Where is all this acrimony coming from? Did anyone read the article on the BYU study? Here are some key points from it (asterisks are mine for emphasis):

"At 24 months of age, **children seem to recognize gender stereotypes - and when they are broken**, according to research from Brigham Young University."

So they're talking about what children *observe* and react to. Not what they can do or not do at any particular age. They are not even talking about children being interested in "male" or "female" toys (babies vs trucks). These 2 yos are observing and reacting to *adult* behavior. It’s a very narrow investigation, and has nothing to do with abilities or preferences. It’s not comparing brain size, shape, function or development. It’s measuring eye contact with images.

Here's what the study did:

"Flom placed toddlers in front of two video monitors. A male and female actor were taped putting on lipstick or shaving, and applying nail polish or tying a necktie. Two images were shown at the same time and BYU timed how long the toddlers paid attention to each.

The professor found **the 2-year-olds looked longer at the inconsistent images** - not because the children believed they were "wrong" but **because they were unfamiliar**, Flom said. In other words, children in the study were used to seeing women use lipstick and men wear ties."

Ergo, by 2, children can see patterns of activity, and relate them to people of a particular gender. When that pattern of behavior is performed by someone of the opposite gender, the 2yos notice. Again, this has nothing to do with differently developed brains for different genders. Unless posters are implying there is a "lipstick application center" in the brain that is bigger in girls than in boys? And a "tie tying center" that's bigger in boy brains?

Here are some conclusions drawn from the above study:

"The study is a "nice demonstration of a developmental phenomenon," said Chris Porter, a BYU professor of human development who wasn't involved in the research. He said **it shows babies are good observers who can pick up on subtle cues**.

"Perhaps there's more of a social pressure towards socializing these children to sexual norms" than previously thought, he added."

Being good observers is nature (innate to brain development in both genders). What they observe as “typical” gender behavior is nurture, since cave dwellers neither applied lipstick nor wore ties.

“"There's something about gender that's very captivating for children," Fogel said. "**We don't quite know why.**"

One explanation may be that it's biological. But the social environment plays a role, too. ****Parents who express strong gender stereotypical behavior have children who do the same****, he said.”

Now, here are some of my own thoughts:

These are very simple, stereotypical behaviors modeled for children, and obviously probably don’t apply to children whose parents and caregivers neither wear ties nor apply lipstick. And no one is advocating men start wearing lipstick and women ties to promote gender equality. But what I take away from this is: kids notice what we do.

And that probably goes waaaaay beyond gendered activities. They probably notice how we interact with spouses, friends, checkout clerks and traffic. So we should never assume are kids “won’t notice” if we behave in a way we wouldn’t want our kids to behave.

As I said in an earlier post, if we want our kids to feel that they are capable of doing well at any number of tasks, careers, activities, etc., we should make sure we model that for them, in both genders. Or at the very least. We shouldn’t limit our kids’ options by gender (no “boy jobs” or “girl jobs” around the house). (n no, I’m not saying everyone is equally good at everything. But I’m saying our abilities shouldn’t be determined solely by gender.)

The last statement I asterisked needs some stats to back it up. But it’s intriguing. And should be examined further. Especially by those posters who suggest Tracy Cark-Flory is an idiot and I am a man-hater.

for a thoughtful take on this ad. I agree with you. WTF Fox?!? Ummm ... pregnancy is a "health issue". Pregnancy isn't a diease, but it is a condition that affects the entire body systems: endocrine, circulatory, digestive and nervous. Pregnancy can cause gestational diabetes and preeclampsia, as well as weight gain, crying jags and food cravings. Preventing one, when you aren't prepared for the profound physiological changes pregnancy causes, (never mind the psychological complications!) is a very good idea.

I'm pretty sure Fox would object to any ad that laid out the non-pregnancy health hazards of unprotected sex. (I second the motion for a gay bar ad!)

As for the men are pigs bit ... I find bar booty calls to be piggy behavior in both sexes. So I don't think the metaphor was on point. But the ad was funny, in the same way fart jokes are funny.

And it's interesting to see how much time your detractors spend writing you hate letters.