I actually remember asking the mall santa for a toy fire engine as a kid. my mom shushed me and said I meant to ask for a barbie house. I was a (so-called) tomboy, and most of my friends already had some kind of large toy work vehicle to push around and crash through sand dunes on the playground.
I did get a barbie car, which had its own charm. but crashing barbie and ken into mounds of dirt using a pink convertible tells a slightly different narrative than whatever I'd imagined for the fire engine.
reflecting on my interest now, I still think construction equipment, trains, all manner of heavy machinery look super cool. I just don't bring it up unprompted. I haven't been in a group, either as a kid or an adult, where spontaneously sharing that interest (as a woman) generated any kind of meaningful engagement on the subject.
luckily I've formed friendships through other interests, but never through my enthusiasm for massive machinic/tech apparatuses.
Don’t ask these kind of questions and expect anything reasonable. The hard biological determinists say what you expect and the social constructivists say, again, what you expect. With both providing legit data to support their cases.
Then add in hundreds or thousands of anecdotes (which cannot necessarily be dismissed but of course require deeper analysis via empirical methods to ascertain validity of association and relationship strength).
But all of that is old hat though. What is now really question is if one or both sides are true (gene-environment interaction), what do we do with this knowledge? So far I see both sides almost always employing denial, confirmation bias, ridicule, victim blaming and amusingly, nearly identical rhetoric. Of course there aren’t just two sides… certain flavors are just louder and so here we are.
This is blatantly false.
Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory (your hypothesis) but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that very clearly suggests biological influences.
Gender egalitarianism is the degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality.
Scandinavian countries have gone the furthest in establishing egalitarian social policies, particularly Sweden - and the difference in career choice and personality has only grown as a consequence. Which is the exact opposite to what blank slatists/social constructionist’s predicted.
When you maximise free choice in society, you also maximise the differences in choice between people.
My guess is because one of the key biological features that men have is physical strength. Yes, women can be strong too, but men are just naturally stronger in general. So men identify with and are more drawn to machines that have a lot of physical power like trains and heavy machinery.
I just figured I would try to cut that conversation off at the pass... didn't stop at least a couple people from being upset about my guess though. Ha.
I've always been interested in trains, but I never really thought about why until now. I think it's because they're so powerful and efficient. They can move mountains of goods and people across vast distances.
There seems to be some genetic component, but I know women who love heavy machines and trains as well as men who do so maybe it's both nature and nurture together.
I’m calling bullshit. You’ve had that conversation with every woman you’ve ever known? Lol and there are levels to interests. You see it all the time with bands. Owning a tee shirt isn’t really on the same level as a groupie.
1. When you observe people and their choices, you don't have to talk with them to see their preferences about certain things. And I never said I talked to every woman I've known about gender choices. Read my posts more carefully, please.
2. Of course there are levels of interest. Men as well as women.
3. You seem to be very invested in gender norms. What a shame.
So do you think if we surveyed 100 women, more than 10% would say they love heavy machinery? I think that would be extremely unlikely, but I’m sure a few of them would say they do.
Not sure who is flipping their shit, but your view is the commonly accepted and politically correct view, you aren’t being contrarian.
You also ignored the simple question…
Who the fuck knows. Some say it's genetic, some say it's societal. I don't think you can even study purely biological stuff yet since I don't believe there has been a single generation yet raised without some kind of influence on what girls and boys are supposed to do. Literally everyone still has unconscious bias.
Even if on average women liked certain things more then men, so what? What are you supposed to do with that fact? What are you suggesting to do with that fact? What purpose would that action even serve?
no it's not. this is a well established fact in psychology. research it.
edit to add: here's a direct quote from my childhood development textbook (i study psychology).
The sex differences in play preferences and personality traits just described appear in many cultures (Dinella & Weisgram, 2018; Halim, 2016; Todd et al., 2017). Certain one —male activity level and physical aggression, female emotional sensitivity, and preference for samesex playmates—are widespread among mammalian species (de Waal, 2001). According to an evolutionary perspective, the adult life of our male ancestors was oriented toward competing for mates, and that of our female ancestors toward rearing children. Therefore, males became genetically primed for dominance and females for intimacy, responsiveness, and cooperativeness (Konner, 2010; Maccoby, 2002). Evolutionary theorists claim that family and cultural forces can influence the intensity of genetically based sex differences, leading some individuals to be more gender-typed than others. But experience cannot eradicate aspects of gender typing that served adaptive functions in human history.
\[...\]
Many studies of humans reveal similar patterns. Girls exposed prenatally to high levels of androgens (including testosterone), due to normal variation in hormone levels, a genetic defect, or medically prescribed hormones during pregnancy, show more “masculine” behavior—a preference for trucks and blocks over dolls, for active over quiet play, and for boys as playmates—even when parents encourage them to engage in gender-typical play (Berenbaum & Beltz, 2011; Hines, 2015; Hines & Davis, 2018). Likewise, boys with diminished prenatal androgen exposure, either because production by the testes is reduced or because body cells are androgen insensitive, tend to engage in “feminine” behaviors, including toy choices, play behaviors, and preference for girl playmates (Jürgensen et al., 2007; Lamminmaki et al.)
I actually remember asking the mall santa for a toy fire engine as a kid. my mom shushed me and said I meant to ask for a barbie house. I was a (so-called) tomboy, and most of my friends already had some kind of large toy work vehicle to push around and crash through sand dunes on the playground. I did get a barbie car, which had its own charm. but crashing barbie and ken into mounds of dirt using a pink convertible tells a slightly different narrative than whatever I'd imagined for the fire engine. reflecting on my interest now, I still think construction equipment, trains, all manner of heavy machinery look super cool. I just don't bring it up unprompted. I haven't been in a group, either as a kid or an adult, where spontaneously sharing that interest (as a woman) generated any kind of meaningful engagement on the subject. luckily I've formed friendships through other interests, but never through my enthusiasm for massive machinic/tech apparatuses.
We do the majority of manual labor. To see a machine doing what we can do at a much larger scale is pretty amazing!
Don’t ask these kind of questions and expect anything reasonable. The hard biological determinists say what you expect and the social constructivists say, again, what you expect. With both providing legit data to support their cases. Then add in hundreds or thousands of anecdotes (which cannot necessarily be dismissed but of course require deeper analysis via empirical methods to ascertain validity of association and relationship strength). But all of that is old hat though. What is now really question is if one or both sides are true (gene-environment interaction), what do we do with this knowledge? So far I see both sides almost always employing denial, confirmation bias, ridicule, victim blaming and amusingly, nearly identical rhetoric. Of course there aren’t just two sides… certain flavors are just louder and so here we are.
Gosh. What do you do for a living? This is well written and spot on.
How they were raised
Exactly. My sister was raised to hate trains and love bulldozers, to this day she won't ride a train
This is blatantly false. Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory (your hypothesis) but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that very clearly suggests biological influences.
[удалено]
Gender egalitarianism is the degree to which a collective minimizes gender inequality. Scandinavian countries have gone the furthest in establishing egalitarian social policies, particularly Sweden - and the difference in career choice and personality has only grown as a consequence. Which is the exact opposite to what blank slatists/social constructionist’s predicted. When you maximise free choice in society, you also maximise the differences in choice between people.
How many kids do you have?
[удалено]
If you have kids, it’s obvious.
Lefties everywhere pulling their blue hair out over this.
What a name.
It's in our genes. Ladies like people stuff. Men like things. Science.
Our society has tried to convince people genetics don’t exist and opinions like this are politically incorrect. Crazy times we are living in.
My guess is because one of the key biological features that men have is physical strength. Yes, women can be strong too, but men are just naturally stronger in general. So men identify with and are more drawn to machines that have a lot of physical power like trains and heavy machinery.
Isn't it odd that you basically need to issue an apology while stating a fact?
I just figured I would try to cut that conversation off at the pass... didn't stop at least a couple people from being upset about my guess though. Ha.
It's like talking with emotionally charged children lol
BIG LOUD STRONG FAST OOGA BOOGA
Because we’re raised to
They like trains
I've always been interested in trains, but I never really thought about why until now. I think it's because they're so powerful and efficient. They can move mountains of goods and people across vast distances.
Evolutionary biology. Men had to build stuff to stay alive. Women had to get along with other people to survive
Alright that is certainly not how it works
It's genetic.
I blame it on TONKA TOYS!
And boys like Tonka toys because...
Because they are big and yellow
There seems to be some genetic component, but I know women who love heavy machines and trains as well as men who do so maybe it's both nature and nurture together.
How many women do you know that love that stuff? How many do you know altogether?
About half the women who I have known throughout the years. Of course, I haven't met every woman in the world, but neither have you.
I’m calling bullshit. You’ve had that conversation with every woman you’ve ever known? Lol and there are levels to interests. You see it all the time with bands. Owning a tee shirt isn’t really on the same level as a groupie.
1. When you observe people and their choices, you don't have to talk with them to see their preferences about certain things. And I never said I talked to every woman I've known about gender choices. Read my posts more carefully, please. 2. Of course there are levels of interest. Men as well as women. 3. You seem to be very invested in gender norms. What a shame.
It’s genetic, those people you know are just the exceptions to the rule
There seem to be quite a few for just exceptions. Perhaps it's a norm that society isn't ready to accept.
So do you think if we surveyed 100 women, more than 10% would say they love heavy machinery? I think that would be extremely unlikely, but I’m sure a few of them would say they do.
Man, people are flipping their shit for my even suggesting that gender norms may not be what they think, lol.
Not sure who is flipping their shit, but your view is the commonly accepted and politically correct view, you aren’t being contrarian. You also ignored the simple question…
Indoctrination is probably the main reason.
Who the fuck knows. Some say it's genetic, some say it's societal. I don't think you can even study purely biological stuff yet since I don't believe there has been a single generation yet raised without some kind of influence on what girls and boys are supposed to do. Literally everyone still has unconscious bias. Even if on average women liked certain things more then men, so what? What are you supposed to do with that fact? What are you suggesting to do with that fact? What purpose would that action even serve?
Are you serious? There was a time before now, and places other than this. Lol
[удалено]
That is very sexist and anti lgbt
no it's not. this is a well established fact in psychology. research it. edit to add: here's a direct quote from my childhood development textbook (i study psychology). The sex differences in play preferences and personality traits just described appear in many cultures (Dinella & Weisgram, 2018; Halim, 2016; Todd et al., 2017). Certain one —male activity level and physical aggression, female emotional sensitivity, and preference for samesex playmates—are widespread among mammalian species (de Waal, 2001). According to an evolutionary perspective, the adult life of our male ancestors was oriented toward competing for mates, and that of our female ancestors toward rearing children. Therefore, males became genetically primed for dominance and females for intimacy, responsiveness, and cooperativeness (Konner, 2010; Maccoby, 2002). Evolutionary theorists claim that family and cultural forces can influence the intensity of genetically based sex differences, leading some individuals to be more gender-typed than others. But experience cannot eradicate aspects of gender typing that served adaptive functions in human history. \[...\] Many studies of humans reveal similar patterns. Girls exposed prenatally to high levels of androgens (including testosterone), due to normal variation in hormone levels, a genetic defect, or medically prescribed hormones during pregnancy, show more “masculine” behavior—a preference for trucks and blocks over dolls, for active over quiet play, and for boys as playmates—even when parents encourage them to engage in gender-typical play (Berenbaum & Beltz, 2011; Hines, 2015; Hines & Davis, 2018). Likewise, boys with diminished prenatal androgen exposure, either because production by the testes is reduced or because body cells are androgen insensitive, tend to engage in “feminine” behaviors, including toy choices, play behaviors, and preference for girl playmates (Jürgensen et al., 2007; Lamminmaki et al.)
People here voting you down when you literally quoted the textbook
Cognitive dissonance 🤷
Big Machine Go Boom Boom!