Free to Be Me Childrearing

[Hermit]

Seriously, children like or dislike doing these things based on personality, not gender.

If that were true, then we would tend to see an equal number of males and females pursuing the same activities. We don't see that.

You are obviously of the "nature has it all over nurture" school. While there are pretty obvious differences between males and females on the biological level that are demonstrably genetic, most differences of behaviour along sex lines have not yet been shown to be rooted in genes. There definitely seems to be a correlation between hormone levels of testosterone and oestrogen and behavioural tendencies, but an aversion to get dirty or a liking to be showered with jewelery are not therefore genetic. Sexual attraction, by the way, is not in itself a form of behaviour.

Is it too much of a leap to think that a male's brain may be different, generally speaking, than a female's brain just like a male's genitals, hips, and other body parts differ?

People keep asking that very question and a lot of studies have been made, but evidence for gender-based differences in brain turns out to be very minimal. The best I can think of, was conducted by Jennifer Connellan, but even that does not amount to much. It turns out that variations in brains are heaps greater across all newly-borns than across the gender divide.

[maiforpeace]

There's something very basic to this story that bothers me immensely which is that the parent's have enjoined not only their adult family and friends, but also their older child in keeping this 'secret'.

So, do all of you who think this isn't such a bad idea think it's good for families to keep such a secret from another family member?

[Coito ergo sum]

Do women want to ride the motorbikes and get dirty? In my experience, they don't.

Yes, you are correct. It is because they are genetically preprogrammed to dislike motorbikes and getting dirty.

Sarcasm aside, it would be a more fundamental difference that extends to such things.

One might also sneer and say, "Yes, you are correct. It is because they are "Born This Way" to like men instead of women, or women instead of men, or both." If sexual orientation can be something people are born with, then I see no reason for the idea of differing temperaments and predilections in other areas to be innate as well.

We seem to be disagreeing on what the null hypothesis should be here. I'm not claiming that men and women must necessarily be the same and I don't think anybody else is either. What I (and I think the others) are claiming is that there is no evidence that our current stereotypes are innate, or indeed that there need be personality differences.

I gave some evidence above. And, here is another: http://www.ucop.edu/sciencetoday/article/1392 "It seems there's a biological basis for the common and often times comic belief that men and women think differently. According to Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California, Irvine, men and women use different sides of a brain structure called the amygdala to store emotional memories." That, to me, is one gigantic stereotype -- men and women thinking differently - and here is evidence that it stems from the structure of the brain. Born with.

So, to keep it short - see above where I noted evidence for distinctions in the structure of the brain leading to fundamental differences in how men and women think, remember and behave, and also the link I just cited. That is not, of course, to be interpreted to mean that I think sexual stereotypes are necessarily true and evidence based, and genetic. All I've said is that there are genetic differences between men and women's brains, and that fundamentally effects how men and women think resulting in fundamental differences in how we behave.

We know how malleable the brain is; an innate sense of sexuality might be important for reproduction but given the flexibility of our minds, innate personality differences probably aren't. There's no reason to assume that personalities are innately sexually dimorphic; where male and female roles differ, culture has that covered.

It seems, there is some reason, given the evidence I've cited.

We have enough evidence to see innate differences in gender identity (males [sex] have a tendency to identify as males [gender], as do females as females), sexuality (each has a tendency to prefer the other) and various physical differences (body mass, calcium use, etc.). We don't have anything supporting an innate sense of any of our current personality or ability stereotypes, and if we have no evidence for a difference, the assumption is no difference.

Well, there is the rub, actually. I think in order to really answer this, we would have to agree on what the "current personality or ability stereotypes" are. I mean, if we are going to talk about women being less intelligent, or less able to drive cars, then I think that you're right. However, if we are talking about how women and men argue differently, remember events differently, place importance on events differently, multitask differently, and some other things, then we do have some evidence.

Stereotypes change over time. We have no more evidence for "women like to stay at home with non-physical activities" than we do for "women's uteri make them prone to hysteria".

I agree with that. However, by the same token, there apparently is some evidence that women are better at language skills and men are better at math skills. http://www.livescience.com/3808-men-wom ... ently.html The results from this study may help explain why men and women excel at different types of tasks, said co-author and neuropsychologist Rex Jung of the University of New Mexico. For example, men tend to do better with tasks requiring more localized processing, such as mathematics, Jung said, while women are better at integrating and assimilating information from distributed gray-matter regions of the brain, which aids language skills.

So, again, it seems it depends on the stereotype.

Studies have also shown personality differences based on star signs... among those who know and accept what their personality is "supposed" to be. We're confronted by gender stereotypes all the time.

I haven't seen such studies, but if you say so...

[Pappa]

The multitasking thing has been disproven.

[Coito ergo sum]

Seriously, children like or dislike doing these things based on personality, not gender.

If that were true, then we would tend to see an equal number of males and females pursuing the same activities. We don't see that.

You are obviously of the "nature has it all over nurture" school.

No. I'm of the "there are some genetic/innate differences between the male and female brain" school, and that means that there are some innate/genetic behavioral differences.

While there are pretty obvious differences between males and females on the biological level that are demonstrably genetic,

Agreed. That is what I said.

most differences of behaviour along sex lines have not yet been shown to be rooted in genes.

I never said they were. I said there are some fundamental differences.

There definitely seems to be a correlation between hormone levels of testosterone and oestrogen and behavioural tendencies, but an aversion to get dirty or a liking to be showered with jewelery are not therefore genetic.

Perhaps not. I did not intend to say that I thought they were.

Sexual attraction, by the way, is not in itself a form of behaviour.

Never said it was.

Is it too much of a leap to think that a male's brain may be different, generally speaking, than a female's brain just like a male's genitals, hips, and other body parts differ?

People keep asking that very question and a lot of studies have been made, but evidence for gender-based differences in brain turns out to be very minimal. The best I can think of, was conducted by Jennifer Connellan, but even that does not amount to much. It turns out that variations in brains are heaps greater across all newly-borns than across the gender divide.

It doesn't, actually. The evidence for sex-based differences in the brain turns out, as far as I can tell, to be fairly dramatic and well-founded. See my links and descriptions above.

[Coito ergo sum]

The multitasking thing has been disproven.

Or, proven, depending on which study you look at.

[charlou]

The multitasking thing has been disproven.

Or, proven, depending on which study you look at.

Or how much you indulge confirmation bias.

[Coito ergo sum]

The multitasking thing has been disproven.

Or, proven, depending on which study you look at.

Or how much you indulge confirmation bias.

That would obviously cut both ways.

[Coito ergo sum]

The proof is in the deoderent -

[Pappa]

The multitasking thing has been disproven.

Or, proven, depending on which study you look at.

One study showed a small difference, every study since has shown none.

[Coito ergo sum]

The multitasking thing has been disproven.

Or, proven, depending on which study you look at.

One study showed a small difference, every study since has shown none.

Twice as much....http://lifehacker.com/5134387/study-cla ... uch-as-men

Significantly more....

A study by Dr. Glenn Wilson (2005) was performed for Hewlett Packard to explore the productivity of multitasking. What he discovered is definitely food for thought. In his study the average worker’s functioning IQ, a temporary qualitative state, drops 10 points when multitasking. That is more than double the four point drop that occurs when someone smokes marijuana.

Interestingly, the functioning IQ drop was more significant in men participating in the multitasking study by Wilson. This brings us to the controversial debate over if there are differences between genders in their abilities to multitask.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Multi-Tasking-T ... -and-Women

An article about another study in 2010 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... n-men.html

And, see - Dongning Ren, Haotian Zhou and Xiaolan Fu 2009 - A Deeper Look at Gender Difference in Multitasking: Gender-Specific Mechanism of Cognitive Control
(females were found to perform better at coordinating a primary test with a secondary test (p=0.007), supporting this notion that females are better at multi-tasking. Although, the authors concluded their tests may not reflect real life multi-tasking and that further research was required)

[Pappa]

The multitasking thing has been disproven.

Or, proven, depending on which study you look at.

One study showed a small difference, every study since has shown none.

Twice as much....http://lifehacker.com/5134387/study-cla ... uch-as-men

Significantly more....

A study by Dr. Glenn Wilson (2005) was performed for Hewlett Packard to explore the productivity of multitasking. What he discovered is definitely food for thought. In his study the average worker’s functioning IQ, a temporary qualitative state, drops 10 points when multitasking. That is more than double the four point drop that occurs when someone smokes marijuana.

Interestingly, the functioning IQ drop was more significant in men participating in the multitasking study by Wilson. This brings us to the controversial debate over if there are differences between genders in their abilities to multitask.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Multi-Tasking-T ... -and-Women

An article about another study in 2010 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... n-men.html

And, see - Dongning Ren, Haotian Zhou and Xiaolan Fu 2009 - A Deeper Look at Gender Difference in Multitasking: Gender-Specific Mechanism of Cognitive Control
(females were found to perform better at coordinating a primary test with a secondary test (p=0.007), supporting this notion that females are better at multi-tasking. Although, the authors concluded their tests may not reflect real life multi-tasking and that further research was required)

Unfortunately, I can't find a link to the article I read (written in about 2009) that I was taking my information from. Either way, it still doesn't change the fact that the the evidence for the existence of an obvious difference in multitasking abilities between men and women is still inconclusive with studies producing very different results.

[Gallstones]

I can multi-task like a pro. I am a multi-tasking pro.


I've never had man-flu either.

[Robert_S]

I figured out what bothered me about this whole thing: they're taking gender roles too seriously! Not as serious as Sharia, but still... If its plain that gender is not a big fucking deal, then the child will probably not feel an overwhelming pressure to be one thing or another.

[Hermit]

Is it too much of a leap to think that a male's brain may be different, generally speaking, than a female's brain just like a male's genitals, hips, and other body parts differ?

People keep asking that very question and a lot of studies have been made, but evidence for gender-based differences in brain turns out to be very minimal. The best I can think of, was conducted by Jennifer Connellan, but even that does not amount to much. It turns out that variations in brains are heaps greater across all newly-borns than across the gender divide.

It doesn't, actually. The evidence for sex-based differences in the brain turns out, as far as I can tell, to be fairly dramatic and well-founded. See my links and descriptions above.

The evidence points to different behaviour alright. I can't see much evidence for it being biologically determined, let alone biologically determined according to a sex divide, though. Take the experiment conducted by Connellan, for example, who in 2000 claimed that "we have demonstrated that at 1 day old, human neonates demonstrate sexual dimorphism in both social and mechanical perception. Male infants show a stronger interest in mechanical objects, while female infants show a stronger interest in the face." She concluded that "The differences were large: the boys were more than twice as likely to prefer the mobile." How did the data in fact pan out? Ignoring the small sample size and some other methodological failures, a graphical representation of the results purporting to demonstrate behavioural differences based on sex would seem to be rather underwhelming, to put it kindly.