Free to Be Me Childrearing

[Coito ergo sum]

I was never really much into diamonds. I much prefer colored stones, garnets especially. Those chocolate diamonds are nice though. Besides if I want or need a clear stone, CZ is good enough.

BTW, I have only ever had jewelry bought for me by a man one time. Otherwise I buy for myself or received it from my mother or grandmother. All my rings have gone missing, and I highly suspect it was a man who took them.

Therefore, men and women generally like diamonds about equally.

You colored it differently in the post that I was responding to. You said:

As for diamonds, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether there is a genetic reason for women to be so overwhelmingly fond of diamonds, far more than men are.

[Overwhelmingly fond] is not equitable to [generally about equally].

Yes, I know. I was being facetious, because stating your particular preference for one thing or another has not much at all to do with whether there is a demonstrable difference between the sexes.

Like, if one was to say, "the statistics show that women own and wear 98% of the dresses and skirts in America - I wonder why that gender difference exists." And, then a guy chimes in and says, "I wear nothing but dresses, and hate pants." So what? It doesn't change the overall tendency.

If women in western cultures are overwhelmingly fond of diamonds in contrast to men in western cultures, it is cultural and not genetic. The only factor that could be genetic would a fondness for bling.

It could be cultural, and by there being a genetic cause for a fondness for diamonds I was talking about a general genetic cause, and not necessarily a gene for diamonds in particular to the exclusion of all other jewels or jewelry. Perhaps there is something akin to the in-born tendency of babies to look at pretty faces instead of ugly faces that is in men and women to fixate or focus or prefer shiny things or adornments. In the case of diamonds and jewels, I expect most of it is environmental - if I had to bet. However, there does appear to me to be a greater tendency of very young girls to gravitate towards the shiny/jewelry/adornment items that I wonder if there isn't some overarching genetic or in-born predilection towards such things.

[Coito ergo sum]

or maybe MEN find diamonds desirable, and since they also find women desirable decided to put the two together? or they did not think of what the woman wanted and just decorated them with sparklies that they kept anyway since they could be sold for a nice price at need?

Again, that makes no sense because if men found diamonds as desirable as women do, then men would buy diamonds for themselves and ask for them as gifts, as much as women do. They don't. The market for diamonds is aimed at women, regardless of who is actually doing the purchasing, because it is women who either buy for themselves or receive as gifts the overwhelmingly vast majority of diamonds.

Do men, in general, "like" jewelry as much as women do?

Not in my experience. My experience is consistent with women having overflowing jewelry boxes, generally wearing multiple pieces of jewelry of varying types, and shopping for and talking about adornments far more often and in far more detail than men ever do. Generally speaking, of course.

And isn't it attributable to enculturation--jewelry is investment. It has economic value and imparts social status beyond being "pretty". Men give it to women to woo and keep them.

Attributable? Yes.

Also women wear it to enhance their attractiveness because doing that is important to the mating game and one would want to be a contender in the game.


I forgot to mention, in addition to garnets, I love opals too. But I would never pair opals with clear stones.

If we're talking about our personal preferences, there isn't a single jewel or gemstone that I "love." As I guy, it never occurred to me to "love" or even really be all that interested in such things. I find shopping for jewelry tedious and pointless, and I find the entire industry a complete waste of money.

Why would I wear a bracelet ever? A watch, sure, but that has utility, and frankly, since we all started carrying phones around I found myself wearing watches less and less and rarely do anymore.

[Warren Dew]

Again, that makes no sense because if men found diamonds as desirable as women do, then men would buy diamonds for themselves and ask for them as gifts, as much as women do.

What sense would that make? If I wore the diamonds myself, I wouldn't get to see them except when I had a mirror handy. It's far better to put them on my wife, so they can enhance my enjoyment of her beauty. Fortunately my wife plays along with it, rather than admitting to the true feminine preference for motorcycles and dirt.

[Coito ergo sum]

Again, that makes no sense because if men found diamonds as desirable as women do, then men would buy diamonds for themselves and ask for them as gifts, as much as women do.

What sense would that make? If I wore the diamonds myself, I wouldn't get to see them except when I had a mirror handy.

Rings? Bracelets? Can't be seen except in mirrors?

Women love diamonds, so they wear them. Why would men loving diamonds mean that men would predominantly buy them for others so they can see them walking around? And, what sense does that make at all - I love diamonds so I'm going to buy them for someone else so that when that other person decides to wear them and is around me I can see the jewels?

It's far better to put them on my wife, so they can enhance my enjoyment of her beauty. Fortunately my wife plays along with it, rather than admitting to the true feminine preference for motorcycles and dirt.

I'll take your word for it.

[Gallstones]

or maybe MEN find diamonds desirable, and since they also find women desirable decided to put the two together? or they did not think of what the woman wanted and just decorated them with sparklies that they kept anyway since they could be sold for a nice price at need?

Again, that makes no sense because if men found diamonds as desirable as women do, then men would buy diamonds for themselves and ask for them as gifts, as much as women do. They don't. The market for diamonds is aimed at women, regardless of who is actually doing the purchasing, because it is women who either buy for themselves or receive as gifts the overwhelmingly vast majority of diamonds.

Do men, in general, "like" jewelry as much as women do?

Not in my experience. My experience is consistent with women having overflowing jewelry boxes, generally wearing multiple pieces of jewelry of varying types, and shopping for and talking about adornments far more often and in far more detail than men ever do. Generally speaking, of course.

You know who is always more interested in my rings, what they are, what the stone is, where I got them from?----men.

Maybe they are just making conversation.

It is difficult for me to have this conversation with you because you insist on making generalizations and I don't fit the generalizations and can't speak to the generalizations since I am not the generalizations. I only have my own preferences and experiences to go by. And I am not some freak of nature. I keep the third eye hidden by long hair, I pluck the curly black hair that grows out of my mole, and camouflage the hump with shoulder pads.

And isn't it attributable to enculturation--jewelry is investment. It has economic value and imparts social status beyond being "pretty". Men give it to women to woo and keep them.

I think I would love even a diamond, not because it was a diamond, but love it more for having been given it than having bought it.

[Gallstones]

Again, that makes no sense because if men found diamonds as desirable as women do, then men would buy diamonds for themselves and ask for them as gifts, as much as women do.

What sense would that make? If I wore the diamonds myself, I wouldn't get to see them except when I had a mirror handy.

Rings? Bracelets? Can't be seen except in mirrors?

Women love diamonds, so they wear them. Why would men loving diamonds mean that men would predominantly buy them for others so they can see them walking around? And, what sense does that make at all - I love diamonds so I'm going to buy them for someone else so that when that other person decides to wear them and is around me I can see the jewels?

Yes actually, because what you see is verification of your affection and regard for the woman and your economic status.

[Coito ergo sum]

or maybe MEN find diamonds desirable, and since they also find women desirable decided to put the two together? or they did not think of what the woman wanted and just decorated them with sparklies that they kept anyway since they could be sold for a nice price at need?

Again, that makes no sense because if men found diamonds as desirable as women do, then men would buy diamonds for themselves and ask for them as gifts, as much as women do. They don't. The market for diamonds is aimed at women, regardless of who is actually doing the purchasing, because it is women who either buy for themselves or receive as gifts the overwhelmingly vast majority of diamonds.

Do men, in general, "like" jewelry as much as women do?

Not in my experience. My experience is consistent with women having overflowing jewelry boxes, generally wearing multiple pieces of jewelry of varying types, and shopping for and talking about adornments far more often and in far more detail than men ever do. Generally speaking, of course.

You know who is always more interested in my rings, what they are, what the stone is, where I got them from?----men.

Maybe they are just making conversation.

Most likely answer: Finding out what you like, so he can buy the right thing as a gift at a later date.

It is difficult for me to have this conversation with you because you insist on making generalizations and I don't fit the generalizations and can't speak to the generalizations since I am not the generalizations.

That's the whole idea of a generalization. Very often an individual does not fit into a generalization. That doesn't invalidate the generalization.

If it invalidated a generalization for one person to say "but, I don't like that," then there would be no statistics of any kind. Marketing firms rely on generalizations all the time. Will women buy this thing or that thing - should we market towards men or women -- what age group should we market to - etc. Tiffany's generalizes and markets their jewelry predominantly to women because they think that women want their jewelry more than men - if they thought men wanted it, they'd be like "Craftsman Power Tools" and market their jewelry to men.

I only have my own preferences and experiences to go by. And I am not some freak of nature. I keep the third eye hidden by long hair, I pluck the curly black hair that grows out of my mole, and camouflage the hump with shoulder pads.

Are you disputing that in general women like jewelry more than men? Is that something you really take issue with? Sure, I know that rap stars and Italian mob guys like da bling - but, is it really that controversial to suggest that women - generally speaking - not saying all or every single one of them - but generally speaking - women like jewelry more than men?

I mean - they wear it more - they own more of it - by an overwhelming majority. Why is that? Because men and women are equally likely to buy or want jewelry?

That reality doesn't make you a freak of nature or say anything at all about you in particular.

[Coito ergo sum]

Again, that makes no sense because if men found diamonds as desirable as women do, then men would buy diamonds for themselves and ask for them as gifts, as much as women do.

What sense would that make? If I wore the diamonds myself, I wouldn't get to see them except when I had a mirror handy.

Rings? Bracelets? Can't be seen except in mirrors?

Women love diamonds, so they wear them. Why would men loving diamonds mean that men would predominantly buy them for others so they can see them walking around? And, what sense does that make at all - I love diamonds so I'm going to buy them for someone else so that when that other person decides to wear them and is around me I can see the jewels?

Yes actually, because what you see is verification of your affection and regard for the woman and your economic status.

Yes, but the fact remains that the guy buys diamonds and jewelry for a woman because the woman likes them. If women overwhelmingly liked something else, and didn't care for diamonds and jewels, than something else would be that sign of affection and economic status.

[maiforpeace]

You know CES? there are days you might want to hit the G spot and try thinking instead of fucking.

We can talk about something else if this topic is too off-putting to you.

I've not in any way insulted you, attacked you or been anything other than to the point regarding the various issues being discussed. If you can't engage in a discussion without casting aspersions, then perhaps you ought not be in the "General Serious Discussion & Philosophy" section of the forum.

To accuse you of fucking instead of thinking is an aspersion? I'd say that's a compliment coming from the man who's always ready for an opportunity to fuck.

[Warren Dew]

I have boy and girl twins. We dressed them differently from birth, but long before they seemed to care about (or even notice) how they were dressed it had become obvious how different their personalities were. The boy is very boyish, the girl is very girlish, since they were babies. And they shared the same bedroom up until they were three, had access to the same toys in the same playroom, watched the same cartoons together, read the same bedtime stories together, etc. But they began selecting different toys and wanting to watch different cartoons and read different books on their own. My wife and I didn't verbally encourage any preferences at all, although I think we might have if it became obvious that one of them had no idea what his/her gender was. Never once did we say "Jack, why do you want to read that Strawberry Shortcake book? That's for girls", or "Skyler, put that matchbox car down, only boys play with those." Sometimes they pick out things which are normally preferred by the other gender and we're just fine with it. Most times they don't, and that's just the way it is.

I think the conscious guiding as I mentioned we do is unusual. Most people are like you - they don't do any conscious guiding. They just do what everyone else does.

That doesn't mean that the results are genetically determined, however. It means the kids follow exactly the route the average kid in the culture follows - taking subconscious cues from the clothing you do assign, emulating the same sex parent, and taking cultural cues from the television you allow them to watch and the books you read to them and allow them to read.

The posts in this thread amply illustrate that different people have very different views of what's "boyish" and what's "girlish". Your use of those terms, rather than more objective descriptions, shows that your children are following your own preconceptions of "boyish" and "girlish" - which again indicates they are taking cues from you.

Now, I would agree that there are some sex linked personality tendencies. There is scientific evidence that male humans engage in stronger exploratory behavior, for example. Our boy is certainly more assertive in his exploration and experimentation than our girl was at the same age - she was very careful with everything she touched, while he is happy to break things. However, to get from very general traits like that to the specifics we observe in our culture like "boys like cars" and "girls like jewelry" has more to do with our cultural environment than with anything genetically ingrained.

Which reminds me: Coito, you asked about cultures where the men wear makeup. Picts and certain native American tribes would be the obvious examples.

[Coito ergo sum]

O.k. - war paint is not the same thing as "make up." But, Soldiers often wear paint for camoflage and to inspire fear, etc.

The idea that people are gender neutral at birth, and that gender assignment depends on environment, culture or interactions after birth exclusively, seems implausible to me.

Take the case of David Reimer - who had gender reassignment because of a botched circumcision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer and http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... girl.shtml

I'm not suggesting that there is a gene for "boys like cars." I'm suggesting that tendencies to engage in what we generally consider masculine behavior and feminine behavior may be linked to broader issues that are genetic. For example, if boys are naturally more competitive than girls, than that would explain the greater interest that men tend to have in sports, or the greater tendency to be ambitious that men seem to have. That kind of thing.

I think it is no more controversial to say that men have dicks, than to say that the male brain is different than the female brain. And, if the brains are different, then one would expect different behaviors. At least it doesn't appear to be unreasonable to think so.

I don't think we're all that far apart on this issue, once emotions are removed from debate...

[Warren Dew]

The idea that people are gender neutral at birth, and that gender assignment depends on environment, culture or interactions after birth exclusively, seems implausible to me.

Take the case of David Reimer - who had gender reassignment because of a botched circumcision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer and http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... girl.shtml

"At birth" and "at 22 months" are rather different. 22 months is after the point where I suspect sexual imprinting occurs in humans. Imprinting cannot generally be reversed after it happens, so the fact that the "gender reassignment" failed is not surprising if the original gender assignment happened due to imprinting.

I'm not suggesting that there is a gene for "boys like cars." I'm suggesting that tendencies to engage in what we generally consider masculine behavior and feminine behavior may be linked to broader issues that are genetic. For example, if boys are naturally more competitive than girls, than that would explain the greater interest that men tend to have in sports, or the greater tendency to be ambitious that men seem to have. That kind of thing.

"More ambitious" and even "more likely to argue on the internet" I would believe. Team sports, I am not so sure. You're competing with the other team, but you're cooperating with your own team, so competitiveness would not necessarily be more conducive to sports than cooperation would be.

Personally, I suspect the explanation in the case of sports is physical. While all humans have larger legs than arms, this is more true of females than males. Greater upper body development likely makes males better at most sports, from boxing to basketball, which require upper as well as lower body strength. It used to be that females tended to gravitate to dance, which doesn't require much if any upper body strength, making the female build more optimal. These days, with title 7 dictating spending on women's sports, the girls gravitate to soccer, which again is largely a lower body activity.

[Mr.Samsa]

I have boy and girl twins. We dressed them differently from birth, but long before they seemed to care about (or even notice) how they were dressed it had become obvious how different their personalities were. The boy is very boyish, the girl is very girlish, since they were babies. And they shared the same bedroom up until they were three, had access to the same toys in the same playroom, watched the same cartoons together, read the same bedtime stories together, etc. But they began selecting different toys and wanting to watch different cartoons and read different books on their own. My wife and I didn't verbally encourage any preferences at all, although I think we might have if it became obvious that one of them had no idea what his/her gender was. Never once did we say "Jack, why do you want to read that Strawberry Shortcake book? That's for girls", or "Skyler, put that matchbox car down, only boys play with those." Sometimes they pick out things which are normally preferred by the other gender and we're just fine with it. Most times they don't, and that's just the way it is.

I think the conscious guiding as I mentioned we do is unusual. Most people are like you - they don't do any conscious guiding. They just do what everyone else does.

That doesn't mean that the results are genetically determined, however. It means the kids follow exactly the route the average kid in the culture follows - taking subconscious cues from the clothing you do assign, emulating the same sex parent, and taking cultural cues from the television you allow them to watch and the books you read to them and allow them to read.

The posts in this thread amply illustrate that different people have very different views of what's "boyish" and what's "girlish". Your use of those terms, rather than more objective descriptions, shows that your children are following your own preconceptions of "boyish" and "girlish" - which again indicates they are taking cues from you.

Now, I would agree that there are some sex linked personality tendencies. There is scientific evidence that male humans engage in stronger exploratory behavior, for example. Our boy is certainly more assertive in his exploration and experimentation than our girl was at the same age - she was very careful with everything she touched, while he is happy to break things. However, to get from very general traits like that to the specifics we observe in our culture like "boys like cars" and "girls like jewelry" has more to do with our cultural environment than with anything genetically ingrained.

Which reminds me: Coito, you asked about cultures where the men wear makeup. Picts and certain native American tribes would be the obvious examples.

Exactly. Even if Ian and his wife were aware of enough of their behavior to eliminate any kind of conditioning (impossible of course, but we'll assume it for the sake of the argument), it would be impossible to ensure that no extended family members or friends treated them differently. Since the twins were dressed differently, we'd observe the standard Bandura response, which is where babies dressed in pink are spoken to softly, coddled and swayed, given dolls to play with etc, whereas babies dressed in blue are not usually given much eye contact, spoken to in short sentences/commands, and are generally 'thrown around' or rough-housed with (in so far as you can be 'rough' with a baby). The fact is simply that whether we want to admit it or not, we treat boys and girls extremely differently from the moment of birth, and this vast amount of training they receive in the first few hours, days, weeks, months will inevitably produce massive behavioral differences.

I don't understand how people can ignore this amount of training. It's similar to discussions on language where people talk about how their kid just 'picked up language without any prompting' or 'he did it spontaneously!', as if the huge amount of training that children receive in language from the moment of birth never happened.

The idea that people are gender neutral at birth, and that gender assignment depends on environment, culture or interactions after birth exclusively, seems implausible to me.

Take the case of David Reimer - who had gender reassignment because of a botched circumcision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer and http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... girl.shtml

"At birth" and "at 22 months" are rather different. 22 months is after the point where I suspect sexual imprinting occurs in humans. Imprinting cannot generally be reversed after it happens, so the fact that the "gender reassignment" failed is not surprising if the original gender assignment happened due to imprinting.

Definitely, that's more than enough time - not to mention the fact that the parents and close family were aware of his original sex, so he wouldn't have been treated like a normal girl. However, it's important to note that David didn't come to see himself as male eventually, he only switched back to his male name as it represented a time before the botched surgery and before all the abuse he received at the hands of his psychologist, John Money.

[Gallstones]

The Wodaabe


New Guinea


Maori

[floppit]

I think watching our own kids is a lousy way to understand gender development. Nothing could be more prone to confirmation bias, we're not only observers but potentially amongst the most powerful influence and this has to be a dangerous mix when attempting to draw conclusion from our own observations of our own kids.

I nearly waxed lyrical about how my girl out climbs boys often years older than her, or that she compliments a woman's dress, prettiness but never tells a man they are pretty, that she announces she's strong or tells people her mummy is strong, that she didn't wear pink but did where girls clothes - oh god, everyone knows just how long this list could go on!

While I thought about it I remembered going from working yards and farms into uni at 23, my bewilderment that strength in females wasn't admired as it is in the jobs I'd come from where physical strength and stamina does nothing to detract from femininity, or at least if it does there's no comment. Weak and useless went hand in hand, girls/women openly rejected by males if they were unable to shift heavy loads, work physically for 16 hour stretches come haymaking. At uni, in the climbing club, girls who giggled and said they couldn't weren't admired as climbers but were 'fancied', I got admired as a climber but told I was scary as I held my own.

See that's the thing, I raised her, I view her, and even the temptation to draw conclusions from that reminds me of so many things which will effect both my raising and my viewing.

There's an amazing classic study where parents have to set a slope to the maximum they believe their crawling tot can cope with (downhill!). Parents of girls under rated their ability consistently and parents of boys similarly over rated what they could do. I'd happily reference but right now Google is swamped by the news story of this thread - suddenly searching gender and experiment with baby gets nothing beyond headlines. Sad, but indicative of popular approach.