Why do boys and girls prefer different toys?

[Occam Bandage]

Throughout the world, boys and girls prefer to play with different types of toys. Boys typically like to play with cars and trucks, while girls typically choose to play with dolls. Why is this? A traditional sociological explanation is that boys and girls are socialized and encouraged to play with different types of toys by their parents, peers, and the “society.” Growing scientific evidence suggests, however, that boys’ and girls’ toy preferences may have a biological origin.

In 2002, Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University and Melissa Hines of City University in London stunned the scientific world by showing that vervet monkeys showed the same sex-typical toy preferences as humans. In an incredibly ingenious study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically masculine toys (a ball and a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll and a cooking pot), and two neutral toys (a picture book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for each toy by measuring how much time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the feminine toys. The two sexes did not differ in their preference for the neutral toys.



Alexander and Hines’s article contains a wonderful picture (reproduced here in full living color, courtesy of Gerianne M. Alexander) of a female vervet monkey conducting an anogenital inspection (examining the genital area of the doll in an attempt to determine whether it is male or female), as a girl might, and a male vervet monkey pushing the police car back and forth, as a boy might. If children’s toy preferences were largely formed by gender socialization, as traditional sociologists claim, in which their parents give “gender-appropriate” toys to boys and girls, how can these male and female vervet monkeys have the same preferences as boys and girls? They were never socialized by humans, and they had never seen these toys before in their lives. Yet, not only did male and female vervet monkeys show the identical sex preference for toys, but how they played with these toys was also identical to how boys and girls might...

...In a forthcoming article in Hormones and Behavior, Janice M. Hassett, Erin R. Siebert, and Kim Wallen, of Emory University, replicate the sex preferences in toys among members of another primate species (rhesus monkeys). Their study shows that, when given a choice between stereotypically male “wheeled toys” (such as a wagon, a truck, and a car) and stereotypically female “plush toys” (such as Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, and a koala bear hand puppet), male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for the masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for the feminine toys, but the difference in their preference is not statistically significant. (more at link)

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200804/why-do-boys-and-girls-prefer-different-toys

[JonLP24]

1. I recall my aunt

scolding one of her sons for playing with her daughter's toys because she didn't want him "to turn gay."

[no_hypocrisy]

2. As a Brownie, I resented that Boy Scouts were exposed to sharp instruments

like knives and axes, and to fire, etc. while we were relegated to making bracelets out of bottle tops.

I think it's societal brainwashing having gender segregated toys.

[Warpy]

15. It's unavoidable in toddler and preschool kids

but completely inappropriate in school age and older kids.

Both sexes need to experience a wide range of things that aren't restricted by sex stereotyping.

[Captain Hilts]

26. That kind of stuff drove me nuts as a kid. It was like Home Ec for kids. nt

[QueenOfCalifornia]

72. My experience?

I have 2 children - an 8 year old daughter and a 9 year old son. I never pushed gender specific toys on them - I bought books, cars, dolls, legos and plush animals - They both were in diapers and had access to the same toys which were all kept in the same area- My daughter naturally was drawn to the baby dolls and the stuffed animals. My son only wanted to play with the cars and trucks. Both played with the building toys and blocks and my son likes some of the stuffed animals - both kids loved the stuffed Teletubbies - they loved those goofy aliens!

As my daughter has gotten older, she is more of a tom-boy type, wanting to play ball with the boys and she is not thrilled with her girlfriends who want to play "family" - she never picks up a baby doll but she does like cutting Barbie's hair - she gave one a short bob and colored the tips pink - she likes P¡nk (the singer) and she made Barbie look like her.

My son quit playing with all toys about a year and a half ago - he plays Rockband and Guitar hero World Tour - he reads and has his own blog and toys are of no interest at all. He is a tech nut. My daughter likes to play the Rockband and Guitar hero games too but she is aware that most girls have no interest in this - she was very sad one day telling me how she didn't fit in with the girls. I told her that I didn't either and that I wanted to be a cowboy when I grew up. She laughed and felt better about wanting to play football and ride her ripstick. She is a real girlie when it comes to how she wants to dress. It is funny. She likes dressing in pink ball gown type outfits and riding her ripstick. Ha!

It is deeper than what you may think- the early urge to play with gender specific toys - the urge to mother is strong in little girls, the urge to drive fast cars was inborn in my son... It mystified me. :)

[surrealAmerican]

87. You can't really generalize your experience with your own children.

First, a slightly younger sibling will usually be keenly interested in what the older one is doing. If your daughter was older than your son, you would find a different set of toy preferences. My own son wanted to have a barbie doll because that was what his big sister was playing with.
Second, these preferences are averages. Individuals vary greatly. Even if most boys are less interested in dolls than most girls, that still leaves plenty of room for one boy to be more interested in dolls than one girl, even in the same family.

[RobinA]

93. WAAAHHHH

I had the same feeling. It just wasn't FAIR!!!!!

[Eryemil]

3. Societal brainwashing, nothing more

[Occam Bandage]

5. Do you believe the monkeys in the study are also brainwashed,

or that at some point in the evolutionary tree, that primates lost their innate gender-based toy preferences? The latter seems possible, but I think it's unlikely. I believe that there is some innate gender-based preference towards certain types of toys, but that it serves only as one factor out of many; gender certainly does not dictate toy preference in human children.

[Eryemil]

8. "but the difference in their preference is not statistically significant"

You know what this means in science?
"Findings inconclusive, more research is required."

Funnily enough, this is the sort of thing I'll be doing in a few years so my curiosity has definitely been piqued.

[Occam Bandage]

11. But yet it was significant in both genders of vervets, and one gender of rhesus monkeys.

Given that, I think "it's social brainwashing and nothing more"--that is to say, utterly discounting any genetic/hormonal factors--is premature.

[redqueen]

25. "Female rhesus monkeys show preference for the feminine toys,

but the difference in their preference is not statistically significant."

They only studied 44 vervets of each gender.

I find the study very slightly interesting... maybe it could be indicative of something hard wired but I highly doubt it.

IMO it's brainwashing and nothing more.

[Occam Bandage]

27. I'm not sure why you quoted that again, considering

that I have already acknowledged that in one of the genders of one of the types of monkeys that have been studied, the preference was non-significant, but that I think that given the statistically-significant findings in the other three gender/species groups, discounting the studies entirely is unsupported.

[redqueen]

32. I misread what you'd said, sorry. Still, the study was meager.

It used a very small sample size and to read the 10-month old article, you'd think it hasn't been followed up on at all by subsequent and more thorough studies.

The statistically-significant findings in a few cases hardly proves anything, and the writing in the article is biased.

Discounting the study is entirely reasonable IMO.

[Occam Bandage]

39. "The statistically-significant findings in a few cases hardly proves anything"

And nobody is saying it "proves" anything. However, the fact remains that there is a statistically-significant difference in how vervet monkeys play with toys, and how rhesus males play with toys. Saying that calls for more in-depth research is one thing. Saying that it should be discounted, and that in fact we should adopt the viewpoint that the preference is entirely social, is not skepticism, it is anti-scientific.

[redqueen]

41. You might say it called for more research, sure.

Why then has no further research been done? It's not difficult research... there are tons of doctoral candidates all over the world looking to make their name... yet still... years go by, and nothing?

[Occam Bandage]

45. You realize that research is not done instantaneously.

Grants are applied for, resources are limited, and teams often work on several projects. The fact that there has been no major follow-up study on monkey toy preference in a year is not indicative of anything in particular, except perhaps that monkey toy preference is not a very hot topic. Still, a quick database search shows the study has been cited by 30 other studies; while not a groundbreaking field-maker, it's hardly been discounted by the community.

[redqueen]

51. The fact that you're being facetious says something.

The study isn't about monkey toy preference and you know it.

Done with this convo now... thanks.

[shimmergal]

129. Actuallly, the studies' authors

(or at least the reporting on them) seem ambivalent about whether stuffed animals are female-oriented or neutral. I think that's the biggest reason the studies are not definitive.

[Amelie]

62. I went to a truly facsinating lecture about a month ago

about hard-wired differences between boys and girls. The lecturer said the push for gender-neutral toys were a response to the hard-line attitudes in the 50s; girls could only be housewives, nurses or teachers; boys were expected to be tough and athletic. He believes that we can have equal opportunity without ignoring very real differences in gender. He also made clear that all studies show there are NO differences in ability; the differences are in motivation.

Now that we are so advanced in neuroscience, we see that the brains in the genders develop at different rates and in different sequences. At age five, a girl's fine motor skills are four years ahead of a boy's. The boy's gross motor skills are four years ahead of a girl's. So, we see girls tend to be better at drawing; boys tend to be better at throwing and kicking.

As we become adults, our brains even out; there are very few differences between a man's brain and a woman's; it's mostly hormonal. But the developmental differences between a boy's brain and a girl's brain are vastly different. For example, adults can sit still and pay attention for about the same amount of time. Not so for six year old boys and six year old girls. Blood flow to a boy's brain actually slows down when he sits still; maybe he can sit still, but he's probably not absorbing as much information. Boys learn better when they are in motion (aka "fidgeting in their desks").

Very interesting lecture.

[Eryemil]

29. The OP (and the article) stretches the findings way out of proportion

I was a bit quick to add the "nothing more" and remain open to learning otherwise but this particular experiment (or maybe just the presentation, I would like to at least have a look at the abstract)has certain variables that put me off.

The implied, definite, connection between human and other primates is a pretty big deal.
EDIT: Specially with so few species.

[Occam Bandage]

33. What are the variables you find so offensive?

Oh, and if you're to be a scientist, you really must be more proactive about your research. I say this tongue-in-cheek, of course, but...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6H-470TKG6-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cf0b8bcb0cb899f3e52dac7199a40e65

[Eryemil]

35. Didn't I just write why above?

For the record, I don't find if "offensive". Just lacking.

[Occam Bandage]

37. "With so few species" isn't a variable. nt

[Eryemil]

49. ...

The toys selected for the experiment for once.
I don't understand how some of them can have mutual relevance.

EDIT: On a different note, the monkeys taking queues from their environment is also a factor.

[Eryemil]

110. Haha. How embarrassing. Make that "cues"

[redqueen]

34. Exactly... so few species, and such a small sample, and it's so old....

and seemingly with little or no follow-up studies.

Add that to the biased article... and well... it's hardly surprising that many would just blow it off.

[Occam Bandage]

36. The sample size isn't especially small, it's reasonable they'd only study one species at a time,

and research takes time. You're really going beyond standard skepticism.

[redqueen]

38. Is it reasonable they wouldn't try to validate the results they were looking for

even after all this time?

And IMO it's small enough, yes... especially when you add in all the other reasons to say hmmmm.


I disagree that I'm going beyond standard skepticism.

[Eryemil]

40. I think that's a bit unfair

[Occam Bandage]

42. What does that exactly mean? That they falsified their data?

That they contaminated the experiments by inducing monkeys to look at the "right" toys? I think baseless claims of scientific malfeasance are going beyond standard skepticism, yes.

Sample sizes are not matters of opinion. What is important is not your impression of the sample, what is important is the p-value of the findings. 0.5 and 0.1 are standard.

[redqueen]

43. No, it means they were looking for a result.

They got one, and didn't follow it up... which as you yourself said, their own study called for.

I didn't claim malfeasance... you read that into what I wrote.

[Occam Bandage]

47. What does that mean?

If that means no more than that the scientists privately hoped they would get a particular result, and were pleased that their appropriately-done research bore out favorable results, then so what? That is what is supposed to happen.

If that means anything else, you are suggesting malfeasance.

[redqueen]

50. It means that the first study, done nearly seven years ago...

was never followed up on by Alexander and Hines. That's it.

As for the second study... I have no reason to think it's not just as flimsy as the first one is... IMO.

I understand that you think it's not flimsy. Agree to disagree.

[JuniperLea]

105. Hi Pal!

Why is it so hard to agree to disagree? You and I did, and we survived just fine!

I don't feel the need to force my beliefs on anyone, and interestingly enough, my biggest pet peeve is when others try to force theirs upon me!

I've never swayed my opinion based on arrogant, self-righteous pontification, have you?

:shrug:

Someone should do a study:)

:hi:

[redqueen]

108. Hey there!

You changed your name! :hi:

And yeah... it's puzzling, ain't it? When it gets to the point where it's an opinion... well there's no point in going on is there?

[JuniperLea]

109. Nope. No point at all...

It doesn't seem very "progressive" to me.

Too bad.

[Political Heretic]

80. Satistically insignificant means EXACTLY that.

No significant difference.

[bobbert]

52. It was statistically significant

The second study showed that the males tended to play with the more 'masculine' toys with statistical significance as compared to being completely neutral. The females tended to play with more 'feminine' toys but not with p<.05 compared to being completely neutral. One would infer that since there is some correlation between the two findings, that when you compare the males to females, since males are significantly separated from neutral and females are slightly on the other side that the two sexes are statistically significantly different.

edit: I guess I read it wrong the first time, the two are on opposite sides, but the findings are not significant. However, it is very interesting that this would even happen as opposed to being completely gender neutral.

Does this mean forcing toys on kids is a good idea? No. Does this mean if you buy the same boy a truck and a barbie (without any other outside influence), that he would prefer a truck? Not yet, but this findings show that that may be the case. If I had one kid and wanted to buy a toy, this study shows that the preference could be toward the masculine or feminine toy based on their sex. There is a lot more to be done, but Science always needs a first step and this is the first (and second) step.

The fact that people brush this off as non-news is a big reason why it's so hard for scientists to convey important scientific findings. It is confusing and it is hard to prove anything, and the process takes a long time.

[Political Heretic]

88. We are brushing it off as non news because you were wrong the first time you read it.

There's little scientifically valid information to report out of this study. Most of the findings were insignificant. See my post near the bottom for a more detailed analysis.

[LanternWaste]

94. Not that you've already made your mind up about the findings

"Funnily enough, this is the sort of thing I'll be doing in a few years"

Not that you've already made your mind up about the findings or come to any preconceived conclusions (i.e., "it's all societal brainwashing").

Good to know you have an open mind going into it.... :eyes:

[carlyhippy]

74. maybe the monkeys' parents told them to play with gender apprioate toys

we don't know what goes on in the monkey households.
Carly

[quickesst]

137. I believe.....

....that when the scientists were sleeping, the evil society slipped into the room and brainwashed the monkeys.:) Thanks.
quickesst

[marybourg]

9. My parenting experiences leads me to the exact opposite

opinion.

[Eryemil]

10. Personal experience does not make for very good evidence as you can clearly see...

...from other posts in this thread so far.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

16. Agreed!

I was a girl who grew up in a household where my parents didn't try to force "girl" toys upon me. My favorite toys were Matchbox cars, dart guns, Tonka trucks, GI Joes, and other "boy" toys. I always was pissed off by television commercials that showed girls playing with Barbies and toy ovens, while boys played with all the fun stuff.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

70. tiny view you have there ... and obviously no experience n/t

[QueenOfCalifornia]

77. Read my experience

above - No brainwashing - my kids were home with me until they started kindergarten. They were drawn to certain toys - (I dislike dolls, in fact am scared of them and their eyes...) but my daughter wanted to hold and care for little baby dolls, she wanted to nurture. My son wanted to play with cars and trucks - no one made him do this, he just liked them. I observed this day in and day out and was truly amazed at how they gravitated to certain toys.

I have a friend who is a gay man - he said that when he was 2 he began to carry around a baby doll and when he was 5 his parents tried to take it away - they gave him trucks and cars and G.I. Joes' - he never gave up the doll. He was hard-wired to want that baby doll - I could no more force my kids to play games with toys they didn't like than make them walk on water.

It is not "brainwashing" - kids will tell you what they want when they are too little to try and conform - try taking a 2 year old to a toy store sometime.

[surrealAmerican]

95. Nobody is saying you "force" children to play with certain toys.

Small children, however, are very interested in imitating adults and older children. If your child sees you using a saw or a broom, and has an appropriate facsimile of the object, you will be far more likely to find the child playing with that toy.

[Eryemil]

111. As I mentioned below, outside influence goes beyond the parental type

[FedUpWithIt All]

114. These preferences sometimes show up before a child is old enough to even gender identify with anyon

My son was exposed to mostly the same, often inherited, toys as his older sisters. The three girls played in a very similar manner to each other before age one. They played with the characters. My son is quite different. He began rolling cars around very young. He throws and crashes things. He will run the car over the characters.


:shrug:

[Arugula Latte]

159. I don't think so. I think there is more to it.

I have a boy and a girl and they were raised in the same atmosphere, with the same toys, but they had different preferences from an early age.

[Thothmes]

179. believe the term is aculturalization

[slackmaster]

181. Do you not believe that boys and girls are fundamentally different in some ways?

It seems pretty obvious to me.

Here's a real hardball question for you: Do you believe sexual orientation is learned or chosen, or is it hard-wired?

[Cleita]

4. One of my cousins like to play with my tea set. He did grow up to be gay, but

he also enjoyed his western toys especially the guns. I liked playing with his guns too. :shrug:

[iamthebandfanman]

19. he was always gay.

theres no such thing as growing into gay.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

148. I used to have a pink My Little Pony

mostly because there weren't many little boys in my neighborhood. My dad overcompensated by buying me lots of army men and dinosaurs. It's kind of funny looking back.

[Kalyke]

6. They don't.

My children play with one another's toys frequently (I have a boy and a girl).

I think it's, frankly, sad that the girl's aisle at the toys stores is all pink and frilly and focused on dolls, makeup and household-chore items, while the boys aisle has cool stuff like science kits and educational toys.

[Maru Kitteh]

150. Ah, let's not forget the anorexia/plastic surgery self-hating prostitute-in-training dolls

because while you are keeping the perfect germ-free, dust-free, odor-free home you had damn well better look hawt doing it. This is all you need to know little girl. I mean really - what would you do with an education anyway?

[david13]

7. Some do, some don't.

[Warpy]

12. Hell, anybody who tried to raise androgynous kids in the late 60s

and early 70s could have told them that! Toddlers and preschoolers are intensely sex stereotyped.

Little girls wrapped their Tonka trucks in blankies and but them to bed. Little boys grabbed Barbie by either head or feet, pointed her at you, and yelled "BANG!"

Friends who were committed hippie slobs despaired over daughters who wanted pink and lace and despaired over sons who cut their own damn hair, thanks anyway, Mom.

The androgynous stuff just wasn't possible until the kids were a little older and ready to discover other modes of play.

[marybourg]

18. Yes. Those were my experiences with my and neighbors' kids nt.

[Eryemil]

22. It's interesting, but you're discounting one key factor:

Outside influence.

[redqueen]

28. Yes.

Nearly all outside signals (movies, songs, TV, comics, relatives, etc.) send the message: "girls do this, boys do that".

[FedUpWithIt All]

126. Infants sometimes do not have such exposure and still show preference along gender lines.

They also do not realize sex gender differences in themselves or anyone else until well into toddler-hood.

[HeresyLives]

58. Exactly.

Babies are treated differently from birth. And they see the way society behaves and copy it.

[Warpy]

76. From where?

I'm talking about toddlers and preschoolers with stay at home moms.

The outside influences in those families extended to kiddie VHS tapes, and not much of those.

The behavior is spontaneous in kids this young.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

79. That is my

experience. 2 year olds are not old enough to try to conform to what is acceptable behavior - if they were, you wouldn't see tantrums in public. My kids gravitated to certain toys, period.
It is spontaneous.

:)

[marybourg]

118. And when my kids were little there were no VHS tapes,

and darned little tv either in our house.

[Warpy]

127. People just want to believe all the sexist bullshit can be unlearned

if we start early in childhood by not pushing sex typing on the kids.

Unfortunately, the kids are good at doing it themselves, as we old feminist boomers found out to our utter horror.

The time to start freeing the kids is school age, by encouraging them to do things outside the stereotyping, at least at home.

[we can do it]

194. TV?

[sufrommich]

54. This whole argument would be moot if masculinity were not

considered "superior" to femininity,even women who consider themselves feminist will argue that they always preferred more masculine toys as if it garnered them a seat at the grown up table.There is nothing "right" or "wrong" about gender characteristics.

[XemaSab]

133. Amen

Why is pretending to feed a doll somehow considered less respectable than pretending to shoot people with a gun? :shrug:

[8 track mind]

61. and then there were the kids

who made a daring attempt to get Barbie to fly, using lots of bottle rockets and scotch tape.

Bad idea.

However bottle rockets and hot wheels did work out rather well, if you had a nice smooth surface.


Good times, good times.....

[Warpy]

68. My best friend's daughter got a bunch of them one Xmas

She decapitated them, built rafts, and gave them Viking funerals on a nearby pond.

No, she didn't grow up to be a serial killer. She grew up to be a PhD.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

71. How imaginative!!

:rofl: Viking funerals! Cool!!!

I didn't do anything that creative with my Barbies, dammit.

However I did grow up and earn two degrees in traditionally male fields: Biology and law.

[Tesha]

192. Look out -- it's Sid!

[carlyhippy]

75. I had a GI Joe doll

Had to have one, I wanted someone a little more manly for my Barbie Dolls' boyfriend. Ken ended up being Barbies' cabana boy, poor doll never did have but one set of clothes.

[treestar]

140. We drafted our brother's GI Joe

The whole existence of GI Joes shows that boys like dolls too. They just have to call them action figures.

[JerseygirlCT]

85. Hmmm... I must be the exception to the rule, then

my sons enjoyed playing with dolls (in fact the older one handed his "Emma" down to his brother). They played house. Cars... ok, but not too exciting. My younger likes collecting them, but hasn't ever played with them really. Guns weren't part of the equation at all, nor was any play that involved hurting someone, even pretend.

They both liked building toys. The little one loved stuffed animals and would happily surround himself with them to talk and play. And they both loved music right from the get-go, and painting and drawing. (Things they undoubtedly got from their mom).

They're still not typical rough and tumble boys. Just sensitive and thoughtful and sweet and funny. I'll take it!

[Kalyke]

90. I don't buy any pink items.

I think that is the most ugly color next to purple in the world.

My daughter does have some pink clothes that were hand-me-downs, but I've kept that color at a bare minimum (I don't mind it as an accent color, but that hot Barbie pink is not allowed at all in my house).

[XemaSab]

134. And yet you have the pink heart after your post!

:rofl:

[JerseygirlCT]

184. Oh it's my favorite color

Makes me feel warm and happy.

So it was my sons' favorite, too, when they were little.

[krabigirl]

99. haha, its a generalization. I used to chop of my barbies' hair and throw them across the room.

HATED those damn dolls everyone shoved at me, while my brother got all of the cool toys :)

[Warpy]

101. I was a typical toddler with dolls

Strip 'em to find out how the clothes work and then dump 'em until my mother put their clothes back on. I preferred stuffed toys.

I hated dolls by the time I got to school. When I was eight, I wanted an electric train. I got a damn Betsy Wetsy doll. I filled it up and left it on their bed.

They got the message. The next year I got the chemistry set I wanted.

Most toddlers and preschool children are very sex stereotypical. They have the capacity to break out of it at school age.

[Kaleva]

116. LOL!

I listened to a lecture given by a lady who did a study on how boys and girls played differently. A group of young boys were put in an observation room with dolls and a dollhouse. It wasn't long before the boys figured out a way to catapult the toy baby carriage off of the roof of the doll house.

[FedUpWithIt All]

125. I think that some may be missing this point. Older kids might choose to play with non typical toys.

It is also true that not everyone is clearly definable under their own sex specific gender guidelines. BUT a preference for one type of gender specific play can exhibit itself in an infant. To such a degree that the entirety of the child's play is of a type and not a mesh of the types. If a child, male or female, shows a predisposition for one gender type style of play it usually shows itself to be quite consistent. This play style will have little crossover until the child reaches an age of understanding regarding gender in general.

[Bill McBlueState]

13. I'm glad people are studying this

In any case, even if there *is* a biological basis for toy preference, that wouldn't justify forcing boys or girls to play with gender-specific toys.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Certainly that wouldn't justify it,

any more than a child's preference for the color green would mean that child be forcibly dressed in nothing but green clothing.

[treestar]

144. There's always somebody looking for a biological basis for

male supremacy so as to have a ground to claim that nothing can be done to change it.

Those males who are weaker of character are forever trying to get scientific results to justify that they can do no better, and to take their whole sex down with them rather than face up to their faults.

[HeresyLives]

17. They don't.

Toys are just toys, nothing more.

Since monkeys wouldn't recognize what a wheeled toy is, not living in an industrial society, or a Raggedy Ann, since it doesn't look anything like a baby monkey, they would examine both. All it takes is a photo of what the researchers are trying to promote.

[Occam Bandage]

24. So you believe that the researchers falsified their data? nt

[HeresyLives]

56. People find what they are looking for.

They may not even be aware of their own bias, but they tend to find it nonetheless.

[NeedleCast]

31. many animals are quite capable of determining what something is for

Lost of animals, not just monkeys, have discovered all sorts of uses for things inside industrial societies. They may not understand what WE use them for, but they understand what they do in reference to their world.

There are a large number of crows in Japan that have discovered that cars make ideal tools for cracking hard-shelled nuts. They drop pecans and other shelled nuts on street intersections with traffic lights and wait for a car to run over the shell. Then, when the light turns red, the dive down, eat or pick up the meat of the nut, and fly off. Not only have they learned that cars make useful nut crackers, they've learned that red means stop (drop the nut or retreive the nut) and that green means go (nut cracking in process, do not enter cracking area).

While animals may not use the tools in our industrial society the same way we do, there is no doubt that they use them and in many cases understand them as it applies to their world.

[HeresyLives]

57. Yes, they can find their own uses

for things. That doesn't mean they understand what WE use them for.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Hardwiring

Sentience makes us try to undo the effect, but we are hardwired in a very mammalian way for certain behaviors.

[iamthebandfanman]

21. i played with both

and im fine.

you shouldnt assign gender to the imagination and creativity of a child.
kids should be free to play with any toy they want , regardless of its gender classification.
*shrugs*

[Lost in CT]

23. Reminds me of that wonerful Dar Williams song

When I was a Boy

I won't forget when Peter Pan came to my house, took my hand
I said I was a boy; I'm glad he didn't check.
I learned to fly, I learned to fight
I lived a whole life in one night
We saved each other's lives out on the pirate's deck.

And I remember that night
When I'm leaving a late night with some friends
And I hear somebody tell me it's not safe,
someone should help me
I need to find a nice man to walk me home.

When I was a boy, I scared the pants off of my mom,
Climbed what I could climb upon
And I don't know how I survived,
I guess I knew the tricks that all boys knew.

And you can walk me home, but I was a boy, too.

I was a kid that you would like, just a small boy on her bike
Riding topless, yeah, I never cared who saw.
My neighbor come outside to say, "Get your shirt,"
I said "No way, it's the last time I'm not breaking any law."

And now I'm in this clothing store, and the signs say less is more
More that's tight means more to see, more for them, not more for me
That can't help me climb a tree in ten seconds flat

When I was a boy, See that picture? That was me
Grass-stained shirt and dusty knees
And I know things have gotta change,
They got pills to sell, they've got implants to put in,
they've got implants to remove

But I am not forgetting...that I was a boy too

And like the woods where I would creep, it's a secret I can keep
Except when I'm tired, 'cept when I'm being caught off guard
And I've had a lonesome awful day, the conversation finds its way
To catching fire-flies out in the backyard.

And so I tell the man I'm with about the other life I lived
And I say, "Now you're top gun, I have lost and you have won"
And he says, "Oh no, no, can't you see

When I was a girl, my mom and I we always talked
And I picked flowers everywhere that I walked.
And I could always cry, now even when I'm alone I seldom do
And I have lost some kindness
But I was a girl too.
And you were just like me, and I was just like you"

[soothsayer]

30. i liked boy toys as a young lesbo..but also like my susie homemeaker oven

not crazy about barbie but loved major matt mason the astronaut.

[unapatriciated]

48. my daughter played with her brothers toys and he played with her toys...

She is gay and he is not. She also enjoyed her easy bake oven, in fact they both did. Kids like to eat cake it is as simple as that.

[Igel]

63. Ovens and dolls are different in principle.

The question is, did you both like dolls?

(And the answer, being for too small a sample, might be interesting but not meaningful.)

[Roon]

44. I'm gay and pretty butch

but when I was a kid I longed to join the girls and their Barbies.

[unapatriciated]

46. I had an in-home daycare for six years....

consisting mostly of toddlers 1-4 years of age. They played with all the toys but enjoyed the kitchen and dress-up box most (boys and girls alike dressed up as fireman, wore aprons when cooking). Their favorite activity was baking and decorating cookies. Dress up and make-up took second place, story time next, cars and trucks were last unless they were outside playing in the sandbox and then they were all involved in building, roads ect.
I found that toys that stimulated their creativity were the most popular.

In all honesty I have to state guns and military toys were never in their toy box nor allowed in my home (maybe I'm just a "hippie slob" as one poster above stated). on edit: the kids didn't seem to miss those types of toys.

I think stereotyping is a factor but individuality is more important and should be encouraged early on in childhood.
Children at an early age develop their own interest and talent, be it art, reading, cooking and so on.

[EFerrari]

66. I never bought military toys for my sons but they made guns out of Leggos!

:rofl:

[QueenOfCalifornia]

81. LOL!

That one made me crack up! :rofl:

Little hooligans!

[ulysses]

92. Chris used to take the plush dolls we gave him, put them on their backs

and pushed them across the floor going "vrooom!"

[EFerrari]

97. LOL!

I played "cowboys and indians" using a broom and a picnic bench and my brother killed my Chatty Cathy Brother by pulling his string too hard and too often. He grew up to be a musician. :)

[ZombieHorde]

53. My wife and I don't force any gender roles on our kids.

We have a four year old son and an eight year old daughter. Sometimes our son will play princess dress-up with our daughter. He likes the dresses and pretty shoes.

But all of his toy tastes are very boyish. We got him some Mega Blocks, and he built a gun. When we take him to the toy store, he always wants swords, guns, trains, video games, and robots. We have no problems with him getting Barbies, but he has no interest in them.

Our daughter loves Disney princesses, Barbies, Littlest Pet Shop, video games and these strange Japanese robot magnets which transform into balls. We got her a Nerf gun she wanted once, but she lost interest in it within a week.

We are waiting for a company to make princess robots, that would go over well in our household.

[tammywammy]

73. Bakugan

It's so weird, those ball thingys. My nephews wanted them for Christmas, but after standing in Target for 20 minutes trying to figure it out and what I should buy, they got something else instead. LOL

[ZombieHorde]

83. Yes!, she loves Bakugans. I couldn't think of the name. nt

[pnutbutr]

55. my 3 year old son

plays with his little sisters dolls and had me put on some temporary fairy tattoos he got for free the other day. He also loves his trucks, dinosaurs and the usual boy stuff too. My daughter loves playing with his dinosaurs and cars. Let em play with whatever they want. He did ask for a fairy dress up costume with glittery pink high heels one day. I had to say no to that one although it would have made for great blackmail pics. :rofl:

[Bonobo]

59. Why wouldn't they?

Unless you support the odd, and from an anthropological standpoint, indefensible, position that no behavioral differences arising from genetic makeup exists.

All animals have a division of labor based on gender. Only humans piously pretend that no such thing exists (except when they praise the "beauty" of motherhood and the "tragedy" of testosterone poisoning).

[QueenOfCalifornia]

82. I wish I could

recommend your post.

It is brilliant. :)

[tammywammy]

60. Nature vs Nurture

David Reimer was raised as a girl from near birth. Forced to wear dresses and play with dolls, but his natural instinct was to play with more "boy" type toys.

I tend to think it's more nature. My nephews have had access to dolls, they're in the toy room, yet when they "play" with it, it's more like carrying it around like a football.

[Igel]

64. Oddly, I seem to recall reading much more recent

eye-tracking studies done on infants under 1 year in age. Most were pre-lingual, and the amount of socialization that infants 6-month-old and younger have undergone doesn't extend to hunting versus cake-baking.

Boys liked things that moved and which had moving parts. If it rotated, it was a plus.

Girls liked faces and expressions, whether on people, animals, or toys.

Now, boys liked faces and expressions, but their gazes to faces were less frequent and shorter than girls' were. Girls like things that moved, etc., but their gazes to gadgets were less frequent and shorter than boys' were.

It didn't matter what kind of toys the parents had provided, so they pretty much ruled out prior training (in any event, the relevant generalization is that small children do *not* look intently at familiar things, but at unfamiliar things or things that have changed). Some tried to be unisex with fraternal twins. Some tried to be traditional. I don't recall there being a difference. It's as close to innate as you're going to get, behavior from 3-month-old children.

Of course, the difference was statistical. And only an insane psychologist would try to track the kids until their were 25 to see how their toy-related eye movements correlated to later behaviors.

[Kaleva]

120. boys and girls are different

[barb162]

176. Yeah, girls are smart.

:)

[BlooInBloo]

178. That's part of a heuristic that works passingly well for me:

Girls: smart but crazy.
Boys: dumb but rational.

:P

[barb162]

189. BWAHA!

[SoCalDem]

65. Their brains are a bit different..

in a totally GOOD way..:P

[Runcible Spoon]

67. another day, another junk science article at DU to rile up the biological determinalists.

Yawn.

[EFerrari]

69. Might be helpful if you ever adopt a caged rhesus monkey. n/t

[Political Heretic]

91. I'm really suprised there are many clinging to what seems like now ancient modernists worldview.

I didn't realize there were still people who seriously believed in a strict biological determinism. :scared:

Human beings are a soup of some biological traits and the cultural, contextual, relational mix into which they are immersed and grow.

[redqueen]

96. I'm not. Not at all.

It took decades for women to even be able to vote, and decades more to be taken seriously.

Yet still... to this day... you'd be hard pressed to find people that would allow their sons the same freedom from gender-based societal 'rules' that they allow their daughters.

Pathetic, really. Contemptible.

I don't know why people are so desperate to cling to it...

[nomorenomore08]

121. "I don't know why people are so desperate to cling to it..."

Maybe because, if you raise a boy to be too "feminine," then girls won't want to date him later on? But I'm just a bitter (prematurely) old prick, speaking from my own fucked-up experiences, so what do I know?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

139. Can you imagine using that excuse to rationalize keeping a female child back?

Preventing her from doing what she wants, playing with the toys she likes, wearing the clothes and colors she likes?

But people do it to boys all the time... and feel no shame... they just make up excuses.

Sickening.

[nomorenomore08]

153. No, I don't think so. I was just in a shitty mood last night.

Funny how I'm hungover as shit now, but I actually feel *better*...? :shrug:

[slackmaster]

182. Do you think sexual orientation is biologically determined?

Or is it learned, or chosen?

[Political Heretic]

186. I think part of the problem is that we think it must be either/or

I think sexual orientation can be biologically influenced, not determined, learning influenced not determined or consciously preferred, and that it is a combination of some or all of those things that creates one sexuality.

I also believe that sexuality is fluid, and that we exist on a continuum between what western society sets up as a binary all-or-nothing categorization of "gay" or "straight." Further, I believe not only to we exist on a continuum at all points along the spectrum between so-called "gay" or "straight" but that sexuality is not necessarily "fixed" and may shift, evolve and move as we live.

[Common Sense Party]

78. Ummm...maybe because boys and girls *are* different?

Heretical, I know.

[Lost in CT]

84. It's nature always has been...

You really have to brainwash yourself almost to the point of a doctoral dissertation you think any different,

Boys and girls are different.

Anything else is wishful thinking.

[Political Heretic]

89. I think the issue, friend, is how those differences arise and the nature of those differences.

Not the fact that there are "differences" at all.

[Political Heretic]

86. I preferred dolls as a boy. The conclusion is thus refuted.

:)

Just kidding but....

There are several troubles with this post.

First, I question the size of the study and its generalizability.

Second in many instances, the post itself identifies that the findings were not statistically significant.

Third, today we know a great deal about the way culture, context, and relationship to others effect individual growth and development. Too much in fact to pretend anymore that predetermined hardwired biology is the predominant factor in shaping our preferences.

Fourth, I know this is hard for some to believe, but there's a pretty serious limit to how much you can generalize from an entirely different species to another. Assuming these are legitimate comparisons because of evolutionary history is pretty much like comparing apples and oranges.

Fifth, one of the reasons conclusions on subjects of this type is so difficult is because is extremely difficult to avoid observer bias in the research itself. Defining "preference" is not an exact science, neither is interpreting the "preferences" of monkeys, or is interpreting all the of the external and or internal factors that go into any "preference."

Sixth, "gender" (which is what we're talking about when we start making social generalizations about behavior or preferences of "male" vs. "female", to be distinguished from "sex") is not a binary categorization - it is a continuum. People are born all along the spectrum from highly dominant so-called "masculine" inclinations to highly dominant so-called "feminine" predispositions. Biologically to, life produces not just "male" and "female" but also "both" and "neither" and things in between. If this is news to you at all, then you'd better take a moment to go do some discovering. (Start with "intersex").


Not that my points of observation and criticism should not be taken as a knee-jerk dismissal of the idea that certain "gender" traits are hard-wired. Instead it is more a critical reflection on the fact that it is highly unlikely that any patterns we find in humans among men and women are purely innate and biologically hardwired or purely culturally constructed. As responsible alert thinkers, we need to be aware of both dimensions. It's is possible that biological differences between male and female create some inclinations toward certain differing trends for both groups? I'd assume that's very likely. But we also know that it is profoundly likely that those inclinations are being usurped in the lives of many by cultural, contextual and relational influences, and its very safe to believe that there are likely to be a lot less predetermined concrete "hard wirings" that we once thought.

The more we learn about human beings and the world, the more fluid and less concrete categories like "male" and "female" become, and the more tentative generalizations about the characteristics and traits of those categories become.

[krabigirl]

98. ok, what explains why i hated dolls and preferred action figures and video games?

I didn't get into the girly stuff until I was a teen (still liked video games then though as well, haha.

[surrealAmerican]

100. Odd choice of toys.

I understand the doll: it might look enough like another monkey. The ball, too, is non-representational and thus makes sense. The car and the cooking pot make very little sense. Unless these monkeys see cars or pots being "used" by people, they would not have any meaning to them. How's a monkey supposed to know the difference between a cooking pot and a drinking cup or a hammer?

[redqueen]

102. It's hard-wired, see?

The primates, simply by virtue of being male or female, automatically just know which toys to pick up and play with.

It's like magic!

[ContinentalOp]

103. Purely social conditioning IMO. I have to laugh when I tell people I believe this...

and they say things like "oh but we never pushed our son to like cars, and we're not into cars, he just naturally gravitated toward them." I suspect none of these people have heard of the Clever Hans effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_hans#The_.27Clever_Hans.27_effect

I think immediately from a child's birth we unconsciously start sending all sorts of cues that shape the child's behavior.

[JuniperLea]

104. Wow... should I be questioning my sexuality?

Because I loved being on my knees in the dirt with dump trucks and plastic soldiers... hmmm... I also loved playing with dolls and tea sets... and I loved playing softball... and basketball... and I loved figure skating...

I wasn't raised with rhesus monkeys though, so what do I know?

[One_Life_To_Give]

106. Statistics and Standard Deviations

These reports at least in the press highlight only part of the statistics. The deviation from the mean can be significant and include very large numbers of in this case males prefering dolls, plush toys and females prefering wheeled toys.

Would we assume that anyone appplying for a Mortgage has $43k per year income, thats also a statistic. Aggregate information may allow us to learn something about ourselves. But it seems with gendered statistics it's often used as an excuse.


For the record I believe there are inherant differences. But I marvel at those who would never give out a loan based on the Average income of an US household, will claim that a gender based average should determine anything wether it's toys, sports, careers or anything else.

[Sheets of Easter]

107. Because they do.

That is my argument.

[Cerridwen]

112. Is there the least possibility that what we consider "stereotypically"

male and female may be flawed?

Perhaps we have assigned gender "norms" to things that "naturally" are not gender specific, are gender neutral, or are backasswards. Anyone ask the vervet monkeys whether they thought the toys had gender "norms?"

Just because we humans have decided that said toys are "gender specific" doesn't mean they are.

[FedUpWithIt All]

113. Absolutely. My one yr old son rolls cars the correct way and makes an engine sound.

No kidding. He began doing it almost at the introduction of the car. My daughters also had toy cars at around the same age. The cars are part of the Little People sets and all of my kids had them. The three girls payed NO ATTENTION to the cars. They would however pretend to walk the little people around and do things like make them kiss. My son, barely notices the figures. He will throw them and smack them into each other, things like this.



I am positive that there are gender type preferences from birth.

[Political Heretic]

130. How do you explain males who preferred dolls and females who preferred trucks then?

[FedUpWithIt All]

154. Nearly every account of that here is a mention of an older child.

I am talking about infants who are not even aware of their own gender or that gender differences even exist.

As children age they might show a preference for toys that differ from the gender type identification they showed as infants.

I mentioned in another post that i don't believe that all children will necessarily gender identify with their own sex. But when an infant gender identifies it tends toward a consistent gender play type until they are better able to understand the world and people around them, sometime in toddler-hood, and move into a more decision based mode of thinking and playing.

[Bjorn Against]

157. Gender is more prevalent in children's lives then cars are.

From the moment kids are born they are identified by either pink or blue, they are dressed differently, given different types of toys, they are exposed to different treatment by their caretakers and they develop a sense of the differences in gender at a very young age. By the time they are old enough to know what a car is most have them have already been taught that they are a boy and boys have fun playing with cars.

Do you have any data to suggest that what you are saying about infants gender identification has a biological basis?

[Political Heretic]

177. So an *infant* understands the difference between a truck and a doll?

What would that understanding be, exactly? Some innate knowledge of what trucks and dolls represent in culture?

Seems implausible to the point of absurdity, don't you think?

[FedUpWithIt All]

183. No. That is my point. He is too young to understand society or his place in it

He does however, like most of the other kids (notice carefully i did not say BOYS) of the "masculine" play type, like to roll things around, smash them together, throw them and bang them into other things almost all of the time.

There is another play type, which my girls all happened to be a part of, that likes to walk figures around, wrap toys in things, take things in and out of other objects(ie.blocks or plastic toys into or out of a basket or other container).

Kids typically fall into one of the two play styles from infancy. There are instances of crossover and bridging of course but these two styles have been with us in form since the beginning. What is the threat to some if there is an innate masculine or feminine? When there is a crossover and a female shows distinct masculinity from birth we accept it and if we are good people we protect the child AND her nature. Why can't we show the same respect for a sex match gender associating child?

If a child does crossover in a non-sex gender association in infancy or toddler-hood, it would not be said that it is because of her parents, right? I am fairly certain that in this case nobody would DARE suggest parenting style created this child's personality or preferences. And one can be fairly certain that this girl infant, as well as the feminine relating infant boy, was dressed in the the respective pink and blue. :eyes:

I have such a nephew (notice i called him a masculine specific title). He has always played (since infancy) in a "feminine" play style. I can assure you that his mother did not "do anything differently". He has always been dressed "boy" clothing. He has no older siblings so he may have been surrounded by more masculine items than a child with older siblings might be. Yet he began to show this preference in style of play in infancy. He is a wonderful and loved kid.

I think we need to accept people as they are, not as we wish they would be. And who they are becomes obvious from the very start.

[Political Heretic]

185. I could see the smash things together, throw them, bang them thing

Because its not my intention to deny that there are any biological predispositions in us. Maybe I'm getting caught up in the semantics, but other people in the discussion have been making less nuanced statements that your very nice clarification post here - saying things as simple (literally) as "boys are naturally predetermined to prefer trucks" or something similar.

I apologize if I didn't catch the nuance of your position or lumped you in with others - all I was saying is that I can't see how an infant would have any ability to make a preference judgment about a truck. I could however see how an infant would take toys of whatever kind and use them in the smashy, rolly, throwy sort of ways, or gravitate to whatever toys gave a "masculine" child the best opportunity to do such things.

It more or less sounds like we agree, and I must have misunderstood. I would only add to your thoughtful post that, I wish more people in this thread would become familiar with intersexed individuals. It kind of throws a big fat wrench into biological determinist dogmas some people still seem to cling to.

[FedUpWithIt All]

191. Thank you for this. It is a very nice post. I agree about understanding and acceptance for ALL

people.

:hi:

[Bjorn Against]

146. So after one year of socialization your son played with cars...

Gender roles are being taught from the moment a child is born and placed in either blue or pink clothes depending on their sex. By the time a child is old enough to even begin playing with toys they have already been exposed to all sorts of gender specific socialization, it is no wonder then that a one year old would attach to gender specific toys. Socialization begins at birth, the behavior of a one year old is the product of that first year of socialization. A young child playing with gender specific toys is hardly proof of any biological factors in their toy preference.

[FedUpWithIt All]

155. He has had full exposure to a wide variety of toys. Nearly the same toys his three sisters played

with.

And he began gender specific play in a very different manner than his sisters at around 7 mos. even with nearly identical exposure to toys and style of interactive play. Add to this that his main interactions are with three teen and pre-pubescent females and a full time mom.

[Bjorn Against]

156. How does your single case prove a biological basis for gender roles?

Scientists have been studying gender roles for many years and no one has found any biological basis for toy preferences yet (the study cited in the OP was statistically insignificant). One kid's preferences hardly prove anything biological.

[FedUpWithIt All]

158. I spoke my opinion, based on my experiences.

That is what people on message boards do.

:eyes:

I don't believe i said my kids preferences SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE anything biological. I simply said that i personally am certain there is a gender preference from birth based on our family's experiences. It is no different than the dozens of people on this thread who said their is no gender play preference because they DECIDED that the "other" gender had better and more interesting toys. That is CHOICE. I am simply stating that play behavior distinguishes before thoughtful choice is possible. Do you have children?

It matters very little to me what other people feel about the subject. It just is not that important. People are what they are.

[pipi_k]

115. I was one of those unusual kids

Mr Pip and I were just talking about something similar earlier today. He said I didn't appear to like very many typically "female" things.

I said that when I was a little girl I did play with dolls and stuff, but I had two boy cousins we would visit a lot and I enjoyed playing with their "boy" toys also. And I would play cars and trucks outside with the neighborhood boys as well. I would always say that I wanted a train set and a chemistry set, but my parents would get me the "girl" toys instead.

Where most of the girls in school didn't like Science, I did (and still do). I can read maps (again, girls didn't seem to like to do that), and I've built model cars and ships.


Just one of those really odd people, I guess... :7

[cherish44]

117. I have a friend who as 3 girls and 1 boy

The boy is the youngest so he came into a world full of Barbies, My Little Ponies, fairy costumes and every girly thing imaginable. She said as soon he had developed the proper motor skills, he configured his fingers to make a gun and started "shooting" stuff. I'm sure he picked it up from TV or videos but still I found that very interesting. She said her girls never did that and were raised in the same environment...When my daughter brought her zillions of Barbies over to her boy cousin's house, she "played" with the dolls by changing their clothes, making them talk to each other...her cousin played with them by building a pyramid with the dolls. I think this difference is partly social and environment but I think the brains are wired differently too. Just a couple anecdotal accounts, of course individual children will vary :D

[ContinentalOp]

123. Yes, a child won't know to mime shooting a gun unless they've seen somebody do it.

And who is it we mostly see shooting guns on TV? Certainly not women.

[ConcernedCanuk]

119. You gotta be kidding me - as if anyone should have to ask . . .

.
.
.

This must be a USAmerican question . . .

[proud patriot]

122. as a child care professional IMO

while there are always exceptions pre school boys prefer
large motor activities like building towers just to knock
them down . Running riding jumping chasing etc...

pre school Girls prefer small motor activities puzzles
drawing , beading .

Both equally enjoying role playing as grown ups, animals
and people in the neighborhood .


these are very general statements because I see exceptions
to the gender tendencies in every class .

[Political Heretic]

132. Which is all the more reason to move away from gender based assumptions altogether.

There are so many exceptions to general statements like these that the generalization itself almost becomes unimportant, and at worst runs the danger of being marginalizing.

As an example, when you keep saying that "males" normally prefer, even when a millions of "males" don't - regardless of whether or not those males constitute a "minority" it has a marginalizing effect on a very large number of people. It sets people up to assume things about an individual based on their estimation of that persons gender before understanding the person or context itself. It has to potential to do a lot more harm than good.

Deep down at the essence, its not that I don't think there are some natural biological differences between males and females that may translate toward differing inclinations towards various experiences. Rather, it is that I believe those inclinations are simply inclinations, and that they are mitigated by so many external factors of socialization, culture, context, and individual experiences as to make the attempt to categorize based on such generalizations foolish and unhelpful.

I believe that pointing out the overwhelming number of diverse variations of experiences is strong evidence for the opinion that social construction is a more powerful shaping force than biological inclination.

[proud patriot]

152. Agreed

:thumbsup:

[BlooInBloo]

161. Every boy I've ever known loved legos...

and almost exclusively for the building.

[Orangepeel]

124. Why would a monkey have a sociobiological preference for a cooking pot?

It doesn't make theoretical sense, except for the doll. Why would there be a biological difference in monkeys in behaviors that have nothing to do with the sex roles of monkeys?

Unless they have a reasonable theory about why these effects are found (the write up of the article says they do not), I'm betting that the trouble replicating the results isn't due to the fact that nobody was trying.

[Bjorn Against]

128. If this is true why didn't they figure it out before this?

Scientists have been studying chimpanzees extensively for many many years now, do you really think this is the first time they have given the monkeys toys to play with and noticed their preferences? This is a very basic study of behavior, there is no doubt scientists have studied chimpanzees behavior very extensively and if there was a strong correlation between male and female chimpanzees toy preferences and gender it seems like that would have been figured out hundreds of years ago it is such basic research.

Sorry, but I don't buy that a very basic and statistically insignificant study like this outweighs the fact that this basic information has never been discovered before despite literally thousands of years in which humans have been observing chimpanzees.

[texanwitch]

131. I never cared for so called girl toys.

The only doll I was given was never used, it just stayed in the box.

I found the girl toys boring, boys toys were fun to play with.

My Aunt let me play with the toys I wanted to play with and I never cared what other people thought.

I am not gay.

Kids learn very young what is expected of them, and they see ads on tv.

Clothes also effect how kids play.

It is hard for a little girl to be active in a dress, trust me.

Little boys wear pants which give them freedom of movement.

I hated dresses, still do.

[XemaSab]

135. I played with pretty gender-neutral toys and so did most of my friends

Action figures, stuffed animals (but not in a "dolly" way), coloring, reading, playing "Indians," board games, telling stories, building forts, puzzles... I wasn't into sports at all and I was never into dolls. I had friends of both genders, and we all played the same things for the most part.

Nevertheless, all the girls in my class drew different pictures, wore different clothes, and played "Indian" differently than me and the boys. They were more attracted to a pink and purple color scheme, mostly drew people, and mostly played at making art materials, decorative objects, or food.

The boys were more likely to pick up a stick and pretend it was a bow or a spear, and they would pretend to hunt animals. Most of the boys would draw things like fighter jets, which the girls would never draw. When we got older, the same boys would play stuff like D&D and Magic the Gathering, which I found crushingly dull.

It might be socialization, but even though we were all doing the same things and playing the same games, we were all nevertheless on different pages. :shrug:

[texanwitch]

136. I only played with one girl, my best friend.

The other kids I played with were boys.

I was always so active.

I could not get into the so called girl stuff.

Clothing still effects how kids play, it is hard to climb a tree in a dress.

Girls get passive toys and boys get active toys.

[conscious evolution]

138. I played with Ken and Barbie dolls

They made great targets for my Daisy Red Rider BB gun.

[treestar]

141. Pure social conditioning which we pick up very early

It does change over the years, though. Now fathers spend more time taking care of kids. One really cute thing I observed once, my two nephews were toddlers and playing a game of being Daddy to their little stuffed animals of Sesame Street characters. They put the "kids" to bed and came out and told the adults to be quiet because the kids were trying to sleep. They ran back to attend to the kids who were said to be crying!

One of them later at a little older liked cooking shows and wanted a toy oven - others in the family expressed concern, because that's a "girl's" toy! Well why? You have male chefs and men cook (including his dad, who was single for long enough to learn).

[redqueen]

187. Yes... babies are like little sponges.

Parents are most likely unaware of all the cues and signals they are sending literally all the time that their babies are around them.

When you consider how few people would be willing to buy their son pink shoes if he wanted them, it's no surprise they pick up on our subconscious desire for them to be less like their true selves if it means they will fit in with others.

[madmom]

142. When I was in school my mother was both my girl scout letter and my

brother's den mother. She combined both. The girls learned about camping and building fires and "boy stuff" and the boys learned how to cook and sew. My brother is the cook in his family now, my son was also taught these skills.

[alphafemale]

143. I'm still trying to figure out how a monkey knew what a police car was.

:hide:

[sendero]

145. I'm certain..

...that gender differences, GENERALLY because gender is a continuum, are real, biological, and ingrained.

And no amount of social wishful thinking will change that. I'm just sad it took me 20 years of adulthood to unlearn the bullshit I was handed in the 70s.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

147. Interesting. Suggestive. Not conclusive.

Thanks for sharing this. :)

[hiphopnation]

149. thank you SO MUCH for sharing this -- incredible data!

:thumbsup:

thanks again, great stuff here.

k&r

[Political Heretic]

151. wow. just......wow.

[bluedawg12]

167. Did I misread this article? Their preference is not statistically significant

How does this data confirm the velevt monkey data?

It does show that monkeys play with toys and that cars can be rolled around and dolls can't.

[BlooInBloo]

160. Partly because boys and girls are different...

(though it's considered uncouth to say that)

And partly because of socialization.

[bluedawg12]

164. It's not uncouth (PC, right?) to say that.

It is uncouth for society to assume that all girls will only want to play with dolls and all boys will only want to play with cars and to assume aptitude and skills for girls and boys, and to assign attention in class, or to give advantage in education, scholarships, jobs/work, based on such studies and generalized assumptions

The right wing, for example, loves to remind us of that all the time.

[BlooInBloo]

165. I meant uncouth.

[bluedawg12]

168. Why would it be uncouth to say boys and girls are different?

That's a given.

Human behavior, is not a given.

[BlooInBloo]

169. I haven't the slightest.

[bluedawg12]

171. I don't think it is uncouth to say boys and girls are different.

It's how we as a society defines those differences that can be troublesome.

[BlooInBloo]

173. Neither do I.

[Jamastiene]

162. I'm a woman who as a young girl preferred boys' toys because

girl toys sucked. They did nothing and were all centered around housework and cleaning shit off a baby's ass. That's not play. That's work. I wasn't the least bit interested in that. I loved my Tonka truck and my GI Joe and Godzilla figurines.

[KittyWampus]

188. the fun flip side to that are boys who probably saw a dump truck and thought THEY sucked

as representations of work and preferred having doll to tend to :)

I wonder if there are any female DU'ers who admit to liking their Barbies and/or baby dolls.

Disclaimer, I liked my stuffed animals and gave up on Barbie after trying to make clothes for her but not understanding how to work fabric in 3D.

Don't even remember ever even having a baby doll.

[FedUpWithIt All]

190. I loved my Barbie dolls. LOVED them. I also was very attached to a particular baby doll.

I detested most boy toys. I had three brothers and no sisters. I thought rolling cars around in a circle was mundane and incredibly dull. I was too interested in small motor things to care much for sports. Action figures did not have enough accessories for my taste. Gun type nerf toys/squirt guns would quickly lose any appeal due to the repetitive nature of them.

I did enjoyed building toys immensely and i have always been a crafty/art type.

Interesting thing, i am not in the remotest a feminine type of personality. Never have been. My only really feminine quality is my tie to home and hearth which is profound.

I enjoyed the Barbie dolls for the little accessories. It was never about the clothes for me. It was the homemaking. I would set everything up and take it all down to start over.

And i turned out to be full time mother for well over a decade. I am completely gratified and content in my chosen life. I cannot imagine another lifestyle that would have provided me with as much happiness and peace.

[Scout]

193. same here, baby dolls and Barbie's were all stupid....

you put the clothes on, you take the clothes off. they didn't do anything.

i was much more interested in building things in the garage, expanding my tree fort, playing in field/lake/swamp by our house, riding my bike, playing softball, playing kickball, swimming, etc. girls and their toys were boring. i did kind of like jumping rope, but other girl games weren't very interesting.

[bluedawg12]

163. For male and female rhesus monkeys their toy preference is not statistically significant

"... male rhesus monkeys show strong and significant preference for the masculine toys. Female rhesus monkeys show preference for the feminine toys, but the difference in their preference is not statistically significant."

On the other hand, the study confirms that once they select a toy, they play like human kids.

The dolls are not rolled around as cars and cars aren't given a rectal genital exam, that part is easily understandable.

[xchrom]

166. 'cars aren't given a rectal genital exam,'

why not? :rofl:

[bluedawg12]

170. We need more studies

that aren't statistically significant to prove that. :evilgrin:

[xchrom]

172. come to my house -- we'll get out my old models. nt

[bluedawg12]

174. Zsa Zsa?

[xchrom]

180. oh you wanna get out THAT model.

i was thinkin knight rider.

[BlooInBloo]

175. Are you aware that the quote doesn't say what you said it says?