No es necesario ningún dispositivo Kindle. Descárgate una de las apps de Kindle gratuitas para comenzar a leer libros Kindle en tu smartphone, tablet u ordenador.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

Obtén la app gratuita:

Precio lista ed. digital: EUR 9,67
Precio Kindle: EUR 6,49

Ahorra EUR 6,35 (49%)

IVA incluido (si corresponde)

Estas promociones se aplicarán a este artículo:

Algunas promociones pueden combinarse; otras no. Para más detalles, revisa los términos y condiciones de cada promoción.

Enviar a mi Kindle o a otro dispositivo

Enviar a mi Kindle o a otro dispositivo

Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences de [Fine, Cordelia]
Anuncio de app de Kindle

Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences Versión Kindle

4.0 de un máximo de 5 estrellas 1 opinión de cliente

Ver los 10 formatos y ediciones Ocultar otros formatos y ediciones
Precio Amazon
Nuevo desde Usado desde
Versión Kindle
"Vuelva a intentarlo"
EUR 6,49
Tapa dura
"Vuelva a intentarlo"
EUR 66,75 EUR 32,23

Longitud: 371 páginas Word Wise: Activado Tipografía mejorada: Activado
Volteo de página: Activado Idioma: Inglés

Kindle Unlimited
Lee más de 1 millón de eBooks en cualquier dispositivo Kindle o en la aplicación gratuita Kindle. Pruébalo gratis durante 30 días

Descripción del producto

Críticas

'We are all in [Fine's] debt. She has the expertise to check the research references cited by academic as well as popular books on the subject, and she has the clarity and wit to impart her findings to the lay reader. She exposes shockingly lightweight research that is taken seriously and nuanced research that is misreported.' -- Guardian 'The hard data is illuminating, and engaging, but Fine manages a light touch throughout. This is a truly startling book.' -- Independent on Sunday 'Two books came out this year (2010) which, in the long-term, could change how we view gender for ever. ... Cordelia Fine's 'Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences' (Icon Books) finally debunked the myth that men and women's minds are significantly different ... Both books were favourably reviewed and hotly discussed. Over time their conclusions could have far-reaching consequences as significant as 'The Female Eunuch." -- Viv Groskop, Guardian "Delusions of Gender' ... carefully and with great precision demolishes the nonsense that pervades the popular and technical literature pretending to be scientific fact, exposing it as truthiness which is nowhere close to truth. ... When I first heard about this book it was clear, even before reading it, that this is the book we've been waiting for. Now, having read it, I can assure you that it is even better than I thought it could be. ... Buy it. Get your friends, your colleagues, your family members to buy it, or buy it for them. Get it to your local school board. Make it required reading, not only in gender studies, but in freshman sociology, biology, education and business courses. Get it on the New York Times bestseller list. ... Our culture is saturated with sloppy self-reinforcing non-thinking about gender. It will take a monumental effort to get it off those tracks. 'Delusions of Gender' is an excellent place to start.' -- Professor Judy Roitman, Association for Women in Mathematics Newsletter 'A fascinating subject. A bracing argument.' -- Evening Standard 'The result of Fine's irritation is a witty and meticulously researched expose of the sloppy studies that pass for scientific evidence in so many of today's bestselling books on sex differences... Can we stop talking about brains now? Those who can't, and anyone else who would like to know what today's best science reveals about gender differences - and similarities - could not do better than read this book.' -- Carol Tavris, TLS '['Brain Storm' and 'Delusions of Gender' are] well-informed, well-argued and (for science books, perhaps unusually) well-written interventions in ... one of the most important debates in current sexual politics.' -- Trouble and Strife Journal 'If you believe that the tide of blue and pink that greets children whenever they walk into a toy or children's clothes shop is just about colours ... think again.' -- Working Mums 'This is a book with such a large scope that it's near-impossible to overestimate its importance. Much like 'The Spirit Level' did for socio-economics, this book ropes together decades' worth of studies on gender differences and casts a cool, calm eye (and an arched brow) over them all... This book will cast a light on gender assumptions you didn't know you had, and it's hilarious - with chapter titles such as 'We Think, Therefore You Are' and 'Sex and Premature Speculation,' Dr Fine is a brilliant tour guide - making light, fun and engaging work of the research. By debunking the rubbish, this book opens up possibilities for a (slightly) clearer vision of the future. Not to be missed.' -- Fat Quarter 'In 'Delusions of Gender' Cordelia Fine does a magnificent job debunking the so-called science, and especially the brain science, of gender. If you thought there were some inescapable facts about women's minds - some hard wiring that explains poor science and maths performance, or the ability to remember to buy the milk and arrange the holidays - you can put these on the rubbish heap. Instead, Fine shows that there are almost no areas of performance that are not touched by cultural stereotypes. This scholarly book will make you itch to press the delete button on so much nonsense, while being pure fun to read.' -- Emeritus Professor Uta Frith, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, Research Foundation Professor, University of Aarhus 'Cordelia Fine has a first-rate intellect and writing talent to burn. In her new book, 'Delusions of Gender,' she takes aim at the idea that male brains and female brains are 'wired differently,' leading men and women to act in a manner consistent with decades-old gender stereotypes. Armed with penetrating insights, a rapier wit, and a slew of carefully researched facts, Fine lowers her visor, lifts her lance, and attacks this idea full-force. Whether her adversaries can rally their forces and mount a successful counter-attack remains to be seen. What's certain at this point, however, is that in 'Delusions of Gender' Cordelia Fine has struck a terrific first blow against what she calls 'neurosexism.' -- Professor William Ickes, author of 'Everyday Mind Reading: Understanding What Other People Think and Feel.' 'Fine turns the popular science book formula on its head.' -- USA Today 'Fine is fun, droll yet deeply serious. Setting a cracking pace, 'Delusions' tackles the power of implicit association (those unconscious associations we make about men and women) and of negative stereotyping, plus the empathising/systematising theory proposed by psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen, and the messy world of brain scans and genetic research. Her conclusion: we are in thrall to 'neurosexism'.' -- New Scientist 'The author, Cordelia Fine, who has a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience from University College London, is an acerbic critic, mincing no words when it comes to those she disagrees with. But her sharp tongue is tempered with humor and linguistic playfulness, as the title itself suggests... It's too late to tell that to Dr. Sax, a proponent of single-sex education, who cited the Connellan study as evidence that 'girls are born prewired to be interested in faces while boys are prewired to be more interested in moving objects.' But it's not too late to read this book and see how complex and fascinating the whole issue is.' -- New York Times 'So both sexes should rejoice at Cordelia Fine's new book, Delusions of Gender, a vitriolic attack on the sexism masquerading as psychology that is enjoying a renaissance.' -- Rosamund Irwin, London Evening Standard 'Impeccably researched and bitingly funny.' -- Rosamund Irwin, London Evening Standard 'Fine's tone is witty but the citations are detailed and the bibliography extensive...This book is an entertaining weapon in that fight (for education and social justice) and will make a nice 'thwok' sound bouncing off the heads of sexists.' -- Sarah Ensor, Socialist review 'Fine's conclusions provide a timely warning against taking too seriously the deluge of books and articles that would have us believe that men are biologically advantaged when it comes to mathematics, racing, driving or map reading - and that women are naturally more intuitive and nurturing, so better at childcare and multitasking.' -- Claire Jones, Guardian 'In 'Delusions of Gender' the psychologist Cordelia Fine exposes the bad science, the ridiculous arguments and the persistent biases that blind us to the ways we ourselves enforce the gender stereotypes we think we are trying to overcome.' -- Terri Apter, Guardian 'Fine eviscerates both the neuroscientists who claim to have found the answers and the popularisers who take their findings and run with them.' -- Katherine Bouton, Deputy Editor of New York Times Magazine. 'Timely and provocative, her argument is also excellent at debunking oversimplified theories, for instance, that biology is destiny.' -- Metro "well-stocked armoury that includes extensive research, sharp whit and a probing intelligence, and which refuses to be satisfied with the delusional myth-making that often passes for popular science." -- Metro 'Fine offers persuasive proof that many of the claims we commonly swallow about male and female brains are based on very bad science indeed. Her entire book ... is worth a read, and perhaps should be taught in high school and college science classes. Maybe if young women were exposed to the truth about their brains, they'd no longer feel like they had to chuck their gender overboard in order to pursue their dreams.' -- Anna North, Jezebel 'With 'Delusions of Gender,' we welcome a brilliant feminist critic of the neurosciences ... In a book that sparkles with wit, which is easy to read but underpinned by substantial scholarship and a formidable 100-page bibliography, she attacks the ready generalisations on sexual differences made by neuroscientists and their media exegetes ... every page of Fine's brilliant, spiky book reminds us that science is part of culture and that the struggle against sexism in the neurosciences and the struggle against sexism in society are intimately linked. Read her, enjoy and learn.' -- Hilary Rose, THES 'Popular science writing at its best ... beautifully and accessibly written ... It is a cracking good read, by turns witty, passionate and learned.' -- National Childbirth Trust Journal 'An excellent introduction to the scientific method ... mind-opening ... prepare to be a relative expert on the subject.' -- British Neuroscience Association Bulletin '[a] brilliant debunking of 'neuro-sexism' ... a powerful case that who we are is much more closely attuned to the culture that surrounds us, than to the biology of our brains.' -- Mslexia 'A pinnacle piece of feminist literature, which I thoroughly recommend and could quote all day.' -- Fran Hall, Huffington Post

Descripción del producto

‘Fun, droll yet deeply serious.’
New Scientist

‘A brilliant feminist critic of the
neurosciences … Read her, enjoy and learn.’
Hilary Rose, THES

‘A witty and meticulously researched
exposé of the sloppy studies that pass for scientific
evidence in so many of today’s bestselling books
on sex differences.’
Carol Tavris, TLS




Gender inequalities are increasingly defended by citing hard-wired differences between the male and
female brain. That’s why, we’re told, there are so few
women in science, so few men in the laundry room –
different brains are just suited to different things.



With sparkling wit and humour, Cordelia Fine attacks
this ‘neurosexism’, revealing the mind’s remarkable
plasticity, the substantial influence of culture on identity,
and the malleability of what we consider to be
‘hardwired’ difference.



This modern classic shows
the surprising extent to which boys and girls, men and
women are made – not born.

Detalles del producto

  • Formato: Versión Kindle
  • Tamaño del archivo: 1780 KB
  • Longitud de impresión: 371
  • Editor: Icon Books Ltd (1 de febrero de 2005)
  • Vendido por: Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Idioma: Inglés
  • ASIN: B0079LSJ6A
  • Texto a voz: Activado
  • X-Ray:
  • Word Wise: Activado
  • Lector con pantalla: Compatibles
  • Tipografía mejorada: Activado
  • Valoración media de los clientes: 4.0 de un máximo de 5 estrellas 1 opinión de cliente
  • Clasificación en los más vendidos de Amazon: n.° 37.442 de Pago en Tienda Kindle (Ver el Top 100 de pago en Tienda Kindle)
  • ¿Quieres informarnos sobre un precio más bajo?

Opiniones de clientes

4.0 de un máximo de 5 estrellas
5 estrellas
0
4 estrellas
1
3 estrellas
0
2 estrellas
0
1 estrella
0
Ver opinión de cliente
Comparte tu opinión con otros clientes

Principales opiniones de clientes

Formato: Versión Kindle Compra verificada
Buen libro y con una amplia bibliografía que la presenta de una forma muy amena. Si tuviera que poner un pero es que defiende de una forma muy acérrima lo que piensa y muy crítica con otras corrientes de pensamiento.
Comentario A una persona le ha parecido esto útil. ¿Esta opinión te ha parecido útil? No Enviando comentario...
Gracias por tu opinión.
Lo sentimos, no hemos podido registrar tu voto. Vuelva a intentarlo
Informar de un abuso

Opiniones de clientes más útiles en Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 4.1 de un máximo de 5 estrellas 130 opiniones
2 de 3 personas piensan que la opinión es útil
5.0 de un máximo de 5 estrellas Cleverly written, well researched 19 de diciembre de 2016
Por Sarah - Publicado en Amazon.com
Formato: Versión Kindle Compra verificada
The clever parallels drawn to how sexism looked in the past, the intense attention paid to research and methodology, and the biting but witty and approachable narrative style makes this both a smooth read and an excellent reference the next time somebody trots out arguments about "hardwired differences" and "gender-neutral parenting." It gets scathing enough that I'm not going to be giving it to any gender-essentialist for Christmas, but I might cut out a passage or two and tuck it in their cards.
5.0 de un máximo de 5 estrellas Five Stars 4 de febrero de 2016
Por Ashley T. - Publicado en Amazon.com
Formato: Tapa blanda Compra verificada
It came in mint condition and is a brilliant book.
7 de 9 personas piensan que la opinión es útil
5.0 de un máximo de 5 estrellas An eye-opener 19 de febrero de 2014
Por Alanna G. Barrett - Publicado en Amazon.com
Formato: Versión Kindle Compra verificada
This book was a total eye-opener. Even as someone approaching the work through a feminist lens, I learned so many new things, and was so gratified to see that someone had done the hard work to dissect what many of us already suspected: that science can be flawed & is largely open to interpretation. Rather than proposing new research, the author sifts through hundreds of studies on gender and gender differences, breaking them down, analyzing them, and ultimately evaluating their scientific soundness. She proposes alternative theories for why certain results might have been achieved, and exposes flaws and gaps in the methodologies and reasoning behind countless other studies. Alongside considerations of neuroscience, the author emphasizes the importance and impact that society has on gender, which I found particularly heartening, as this is something we can work to change. It was fantastic to have old 'gender myths' debunked, and even better to have it done in the witty and playful tone that the author adopts. I couldn't recommend this book more, and if I had my way, I'd have it as compulsory reading for everyone.
8 de 11 personas piensan que la opinión es útil
5.0 de un máximo de 5 estrellas Tremendous resource for those asking nature or nurture 1 de abril de 2015
Por Ready Mommy - Publicado en Amazon.com
Formato: Tapa blanda Compra verificada
Like the parents described by Cordelia Fine in this incredibly informative book, I had come to the “fallback conclusion that there must be hardwired psychological differences between the sexes,” because I’d done my best to parent gender-neutrally and seen disparities between my son and daughter emerge anyway. Fine writes, “The neuroscientific discoveries we read about in magazines, newspaper articles, books and sometimes even journals tell a tale of two brains—essentially different—that create timeless and immutable psychological differences between the sexes. It’s a compelling story that offers a neat, satisfying explanation, and justification, of the gender status quo.” I wanted to know if it was true.

As it turns out, the science supporting these claims has about the same validity as the cranial measurements upon which nineteenth century assertions of African American intellectual inferiority were based. “The tape measures and weighing scales of the Victorian brain scientists have been supplanted by powerful neuroimaging technolog[y]” that “sounds so unassailable, so very . . . scientific, that we privilege it over boring, old-fashioned behavioural evidence.”

Fine cuts through the pseudo-science and discredits those “position[ing] themselves as courageous knights of truth, who brave the stifling ideology of political correctness” to declare differences between the sexes biologically hardwired and inevitable (authors like Simon Baron-Cohen, Michael Gurian, Allan and Barbara Pease, John Gray, and Louann Brizendine—as well as researchers such as Norman Geschwind and Ruben and Raquel Gur).

She examines each of the supposed indicators of hardwired gender difference—such as prenatal testosterone, hormone receptors, neuronal density, brain/language lateralization (“the Geschwind theory”), corpus callosum size, proportions of grey and white matter, brain region size, and “greater male variability.” Fine identifies “a surprising number of gaps, assumptions, inconsistencies, poor methodologies, and leaps of faith.” Specifically, she debunks a body of research plagued by small sample size, “dangers in extrapolating from rats and birds to humans,” a too-low threshold for statistical significance, lack of replication, the file-drawer phenomenon, “the likelihood of spurious findings,” and the “teething problems of new technology.”

Fine concludes that “what is being chalked up to hardwiring on closer inspection . . . look[s] more like the sensitive tuning of the self to the expectations lurking in the social context.” Most of the supposed differences simply don’t hold up to close scrutiny. Yes, there do exist some sex differences in the brain, and “there are sex differences in vulnerabilities to certain psychological disorders,” but these few proven differences do not indicate hardwired gender capabilities or behaviors for two key reasons.

First, “bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better with regards to the size of brain structures, neither does more [brain] activation necessarily mean better or psychologically more. . . . [E]ven though a part of the brain might light up during a task, it may not be especially or crucially involved.” Also, “sex differences in the brain may . . . ‘prevent sex differences in overt functions and behavior by compensating for sex differences in physiology.’” In alternate terms, different wiring may be biologically necessary to produce identical functioning.

Second, “[t]he circuits of the brain are quite literally a product of your physical, social and cultural environment, as well as your behaviour and thoughts. What we experience and do creates neural activity that can alter the brain, either directly or through changes in gene expression. This neuroplasticity means that, . . . the social phenomenon of gender ‘comes into the brain’ and ‘becomes part of our cerebral biology.’” “‘[H]ow we behave or what we think about can [even] affect the levels of our sex hormones.’” In other words, because of “[t]his continuous interplay between the biological and the social,” “‘the existence of sex differences either in means or variances in ability says nothing about the source or inevitability of such differences or their potential basis in immutable biology.’” It therefore “makes sense to start questioning the direction of causality between gender difference and gender inequality.”

Fine delves into this area, discussing how “associative memory . . . picks up and responds to cultural patterns in society, media and advertising, which may well be reinforcing implicit associations you don’t consciously endorse.” She covers stereotype threat, gender priming, social identity, and other proven explanations for why girls both perform and choose differently with respect to maths and science. She discusses lack-of-fit bias (the gap “between the communal stereotype of women and demanding professional roles”) and the resulting difficulties women, particularly mothers, face in the workplace. Finally, Fine reviews studies that show (1) a lack of behavioral gender difference in very young babies, (2) a difference in parental behavior, even in those attempting gender-neutral parenting, and (3) increasing behavioral gender difference as children age.

She concludes, “Our minds, society and neurosexism create difference. Together, they wire gender. But the wiring is soft, not hard. It is flexible, malleable and changeable.” “[F]rom the seeds of scientific speculation grow the monstrous fictions of popular writers.” As “this ‘popular neurosexism’ . . . finds its way into apparently scientific books and articles for the interested public, including parents and teachers,” it “promotes damaging, limiting, [and] self-fulfilling stereotypes.” In “echo[s] of the insalubrious past,” stereotypes are “dress[ed] up . . . [in] scientific finery,” and create the inequality they purport to report.

Fine’s scientific review of all the evidence currently available finds no support for the finding that there are “psychological differences hardwired into the brains of the sexes that explain why, even in the most egalitarian of twenty-first-century societies, women and men’s lives still follow noticeably different paths.”

Delusions of Gender is a tremendous accomplishment, delving deeply into many complex areas of science and social science while largely maintaining readability, even humor. The book is so comprehensive that this review leaves out a huge amount of helpful and interesting information, if you can believe it. My only complaint is that the book starts to feel like a slog thanks to a lack of roadmapping. A clearer, more simply expressed summary of each chapter and its relation to the others (plus a bit of reordering) would make for pure perfection. As is, however, Fine’s work clearly merits five stars.

The following quotes provide a real sense of the book’s style and content:

“Imagine, just for a moment, that we could reverse the gender imbalance in maths and the maths-intensive sciences with a snap of our fingers, fill people’s minds with assumptions and associations linking maths with natural female superiority, and then raise a generation of children in this topsy-turvy environment. Now it is males whose confidence is rattled, whose working memory resources are strained, whose mental strategies become nitpicky and defensive, and who look in vain for someone similar to inspire them. It’s the boys in the classroom, not the girls, in whom researchers discover evidence that stereotype threat is already at work. It is women who can now concentrate on the task with ease, whose alleged superiority brings creativity and boldness to their approach, who need only glance around the corridors of the department, the keynote speaker lineup, or the history books to see someone whose successes can seep into the very fabric of their own minds. What, we have to ask ourselves, would happen? Would male ‘inherent’ superiority reassert itself, would we quickly settle into some kind of equality, or—is it possible?—would the invisible hand of stereotype threat maintain the new status quo for decades to come?”

“[A] person’s talents in the workplace are easier to recognise when that person is male.”

“In other words, both the descriptive (‘women are gentle’) and the prescriptive (‘women should be gentle’) elements of gender stereotypes create a problem for ambitious women. Without any intention of bias, once we have categorised someone as male or female, activated gender stereotypes can then colour our perception. When the qualifications for the job include stereotypically male qualities, this will serve to disadvantage women (and vice versa).”

“[T]he alternative to being competent but cold is to be regarded as ‘nice but incompetent’. This catch-22 positions women who seek leadership roles on a ‘tightrope of impression management.’” Similarly, “women leaders may be in the tiresome double bind of directing, commanding and controlling their teams without appearing to do so.”

“[W]hile expressing anger often enhances men’s status and competency in the eyes of others, it can be very costly to women in terms of how they are perceived.”

“When . . . are a few dirty cups a symbol of the exertion of male privilege, and when are they merely unwashed dishes?”

“One legacy of the neat breadwinner/caregiver division of labour is an expectation of the ‘zero drag’ worker who, because home and children are taken care of by someone else, can commit himself fully to his job.”

“[T]he more a woman adapts her career to family commitments, and the longer the accommodation goes on, the wider the gap between his and her salary and career potential becomes. And so it becomes increasingly rational to sacrifice her career to his.”

“Contrary to the idea of shared care as a modern, misguided fad, contemporary fathers may be less involved with their children than they were two to three hundred years ago.”

“Behind every great academic man there is a woman, but behind every great academic woman is an unpeeled potato and a child who needs some attention.”

“[There is a] so-called file-drawer phenomenon, whereby studies that do find sex differences get published, but those that don’t languish unpublished and unseen in a researcher’s file drawer.”

“[T]hose coloured spots on the brain represent statistical significance at the end of several stages of complicated analysis—which means there’s plenty of scope for spurious findings of sex differences in neuroimaging research.”

“Sommer and her colleagues reviewed (twice) all functional imaging studies of language lateralisation in a meta-analysis . . . [and] found ‘no significant sex difference in functional language lateralization.’”

“Several researchers have recently argued that gender differences in language skills are actually more or less nonexistent.”

“There just isn’t a simple one-to-one correspondence between brain regions and mental processes, which can make interpreting imaging data a difficult task.”

“‘Using fMRI to spy on neurons is something like using Cold War–era satellites to spy on people: Only large-scale activity is visible.’”

“Understandably, given all these interpretative gaps, many neuroscientists hesitate to speculate what their data might mean in terms of sex differences in thinking.”

“Are early twenty-first-century neuroscientific explanations of inequality—too little white matter, an unspecialised brain, too rapacious a corpus callosum—doomed to join the same garbage heap as measures of snout elongation, cephalic index and brain fibre delicacy? Will future generations look back on early twenty-first-century interpretations of imaging data with the same shocked amusement with which we regard early twentieth-century speculations about the relevance of sex differences in spinal cord size? I suspect they will, although only time will tell. But to any[one] considering trying to relate sex differences in the brain to complex psychological functions … well, let’s just say . . . unless you have a time machine and have visited a future in which neuroscientists can make reverse inferences without the nagging anxieties that keep the more thoughtful of them awake at night, do not suggest that parents or teachers treat boys and girls differently because of differences observed in their brains.”

“‘[D]espite the author’s extensive academic credentials, The Female Brain disappointingly fails to meet even the most basic standards of scientific accuracy and balance. The book is riddled with scientific errors and is misleading about the processes of brain development, the neuroendocrine system, and the nature of sex differences in general.’ The reviewers later go on to say that, ‘[t]he text is rife with “facts” that do not exist in the supporting references.’”

“[S]elf-fulfilling prophecies are being delivered alongside the new-look, single-sex curriculum.”

“[H]e proposed that intellectual labour sent energy rushing dangerously from ovaries to brain, endangering fertility as well as causing other severe medical ailments. . . . From our modern vantage point we can laugh at the prejudice that gave rise to this hypothesis.”

“The error of these gloomy soothsayers, it’s easy enough to see now, lay in their failure to adequately stretch the sociological imagination. So focused were they on locating the cause of inequality in some internal limitation of women – the lightweight brains, the energy-sapping ovaries, the special nurturing skills that leave no room for masculine ones – that they failed to see the injustice, as Stephen J. Gould put it, of ‘a limit imposed from without, but falsely identified as lying within.’”

“[T]he ‘biology as fallback’ position, as Kane called it. Only by process of elimination did they come to the conclusion that differences between boys and girls were biological. Believing that they practised gender-neutral parenting, biology was the only remaining explanation: Parents see their young children behaving in stereotypically boyish or girlish ways and, as Kane puts it, ‘assume that only something immutable could intervene between their gender-neutral efforts and the gendered outcomes they witness.”

“You can learn a lot from birth announcements. In 2004, McGill University researchers analysed nearly 400 birth announcements placed by parents in two Canadian newspapers, and examined them for expressions of happiness and pride. Parents of boys, they found, expressed more pride in the news, while parents of girls expressed greater happiness.”

“In modern, developed societies, males and females are legally—and no doubt also in the eyes of most parents—born with equal status and entitled to the same opportunities. Yet of course this egalitarian attitude is very new, and it’s poorly reflected in the distribution of political, social, economic and sometimes even personal power between the sexes.”

“Alison Nash and Rosemary Krawczyk inventoried the toys of more than 200 children in New York and Minnesota. They found that even among six- to twelve-month-old infants, the youngest age group they studied, boys had more ‘toys of the world’ (like transportation vehicles and machines) while girls had more ‘toys of the home’ (like dolls and housekeeping toys).”

“[One] study, for example, found that mothers conversed and interacted more with girl babies and young toddlers, even when they were as young as six months old. This was despite the fact that boys were no less responsive to their mother’s speech and were no more likely to leave their mother’s side. As the authors suggest, this may help girls learn the higher level of social interaction expected of them, and boys the greater independence.”

“[G]ender stereotypes, even if perhaps only implicitly held, affect parents’ behaviour towards their babies.”

“Implicit attitudes can also take the upper hand when it comes to our behaviour when we are distracted, tired or under pressure of time (conditions that, from personal experience, I would estimate are fulfilled about 99 percent of the time while parenting).”

“And, even though they sincerely claim to hold the two sexes as equal, parents simultaneously devalue the feminine and limit boys’ access to it.”

“Babies . . . seem to be primed to like what is familiar and are remarkably sensitive to their social world. So what, then, are we to make of recent evidence that children show gender-stereotyped interests before they are even two years old? . . . Does a six-month-old girl look longer at a pink doll than a blue truck because that’s how she’s wired or because she’s seen more pink and more dolls in her short life (especially paired with pleasurable experiences with caregivers) and less blue and fewer trucks? Does a one-year-old boy really play less with a plastic tea set because of hardwiring? What are we to make of boys’ greater interest in looking at balls and vehicles over feminine toys at nine months of age, given that six months earlier they looked at dolls, ovens and strollers just as much?”

“Infants and toddlers don’t need to know whether they are a boy or a girl to nonetheless be responsive to their parents’ ‘structuring, channeling, modeling, labeling, and reacting evaluatively to gender-linked conduct’, as psychologists Albert Bandura and Kay Bussey have pointed out.”

“[C]olour-coding for boys and girls once quite openly served the purpose of helping young children learn gender distinctions. Today, the original objective behind the convention has been forgotten. Yet it continues to accomplish exactly that, together with other habits we have that also draw children’s attention to gender . . . .”

“As we’ve seen, children are born into a world in which gender is continually emphasised through conventions of dress, appearance, language, colour, segregation and symbols. Everything around the child indicates that whether one is male or female is a matter of great importance.”

“‘[A] parent,’ suggests David, ‘no matter how loving or loved, cannot be a model for appropriate gender behaviour, unless the child’s exposure to the wider world (for example, through friendship groups and the media) suggests that the parent is a representative or prototypical male or female.’”

“[B]oys and girls alike are treated to little pointers when other children praise, imitate and join in certain types of play, but criticise, disrupt or abandon other activities. Unsurprisingly, this peer feedback seems to influence children’s behaviour, making it more stereotypical.”

“Rather than embrace the opportunity to present an imaginary world that offers children a glimpse of possibilities beyond the reality of male and female social roles, children’s media often continue to constrict gender roles, sometimes even with more rigidity than does the real world.”

“[P]icture-book women are still cracking their heads against the glass ceiling . . . .”

“[I]n the forty-one Caldecott winners and runners-up from 1984 to 1994[, o]ne gender was most commonly described as, among other adjectives, beautiful, frightened, worthy, sweet, weak and scared in the stories; the other gender as big, horrible, fierce, great, terrible, furious, brave and proud.”

“‘[G]irls are often left out of the adventure, the thrill, the plot, the picture’ even today in the Caldecott award winners, point out Packaging Girlhood authors Sharon Lamb and Lyn Brown, who combed through them all in search of a female adventuress.”

“Even so, it is easier to find an adventurous girl than a sissy boy.”

“‘Children scanning the list of titles of what have been designated as the very best children’s books are bound to receive the impression that girls are not very important because no one has bothered to write books about them.’”

“As within the pages of books, females tend to be underrepresented on TV and computer screens, and to miss out on central roles in advertisements and even cereal boxes.”

“The power of the media to dish up a stripped-down, concentrated version of cultural values enables it to represent the higher status of males in [an] uncomfortably blunt fashion.”

“At seventeen months, boys and girls were equally interested in the doll, tea set, brush and comb set and blocks, although girls spent less time playing with the truck. But four months later, girls had increased their doll play and boys had decreased it.”

“[These are] the less-visible cultural waters in which the sponges that are our children are immersed . . . .”
1 de 2 personas piensan que la opinión es útil
5.0 de un máximo de 5 estrellas Repetitive but insightful. 18 de noviembre de 2016
Por IronBatMaiden - Publicado en Amazon.com
Formato: Tapa blanda Compra verificada
At times, the book does come off as repetitive, but I think the reason they do that is because they're really trying to drive the point home. We like to think that sexism is over because of the laws we managed to pass, but legislation can only do so much. There is still sexism in our society and we have to continue fighting the battle. Thank you, Cordelia, for writing this book!
click to open popover