One
of the most controversial topics in the fields of genetics, neuroscience,
psychology, and many other scientific disciplines that investigate the relationship
between our biology and behavior centers on the argument of Nature vs. Nurture.
Lise Eliot’s book Pink Brain, Blue Brain
analyzes the two faces of this dichotomy in relation to human development. Are
boys prewired to have an interest in cars and sports? Do girls have a gene that
predisposes them to favor ballet classes over little league tryouts? In order
to answer these types of questions, Eliot delves into the physiological and
environmental factors that ultimately contribute to our behavior in the early
stages of life.
It
is important that we examine the differences in behavior between boys and girls
rather than those of men and women. Observing the demeanor of an individual during
the stages of infancy and even fetal development serves as good ‘control’ for a
researcher who mainly wants to study biological effects on behavior. On the other side of the spectrum, the
behavior of a middle-aged man would be heavily influenced by his environment
and the manner in which he was raised and lived his life. This is the reason
why Eliot explains how children of various ages, rather than adults, interact with
each other.
One
topic of Pink Brain, Blue Brain, individual toy
preferences of boys and girls, is discussed in the New York Times article “Should
the World of Toys be Gender Free?” The article discusses how major toy
corporations such as LEGO and Mattel capitalize on the wide gap between girls’
and boys’ toy preferences. These companies realize that the different genders
gravitate toward different objects in which they can express their creativity, athleticism, and even spatial skills. Although the marketing departments of these
corporations may not grasp the biological or environmental bases of the
differences between boys’ and girls’ toy choices, they certainly realize that
gender-neutral toys do not grasp the same amount of the children's attention or desire.
Eliot
cites multiple studies in which toy preference was tested with different
species of monkeys. They remarkably showed similar behavior to humans: the males
preferred playing with balls whiles the females spent more time with dolls.
Eliot suggests that this could be explained by the high activity level of young
boys, which is a result of higher testosterone levels in fetal development. They
are attracted to objects that will engage them physically and that will
ultimately improve their visual-spatial skills. Girls, on the other hand, exhibit
more social-oriented and creative play, which could be attributed to high prenatal
androgen levels. Eliot also describes how elder siblings have a huge impact on
the kinds of toys younger ones want to play with; whether it is due to
mimicking, role modeling, or simply a case of playing with the already
available toys in that household. The aforementioned NY Times article points
out the potential problem with sustaining this segregation of play: Are we
limiting the potential these children have to expand their cognitive skills
while their brains are still so malleable? Are we hindering their expectations
for the future by only providing toy guns and trucks to boys and play make-up
to girls?
Eliot
lists helpful tips for parents who are stuck in the middle of this
gender-segregated struggle. She encourages them to introduce their children to engaging
activities that will give them the stimulation that they are lacking in their
traditional form of play. For boys, she suggests literary enrichment or motor
skill practice, such as drawing or typing. For girls, she advises sports or activities
that improve their spatial skills, such as puzzles. The article “Should the
World of Toys be Gender Free?” includes a video clip of a young girl who clearly
sees through the ploy of these major toy companies:
Riley
brings up some valid points. Some boys are more feminine than others, while
some girls are more masculine. Wherever they lie on the spectrum, their choices
of toys- and on a deeper level, how they choose to express themselves- should
not be so black-and-white, or pink-and-blue, if you will. If this five year old
girl has the foresight to realize that her toy options are not limited to the ‘pink
aisle,’ there may be hope for future generations of kids at play.
References
Book:
Eliot,
Lise. “Learning Through Play in the Preschool Years.” Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow into Troublesome
Gaps- And What We Can Do About It. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009.
103-42. Print.
Article:
Orenstein,
Peggy. “Should the World of Toys Be Gender-Free?” The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 Feb.
2014.
Images:
http://www.extravaganzi.com/one-of-a-kind-pink-diamond-barbie-doll-by-the-blonds-auctioned-for-charity/
http://www.fbtb.net/2005/08/25/review-10143-death-star-ii/
No comments:
Post a Comment