19 ms·
There's also a similar theory to explain why boys are more interested in cars than girls (which my kids have proven convincingly, albeit with a low sample size)
by isolli 7y ago
There's also a similar theory to explain why boys are more interested in cars than girls (which my kids have proven convincingly, albeit with a low sample size): boys, as future hunters, are attracted to preys that move, hence, in the modern environment, to balls and cars.
- skavi 7y agoAre you perhaps discounting the societal influences pushing your kids towards their respective interests? If they view any amount of advertising or interact with other children who do, for example, they could already have ideas about what is "appropriate" for them to like.
- gambiting 7y agoI also think there is a crazy push to say that no, boys/girls definitely don't like certain things naturally, it MUST be social conditioning, and if you even dare to suggest that there is any natural difference to how children develop you must be sexist/patriatrchist/etc etc. All I want to say is that there seems to be a stupid amount of aggression towards even the mere idea that statistically girls/boys might like something other than boys/girls do even if social conditioning were completely removed(which is a nonsensical idea in the first place, a child is a member of the society from the second they are born, they are not goldfish).
- Drakim 7y agoI totally agree that insisting it MUST be social conditioning is close-minded and silly. We should be open minded about various possibilities in nature vs nurture. But on the other hand, lots of people have a tendency to think and say that certain things are "obviously true" based on what they are used to seeing in society, like that boys like cars and girls like dolls, and even start rationalizing it ("This is what is natural and right!") and even actively fight to maintain this "natural truth". They treat boys who like dolls and girls who like cars as deviants who need to be corrected. And that's bullshit, even if there is a natural inclination towards trends for genders, that doesn't mean that's "natural law" and we ought to make sure to maintain and protect it.
- Quarrelsome 7y ago> I totally agree that insisting it MUST be social conditioning is close-minded and silly. Isn't it somewhat likely though? Kids are born with all of their genes and they can't do anything straight out of the womb. What has zero impact at that point is nurture though. Nurture therefore seems to have a huge influence, this somewhat downgrades genes to only push what's already been established by culture.
- Drakim 7y agoWell, that's assuming that genes are all maximally expressed from the moment somebody is born, and that nothing can lie dormant, so if we don't see the behavior right away it must have been "added later" by culture. I don't think that's a safe assumption to make.
- dhshahsndeisjwn 7y ago> I don't think that's a safe assumption to make. I agree, but the reality is we don't know. Also there's evidence that cultural norms do substantially shape our opportunities (e.g. Denmark vs Saudi Arabia) and we should be mindful of this always. This cuts both ways too — men in Scandinavia are much more likely to be involved in child rearing through choice, and this is something men in other cultures miss out on.
- Drakim 7y agoOh yes, I never meant to imply that nature vs nurture has some important moral implications. Ultimately it doesn't matter if something is the result of nature or nurture, we wouldn't let people murder if there was a "increased murder likelihood gene" because our genes does not decide what is correct. The real fallacy has always been people who think that if something can be proven to be nurture rather than nature, that means it's "naturally right" and should thus be encouraged, and deviancy from that norm "corrected". It's totally okay for boys to play with dolls even if it turns out nature makes boys favor toy cars over dolls on average.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoAre you really saying that in our society there is a more stupid amount of aggression towards things being gender neutral that are actually gendered than the reverse? This seems absurdly out of touch with reality. To give just one example, but I hope you'd agree there are literally millions if you think about it for a second: There was a recent Hollywood movie and documentary about the true story of a man who was beaten into a coma and permanently brain damaged for wearing the wrong kind of clothes for his gender. And that doesn't seem particularly unusual to me (it's not really the focus of the movie). I can't think of anything close to that in reverse?
- pintxo 7y ago> Are you really saying that in our society there is a more stupid amount of aggression towards things being gender neutral that are actually gendered than the reverse? GP did not say anything about x > y. The post merely pointed out that some people like to link everything to social influence.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoI dunno, they didn't explicitly say anything about it, but it seems about the same as someone getting really angry that someone thinks pi = 3 in a society that has for centuries legally enforced, on pain of death, that pi = 10. Yes, pi is not 3 but are people really unaware of the social signals they give off by being so outraged at the mistake given the context? To extend this analogy far beyond what is wise, I'm not really sure there are that many people who think that pi is 3, probably mostly 3.1 or 3.2, which makes fixation on extreme outliers who might believe it's 3 extra odd.
- dhshahsndeisjwn 7y agoI don't know why you are being downvoted because I wanted to say much the same. There is a clear asymmetry in our current cultural practices, and the assumption is often that activities are 'naturally' gendered, even when there is evidence to the contrary. This has changed over time too. Just look at lego adverts from the 70s https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/LEGO-81-768x516.jpg https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/LEGO-81-768x... They don't look like that now!
- globular-toast 7y agoWhat societal influences? If anything society is discouraging boys from being boys and telling girls it's cool to do boy things, yet boys still end up being the ones interested in technologies that were developed by men before them like engines, cars and computers.
- okusername 7y agoThere is research showing male rhesus monkeys to have preference for wheeled toys https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/ We shouldn't discount possible genetic influences on preferences.
- longtom 7y agoBabies also show these toy preferences very early on, and exposure to prenatal androgens alters the toy preferences in females. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785908/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785908/ The preference for dolls is likely related to the role of females in childcare. Males are more the explorers and hunters. Women never explored nor hunted very much.
- ZeroGravitas 7y agoIf this is the same research that always gets cited, then it more accurately shows that boy and girl monkeys played with the wheeled toys an equal amount, but the girls played with the doll toys more. That still shows a gender imbalance, but I find it interesting that it always seems to be used to imply that girls don't like trucks, rather than boys don't like dolls as much. (A similar rhetorical trick is used when talking about favorite colours. Apparently lots of people's kids just love pink and this tells them it's all genetic, yet if you survey women their favourite color is the same as men, blue. They just collectively prefer pink more than men relatively speaking)
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- heinrichhartman 7y agoMy girl was 9months when sh started acrively pushing for bracelets, fancy hats, etc. I took her to a bike shop, an she immediately went for the pink Helmet with stars. We dressed her in neutral cloths (second hand), we dont have a TV. Her mother does not wear juwlery or makeup. To us this appears innate.
- trump2028 7y agoThat is such a bigoted statement. Impeach now.
- nollbit 7y agoUnless your daughter never met with other kids or other adults, it's seems hard to say there's been no bias.
- syngrog66 7y ago9 month old baby
- nkrisc 7y agoSo? At 9 months my son had met many other kids and they are very observant at that age, even if you don't notice. Was your kid different? Your comment is not a lot to go off of but I get the sense you haven't raised a kid.
- 0-_-0 7y agoHow about newborns? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Differences_in_Human_Neonatal_Social_Perception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe...
- wisty 7y agoI wonder if there's some social constraints that babies naturally seem to rebel against (or at least be less interested in). Cooks used to be mostly women, now they're mostly men. Accountants used to be mostly men, now they're mostly women. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/a-visual-history-of-gender-and-employment/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/a-visual-history-of-g... Pink was once for boys. On the other hand it seems that infant chimps and rhesus monkeys play with gendered toys - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/20/chimps-play-male-female-genetic https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/20/chimps-play-... It seems like nurture isn't naturally all that strong except in certain circumstances.
- moccachino 7y agoI'm a father of a two year old daughter. My friends and family have a bunch of kids similar age. We're in a progressive country where gender equality is good and most people are aware to not show bias and offer girls toy cars and stuff. My takeaway from the past two years is: There is clear gender preference. Boys generally like cars, girls like dolls. Both like books and puzzles. Of course there are exceptions but the stereotype is a stereotype for a reason.
- ralusek 7y agoNewborn babies exhibit differences, by sex and on average, regarding what captures their interests. EDIT: I looked into this more and could only find studies on 9 months old, which is potentially old enough to argue for socialization, although the studies obviously tried to control for that.
- shantly 7y agoIt's probably hard to get much meaningful info out of kids in the under-6-month range because their senses, including eyesight, tend to be, to use the technical term, shit.
- jinushaun 7y agoI’m guessing you don’t have children.
- skavi 7y agoI'm guessing you don't raise yours inside a cleanroom.
- isolli 7y agoFair point! But I have been fairly neutral (except unconsciously...). I have also observed marked differences as early as 15 months. And it matches the experience of a lot of parents.
- aklemm 7y agoAll this back-and-forth about whether and how it's nature or nurture. The point of modern gender freedom is not to deny there is a strong nature influence, it's to nurture kids to go whichever directions they like. All these anecdotes about how this kid and that kid displayed common traditional gender preferences seem to be offered as an argument against trying to upset the traditional nature of these preferences. Sure, maybe only 5% of girls are ever going to want to race cars, but the idea is to make room those 5%, and that takes conscience effort.
- isolli 7y agoAgreed. You could make a similar point about race when it comes to sport abilities. It would be horrific to offer sports activities to children based on race, even though, in effect, some children will have a much smaller chance of becoming professionals at some sports than others. But let's never discourage a kid who wants to try whatever he or she likes!
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago>some children will have a much smaller chance of becoming professionals // But not directly because of their race (except as much as racism applies).
- atom-morgan 7y ago> The point of modern gender freedom is not to deny there is a strong nature influence, Are you sure about that?
- arunix 7y agoI've seen little girls chasing the pigeons on a few occasions, so ... no longer sure about the hunter/gatherer aspect of this.
- rightbyte 7y agoI guess arcaic females also did hunting. Like wolfs and cats. Mens physical strength is probably from fighting other men not prey?
- brazzy 7y agoIt's almost like you can make up whatever bullshit story you like to dress up your personally preferred gender roles as "we evolved that way so it's just a biological FACT".
- longtom 7y agoNope, hunting was primarily a male task. In 97.6% of 141 societies hunting was done exclusively done by males. In 98% even setting up traps was done by males. Interestingly, cooking was overwhelmingly done by women. https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3773347 https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/3773347
- microcolonel 7y agoYeah, it's likely little to do with hunting, more to do with mechanistic thinking. The same sex bimodality is observed in other primate species, from young ages, and most primates may be omnivores, but they tend to be more interested in seeds and fruit, and they aren't going out hunting the way humans and protohumans had. Also, not all ancient hunting was dangerous enough that only the disposable sex would engage in it.