Dire Bare
Legend
Have you priced LEGOs lately? Start saving now! I advise opening a college savings account for each child you hope to have someday, and a second LEGO savings account for each child as well!
How Girls and Boys Play
- Thread starter mmadsen
- Start date
Have you priced LEGOs lately? Start saving now! I advise opening a college savings account for each child you hope to have someday, and a second LEGO savings account for each child as well!
Some time ago, I read an article about an horrible accident that turned into an gender psychology observation.
a couple had just had twin boys. The hospital uses some scary cauterizing tool to de-tip them (for the life of me, can't think of the bloody word).
There was an accident and one boy got a full burn. The solution was to finish the job and call him a girl because they did not think that genetics mattered, only environment. This was all disclosed to the family (not some super secret I thought I had 2 boys tale).
What was discovered quite readily, was that you can dress a boy up in girls clothes, give them girl toys, call them a girl, chop off their parts, and you will get a confused kid who wants to do boy things.
The problem did ultimately get resolved (science and surgery caught up) as the family could tell the plan wasn't working.
whether its genetics or horomones, it is biology. Boys act like boys. Girls act like girls. Barring the exceptions, the generalizations are accurate.
Girls like flowers and pretty things. Boys not so much.
More males care about functionality than they do over form. You can tell by their living conditions, cabling of their TV and x-box, general appearance, etc.
More females care about form than they do over functionality. You can tell by the clothes they where, the concern they have over curtains, paint, etc.
Sure, there's cross-over, and it doesn't mean they're gay. But as a general rule or summary of the majority, girls like pretty. Boys don't care if the lego blocks match in color, unless they have enough to do so.
Circumcise.
re
Considering that for thousands of years mating was based on a female's ability to be physically attractive to a male is shouldn't be a surprise that females would have a more developed sense of beauty and aesthetics than males. Males beauty is an advantage, but never as big a competitive advantage as their ability to provide which is based on intelligence, fighting ability, and physical size. Which is why these traits in males have been fostered and are over-developed in males. Same reason women are generally better at child rearing and nurturing. Their ability to produce and care for children was also an advantage to survival and their ability to attract a quality male.
It is modern "fairy tale" folk as I like to call them that think the genders are equal and don't acknowledge that certain traits are more pronounced in each gender not because of bigotry or socialization, but because of survival. It's always been that way. Though the pressures of survival are not as strong nowadays, so society may change in time. I doubt that a male's ability to provide or a female's ability to make themselves physically attractive will change much for the majority of humans.
Even in the modern day females are still vulnerable while pregant. They still don't like leaving their children to go into the workplace. While a male's ability to be the provider during pregnancy and attachment their ability to provide still drives them. Just because we're modern, doesn't mean our survival sensibilities have changed all that much.
Entire industries are built off our survival sensibilities whether the cosmetic industry for women or the home improvement industyr for men. We are slaves to our primal drives a great deal of the time. The women is still nurturing our little human children and decorating our cave and the man is still building his cave to better provide for and protect his family.
Considering that for thousands of years mating was based on a female's ability to be physically attractive to a male is shouldn't be a surprise that females would have a more developed sense of beauty and aesthetics than males. Males beauty is an advantage, but never as big a competitive advantage as their ability to provide which is based on intelligence, fighting ability, and physical size. Which is why these traits in males have been fostered and are over-developed in males. Same reason women are generally better at child rearing and nurturing. Their ability to produce and care for children was also an advantage to survival and their ability to attract a quality male.
It is modern "fairy tale" folk as I like to call them that think the genders are equal and don't acknowledge that certain traits are more pronounced in each gender not because of bigotry or socialization, but because of survival. It's always been that way. Though the pressures of survival are not as strong nowadays, so society may change in time. I doubt that a male's ability to provide or a female's ability to make themselves physically attractive will change much for the majority of humans.
Even in the modern day females are still vulnerable while pregant. They still don't like leaving their children to go into the workplace. While a male's ability to be the provider during pregnancy and attachment their ability to provide still drives them. Just because we're modern, doesn't mean our survival sensibilities have changed all that much.
Entire industries are built off our survival sensibilities whether the cosmetic industry for women or the home improvement industyr for men. We are slaves to our primal drives a great deal of the time. The women is still nurturing our little human children and decorating our cave and the man is still building his cave to better provide for and protect his family.
Zelda Themelin
First Post
I don't have children, but my close friends have. There is one boy and 3 girls. They have bit different personalities but as age under 5 they don't really show some girl/boy-like qualities and kinda prefer similar toys. Ok, one girl had mostly girly stuff, but when I bought here some legos (Ninjago) she was all over them.
I think parents sometimes brainwash their children into sexual roles way too young by thinking there are girl toys/boy toys. Yes, there are, but important difference comes at later age. Pre-teen. Also children tend to choose their rolemodel from among sisters. That's why my two aunts who were only girls in family of 4 boys have hobbies and professsion mirroring the brothers. Another used to be elecronical engineer and became later political journalist. Another is building houses. And they still got married, had children and are quite feminine.
Hobbies, games, professions don't really gender roles. You do what you learn. And sometimes you might want to do something different. Men's and womens professions were born because of historical burdens and becouse most women aren't so keen to fight over their pay-check or rights. And waste time with petty social competitions with other females. And this has everything to do with those prival drives.
Differences between genders do exist but they do become more apperant when children come into equations, it causes changes that do affect personality and in some cases radically. It even effects males, though it's mentioned less.
Don't forget that we are not really selling gender-roles. We are selling culture. Men and woman are different, but not all of them are so different. There is lot of variation what comes to personalities as well, and some males and females are freaky or overdoing it.
And uh Celtavian, you'd be surprised how much mothers I know love to leave their children to daycare and go wrong. They called period hanging too much close to kid "going crazy if I have to take more of it". My own mother was however that kinda "over-motherly" types. And unhappy with her lot.
There is reason why freedom of choice and education makes less kids born. And women get at it 30+ and only have single child. This is usual in my country. There is this movie Idiocracy. Maybe we educated people should think little less selflisly have some babies for our kind's sake.
But unfortunaly normal working family can't always "afford" child. Chidren are expensive. It's kinda opposite of those countries where they are ticket of bringing food to the table.
I could go on details but it might be too political for en-world.
So we can apperantly for most part ignore those primal drives. Playing home is not for everyone. I don't think it was even in oldie times.
I think parents sometimes brainwash their children into sexual roles way too young by thinking there are girl toys/boy toys. Yes, there are, but important difference comes at later age. Pre-teen. Also children tend to choose their rolemodel from among sisters. That's why my two aunts who were only girls in family of 4 boys have hobbies and professsion mirroring the brothers. Another used to be elecronical engineer and became later political journalist. Another is building houses. And they still got married, had children and are quite feminine.
Hobbies, games, professions don't really gender roles. You do what you learn. And sometimes you might want to do something different. Men's and womens professions were born because of historical burdens and becouse most women aren't so keen to fight over their pay-check or rights. And waste time with petty social competitions with other females. And this has everything to do with those prival drives.
Differences between genders do exist but they do become more apperant when children come into equations, it causes changes that do affect personality and in some cases radically. It even effects males, though it's mentioned less.
Don't forget that we are not really selling gender-roles. We are selling culture. Men and woman are different, but not all of them are so different. There is lot of variation what comes to personalities as well, and some males and females are freaky or overdoing it.
And uh Celtavian, you'd be surprised how much mothers I know love to leave their children to daycare and go wrong. They called period hanging too much close to kid "going crazy if I have to take more of it". My own mother was however that kinda "over-motherly" types. And unhappy with her lot.
There is reason why freedom of choice and education makes less kids born. And women get at it 30+ and only have single child. This is usual in my country. There is this movie Idiocracy. Maybe we educated people should think little less selflisly have some babies for our kind's sake.
But unfortunaly normal working family can't always "afford" child. Chidren are expensive. It's kinda opposite of those countries where they are ticket of bringing food to the table.
I could go on details but it might be too political for en-world.
So we can apperantly for most part ignore those primal drives. Playing home is not for everyone. I don't think it was even in oldie times.
I thought a females mating desirability in the past was primarily based on her parents having a lot of livestock.
Go Daddy commercials are all the proof you need that intelligence isn't overdeveloped in males. Nor is it overdeveloped in most ad execs.
This is why we should strap blades to them like they were dune buggies in The Road Warrior. This would help keep away predators. And it would be manly!
Most of us like food, sex, and good stiff drink (or the equivalent) from time to time.
Do you know many 21st century Western parents, or is this a lot of conjecture?
Last edited:
Bullgrit
Adventurer
Celtavian said:
My wife is a stay-at-home mom, for our children. She picks out furniture and curtains and pictures to make it "homier." I have an office in my home, (to help me provide), with a .30-.30 lever action rifle over my chair, (to help me protectMallus said:
.Bullgrit
Zelda Themelin
First Post
Where I live this would be extremealy unusual. Not to mention different laws here what comes to guns and using them to "protect".
Stay-home-work is very unusual possibility here. So it's not only about children, it's also about you.
Different culture.
Stay-home-work is very unusual possibility here. So it's not only about children, it's also about you.
Different culture.
jmucchiello
Hero
The article did not say the boys would not create stories while they play. It said the girls would tend to put themselves into one of the roles in the story, using one of the toys as an avatar, while the boys would tend to tell the story in the third person.
I'm not sure I agree with this exactly. It's a fine line. When my son plays with a Batman action figure, sometimes he is Batman and sometimes he is controlling Batman. So maybe what they mean is while both boys and girls will assume roles in their play, the role for the girl is herself while the role for the boy is portraying some other character.
Sadly, my son does not have the patience for Lego. He can play a video game for hours. But he has never sat down with Lego and played for more than 15-20 minutes. And he won't play with my old, less specialized Lego. I think I need to push those on him some more. It's been awhile since I tried to get him to play with them.
Similar Threads
