily in your OP is in the majority, perhaps her sons only went along with your need to deride her in order to deflect your scoffing from themselves?

You further state that your experience isn't scientific, and yet you have either ignored or made ridiculous statements when posters have pointed out that, on that point at least, you're correct.

However, to answer your slightly childish questions to me. I would surmise that, given that castrated male meat animals gain weight more quickly, both horses and cats would do the same. I am unsure if that is part of animal husbandry in the countries that eat cat and horse meat, so you may be better served asking on a forum in such a place. I find your attempts to paint me as someone who doesn't like either horses or cats to be rather pathetic and view your attempts to initiate a pile on to be puerile and unworthy of what was shaping up to be an interesting discussion. Your need to know what education people who were showing your theories to be incorrect were transparent too. I believe you started this thread to goad, you constantly reframe it to suit your need to be correct and the disingenuous way you respond to posters merely reinforces my opinion.

A long winded way of saying that I shan't be responding to your goading again on this thread, even if you, as you have done thus far, respond to points I have made to others. I do hope that that at least is clear to you.

Sometimes I wonder what the point of a thread is when in essence the question it asks is "here is my opinion, agree with it or jump off a cliff- AIBU"

why ask, if you are incredibly dismissive of anyone who doesn't share your opinion?

as an aside, I am fascinated by the idea of 'residual testosterone' that may be present in a male animal which has been castrated. If the glands which produce it are removed, or inoperative, from where is this residual testosterone secreted?