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.

Testosterone isn't only produced on the testes. Smaller amounts are produced by the adrenal glands.

Women produce testosterone too. The ovaries produce small amounts of testosterone.

Not sure when or where I have told anyone to jump off a cliff???

PalmerViolet
Where exactly have I been rude to Carol?

Carol's first comment to me here on this thread really hit me in the feels but it got deleted by MN. See earlier.

you have been a bit agressive (and dismissive) towards anyone who challenges your assertions, at one point questioning people's academic qualifications

you are convinced that boys have an innate preference for some toys, and seem disinterested in discussion

I hope you are able to find the validation you seek

I've just reread all of my posts and I would be grateful if you could quote any that have come across as aggressive. That certainly was not my intention.

To be honest I'm not really sure where all the rage towards my pov is coming from.

Someone earlier has said nurture probably plays a bigger part than nature. That might be true.

Several times I have acknowledged that we can't discount the huge power of societal conditioning, trends, advertising, parental expectations, historical stereotypes, marketing, peer pressure and the like.

Nurture and conditioning plays a huge role on toy preferences.

However, I also think that nature probably also plays a role. That it's a probably a bit of both. Is that contentious?

I have called people up when they have said things like "There are no innate differences between boys and girls"

The fact that genetic boys have XY and genetic girls have XX chromosomes is quite a hefty innate difference. Wouldn't you agree?

crappymummy you forgot to mention the patronising tone. I've felt like I've received an unwanted lecture reading this thread.

Crappymummy
The thread was started out of curiosity sparked by a good friend's laudable attempt to keep their sons away from toys associated with violence. We took a slightly more relaxed approach to our own - going with the flow of whatever the child wanted. Is that so bad?

"I feel like I've had an unwanted lecture"

I guess any point of view we disagree with could be seen as an unwanted lecture. But I am not standing near you and you are under no obligation to interact with me or even read this thread.

I asked Geeka (and Geeka only) about her academic background because I was genuinely interested in the branch of science she comes from. Scallops offered (without my asking) to tell me that she was a physiologist. Any crimes committed there? Any MN guidelines infringed?

Sorry last comment should have been addressed to BoomChickenSoup

OP, I don't think anyone has said that there are no innate differences between boys and girls, despite that being what you would very much like people to have said.

People have simply questioned the extent to which testosterone increases violent behaviour and pointed out that socialisation is a huge factor. And that regardless of any innate differences children should still be given a wide range of play opportunities because there is a lot of overlap and things are not completely black and white.

But I'm guessing those arguments are too reasonable for you to respond to.

I would really urge you to watch the Alice Roberts documentary. It acknowledges your monkey study whilst also showing the overwhelming social bias.

Theydontknow
See comment from VashtaNerada at 18:33 yesterday 13.2.16

"No no no no Boys and girls aren't innately different

Theydontknow
Why do you feel the need to make an ad hominem attack "I'm guessing those arguments are too reasonable for you to respond to"

I have not made any ad hominem attacks on you (or anyone else ) on this thread. Why do you believe it's necessary?

That aside, I do agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with your point "children should be given a wide range of play opportunities because there is a lot of overlap and things are not black and white".

My degree is in biochemistry and human health, just fyi. Though i havent completely finished the third year yet.

I'd just like to suggest that actual direct-linked studies might be better evidence than the tabloid-esque reporting that often comes from New Scientist :)

Sorry for several posts in a row but I am cooking..

Crappymummy

Your comment
You are convinced that boys have an innate preference for some toys, and seem disinterested in discussion.

Wrong on both counts.

1. I have never said "boys have an innate preference for some toys". I said boys and girls have innate differences (at the biological level). Society, conditioning and all the factors associated with "nurture" play a huge part in toy preferences. However we can't ignore "nature" - the fact of basic biological differences (including - but by no means exclusively - the XY chromosome and androgens).

2. I am very interested in discussion which is why I stared the thread. I am genuinely curious about the opinions of others on testosterone.

I don't understand why so many posters resort to ad hominem attacks rather than giving their own POV to the question I raised in the OP.

Not sure, Crappymummy, if you have actually expressed your pov on the topic itself but you've come on to tell me I have told people to "fall off a cliff" and been "aggressive". You haven't backed up your accusations with any specific quotes using the actual words I have used here.

Whsyt

BeyondBoots
Totally agree. However I do think New Scientist does a half decent job in making science accessible. A lot of people would find the academic journals impenetrable.

Some more comments and articles showing testosterone is far from straight forward, and somewhat surprising:

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201310/testosterone-fuels-both-competition-and-protectiveness
www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosterone_and_human_aggression_or_180520

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25151053

www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Eisenegger_et_al_TiCS_2011.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjnpujNgvjKAhXJ1hQKHYd-AjEQFggyMAU&usg=AFQjCNHoypoEbTV5VKjyAs1dDJWZLexbdQ&sig2=5BMdViky9jJres5X1vMZJw

You don't come across as the slightest bit curious, Slow. Curious would respond to differing opinions entirely differently.

The first article is very interesting. The second one is basically saying we need more research. Can't argue with that. Link to Princeton is not working for me.

Slightlyglitterbrained
Again - you are critical of me personally and now telling me how I should / should not be responding.

Is there a proof of curiosity that would satisfy you?

I am curious.
No you're not
Yes I am
You don't sound it
Well I am
No you're not.

Not sure there's much further you and I will get with your assertion.

But back to the point of the discussion. Do you have a pov on the topic and content of this debate or do you just prefer to make criticisms on style?

See if <a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Eisenegger_et_al_TiCS_2011.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjnpujNgvjKAhXJ1hQKHYd-AjEQFggyMAU&usg=AFQjCNHoypoEbTV5VKjyAs1dDJWZLexbdQ&sig2=5BMdViky9jJres5X1vMZJw" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> this works
It's supposed to be a pdf

Not in the least Slow, you appeared to be seeking feedback on how you were coming across. Explicitly requesting it, in fact, earlier in this thread. However, your response to actually getting that feedback seems to suggest that you really didn't want anyone to take you up on that. Are you actually trying to dismiss comments as invalid by a somewhat opaque method? Whatever. Have fun with that.

I've a definite pov formed by a lot of reading on this topic, and am very interested in hearing more from some of the obviously extremely well qualified posters on this thread. But, sadly, this doesn't seem to be the thread for it so I'll bow out, as no doubt will others soon.

Got it thank you. I am grateful to you for sharing these links.

That Princeton review is excellent. The main points I took were a confirmation if the ealier articles that the causation / correlation between testosterone and aggression is more complicated than we thought. In addition to aggression, it could be linked to
Social Dominance
Threat Vigilance
Reward Processing
Fear Reduction
Stress Resilience

Makes a lot of sense.

Slightlyglitterbrained

Someone said I'd been aggressive. I asked for specific examples (using my words not their misrepresentations)

Again - you don't make any contribution to the debate at but rather put your energy into seemingly encourage others to flounce off with you.

Whatever floats your boat.

OP, you asked for other people's views, but every time someone gives one, you seem to leap on it as wrong and then start going on about testosterone levels and aggression, which is not what your OP was about.

So my anecdote would be that I have a teenage son and daughter, and as children they both played with 'boys' and 'girls' toys, as did their friends. Perhaps though that is a case that people tend to be friends with people like them.

I do believe that not all of intelligence is down to environment. Intelligence is to some extent heritable. And my anecdotal evidence (and I'd love to see the scientific studies) is that both adults and children who behave in very gendered ways are not the most intelligent. Ultimately, a really clever and inventive child is going to a. spend a lot of time on imaginative play involving both empathy and abstraction, and b. engage with toys in ways that are much more complex than repetitively expressing a preference for wheeled toys or dolls.

Obviously (or at least I hope it is obvious) humans have not evolved to have many strong biologically driven preferences, nor to be so stupid that they fall for social conditioning all the time. What they have evolved to do is be intelligent enough to make vastly different decisions in vastly different environments in order to survive and thrive. If a child has 'zero interest in wheeled toys' there is something wrong with them. If a child has zero interest in dolls, there is something wrong with them. We would effectively be talking about children who lack some kind of basic cognitive ability to learn the skills required to cope with life in 21st century Britain.

Has anyone had any success with "encouraging" their children in toys / play / passtimes for which there are fewer role models from that sex? We tried our utmost to get our daughter into chess but I fear our encouragement had an impact opposite to the one we had intended.

Any daughters who do like chess?

AlmondPudding
The only time I have said someone was wrong was when I was misquoted.

Your point
The attitude of "There's something wrong with them for not liking [stereotypical play]" is still prevalent in attitudes towards boys who aren't into sport.

Having an interest in wheeled toys is not stereotypical play. It is a developmental milestone that should have been met by the age of three, as is an interest in playing imaginative games with dolls or toy animals.