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.

I'll weigh in briefly. I have no doubt that both biology and genetics come into play. There is substantial scientific evidence that we are wired differently. (As earlier noted, "differently" does <b>not</b> imply that one or the other is wired "wrongly." If this were a theological discussion, Juulie, I would also refer to biblical evidence of differences.)

I have 2 boys and 2 girls, and I know that I treat the girls differently from the boys. While I love them all, the boys have proven to be the rascals, and the girls are just so darn cute! Is the different ways in which I inadvertantly raise them impacting the preferences and behaviors. Certainly.

My sister-in-law is a rabid feminist. She also happens to have a boy and a girl. She insisted on "rabidly" raising them in the exact same manner, even to the degree of giving them the exact same toys. She has since confessed to believing in the "different wiring" theory after her daughter "nurtured" the shared dolls...and her son used them as guns.

My opinion, <b>Viva la difference!</b>

bard,
That's pretty cute. :)

The first toy I bought for my daughter was a "Nerf ball".
The first toy I bought for my son was a cuddly toy.

A couple weekends ago my daughter was playing in a slo-pitch tourney in NY, while my son went to a drive-in movie with a date.
mick

Juulie

There may be some biological basis from the book you state, but the position I took was one based on the book called the "Color Code" by Taylor Hartman. His contention is that as I mentioned, that we are all born with a certain personality, and that core personality drives us.

Think about it when a girl grew up and she was competitive or exhibited characteristics that were more sterotypically male she is labelled a Tomboy. When males exhibit nuturing characteristics and pursue thing that are more more "feminine" he is labelled a "sissy" or something like that.

Why is nursing heavily dominated by women. It's a nuturing, collaborative job. Men are not supposed to be that way yet there are plenty of men with that type of personality.

There is no doubt there are differences between men and woen, but I think there are as many environmental/cultural factors that play into this as much as biology/physiology

I agree with Juulie's point, generally. But, although, boys may be more competitive, just like girls, they work collaboratively in their competitions to achieve goals. And, while girls may be more nurturing, girls are often more serious about their competitions. You ever see two girls fight? For guys, its generally one or two punches each, then everyone moves on. Girls will fight to the death if you let them. As I think Juulie suggested, for guys, fighting may be just posturing for placement within the group, whereas for girls its a survival instinct.

The growth of sports has been one of the greatest cultural changes for women. Until 10-20 years ago, women had few outlets to work as teams to accomplish goals. Boys grew up knowing that a team is only as good as its weakest player, and all of the other cliches. Until recently, women only had individual sports (e.g., tennis) and cheerleading.

My last rambling observation - we, as humans, like to think of ourselves as such advanced creatures, but I think we discount too easily the impact thousands of years of evolution have upon our motivations.

Kelvin -- It's not my point, I don't agree with a lot in the book. But has been interesting to think about it in light of my experience as a woman in a "man's" world.

theboys -- How would you say this all relates to basketball, and especially to refereeing?

Being relatively new to the parenting world (one 2yrs old and one on the way), being an information junky and being involved in the preschool nursery department, I have observed some of this first hand.

I was brought up in the "Free to Be You and Me" gender-identical environment of the 80's, where we were taught that boys and girls were the same and our environment made us different. I believed this until recently, after having kids. I noticed that young children, boys and girls, were very different. In activity, attention span, interests, behavior, there were patterns in both genders. We have a son, but some friends of ours have girls, with whom we are very close. When they play together, the girls show no interest in the cars or blocks, and my son's interest in "girl stuff" is relegated to turning the toy shopping cart into a race car. I shop a lot for the family, especially since my wife is getting close to her delivery date, so it's not that he doesn't know what it is for. He just prefers to turn it into a car.

I have not read the book mentioned, but I did read "Brining Up Boys" by James Dobson, and he brings up similar situations and several studies showing that there are fundamental differences in how we are wired.

That being said, I don't believe that the difference is bad. If I had girls, I would still teach them to fish, change the oil in a car and use power tools. Now, however, I wouldn't expect them to be something they're not. I have known the "tom boy" (I also believe that girls can be athletic without being a tom boy) type, and there has always been an underlying reason for their behavior. They all had family situations that were not good. Coincedence? Maybe, but I don't believe so.

Sorry for the long winded post, but I have to lean toward the nature side of this arguement. I believe that we are wired differently, and abnormal environmental circumstances bend the rules of normality.

Regardless, an excellent thread and a nice break from Team A & B and their fouls during shots while fading out of bounds with the time expiring at the end of the game when the mascot opens fire with a super soaker and shorts out the scoreboard.

I agree with everything you've written here, I look at it this way:

1. Generally girls tend to be more ruthless in their social interaction than boys, IMO. Especially against someone they view as a threat.
2. "Gender equality" as a concept is barely 100 years old, as a goal more like 40 years old & as a practice maybe 10 or 20 years old.
3. Much of what we do is somehow based on our having to survive in a wild environment (it wasn't too long ago when we were living in caves). Many of societies problems arise when people can't modify their "wired in" behavior to suit "modern culture". Put another way sometimes "modern
culture" pushes us in ways we just won't go.

c'mon sleeper, we can do this....

Girl A1, is defended by Boy, B1. A1 passes to girlfriend, A2, left of the lane. A2 passes crosscourt to another girl, A3. A3 passes to A4 who then sends it to A5, who returns the ball to A1.

A1 winks lasciviously at B1, freezing him, and then drives the lane. B2 moves laterally across the lane to cutoff the layup. A1 begins the shot before contact with B2, whose feet are still not set. The basket goes in, and A1 and B2 tumble to the floor.

B3, B4, and B5 lay out B1 for falling for the eye wink and then high five B2 for the excellent take down. A2, A3, A4, and A5 ask A1 what it was like to hug B2 and if they're going steady, and then they all hug and congratulate each other before running down the floor yelling "Ball, ball, ball, ball, ball!"

What's your call??? (See, we can make anything fit!)

Well, perhaps it's not quite as elegant as the original bard, but this is probably the best reason yet for why co-ed basketball is rarely seen outside of recreation programs.

Of course, you forgot to mention that B1-12 (players, bench members, and coaches all included) are not paying any attention to the game due to the fact that A3 forgot to wear a sports bra.

Okay - I'll go back to my corner now. :-D

Bard --

This definitely gets the post of the week award!!

Thanks for the chuckles on an otherwise stressful work day.

Hey, Juulie - I guess I did ramble quite a bit. My theory, as it relates to basketball, is that basketball, and team sports, in general, give women the opportunity to work together to achieve goals, much like people do (or, are supposed to do) in the business world. One of the many cultural advantages men had over women for a long time was that men grew up playing team sports. As a result, men learned to get along with people they didn't like in order to reach a goal, learned how to motivate others to achieve goals, and to "find a niche" within a team. I believe people who play sports (in general) probably find the business world easier to negotiate. Just my opinion, of course.

As for how this relates to refs, I haven't a clue. This website has given me a lot of insight into the perspective of refs. Kinda scary.

On that topic, I've always wondered what makes a person want to ref - if there is a "referee personality". I mean, by and large, its a thankless job, but, obviously referees enjoy it. Do you think there are personality traits that go with a "predisposition" for being a ref?

That's a loaded question, I know, but I've often thought a good referee is probably someone who likes to take charge of chaotic situations, someone who wants to make sure things are done "right", and is willing to put up with abuse and maintain his stance? Like, would Jesus be a good ref?

And, how about you? What personality traits do you think are important for refs? I mean, other than a disregard for fashion (sorry, had to do it).

As far as Jesus goes, I would guess that he would be a terrific referee -- he was great at everything human, wasn't he? As to the details, I think you could probably make a case either way, but I'll leave that to another board (Is there a board for Christian referees who want to spend a lot of time talking about Jesus?), since I would personally insist on pointing out the divinity of Jesus, and that isn't something that should be addressed on this board.

Personality traits? Ability to manage and endure conflict,
slow to anger, anal in certain ways and not in others, love of sport, strong self-confidence, ability to accept being wrong...

Fashion? I wouldn't say "disregard" is strong enough; I think it needs to be more of an active dislike!! At least, that's what the players think we think!

One trait that Jesus continually showed was that he was not one to take the "letter" of the law seriously, but focus on the "spirit" in some of his debates with the high priests and pharisees. He also knew how to show he was in control without being a jerk about it. A sort of calm authority and (I hate to say it) presence. :eek:

Jesus help us!!!!
 

Andy,

Ya know that usage of that word is punishable by death!!!!


:D

Hey, on some blarge calls, I think God is the only one who knows who fouled whom.