Recently I heard a local girl's high school basketball coach (who's had outstanding success) interviewed on a local PBS radio station. When asked about the differences between coaching girls and boys he indicated that the girls had to be taught that they could focus on themselves, rather than the team in some of their play. He indicated that boys had to be taught to pass the ball and not shoot it each time. Girls he said had to be taught that they could shoot the ball and not pass it all the time.
In understanding why he was so successful it was clear that he allowed his teams collectively to help make some decisions and really worked using their desires to cooperate.
When my step-son plays on his soccer team the coach has to work to build teamwork. When older girls' teams are practicing nearby their teamwork and general camaraderie are always very evident.
Socialization is certainly part of this, but biology also plays a role. Watching young children I've seen very little boys playing very different from similar girls. TV, other kids as well as parents affect behavior, but it's more than that.
I wonder how, if at all, it may be different in subcultures (and other cultures in general) where cooperation is valued much more than our individualistic culture.
Thanks!
4 comments:
"Socialization is certainly part of this, but biology also plays a role."
What you wrote seems to suggest that young children's behaviour is a good indication of biological influence, implying that socialization doesn't start until kids are a few years old. Socialization starts as soon as a kid is born. Even with a few-months- or year-old baby, adults are more likely to play by swinging a boy at arm's length, and by cuddling and cooing at a girl. People are more likely to buy a baby boy trucks and a girl dolls.
By the time children are old enough to recognize other children as playmates -- and therefore become social creatures -- they've already been socialized enough to affect their behaviour. Then this behaviour is reinforced by adults who compliment the boy's aptitude at kicking a ball, and the prettiness of the girl's dress.
What I'm saying is that you can't say that watching children play will give you any sort of insight into what role biology plays in their development. This is one of the frustrating things about trying to study socialization: it's impossible to find people -- no matter how young -- who have not been socialized for comparison.
I'm with Dave on the early socialization stuff--even parents who strive in every way they can to be somewhat gender-neutral in their treatment of kids still end up 'gendering' their kids. (There's a petty good documentary about that exact sort of thing that I saw in a developmental psych class once that I can seem to find online.) From the time my nephew was 6 months old, he was being roughhoused by his dad--his dad may have done that with a daughter, but it's not as likely...just as a for-instance.
That said, I think it's telling that coaches, who probably have a good deal of practical experience (though not unbiased, of course) have figured out that different coaching methods work better for coaching girls vs. boys, at least to some extent, because of the way women and men get socialized--and bringing in the traditional individualism of western culture is a good point, Geo. I must admit a lack of knowledge about how women and men are socialized in cultures which don't claim to value individuality (at least in men!) as much as communal activity.
Thanks for the post, Geo.
I agree with part of what you are saying and disagree with part. As a parent I am very, very aware of how my son was soaking up his environment as a newborn and beyond.
At the same time the facts that many developmental traits took longer for my son - being "a boy" - in my mind at least such as toilet training are not merely socialization issues.
In the past I have read statistics which show the death rates for boys under age one already being higher than for girls of similar ages - and this disparity continuing as we grow into adulthood. While socialization likely would affect us as we grow, newborns shouldn't be dying at higher rates due to socialization - as boys.
In no way do I wish to minimize socialization! At the same time we also need to work with our biology.
I have no idea how much of the high rates that boys have Attention Deficit Disorders - relates to - socialization, but ignoring biology would be foolish.
Thanks!
Geo, it is no revelation that there are biological differences between boys and girls. And it's easy to predict that differences in "plumbing" might cause differences in toilet training tendencies. But neither that nor rates of incidence of certain early-childhood diseases and disorders have any direct impact, as far as I can see, on whether a child is co-operative or individualistic in nature!
If you want to argue that biological differences affect behaviour, you have to give better rationale than "look: there are biological differences, and there are behavioural differences."
Post a Comment