Pink brains and blue brains

[minniebear]

So everything in me believes there is no such thing as a girl brain or a boy brain, and it bugs me a bit when family stereotype based on gender (I have two girls: girls are better behaved and easier to raise, boys are more interested in playing with toy cars and better at throwing, as examples).

Can anyone hit me with some facts to back up what I intuitively believe to be true (that gender differences such as those listed above are down to socialisation rather than biology)? Or am I wrong? I just want to feel I have it right in my own head. Im confident in the way I'm raising my girls and am aware of (and trying to avoid) gender stereotyping, and I'm not planning to rant and rave at the next person to bring all this up. I just want to better educate myself.

Bet you wouldn't leave the house Lenilarch11

This is a fascinating thread. I have a 5yo ds and he is very close to his same-age female cousin. I allow him to play with wtf he likes and cry if he gets a booboo. DSil thinks he shouldn't dance or put on her daughter's fairy outfit because he is a boy. She'll compare her daughter unfavourably to ds - in all of our hearing- because she's 'behaving like a boy'.

I spend most of our meet-ups scrabbling round the floor picking up my eyeballs!

Quinto, how do you mean I wouldn't leave the house?

I? Wtf? How do you mean wouldn't leave the house?

It's a joke about growing a penis overnight (as lenilarch11 mentioned in her post at 9.41), and what you might do the next morning as a result...

Lenilarch11 Tue 25-Apr-17 09:41:52
Because I'm pretty sure if I grew a dick and balls over night and got flooded by testosterone I would be behaving differently the next morning, due to that.

I think that too.

On eOP mentioned that she was careful to build up her son's verbal and empathetic skills (seen as naturally female) by talking to him and reading to him a lot.

I wonder of we were conversely to build up little girls aggressive and fighting skills, what would happen? I wonder if it would begin to create more testosterone in the female body?

(I do think it would be useful, if terrifying to teach girls to be more aggressive. How many girls get raped by 'boyfriends' or acquaintances because they are too kind and polite to yell and yell 'No' at them; or bite a chunk off their face off if need be?)

I don't think it's because they're kind and polite, I think it's because they're scared and terrified. Also, not fighting back is a sensible strategy as the repercussions from doing so could be violent and fatal.

It's a joke about growing a penis overnight (as lenilarch11 mentioned in her post at 9.41), and what you might do the next morning as a result

I read a survey about this once. The answer was 'get an erection and jump up and down and giggle'.

I'd go into work, flop it out, (metaphoricaly speaking) and get some actual respect.

Isn't the joke that men wouldn't leave the house if they grew breasts overnight?

If I woke up with a penis, I'd pee standing up and then my toddler wouldn't try and sit on my knee whilst I'm on the toilet.

I'm just reading 'Testosterone Rex' the new book by Cordelia Fine. Only part way through..................

My take so far is that before we discovered sex hormones (or that particular chromosome pair, XX or XY),we already believed that men and women were fundamentally different in the head as well as being different in the reproductive bits department. So, no surprise that with that belief already in place, scientific and anecdotal evidence and also socialization proceeded in a way to emphasize and increase the degree of difference.

Test or Est provides a wonderfully simple pseudo-explanation for the differences that we already supposedly knew were there. Except we aren't that sexually dimorphic a species. Amongst primates, in some species males can be twice as large as females, other species no difference, and others again, females are larger than males. Humans, 15% and six inches are the figures I could find. And in terms of brains, amongst some birds where only males sing, there is a really humungous brain difference (with an interesting example of one bird that was male on one side of its body, female on the other, and with a weirdly asymmetric brain to match!). Humans, not really, more overlap than anything.

Apart from the measurable physical and reproductive differences, I think any remaining other difference is so swamped by the difference we impose because we think there should be a difference, that you'd have to come up with some really clever way of trying to measure it! Ah well, took us long enough to convince (some of) the menz that women had souls, weren't responsible for all of the evils in his world (think Eve or Pandora), and might be able to be allowed to be responsible enough to vote and have a career without their brains exploding or their wombs withering, no wonder if we still have some way to go.............................

My take so far is that before we discovered sex hormones (or that particular chromosome pair, XX or XY),we already believed that men and women were fundamentally different in the head as well as being different in the reproductive bits department. So, no surprise that with that belief already in place, scientific and anecdotal evidence and also socialization proceeded in a way to emphasize and increase the degree of difference

Yep - check out Aristotle.

for one thing many emotionally-charged disorders such as Bipolar and Borderline Personality Disorder are far more common in women

Or is it that we just love diagnosing women as hysterical? I read an article recently where she listed some of the reasons women had been put in (victorian I think) mental hospitals - they included gems like 'leaving her husband' and 'being left by her husband'.

My eldest loved cars, my second doesn't care about cars. My youngest loves to paint, the eldest used to 'borrow' other kids pictures to give to me. I do think lots of things seem to be nature (for example, the youngest sneezes exactly like his father) but I think the spread of interests and strengths is spread much more evenly across the sexes than people want to suggest.

AssassinatedBeauty Tue 25-Apr-17 14:16:57
I don't think it's because they're kind and polite, I think it's because they're scared and terrified. Also, not fighting back is a sensible strategy as the repercussions from doing so could be violent and fatal.

Of course. But it would also help if girls were not brought up to be polite and gentle and give the benefit of the doubt in those situations where 'boyfriends' just push on.

I once escaped rape (not a boyfriend) by being as vicious as I could. I realise I was lucky to be able to react this way at the time. I happened to have the physical advantage of where I was positioned and had luckily reacted quickly by good chance. I know full this reaction is more often than not not possible and that freezing is another response.

Or is it that we just love diagnosing women as hysterical? I read an article recently where she listed some of the reasons women had been put in (victorian I think) mental hospitals - they included gems like 'leaving her husband' and 'being left by her husband.

I agree. Have you read this brilliant book?
www.amazon.co.uk/Female-Malady-Madness-English-1830-1980/dp/0860688690?tag=mumsnetforum-21

Men control women by calling them mad. They weren't mad at all and had reason for their behaviour.

The attitudes started to change a bit after the First World War after a brilliant doctor had been treating shell shock victims. Nevertheless many women went on being given lobotomies till into the 1970s. I remember even seeing on the television that a woman had bee given one for the equivalent of shouting at social services.

Freezing in that situation isn't going to be stopped by teaching girls to not always be kind and polite. It's an instinctive protective response.

You were lucky that your would-be rapist wasn't able to overpower you, or use a weapon to subdue you, or become enraged and further physically attack you.

I think we should rather be focussing on teaching men not to continue with sex if the other person isn't giving clear and happy consent, rather than shift the responsibility onto girls and women not to get raped because they're too nice.

This was a discussion from my point of view about how, if little boys may be brought up to be encouraged to have stereotypical female skills of empathy and verbal fluency, perhaps little girls could be brought up to show a little more expression of stereotypical male natural physical aggression.

The point was not get into the rape debate that it's up to men not to rape even though of course you are right.

I was just wondering about it as a hypothesis following the theory that things we think girls and boys are born to are just socially conditioned.

For example, as to the idea that attacked girls would probably usually freeze out of fear or know they could always be over powered, perhaps that would not be inevitable if they had been very well trained as fighters from a a young age. They might stand some chance of being able to defend themselves and find that out of FIght, freeze, flee they chose fight.

At present I feel there is something a bit taboo about a girl who shows a killer instinct even under duress. If a man were to do so he would just seem heroic and strong.

People can freeze when under attack. I don't think it's just girls/women that it happens to,
I think it's equally likely for anyone to freeze rather than fight.

I think anyone who is trained from a young age in something like a martial art or self defence is more likely to fight than freeze, irrespective of their sex. I don't think girls are born to be kind and meek, and I don't think boys are born to be aggressive and confrontational. The absolute majority of it is driven by socialisation imo. Tiny differences are magnified by socialisation and our culture. It seems clear to me as there are so many examples of individuals who buck the stereotypes.

Is there a taboo about women who are able to fight back? I think that they're shown as heroic and strong. Can you think of any examples of women who killed in self defence who were vilified for their actions?

As a child I was physically strong. I also did dance, which meant I was much stronger than most of my peers, and a lot of adults.

I was constantly being told not to touch other children during play. That I "didn't know my own strength", and that I might hurt someone. If I tried to say actually, I did know how strong I was, and I knew I hadn't grabbed my brother anywhere near hard enough to result in the dramatic wailing, I was again told I didn't know my own strength, and to be careful when playing with others.

btw yes, while I was strong, in that I could do full chin ups and press ups as an 8 year old, I was definitely not some sort of untrained superhero who hadn't learned to control her powers and went around accidentally breaking chairs and ripping railings from walls.

I always found it interesting that as a girl i was discouraged in this way, while boys were allowed to physically play. I never, ever heard boys being told they were "too strong" to play with others, and if there were injuries it was accidents, and "things getting out of hand", never the fault of one individual.

I was deemed "too strong" for both boys and girls btw. And I never hurt anyone, but I've seen boys break arms and legs playing.

And while I am still reasonably strong, I very much doubt I would fight back if physically attacked. A lifetime of being told I can hurt others easily without meaning to, and learning to hold back and be gentle, I doubt I could overcome that conditioning. I did go to boxercise classes once, and I really can't hit someone with my full force, out of fear I'll hurt them. It's weird, but my brain just can't make my body do it.

assasinated, I think fighting back is complicated.

I vividly remember the cases of Kiranjit Aluwhalia and Sarah Thornton in the 90's, who fought back after years of domestic abuse, and how that led to a change in the law on that front. Previously, a man could beat his wife pretty much at will, and if she fought back one day and killed him, she'd still be convicted of murder and sent to jail, with little account taken of the preceding years of abuse.

I'm not sure that before then there was much of a concept of women having the right to defend themselves against men?

Although I do suspect that we were always expected to put up a good fight to "preserve our honour", ie fight off a rapist, so I am not sure how that might fit. If you failed, you were ruined, so it wasn't really much of a choice...(I'm just musing here, I haven't thought this through much).

When I'm in danger I tend to freeze. And I'm physically generally very confident.

really
and learning to hold back and be gentle

Yes, that's just what I meant.

I think that people would be impressed if a woman had tried to fight off a rapist according to the old stereotype of defending her honour, but I believe they would he shocked and horrified she used unladylike full force, say, biting a hole out of the rapist's throat in an all or nothing defence.
Secretly a judge and jury would hold it against her I think.

This was a discussion from my point of view about how, if little boys may be brought up to be encouraged to have stereotypical female skills of empathy and verbal fluency, perhaps little girls could be brought up to show a little more expression of stereotypical male natural physical aggression.

It would be an interesting experiment for sure.

I think aggression and competitiveness are/seem to be more prominent in males because of testosterone though and would be however we were brought up. I am sure I read somewhere that transmen (as a group) commit more crime once they start on T, and feel more aggressive and such also. Would make a lot of sense. Of course entitlement, aggression and dominance are often TAUGHT to males rather than being totally natural. But I do think hormones play a large part in it all.

I think that people would be impressed if a woman had tried to fight off a rapist according to the old stereotype of defending her honour, but I believe they would he shocked and horrified she used unladylike full force, say, biting a hole out of the rapist's throat in an all or nothing defence.
Secretly a judge and jury would hold it against her I think.

Yes I would agree with this.

I think that people would be impressed if a woman had tried to fight off a rapist according to the old stereotype of defending her honour, but I believe they would he shocked and horrified she used unladylike full force, say, biting a hole out of the rapist's throat in an all or nothing defence.
Secretly a judge and jury would hold it against her I think.

I agree with that too. I sometimes wonder if I would have the nerve to gouge out someone's eye, for instance.

I think, personally, I would need to be exceptionally angry. Say, if someone is attacking my children. Certain instances where I wouldn't think twice. But that's probably to do with adrenaline?

Datun
Yes, I think with children then one would not hold back.
If her children are not involved though, just herself, something seems to hold women back as though it's something not allowed.

I agree I do think testosterone would help too.

I'm interested in the idea that widespread provision of self defence classes for girls might change the stats on rape. I'm sure it would.

In my own experience, language and voice are extremely effective in some circumstances. I talked my way out of sexual assault, in one case an attempted rape, on three occasions. My approach was very different each time and I won't tell people the whole story, TLDR. But both what I said and my tone of voice were important.

I'm unusually articulate, partly upbringing and partly enthusiastic participation in school debates. I think sticking up for yourself verbally can be learned and that it's a mode of self defence against a lot of things. In my youth I knew a woman who talked her way out of gang rape and likely murder in Afghanistan. You wouldn't believe you could talk your way out of that situation.

I don't claim women can talk their way out of everything, that would silly, but as long as the man is not overtly violent it's worth a punt. In each case I was threatened, the.men concerned were not violently attacking me and I can't imagine talking would work very often in those circumstances.

There is no point in studying reception children to see the difference between boys and girls because the socialisation has been cemented by then. It starts even before birth, because most people now know the sex of the baby before it's born.

By the age of one, most girls are socialised to be quieter and most boys are just 'exercising their lungs', socialised to be noisier.

I've watched young key stage 1 children play. The boy's run around like headless chickens and the girls all group together and do team sports activities. This is socialisation. And it's based on gender assigned at birth. Never the twain shall meet.

I was told that my son's lack of speech was because:

He was a boy.
I had a Norn Iron accent - despite the fact my two older children had no problem I countered? Oh well, they were girls and their brain assimilates language much better. To which I thought - what a pile of absolute rubbish! Get the help this boy absolutely needs!