Last spring my church sponsored a book discussion group about the book, "The Wonder of Boys" by Michael Gurian. Gurian's thesis is that boys' and girls' brains (Portland area lurkers, note that I have used the apostrophes correctly!) are hard-wired differently and they will inevitably think, feel and respond to most things in life differently. He notes repeatedly that neither is better than the other, but we need to be more aware of the differences.

I bring this up, because it struck me several times that the description of what Gurian calls, "Boy Culture" points out areas where I have had to adjust my own thinking to fit into what might be called the ref culture. I have just noted this a few times on this board, and now I'm desperate enough for some legitimate referee talk that I'd like to expound a little. The book is 250 large pages of small print, so I can't go into a lot of detail but there are about five points that intrigue me. I think I will start five threads, so that each point can be considered separately. It's not that I think this stuff is so huge, just that the different areas are somehwat separate.

Could I also ask that the personal stuff stay on some other threads? If no one wants to talk about this book, fine, just let these thread die. Thanks.

Point 1: Competition vs. Collaboration

Gurian observes that boy culture is based much more on competition than girl culture which he calls collaborative. His whole thinking is that competition is fundamental to a boy's relationships to other boys, and it's a big part of his self-definition. The other important part of this is that the competition shouldn't be aimed at winning at all costs. It should seek to find the place of the individual in the pecking order. In other words, just because someone isn't on top doesn't mean he's hopeless, it just means that his place in the hierarchy is different. Also a boy could be on top in one area, such as refereeing, but be in a crowd in the middle in another area, such as at work, or in church leadership.

I see this so clearly in the Portland Basketball Officials' Association (another great use of the apostrophe!). There is this constant atmosphere of competition and challenge. Although we are instructed not to compare schedules, everybody does it in subtle ways. This competitive atmosphere is one of the first things that really grated for me. I am very feminine in being aggressively collaborative, and struggled mightily with the competition I felt in the air.

After reading this book, I see that it doesn't have to be a bad thing, and in fact, is part of the culture. It helps refs feel a sense of belonging to know where they fit in, and it helps define the social interactions as well. People who want to get ahead, watch the top dogs, knowing who the best are by their place in the pecking order. People who watch the leaders, and don't want that pressure, or whatever, know how to behave differently. There are some who say they'd like a better schedule, but don't seem to get ahead. These people have a place to be, for now and can move up if they are willing to jump through the hoops. Or they can try to change the hoops.

But the basis of the structure is competition. We compete for "tournament votes", for the "best" games, for Varsity status, for a place at the "right" table at meetings, for board positions, and so on. Even the door prizes at the banquet are given by a sort of competition (drawing).

Are there any Associations out there that are made up of primarily women that are structured differently? I'd be interested in seeing a collaborative model if one exists.

I'll be adding other points from the book in other threads, but not today. I've got to go exercise my feminine side, and be a mom.

OK, Rainmaker,
I'll jump in on this. All of this will be based on my non-expert opinion. We are wired differently. One is not better than the other, just different. I referee womens college basketball. I have met officials, men and women, that are competitve, and I have met those that are collaborative. The refs that make the biggest impression on me are those that do the best job they can on the floor. This involves doing what is best for the crew, and the game. If I have not made a call in a while, I might take a call away from my partner.( Make sure this in in a dual area). I am not being competitive. I don't want the coaches to get the perception that one official is making all the calls. The opposite may also happen.
I think we should always strive to be the best official we can be. At the same time, we need to be happy for those officials that move up the ladder, even if we don't.
I guess there needs to be a mixture of competition and collaboration. We need to make sure we have pure motives. Jesus taught that we should put others first. He also taught that we should do our best in all things we do. I want a bigger schedule, but I want my friends to have bigger schedules too. If I get a championship game I am happy. If you get a championship game I am happy for you. I will try to get it next year. I hope I did not ramble on too much. I look forward to seeing the other threads.

Rainmaker-

The only response that I have is! I appreciate you taking the time to post the thread. Makes me think.
Thanks

AK ref SE

I agree that we are wired differently. But I also see people on both sides move toward the middle. My daughter is much more driven in her activities than in the past. I, on the other hand, am less competitive than I was in years past. I still strive to advance in my career but am much more patient in waiting on the advancement. Also, that is the only area where I actively seek to advance. In the past, if I joined an organization or started doing something I worked tirelessly to get a leadership role or advance. Now, I honestly could not care less if I advance in my ancillary activities – including officiating (OK, I’m busting my hump to get better at golf but that is only to prove to that stupid white ball I’m the boss). If someone else wants the leadership position…FANTASTIC. Somebody else wants the great schedule, go for it. You want the playoff games instead of me…that’s fine.

I came to the realization (or finally understood) that my self worth has absolutely nothing to do with how I’m viewed in those areas. There are only three people on the face of this great earth whose opinion of me as a person are important…an none of them ever post on this board (no offense intended). Do I hope that people like me…yes. Would I prefer that people respect my work and effort…yes, especially my boss. But I will survive if others do not hold me in high regard. So you see, I think as people mature they tend to move toward a mix of competitive and collaborative because the begin to develop a sense of what matters in life.

I think you make a good point that both have their place. The point in the book is not that each man is competitive, but that the culture of men is based on competition. There is a subtle difference, but important. Women can certainly be very competitive, but the culture that women establish tends to be collaborative.

In the area of reffing, you aren't as driven as some, and you may find that most of your relationships with other refs aren't really competitive, but the culture that grows up between refs is based on competition, if your area is anything like mine. This is good since it drives people to excell, and great reffing is good for the game. I would guess that in either kind of culture, the variety of people can find their places, but since men had the culture all to themselves in the beginning, it was the male culture that became established.

Juulie - I used to work with a guy who had the following theory about how to succeed in life. He said that you needed to understand just three principles. They are:

1) Don't make a promise you can't keep unless you are a damn good liar.

2) You can get anyone to do what you want, as long as you can trick them into thinking it's good for them.

3) Women are looney.

I think he's right on two of them. ;)

I am not sure that boys and girls are wired differently. I know some women who are more competitive than men, and men who are more collaborative. I think there are basic personalitiy types that we all have, that are inate in all of us. These basic personality types do not change... However culturally boys are taught competition and girls are taught collaboration.

Boys play cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, army....
Little boys play football basketball etc....
How many little boys are taught its ok to fighr?

Little girls play with dolls and Barbies and if there is a disagrrementthey are always taught to get a long. Women are taught to be nuturing etc. If there is a competitve woman she is a *itch and is made to feel guilty about not woorying about realtionships.

There are differences between man and womwn but its more cultural when it comes to competition.

Sorry, I can't help it, I have to know. How in the world did you have time to read this book, I thought you were reading a book about rocks that had about 7000 pages? You must read alot!

I do read a lot. The rocks book has ONLY 750 pages not 7000, and I read this Wonder of Boys book (and its sequel The Wonder of Girls) before I found the rocks book. The rocks book is going along in (oh, dear, this is a very bad pun...) small chunks (I warned you!) with other books in between. Which have been chick-type books like Bridget Jones Diary which is much better than the movie, and The Red Tent, by Anita Diamant, which is an amazing book for many reasons, and very, very "chick". When I need something frothy after a long day, I revert back to Jane Austen, right now I'm working on Persuasion again.

Kelvin, your opinion is very interesting, that male/female differences of behavior and attitude are learned. Gurian wrote this book exactly becuase this is the prevailing attitude in America today, and he thinks that it's hurting us as a nation. I would encourange you to read his book, if you have children, and just see what you think. I don't agree with everything he says, but the biology is sound, and his observations of trends and overall patterns have been holding up for me over the last few months. He doesn't acknowledge enough the individual differences, and he doesn't talk about how to deal with them, which I see as a major deficit of the book, but for what he is examining, he has a lot of worthwhile things to say.

Juulie,

This is certainly an interesting (if non-basketball) topic. I have a degree in Psychology, and I remember the many heated discussions in Developmental Psychology (my favourite subject) when the lecturer started discussing the differences between male and female brains. In my experience, I found that too many women believed that "different" meant "worse" and became quite defensive during these discussions. Personally I put this down to hundreds (if not thousands) of years of women being told and treated as less intelligent than men. I think it is important for people to keep in mind that "different" does not mean "worse" or "less", it just means different.

I firmly believe that male and female brains are different, and that some of these differences account for some of the differences between men and women. Certainly environment and culture play a part as well. One thing that I think people would do well to remember is that we (humans) are just animals - like any other. Too often people assume that we are better than other animals, whereas in fact we are simply more highly evolved. Although we have learnt to control many of our animal urges and behaviours, these facets are still present and often exhibit themselves in subconscious behaviour.

One of the best examples of the differences between male and female brains that my lecturer raised was watching TV. The majority of males will rapidly change between channels looking for something to watch, pausing only briefly on each channel. On the other hand, women tend to change channels rarely, and give programs a much larger ammount of time to grab their interest. It has been suggested that this difference goes back to the very early days of mankind, where the men hunted and women gathered. Hunters had to make quick decisions on whether prey was worth pursuing, otherwise they risked burning more calories than they would gain with the kill. Women were more able to slowly consider the benefits of individual plants since only a minimal outlay of energy was required. Obviously this is only an analogy and is, like all psychology, a generalisation and does not apply to everyone.

Anyway, I look forward to reading the rest of your (and others') posts about this book.

Dis-jointed observations
 

The Coach of UConn women, #1 at the time, said (on TV) a few years ago, that he thought that social structure encouraged women/girls to have a tendancy to make attempts to get along with other people (collaborative) and that he had to teach his team that it was okay to win and to win big (competitive).

In a choice between environmental or genetic, I would side with environment, and I am sure that competitiveness can be learned.

I have certainly observed over the years that, in general, winning seems to mean a lot more to men, than women, "after" a contest, for the men will continue celebrating much longer than women. The women will be just as happy, pleased and proud of winning, but they seem to <u>not</u> "keep it in the face of an opponent".

But, too, it could be that the women may simply be acting on a higher intellectual level and/or that estrogen and testosterone levels varied.

Look at the rudiment result of the sex drive:
<li>Men become aggressive (competitive)
<li>Women become receptive (collaborative)

Jewel, by asking "fellow" officials to comment on the female mindset, you gain insight in the male thought process, quietly hear the other side, and subtly go one up. You go, Girl!

...Done mumbling.

mick

Re: Dis-jointed observations
 

Although not directly relevant to this particular topic one of my lecturers once made the following comment when discussing the nature/nurture debate. He believed that nature (genetics) determines the upper limit of your ability and that nurture (especially nutrition) determine how close to that limit you get.

Perhaps the best example is how fast you can run the 100m sprint. A friend of mine was an exceptionally fast runner, and became a pro sprinter. After 4 years in Australia's elite training program, his best time was still just outside Olympic qualifying times (around 10:30). Although he had everything going for him from the nurture perspective, his nature still prevented him from breaking that 10:30 barrier.

The same arguement can be made for an individual's IQ - although intelligent is inherited, without the neccessary environment, that intelligence will never be realised. Likewise, regardless of how much you study, there is little that can be done to increase your IQ.

**Disclaimer - I (like many more qualified psychologists) consider IQ testing to be inadequate at judging individuals actual intelligence as it doesn't measure anything besides numerical, spacial and verbal intelligence - but that is a whole different topic!**

Re: Re: Dis-jointed observations
 

Duane,
Your example of "being all you can be" is well taken.
But, some sports require perfection, especially speed sports like running, swimming, driving.
Yes, in speed sports, nature is a limiting factor.

In other sports, where it is okay to fail, (Baseball - fail 7 of 10, Basketball - fail 5 of 10) the parameters are wider and hard work, hustle and heart can be used/learned to compensate for a less than perfect "nature".
mick

Re: Re: Re: Dis-jointed observations
 

Mick, I couldn't agree with you more! Again it is the difference between having talent (nature) and making the most of it (nurture). Some activites require more inherent ability than others, so desire or committment has little impact to ones' ability. But to excel at anything requires a mix of talent and drive, without both it is impossible to succeed at the highest levels.

Juulie: You bring a breath of fresh air to this board and this has been a very interesting topic for me so early in the morning. I will bet that you are one heck of a referee. Too bad you are not on the "other" coast. I would enjoy doing a game with you.