Comments on: Our gendered world

By: eszter

eszter — Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:45:13 +0000

There is one more point I wanted to make on this thread that hasn’t come up too much yet. The issue isn’t necessarily the nature vs nurture question (although it is certainly relevant regarding the issues raised). The issue is that gender takes on quite a central role in organizing most societies. Things are very often discussed in terms of boys vs girls, male vs female. But in fact, within group differences are almost always larger than across group differences between the genders. We could group people according to all sorts of other criteria (and we certainly do some of that) and could classify people by other characteristics (e.g. tall or short, blue eyes or brown, good vision vs needs glasses to see clearly, attached vs free earlobes), but gender plays a more salient role in defining people’s identities than most other characteristics. That was part of the point I was trying to make by telling the little anecdote about babies.

By: Dem

Dem — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 19:02:13 +0000

momo: thanks for the follow-up.

By: momo

momo — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:02:06 +0000

dem: I have kids too, what I’m saying is from personal experience and observation, not preconceived notions or political theories. I’m largely ignorant of gender theories, really. I cheated my way through that part in college :] Anyway, I don’t think we are disagreeing that much here, actually, we’re saying the same thing, just with a different emphasis, and maybe a few misunderstandings. What I’m saying is not really “ALL such differences are due to environmental factors” – all I’m saying is, we don’t know for sure a) which behavioural differences can be categorised in general tendencies associated with gender and how, according to which criteria (other than arbitrary social, cultural, personal beliefs, as with the colour themes), and b) which if any of those differences are indisputably and unequivocally due to hard-coded biological factors and genetics present only in one gender or the other. There’s a lot of theories on how the brain works in terms of behaviour, and which traits can be characterised as more present in females or males, but each theory has an opposite one as it’s still all very much an open debate, and it’s still about tendencies, not absolute hardwiring. Tendencies are a very arbitary thing to define in themselves. Basically I don’t believe it’s possible to isolate a behavioural trait that is absolutely exclusive to one sex, or even just overwhelmingly predominant in one sex, because of biological, genetic factors alone. I have never even heard of any research that has come to a definitive conclusion like that. The thing to keep in mind is that every child is very, very different in terms of the things that fascinate them, even if they share the same parents. The variation is so wide that you can’t make any assumptions about an individual girl or boy. Exactly. My interest is more in the individual differences. That is why I don’t believe in reducing the complexity of any human behaviour to biological essentialism, it’s disproven by reality, by the existence of individuality, of unique character traits and combinations – and, on the other hand by constant examples of the force of culture (and economics, and religion, and politics, etc.) in shaping the way we manifest those traits as individuals. Gender is too vast a category to account for all that, indeed. (You mention the theory about the tendency to role-play. Maybe there can be some truth to it, I don’t know, I can think of many instances from experience and observation that seem to contradict that. Lots of boys like role-playing, and not just in videogames. And as far as I know, every baby loves things that spin. Maybe the tendencies were examined in older children? In that case, again, same problem, how do you isolate nature from nurture.)

By: Dem

Dem — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:48:04 +0000

Thanks for the discussion, people. I’ve learned some and will spend more time reading on this topic. Ken: your comments about children socializing other children make sense. I’ve seen this a lot. For example, my kids on their own accord invented the concept of “girl colors” and “boy colors” and segregated toys that way. We stepped in to explain that any kid can play with any color. Something that factors into this is that the kids themselves are very interested in sex differences … fascinated in fact … starting at bath time. momo: I respect your viewpoint. I don’t claim to have the absolute answer, and acknowledge that the majority, perhaps vast majority of gender-based behavior differences in children are environmentally based. Before I had kids I, like you, thought that ALL such differences were due to environmental factors. What I’ve seen, though, indicates that there are different tendencies from very, very early age. I’ve read some research to indicate that boy’s brains are different at birth. Where this comes out is not in absolutes but degrees. Such as the fascination with spinning wheels or magnets (more pronounced in boys), or the tendency to engage in or initiate role-playing games (more pronounced in girls). The thing to keep in mind is that every child is very, very different in terms of the things that fascinate them, even if they share the same parents. The variation is so wide that you can’t make any assumptions about an individual girl or boy.

By: Jmote

Jmote — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:09:28 +0000

Only two questions need to be asked: 1) Is everyone healthy (mother and baby)? 2) What’s the name?

By: momo

momo — Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:20:18 +0000

dem: thanks for the reply, I had indeed slightly misunderstood your views, sorry about that. And about your son giving up ballet. Maybe it’d have worked if you’d pictured fame and financial success as advantages, instead of dating? :) Just a couple more thoughts: …while one cannot say “all girls this” and “all boys that”, there are differences between genders that show up in aggregate as tendencies. Yes, but, the way we choose to aggregate those tendencies are girlish or boyish is based on a lot of assumptions, habits, traditions, etc. so it’s a lot harder to distinguish the nature/nurture elements. In other words, I just don’t think there’s any indisputably and unequivocally “male” vs. “female” social behaviours that are encoded in the genes of one gender or another. genetics plays a major, major role. Not the long ago psychologists tended to blame mothers (not fathers, interestingly) for their children’s autism. Now we know better. True, but it’s the opposite case, in a way. Autism is a specific syndrome, caused by a neurological dysfunction. People thought it was psychological because its manifestations are at the level of behaviour and there was just not enough research into it as there is today. Sexual differences are not a dysfunction and have always been know to be physical first and foremost, but the way we associate certain behaviours to a certain sex is mostly arbitrary, and I don’t think any research has shown certain behaviours to be “typical” of a gender or another in such an exclusive, fixed way as the link between autism and behaviour x, say. With gender, the “now we know better” most often applies in the opposite direction – now we know a lot of the things we assumed in the past were biologically hardwired into one sex or the other are often the product of social and cultural factors, or just unfounded assumptions. Say, the idea that women tend to be more monogamous than men because as child-bearers they tend to prefer a stable partner to raise children with. There’s an opposite theory saying that women actually tend to be more promiscuous because, as child-bearers, a bigger choice of partners ensures a better genetic selection for your offspring. But before asking why, who decides if women are, as a tendency, more monogamous or promiscuous? There’s definitely evidence of both! In modern societies, women’s sexual behaviour is no longer limited by child-bearing. Hasn’t the pill had more of an impact on that than any possible biological factor, or atavic patterns of behaviour that supposedly still act on our brains? And what could be more related to gender than sexual behaviour, yet, that’s precisely the area that has been most transformed by cultural changes. So who knows what else we assume about gender is also just our own projection and would be changed by different circumstances. I do agree genetics strongly shapes individual traits, but the environment that surrounds us is very relevant to how we learn to manifest those traits according to certain expectations, certainly more relevant than supposed hunter-gatherer patterns from prehistoric ages. I really don’t think about any of this stuff when it comes to dealing with kids, though. I just think of childhood as a neutral place itself, it’s with puberty that the mess of pressures and expectations and assumptions can become too heavy.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:29:08 +0000

“My god, peter, you know some dull babies. Babies round here have interests in classical music, victorian literature, high fashion, and obscure european movies from the sixties. At least, that’s what their parents tell me.” Parenting as a competitive sport! The most boring event in the Olympics. Bugger that, and all the “I’m not working to let the kid watch TV till they’re 4-1/2”. If Sesame Street shuts them up long enough for me to make coffee, wash and zap their breakfast in the microwave without them having a crying fit because they’ve been left alone for 0.25 seconds, then Big Bird is the Man (or avian). Mind you, I’ve been accused of poncy baby-grooming because I use a recording of 13th century troubadour music by Sequentia when putting the sprog to sleep. No pounciness intended, but it’s just that music is the most effective (hard-core techno works well too, but the wife hates it).

By: laura

laura — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:33:02 +0000

Sometimes other concerns trump gender: when my (white) second cousin had a baby whose father was black, THAT information made its way through the family at the speed of light. To this day I’m not entirely sure whether it’s a girl or a boy—apparently all we needed to know was that it was black.

By: ken

ken — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:55:19 +0000

Dem: Look at what you said here: I’ve also seen what peer-pressure can do to kids. Our son played mostly with girls, based on availability, until kindergarten. At that point his tastes radically changed based on peer pressure. I was sad to see that. He had some real potential talent in ballet but wouldn’t be caught dead in that class now. I tried to explain that when he got to dating age those skills would make him very popular, but it didn’t convince him. :) There’s a slogan gaining currency among some developmental psychologists, at least those of an evolutionary bent. “Parents don’t socialize children; children do.” Think of creolization of languages arising from pidgins in a single generation—it’s all the work of the kids. Now ask yourself what does it mean that it’s often the children themselves that enforce some gender distinctions or other? It turns out, for example, that boys are especially vigilant gender-police and that girls are more tolerant. Why is that so? I don’t think it’s something that adults “socialize” children into doing. I wouldn’t say it’s biology all the way down. But I do think genetically instiled by natural selection “coordination strategies” have more to do with it than many would allow. males and females have to coordinate with each other, females have to coordinate with other females, and males have to coordinate with other males. there’s sort of three simultaneous problems that have to be solved. I bet if you did a little evolutionary gaming on these, it would come out that there are going to be some gender distinctions or other on most if not all evolutionarily stable strategies and almost no such strategies in which there isn’t any gender segregation.

By: Dem

Dem — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:11:01 +0000

BTW, momo you write: “I just think that individual identity comes before gender, so there shouldn’t be any effort to influence a child’s preferences in that sense. You just try and provide them with things to stimulate their curiosity, regardless of gender.” We’re in total agreement, and I’m sorry if you thought otherwise from my post. All our children are encouraged to try all activities. And they often cross “gender-stereotyped” lines in doing so. I’ve also seen what peer-pressure can do to kids. Our son played mostly with girls, based on availability, until kindergarten. At that point his tastes radically changed based on peer pressure. I was sad to see that. He had some real potential talent in ballet but wouldn’t be caught dead in that class now. I tried to explain that when he got to dating age those skills would make him very popular, but it didn’t convince him. :) We take lots of steps to get the gender biases out of their environment as much as we can. For example, when reading to the pre-school age kids I intentionally make half of the gender-neutral characters in the kids books girls (for most books, except recent ones, the characters are predominantly male). My acknowledgement of the role genetics plays in gender behavior is more academic than practical.

By: Dem

Dem — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:59:41 +0000

One comment I got was: “Nature/nurture isn’t as easy to sort out as you think.” I don’t think that. I was responding to the implication that gender stereotyping (“environment”/”nurture”) is the primary cause of gender differences in child behavior. My point was that both environment and genetics play a role, and I agree it’s very hard to separate the two. I appreciate the comment about “pink” only recently being a girl’s color. Apparently that fits on the “environment” side of the equation. However, my larger point about the nature/nurture discussion, outside the confines of the gender roles issue, is simply that genetics plays a major, major role. Not the long ago psychologists tended to blame mothers (not fathers, interestingly) for their children’s autism. Now we know better. As a parent of 4, and having talked to other parents of large families, I can tell you that every child is significantly different from birth. And while one cannot say “all girls this” and “all boys that”, there are differences between genders that show up in aggregate as tendencies.

By: Detached Observer

Detached Observer — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 07:16:05 +0000

“This post sounds like feminist paranoia to me. ” There was little of either feminism or paranoia in the original post, which was simply a reflection on the nature of sex differences. Your comment reveals more about your tendency to find feminist paranoia everywhere you look rather than about the topic at hand.

By: eszter

eszter — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 06:08:23 +0000

Vivian, that’s funny.:) No doubt the influence of this thread, of course.;) I like those more personalized comments. And if speaking English (or a myriad of other languages), the answer to the gender question will likely reveal itself in the conversation anyway.

By: vivian

vivian — Mon, 23 Aug 2004 02:36:10 +0000

Aargh. I always tried not to ask the “boy or girl?” question until much later, mostly to convey real interest by asking a non-automatic question. Oddly enough, people really appreciate it when one thinks of something slightly more original, or connected to the friendship – “blue eyes like daddy?” or “tall like mommy?” or even “have you seen them yet?” when it’s news from an aunt or uncle. This afternoon a close friend called to say that his child had been born and the words “boy or girl” were out of my mouth before I knew it. Aargh. Power of suggestion, no doubt, since I read this thread yesterday, but should I blame the feminists or their (ahem) clever critic above?

By: pw

pw — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 21:10:28 +0000

That bit about the reversal of pink versus blue in the baby-clothing business triggered—the political is personal, after all—a thought about the not-entirely dissimilar reversal in the assignment of parties to “red states” vs “blue states.” Both seem to have occurred for no obvious reason, and both have been vigorously retconned into the only possible way things could ever have been. (Just think what this will mean in another 20 years when some whippersnapper tells some old conservatives about having been a red-diaper baby…) There has been some progress, however: 25 years ago, no one would have said that that boys and girls were dressed alike in the 19th century; instead the line was that male toddlers were dressed and coiffed as girls.