Free to Be Me Childrearing

[Coito ergo sum]

As for diamonds, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether there is a genetic reason for women to be so overwhelmingly fond of diamonds, far more than men are. I haven't seen any studies on the subject, but it is an interesting question.

What makes you think women are more fond of diamonds than men are? After all, most diamonds are purchased by men, not by women.

Most diamonds purchased by men are purchased for women.

which still is no evidence that the women want diamonds; at best, it means the men are convinced women want them, at worst, men want them and can't conceive that women might fail to see the charm.

Intuitively, that makes no sense. The only way men can have become convinced that women want diamonds is for women to have expressed a desire for diamonds. So, if men are wrong, women are collectively lying about it. Also, anyone who actually knows a woman knows full well that women generally won't wear what they don't like.

[Geoff]

I don't think the claim that women tend to own or ride horses more than men has been established. It's been asserted.

Can't be bothered for every country, but here's a source on the UK demographics:

http://www.equine-world.co.uk/article_r ... And+Horses

According to statistics female riders greatly outnumber male riders...

Although it is difficult to estimate just how many women ride in the UK, one survey suggests as many as 72% of riders are female...

And from Australia:

http://www.wa.equestrian.org.au/default ... F13687%2F0

Age and Gender
Unlike the majority of organised sports, more females participate in horse riding than males. Of the 69,100 adult participants, 68.9% (47,000) of them are female and 31.1% (21,600) are male.

[Coito ergo sum]

Interesting articles. I wonder why that is.

[maiforpeace]

As for diamonds, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether there is a genetic reason for women to be so overwhelmingly fond of diamonds, far more than men are. I haven't seen any studies on the subject, but it is an interesting question.

What makes you think women are more fond of diamonds than men are? After all, most diamonds are purchased by men, not by women.

Most diamonds purchased by men are purchased for women.

which still is no evidence that the women want diamonds; at best, it means the men are convinced women want them, at worst, men want them and can't conceive that women might fail to see the charm.

Intuitively, that makes no sense. The only way men can have become convinced that women want diamonds is for women to have expressed a desire for diamonds. So, if men are wrong, women are collectively lying about it. Also, anyone who actually knows a woman knows full well that women generally won't wear what they don't like.

Indeed, no man has bought a woman diamonds because it makes him look good.

[Coito ergo sum]

Indeed, no man has bought a woman diamonds because it makes him look good.

Of course that's a reason men will buy women diamonds. But, it only makes him look good if it's something women like, isn't it? If women didn't like it, it wouldn't make men look good for them to buy it for women...

[Svartalf]

As for diamonds, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether there is a genetic reason for women to be so overwhelmingly fond of diamonds, far more than men are. I haven't seen any studies on the subject, but it is an interesting question.

What makes you think women are more fond of diamonds than men are? After all, most diamonds are purchased by men, not by women.

Most diamonds purchased by men are purchased for women.

which still is no evidence that the women want diamonds; at best, it means the men are convinced women want them, at worst, men want them and can't conceive that women might fail to see the charm.

Intuitively, that makes no sense. The only way men can have become convinced that women want diamonds is for women to have expressed a desire for diamonds. So, if men are wrong, women are collectively lying about it. Also, anyone who actually knows a woman knows full well that women generally won't wear what they don't like.

or maybe MEN find diamonds desirable, and since they also find women desirable decided to put the two together? or they did not think of what the woman wanted and just decorated them with sparklies that they kept anyway since they could be sold for a nice price at need?

[Warren Dew]

On what do you base that likelihood claim?

Sexual imprinting is how it works in the animals that have been studied. Absent evidence that humans are different, it seems likely that humans work the same way. In addition, observation of my own kids at relevant ages provides corroborating evidence.

And, then, of course, it wouldn't be "neither actually." It would be "environmental." Imprinting at an early age means we're not born that way.

It would be environmental, but not cultural. Or rather, it would be largely environmental, controlled by a genetic imprinting process, and mostly not cultural.

[Coito ergo sum]

or maybe MEN find diamonds desirable, and since they also find women desirable decided to put the two together? or they did not think of what the woman wanted and just decorated them with sparklies that they kept anyway since they could be sold for a nice price at need?

Again, that makes no sense because if men found diamonds as desirable as women do, then men would buy diamonds for themselves and ask for them as gifts, as much as women do. They don't. The market for diamonds is aimed at women, regardless of who is actually doing the purchasing, because it is women who either buy for themselves or receive as gifts the overwhelmingly vast majority of diamonds.

[Coito ergo sum]

On what do you base that likelihood claim?

Sexual imprinting is how it works in the animals that have been studied. Absent evidence that humans are different, it seems likely that humans work the same way. In addition, observation of my own kids at relevant ages provides corroborating evidence.

And, then, of course, it wouldn't be "neither actually." It would be "environmental." Imprinting at an early age means we're not born that way.

It would be environmental, but not cultural. Or rather, it would be largely environmental, controlled by a genetic imprinting process, and mostly not cultural.

I hadn't heard that sexuality in animals is imprinted as you described. I've heard of imprinting in animals in general, but mainly where an animal reacts to view what it sees/perceives as a parent/mother.

[Warren Dew]

I am of the opinion that boys and girls are generally born with certain differences. I think that it is apparent behaviorally with toy choices, how boys and girls play together, and the like. There is no such thing as genderless.

Certainly they're born with certain differences - certain physical differences, for example.

I think that most of the apparent behavioral differences are the result of cultural conditioning, however. It's virtually impossible to get gender neutral baby clothes, and the non-gender-neutral ones make certain associations, like flowers and pink for girls, and sports and blue for boys. The opposite combinations are simply not available.

Children don't make the choices with their first toys; their parents do. I made sure to get a toy car as one of the first toys for our daughter to avoid excessive gender stereotyping, for example. Of course, her brother still ended up with all the trucks because we're not big on trucks and extended family and friends didn't get trucks until our boy came along. The favorite toys of a child, which shape their future preferences, are selected by culturally biased adults, not by the child.

In our case, we're doing this somewhat consciously. We get nice dresses and hair bows for our daughter, but not for our son - sorry, he doesn't get to wear hair bows, even when he wants to. The dresses are practical enough that we don't have a problem with our daughter playing in dirt and sand while wearing them. Our son did get a little tux, which he loves. And frankly, once they reach an appropriate age, both are going to be taught to wipe their hands on their napkins rather than on their clothes.

[Svartalf]

You know CES? there are days you might want to hit the G spot and try thinking instead of fucking.

[Gallstones]

I was never really much into diamonds. I much prefer colored stones, garnets especially. Those chocolate diamonds are nice though. Besides if I want or need a clear stone, CZ is good enough.

BTW, I have only ever had jewelry bought for me by a man one time. Otherwise I buy for myself or received it from my mother or grandmother. All my rings have gone missing, and I highly suspect it was a man who took them.

Therefore, men and women generally like diamonds about equally.

You colored it differently in the post that I was responding to. You said:

As for diamonds, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether there is a genetic reason for women to be so overwhelmingly fond of diamonds, far more than men are.

[Overwhelmingly fond] is not equitable to [generally about equally].

If women in western cultures are overwhelmingly fond of diamonds in contrast to men in western cultures, it is cultural and not genetic. The only factor that could be genetic would a fondness for bling.

[Gallstones]

or maybe MEN find diamonds desirable, and since they also find women desirable decided to put the two together? or they did not think of what the woman wanted and just decorated them with sparklies that they kept anyway since they could be sold for a nice price at need?

Again, that makes no sense because if men found diamonds as desirable as women do, then men would buy diamonds for themselves and ask for them as gifts, as much as women do. They don't. The market for diamonds is aimed at women, regardless of who is actually doing the purchasing, because it is women who either buy for themselves or receive as gifts the overwhelmingly vast majority of diamonds.

Do men, in general, "like" jewelry as much as women do?
And isn't it attributable to enculturation--jewelry is investment. It has economic value and imparts social status beyond being "pretty". Men give it to women to woo and keep them.
Also women wear it to enhance their attractiveness because doing that is important to the mating game and one would want to be a contender in the game.



I forgot to mention, in addition to garnets, I love opals too. But I would never pair opals with clear stones.

[Ian]

I am of the opinion that boys and girls are generally born with certain differences. I think that it is apparent behaviorally with toy choices, how boys and girls play together, and the like. There is no such thing as genderless.

Certainly they're born with certain differences - certain physical differences, for example.

I think that most of the apparent behavioral differences are the result of cultural conditioning, however. It's virtually impossible to get gender neutral baby clothes, and the non-gender-neutral ones make certain associations, like flowers and pink for girls, and sports and blue for boys. The opposite combinations are simply not available.

Children don't make the choices with their first toys; their parents do. I made sure to get a toy car as one of the first toys for our daughter to avoid excessive gender stereotyping, for example. Of course, her brother still ended up with all the trucks because we're not big on trucks and extended family and friends didn't get trucks until our boy came along. The favorite toys of a child, which shape their future preferences, are selected by culturally biased adults, not by the child.

In our case, we're doing this somewhat consciously. We get nice dresses and hair bows for our daughter, but not for our son - sorry, he doesn't get to wear hair bows, even when he wants to. The dresses are practical enough that we don't have a problem with our daughter playing in dirt and sand while wearing them. Our son did get a little tux, which he loves. And frankly, once they reach an appropriate age, both are going to be taught to wipe their hands on their napkins rather than on their clothes.

I have boy and girl twins. We dressed them differently from birth, but long before they seemed to care about (or even notice) how they were dressed it had become obvious how different their personalities were. The boy is very boyish, the girl is very girlish, since they were babies. And they shared the same bedroom up until they were three, had access to the same toys in the same playroom, watched the same cartoons together, read the same bedtime stories together, etc. But they began selecting different toys and wanting to watch different cartoons and read different books on their own. My wife and I didn't verbally encourage any preferences at all, although I think we might have if it became obvious that one of them had no idea what his/her gender was. Never once did we say "Jack, why do you want to read that Strawberry Shortcake book? That's for girls", or "Skyler, put that matchbox car down, only boys play with those." Sometimes they pick out things which are normally preferred by the other gender and we're just fine with it. Most times they don't, and that's just the way it is.

[Coito ergo sum]

You know CES? there are days you might want to hit the G spot and try thinking instead of fucking.

We can talk about something else if this topic is too off-putting to you.

I've not in any way insulted you, attacked you or been anything other than to the point regarding the various issues being discussed. If you can't engage in a discussion without casting aspersions, then perhaps you ought not be in the "General Serious Discussion & Philosophy" section of the forum.