I keep forgetting that we're living in a post-feminist world where sexism is a thing of the past and people aren't judged unfairly based on their perceived sex. I guess everyone can pack up and go home, then.

Maybe they changed the article you're referring to but the linked article is about the stages of child development and the differences between how children of different gender (M/F) reach those stages.

It's written by Anita Stehi, a PhD in clinical psychology from Columbia and completed the Children's Study program at Yale. She's also a research scientist with the Child and Family Policy Center at NYU.

So I guess what I'm saying is really asking a question: Are you stating that you disagree that M/F kids typically have differing stages of development, or that to observe them is enforcing a stereotype? Or is it just improper to report on this?

Or did the article just link wrong?

On a related note: Anyone ever see that Diane Sawyer program about the study on detecting the early developmental differences in adolescent and pre-adolescent gay kids? Even beyond really early developmental milestones the kids who were observed who were queer or even trans adults (they used a lot of old home movies) behaved differently (more in line with the behavior of their opposite sexed peers) than their same sexed peers. I dunno' is this bad to talk about, is it bad if it's true?

It doesn't bother me that they are discussing differences in ages when children reach certain milestones - it's the way in which these are used to reinforce gender stereotypes.

The way that babies and young children are gendered makes me want to TEAR MY HAIR OUT. The only thing that makes me angrier is reading inane articles such as this one. I fucking HATED baby dolls and all that other crap when I was a kid... I hate hearing that I was supposed to love playing at changing diapers or pushing strollers.

I can understand that maybe studies have found some differences in these things, but the way that they are generalized is sickening. I'd like to see the actual studies that this article cited.

*end rant*

I don't really see anything problematic about that article. It is no better to take it as an article of faith that all differences (on average) between the sexes is based on socialization than it is to take it as an article of faith that all differences are the results of genetics. There clearly are physical differences on average, so is it so hard to think that there are indeed underlying emotional/psychological/developmental differences?

Anyway, I think this article uses post-feminism is the more appropriate way. Post-feminism doesn't signal that all is well and good with gender equality, it signals that gender awareness is no longer just for females.

Sebastiana:

If I read you correctly then I agree, gender boxing is just plain bad. It had a big impact on my childhood too, because I was not really exposed to any positive "masculine" male role models as a kid (single mom, pretty much absent dad) the stuff I was around shaped my interests and most of that stuff was not traditionally associated with "boy" behavior. My great aunt still teases me about and incident involving her two boys (my age) and mud pies and me refusing to play and crying because I didn't want to play in the dirt.

But as a person who tries to be dedicated to reason and science I don't believe there is such a thing as "bad data", just the bad use of data. Nobel suffered many years of guilt because of what he believed to be the misuse of his discovery of high explosives which he intended to make mining and construction easier and safer but was most notably used to kill in the name of warfare. Both Einstein and Oppenheimer had similar sentiments about the atomic bomb.

But this kind of data can also serve as a good resource for parents who might think their M/F kid is somehow not developing "normally" because their other M/F child walked/talked/etc at an earlier age.

And that leads to why I mentioned the Diane Sawyer program, this kind of research into early brain development might be an important lever into shattering the illusion still held by many people that being queer or trans is a "choice".

I think the thing that drives me craziest about Lifestyles Section evolutionary psychology is demonstrated early in this article.

Step 1: cite research supporting certain differences (m aptitude for spatial reasoning or f aptitude for facial recognition)

Step 2: somehow extrapolate that to explain pretty much anything ("my daughter is just crazy about shoes!")

It's interesting to me that they chose to illustrate the article with a baby dress in pink (therefore, "girl" according to stereotypes) teaching for the ball over the doll.

The problem is that she completely writes off societal effects. I don't know how she raised her kids, but 18 months is more than enough time for babies to be affected by societal pressures. Nearly every study about "genetic" gender differences is just an indicator of societal gender differences, because our culture's stereotypes are so prevalent and begin so early. And if she's likely to believe that kind of drivel, she's probably raising her son to be active and hands-on, and her daughter to be a passive listener. People create the kind of results they want to see and anyone who writes "Postfeminist" is going to be offering their children non-stereotypical toys as pure lipservice.

Logrus, you and I seem to be in agreement most of the time, I have noticed. I don't have a problem with this article. It says things like boys *tend* to do certain things and girls *are more likely* to do other things. Nowhere does it say anyone *should* be anything other than what they are. My friend has two girls, and the first is obsessed with princesses, the second is not, despite being surrounded by them. To me, this says that while nurture has an impact, nature keeps kids who they are, for the most part.

My question with articles like these, is why is this supposed to be threatening to feminism? I just find it to be research. Yes, if it is used wrong, that is a problem, but the research itself is just data.

What astoundingly piece of shit journalism! The end of the piece made me want to gag, it's such blatant filler. Had this contained any of the lazily and oft-referenced "science" and "data" -- maybe even with some methodology! -- I'd've raised an eyebrow. But although Sethi promises to tell us "what the science says," she never gets any more specific than "a recent survey" (Gee, a survey? So scientific!) or "psychologists at the University of Cambridge." I take this kind of article that purports to meld a dozen or so "studies" into a two-minute read with a catchy headline with a grain of salt.

Also, is any of this really news? No matter how recent her elusive studies may be, I've been hearing these old truisms trotted out since I was preschool age.

Nightingale said: "The problem is that she completely writes off societal effects."

But that isn't true. In the article she said:

"And while 18 months is old enough to have been influenced by stereotyped gifts, research suggests that many of the differences we see are evident from birth, and may even be hardwired."

She doesn't write off anything. And yes, she makes a dumb statement about her kid liking shoes, but that is just dumb writing, not dumb science.

Mama Mia,

"just dumb writing, not dumb science."

It is dumb science writing- and that is a problem. Your average person reading this over coffee isn't going to read the studies cited, they are going to remember bits and pieces of this article and repeat it to their friends, familly and associates.

She used an anecdote that isn't really related to the research she is discussing, but it is one that people will remember. I see this kind of reasoning all the time, so when a scientist gives it authority I do think that is an issue.

I feel like it's nearly impossible to draw any conclusions about the inherent differences between genders in baby's/children's personality and development. From the moment of birth, everyone (particularly parents) treats babies differently depending on their gender in ways they probably aren't even conscious of. Studies have even shown that babies in pink will be held more closely and picked up while babies in blue are more likely to be bounced and left alone when they cry. (Sorry, I know that study is brought up a lot!) The differences in how they are held or spoken to could easily impact when they hit milestones like walking and talking.

That's not to say that there aren't differences between genders. Obviously men and women have some true physical differences. It's just very difficult to say what the differences would be if we weren't subject to social influence every single day of our lives. (It's not exactly ethical or possible to remove babies from society and test their development in a gender-neutral environment).

FuckDecaf:

Would you agree that those people were probably dumb to begin with, and also probably the kind of people to not depend on even vague hints of scientific study to substantiate the conclusions the wish to arrive at?

I don't think this article can actually harm anyone, because even if it is cited incorrectly to substantiate a false belief that citation is easily refuted.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned before, the information can be used by a parent to reassure them that the staged development of their child is completely within reason. There are few creatures with less confidence than the parent of a young child, and preventing them from reading in to the developmental differences of their kids is of primary benefit to those kids.

RE: Mama Mia

You say she doesn't write anything off because of this quote

"And while 18 months is old enough to have been influenced by stereotyped gifts, research suggests that many of the differences we see are evident from birth, and may even be hardwired."

But the article doesn't go on to cite any of that evidence. The study discussed could easily be explained by socialization, so if they are suggesting the differences are inherent, why not include a study that DOES offer evidence its hardwired. It seems worse to me to pretend to address an objection than to just ignore the objections all together.

"If anything, I went out of my way to avoid giving them gender-stereotyped toys, offering glittery finger paint to my son and trains to my daughter. But it didn't matter: My son turned his doll's crib into a race car and my daughter was obsessed with shoes."

Yes, because your son and daughter's only interactions were when you gave them toys. No playing with other children, no watching TV, no day-care. Nope, they were kept in a bubble free of gender stereotypes and yet still conformed.

This woman's scientific method is infallible!

Psychology is a mixture of science and pseudoscience. I think I know where this woman falls.

Lorgus "would you agree that those people were probably dumb to begin with?"

No, I would not.

Lisa:

You're right, the article presented fails to link to even an abstract or explain the construct used in any study that it collected data from.

However let me point out that most non-trade magazines or online journals never present that information. Laypeople won't read it and experts know to look for it and where. Also linking to even abstracts costs money. The relevant data is probably in the JAMA archives, which will cost you $150.00 plus another $150.00 for access to the psychiatry archives.

Just like any other publication meant to be read by average folks all they do is present the credentials of the author (although they even failed to do that here, but I did post them above).

Now you may be right in disagreeing, but if you were going to place a wager on any matter would you go with the stance of a trained expert in the field you were wagering on (who also has first hand personal experience) or some random stranger?

A PhD can cost a lot of money, anonymous criticism based on "feelings" of a PhD's work is still free.

ugh i don't think there's anything wrong with research and data about differences in development at various stages but i side with lisa on this. and anyone who uses "postfeminist" seriously is probably not going to come at this with a really critical eye to gender socialization in the first place, come on.

anyway, gendering of children freaks me the fuck out. i was always just plain miserable when a relative or family friend would present me with some baby doll or household-oriented gift as a little girl and i would fight every urge to express my dismay for fear of being punished by my parents for appearing ungrateful. (although, to my parents' credit, said rejected gifts would usually quickly be swept up and later donated and were often replaced with something more to my taste, but i didn't understand why i couldn't just say "thank you, aunt susan, for getting me a birthday gift. i know that you love me and appreciate the thought, but if you paid attention to me for like, ten minutes or spoke to my parents, you would know that i want absolutely nothing to do with pretending to take care of a plastic baby.") i don't even think i was really a "tomboy"--i didn't like getting dirty too much and i've always loved clothes and pretty things. but i never enjoyed playing house or school or anything that involved pretending to be a mother. i always liked dolls (note: adult or at least child-like dolls who only needed me to outfit them and make up adventures for them to act out and were perfectly capable of dealing with their own bathroom activities) AND trucks. my games might have sometimes been about princesses, but they might also be pirates or have superpowers or at LEAST be able to hold their own with an imaginary sword/lightsaber and definitely did not sit around any silly castle waiting for some dude to show up and rescue them.

one reason i'm petrified of having children is being able to raise them with as little gender baggage as is possible. it seems a daunting task and i just don't think articles like this are too helpful.

second part of my comment didn't post.

So no, I would not argue that.

But even of the average person reading this article is a total drooling moron, a science writer should have better standards that don't perpetuate shitty pseudoscientific misconceptions.

Re Logrus

Sorry, I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. I wasn't suggesting to link to the study or even use word-for-word selections in the piece itself. In the article they reference the study that showed 18-month-olds selected gendered toys. That alone is not problematic, it doesn't attribute cause to socialization or biology, just states the results objectively. It then goes on to suggest that the cause is biological and addresses the objection by saying that there is "evidence" it's hardwired. Why not explain those studies in layman's terms just as they did the first. Or better yet, if you are writing an article about hardwired differences, why not reference (in simple terms) the study that ACTUALLY suggests it?

I'll be honest and say that I'm not sure I understand where you are going with the PhD vs. random person, so I'm not sure how to respond. My objection is to the way the article is written, not the studies itself.

Mama Mia,

I'm a woman with two little sisters.

I always loved "boy toys" the best. My next sister loved loved all things "girly".

Was there some genetic difference involved? Possibly. We certainly have very different personalities.

But, were our environments the same, just because we were sisters with the same parents? Nope.

When I was born, we lived out in the country. I was my parents first child, so they were learning. My mom was by far the primary influence in my life.

With my sister, I think the in-laws were more involved. And my mom was less resistant to giving her stereotypical girly toys all the time, etc.

I think it's impossible to say what role nature vs. nurture played here.

But for me, articles like this seem ridiculous for many reasons, one of the primary ones being that they talk about things like "shoes" and "cars". Right, because humans evolved to like "shoes" and "cars" because you /know/ how popular those were with our prehistoric ancestors *rolls eyes*. I mean, fact is, there are plenty of cultures where men care as much or more about fashion than women do... for just an example.

Lisa:

I'm sorry that random person Vs. PhD comment wasn't specifically directed at you, but to the glut of people who are refuting the statements with nothing to substantiate those refutations other than dislike or assumptions about how someone could misinterpret the material, and certainly not providing and credentials to support their qualifications to make such statements or why their opinion has more weight than the original author.

As to the lack of proper citation in the article, I'll clarify my defense of that. This is not a medical or professional journal. This is an online magazine the equivalent of a toilet reader (not scatological, but chronological). There is a philosophy in magazine journalism that indicates that as long as you're presenting the work of a certified expert in a field then you've done the work and that anyone capable of studying the technical background would know where to look for that information while everyone else is just happy to have the end result presented to them in a user friendly manner.

I don't always agree with that philosophy myself, but it's their magazine and they are trying to make money off of it. What I did do, for my own edification, was to research the author to assure myself that she wasn't just a hack or an advice columnist. I also followed the links provided in the article and followed up on the cited authors she was drawing from for the same reason.

Among them was Dr. Leonard Sax, who gets great reviews from JAMA for his work in gender studies in biology and Dr. (PhD) Lawrence Kutner who is the co-director of mental health and media at Harvard and a well received author of books on child development.

But the article also included links to the thoughts and experiences of people who are "normal" folks, like a woman who sold children's orthopedic shoes.

I think careful reading by anyone would lead to the conclusion that it is an article meant for someone in need of some easily digestible information from some well researched people in a broad array of fields.

FuckDecaf: I'm sorry, but which misconceptions? Do you mean the statement that despite her not enforcing gender-norming on her daughter her daughter still liked shoes?

RE-reading the article a fourth time and all I could come up with was her personal anecdotes, which I honestly didn't assume were being presented as science but as a journalistic attempt to put a parent concerned over these issues of gender identity and norming at ease.

Can you either refute her with something that meets your criteria for non-pseudoscience or present credentials that counter the authors? I'm willing to read any scientific data on this with an open mind here (well ok, not a lot of pages. I want to enjoy my weekend), but so far the only refutation I've seen has absolutely zero behind it other than emotion and anonymity.

The only credible complaint I've seen is that there are no easily located cited sources (actually if you follow the provided links you can at least get the names of the studies and/or books the information was drawn from as well as contributing authors), but scientific works are not even often references in magazines of this kind unless the scientist is shilling a book, and then you just get the book title which then refers to the studies in varying detail. You actually have to almost always find the study yourself using some academic resource (like EBSCO Host, or Academic Search Premier, or a journal like JAMA).

I guess I don't see how it adds up. If one claims there are no inherent gender differences and it is all socialization, then people would fit gender stereotypes much more effectively than they do. A boy can be raised in an environment that pushes all the male gender stereotypes on him and still turn out feminine. If that isn't genes pushing back against socialization, I don't know what is. Genes explain within gender variation better than socialization, and it is possible between gender differences in socialization actually developed to mirror those genetic trends. I agree socialization belongs in the conversation, but I see no reason to discount underlying genetic factors.

P.S. I use post-feminism seriously (see my link) and take gender socialization just as seriously as any of you. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm simply not considering things.

Ninapendamaishi,
Your point is exactly my point. You can't say what combination of nature vs. nurture created an individual's personality. In no way would I suggest it is all nature- that would be silly. I was just pointing out that children are not instantly socialized by the toys that surround them, thus investigating whether there are other factors, like a natural predisposition toward something, is at the very least, interesting. Studies are done on the differences between birth order- is every first born *one* way? no, but more often than not they display certain traits. This doesn't condemn them to anything.

Research into sex differences can be used for many different reasons, like creating medicines that work better or developing learning programs that work better. These are good things.

Also, I must chime in with Logrus. A short article from a parenting magazine is designed to have quick, easy to digest information for people desperate for information. It would not fit for that publication to have an article that explained all the minute details of only one study. It wouldn't get published because it wouldn't get read by the people it is aimed at. That is not a slam at parents- I am one. It is just a description of what that magazine is. If anyone thinks she is misrepresenting the data they can certainly argue that with competing data. But parenting.com is what it is.

Mama Mia,

I do not think your point was my point, as you were using the case of two same-sex siblings being different as proof that nature plays a role in determining these gender stereotypes.

"Also, I must chime in with Logrus. A short article from a parenting magazine is designed to have quick, easy to digest information for people desperate for information."

Well, I don't think inaccurate/highly politicized quick, easy information does anyone a lot of favors...

RE: Fancypants trade / academic journals:

If you live close enough to a university/college with a library that's open to the public you might be able to use their subscriptions and find hardcopy or online/pdf of whatever the library has access to or enlist the help of friend with university library access.

Livia_Augusta: That's a good suggestion and it reminded me of another.

Most decent public libraries have a research department that will look up and collect data on a given subject.

Logrus- "I'm sorry, but which misconceptions? Do you mean the statement that despite her not enforcing gender-norming on her daughter her daughter still liked shoes?"

I already mentioned the misconception in my first post, and I don't think I should have to have any sort of credentials to point out the obvious flaw with that line of reasoning.

You write like the shoe thing was a throwaway line, or that the fact that it wasn't presented as a scientific study makes it irrelevant. The fact is that this author bookended her article about biologically determined sex differences with shoe-related anecdotes about her daughter. Whatever actual science is in the middle is one thing, but the first and last thing that anyone reads in this article is "the girl likes shoes." I don't need a PhD in anything-ology to say that could be misleading, do I?

By the way, I guess the reason it bothers me so much is that I think about this article as part the larger body of Lifestyles Section EvoPsych. I am just so frustrated with the tendency to write about these things as if certain biological characteristics explain a myriad of differences from shoe-hoarding to laundry habits without ever actually explaining those things at all.

Try this reader's digest version of this article:

"No matter how progressive and un-gendered I try to raise my children, my daughter is obsessed with shoes!

Well, it turns out that many studies show some biological differences between the sexes.

By the way, my daughter is totally obsessed with shoes.

Fin."

And yes, I think that is crappy writing for a science article, and does reinforce misconceptions about gender.

FuckDecaf: Heres why I question your statements and an explaination of how I read them. Feel free to correct or clarify if I read you wrong.

"Step 1: cite research supporting certain differences (m aptitude for spatial reasoning or f aptitude for facial recognition)

Step 2: somehow extrapolate that to explain pretty much anything ("my daughter is just crazy about shoes!")"

As presented in the text the "conclusion" as you put it is not extrapolated from anything. It leads the text, and is presented as an introductory anecdote. I would compare it to a joke someone might tell at the beginning of a speech. Furthermore it is essentially irrelevant to the points made in the text, as they deal almost entirely with developmental issues (walking/talking/gesturing/etc) and only one subcategory dealing with behavioral differences; this subheading has no mention of girls playing with shoes or boys playing with trucks.

So what I'm left to understand is that you came to that anecdote first (makes sense, it was in the leading paragraph), reacted to it and then spent the rest of your read reaching for a justification to your negative reaction. Now I don't fault you your negative reaction. If all there was to the text was an anecdote which was then supported by extrapolation of related observations I would even agree with it. But in fact the anecdote has no real relation to the article.

You said this yourself in your second post. Demonstrating that you knew the anecdote was not related to the text. Yet you maintain that an unrelated comment somehow harms the credibility of the science being presented.

In the same post you said:

"It is dumb science writing- and that is a problem. Your average person reading this over coffee isn't going to read the studies cited, they are going to remember bits and pieces of this article and repeat it to their friends, familly and associates."

Which is somewhat contradictory to the sentiment implied immediately after. Since you're stating your problem is with the anecdote, and then go on to say that the anecdote is unrelated to the rest of the text, which you've yet to state an opinion against, I fail to see where the problem would be is a person were to quote from other parts of the text. If they quote the anecdote, which is unrelated to the text (as you've said and as I agree) then quote other parts of the text which cannot, as it is unrelated to the anecdote, be supported by that text then you would have someone quoting a dumb anecdote (or not, some may not refer to the shoe thing at all) and multiple scientifically validated observations.

Mass increases toward infinity as an object approaches the speed of light. Einstein was a bastard to his family. Gravity is constant relative to mass and position relative to mass. E = Mc2.

Anecdote not relating to or supported by other quotes being repeated, I feel it comes off as irrelevant.

"a science writer should have better standards that don't perpetuate shitty pseudoscientific misconceptions."

There is no pseudoscience presented in the linked article. There are research conclusions done by scientists and an anecdote. Please, if I'm wrong (5th read of the article and linked articles at this point), quote it here so I can get some idea as to what you mean by that. Because for me that word implies things which are stated as science but cannot be quantified. Like channeling, spiritualism, much of what is described as "alternative healing/medicine", etc.

"or that the fact that it wasn't presented as a scientific study makes it irrelevant."

This statement does not jibe with the rest of your statements. You've maintained that the shoe would be or could be misread as science, but here you state that, as I've said, it wasn't presented as science.

In every instance when she is talking about her child she is specific to point it out "my child" "my daughter", when talking about all other children she is again specific "Boys/girls" "children".

I do not ask for your credentials as a literary critic, you're clearly a literate person. This is qualification enough to practice criticism. However you have questioned the science, thereby questioning the methods and/or qualifications of the scientist. This I ask for your qualifications to make such a professional accusation.

Now if all you intended was to say that you felt that way this was written led to some ambiguity for you, and could therefore reasonably be ambiguous to others then I've no argument. That's a subjective but believable statement.

I guess I don't really see anything offensive about the article. When I was little, I wanted to play with girly toys. I wanted the doll house, and the fancy dress-up clothes, and the My Little Ponies. Cars, trucks, sports, and construction equipment just seemed so boring. My mom would buy gender-neutral toys for my siblings and me (blocks, Play-Doh, etc). My brother would usually turn them into cars or dinosaurs while my sister and I would pretend we were cooking or playing house. My parents pushed me to take karate one time, and I was absolutely miserable; it so totally wasn't my thing.
My mom said that when we were babies, my sister and I would carefully stack our blocks as high as we could get them. My brother would get maybe three or four high, and then he couldn't take it anymore and he'd knock them over. I believe that, generally speaking, there are innate differences between boys and girls from the moment they're born (with exceptions to the rule, as many here have pointed out). That being said, I absolutely do not think society should use that as a reason to dictate what we should do and how we should behave. Kids are who they are, and we should leave them be without trying to point them in one direction or the other.

Dont't the most accurate studies prove an overlap in gender behaviors that would make this articel completely pointless? I think the article is typical of the journalism garbage that panders to the majority of readers that abide with the gender-stereotyping demographic.

Mamma Mia,
Could not your daughters differences also be based on birth order, or differences based simply on being siblings? I've often seen one sibling be the complete opposite of the other. Perhaps it is more based on the first borns character that pushes the second born into a different proclivity?

*sigh*

Frankly, Logrus, you've devoted so many words to the parsing of my comments or policing them for internal consistency (Tim Russert, is that you?) that you've completely missed the effing point.

I have said throughout that what I had a problem with was the shitty science writing. Notice I don't comment on the validity of the studies cited- I have not read them and can't really say much about them.

While it isn't a straight-forward, explicit scientific argument, she is making an argument with that anecdote- that the fashion obsession is like the other things mentioned in the text. I'm not concerned that the anecdote discredits the science, but that the science gives the anecdote a veneer of science where none is deserved.

Good Times Noodle Salad,
Just because you fit in with the stereotypes doesn't discredit the erroneous half-baked claims the author is trying to assert about "inherent" gender differences.

Logrus,
We should remember that society is in a backlash and currently loves to endorse gender stereotypes, claims of inherent sex natures and the differences between boys and girls and studies that can be made to support them for public consumption. All the article are all the same: "I didn't believe in gender differences....until my daughter picked up a doll, and my boy a gun," and then they offer the same airy credation to back up their antidotal experiences. Its just cheap journalism.

Some of the most "rough and tumble" girls I knew were hetero and were more wiley than the boys. I don't believe that if youre homosexual you "act" like the other gender. Anyways, how is that supposed to work for busexuals?

Thanks, gopher- that is what I'm attempting to get at when I say Lifestyles Section evolutionary psychology.

I've seen this article, or the formula of this article, a hundred times. This is the one that Chad and Becky chat about at the office by the water cooler and share stories of "proof" from their own experience.

also, this wasn't some wedding speech with a cutesy anecdote thrown in-- clearly the author (and editors) thought her personal experience with her daughter merited being in the article.

also, what is with comments proclaiming that Science is not allowed to be ques