= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam comments on Open Thread, Apr. 13 - Apr. 19, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (319)
Me too.
I noticed that at least here in Germany childrens toys are presented much more gender specifically than they used to - think pink ponys and armed space rangers. But also boys books and girls books. I think this is more than just improved marketing. The entire domains of boys toys and girls toys diverge. Previously often one set of toys was sold for and used by boys and girls alike. The play differentiated along roles but still overlapped. But ot any longer. I wondered: Why is that?
TLDR: When roles do no more work to match expectations of the other gender the need to do so is satisfied by choosing other aspects of interests and behavior that pattern-match against these expectations.
My reasoning was as follows:
Assume that there are optimum male and female stereotypes with respect to preferrability and that these are known to both genders. Stereotypes mean combinations of observable properties or behaviors that pattern-match against the optimum stereotype.
This is plausible: At least for body attractiveness preferences are closely modelled by the other gender according to this study so I'd guess that basically the same holds for other aspects of preferrability (and status in case status being gender-specfic).
Traditionally many properties did align with (gender-specific) roles - roles actually being kind of stereotypes - or more precise: The optimum stereotypes projected down to the properties captured by the roles. So matching a role automatically netted you a fair match on the optimum stereotype.
But if roles do no longer work as a vehicle for this pattern-match because the roles are stripped of their differentiation potential via societies changed perception of roles - by precisely taking gender out of the roles the remaining pattern-match is weak. But the need to learn and aquire a match of the optimum stereotype doesn't go away. The pressure just goes to other areas - interests, preferrences - that pattern-match against the stereotype (which presuably also slowly changes).
Side-note: In the toy-case whether this pattern-matching was done by children or by their parents doesn't matter much for this discussion.
Not sure if (a) kids prefer more gendered toys... and parents learn the preference, or (b) parents prefer to buy their kids more gendered toys... and kids learn to identify with that.
If I had to make a guess (without any real data), I would guess that many children would object to strongly genered toy for the opposite sex, but most children would be okay with a non-gendered toy. That is, a boy would probably refuse a pink barbie, but would be okay with a puzzle; and a girl would refuse a mechanical fighting warrior, but would be okay with a puzzle. (Okay, maybe puzzle is not the best example.)
I've seen complaints about toys being much more strongly gendered than they were a few decades ago.
Well, we would need data on how many parents complain vs how many parents buy a strongly gendered toy when an less gendered alternative is available.
Because, you know, anytime something politically incorrect happens, someone will complain, and maybe even write a clickbait article. But how do people vote with their wallets?
I admit I don't know. Situations like this often seem to me like chicked-and-egg problems, where producers say "we have to make what people buy, and people buy X", while consumers say "if it isn't in the shop, I can't buy it, and the shops usually only have X".
Producers make more complicated decisions. They also care about marketing and branding.
I agree with your last paragraph.
Puzzle used to be a good example. But nowadays you have puzzles with pink ponys and puzzles with fighting warriors...
These cannot be shared any more.
My Little Pony says you're wrong.
Oh sure they can be shared. If the child overcomes the patterns impetus. Can be creativity, counter signalling or a lot of other reasons. But that is not the default.
I don't know the percentages. I do not know a single person or child playing with my little pony.
Google up "Bronies" :-)
That doesn't give percentages. Looks more like a fringe thing.