A recent study by Marianne Taylor of Pacific Lutheran University and her colleagues has been getting a lot of press [1]. In a nutshell, Taylor and colleagues found that children until the age of 10 or so view the behavioral differences between boys and girls, such as their different preferences for playing football or with dolls, as biological ordained as the differences in the behavior of different species, like cats and dogs. The cynic in me, and I’m feeling a little cranky today, would suggest that by the age of 10, kids have just learned to be politically correct.
Okay, I obviously don’t believe that ALL gender-related behavior is biological (I like football and the Legend of Zelda), but I think the cultural/socialization thing popular in the 70s was a huge mistake. Poor Bruce Reimer paid for that mistake with his life.
Vervet Monkeys Aren't Socialized to Prefer Sex-Typed Toys
There is substantial evidence suggesting that toy preferences in monkeys follow the same pattern as in human children, and I don’t think we want to be arguing that monkeys are “socialized” into liking boy or girl toys. Click on the link for a New Scientist video of this research:
Human children begin to prefer sex-typed toys between the ages of 12 and 18 months, yet they are unable at these ages to match sex-typed toys to male or female voices, suggesting that they have not yet learned that the toys are supposed to match one gender or the other [2].
Gloria Steinem has argued that research into sex differences is “anti-American.” Wow. What ever happened to “ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free?”
1. Taylor, M.G., Rhodes, M., & Gelman, S.A. (2009). Boys will be boys; Cows will be cows: Children’s essentialist reasoning about gender categories and animal species. Child Development, 80(2).
2. Serbin, L.A., Poulin-Dubois, D., Colburne, K.A., Sen, M.G., & Eichstedt, J.A. (2001). Gender stereotyping in infancy: Visual preferences for and knowledge of gender-stereotyped toys in the second year. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(1), 7-15.
9 Comments
ljgarcia · May 5, 2009 at 6:09 pm
wow. i never knew that sex preference toys could even be understood from a biological perspective. i always thought that culture and how man was “socialized” was a main contributer to their toy of choice. i think the monkey story proved that. but i also think sometimes we have to draw a fine line between comparing humans and monkeys. i mean just because monkeys cannot be socialized does not mean that we cannot attribute culture to the toy preference for man. i understand the biological point made but some things clearly apply to humans that do not apply to monkeys and socialization is one of them. but i dont know i would love to look into that more and see. very interesting
SamanthaKapheim · May 6, 2009 at 10:57 am
I agree that by the age of 10 and even long before children have generally learned to be politically correct with their toy choice. Not doing so could lead to ridiculing from peers and dismay from many parents. I find that it is more socially acceptable for girls to play with “boys” toys than for boys to play with “girls” toys. For example, I had a huge toy car collection when I was a child that would rival that of most boys but I feel that if a young boy tried to have a doll collection he would be ridiculed endlessly.
genevieve99 · May 6, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I actually read As Nature Made Him after it struck my interest when one of my professors briefly discussed it. I think that his story is the ‘poster story’ for how it isn’t entirely socialization otherwise Bruce would have lived a completely ‘normal’ life as a female. I think the explanation for it is a complicated web that wont ever be undone.
jeffcurry · May 8, 2009 at 11:54 am
“Anti-American”? Nowadays, any scientific study that points out a difference between a man and a woman because of biology is blasphemous, why? Because that is not politically correct. We’re all “equal”. The news of monkey’s preferring the same sex typed toys as humans makes sense to me in my limited understanding (so far) of human biology. I’m theorizing that when not just younger boys but older men see a nice “beefed up” truck, their testosterone level rises. When girls see dolls or makeup or things that can make them prettier, vice versa. Everything happening behind the scenes could easily be the cause of sex typed toys.
Laura Freberg · May 8, 2009 at 12:06 pm
You might find the following video on the Research Channel interesting. Actually, I found the audience’s reaction distracting–people just start squirming as the speaker progresses, especially some of the women:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ecq3OXYZpc&feature=channel_page
I wish we could just talk about such things without getting all defensive. As Steven Pinker says, “Facts aren’t biased.”
Jenniferdonnelly · May 9, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I think there is a lot of truth to the fact that young children choose toys because of their biology. I think it just makes sense when you look at the long history of boys playing with cars and girls playing with dolls. My nephew just turned two, and his mom always made sure to buy him a variety of toys, including dolls. However, his favorites are still cars and trucks and they are what he gravitates too. Even with the option he still continusouly picks the typical “boy” toy.
shaunashea · May 11, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Obviously, I think that the preference for toys is a combination of both biology and environmental influences. However, it is interesting to note that such differences in toy choice were found before a child could truly note the typical male-female stereotypes or associate such with voices.
I work around very small infants (all barely over 1 year) and I see very small differences, if any, by gender. Both boys and girls are equally likely to play with the dolls, however I have noticed the boys are much more interested in the toy cars and trains.
Sierrasmargon · May 21, 2009 at 2:36 pm
it is hard for me to believe that girls are born perfering “pink” and boys are born prefering ” blue”. I work with children ages 2-3 and I constantly see gender schemas being acted out in the classroom. The other day a 3 year old and I were looking at a beta fish sitting in a bowl…and since I am so fascinated by children’s though processes i started asking her questions about it. I asked her “Do you think that the fish is a boy or a girl?” She proceeded to say ” its a girl!!” in a tone that was like duhhh sierra. I continued to ask her how she knew it was a girl. she responded ” because its pink..” I find this completely an environmental influence and can’t see how this could be biological. I see many babies try on pink tu-tu’s in play and I think that if we didn’t dress them in their gender colors and give them gender stereotype colored toys, color preference would be much more mixed.
fgoodwin · June 13, 2009 at 6:03 pm
If your readers want to review the vervet monkey study for themselves, it is available here:
http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/imagingthebody/Handouts/alexander_2002.pdf
Comments are closed.