Different countries, it's hardly surprising. People like to lump "the West" together, but there are a lot of differences between countries, particularly if you look at the details, like eduction.
I remember when I was at school, back in the 1980s, I was really annoyed when an official, teacher supervised Dungeons & Dragons club started up. It stops being cool when it becomes mainstream.
Being somewhat of a fan of just about everything British Culture, I wasn't necessarily speaking about country differences.
In my world, boys are just as much pressured into conformity as girls. It is absolutely a different KIND of conformity, but if a boy isn't into sports and outgoing and athletic, he gets bullied or ostracized.
Okay that is a bit of an exaggeration, but there are definitely social groupings into which you get pushed. Jocks, Band Geeks, The smoking crowd, the burn outs, the glee club, the science nerds. All are social groups to which boys (and girls) are heavily influenced to join. There is some bullying between those groups, it is true, but generally there are HEAVY social pressures to become a part of one or more of them. Even LGBT is a sub-group.
Even the socially 'Bad' elements have their own 'groups'. True non-conformist behavior by either gender is absolutely frowned upon. In fact, it is often times treated with psychological and pharmacological solutions (joke).
And it is more or less sociology at it's finest. social interaction is easiest if you have commonality. And hanging around larger groups of like minded individuals prevents you from being picked off by members of other groups. Which is the fundamental basis of all society. The teenage years is effectively society in miniature.
I'm not sure teenage years are actually that relevant to macro-society... there are some carry overs, but most people want a mix of inclusion and autonomy... teenagers are huge on inclusion, but are bad at autonomy, despite wanting it. Teenagers aren't mentally fully developed, and tend to be big on risks, in the sense that the ability to weight risk vs payout has been scientifically found to be VERY weighted towards over-valuing payouts. This is especially true when you think about the high risk choices teens make to be 'socially accepted', something adults look on as far less valuable.
Easy example, adults other than a very small subset don't get in fights. Teens don't usually either, but most people that might then won't later in life, because there are ramifications enough to make it very stupid. Heck, even being somewhat benignly anti-social can royally screw over your employability, resulting in missing promotions or being fired. Part of being an adult is seeing the importance of working together with people you dislike but have something to offer. You can be part of whatever clique you want, but if you won't cooperate with coworkers, you will be limited.
TLDR I suppose I think most teens have such different priorities that teenage society is a poor comparison to adult society, though I have heard that theory before. I just don't buy it.
@DreadKhan - I think what you are describing is the difference in Maturity rather than actually break from community. If you follow sociology back far enough in time you will probably find exactly what you describe in early primitive societal groups. And as teenagers grow into adulthood, those same drives towards society are what form the cornerstones of the society that they inhabit. The individuality is something separate and comes with maturity rather than as a direct correlation to society itself.
But again, it doesn't attack the basic question of if the genders are as different as some are saying (by nature or nurture).
I'm not sure modern 'small world' societies follow the same rules as a small, closed group does. Well, technically, we're moving bqck towards 'public shaming/mob justice' with the social media boom, so things may be looping back a bit.
I would say closed societies rely very heavily on personal reputation, something far less important in modern open society. Use of 'references' for a resume are a throwback, but are very imperfect, since unless you actually know the person giving the reference, it's of dubious value. Other than those references though, we don't interact enough with everyone in our massive 'social group' for personal experience to be very useful. Being a criminal was not an option in a small society, but can for some be profitable in a large one. The dynamic is very different, the fact that we ultimately live with strangers in many ways. Even if you have a very bad local reputation, that may not follow you even a couple towns away, or won't right away. Even a tight community in a large city isn't the same, because outcasts go to another neighbourhood.
I'm not saying your view isn't held by many sociologists, I just think there is a faulty premise on which good logic was built! Small closed societies and teenager sub-societies do not have much in common with adult society. To me its like trying to learn about cats by studying dogs, though I admit some see it more as dogs vs wolves.
Nobody in their right mind would say their are no physical differences between genders, but both the mental and physical (ie men are supposed to do weights, women yoga and pilates... which is laughable to anyone wih any background in kineseology) are shaped most significantly by society. The mental differences are kinda misleading anyways; masculinity vs feminity is a scale, and I don't think our social construct of these aligns perfectly with biology. As has been taught in the East, there is yin in yang, and vice versa. The 'ubermanly' and 'uberfeminine' are both almost certainly that way due to notmexpressing a part of their nature, not that the part doesn't exist. That said, to go off into mildly offensive territory, I suspect most men have a stronger tendency towards masculinity, and women towards feminity, yet this is no excuse for society to oppress those that don't correlate.
Tldr; I think the best point I can think of is that gaming inherently is not remotely a gendered activity, but games have often in the past been designed and marketed towards boys. This lead some men to unfortunately assume that gaming can't or shouldn't appeal to women.
Nowadays LEGOs are considered a "Boy's toy", to the point where "girl LEGOs" are primarily pink and purple colored (there's that gendered alley, where girls toys are all in pink, purple and (sometimes) yellow, where boy toys are all in strong, primary colors (generally red and blue and sometimes black, silver or gray)) it's become a cultural shorthand where girl toys are segregated by color and type (dollies and domestic toys like EZBake Ovens) are for girls and "active Toys" are for boys. But it's not the colors that are the problem, it's the fact that we have "Boy toys" and "girl toys" at all.
When I was growing up in the 70's. I'll admit, I had dolls that cried, peed and colored their eyes. I had tons of Barbies and when I was younger, I had tons of "Fisher Price People". But I also played with LEGOs (in my case, knock-off versions with windows you could actually open. I don't recall LEGOs having those.) and K'Nex (which could be attached to your LEGOs- I don't know if that's still true, but it used to be). I had an Easy-Bake Oven, and a Light Bright. Almost a literal ton of Barbie Accessories, including the Barbie Plane, the Disco, A Knock-Off Oven in the Round (a 70's thing that was a staple of the kitchen), Wicker furniture I bought in California (a Bed Set and Living Room with a couch, chair and loveseat), one of those spinning paint art toys, another one that allowed you to make tube of yard clothes for your Barbies, and a fashion plate toy where you "built" fashions from plastic plates with tops, bottoms and shoes, then used a black crayon to etch them onto paper. The backside of the plates had patterns for the "Fabric", which you could, then color.
These days, though, except for very young children, toys seem more segregated. Boy toys involve action and doing things. Girl toys incorporate fashion in some way (BRATZ and Barbie) or doing domestic chores like childcare, cooking and/or stereotypical "girly" activities like shopping or setting up a house. Again, there is nothing wrong with any of those, but thankfully, these days it seems you are more able to find toys which break the mold for girls. I'm not so sure the same is true of boys. And LEGOs, which used to be marketed for the whole family, are still solidly considered a "Boy toy" rather than a genderless or gender inclusive (for both boys *and* girls) toy.
In short, it's not just cultural, it's being reinforced by the toys we give our kids. And it's so subtle, most people don't even see anything strange about it. That's one of the many reasons I *like* toys and games that break the gender conventions. I LIKE that the Black Widow can kick her weight in asses like Captain America. Yes, she does it slightly differently, but she is still pretty kick ass. I haven't seen the second film yet, but I am a bit sad that they turned her into "I do not have a hubby and kids, therefore I am not a real woman" trope (or so I hear- I am willing to see and judge for myself).
While we're on the topic of toys, I have a mildly related story to tell.
I was cleaning out my room today. Mostly just to get rid of some books, but I found some doll accessories lying around too. While I was reorganizing my bookshelf, I found these tiny, blank books that normally go on a keychain, just the right size for a Barbie to hold.
I opened one up and found spells and descriptions that I'd made up as a kid! That's right, I dressed my barbie dolls like deadly sorceresses with their very own spellbooks, even though we all know that these Barbies were made to be anything but. XD
Just goes to show, gender conventions are nothing next to a child's imagination.
(Mind you, this is a gal who grew up watching Sailor Moon, Slayers, and a few other sci-fi/fantasy anime shows with kick-ass ladies.)
I used to have romances between my toys. I shipped the different power rangers together before I knew what shipping was and I was always a starry-eyed romantic. No great war-epic made with G.I. Joes was complete if someone wasn't killed protecting their beloved. And this was when I was, like, 6.
The G.I. Joes they had when I was growing up were the 12 inch ones. My other big love was horses. I rode horses and has these plastic-type horse collectibles. Oh, and Dinosaurs. We has a second floor deck and I excavated the dirt beneath the deck into a Jurassic/prehistoric play area for my dinosaurs. I made depressions I'd fill with water and separate with bits of wood and stones and spend hours playing with my plastic dinosaurs in the mud. (T.Rex was a bad guy, of course, always attacking the other dinos until he was driven away by Triceratops and Stegosaurus.) I even made my own "Prehistoric mud" using the dirt mixed with the charcoal ash from our charcoal-burning Barbecue.
Horses: Were made by Breyer. I remember having a Palomino and a Silver Mustang (Black Horse, white mane), and a bay Saddlehorse Mare and foal.
I do agree that marketing for children's toys do tend to be a bit gender biased. However, I think that the way your parents raise you has at least as much to do with who you end up being as any external stimulus. If they don't buy all of the frilly girly toys, you won't associate with them as much.
But it does go the other way as well. As an adult male, I quite simply do not feel comfortable wearing pastels or bright colors of any description. Even a few shirts that my Ex-wife bought me hang in the closet, unworn because I just feel uncomfortable in them. That's psychological rather than biological though.
And I would hope that is changing somewhat. With more parents playing video games, I would hope that more children are being introduced to them early enough to make an impression. I know for a fact that women have played games almost back to their invention, it just was not as socially acceptable as it is today.
What's worse is that stereotype images have lead to horrible things like Gamergate and other negative attitudes. Like I said before, women are just as capable of being interested in time wasting endeavors as men. And gaming allows for a whole new and different type of socialization that we old folks didn't have growing up. I am heartened that some of the fun things that I enjoy are equally enjoyed by potential friends and mates out there of the female persuasion.
The funniest thing about Barbie dolls, actually (I didn't have them but my sister did, before you start wondering! ) is that they were generally random beach bum type characters who don't do anything but look pretty. They don't generally come with tools of any profession of any kind, but with just clothes and mini hairbrushes. Even the "male Barbie", Ken, just had clothes and a fancy car. The guys' equivalent, the Action Man doll (which I was too old for by the time it became mainstream) at least had guns, multi-purpose vehicles and protective armour; his kit had a purpose, and wasn't just for random dressing up.
I know they were just toys, and were marketed that way for a reason, but it shows how old toy manufacturers saw both genders in terms of what they thought they liked to play with/as. This was also at a time when most girls' toys were plastic babies who cried, drank milk from bottles, and wet themselves; I always wondered who in their right mind would want to play with a doll whose main feature is that it wets itself. If it wasn't that, it was plastic multicoloured ponies (with hair that you could brush).
But then, in fairness, The Sims is probably one of the most popular games played by girls...that and Candy Crush :P (for the record: I did play the first Sims game when it came out for a bit, but I got bored quite quickly - the fact that there were no dragons to slay, worlds to save, and big bad antagonists to fight against kind of put me off! )
I grew up with action man and a badly mutilated dr x with a hook hand. He wasn't originally hook handed but my dog chewed his hand off and my dad put a hook in to replace it. Tbh it made him way more evil looking.
I never watched the series, I just had the toys. I never could get the parachute to work, throwing him out of a second story window wasn't high enough.
Well, at first I thought this was going to be extremely sexist, considering that I am a female.
Now, why do I play video games? Because, they're fun, and I kind of grew up on video games like Street Fighter, Super Mario Bros, and Legend of Zelda.
Why Baldur's Gate? Because when my dad was waiting for Diablo 2 because he had just finished Diablo, he tasked me with adult supervision, mind you I was seven at the time, to go get Diablo 2, but it wasn't out yet, and when I pre-ordered D2, again with adult supervision, I ended up getting Baldur's Gate. Of course, it kind of helped that the gamestop clerk said that it was Dungeons and Dragons, and the seven year old me was having flashbacks to about three years earlier, back when my dad used to play DnD. So, I returned home with Baldur's Gate, dad and I installed it, and I watched him play, and I liked it because I could let my imagination roam. Just as I had done three years prior with the minatures that my dad had to use for the DnD campaign he was apart of.
That was a very good choice from a 7 years old! I hope your dad was happy
The opening post is hilarious, like a time machine without temporal engineering skills required.
I had He-Man toys and I didn't really play with them. I arranged them in battle positions on their castles and then figured... hey, I put a lot thought in this, why would I now destroy this by bashing dolls together? So I just left them in their neat strategic positions and played with something else.
I played Sims... in the broader sense. A friend left his entire collection at my house - Sims 2, I think, where you had a vacation add on and one that added annoying pets that would pee everywhere. I figured why not check it out, got bored with pixely people taking ages to complete a simple task and found the editor. The only times I "played" it was to test some new map or item or skin after that.
I also had dinosaurs as a child, and Strax and Carrera. I build a huge dinosaur park with a race track through it. I'm not very interested in cars or motor sports as adult though, and really doubt the choice of toys has anything to do with it. Except that one boy from my school, Peter. Peter liked trains. Peter liked trains a LOT. Peter had every toy train ever, i.e. Playmobil train station, but no other Playmobil. Peter knew the depatures and arrivals for every train, in every city, in the entire COUNTRY by the time he was 12, from memory. He was a hit on class trips. 30 years later, Peter is a train operator. Peter's dream job as a child was to announce departures and arrivals over the station speakers. Maybe it was the toys, after all, and I should look for a position as race car driver in a Jurrasic theme park.
...and really doubt the choice of toys has anything to do with it.
The selection of toys available to a child DOES impact their later adult lives. Personally, I think that all children should have access to a variety of toys representing a wide range of attitudes. It is often through dolls and the like that children learn how to handle and bond with babies. I think that is something both boys and girls could benefit from. And likewise, sports helps develop team building and working together type skills. Again, I think that both genders could benefit from more of this.
Where it breaks down is that only girls are given baby dolls (under the misguided impression that they are the only ones who will bond with/take care of the children) and mainly boys play with team sports.
@the_spyder Could you clear up why it is important for either child to "relate to babies"? If the child has a younger sibling (like myself), dolls don't do any good to relate to him or her because dolls are not humans, dolls don't make sounds, dolls don't need anything. If dolls were the foundation for that, there would be no male pedeatricians or teachers. What dolls do is help children to mimic their mother who may be taking care of a younger sibling. This is not exclusive to girls, nor are sports the only thing that help boys to work together. Playing house is about coordinating tasks and roles as well, and traditionally a girl thing to do.
Sure, I agree that every child should be given choices and just play with whatever they like. But it has nothing to do with later life choices or abilities. If it did, the world would be full of race car drivers, firefighters and astronauts who are horrible fathers.
@KidCarnival - I'm no Psychiatrist, nor any sort of authority on the matter. I have taken classes where they've explored how a child raised with dolls is "More comfortable" with small children (either their own or others) as grownups. This is by no means required in order for that bond to exist, merely that it facilitates it.
Psychiatry and Psychology are not 'All or nothing' type sciences, so just because there are outliers which might not follow the trend, it does not follow that the trend itself is invalid.
But again, I am no expert. And I am sure there are better learned and more eloquent who could phrase it better.
I would like to mention that dolls might predate us, as Orangutans are known to make and play with 'dolls' (they make pretend babies). Not sure if thats a gendered behaviour though I think it actually is.
This doesn't prove they are better with babies though.
Umm, so all male caretakers of children, professionally or personally, are "outliers"? Nope. I simply think dolls are "girl toys" because child care is seen as a female dominated role and girls might idolize their mother and play to "be mom" (THEIR mom, not any mom). My brother and I definitely played "dad" and did things related to my father's job. Not because we wanted to have that job or role, because we wanted to be like dad.
In a generation with gender roles among parents not as clean cut as they used to be, you might find more boys playing with dolls because they are raised by a stay at home dad, or girls playing with cars or tools and pretend to be their mother whose job or hobby includes those things.
In a generation with gender roles among parents not as clean cut as they used to be, you might find more boys playing with dolls because they are raised by a stay at home dad, or girls playing with cars or tools and pretend to be their mother whose job or hobby includes those things.
I think the toys kids like and play with are almost completely dependant on what toys their parents get them. And the later, what ads their parents let them see.
Comments
In my world, boys are just as much pressured into conformity as girls. It is absolutely a different KIND of conformity, but if a boy isn't into sports and outgoing and athletic, he gets bullied or ostracized.
Okay that is a bit of an exaggeration, but there are definitely social groupings into which you get pushed. Jocks, Band Geeks, The smoking crowd, the burn outs, the glee club, the science nerds. All are social groups to which boys (and girls) are heavily influenced to join. There is some bullying between those groups, it is true, but generally there are HEAVY social pressures to become a part of one or more of them. Even LGBT is a sub-group.
Even the socially 'Bad' elements have their own 'groups'. True non-conformist behavior by either gender is absolutely frowned upon. In fact, it is often times treated with psychological and pharmacological solutions (joke).
And it is more or less sociology at it's finest. social interaction is easiest if you have commonality. And hanging around larger groups of like minded individuals prevents you from being picked off by members of other groups. Which is the fundamental basis of all society. The teenage years is effectively society in miniature.
Easy example, adults other than a very small subset don't get in fights. Teens don't usually either, but most people that might then won't later in life, because there are ramifications enough to make it very stupid. Heck, even being somewhat benignly anti-social can royally screw over your employability, resulting in missing promotions or being fired. Part of being an adult is seeing the importance of working together with people you dislike but have something to offer. You can be part of whatever clique you want, but if you won't cooperate with coworkers, you will be limited.
TLDR I suppose I think most teens have such different priorities that teenage society is a poor comparison to adult society, though I have heard that theory before. I just don't buy it.
But again, it doesn't attack the basic question of if the genders are as different as some are saying (by nature or nurture).
I would say closed societies rely very heavily on personal reputation, something far less important in modern open society. Use of 'references' for a resume are a throwback, but are very imperfect, since unless you actually know the person giving the reference, it's of dubious value. Other than those references though, we don't interact enough with everyone in our massive 'social group' for personal experience to be very useful. Being a criminal was not an option in a small society, but can for some be profitable in a large one. The dynamic is very different, the fact that we ultimately live with strangers in many ways. Even if you have a very bad local reputation, that may not follow you even a couple towns away, or won't right away. Even a tight community in a large city isn't the same, because outcasts go to another neighbourhood.
I'm not saying your view isn't held by many sociologists, I just think there is a faulty premise on which good logic was built! Small closed societies and teenager sub-societies do not have much in common with adult society. To me its like trying to learn about cats by studying dogs, though I admit some see it more as dogs vs wolves.
Nobody in their right mind would say their are no physical differences between genders, but both the mental and physical (ie men are supposed to do weights, women yoga and pilates... which is laughable to anyone wih any background in kineseology) are shaped most significantly by society. The mental differences are kinda misleading anyways; masculinity vs feminity is a scale, and I don't think our social construct of these aligns perfectly with biology. As has been taught in the East, there is yin in yang, and vice versa. The 'ubermanly' and 'uberfeminine' are both almost certainly that way due to notmexpressing a part of their nature, not that the part doesn't exist. That said, to go off into mildly offensive territory, I suspect most men have a stronger tendency towards masculinity, and women towards feminity, yet this is no excuse for society to oppress those that don't correlate.
Tldr; I think the best point I can think of is that gaming inherently is not remotely a gendered activity, but games have often in the past been designed and marketed towards boys. This lead some men to unfortunately assume that gaming can't or shouldn't appeal to women.
When I was growing up in the 70's. I'll admit, I had dolls that cried, peed and colored their eyes. I had tons of Barbies and when I was younger, I had tons of "Fisher Price People". But I also played with LEGOs (in my case, knock-off versions with windows you could actually open. I don't recall LEGOs having those.) and K'Nex (which could be attached to your LEGOs- I don't know if that's still true, but it used to be). I had an Easy-Bake Oven, and a Light Bright. Almost a literal ton of Barbie Accessories, including the Barbie Plane, the Disco, A Knock-Off Oven in the Round (a 70's thing that was a staple of the kitchen), Wicker furniture I bought in California (a Bed Set and Living Room with a couch, chair and loveseat), one of those spinning paint art toys, another one that allowed you to make tube of yard clothes for your Barbies, and a fashion plate toy where you "built" fashions from plastic plates with tops, bottoms and shoes, then used a black crayon to etch them onto paper. The backside of the plates had patterns for the "Fabric", which you could, then color.
These days, though, except for very young children, toys seem more segregated. Boy toys involve action and doing things. Girl toys incorporate fashion in some way (BRATZ and Barbie) or doing domestic chores like childcare, cooking and/or stereotypical "girly" activities like shopping or setting up a house. Again, there is nothing wrong with any of those, but thankfully, these days it seems you are more able to find toys which break the mold for girls. I'm not so sure the same is true of boys. And LEGOs, which used to be marketed for the whole family, are still solidly considered a "Boy toy" rather than a genderless or gender inclusive (for both boys *and* girls) toy.
In short, it's not just cultural, it's being reinforced by the toys we give our kids. And it's so subtle, most people don't even see anything strange about it. That's one of the many reasons I *like* toys and games that break the gender conventions. I LIKE that the Black Widow can kick her weight in asses like Captain America. Yes, she does it slightly differently, but she is still pretty kick ass. I haven't seen the second film yet, but I am a bit sad that they turned her into "I do not have a hubby and kids, therefore I am not a real woman" trope (or so I hear- I am willing to see and judge for myself).
I was cleaning out my room today. Mostly just to get rid of some books, but I found some doll accessories lying around too. While I was reorganizing my bookshelf, I found these tiny, blank books that normally go on a keychain, just the right size for a Barbie to hold.
I opened one up and found spells and descriptions that I'd made up as a kid! That's right, I dressed my barbie dolls like deadly sorceresses with their very own spellbooks, even though we all know that these Barbies were made to be anything but. XD
Just goes to show, gender conventions are nothing next to a child's imagination.
(Mind you, this is a gal who grew up watching Sailor Moon, Slayers, and a few other sci-fi/fantasy anime shows with kick-ass ladies.)
Horses: Were made by Breyer. I remember having a Palomino and a Silver Mustang (Black Horse, white mane), and a bay Saddlehorse Mare and foal.
But it does go the other way as well. As an adult male, I quite simply do not feel comfortable wearing pastels or bright colors of any description. Even a few shirts that my Ex-wife bought me hang in the closet, unworn because I just feel uncomfortable in them. That's psychological rather than biological though.
And I would hope that is changing somewhat. With more parents playing video games, I would hope that more children are being introduced to them early enough to make an impression. I know for a fact that women have played games almost back to their invention, it just was not as socially acceptable as it is today.
What's worse is that stereotype images have lead to horrible things like Gamergate and other negative attitudes. Like I said before, women are just as capable of being interested in time wasting endeavors as men. And gaming allows for a whole new and different type of socialization that we old folks didn't have growing up. I am heartened that some of the fun things that I enjoy are equally enjoyed by potential friends and mates out there of the female persuasion.
I know they were just toys, and were marketed that way for a reason, but it shows how old toy manufacturers saw both genders in terms of what they thought they liked to play with/as. This was also at a time when most girls' toys were plastic babies who cried, drank milk from bottles, and wet themselves; I always wondered who in their right mind would want to play with a doll whose main feature is that it wets itself. If it wasn't that, it was plastic multicoloured ponies (with hair that you could brush).
But then, in fairness, The Sims is probably one of the most popular games played by girls...that and Candy Crush :P (for the record: I did play the first Sims game when it came out for a bit, but I got bored quite quickly - the fact that there were no dragons to slay, worlds to save, and big bad antagonists to fight against kind of put me off!
These are the Action figures I grew up with.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/exploring-the-mysteries-of-the-mind-with-the-sims-3/
Warning: Video Quality is terrible, but it was the best I could do.
I had He-Man toys and I didn't really play with them. I arranged them in battle positions on their castles and then figured... hey, I put a lot thought in this, why would I now destroy this by bashing dolls together? So I just left them in their neat strategic positions and played with something else.
I played Sims... in the broader sense. A friend left his entire collection at my house - Sims 2, I think, where you had a vacation add on and one that added annoying pets that would pee everywhere. I figured why not check it out, got bored with pixely people taking ages to complete a simple task and found the editor. The only times I "played" it was to test some new map or item or skin after that.
I also had dinosaurs as a child, and Strax and Carrera. I build a huge dinosaur park with a race track through it. I'm not very interested in cars or motor sports as adult though, and really doubt the choice of toys has anything to do with it.
Except that one boy from my school, Peter. Peter liked trains. Peter liked trains a LOT. Peter had every toy train ever, i.e. Playmobil train station, but no other Playmobil. Peter knew the depatures and arrivals for every train, in every city, in the entire COUNTRY by the time he was 12, from memory. He was a hit on class trips. 30 years later, Peter is a train operator. Peter's dream job as a child was to announce departures and arrivals over the station speakers. Maybe it was the toys, after all, and I should look for a position as race car driver in a Jurrasic theme park.
Where it breaks down is that only girls are given baby dolls (under the misguided impression that they are the only ones who will bond with/take care of the children) and mainly boys play with team sports.
Sure, I agree that every child should be given choices and just play with whatever they like. But it has nothing to do with later life choices or abilities. If it did, the world would be full of race car drivers, firefighters and astronauts who are horrible fathers.
Psychiatry and Psychology are not 'All or nothing' type sciences, so just because there are outliers which might not follow the trend, it does not follow that the trend itself is invalid.
But again, I am no expert. And I am sure there are better learned and more eloquent who could phrase it better.
This doesn't prove they are better with babies though.
In a generation with gender roles among parents not as clean cut as they used to be, you might find more boys playing with dolls because they are raised by a stay at home dad, or girls playing with cars or tools and pretend to be their mother whose job or hobby includes those things.