Boys And Girls Were Left Alone For 5 Days, The Experiment Revealed Eye-Opening Insights On How Both Groups Are Misjudged
In recent years, more and more people have been calling for parents to “raise boys and girls the same way”. And upon first hearing that, you might think, “Well, obviously. All kids should be raised the same way!” But in practice, it’s actually quite common for girls and boys to have contrary upbringings. And one 2017 social experiment that has recently gone viral makes that abundantly clear.
Earlier this week, the Instagram account Impact shared a post breaking down what happened when a group of 10 boys and a group of 10 girls each spent a week living in homes unsupervised. The social experiment has recently been circulating on Twitter as well, after The Boric Acid Avenger shared clips from the original videos, and the internet has since been engaging in many conversations about gender roles.
Below, you’ll find a summary of both sides of the experiment, as well as some of the reactions people have shared online, so you too can let us know how you feel about the results in the comments below. Then, if you’re looking for another Bored Panda article discussing why boys and girls should be raised the same way, you can find that right here!
This 2017 social experiment featuring a group of 10 boys and a group of 10 girls who were left unsupervised in a home for a week has gone viral
Image credits: Impact
The video featuring the boys shows their home quickly devolve into chaos
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
They seemed ill-equipped to properly take care of themselves and the house
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
After forming gangs, the boys’ behavior became increasingly aggressive
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
By the end of the week, they had managed to completely trash their home
Image credits: Channel 4
You can watch the full video featuring the boys’ experiment right here
The girl house, on the other hand, painted a very different picture
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
They quickly banded together to organize activities and delegate responsibilities
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
They made plenty of time for fun, while still managing to take care of themselves and the home
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
Image credits: Channel 4
You can watch the full video of the girls’ experiment right here
While the girls were not without their issues during the experiment, the overall behavior of each group reflects the gender roles that these kids have been taught
Image credits: Impact
Image credits: Impact
If you’re a parent, it’s possible that you may have never even considered that your sons and daughters might be receiving a slightly different upbringing. In your mind, you likely believe that all of your children have equal potential and are capable of achieving whatever they want in life. But you might be subconsciously pushing them in one direction or another. Have you encouraged your sons to play sports without ever asking if they wanted to take art classes or try dancing? Have you encouraged your daughters to help you out in the kitchen but never asked if they’d like to play football with their brothers? We are all conditioned to associate certain behaviors and traits with boys and girls, and it can be hard to break down those unconscious biases.
However, it’s important to be aware of the difference in treatment that boys and girls in our own lives receive because that is exactly what sets them up to act in line with how the children in these social experiments acted. The girls did not innately know how to prepare meals or to take care of a home, they have been taught. And boys of the same age are perfectly capable of having the same skills, if they are expected to uphold the same behavior. But according to a survey by Netmums, plenty of mothers know they treat their sons and daughters differently, 88% of them in fact. They admitted to being more critical of their daughters, and some even noted that they would let their sons get away with more than their daughters could.
The idea that “boys will be boys” is an outdated belief that should no longer be perpetuated. Girls are held to higher standards, from a very young age, and are required to learn life skills and responsibility, or they will be looked down upon. Boys, on the other hand, are somehow allowed to skate by with little to no consequences for their actions until they reach an age where they are forced to take care of themselves, or find a partner to take care of them in the same way that their parents previously had. Of course, not every boy and man struggles with responsibility and learning how to cook, clean and take care of his personal hygiene. But overall, women are not given the option to miss out on those skills and lessons. They are just expected to know these things.
According to a 2016 survey from the UN, girls spend 40% more time on chores than boys do, and by age 14, that jumps up to 50%. While boys are outside running around or off playing video games with their friends, girls are first expected to help prepare meals, clean up the home and take care of their younger siblings. Girls face a variety of double standards in terms of their appearance, their work ethic, their temperament and more, and parents and educators should be working to see that boys and girls are held to the same expectations.
If you never ask your son how he is feeling because you assume that boys are less emotional than girls, he will never learn how to articulate his feelings and will instead learn how to bottle up his emotions. If a boy is never asked to help prepare a meal or clean up after dinner, he will learn that those actions aren’t his responsibility. If boys are taught that concerns of personal hygiene are “girly”, they might assume that it’s perfectly fine to sit in their own filth, potentially putting their health at risk. The girls in this experiment still managed to do things they enjoy and find fun in being unsupervised, but they also showed that they had the skills required to be functioning human beings. They were equipped with the tools needed for these circumstances, while the boys were completely out of their element and had no idea how to process the freedom and emotions that came with being left alone.
We would love to hear your thoughts on this viral experiment in the comments below, pandas. Do you think this is an accurate estimation of how the female version of Lord of the Flies would go down? If you’re a parent, feel free to share how you manage to raise your sons and daughters the same, and then if you’re interested in checking out a Bored Panda article discussing how beneficial it can be for young boys to play with dolls, you can find that right here!
Viewers of the experiment had much to say on Twitter, noting the importance of raising boys and girls the same way
Image credits: aguavrgo
Image credits: Thee__Bombshell
Image credits: JangoKett
Image credits: SunniHunniBunni
Image credits: khayaaa_amina
Image credits: kingroyce01
Image credits: tinapunk
Image credits: seuncradle
Image credits: yea_isaidthatsh
Image credits: Jo_Rogue
Image credits: MidlifeMisfit
Image credits: imanievenstar
Image credits: soldi3005_
Image credits: MrsPoopsMcClurr
Image credits: golden_gworls
Image credits: n_selz
Image credits: So_Eye_Cee
Image credits: Exploring_Vedas
Image credits: hannahleeduggan
What's the control specimen in this experiment? What methods were used in the selection of candidates? What's the hypothesis you are trying to prove or disprove? Last but not least what kind of parents would allow such a thing to happen to their spawn?
Since this wasn't done as a real experiment, but "reality" TV, I can only answer one question: Parents who are paid enough.
Thanks for clarifying that, so basically they auditioned a bunch of boys and selected the ones they knew would be idiots.
They got boys from various different walks of life. Honestly, several of them seemed to be perfectly mature, reasonable people. The second group of the two boys was formed from kids who wanted to just sleep, not destroy toys, etc. Group think, however, took over the more rowdy boys and then both sides started getting back at each other. The girls had someone who was also a bit manipulative and tried to rally the group think, but, as girls left because they couldn't deal with the chaos... other girls separated from her more.
They probably chose them for a predetermined outcome, or hoped-for outcome, yeah. In science, we call that B******t.
Maybe do some actual research instead of believing total strangers on the internet and making your decision based on their opinions.
Most boys have far less skills than little girls because parents expect less from boys.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Not true at all. The boys have different skills. Do the same experiment but in a camp not a house. At that age I could set traps, build a shelter catch fish etc.
I can guarantee you most boys today don't know how to fish and set traps.
Nicholas H, wishful thinking on your part, perhaps. Where is your evidence?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Yeah, it's a plot against boys.
So this is purely entertainment and has no real useful data. Lol
If this was television then it was scripted and fictional.
There's definitely a publication somewhere that's going to interpret this as "Girls automatically reverted to cooking, cleaning, and dressing up. Especially since there is the opposite stereotype of violent uncivilised boys. Not sure how there could be a control group, an equal split 50/50?
The way this experiment is interpreted is that many parents teach girls to be responsible and they teach boys to have fun and do whatever they want. The outcome of the experiment is no surprise.
Yep. I already read one on Flipboard earlier.
The thing is, children, as they grow up, notice how their parents are like and people are generally a collection of habits. So when a male sees his father not really doing the cooking and cleaning on a regular basis, and the male child is used to being chaotic and disgustingly messy when he is around other males his age, without repercussions from his parents, then he is going to behave in a messy way inside the house and not really clean or cook much or at all. The opposite is true for the girls: the girl as a child sees her mother doing most of the cooking and cleaning regularly and when the girl is around girls her age, they know how to play together without being disgustingly messy (generally), so when a girl spends a week with other girls, she would remember what her mother did around the house, and she will play with the girls without being very messy. So basically, fathers should wake up and start to regularly cook and clean around the house, for their sons to emulate that behavior.
I have a couple research based degrees. Before beginning a experiment/study I would have to submit a outline of the procedures to a ethics committee. I seriously doubt this kind of "experiment" would be approved by any University.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
The point of the experiment was to purposely make boys look like all males are totally out of control by picking out a few rowdy boys who were probably autistic and extremely hyperactive to convince us how girls are the more important gender. I've known plenty of boys who were very well mannered and polite, Logical thinkers and problem solvers. I've also known plenty of girls who were extremely violent , temperamental, had no common sense and were just down right hateful.
That's making a lot of assumptions. Boys on average are taught far less social responsibility and independent skills than girls. The outcome of this experiment is absolutely no surprise to me and I have babysat a lot of kids.
Isn't that also making assumptions? Or do you know of any studies that support what you just said?
So you’re saying that autistic and hyperactive boys are rowdy and out of control? Your prejudice is showing. Autistic children, boys specifically, are more likely to shy away from such group think because it’s TOO FKN LOUD! Understand the disorder before you comment stupid nonsense. Additionally, in the girls’ group… there was a girl who did initiate some pretty out of control behaviours, including destruction of property. At 10/11/12 years of age, boys are still pampered by their parents while girls are expected to nurture others. That last sentence is 15 years of experience with 11-17 year olds as a teacher. The only reason I actually commented on this was your utter lack of understanding about autism - it’s pathetic, stereotypical and disrespectful. Which girl may have autistic tendencies in this show? I know, do you?
Societal training and expectations run deep, and it can be messy. Kids will be kids, but as a kid (and a girl) I was expected to take care of chores alongside my mother for my older brothers, including laundry and cooking. My brothers never had that responsibility and they paid for that lack later- and I developed a profound hatred of laundry. The shift of mom's and dad's teaching both sons and daughters how to clean and cook and take care of their own things is great.
Same. By the time I was like 5 I was already cooking light meals for myself & showering & even managing my older brothers when the parents weren't around. I was always wayyyyy more mature than my older brothers. Even though I'm 4 and 5 years younger. My dad didn't really raise me like that though. My mom & grandma did though. But I feel like my dad didn't treat us any different. He raised me just like my brothers. Same activities. Same skills. Like I knew how to build s**t before I was 10. My dad didn't baby me at all. But I feel like I naturally needed order & independence in my life for me to be happy. I was a loner growing up. Didn't really have friends cause I'd have them over for play dates & I hated how messy they were! I'd have panic attacks because they'd be eating cookies & then not wash their hands before touching my toys. I was diagnosed with OCD & an anxiety disorder before I was 10... I still don't know what triggered it. Maybe my Mom & grandmas pressure? Idk.
Five? I don't mean to be mean, but usually people are not able to COOK. What parent allows their 5 year old to cook? Also, i don't know if it's true, but i've heard the SEVEN is when kids start to become reasonable. Please don't be mad, i'm just confused.
Light meals - I assume like my kid did at that age, able to make himself an egg sandwich by cooking the egg in the microwave. If they're strong and coordinated enough to pour a bowl of cereal, it's not hard to teach them a little basic microwave cooking in addition.
Oh, okay. I thought it implied stovetop, but in a microwave makes more sense, thanks!
I didn’t have to clean or do laundry for my brother, however it was very known in my family that women need to be tough, independent, and yet appear to fall under a more feminine role. Why? High divorce and abandonment rate. Only in my 30’s did I become aware that this pattern predisposed my Gen of ladies to falling into relationships with guys that are not as sufficient or experienced - some of those men left or became abusive from feeling emasculated. Those who stayed have either stepped up (generally by a serious catalyst) or the ladies take on most the responsibilities as head of household/managing the household itself but are treated as ‘the woman’. I love my daughter but I am desperately hoping my partner and I (who openly talk about our dynamic with one another) will provide the right guidance so that she will not fall into the same pattern.
I partly agree with the comment that girls mature more quickly, but I wonder how much of this is a reflection on the type of parents who would let their boys go into this sort of house unsupervised with other little boys, knowing what sort of sh!ts some little boys are.
I watched both the youtube films with my mum (80yo) and she was shocked that the boys were out of control but also by some of the mean things that the girls did too. I had to explain 10 times that there was a therapist there at all times and the cameramen were there too. The cameramen had to step in and stop the boys from abusing a little hedgehog too. None of the boys left the group but 2 girls did leave their group.
I hadn't watched the video yet but was going to. After what you said about the hedgehog I think I'll give it a miss.
My brain is wired to much on WWII. My first thought to your comment was „and people wonder how it could come to what happened during WWII“
I believe the fact that 2 girls left is yet another example of the effect of the different societal expectations for boys and girls. The boys probably felt that leaving would make them weak or a failure. Girls are more likely to be allowed to quite something like this in societies eyes because they are seen as overly emotional and it's assumed they will give up something that upsets them too much. It's all ridiculous of course. Everyone should be allowed to leave a situation that is emotionally unhealthy and no one should be treated as if this is a failure. And certainly not like they will inevitably fail at something because they are too emotional. Emotional Intelligence is something that is far more important than most societies today would have you believe.
Kids can be awful. They're little monsters who may or may not learn the rules of their particular society's idea of "polite" behavior. (And that came from a psychiatrist, btw.) But I wonder how much of this was dictated by the difference in *punishments* the kids would expect from such behavior at home.
There is a moment with the girls where they pretended to be a parent or a teacher ... goodness, the horrible things they said and the near agressive way they scolded shocked me and mum. I told mum they were venting ...
Girls do not "mature more quickly". That's a myth. Parents expect girls to be more mature and they're expected to be better behaved, care for their siblings and do more chores. That's why they "mature faster".
Alot of little girls too. I hope you aren't a teacher being a man hater.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
On a basic level I can't agree with "maturing more quickly". What if there were large animals that needed to be hunted and killed if you want to eat? What if there was a neighboring tribe threatening to kill you all? "Maturation" doesn't equate with cleaning up after a meal. There are basic gender differences and the two genders compliment each other.
RAMPANT gôddâmn sexism. go spread your archaic caveman mentality screed elsewhere. go on, shoo
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Why don't you intelligently debate/disagree? Insulting CGZ, just shows you don't have a side of the argument, or else you would have simply stated it. You are in your 40's right? We can use our words to win debates, not insults.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Go post a "Mean People Suck" sticker on your dorm room window.
This is utter sexism.
Agreed, Gin Marie. if i left my husband to do the hunting and skinning (i love you bb if you're reading this but you know it's true), neither of us would eat. i would HOPE that CZ here is just a troll, but my instinct says nope.
I was a soldier for 20 years, including combat in Iraq. Guys like CGZ, well.......
Is it sexism that due to persistently high failure rates, primarily among female trainees, the Army has decided to scrap the concept of gender-neutrality in the ACFT. Instead, exercise requirements and test scores will be gender-normed and different for men and women, with some standards lower than before. In my opinion this matters because the entire experiment with women in combat has been built on egalitarian theories that did not survive contact with reality. What do you think?
1/2 BoredTiger— high failure rates primarily among female trainees? The wars exist because of males’ failure to resolve conflicts in a reasonable, non-violent way. People are supposed to have brains and that should differentiate them from literal animals, so humans should be able to resolve conflicts without causing wars, especially since in wars r@pe and m*rder rates are extremely from the s!cko m@les that r^pe anyone and everyone including old women and literal children; also wars cause businesses to close; schools to close; people don’t go to work; can’t get salaries; can’t go to the market safely; with time they don’t have food because they can’t farm anything and they can’t import food like before the war; water supply is also cut in a war, so people can’t take showers regularly and can’t go to the toilet to clean themselves well the way they did before the war (toilet paper isn’t available and water hose doesn’t work because the water is cut); etc, etc.
2/2 BoredTiger— so only emotional, illogical males would start a war, and as we see even today, a number of males are emotional and illogical enough to want to start (or already started) a war (Putin, china’s leader with Taiwan; North Korea towards South Korea). And yes, those males are being emotional because a male that starts a war, he either does that because he feels happy to destroy lives and areas for some narcissistic goal (happiness is an emotion), or because he is angry and wants to wreck lives and destroy areas as a result (anger is an emotion).
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
LOL
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Jessica and Gin. Against my better judgement I'll respond with some basic irrefutable logic. Do you recognize that there was a difference in the results from the boys house and the girls house? Why would that difference exist? Must be a difference between the two sexes. Does the girls house seem more organized and tidy, both physically and socially? Why would that be? Must be a difference between the two sexes. If the girls are better at certain things than the boys in this experiment, then do you suppose there must be something the boys are better at than the girls? There has to be something, or else it would be the girls job to carry humanity through the ages. It has to be an even split. The two sexes are different but equal in value in the sum of their different strengths and capabilities.
This is so st**id and condescending I'm not even sure it's in English. I served in the Army, in combat, for 20 years. Go back to reddit, incel.
You did not refute one point CGZ made. 20 years in the Army didn't teach you how to have a discussion apparently.
Logically speaking, using actual symbolic logic, your argument is as follows: If A therefore B. This means that your argument lacks an argument and is therefore invalid. You have made a leap from a premise directly to a conclusion without offering any evidence of said conclusion. Take an actual course in logic please.
CGZ asked a question. 'If the girls are better at certain things than the boys in this experiment, then do you suppose there must be something the boys are better at than the girls?" What is your answer to this question?
BoredTiger, that question is sick and insane, because the idea of the experiment isn’t that ‘girls are better than males’, it is about how males are raised poorly by their parents. Societies need actual fairness to function (you don’t want anyone to commit a crime against you, so you fairly shouldn’t commit crimes against others. You are illogical if you believe that you can commit crimes towards others yet expect people to not commit crimes against you. Statistically, most crimes are committed by the m@le gender, and when there’s a lot of crimes in an area, then investors wouldn’t want to invest in that area, which means that the people in that area lost job opportunities because investments = businesses = jobs = salaries for the people in the area. So males are very illogical when they commit crimes.) societies don’t run on violence, so your proud insinuation with regards to males’ willingness to be rabid and violent more so than women is nonsense and irrelevant
What's the control specimen in this experiment? What methods were used in the selection of candidates? What's the hypothesis you are trying to prove or disprove? Last but not least what kind of parents would allow such a thing to happen to their spawn?
Since this wasn't done as a real experiment, but "reality" TV, I can only answer one question: Parents who are paid enough.
Thanks for clarifying that, so basically they auditioned a bunch of boys and selected the ones they knew would be idiots.
They got boys from various different walks of life. Honestly, several of them seemed to be perfectly mature, reasonable people. The second group of the two boys was formed from kids who wanted to just sleep, not destroy toys, etc. Group think, however, took over the more rowdy boys and then both sides started getting back at each other. The girls had someone who was also a bit manipulative and tried to rally the group think, but, as girls left because they couldn't deal with the chaos... other girls separated from her more.
They probably chose them for a predetermined outcome, or hoped-for outcome, yeah. In science, we call that B******t.
Maybe do some actual research instead of believing total strangers on the internet and making your decision based on their opinions.
Most boys have far less skills than little girls because parents expect less from boys.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Not true at all. The boys have different skills. Do the same experiment but in a camp not a house. At that age I could set traps, build a shelter catch fish etc.
I can guarantee you most boys today don't know how to fish and set traps.
Nicholas H, wishful thinking on your part, perhaps. Where is your evidence?
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Yeah, it's a plot against boys.
So this is purely entertainment and has no real useful data. Lol
If this was television then it was scripted and fictional.
There's definitely a publication somewhere that's going to interpret this as "Girls automatically reverted to cooking, cleaning, and dressing up. Especially since there is the opposite stereotype of violent uncivilised boys. Not sure how there could be a control group, an equal split 50/50?
The way this experiment is interpreted is that many parents teach girls to be responsible and they teach boys to have fun and do whatever they want. The outcome of the experiment is no surprise.
Yep. I already read one on Flipboard earlier.
The thing is, children, as they grow up, notice how their parents are like and people are generally a collection of habits. So when a male sees his father not really doing the cooking and cleaning on a regular basis, and the male child is used to being chaotic and disgustingly messy when he is around other males his age, without repercussions from his parents, then he is going to behave in a messy way inside the house and not really clean or cook much or at all. The opposite is true for the girls: the girl as a child sees her mother doing most of the cooking and cleaning regularly and when the girl is around girls her age, they know how to play together without being disgustingly messy (generally), so when a girl spends a week with other girls, she would remember what her mother did around the house, and she will play with the girls without being very messy. So basically, fathers should wake up and start to regularly cook and clean around the house, for their sons to emulate that behavior.
I have a couple research based degrees. Before beginning a experiment/study I would have to submit a outline of the procedures to a ethics committee. I seriously doubt this kind of "experiment" would be approved by any University.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
The point of the experiment was to purposely make boys look like all males are totally out of control by picking out a few rowdy boys who were probably autistic and extremely hyperactive to convince us how girls are the more important gender. I've known plenty of boys who were very well mannered and polite, Logical thinkers and problem solvers. I've also known plenty of girls who were extremely violent , temperamental, had no common sense and were just down right hateful.
That's making a lot of assumptions. Boys on average are taught far less social responsibility and independent skills than girls. The outcome of this experiment is absolutely no surprise to me and I have babysat a lot of kids.
Isn't that also making assumptions? Or do you know of any studies that support what you just said?
So you’re saying that autistic and hyperactive boys are rowdy and out of control? Your prejudice is showing. Autistic children, boys specifically, are more likely to shy away from such group think because it’s TOO FKN LOUD! Understand the disorder before you comment stupid nonsense. Additionally, in the girls’ group… there was a girl who did initiate some pretty out of control behaviours, including destruction of property. At 10/11/12 years of age, boys are still pampered by their parents while girls are expected to nurture others. That last sentence is 15 years of experience with 11-17 year olds as a teacher. The only reason I actually commented on this was your utter lack of understanding about autism - it’s pathetic, stereotypical and disrespectful. Which girl may have autistic tendencies in this show? I know, do you?