The other week, Science Daily and then The New York Times reported on the growing evidence of a biological basis for gender-specific play in humans. I’ve been watching my 15 month old b/g twins for signs of gender and while I’m thoroughly convinced by the science that shows differences in the way boys and girls develop fine and gross motor coordination at this age, I hate where the larger thread of cliché-ridden thinking—boys do this, girls do that—commonly goes.
I also find it confusing.
Haven’t our feminist foremothers, and now my own generation, been working tirelessly at leveling the playing field so that things between the sexes could be fair? What good is all that talk about equity and equality if we’re all just programmed gender bots from the start?
According to a new study appearing in the journal Current Biology, scientists at Harvard University and Bates College have reported some of the first evidence that young, wild chimpanzees “may tend to play differently depending on their sex, just as human children around the world do.” Biology, it seems, has a larger role to play in the gendering of childhood than we’d known—or cared to admit. While the evidence is called “suggestive,” it’s based on 14 years of data gathered on chimpanzee behavior at the Kibale National Park in Uganda and is being heralded as proof of “the first known sex difference in a wild animal’s choice of playthings.” This work adds to a growing body of evidence that human children are most likely born with their own ideas of how they want to behave, rather than simply mirroring other girls who play with dolls and boys who play with trucks.
In one swoop, the news reifies what some of us might wish to think of as retired gender codes of yore and scrambles feminist expectation.
So what, precisely, did the researchers find? Young female chimpanzees were treating sticks as dolls, carrying them around and treating them like infants until they had offspring of their own. They slept with the sticks. Some built the sticks a nest. Some even played a chimp version of the “airplane game,” lying on their backs with their “offspring” balanced across their upraised hands. The young males? Not so much.
Previously, toy selection among humans was thought to be due largely to socialization. Researchers have recorded robust sex differences in children’s toy play around the world, yet there’s been remarkable cross-cultural consistency in the choices boys and girls tend to make. The prior thinking was that this behavioral difference was due to the influence of peers, parents, and others in modeling gender-specific behavior. If you’re a girl and you see your mother, sister, and best girlfriend cuddling and making nest for sticks, chances are you will too.
But not so, according to the new evidence. Adult chimps use sticks for foraging or fighting. So the young females’ behavior in the Kibale National Park, it seemed, was not learned. Once the female chimps bore their first offspring, they stopped carrying sticks. The new findings clearly link juvenile play to adult behavior, since female chimpanzees, not males, carry infants more than 99 percent of the time.
Parlay the assumption to humans and you end up with the speculation that girls are biologically programmed to play with dolls.
Pretty convincing. But here’s the catch: researchers hadn’t seen anything like this in other chimpanzee communities outside the Kibale National Park, which raises the possibility that the Kibale chimps were copying a local behavioral tradition. “[T]his may be a lovely case of biological and social influences being intertwined,” one of the researchers said.
If you ask me, the conclusion that girls are doll-wielding gender bots seems a little premature. There’s a lot we simply don’t know.
(I’ve started to gather thoughts about the gendering of childhood and how it’s playing out in my own petrie dish at the Tumblr I created called The Pink and Blue Diaries. Come visit if interested! I’m still mostly just checking the whole Tumblr thing out.)
Comments
Jane Roper — December 30, 2010
Very interesting! And as your twins get older you will no doubt have your very own science experiment. (Having girl/girl twins, I don't get quite the same experience, but it's interesting to see the variances even between them...)
You write: "Haven’t our feminist foremothers, and now my own generation, been working tirelessly at leveling the playing field so that things between the sexes could be fair? What good is all that talk about equity and equality if we’re all just programmed gender bots from the start?"
But equality and being different aren't mutually exclusive. Males and females can have different behavioral tendencies (and I believe strongly that they do) but still be equal. The key is that society values those different tendencies equally. And than people have the freedom to defy those tendencies if they choose (or if they can't help it!)
Marina DelVecchio — December 31, 2010
Deborah, Wow! I know you're just bringing this information to the public, but when animal science is used to reinforce antiquated notions of gender roles, especially the roles of females, it really bothers me. I blog at http://marinagraphy.com, and this is the kind of stuff that I write against. I think it's critical that we not compare human beings to chimps when it comes to gender identification. Female and male chimps do not have the intelligence or potential that humans do; their lives are limited to the basic functions of animals: food, sleep, and breeding. I do not believe that girls want to play dolls as soon as they come out of the womb. We are social constructs, adapting learned behavior from the female adults around us. I have a problem with this kind of scientific research because it acts as if there is a link between the life and gender associations of chimps to female children, and it is done in such a way that it clearly reinforces old patriarchal notions of the social roles girls are to play in society. The message that this type of research engages in is that if the chimps act this way, well then, girls are naturally inclined to play with dolls and be homemakers. And if this is the message my daughter is going to be receiving from scientific research, then she might as well give up being anything other than a mother and a wife. And this kills me -- because girls should have the same kinds of reinforcement that boys get -- and boys should be given some dolls to play with and some diapers to change because one day they will be fathers and they will have to participate in the responsibilities of parenting. Great job on the article by the way -- it's the kind of discourse more women should have.
Kim — January 2, 2011
I always struggle with this issue because of course there are some very base biological difference between the male and female sexes, but gender constructs are so narrowly defined and many of them so easily debunked, that they can be absurd. Gender has been exploited for power since the beginning of the human species, so its not surprising that many people want prove these differences as inherent.
For as many studies that you can find that prove gender is inherent, there are just as many that prove otherwise. This is a great article from the Observer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way
Paul Raeburn — January 2, 2011
Deb,
Behavioral genetics over the past couple of decades has erased much of the nature-nurture debate by showing that a wide variety of behaviors are strongly affected by an individual's genetic background. This shouldn't, I don't think, be a problem for feminists. Genetics might have a lot to say about what boys and girls play with, but it doesn't say anything about what men and women should be paid for doing equal work. Leveling the playing field to be fair does not mean that boys and girls should be identical or interchangeable. Fairness, in economic and social terms, is affected by the social constructs and institutions we create, not by genetics.
Genetics is neither fair nor unfair. Differences between boys and girls are neither fair nor unfair. Giving most of the corner offices to men--that's unfair.
Shelley — January 6, 2011
As a writer about women, let me suggest that no one should take any of these gender "studies" seriously. A recent New Yorker ran an article that seriously calls into question "scientific" studies of any kind. It turns out that after time, their results change drastically.
They shouldn't be given credence.
Chuck — January 6, 2011
I think this fascinating article is the one Shelley referred to:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer
So what to believe?
Andrea Doucet — January 6, 2011
Deborah, your insights are fascinating and I love your project.
I agree with Jane Roper on the importance of thinking about gender equality and gender differences. I also agree with Marina DelVecchio on the need to be cautious about comparisons between humans and animals. In general, this is heavily discouraged in sociology, although I admit that I’ve always appreciated the work of Sarah Blaffer Hrdy.
http://bit.ly/fxp9wr
I also think that there is an important distinction to be drawn between arguments about animal biology and human biology. While, for many years, social scientists generally scorned research that used human biological evidence, in fact, the past decade has seen an increase in social science research on the intersections between embodiment and social practice and identities. The issue is not biology per se, but how biological differences are constructed and reinforced within particular social contexts. One example from my research with male caregivers has been that having a male body in social settings with children sometimes matters (e.g. that recurrent lone male sitting in an infant group with moms breastfeeding; or the father who says he does not feel right when the friends of his daughters are at his house playing games that involve undressing). On the other hand, there are moments or times when the gendered specificity of the adult male body doesn’t matter at all (e.g. the engaged father attending to his child –cuddling, feeding, reading, bathing them).
A book, which you may appreciate, and may already know, is Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender. Brilliant.
http://bit.ly/holxa7
I also like Barrie Thorne’s Gender Play http://bit.ly/gP0oAz, which I drew upon for my book Do Men Mother , http://bit.ly/esi6p1 to argue that context matters in how displays of gender, as difference or sameness, are done, defined, and judged. A highly respected sociologist, Thorne observed boys and girls in school (and school yards) for several years and argues that in some settings gender does not matter at all; that is, girls and boys act and mingle in ways that are seemingly gender-neutral. And yet, there are other moments when there is an igniting of gender differences, both for those participating in the activity, and for those observing. Think of all the different versions of boys-versus girls games and contests.
I think it will be fascinating for you to observe what happens when your twins go to school and other institutionalized social settings. No matter how pink the boy or blue the girl, their desire to fit in - or what Alison Pugh calls ‘longing and belonging’ - can become paramount.
http://bit.ly/gBeNYh
As a mother of three girls (twin teens and one YA), I’ve been shocked at how peer pressure to conform becomes so strong, especially in middle school and high school. (Yes, I had read about this, but was still surprised at the weight of its pull, even in our unconventional household - feminist mother, pro-feminist dad, mainly vegetarian and highly minimalist, TV free). Even though my girls have always played competitive sports, they still worry about hair, clothes, make up – even before going onto the court or the field. Some of my friends and feminist colleagues who raise sons often laugh about how their teen boys get out of bed a few minutes before the bus comes or the school bell rings, and go out the door in jeans (almost) hanging down to their knees, unwashed faces, uncombed hair; yet they still fit in and get the looks they desire from girls. Not so for many girls. They arrive at school with the level of primping that, in my day, would have been reserved for prom night.
As a sociologist, I fully appreciate that there is complexity in this; there are variations and many versions of gray that confound simple black and white or Venus and Mars approaches. Nevertheless, gender differences remain in social life. Are they fair? Not necessarily (and usually not). For me, a recurring question relates to the specificities of how gender differences and gender equality/inequalities play out. And I still like Deborah Rhode’s questions of what difference difference makes and what differences lead to disadvantage (as well as the question of how and why the pink-colored feminine difference is systemically devalued by males and society).
Just a few things to add to your excellent thinking!
Andrea Doucet
andreadoucet.com
http://twitter.com/#!/andreadoucet
Deborah Siegel — January 14, 2011
Thank you, everyone, for these incredibly thoughtful and thought-provoking comments!
@JaneRoper: I can't wait to read YOUR memoir about raising twins. Remind us, when does it come out?
@Marina DelVecchio: I'm so checking out your blog. Thx for that link.
@Kim, @Shelley, @Chuck: Thx for the Observer and New Yorker articles. I'm off to absorb.
And @Paul Raeburn: I'm dying for a chat with you - when can we have lunch?!
MAMA W/PEN: Lifelong Feminist/Midlife Mama Asks Whether We’re All Too Isolated to Fight the Pink-v.-Blue Battle in the World Outside Our Homes | Girl with Pen — March 7, 2011
[...] confused by “science.” Fighting gender-based discrimination has morphed into dealing with science, which carries boldfaced authority—and many feminist scientists themselves are now fighting this [...]
Are We Too Isolated To Fight the Pink-v.-Blue Battle? : Ms Magazine Blog — March 9, 2011
[...] confused by “science.” Fighting gender-based discrimination has morphed into dealing with science, which carries boldfaced authority—and many feminist scientists themselves are now fighting this [...]