Gender stereotyping by the BBC

[Clarew201]

Oh I'm so frustrated by this, but feel a bit embarrassed to be complaining about nature programmes ( which I just have, to the BBC)!! Wondering if I'm alone?! The wonderful series 'Animals at Play', episode playing together, includes baboons playing with gendered toys - females more with dolls and males more with trucks, and then extrapolates this to humans, in answer to the nature nurture question. Some studies in humans have shown this but others have shown the opposite, (e.g. The amazing book The Gendered Brain by Gina Rippon) suggests it's mainly about environment and role modelling, even from a young age (and this could apply to baboons too!). It just feels so dangerous to extrapolate this way...on a programme watched by children and parents. It will reinforce limiting expectations...Make it OK not to give girls lego and trucks at a time when we need women to contribute to science and technology and men to play a stronger caring role. I'm really devastated the BBC would show a programme which narrates this in such a careless way. Thoughts please!!!

Is it narrated by Chris Packham? I’ve got a vague recollection of seeing that and thinking “but we are not baboons” and it felt very shoe horned.

but we are not baboons

I absolutely loath all this learning about humans from the behaviour of animals malarky. Anyone with a titter of wit knows that each species of animal has its own instincts and behaviours tailored to its own needs.

I haven't seen the whole programme but have seen the clip that you are talking about -as a sponsored post on FB I believe. I was hoping that the section would be better explored/ explained later on in the programme. It is definitely worthy of a complaint imo, but I guess not then.

Ignore the 'I guess not though' bit of my last post.

The wonderful series 'Animals at Play', episode playing together, includes baboons playing with gendered toys - females more with dolls and males more with trucks, and then extrapolates this to humans, in answer to the nature nurture question.

I remember watching this and thinking it was a bit silly - especially since a baboon won’t know what a doll is or what it represents - and they certainly don’t know what a tractor is perhaps the males/females were inclined to react more to certain materials or something (boys were more intrigued my the shininess of the tractor etc) but the idea that it confirms ingrained gender roles just seemed like nonsense.

I don't really see your issue.

It's an open question whether there are innate tendencies along these lines, there is some research that is suggestive, and overall most scientists seem to take the view that there is some of this that is nature and some nurture. The idea that it's all socialised tends to held more by social constructivists.

It's considered valid in many kinds of primate and anthropological study to look at close relatives of humans to gain insights into our behaviour. If we see some behaviour is very common or innate in our closest relatives, it seems at least possible that could be the same for us as well. We also are animals.

If the show had presented an entirely constructivist interpretation, which is equally an "extreme" position, would you object to that?

It's considered valid in many kinds of primate and anthropological study to look at close relatives of humans to gain insights into our behaviour.

Except that this example makes no sense whatsoever. How could preference for wheeled vehicles in male great apes precede the existence of wheeled vehicles??

(To be clear the “finding” was that male preferred wheeled vehicles while female apes had no preference and enjoyed all toys. Having read the methods of the original paper, these results Could easily have been impacted by observer bias / training. eg prior to the observation period, humans rewarded male monkeys for preferring non-dolls, just as we see the preference develop in human infants based on subtle cues from parents and other children.

The main problem is that the toys were pre-categorised by researchers into "male-" and "female-preference" in advance with sod-all thought to the validity of these categories. It's sloppy and (to my suspicious eye in these days of irreproducible experiments) like a properly-controlled study wouldn't find the same results.

Hypothesising that female apes are drawn to play with humanoid figures? Then give them humanoid robots (traditional boy toy) as well as dolls (traditional girl toy). They should prefer both to wheeled vehicles.

Hypothesising that male apes are drawn to play with wheeled vehicles? Then give them mini pushchairs (traditional girl toy) as well as cars (traditional boy toy). They should prefer both to humanoid figures.

And so on. Operationalise properly.

It's considered valid in many kinds of primate and anthropological study to look at close relatives of humans to gain insights into our behaviour

It is considered valid by a certain school of anthropology but I don't think it is valid in any way. Even between chimps and gorillas there are huge differences in instincts and behaviours.

As I understand it, the idea that they are exploring in these sorts of experiments is whether boys are more likely to be drawn to machines or mechanical items, and girls to toy infants.

It would be interesting to look at something like a stroller, I think it would fall under mechanical for sure, unless you were talking about something like a chimp or gorilla raised with humans who knew what it was for. But then they'd likely be too old for that kind of study.

It is considered valid by a certain school of anthropology but I don't think it is valid in any way. Even between chimps and gorillas there are huge differences in instincts and behaviours.

You can't say that it shows the same is true for another type of primate but I don't believe that is the intent. It's more a matter of exploring whether that kind of inborn sexed preference is something that happens at all. It gives more context to interpret data from similar human studies which tend to be complicated by the question of socialisation.

I think it would be almost a little odd if there wasn't a stronger overall inborn tendency for female primates of all kinds to care for infants compared to males.

Scientists are often biased and sexist. Many of them rather like that they're part of a boy's club and take pride in doing masculine things like science and math (how they see it, not me). Any research they do concluding women are natural homemakers and men are better at things that pay money is highly suspicious.

Hmm, maybe, though I don't know that I find that argument very convincing by itself. It's a little to close to "I don't like this so it must come out of bias".

You could also take the view that we pay more for work men tend to do, rather than artificially push men to do highly paid work.

Thing is, different mammals act differently. How about Bonobos- matriarchal grouping, males have to impress the females who are definitely in charge?. Non human animals are defined by biology. We make choices, we have a sophisticated culture

Scientists are often biased and sexist. Many of them rather like that they're part of a boy's club

Did you intend this comment to be about all scientists or just male ones?

I have met a lot of very sexist male scientists. I don't think female scientists tend to be sexist, though. Women are often just on the receiving end of the sexism and have to work twice as hard and be twice as good just to be seen as equal to their male peers.

I'm currently reading Cordelia Fine's book Testosterone Rex.

She presents a lot of evidence that makes me very cynical about these studies and the way they are reported.