BBC Article "Boys prefer cars from early on"

[skiari]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8624999.stm

Researchers put a range of toys near children aged 9 to 36 months. They found the children were more likely to choose gender-typed toys and colours. "Boys went straight for the ball and the black car, and girls went to the teddy bear and the doll."

The researcher thinks this demonstrates "an intrinsic bias in children to show interest in particular kinds of toys" but admits that "Children of this age are already subject to a great deal of socialisation".

I wonder why they are not considering that this socialisation could completely explain the results?

If children are already given, or encouraged to play with, gender-specific toys at home, at nursery, at toddler groups and at friends' homes, then surely this would explain the results of the survey? Especially if the parents or carers think that children are "intrinsically" more likely to prefer gender-specific toys and so tend to give them those.

What do you think?

Yes I saw this and at first thought, oh no.

But on reading this they say that 1) they are talking children aged up to 3yrs (so result is no surprise) and 2) even at 9mo I imagine most children may have been pushed (even by imperceptible means eg TV/peers/grandma) in some way towards toys for boys or girls.

Let's face it, that starts at an early age now - even ELC now does all its stuff in blue or pink from the most baby toys. And girls are put in pink buggies which were not around 10 years ago (AFAIR).

So hey, nurture still rules (err maybe)

i watched a really good programme about this whilst I was PG with my first and it was relating to why boys are more receptive to being taught in a differnent way to girls, and the physiological reasons why this is. of course i thought surely that really cannot be innatee, it must be learned.

Fast forward to now, I have two boys aged 2 & 3 and without a doubt they go for toys that "move" or fast & noisy games,... trains/cars/tractors/balls/ their bikes.

They almost never play with their soft toys and their dolls (and they have oodles of these freely available too!)or their little dolls pushchair.

I know the younger follows the elder but the attraction to is noticeably marked - I swear i am being objective. So it does not suprise me at all

Oh don't get me starterd on elc stuff..

FFS Pink or blue gardening sets?? Erm how about blue/red combos.

Pink keyboards?

Pink globes?

Pink ANYTHING THAT COULD BE ANY OTHER could ffs (sorry)

So pissed off with it and I don't even have a DD

I grew up in jeans and t shirts and shoes that meant I could climb as well as they could. Although I bet boys these days would struggle in Clarkes shoes.....

No give in the sole like the ol, days

Anyways

I was the ultimate tomboyboy back in the day. And that was a Good Thing.

I back the MN Campaign...

As a psychology graduate (therefore was taught years ago that it's all down to socialisation) and the mother of a boy, this is something that has really pissed me off. We gave DS BOTH 'male' and 'female' toys from the beginning - pink buggy, toy dolls, plus vehicles and 'neutral' toys. I have always smothered the poor child in cuddles and kisses. DH is a lovely, affectionate 'beta male' so DS is not growing up in a rugby/ beer/ testosterone-powered home. And what has the outcome been?

He's conformed to bloody stereotype, hasn't he? Train obsessed from 18 mos; vehicles are his second choice. Ignored his dolls and cuddly toys until I became preg with no 2, then had a limited period within which he'd roleplay 'mummy'. Loved his pink buggy at 18 mos but that's just because it was a stroller toy, IMO - kids at that age just love pushing stuff on wheels, don't they? And that's it. Total boys' world in this household.

My only consolation is that today (age 3) he told me pink is his fave colour.

I know so many boys like this that the feminist psychologist in me has had to acquiesce that perhaps socialisation is not as powerful in these matters as we might wish to believe.

Hmmm... well, I must say I treat anything a load of white-coats with a lot of book-larnin', a research grant to spend (and justify) and probably very little practical experience have to say with a healthy and heavy dose of cynicism.

And I do remember, many years ago, hearing on the radio one woman's experience of giving birth saying how different the attitudes to her boy and girl babies were, even from the moment of birth, when she recounted the (male) obstetrician, greeting her newly delivered son with the words 'Well, who's a big, strong boy, then?' whereas her daughters were called 'sweet little things'.

Nurture starts early, it seems.

Having had two sons and four daughters, I would say they were different, but then so were the girls different from each other, and the boys are different, from each other, too.

I, like you Valpollicella, grew up in jeans and plimsoles (or wellies) and was what was called a 'tomboy' so I never imposed (wittingly) any gender stereotyping on my kids, never dressed my girl babies in pink, boys in blue etc and never countenanced restriction due to gender.

There were differences, as they grew up, (they're in their 20's and 30's now, except my youngest 14 yr old son) that one might easily put down to gender, but considering they're subject to so much outside influence, whether we like it or not, and from such a young age, as per my 'radio lady' story, it's honestly a job to say how much is nurture and how much nature.

However, I must say, whatever the differences I may have noticed between my sons and daughters, I couldn't see anything that would have justified denying women the vote until 1928 or the gender pay gap today.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4195852.stm

Surely babies could be gender socialised by the time they are 9 months? My dd was starting to say words and wave at that age so was certainly beginning to become socialised in other general ways.

I have tried and tried not to influence DD's. they had green or red buggies, I bought boys versions of toys to avoid the pink and they have buggies, motorbikes, train sets etc.
DD1's(4.3) favourite colour is dark blue, she likes to wear a princess dress to bed but won't wear floaty girlie dresses in the day, loves trains and babies all her dolls.
DD2 (2.7) hates skirts, babies some toys, obsessed with dinosaurs and cars/things with wheels.

DD1 started choosing girlie things when she started preschool and was very upset to be told she 'couldn't like blue as it is a boys colour'
grrr.
Is a load of bollocks, gender bias starts from birth if you let it.

it;s not just the socialisation that they get at home - babies absorb everything they see in culture around them - and gender bias is everywhere
who drives the car when both parents are at home? how many female train drivers / digger operators do you see? does daddy wear red and pink when he's at home, or blue and black? what do most children's story books show? mummies looking after children, or women flying aeroplanes?

babies of 9 months are already aware what gender they are and what gender the people around them are - and 3 year olds are VERY aware of it

pink used to be a colour worn by boy babies, only decades ago - girls having an innate love of pink is just bollocks

CoK exactly....pretty sure much of ds's socialisation came from nursery (went two days a week when v. young) because we have never pushed the boy thing, ds used to love pink, but now says its a girls colour cos Ewan/Joshua/Brett say so (and where the hell are they getting it from...) It is an uphill struggle.....
I hated dolls and prams and things (in fact I used to take my pram round a friends so I could play with her brothers train track!)

The only big gender-play difference I have noticed with my two (DS(4) and DD(1)) is that DD is far more strongly drawn to things with faces - dolls have faces, so she likes dolls. Mainly poking them in the eyes, but still, she likes dolls. DS couldn't care less about things without wheels, unless they are balls.

It always amazes me that there is such a huge and obvious hole in the argument in these reports (ie because socialisation is all around and begins early, as pointed out in this thread) and yet it gets ignored.

sigh

It's like when friends assure you that they've always treated their dcs exactly the same and any gender difference must be intrinsic, and yet you see on the mantelpiece a photo of the dc as a new baby dressed in completely gender-specific clothes.

Yes I have tried not to gender sterotype my dd, but no way have I succeeded. The external pressure is too great.

It does tickle me though that she calls the hoover 'daddy's hoover'.

Even babies are pushed into playing with gender sterotyped toys; ds was given a train set, mechano and a toy motorbike for his first birthday.

It's impossible to do a large study taking away all of these influences from birth.

My dd1 almost never plays with dolls, she much prefers physical activities and when she does sit down it's to draw or watch TV.

DD2 however will spend hours playing with her dolls, and treating ds aged 18 months as if he is her own personal doll.

What really annoys me is when she buy so called 'girl' lego or 'girl' playmobil (eg. girly castle), it is more expensive and absolutely crap compared to the 'boys' stuff.

at daddy's hoover! My ds loves the hoover as well.

I agree socialisation will play a role in these studies (particularly by age 3). And having been the ultimate tomboy as a child, and convinced that gender at an early age was nurture over nature, I was determined not to stereotype ds. Plus, he lives with his two mums and sees his (gay) dad every week, so he doesn't experience the "standard" socialisation at home. I also hate cars.

Age 2, he wears pink - it's his favourite colour. And yes, SSM, he had pink babygrows too. He plays doctor with his dolls and loves cooking. When he reads books, he identifies with the character doing the most fun thing (eg girl who has a watering hose) rather than the boy. Yet he was less than 1 when he staggered to the car and started stroking the wheel lovingly. He can name all the parts of a digger. If shown a range of toys, he goes straight for the biggest thing with wheels every time.

His obsession with vehicles is something I just don't understand. It doesn't come from any of his parents, and developed before he could have been exposed to much external socialisation. It is just innate in him. So I have now reluctantly concluded it's both nature and nurture.

Though this study is obviously flawed!

I really don't see how you can tease out the genetic and environmental influences.

There must be more to this research study surely? It seems very basic, very dull and very unoriginal.

Ridiculous to dismiss the idea that it could be all down to nurture IMO.

DH and I were a bit [sigh] yesterday. DD (2.5) has always had practical clothes, trousers so she can be active and ot scrape her knees and so on. When she was little she had quite a few boys clothes (I think they are nicer TBH).

Anyway yesterday DH bought her some new tracksuit bottoms and the only ones they had left were from the boys dept - they are plain and medium grey so fine. Or so we thought.

When she took them out of the bag she immediately said "these are for a boy" and when I asked why she said that she pointed at the coloured waistband and said "they are blue and stripey they are for a boy".

I blame nursery...

It's nothing new.

Research has found this sort of thing for years.

I am sticking with my ideas about gender and stuff that I have come to after other threads in this topic.

Out of interest does anyone know why they keep doing research like this, to see if there are innate differences in the sexes? People seem obsessed with it. I mean it's quite interesting and all - but really not enough to warrant this vast amount of attention surely?

I mean if they did manage to prove that instrinsically boys like cars and blue and girls like pink and dolls, then what?

I don;t mind research being done just to find things out. But not the same poorly controlled study again and again and again. Of course they can;t rule out early socialisation. So what's the point?

Well that's what I'm wondering.

Funny isn't it.

If you see the sexes as equal, then research like this feels a bit odd.

I can understand it back in the days when they thought that if girls did sums their brains would explode - "look maltravers this girl has just solved these equations and she seems fine!", but these days... why?

But girls toys are just so boring and crap aren't they?

DD (14 months) plays much more with cars, diggers etc than her pink dolls and teddies. there's just not much you can DO with them at that age other than pick them up and look at them for a bit.

Her fave toy at the mo is a giant sit on digger thing.

I'd feel sorry for her if she only had girls toys-she's be bored stiff!

I don't see how anyone can believe it's all down to socialisation.

Even allowing for the broad spectrum of differences within the sexes, male and female brains are physically and physiologically different. There are good studies showing that boy and girl babies respond differently to faces (for eg.) at 1 day old - so not much chance for socialisation there.

Given that's the case I don't see why boys' brains shouldn't be relatively hardwired towards things that go. But they would need a better study to demonstrate that.

But there's such an interplay though surely? If there are differences at birth, these will be influenced by subsequent experience. And there is also I believe evidence to suggest that we treat babies differently according to sex from day 1 too. So I don't see how you could tease out the two types of influence. Not without one hell of an ethics issue...