A piece back I posted about a study of how newborn infants reacted to certain stimuli within the first day after birth. The study found that girl babies were more attracted to faces above their crimbs even at this very early age, while boy babies were more attractice to mobiles hanging above their cribs. This was congruent with the long-standing observation that in certain respects girls are more drawn to personal and boys to impersonal things, as when girls are more interested later in childhood in playing with dolls while boy are more interested in playing with cars.
Even though this study was one at only one day of age, an extreme "sex doesn’t matter" type might claim that it was nevertheless some form of covert socialization in the first day after birth that produced the difference.
This claim, of course, would be insane. Children one day old cannot be socialized–certainly not in so subtle a manner. The neurology the need for that kind of socialization just ain’t there yet.
But lest we leave a stone unturned, let’s try a similar experiment with vervet monkeys.
Only we don’t have to, ’cause someone already did.
EXCERPT:
Several intriguing behavioral studies add to the evidence that some sex differences in the brain arise before a baby draws its first breath. Through the years, many researchers have demonstrated that when selecting toys, young boys and girls part ways. Boys tend to gravitate toward balls or toy cars, whereas girls more typically reach for a doll. But no one could really say whether those preferences are dictated by culture or by innate brain biology.
To address this question, Melissa Hines of City University London and Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University turned to monkeys, one of our closest animal cousins. The researchers presented a group of vervet monkeys with a selection of toys, including rag dolls, trucks and some gender-neutral items such as picture books. They found that male monkeys spent more time playing with the "masculine" toys than their female counterparts did, and female monkeys spent more time interacting with the playthings typically preferred by girls. Both sexes spent equal time monkeying with the picture books and other gender-neutral toys.
Because vervet monkeys are unlikely to be swayed by the social pressures of human culture, the results imply that toy preferences in children result at least in part from innate biological differences. This divergence, and indeed all the anatomical sex differences in the brain, presumably arose as a result of selective pressures during evolution. In the case of the toy study, males–both human and primate–prefer toys that can be propelled through space and that promote rough-and-tumble play. These qualities, it seems reasonable to speculate, might relate to the behaviors useful for hunting and for securing a mate. Similarly, one might also hypothesize that females, on the other hand, select toys that allow them to hone the skills they will one day need to nurture their young.
Incidentally, the "what baby monkeys like to play with" difference is only one of a number of interesting sex-based mental differences the article discusses–both among different kinds of animals and among humans.
Post Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc
There are ganglions in the eye that exist for the soul purpose of face shape recognition and there are ganglions in the eye that are made for the recognition of lines, diagonals, and other shapes. It has been shown that these mature at different rates in boys and girls.
It might not be that girls are more attracted to such things at an early age but that boys cannot see them as well as girls.
sorry meant ‘sole purpose’ not ‘soul purpose’
I think the reason a lot of people don’t like this kind of study is that they think it gives others an excuse to say that women should be “barefoot and pregnant” and stay out of traditionally male areas, which is not the case. It seems to be a defensive knee-jerk on the part of some, though others really do want to believe that there can be NO differences between men’s and women’s brains.
My wife and I have one child of each sex (and are open to more). I can tell you that they were different right from the start.
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc” isn’t really applicable. The claim of the study is that, as a matter of empirical fact, infant boys and infant girls show different levels of interest relative to one another in looking at faces vs. looking at mechanical shapes. What you’re offering is one possible speculative rationale for why this is the case, i.e., people prefer looking at things they can see better. You’re not offering an alternative interpretation of the (claimed) empirical data. The final sentence of your post is a false dichotomy.
Really? If you’d said there were nerve centers in the brain with these specializations, that wouldn’t have surprised me, but I didn’t know this kind of specialization existed at the level of the eye. Can you document this?
Incidentally, Shib, any thoughts on the findings of the current study, i.e., that boy monkeys like boy toys and girl monkeys like girl toys?
The killed off Trip?
The only reason I had dolls to play with was because my family bought them for me…before too long I had shorn their heads and bitten their little plastic hands down to the knuckle…however, I played for hours with my brothers ‘Action Man’ figures (someone once pointed out to me that in the U.S they are known as G.I Joe’s, I think ?)and I never once had a similar inclination…I can’t afford therapy, figure me out for free and send me an email 😀
God Bless
Actually, it was their hair that was shorn as opposed to their ‘heads’. It’s typo central when ukok’s around…amazes me that I still haven’t been ousted by the pet peevers 😛
God Bless.
See, that’s the thing. These are meant to be general statistics, not rules. Girls tend to play with dolls and stuff, guys tend to play with trucks, but an individual may do anything. I was not a typical boy, I guess. Quiet, artistic and not interested much in sports. I did like to draw spaceships, cars, superheroes and other “guy” stuff, though.
In my humble opinion, we focus way too much these days on gender differences. We are actually much, much more similar than we are different. This IS undeniable. I’m not saying we’re the same, I’m saying we’re much much more similar than we are different. Concentrating on differences shows our susceptibility to the “availability heuristic”. What’s different tends to sticks out in our minds the most and we tend to generalize from this fault of ours. In some measures, we’re well above 90%-95% similar (wish I could find those studies now!) in areas where you’d expect much wider gaps.
The second thing I am cautious about is drawing too many unnecessary conclusions from these studies and then, creating rules or interpretations about a gender’s role is supposed to be (heh, and then calling it a “right” to be masculine or feminine), and then looking at statistical outliars as deficient in some way.
I assure you, I’m perfectly healthy, but I was always a tomboy. I played with boys, bugs, animals and waterguns, loved going fishing, and built forts–you get the idea–and I wasn’t the least bit interested in dolls. I’m uncomfortable in a dress and heels. I played guitar in rock bands. I continue to be interested in geek culture and read Slashdot every day. I like Star Wars. And I’m very happily married and heterosexual.
Whenever it was when the Vatican came out with a message about the nurturing feminine nature, I thought, “I must not be a woman, then!” ;-). Not to be a buzzkill here for those who revel in differences, but I was made this way too, probably for a reason, so I would be wary of focusing too much on differences and generalizing from them, because even though outliars are outliars, there are a whole lot of us out there who don’t fit into binary buckets! We are overlooked in this race to “prove” how different the genders are, and excluded when a generalization or teaching is made about genders, and marginalized when there are millions of us. Is it really wise to take such a simple approach to understanding human beings? And aren’t the inherent virtues of either gender supposed to be encouraged to a point in *both* genders? (A father with no will to be a nurturing parent isn’t going to be a good father).
Women-folk never understand why I leave their table to go join the “guys” table, and don’t understand why I show no interest in their babies, and I get grief for all kinds of things to the point where I don’t even enjoy socializing with new people who don’t know me well anymore.
We otherwise perfectly “normal”, heterosexual outliars get enough grief as it is from people who can’t understand, so please be careful not to overlook our dignity and the way we were made, and please also spend some time concentrating on how genders are similar (because we really, really are VERY similar) rather than letting differences create unnecessary division in roles and attitudes. We can’t be neglectful in our pursuits.
Also consider that studies about babies can be flawed. It can be such that certain X-Y chromosome combinations facilitate the development of a trait more quickly in one gender, and then the other gender *catches up later*. We don’t know that this isn’t actually the case. Do we look at adolescent girls who are taller and conclude that women were meant to be taller? 😉 However tempting it is to look for scientific (and moral) grounds upon which we call “masculine” and “feminine” what we call them, let’s be very careful not oversimplify things.
Many thanks for listening.
Hi, Lurker,
It’s nice to meet another woman like me. I have never understood the attraction for babies. I enjoy teaching children, but often find myself more inclined to the boys rather than the girls.
I also find myself working in a male dominated field (chemistry) and having a ball.
I also agree with you that we need to be careful about generalizing about the genders.
Hi, Lurker,
It’s nice to meet another woman like me. I have never understood the attraction for babies. I enjoy teaching children, but often find myself more inclined to the boys rather than the girls.
I also find myself working in a male dominated field (chemistry) and having a ball.
I also agree with you that we need to be careful about generalizing about the genders.
Hi Anna, it’s nice to be understood. 🙂
If I may point out another thing — it seems significant to me that I’ve been told more than a few times by guys that I seem like an ideal gal. I have been told that I’m “cool”, and not like other women in a good way, etc. I’ve only gotten reinforcement from guy friends who have gotten to know me.
So I’m becoming increasingly convinced that women and men may in *general* tend towards certain traits–MAYBE–but that we’re also meant to work on becoming more similar even if this is the case. I brought up the example of a non-nurturing father being a lousy father. I can think of another example — a widowed mother who needs to develop some what we want to call “masculine” traits in order to fight to support her family. To a degree, overcoming nature and developing ourselves further towards convergence seems to be the ideal goal, not passively accepting gifts and shortcomings as The Way Things Are, Period.
I also happened to meet my wonderful husband who–maybe thanks to God’s wonderful providence–is very masculine and makes up for what I “lack” (sic) in the traditionally feminine area of nurturance. Oh he loves kids and will entertain other people’s kids at parties for hours. 🙂 We complete each other in many ways, and not always in the ways one would traditionally think.
Steven,
I will give you a short answer because it is impossible to answer this without getting into too much of a discourse on science proper. My comments on post hoc ergo propter hoc is related to the inference of the causal antecedent and not on the empirical data. This study has some scientific experimental aspects but it still only stands as a correlation study. Correlational studies do not uncover causality.
In regards to monkeys and preference of behavior, I just have not had time to look into this study. Some of this could be social learning but I would guess that some of this is hard wired. One needs only to look at ants to know that there are definite hard wired gender roles in animals. We are a bit more complex but most of our sexual tendencies reside in hind brain sections such as the hypothalamus. Ants do not have a hypothalamus but most mammals do – and this is part of the brain that is not subject to much change due to environment after birth.
They have found that if you subject a pregnant rat to extreme stress that their male offspring tend to exhibit homosexual behaviors. Autopsy further shows a change in the hypothalamus of these rats.
Dear readers, first time writting an opinion on a posting. Thank you Lurker. Nice to know other people like us. I was watching Nova when a neurologist discribed me. I was so greatful. I now knew why I was always so different; I am a tomboy. However I like sex with men, and it took me awhile to realize that I was naturally highly sexual. So where my parents. Wonder if thats to do with the extra testrone I have). I never played with dolls loved building things and risk taking. My poor very tall brothers must have suffered a good deal as I out did them in sports and other boy things. Dressed like a girl in London and liked it it for a time been. I have always attracted men who are sensitive. However after great sex I just want to roll over and sleep and they want to talk about how wonderful the world is!
Came to S.California where I belong. I love wearing shorts, surfing and speeding around on my bicycle. I am a tomboy again which feels like the real me. However I do like sexy dresses occassionally but less and less as time goes by.
It has always been men who have influnced me and opened doors for my advancement. All my best friends and hero’s are men-except womem like Kathern Hepburn. Never felt emotional about womens lib. Never wanted babies but like teaching children with a preferance for boy students. I can relate to them. I think like a man, but have a lot of empathy. I understand men more-most of the time.
Girls who talk about long finger nails and who like to shop, eh gads, I run for cover.
Lucky to be in this age where science has set me free.
Lurker, Pauline, well said! I have know a number of women of the type you are/describe, in fact I have been married to one for a bit over twenty five years. Her strength has stood her in good stead, and not just to put up with me. Nine years ago she was diagnosed with stage 3B breast cancer and five years ago it metastatasized to her liver. According to statictics she should have lived 4-8 months. She is still receiving treatment, but is doing fine, thank God.
Albergo bologna.
Albergo bologna. Albergo atlantic, bologna.