My Son is Angry and Violent . . .
Whenever I mention his bezerker behavior, without fail people say, “Well that’s the difference between boys and girls.”
Granted, my girls have spread poop from here to kingdom come (it was art ya see) , but bydangit, they never dragged each other down the hall by the hair. Nor did they earn six time-outs (in an hour!) at the gym for hitting babies with a truck, a lizard, and t-rex. Nor did they spend weeks in baby prison (playpen) at the preschool.
I don’t know know where science comes down on this whole thing, how much of this tendency to hit, kick, scream, push, and scratch is a Y choromosome thing, and how much is my fault. But I like to blame the chromosome. (I suppose I should give the poor little guy a break, he’s not even two yet, the violence comes in phases, and becoming two is a miserable time of life.)(And he’s the sweetest little cuddler ever)
I will tell you this, I was hoping for a sweet piano-playing boy who wouldn’t make me spend half my life at football games and wrestling matches. I am doomed to disappointment.
When I started reading your description I was saying to myself “sounds like she has an awful teenage boy, just like I was”. Now I’m not sure what to say, my only experience with 2-year-olds is my daughter.
Comment by jjohnsen — January 12, 2006 @ 8:25 am
I also have a brute of a 2 year old boy with two older sisters. I’ve always, always believed that when moms make excuses like “He’s a boy, that’s how they act,” that those were just lame excuses for poor behavior brought on by low expectations and lax parenting. I thought that maybe there’s a tendency for boys to be slightly more aggressive than girls, but not in such an exaggerated way.
I am so, so eating my words now (well, my thoughts; I never said any of it out loud).
I admit, though, that this kid does not get nearly the personal attention and patient mothering that the oldest child got, and maybe if he had been the first, he’d be slightly less brutish. Then again, if my oldest daughter had been the third child, maybe she’d be tougher. But I do think they come with their own personality, and part of it (man, it pains me to say this) seems to be from gender.
Comment by Allison — January 12, 2006 @ 8:54 am
Lisa-
I have two boys who fit this description perfectly. They are 4 and 2.5. I keep hoping that they grow out of it, but the 4 year old shows no promise of this yet. Imagine having two of them going at the same time. With each other. Be thankful you just have the one.
People who just see them for 1 minute say to me some variation of “you must be tired” or “you must have your hands full” DUH!
I do have fun too, but when your son is being spiderman in primary climbing over chairs in sharing time and webbing everyone in the face, you lose sight of that real quick.
I feel your pain.
Comment by Kristi — January 12, 2006 @ 8:54 am
p.s.
My cousin has 5 ages 8 and under. Wild boys seem to run in the family.
Comment by Kristi — January 12, 2006 @ 8:56 am
I am firmly in the camp that believes that gendered behavior is enculturated and not part of the packaging. While I believed this before I had children, my experience as a parent has reinforced it.
I have three boys. The first plays the piano, FMHLisa, and sobbed when he–once–as he put it, “forgot my good manners and pulled on [my brother]’s shirt.” On the other hand, my second boy fits the stereotype–he just walked up to me wearing chain mail, carrying a sword, and announcing his intention to start a club that forbids girls.
Comment by Julie in Austin — January 12, 2006 @ 9:20 am
I think it depends on the individual kid.
I have lots of boys in my house. They are all different even though the parents are the same.
I have three brothers and we are all different as well.
Comment by Leonard — January 12, 2006 @ 9:24 am
My little boy is pretty mellow as far as boys go but he does have his moment. When I look back on his childhood so far he has spent WAY more time in time-out than my little girls ever did. He is a lot harder to intimidate too.
I do think gender plays a role but I wonder if birth order plays a bigger role than we think. Doesn’t the first child (boy or girl) tend to be more gentle (maybe even needier) than the other children? It seems to me that the second born tends to be more of “wild child”?
Ok, I know I’m making generalizations here that just seems to be my experience for what it’s worth.
Comment by kristen j — January 12, 2006 @ 9:30 am
While I hesitate to say that all of any group, be it a gender, or other “little box” to put people in, will always exhibit a certain trait, I have to say that my son, who was raised just as lovingly and gently as my daughter does exhibit more aggressive behaviors than she did at his age (2.5) or does yet (she is 7).
So, I can say that my experience mimmicks yours. For all I know, though, for every woman with experience like us, there’s another with the opposite. Take him as an individual, and if it persists, see if there’s a need unique to him that might have to be met in a different way (a la Dr. Sears). Blaming the chromosome can only do so much good, for you or him…
I gotta say, though, I hear ya sister. Nursery every week is a little like ‘Small-Guyzz-Smackdown 5′ in our ward, thanks to my son and a couple of the other boys. I just deal with incidents and the trend by continually reinforcing that “that hurts,” and having conversations with him to help try to steer his thinking along more compassionate lines.
On the other hand, I have a little evidence for the encultured stance. Before being exposed to violent/aggressive behavior from other boys in the gymnastics gym lobby & nursery (yes, nursery, how wrong is that???), Bobbie was truly a gentle and sweet boy. Back to the chromosome, though, when his sister’s been exposed to similar elements, she shied away from them, whereas he embraces them (i.e. “wow, that’s cool; I wanna try!”).
So maybe there’s a fundamental proclivity to find it appealing on the genetic level, but that whether that interest is nurtured and can come to fruition in manifested behaviors is cultural. I don’t know, but my sweet snuggle puppy spends more time being a growling green monster these days.
Comment by Naiah Earhart — January 12, 2006 @ 9:43 am
My son’s pre-K class was half children with disabilities being mainstreamed. It ended up being a wonderful experience and I learned a lot by watching the highly trained and qualified teachers do their stuff when I volunteered.
If your son were a part of that class, I could just hear one of the teachers telling you that acting out like he does is a sign of an intellect developing faster than his body. He doesn’t yet have the communication skills to tell you of his problems using words (I’m bored, I don’t like that teacher, I want that toy) so frustration builds and builds and then he lashes out.
May I suggest looking at these “berserker” outbreaks as his way of trying to tell you something rather than just bad behavior. Once you figure out what it is he’s trying to communicate, you can fix it or at least soothe him through it. Then maybe you can work on helping him find better ways of expressing discomfort and dealing with frustration.
My $0.02. Probably worth just that much.
Comment by Chad Too — January 12, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Chad too has hit upon my Exp with 2-3 year olds as well. I have had 5… They seem to get frustrated with their inablity to annunciate/communicate and will lash out. Usually they grow out of it in my Exp.
No worries Lisa….. This to shall probably pass. Then when he gets older there will be other issues….It never ends. The joys of parenthood.
Comment by Leonard — January 12, 2006 @ 10:45 am
Testosterone does make a behavior difference, on average, and even baby boys have, on average, more testosterone.
As an ex-nursery leader, I can say it doesn’t make for much fun, though.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — January 12, 2006 @ 10:45 am
I have to totally disagree with Julie in Austin on this one, and say that boy’s aggressive behavior is absolutely, totally engendered, not inculturated, or whatever word that is. Boys are more agressive, period. There is just too much overwhelming evidence to suggest that, i.e, the statistics on who gets head injuries, who commits violent crimes, etc, etc.
That said, however, it doesn’t mean that you are allowed to let your boy run wild, and not teach him what kind of behavior is ok, and what kind of behavior is not ok. Just because a kid wants to hit doesn’t mean it’s ok. And it’s not ok to pretend to shoot people, or destroy other people’s things.
Still, my kid can turn pretty much anything he wants into a gun. He’s never owned a gun, and started pretending to blow things up even before he could say the word “gun”. He called it a “shoot”. The sound effects, I might add, are quite impressive.
Comment by Heather O. — January 12, 2006 @ 11:44 am
There are two things I’ve noticed in serving in nursery and watching my nieces and nephews. Candy and new siblings can make kids wild. The wildest kids eat more candy than the other ones, regardless of gender. And previously well adjusted happy kids would get clingy, and violent when their parents had another baby. The happiest kids in nursery would become mean and/or incredibly needy the very first sunday back at church after having another baby.
Comment by Starfoxy/Andermom — January 12, 2006 @ 11:52 am
I’m in the engendered boat, too. Sorry, but all the book-reading I ever did about socialized behavior went out the window with the births of my two sons, now 4 and 2. I always thought “boy” behavior was learned, and yes, we do have an influence over how and what they learn, but some things just come hard wired. Like the gun thing- my boys call them ’shooters’, but they will turn anything into a shooter, from tinker toys and lincoln logs to cheweing their morning toast into the shape of a shooter- I didn’t teach them that!
I was also very careful to offer gender-neutral toys to both of them- and they both have baby-dolls and a play kitchen too. You know what they cook in the kitchen? Bombs. And sometimes the baby-dolls. It never stops.
I sew quite a bit, and my oldest is very interested in the sewing machine- and I offered to teach him to sew- and he is very excited. Know what he wants to make? A batman outfit so he can fly, and a spiderweb net so he can tie his brother up…Then he wants to take the sewing machine apart to see how it works.
A friend of mine has six kids, and has on more than one occasion, told me that my 2 boys are more work than all six of her combined kids. Is that supposed to help???
So, bottom line, don’t blame yourself- we all pretty much agree that they come with their personality intact, so why wouldn’t they already have some gender-specific characteristics too? Babies are most definately not a blank slate, and neither is your son’s psyche.
All that said- I am expecting my first girl-(egad!)- so we shal see!
Comment by tracy m — January 12, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
Whew, I was happy to read your post. I thought I was the only one having to swallow my words. I have a 4 year old girl, 3 year old girl, and a 16 month old boy. My daughters will turn ANYTHING into a baby and momma. Every morning at breakfast they turn their spoons into “little baby spoon” and “mommy spoon” and play house with them. I have three candles of different sizes - the big fat home decorating ones. My three year old calls them the daddy candle, momma candle, and baby candle, and takes them into the living room to play house with them. Doesn’t matter what it is. Two sticks. Two horses. Two cars. Give my son the same toys and he throws them across the room. Or hits people with them and laughs.
And he is driving me crazy. When I say that he is driving me crazy, I don’t mean that in a jokey, mildly frustrated way. I mean that he is DRIVING ME CRAZY. I am literally pulling him off of something every 30 - 45 seconds. We have baby-proofed, child-proofed out the wazoo and he still finds creative ways to injure himself. He is all about finding something to climb up on (the piano, the table, the island, the bookshelf (thank heavens it’s bolted to the wall), the fireplace, even the TV) so that he can then hurl himself to the floor as violently as possible. I don’t know if he’s trying to fly or what, but he does not care about being injured. If it’s dangerous or fatal, it’s interesting.
I’m ready to sell him on ebay. Anyone want a blonde, green eyed, 16 month old TERROR!???! Now accepting bids.
Comment by Sue — January 12, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
I have seen an 18 month old boy turn items into guns and “shoot” stuff.
To me it seems to be part of their make-up. The aggressive behavior, the weapons play, the love of outdoor roughhousing ETC. It carries over into adulthood.
Most of the 1970’s babies are blank slates regarding gender has been debunked pretty effectively in the last 10 years IMHO.
Comment by Leonard — January 12, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
Heather O., as your husband once said to me, Wow! That’s a massive empirical generalization. I highly doubt any neurobiologist would endorse your absolutist stance.
Yes, brain biology has quite a lot to do with behavior, and as techniques to measure brain biology have improved exponentially over the last decade we’ve learned a lot more about the relationship between the two. Any new technology or method, in its first blush of sucess, is bound to “discover” that, lo and behold, every historically intractable problematic magically succumbs to its heretofore unimaginable analytic powers. And yes, if you’ll believe it, neurobiology has solved the nature/nurture problem once and for all—-and conveniently, has solved it in such a way as to put the neurobiologists in business for a long, long time. (read irony here) Seriously, neurobiology—and similar molecular models—is a wonderful tool and will add much to our understanding of sex differences. It will also temper its more grandiose claims—already has begun to do so, in fact—with time and data.
Incidentally, pointing to differences in brain biology does not necessarily solve the problem in favor of nature. Learned behavior can have measurable effects on brain biology in adults—see this study for the effects of meditation on brain electrical patterns—and if this is true, the effect of learned behavior on the still-plastic brains of infants and children must be even greater (though not, of course, totalizing).
Comment by Rosalynde — January 12, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
On a different note, I have a boy and a girl, and I haven’t seen the stark differences others have. The biggest difference I’ve observed has been in language use: my daughter plays via elaborate language-based stories—but these stories will be violent and aggressive as often as they’re nurturing and gentle—whereas my son is more likely to engage in object-based play (although he’s an excellent and dedicated talker). Similarly, my daughter is more likely to engage in aggressive behavior via language, and my son via objects.
Comment by Rosalynde — January 12, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
I think the issue of gender differences is a complicated one. I think there’s both evidence for biological differences between men and women (or boys and girls)–one factor being hormones such as testosterone, which Adam Greenwood pointed out. At the same time, I think there’s a strong cultural influence on girls’ and boys’ behavior. If you look at media imagery, for example, there is a strong equation between masculinity and violence (see the work of Jackson Katz, which you can find at www.jacksonkatz.com). There have even been experiments done which show how even when children are babies, they are often treated differently–girls are cuddled, talked to more softly, told they are pretty, etc, while boys are roughhandled more, told they are handsome, talked to more loudly, etc. (I don’t know references for this off the top of my head).
I think the other respondants have pointed to the fact that it’s best to treat each child individually because individual children of both genders are quite varied in personality. I think one should do one’s best to be aware of social influences. I tend to think it’s best to err on the side of assuming a lot of the influence is cultural–there’s not much you can do to change biology, but you can influence how your children are influenced by their environment, the media, etc. And it allows one to be wary about saying things like “boys will be boys” and excusing certain kinds of behaviors because of this (which I am not saying that you are doing).
Comment by S — January 12, 2006 @ 1:14 pm
Heather O.–
Statistics on violent crimes, etc. (which, obviously, show that men/boys are much more violent) don’t have any bearing on the issue of whether stereotypical behaviors are the result of nature or nurture. All of those men commiting violent behaviors were raised as little boys, and we can’t tell from those studies whether their violence is the result of their testosterone (as Adam would claim) or the result of the fact that the first time they slugged a kid on the playground, their mother sighed and said, ‘Oh, what do you expect from a boy?’
If we want evidence, we’d need, for example, to take boys who were accidentally raised as girls and see if their future violence levels were more similar to men and women. Of course, that’s almost impossible to study since (1) the population is so small and (2) anyone in that situation probably has enough psychological baggage from being raised as the “wrong” gender to confound the variables.
I’m with whoever mentioned birth order: I think a lot of the stereotypically male behavior of my 2nd son is the result of the fact that his formative years (say, 1-3) were spent playing with boys aged 4-6 (that is, his older brother’s friends), whereas boy #1 spent those same years playing with girls his same age. None of this reflects a grand design on my part, but rather the kids who were available to play with each one.
Comment by Julie in Austin — January 12, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
You wanted a gay son?
P.S. Definite differences between boys and girls, though it does turn out, girls will torture their Barbies. Food for thought.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 12, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
Oh, FMHLisa, I wanted to address the real issue, which isn’t why your son is the way he is but what to do about it (which, I think, is to try to channel–not crush–it).
First, let me say that my similar son is a continual challenge, so I am not speaking as someone who has solved the problem. But we’ve found three things to be most helpful:
(1) directing the violence into an acceptable narrative. Siblings are not acceptable targets, but pretending to be a knight (body armor is a great birthday gift) and slaying a dragon works. He’s a hunter, he’s an archer, he’s a superhero, he’s a spy–but he’s always protecting the rest of the family, not targeting us.
(2) physical outlets–trampoline, karate, roughhousing with Dad. I have read that roughhousing with Dad is very helpful in that the child watches and, hopefully, models the parent in using physical force in a controlled way. (In other words, they know that Dad isn’t using all of his strength even tho Dad is still having fun with his strength).
(3) This child needs one-on-one time with his parents the way I need air. He is an entirely different person one-on-one, and it is helpful to *me* to see that more loveable side of him, and, I think, helpful for him to have a more positive, calm interaction with me.
Now back to your semi-regularly-scheduled nature versus nurture debate. . . .
Comment by Julie in Austin — January 12, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
All I know is that my mother gave birth to nine children, seven of them boys. Of those seven sons, we had, among other things, two broken legs, two broken arms, innumerable lacerations and stitches, a punctured lung, a skull fracture, a basement set on fire, a Mazda driven into a tree at 40mph, a Ford truck overheat and explode in the middle of the highway, a fist shoved through a plate-glass window, a sprinkler system torn up to provide weapons in a fight, a treehouse that collapsed in a rainstorm, a dog caught in a hay-bailer, and a small branch stuck into the back of one brother’s throat after he jumped off the roof of the barn into some bushes without taking the precaution of closing his mouth beforehand.
Of the two girls, I think Samatha once hit her thumb with a hammer.
Yes, yes, yes–it’s all anecdotal. Doesn’t prove a thing. But when I say that I’m not entirely bothered by the fact that it looks like we’re going to have nothing but girls in our family, I’m not weighing in on the nature vs. nurture debate. I’m just thinking about how much Melissa and I will save on probably not ever having to repair the furnace to get the smell of blood out (see, we’d caught these birds and….never mind).
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — January 12, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
I was the hellion of the family. I was forever falling out of trees, getting stitched up for one reason or another, poking holes in window screens with my “pirate sword,” getting sent home from school for kicking the boys too hard, and so forth. I thought playing house was boring and drove my mother crazy with forever climbing on furniture and taking apart the television set.
My older sister was very mild mannered and organized, and my younger brother was teary and vulnerable and permanently attached to my mother’s leg. (Yup, I’m the 2nd child.)
I really feel it’s more about personality than about gender. And I think it’s impossible to underestimate the subtle signals and reinforcements children get (from all sorts of sources, from relatives and nursury mates to television and dad’s facial expressions) about what is boy behavior and girl behavior.
Comment by EmilyS — January 12, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
FWIW: Baby monkeys show gender difference in their choice of toys
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002671245_toys08.html
Comment by C Jones — January 12, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
My little brother has 8 boys and 1 girl. Oh, the insanity!
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 12, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Russell,
You’ve done what Heather O. did–remind us that boys are different from girls–without getting at the cause of that difference.
Did your parents parent the boys and girls identically? Were they dressed identically so that those outside of the family wouldn’t treat them differently? Did they have any contact with the popular culture (i.e., toy stores, books)?
Again, no one (at least, not me!) is arguing that boys and girls are “the same”–we’re just quibbling about the cause of those differences. And your experience tells us nothing about cause. Adam, by mentioning testosterone–is the only one who has discussed causes.
Comment by Julie in Austin — January 12, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
The only sensible answer to the question “are gender differences caused by nature or nurture” is “both.” How much of each, and how they interact, is very much open to debate. I’ve noticed that you rarely find anyone who totally denies the role of nurture, but it’s not so uncommon for people (including Julie apparantly) to totally deny a role for nature.
Comment by ed — January 12, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
ed, my previous comments haven’t made it clear, but I am open to a slight–very slight–role for biology in behavior.
But these fine gradations are not what we have been discussing here–we started with FMHLisa telling us that ALL of her boy’s wild behavior was being chalked up to the fact that he is a boy. So that’s what I was responding to.
In this case, to say, “Why, yes, maybe a full 5% of his wildness may be the result of his testosterone” isn’t a terribly useful position. What is more useful is to say, “No, not all boys act that way and we shouldn’t expect or allow boys to act that way just because they are boys. Let’s talk about changing his behavior.”
Comment by Julie in Austin — January 12, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
I agree that it is BOTH nature and nurture. But one side of the argument wants to say that its not nature not even one little bit.
Comment by Leonard — January 12, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
Yes, I agree with Ed. Both nature and nurture are responsible for the differences in men and women, and also, their sexual preferences (which aren’t developed any differently than preferences for clothes, food, or entertainment).
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 12, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
D,
I think all moms secretly want gay sons. We’d get a phone call every week and someone to shop with. Seriously, what’s not to love?
As far a nature/nurture?
Like I said, I don’t know what the science says, but I tend to be very sceptical of any blanket opinion. I think saying that it’s all nature or all nurture are equally suspect. It’s got to be combination.
As far a my family goes.
My oldest daughter is kind and thoughtful and adores all things feminine. Barbies (ick) , babies, pink with lace and ruffles! She’s very enthusiatic and very driven. She is a pleaser, just like her daddy.
My middle daughter is more laid back, she is obessed with puppies, and has never shown an inclination for pink, nor put on a princess costume, nor played with a doll. But she’s gentle and kind and funny.
My baby boy is still quite young (20m), he’s great at sharing, he apoligizes well, and he cries with shame when he gets in trouble (which is a lot). He climbs on everything and hurls himself down, he hits, kicks, pulls hair, and screams. He plays with trucks and breaks stuff. He’s never had boy play mates, all of his cousins are girls, all the neighborhood children are girls, his sisters are girls.
Is it birth order, or my parenting, or their environment? I don’t know, but I suspect they all play a role. I think I’m a good mom, and I try to be very aware of the gendered way I treat my kids. I’ve tried to talk to my son just as much as my daughters, and cuddle with him at every opportunity. But he doesn’t get as much one on one as my first, it’s just impossible isn’t it? I’ve never praised my girls for being pretty while praising him for being strong, or whatever. I try to save my praise for good behavior. I never let him get away with violence. Ironically, my husband is a very gentle sweet man, he’s a lover not a fighter, so he’s as much at a loss as I am.
What I think is likely, is that on average more boys are born with a tendency toward physicality/violence than the average girl. But that when it comes to individuals . . . .all bets are off. There are gentle sweet boys and loud/angry girls a plenty.
Comment by fMhLisa — January 12, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
As long as we’re swapping anecdotes… I’ve got twin 2.5-year-old boys whose favorite toys are shoes and purses, along with cars and trains. It probably has something to do with their two older sisters. When I recently gave lightsabers to all the kids in our family, my daughters readily started to fight. The neighbor boys (ages 5, 5, 3, 2, and 2) also joined in as it got quite violent. My sons loved the lightsabers, but kept calling them flashlights and did not exactly mimic the other kids in their play. (Needless to say, the mothers in my neighborhood were not thrilled with the additional weapons in our arsenal.)
I’m not actually worried that my boys don’t behave like boys in the stereotypical sense. I think I’ll be a bit disappointed though not surprised if they do once they spend more time with their peers.
I would side with those that emphasize that social studies are good at finding trends in large populations but are not as useful at profiling specific individuals.
Comment by Matt Jacobsen — January 12, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
I only have one anecdote to relate. I’m single, no children, so I often go to my siblings houses for Christmas.
One year, at my sister’s house, her 5 year old boy got a shirt, along with his other toys. He THREW the shirt on the floor and stepped on it. HIs 3 year old sister grabbed her Jasmine outfit and ran in the other room to put it on.
These are liberal, open-minded people. Their children were acting naturally, I believe, as pre-schoolers without much cultural experience might act.
I can’t say they hadn’t watched plenty of television, Sesame Street, and the like.
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 12, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
use the rod, beat the child. that’s my motto.
Comment by Sultan of Squirrels — January 12, 2006 @ 2:40 pm
To address the earlier point about your son’s possible failure to communicate, I would suggest a sign language video or two. I’ve known quite a few families, including my own, that have benefited from their smaller children being able to communicate with their hands in ways that their verbal vocabularies do not yet allow. I’d recommned the Signing Time video series for starters.
Of course, this assumes that communication may be part of the issue here.
Comment by Matt Jacobsen — January 12, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
I have two children who are very different from each other. My older one (age 6) has that angry streak and a wicked stubborn bone. This child is learning to control it and is doing really well. This child still looks bad compared with more mild mannered children, but I see the progress and feel amazed. (Plus I love the kid so much it hurts — the most dazzling smile and incredible imagination … )
My younger one (age 4) is cuddly, eager to please, and generally happy and pleasant, not to mention very very funny, on purpose. Needless to say, this is absolutely delightful! However that eagerness to please also sometimes translates into being a “follower” — and this child gets into trouble that way.
Guess which one makes me fear the teenage years? #2 all the way.
They’re both boys. It’s a temperamental difference rather than a gender difference.
And Sue, I’d take your terror in a heartbeat! (baby hunger is a mean, mean thing)
Comment by Ana — January 12, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
Oh and by the way, my kids were adopted and are not biologically related. I just think that throws an interesting light on their temperament differences.
Comment by Ana — January 12, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
“You’ve done what Heather O. did–remind us that boys are different from girls–without getting at the cause of that difference.”
Which is why I said, Julie, that my recollection “doesn’t prove a thing.” Did you think I didn’t mean that?
Comment by Russell Arben Fox — January 12, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
RAF–
I thought you were being snarky.
Comment by Julie in Austin — January 12, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Julie,
why couldn’t the “percentage of wildness” in the Y chormosome thing also be an individual thing? Maybe some boys are influenced 5% and others 30%? And maybe even at different levels in different phases of their lives.
I’m just thinking about myself here . . . I’ve never thought my behavior to be particularly feminine (despite my fondness for tiaras), I’m much too opinionated and loud and scary and willing to get dirty. But . . . post partum I became much more “feminine” than I’d ever been before. I was emotional, weepy, clingy. My hormones changed my personality. A lot.
I’m just of the opinion that the truth of the matter is going to be very complex, and even your fairly conservative statement may be a tad too simplistic.
But that said. I totally agree that using the Y chromosome excuse to ignore or justify bad behavior can do nothing but harm.
Comment by fMhLisa — January 12, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
FMHLisa,
Sure, I think some individuals are affected more than others. What I was objecting to above is the “He’s doing that because he’s a boy . . . you can’t do anything about it!” mentality. Even if his behavior is 100% a result of testosterone poisoning, you should still try to do something about inappropriate behavior.
Comment by Julie in Austin — January 12, 2006 @ 3:46 pm
I’m positive that Julie in A. didn’t mean ‘testosterone poisoning’ as such. Uncontrolled aggression, violence, and so on are bad, but the key is to control them. They can’t be eliminated and it wouldn’t be desirable.
Comment by Adam Greenwood — January 12, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
It was a joke, Adam.
(See my comments above about channeling–not crushing–the stereotyped-boy behavior.)
Comment by Julie in Austin — January 12, 2006 @ 4:10 pm
Ah yes then, we agree. Sorta, I think.
I’m too tired to tell for sure.
Comment by fMhLisa — January 12, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
Which may actually be much of the point behind all those endless football games and wrestling matches. Boo Hoo.
(Did I mention that I have five very athletic older brothers and spent my entire childhood dragged from one game to the next and I still have no idea where the ball is? Or why anyone cares.)
Comment by fMhLisa — January 12, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
(You and me both, Lisa.)
Comment by D. Fletcher — January 12, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
There was an article in the Boston Globe back in August 2005 about personality differences in a set of identical twins. I don’t know if this has been discussed in the bloggernacle before, but here is the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=full
The title of the article is “What Makes People Gay?”, but the material seems to relate to the discussion here about masculine and feminine, agression, etc., in siblings. It almost makes you think that, given the identical genetic makeup, and identical upbringing, perhaps the individual spirit inside each little body plays a big role in what we would consider gender-specific personality traits.
Comment by MahNahvu — January 12, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
I have brothers who are identical twins. One is gay, the other is not. I don’t think you can ever make sweeping statements on the side of either nature or nurture when it comes to behaviour. It’s obviously both.
Comment by Rebecca — January 12, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
Looks like we have some gender essentialist feminists here!
C. Jones–But we’re not monkeys, right? (he he)
Comment by LisaB — January 12, 2006 @ 8:59 pm
A brief note for the nature vs. nurture debate:
There was a long article in the paper last year about a person that I will call “Pat” because I don’t remember their real name. They were born in the 70’s when the nature vs. nurture debates had seemed to be settled in favor of nurture. Pat was born male but there was an accident at his circumcision. To deal with it, he was altered and raised as a female. Pat was never happy and always felt that she was not right, that something was wrong. She eventually had a sex change (or perhaps restoration) and married a woman. They had a child (through adoption or the child was a step, I’m not sure).
The article was in the paper because this experiment had failed. Pat had killed himself.
Clearly, there is powerful nature at work in our psyches. Clearly there is also powerful nurture at work but it cannot trump nature.
Comment by harpingheather — January 12, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
I still need to read all the comments, but I can add my experience to the fray. Like others have mentioned, my daughter turned (and still does turn) everything into a baby. She can be playing with scraps of paper, and she arranges them and calls them “Daddy, Mommy, and baby” based on their sizes. My son, as soon as he could scoot, “drove” everything around with his hand like a car. He’d put his hand on a jar lid and drive it around the house. He hasn’t done any gun stuff yet, but he’s only 12 months old so there is still time. My daughter has always been VERY active, but my son is active in a different way. More into getting into the garbage and such, and climbing up on everything remotely stair-like. He’s had more bonks and scratches on his face in his first year than my daughter has had in her 3 1/2.
I won’t go so far as to say that it is 100% gender based, but I do think if you lined up all the kids and divided them by some certain characteristics, it would fall out mostly boys on one side and mostly girls on the other. Individual temperaments obviously play a role, but some differences are just too blatant to dismiss.
Comment by mindy — January 13, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
Wow! Those articles are great. Thanks for sharing.
Comment by mindy — January 13, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
I’ve of course heard lots of parents swear to the same phenomenon Mindy does; that is, that their daughters turn everything into mommies and babies and their sons turn everything into trucks and guns—and that the children do this without any socialization from the parents. (I assume this is part of Mindy’s claim—at least, that seems to be her point.)
This makes some sense to me in the girls’ case: the mother-child formation is about the most stable trans-historical social unit I can think of, and it makes sense that, consequently, and orientation toward it could become encoded in female genetic code in some way. But trucks and guns? These have made very, very recent appearances in human history, and I just don’t see how any innate attraction to them could have made its way into the male genome in just a few hundred years. Perhaps the argument is that boys are attracted to, say, movement and aggression generally, and that the trucks and guns are simply the vehicles (as it were) for these more instinctual attractions. But even if this is the claim, the child still has to be taught in some way what trucks and guns are, and what they’re for, and this would constitute a significant process of socialization. Thus the claim that the attraction is prior to socialization fails, I think.
Comment by Rosalynde — January 14, 2006 @ 9:37 am
I think that nature and nurture both play a role. (And of course this is anecdotal, but I do see these patterns in most little boys I know)
Rosalynde, I do think that what you postulate - that boys are oriented toward aggression and possibly movement - is correct. Our house is loaded with gender neutral and girl oriented toys, because of his older sisters, but he takes those toys and plays with them in an entirely different way than his sisters do. It’s partly a function of age, but he mainly wants to throw them, scoot them, try to zoom them across the floor. He is interested in cars and trucks, but I think this is primarily because of how he can make them move. It’s interesting to him. He likes to throw things down the stairs, not to be destructive (although that’s interesting too), but to watch what is going to happen.
My son is 16 months and has never seen a gun or a violent cartoon or show - so he’s never tried to turn a spoon into a machine gun, but he is more naturally aggressive. If I’m lying on the floor, instead of coming over to cuddle, he rushes me and tries to get me to wrestle with him.
And I think boys throughout time have played warfare - whether it’s soldiers, cowboys and indians, knights of the realm, or what have you. I have no doubt that primitively, little girls made baby dolls out of rags and little boys found sticks to fight with.
Comment by Sue M — January 14, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
Congratulations, fmhLisa! You’ve been selected to appear in the debut of Bloggernaccle Theater.
Comment by S. Mack Dazzle — January 15, 2006 @ 10:05 pm
No. 5 Julie in Austin
No threadjack intended but I am always amused by people who believe that gender personality is a function of culture. The same ones typically believe that gender identity is innate don’t you think?
Interestingly I am just the opposite. I believe that boys and girls behave as boys and girls mostly because of nature. I also believe that gender identity is mostly cultural.
Comment by Edward E. — January 17, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
Lisa once told me about an experiment with male rats who were injected with oxytocin (a hormone associated with sex, birth and breastfeeding, and which is present in higher and more constant levels in women than men). The male rats began to act more maternally toward baby rats who were in their cages.
I’ve participated in a study to measure testosterone levels in men who were in long-term relationships. The finding was that when a man has a long-term, stable relationship with a woman, his testosterone levels fall.
Our bodies DO impact our behaviors and our personalities. Any parent knows that a child who is tired is more prone to be fussy and grumpy. Heck, I get fussy and grumpy when I’m tired.
Those are just two random thoughts that appear. I don’t doubt that if someone went to a good medical library, they’d come out with a good sized stack of information that shows fundamental, physiological differences between men and women.
Seems to me that if we argue that there are no differences, then we’re really just holding our hands over our eyes and plugging our ears. Even looking at them, though, the differences are far outweighed by our similarities.
The question is, how to we react to those differences and what do we do with them? How important are they?
I personally am glad that there are two parents, with different approaches in our house. Better for the kids, in my opinion. And it’s better for me too, because having someone whose take on things is ever so slightly different forces me to be a bit more careful about my own course.
Comment by Jesse — January 18, 2006 @ 1:11 pm
Oh, believe me… when girls get older, they DO have the capacity to become hitting/biting/spitting/hair-pulling little devils. Especially if you have more than one living in the same house.
And little girls (age 2, approx.) can also have these same characteristics. There’s a girl who’s a friend of my son (both are 2 1/2). While the girl won’t START fights, she’ll surely finish them (she hits just as hard/harder than the boys).
It’s not just a “boy” thing.
Comment by Emily — January 23, 2006 @ 11:36 am
I think every child is different. I have two boys and one is much more gentle and the other is an infant and acts like a gorilla for a good part of the day. That being said I still think that people treat boys and girls differently. For example, when people first see my boys they love to punch them in the arm for a “hello” or toss them in the air for fun. On the other hand, with little girls its a soft hug for “hello” and a gentle converation.
My approach has been to encougage a nurturing environment whenever possible-
1) I have used baby signs with both my boys which seems to reduce tantrums and screaming
2) My boys don’t have dolls, but one has a frog to care for and the other has a blanket
3) I have tons of age appropriate musical instruments around the house to encourage the love of music
BTW Raising Cain is a great book if you have boys.
Comment by CC — January 24, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
Why all the hating on wrestling? Some of the best, most disciplined, most successful people I know wrestled!
Comment by TMD — January 27, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
Re #57, I’d like to respond but I don’t understand what your point is. Please restate.
Comment by Julie in Austin — January 27, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
I have a two and a half year old son and does he hit and kick? Yes, he’s a boy. Read Why Gender Matters. It is a great book and it can explain it a lot better than I can. But let me try to explain it to you, that is how boys bond. They don’t see it as “violence” they see it as their natural expression of feelings. My son will hit me both when he is angry and just when he wants to goof around with Mommy. Now I am working on this with him but I also know I am going to have to learn how to channel that “violence” in more appropriate ways, like athletics. You said you wanted a piano-loving boy so you wouldn’t have to go to football games and wrestling matches. So basically you wanted him to be gay? Seriously, it sounds like you need to change your thinking on this. You need to encourage him to be who he is going to be, not who you want him to be. If you want to go to piano recitals, take up piano yourself-why are you putting it off on your son? You are only doomed to disappointment because you have decided since your son is not a mini version of you and what you think he should be then something is wrong with him. When nothing is wrong with him. He is behaving like a normal boy. Instead of rejecting him because he is not who you want him to be, start realizing this is part of the normal growth experience, discipline him when you need to, but otherwise enjoy your son for who HE is. He is a person, not your shadow. Do you think God goes, “You know I am real disappointed in Lisa, I wanted her to be a city planner, but instead she is just a Mom, how she really let me down.” No, he doesn’t. He loves you for who you are, for your talents, for your gifts. Yes, he gave them to you, but he also gave you your own mind and he wants YOUR DREAMS to come true, not necessarily his. He will adapt his will and his guidance to match what is in your heart to do. Because that is what parents do!
Comment by Dena Leichnitz — April 30, 2006 @ 6:50 pm