How Girls and Boys Play

[Umbran]

I'm not sure I agree with this exactly. It's a fine line. When my son plays...

Moreover, it is a *tendency*. It may be, in aggregate, over several instances of play in the long term, boys will spend more time 3rd person and girls more time 1st person. This does not speak to specific times or specific individuals. It doesn't mean no boys ever do 1st person, or that none of them ever drift from one PoV to another.

A toy sold to the masses is generally going to be built to the law of averages, not to the anecdote, so to speak.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Weird. I am female and me and my sister (who unlike me is very girly pink-pretty-fashion-loving-type) both played in 3rd person, and it was my brother who used more 1st person. You sure they didn't get it opposite results for what is common.

 

[Janx]

Moreover, it is a *tendency*. It may be, in aggregate, over several instances of play in the long term, boys will spend more time 3rd person and girls more time 1st person. This does not speak to specific times or specific individuals. It doesn't mean no boys ever do 1st person, or that none of them ever drift from one PoV to another.

A toy sold to the masses is generally going to be built to the law of averages, not to the anecdote, so to speak.

I agree.

I do find it maddening when discussing a study about general trends about how purple people tend to have more blumonomin in their skin that reacts with the red blood cells, and somebody chimes in with "No way! my cousin who's quarter purpolite looks totally white and that's a colorist stereotype!'

generalities are about the majority of the population group. Exceptions, while interesting, are outside the discussion zone. Individuals always exhibit variance and deviation. While interesting, pointing them out to prove a point merely reveals that you don't the concept of statistics.


Therefore, in the case of "girls prefer beauty", the debatable point is not about how your kid isn't like that. It's about the general assessment of girls in general, and whether that is an accurate generalization of the group.



On the topic of BG's kid not playing with Legos:
Sorry to hear he doesn't dig making stuff. Maybe he just doesn't have the Knack. I'm not sure can force him into playing with a toy. My experience with everything I've done that I'm good at or enjoy is that I just gravitate towards it. If he isn't drawn to Legos, my default conclusion is, he isn't drawn to building things.

 

[Janx]

Weird. I am female and me and my sister (who unlike me is very girly pink-pretty-fashion-loving-type) both played in 3rd person, and it was my brother who used more 1st person. You sure they didn't get it opposite results for what is common.

there's always exceptions. There's also the filter of the observer.

Some folks would not describe my wife as very girly. Yet others would say she is very girly. So which is it?

For either of the external observers, they only see one aspect of her in their relationship to her.

Who's right?

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Dunno what you mean. Some's behavior is easy to tell, both in kids and adults. Some people are harder to observe. Some kids talk aloud when they play, some only talk in their head. I have no idea if my experiences are unusual or is their date wrong. I woudn't be suprised, many toys have failed especially games that were meant for girls. This makes me feel that their research sucks. Or maybe they get one thing wrong and even if one fact is right.

Even medical researh can't agree if something is healthy. Everything changes. While back people still believed Froud (sp) psychology worked, and people were treated with it, and well, it was really placebo at best.

Most people I know are complicated. Sometimes even basic qualities don't seem to match.

Some people have more of habit to get into "social roleplaying" you know "there is this work me, and this family me, and parent me and spouse me and friend group A me and friend group B me and alone is me me or me I wish to be. If person has tendarcy to assume different social roles when associating with different people naturally it's bit hard to get to know them the same way between the groups.

So to answer to your questiojn Janx, both are right, and bit wrong.

Naturally there is always case of friend's observion skills sucking, or coming from different culture/background. And this background has used to seeing certain things very feminine/masculine/childish/adult/competant/incompetant. So they jump into conclusions. It's a bit like dog-person who assumes exactly similar things about cats.

I have one friend who thinks I am weird and another who says I am perfectly normal person. And I think that tells more about their attitudes than it tells about me.

 

[Umbran]

This makes me feel that their research sucks. Or maybe they get one thing wrong and even if one fact is right.

My understanding is that the research done by Lego referenced here is far above that normally done when creating new toys. It is usually cheaper to just produce a few prototypes or a small production run, and see what happens, than to launch something akin to academic research on the subject.

So, while usually the research done in toy creation is poor to nonexistent, that doesn't speak to this particular element.

I sense a theme...

 

[Lwaxy]

I've always played 3rd person, so did all my friends, boys and girls alike, and so did my son and their friends except one boy.

My son loved pink and sky blue and yellow and played with dolls as well as with cars and trucks and construction toys. He also went babysitting younger kids at early age, always had a protective instinct.

I HATED dolls. Stuffed animals, fine, but the pure idea of playing housewife and mother was appalling to me. It was so everyday boring. We played adventures and went on treasure hunts and had our own space ship build in a tree.

I agree that the genders are different, but it has more of an influence in the ways of solving a problem (or putting on a pullover) than in interests I believe.

 

[Janx]

My understanding is that the research done by Lego referenced here is far above that normally done when creating new toys. It is usually cheaper to just produce a few prototypes or a small production run, and see what happens, than to launch something akin to academic research on the subject.

So, while usually the research done in toy creation is poor to nonexistent, that doesn't speak to this particular element.

I sense a theme...

I would think, given these scientists goal was to analyze kids to better understand them so they could modify the toys to appeal to the kids that they were sort of unbiased in a way.

If you goal is to sell more toys to girls, biasing the results to some predisposed position isn't going to help that. You gotta see what most girls want, then make that kind of toy.

Thus, if you start the study with "girls like pretty" so we have to find evidence that "girls like pretty", you haven't really cracked the nut of "how do change our toys so girls will like them"

oddly enough, profit makes a far more neutral and unbiased observer in this case.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

Ah, but point is these, some of these ideas were wrong, very wrong and hurt sales. Wasted lot of money on product very few were found interesting. Only time (and sales) will tell if they are right. And then there is location/country where product is put into sale. Let's say japan has very different cultural bias for many things, than say europe.

Cultural bias can affect a lot roles of sexes but it can be confusing issue. Plus kids haven't learned cultural bios yet, gender roles little bit, but most important aren't affected by hormonical changes of pre-teen age that Creates more gap between genders. So like I said selling toys, is more created lure for parents and their cultural/gender bias. That's where the money is. But also, parents stop wasting money for stuff, they see kid just ignoring or angryly throw away if pushed to play with it. After all, having kid play happily with something, gives more time for parents to concentrate on other matters.

So anyone with bias to sell must understand synergy between both kids and their parents. I have been working at store and been witness for many discussion of I want/no/shall we get this one instead/no discassions witween kid and adult. And younger children tend to grap something they like and cry if made to give it up. So influlence of choice comes very early into picture.

 

[ssampier]

As a Sociology Major my classes had many discussions regarding gender, sex, and gender roles into society. If I can sum up some of my four years of education into a few words, "It depends." I am not a big fan of determinism, whether in biology (nature) or socialization (nurture).

Some girls have written complaints to Lego about the sexist girl toys offered. The complaint was not about color, but about the idea that just because they are girls they should have passive hairdressers/beauty freaks as figures instead of action types like Buffy or Xena. And my niece complains that she loves the new colors but why aren't they available for building fancy cars or even cranes.

I have yet to hear from a girl buying Legos because of a beauty salon. There are other toys offering that already.

What if a girl wants to make things beautiful, what's wrong with that? This does not need to presume a passive role for the girl. There are many careers that require a sense of aesthetics and design.

I will agree that the, "salon, a horse academy, a veterinary clinic, and a café" seem kinda boring. What is wrong with female firefighters, police officers, Harry Potter wizards, or knights for that matter? That said, I'm not a girl, nor ages 5 and up.

I'd suggest a CSI type set, but I think that may not be age-appropriate.