# "The Female Brain"



## Miss Vickie (Apr 10, 2008)

I just started reading this book, which was recommended by a friend of mine from nursing school. It's really interesting, because it explains how, from day one, our brains are wired differently from men's. Not better or worse. Just different.

Has anyone read it? Does anyone want to read it and talk about it? I think it's interesting from a social/societal/feminist point of view. Acknowledging the differences between genders can sometimes smack as sexism, but I do think it's important to recognize how different we are. Again, not better or worse. Just different.

Anyhow, as I get through it maybe I'll add some things but right now, several pages in, I'm intrigued.


----------



## Fairest Epic (Apr 10, 2008)

that sounds rather interesting. mind if i ask what the neam of the book is?


----------



## Fairest Epic (Apr 10, 2008)

Fairest Epic said:


> that sounds rather interesting. mind if i ask what the neam of the book is?



umm...so i just realized the title of your thread...
haha i'm starting to realize that "the female brain" is most likely the title. Any clue who the authors/editors are though?


----------



## Tad (Apr 10, 2008)

Thanks for the tip 

I was just reading "Brain Sex" which came our around 1990, looking at what was known at the time of how male and female brains were wired. Pretty interesting stuff--although some of the conclusions that they came to were a bit off, based on how things have gone in the couple of decades since they were writing. I was thinking I'd like to read something on the topic that is more recent, so I'll see if this is in our local library.

One point in "Brain Sex" which I found interesting was that much of the basic brain wiring is done in utero, and basically there is default brain organization which is 'female' and then at a whole bunch of stages, if the fetus is exposed to sufficient levels of testosterone, it organizes that part differently. In other words, that the female brain seems to be more the standard issue, and it is guys who deviate from it. But because there is more chance of variations of testosterone levels, guys are much more likely to have a sort of unevenly male programming. I.E. Guys are more likely to be messed up  (OK, that last line was my interpretation, not theirs).

ETA: on Amazon I find two books by this name:

The Female Brain by Louann Md Brizendine (2007)

The Female Brain by Cynthia L. Darlington (2002)

Which are you reading?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 10, 2008)

Sorry, guys. I meant to post a link to amazon but got distracted by my canine buddies. It's the first one, by Dr. Luann Brizendine.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Apr 10, 2008)

I confess I haven't read the book yet, but it's on my (very long) list of books to read soon. To me there is nothing innately sexist about the research, what concerns me with things like this is what society and especially the media take away from it. The truth is that in the day to day experiences of most people, these cognitive differences are virtually undetectable. And of course, there is the issue of individuality, we're not all easily reduced so easily, many other factors determine what a person does with their life. My problem is that the message can become women are naturally better at xyz and that is where they should focus their energies. That's when it becomes sexist. Instead, I think this type of research should be used in education to help enhance the learning experience of both boys and girls. If we process information differently, I don't think the conclusion should be that boys and girls should be educated separately, or that it should be accepted that girls will receive lower test scores in certain subjects and boys in others. Ideally, educators would take into account the learning differences and in addition to the traditional way a subject is taught, spend time using a different method so that all students get the same opportunity to learn. For example, a math teacher could be encouraged to add a more verbal style to their explanations, or a language teacher could write things down more often, things like that. Also, even if it something is true most of the time, it really doesn't make it acceptable to discriminate against the people who don't fit the pattern. A great female scientist should not really be discouraged from contributing to society because her brain's not supposed to work that way. I think the research is important, but the application of it is where we have to be careful.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Apr 10, 2008)

Thanks, Miss Vickie, I was looking for something to add to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/books/review/Paul-t.html?_r=1&8bu&emc=bu&oref=slogin

to get the free shipping. The Female Brain looks perfect. Check this out:

*BONK

The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex.*

By Mary Roach.

Illustrated. 319 pp. W. W. Norton & Company. $24.95.


In her previous books, Stiff and a follow-up, Spook, Mary Roach set out to make creepy topics (cadavers, the afterlife) fun. In Bonk, she turns to sex, covering such territory as dried animal excreta used as vaginal drying agents; a rats tail lost in a penis; and a man named William Harvey, patent-holder for a rolling toaster-size metal box outfitted with a motorized resiliently pliable artificial penis. In short, she takes an entertaining topic and showcases its creepier side.

And then she makes the creepy funny. Intended as much for amusement as for enlightenment, Bonk is Roachs foray into the world of sex research, mostly from Alfred Kinsey onward, but occasionally harking back to the ancient Greeks and medievals (equally unenlightened). Roach belongs to a particular strain of science writer; shes interested less in scientific subjects than in the ways scientists study their subjects  less, in this case, in sex per se than in the laboratory dissection of sex. She delights in medical euphemism and scholarly jargon; you can hear her titter as she rolls out terms like vaginal photoplethysmograph probe, nocturnal penile tumescence monitoring and vaginocavernosus reflex. Writing about a 1950s-era study of vaginal response in which female subjects copulated with a penis camera, Roach wants to know how exactly the dildo-camera operated, who volunteered to make use of it in a laboratory setting and, above all, where the device is now. This is as good as science gets, she writes, a mildly outrageous, terrifically courageous, seemingly efficacious display of creative problem-solving, fueled by a bullheaded dedication to amassing facts and dispelling myths in a long-neglected area of human physiology.

In a similar spirit, theres the study on labial traction as an instigator of female orgasm, conducted by a team of Colombian researchers in the mid-1980s. Heli Alzate, a physician and professor of sexology, and Mari Ladi Londoño, a psychotherapist, mustered 16 prostitutes and 32 feminists into their lab, where they manually stimulated their vaginal walls. The results? More than three-fourths of the prostitutes had an orgasm, compared with only one in eight feminists. While antifeminists will probably have a field day with these results, the intent wasnt to measure frigidity according to political stance, but to determine whether penile thrusting alone was an efficient way of inducing female orgasm. (Its not.)

A bold, tenacious and insatiable reporter, Roach combs through journal articles and books with lurid titles like Urological Oddities, Vacuum Cleaner Use in Autoerotic Death and Curious Experiences With the Genital Organs of the Male, a 1909 paper written by the resident obstetrician to a Turkish harem. She visits a Danish pig farm to observe a Five-Point Stimulation Plan intended to enhance sow pleasure during artificial insemination and observes Dr. Geng-Long Hsu, director of the Microsurgical Potency Reconstruction and Research Center in Taipei, at work in his operating room. Though the book has its share of alarming factoids  care to test-drive a syngina, anyone?  the scene over which Dr. Hsu presides is out-and-out harrowing. (Sensitive male readers may wish to stop reading here.) Roach small-talks with the good doctor as he digs in with a scalpel to perform something called the inside-out maneuver on the penis of a 47-year-old man.

You might think witnessing such procedures would give Roach pause. But she is not merely fond, as she puts it, of the wanton use of first person  she throws herself into the story. When Jing Deng, a senior lecturer in medical physics at University College London Medical School, mentions in a paper on 4-D ultrasound of male genitals that he hopes to one day capture a real-time image of human intercourse, Roach asks permission to watch the first scan. She is told that if her organization could provide the brave couple, Deng would be happy to oblige. My organization gave some thought to this, she writes. Ever frisky, Roach and her spectacularly gracious husband, Ed, are soon bound for London, where they will perform coitus inside a hospital room while Deng maneuvers an ultrasound wand over their significant body parts, pausing only to reboot his computer.

Still, Roach is sometimes stymied. Virginia Johnson of Masters and Johnson refused all interview requests; Scott, Johnsons son and spokesman, turns Roach away with a curt: Were really not interested in getting involved. Follow? Perhaps understandable. Roach has a knack for posing the embarrassing, nonlinear and too obvious questions that others are always afraid to ask. When she quizzes an infertility specialist about whether female orgasm increases the chances of conception, he sighs and says: I think by now you know how science is. ... I know a lot about artificial insemination, but I have no idea about the answer to your very simple question. One of the serious, and most disturbing, themes of Bonk is the difficulty of conducting sex research in an era of corporatized and politicized medical science. If the study of female sexual pleasure doesnt lead pointedly in the direction of a she-Viagra, chances are it wont get studied. One senses the clock ticking on Dr. Ahmed Shafik, a Cairo-based sexologist who studies sexual reflexes, often on the sly. He is, his office manager tells Roach, a holdover from the 19th century, when science was undertaken simply for the sake of understanding the world.

Next Page »

Pamela Paul, a frequent contributor to the Book Review, is the author of Parenting, Inc., to be published next month.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 10, 2008)

Hm, this sounds really interesting. I was raised to believe, and very much still do, that there are no differences between men and women which aren't societal. I used to get a little pissy about it, but I'd be willing to read the book and give it a whirl.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Apr 10, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> . If we process information differently, I don't think the conclusion should be that boys and girls should be educated separately.



Having once taught junior high school, I believe that -- between the ages of twelve and sixteen, at least -- boys and girls should be educated on different _planets_.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 10, 2008)

Oh yeah, I heard about "Bonk". They had the author on NPR yesterday, and it looks like an interesting read.

What bothers me about recognizing the innate differences between the sexes is that it almost invariably ends up being a pissing contest (so to speak) about which is better. Or, as in the case of Camille Paglia, the differences are sometimes used as a hammer. I'm not sure how much we know about the differences and whether they're innate or environmental, but like Waxwing, I'm going to read the book and see what I think.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 10, 2008)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Having once taught junior high school, I believe that -- between the ages of twelve and sixteen, at least -- boys and girls should be educated on different _planets_.



And that's a great example of what I mean- those differences are caused by the way kids are raised, not by something innate (for the most part I believe).

I have the same fear as Vickie-- that discussion of difference leads to an assertion of one type of thinking being more valid than another.


----------



## Gingembre (Apr 10, 2008)

Firstly, apologies if I've missed something coz I've only scanned this thread quickly. I haven't read that book, Vickie, but I have read a similar one. It's called The Essential Difference:Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain bySimon Baron-Cohen. It describes how people's brains are as on a spectrum, with "male brains" at one end and "female brains" at the other. People can be anywhere along this spectrum, regardless of gender, although most people have the type of brain that matches their sex. This helps explain why males and females _do_ learn differently, but you have to look at the individual rather than assume that all boys learn the same and all girls learn the same. There are tests you can do in the book to determine what kind of brain you have. It also talks about how autism is at the extreme end of the "male brain" side. A very interesting read.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 10, 2008)

Gingembre said:


> Firstly, apologies if I've missed something coz I've only scanned this thread quickly. I haven't read that book, Vickie, but I have read a similar one. It's called The Essential Difference:Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain bySimon Baron-Cohen. It describes how people's brains are as on a spectrum, with "male brains" at one end and "female brains" at the other. People can be anywhere along this spectrum, regardless of gender, although most people have the type of brain that matches their sex. This helps explain why males and females _do_ learn differently, but you have to look at the individual rather than assume that all boys learn the same and all girls learn the same. There are tests you can do in the book to determine what kind of brain you have. It also talks about how autism is at the extreme end of the "male brain" side. A very interesting read.



Whoa. This kind of thing sounds as dangerous and divisive as the now (thankfully) discredited "endomorph" "ectomorph" bullshit.

You can also tell a criminal by the shape of their skull! 

Not being bitchy-hat at you, Gingembre, just hate this kind of thing.


----------



## Gingembre (Apr 10, 2008)

No offense taken, but there _is_ a lot of truth in it. Trust me, I'm a science geek! I would elaborate, but it's 2.45am and typing is becoming increasingly difficult! Gonna go sleep now! I will just say, however, that the book's more proper science than popular science, if you see what i mean, and I think you should give it a read before passing judgement. The author is the director of the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. All the book's really saying is that generally females develop faster in empathy and males in systemizing, with autistic people showing the extreme male profile (good systemizing skills but very poor empathy).


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 10, 2008)

Gingembre said:


> No offense taken, but there _is_ a lot of truth in it. Trust me, I'm a science geek! I would elaborate, but it's 2.45am and typing is becoming increasingly difficult! Gonna go sleep now! I will just say, however, that the book's more proper science than popular science, if you see what i mean, and I think you should give it a read before passing judgement. The author is the director of the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. All the book's really saying is that generally females develop faster in empathy and males in systemizing, with autistic people showing the extreme male profile (good systemizing skills but very poor empathy).



I'm sure there's some real scientific truth in this. I think that I am so quick to judge it all bullshit because I find that predetermined gender roles are harmful. I think that for functional life, those differences aren't important. But. I need to be more open-minded about it. 

God, I hate it when I have to be more open-minded.


----------



## olwen (Apr 10, 2008)

edx said:


> Thanks for the tip
> 
> I was just reading "Brain Sex" which came our around 1990, looking at what was known at the time of how male and female brains were wired. Pretty interesting stuff--although some of the conclusions that they came to were a bit off, based on how things have gone in the couple of decades since they were writing. I was thinking I'd like to read something on the topic that is more recent, so I'll see if this is in our local library.
> 
> ...



I've read articles about that very thing. I was thinking what you said about the testosterone thingy.


----------



## olwen (Apr 10, 2008)

Ernest, I read that review when it was published since I was intrigued, but after reading it I decided not to spend money on it and borrow it from the library instead if I really want to read it.


----------



## olwen (Apr 10, 2008)

Gingembre said:


> No offense taken, but there _is_ a lot of truth in it. Trust me, I'm a science geek! I would elaborate, but it's 2.45am and typing is becoming increasingly difficult! Gonna go sleep now! I will just say, however, that the book's more proper science than popular science, if you see what i mean, and I think you should give it a read before passing judgement. The author is the director of the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. All the book's really saying is that generally females develop faster in empathy and males in systemizing, with autistic people showing the extreme male profile (good systemizing skills but very poor empathy).



I would like to take a moment to acknowledge a fellow female science geek.
Okay, had to get that out of my system.

There was once a show on the science channel? about the man the movie Rain Man was based on and in the program they gave him groups of related words to memorize and then asked him questions about the lists. He could recite every word on every list, but couldn't say what made them related. So if they gave him a list of words relating to ice cream he couldn't say that the words were all describing ice cream. They said that with his type of autism he could itemize and memorize, but he couldn't make connections...I thought it was interesting too.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 10, 2008)

olwen said:


> I would like to take a moment to acknowledge a fellow female science geek.
> Okay, had to get that out of my system.
> 
> There was once a show on the science channel? about the man the movie Rain Man was based on and in the program they gave him groups of related words to memorize and then asked him questions about the lists. He could recite every word on every list, but couldn't say what made them related. So if they gave him a list of words relating to ice cream he couldn't say that the words were all describing ice cream. They said that with his type of autism he could itemize and memorize, but he couldn't make connections...I thought it was interesting too.



Woohoo! Let's hear it for female science geeks. I'm more specialized in human biology, but still...

It's interesting you mention that Rain Man story and the relationships (or lack of relationships) between words. It's interesting to me because one of the things I learned in nursing school about schizophrenia is that it's quite the opposite. During adolescences, the human body is supposed to sever a bunch of connections in the brain, but what they've found in schizophrenic brains is that those connections still exist, which is why they will often engage in echolalia and other "word games" and will string together often totally unrelated things. 

I think the brain is really interesting, and wish I'd paid more attention during that part of anatomy class. Oh well, never too late to learn, eh?


----------



## olwen (Apr 10, 2008)

I wonder if researchers would say that this schizophrenic behavior is indicitive of a female brain pattern when the majority of shcizophrenics are men.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 10, 2008)

olwen said:


> I wonder if researchers would say that this schizophrenic behavior is indicitive of a female brain pattern when the majority of shcizophrenics are men.



Yeah, who knows. Women tend to think of things more interconnectedly, but maybe that ability to do it healthily means we're less likely to have problems with it getting out of control, at least as far as schizophrenia is concerned. I thought it was interesting at the time, because of the timing of the thing -- adolescence. No wonder kids are so messed up then, with all the hormonal things, AND the brain changes. It's a wonder they're even semi normal.


----------



## olwen (Apr 10, 2008)

Miss Vickie said:


> Yeah, who knows. Women tend to think of things more interconnectedly, but maybe that ability to do it healthily means we're less likely to have problems with it getting out of control, at least as far as schizophrenia is concerned. I thought it was interesting at the time, because of the timing of the thing -- adolescence. No wonder kids are so messed up then, with all the hormonal things, AND the brain changes. It's a wonder they're even semi normal.



Ha. I've heard that before too about the comparison between schizophrenics and adolescents. I've had the same thought you did....maybe some evolutionary change is happening that would cause them to go postal in schools....


----------



## Tad (Apr 11, 2008)

I may have to keep reading this thread, if only for the concentration of female science geeks :wubu: 

On a more serious note: with things like MRI's that can track brain activity it is not well documented that the typical male and typical female brains are organized quite differently. For example, speech in men is almost totally concentrated in one hemisphere, and emotional processing in the other, apparently, while in women both of those are spread out in both hemispheres.

That is the fact part.

Where I think things get dodgy is in the interpretation of what this means. 

Some parts are pretty safe, such as it has been observed that women tend to recover from strokes or brain damage to certain parts of the brain much better than men do, and it is believed that this is because most of the processing is more spread out.

But then you get to further interpretations....is why men don't do well talking about emotions because they process emotions and language is separate hemispheres? Maybe, but it is pretty hard to prove that. And even were it so, is that any excuse for guys to give up on talking about emotions?

So while I don't agree that the male and female brains are essentially the same other than social programming, I also don't agree that the differences justify any particular social programming. We all have the ability to learn things, even though they come to some more easily than others, and of course when it comes to humans there are usually more 'exceptions' than 'rules,' or at least that is how it seems to me.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Apr 11, 2008)

I've mentioned this book on the boards elsewhere before: Woman; An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier. I was wondering if anyone here has read both The Female Brain and Intimate Geography?

http://www.salon.com/books/review/1999/04/05/angier/

[B]-woman
----- [.A n..I n t i m a t e..G e o g r a p h y.]

BY NATALIE ANGIER
[/B]
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN

NONFICTION

432 PAGES

BY MAGGIE JONES | Simone de Beauvoir probably would have agreed with Natalie Angier's theory of feminism -- with one exception. De Beauvoir believed women were the biological runners-up in the gender wars; Angier, the stylish, Pulitzer Prize-winning science writer for the New York Times, takes the contrary view. In "Woman: An Intimate Geography," she argues that women's bodies are complex, versatile and powerful, and that they often surpass men's. To prove her point, she takes us on a tantalizing, witty journey through female biology, debunking many entrenched stereotypes and myths and a lot of questionable science.

Equipped with an eye for detail and a sure grasp of science, Angier maps the female body -- eggs, uterus, breasts, hormones, brain -- enlisting a remarkable array of studies and little-known facts, as well as examples from history and literature, to offer a feminist take on biology. She explains, for instance, that the clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings, twice as many as the penis. "All this," she gloats, "and to no greater purpose than to subserve a woman's pleasure. In the clitoris alone we see a sexual organ so pure of purpose that it needn't moonlight as a secretory or excretory device." She details the power of estrogen on the brain and heart and the complexity of the female chromosome, which boasts thousands of genes, compared to the male counterpart's puny two dozen.

Though Angier toys with some fringe theories about women's biology, including one that suggests female orgasms enhance fecundity, she saves her most trenchant arguments for the evolutionary psychologists, offering a refreshing rebuttal to the gender stereotyping of Robert Wright ("The Moral Animal") and David Buss ("The Evolution of Desire"). Women, these writers believe, are innately less interested in sex, less aggressive and more invested in relationships than men are. Angier unearths numerous exceptions and alternative explanations. DNA studies, for example, show that female chimpanzees risk "life and limb" and the lives of their offspring to cheat on their possessive mates. And if women have lower sex drives than men, Angier argues, you can't blame biology: Cultural mores across the centuries have punished women for their carnal interest.

Unfortunately, Angier has a propensity to engage in cheerleading about everything female, and the result can be sisterhood mush. In a chapter on menstruation, she implores women to celebrate this rite of passage together: "When your daughter or niece or younger sister runs to you and crows, 'It's here!' take her out for a bowl of ice cream or a piece of chocolate cake, and raise a glass of milk to the new life that begins with blood." Moments like this make you wonder whether you're reading an early edition of "Our Bodies, Ourselves."

Still, this is a minor quibble about a meaty book. Angier challenges readers to question assumptions about women's bodies and minds. She prods us to understand biology as a feminist tool. And her book provides the analysis and the ammunition with which to do just that.
salon.com | April 5, 1999

- - - - - - - - - - - -


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 11, 2008)

edx said:


> I may have to keep reading this thread, if only for the concentration of female science geeks :wubu:
> 
> On a more serious note: with things like MRI's that can track brain activity it is not well documented that the typical male and typical female brains are organized quite differently. For example, speech in men is almost totally concentrated in one hemisphere, and emotional processing in the other, apparently, while in women both of those are spread out in both hemispheres.
> 
> That is the fact part.



This is interesting. So is it ever questioned *when* this mapping takes place? The way our brains develop from external stimuli affects things like this. So I can still be all over my nurture over nature argument. 

We can create whatever kind of human we want by raising them a certain way. And we as a society do it every day. But at the second we shoot out of the womb, the only difference is what's between our legs. 

Or so I really really want to think. And then I had a very close f-t-m transsexual friend who complicated that belief very much for me. 

Edx, I think that what you say here


> So while I don't agree that the male and female brains are essentially the same other than social programming, I also don't agree that the differences justify any particular social programming. We all have the ability to learn things, even though they come to some more easily than others, and of course when it comes to humans there are usually more 'exceptions' than 'rules,' or at least that is how it seems to me.



is the best sort of synthesis of the two sides that I can find.


----------



## Tad (Apr 11, 2008)

Waxwing said:


> But at the second we shoot out of the womb, the only difference is what's between our legs.



So, here I'm depending on what I was reading in Brainsex, and it was one book, of the 'popular science' (ie.no footnotes) and a nearly twenty year old one at that....so I'm willing to admit that there could be better or more recent info.

What they say in that book is that there are points in fetal development where males actually product large amounts of testosterone, and these seem to sort of pre-wire the brain in certain wires. They can't put fetuses in an MRI to see how they are thinking, but there are cases where moms have had extra levels of testosterone or estrogen at certain points in pregnancy (due to medication or medical conditions), and at least one condition where a female fetus's kidney's start making testosterone (!), and they see in these people, later on, typically male or female brain organization in certain areas. 

Which would seem to support the idea that what is between our legs is affecting us before we draw our first breath. But.....I'm not claiming that book is gospel (it has its flaws for sure). Just passing along what I read.

Something else they mentioned in there, and which I know I've seen referernced elsewhere, is that with newborns, as soon as they can focus their eyes at all, girls generally react most to faces, while boys are just as happy watching a mobile or other moving object. Which doesn't prove much about predestined behavior, but does suggest that we don't come out identical.

But just because you have a natural tendency to like sweet things doesn't mean you have to eat every candy you meet. So I really don't like to read too much into innate tendencies. At the very least I think society plays upon these starting tendencies in strange ways.

One cool piece of trivia though: it isn't just brains and general body form/funciton, but also senses: women seem to have, on average, keener hearing (many more have perfect pitch, amongst other things), sharper sense of smell, and apparently see more hues of red. We really do have differences beyond the gross physical and hormonal ones!

I do want to read "the female brain" and see what it says. Would be good to read something more up to date.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 11, 2008)

I'm fascinated by all of this. Of course there are differences (the color and hearing ones are incredibly interesting), but it's the behavioral/personality differences that I have a hard time accepting.

It's interesting that you bring up testosterone, because I've been reading a lot about anabolic/androgenic steroid use in women (no I am not using them ). Women have a harder time gaining muscle mass because they have less testosterone. When they take these hormones their behavior and personalities change. Harming my beliefs, damn them. 

Incidentally the hormones used to help a woman build muscle are the same used to facilitate female-to-male gender reassignment.

So why am I so resistant to the men and women are different camp? It isn't as though the facts aren't there.

Read The Female Brain and weigh in, edx. I'd be really interested to get reports from both you and Vickie.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 11, 2008)

Hey Waxwing, I'm 30 or so pages into it so far. It's.... okay. Some of it is the stereotypical "girls are this way", "boys are that" but the more scientific stuff I naturally like. 

One thing she discusses is how they (somehow) measure how much testosterone fetuses around 18 weeks have; then they looked at those same kids when they were much older and outside the womb and the kids with the least testosterone were the ones liked most by their peers because they were easier to get along with. Apparently in utero our brains start out the same, but at around 18 weeks, fetuses with the "Y" chromosome get a big boost of testosterone which starts the brain changes happening. Then, after birth, little girls get a huge boost of estrogen at 18 months, which starts to change their behavior, making them more oriented toward playing together, more empathetic, consensus building, etc. Obviously there are exceptions (my son was atypical of boys in that he didn't run around doing "boy stuff" but more often hung out with the girls playing quietly), but in general there are differences in how girls play versus boys and her contention is that those differences are largely hormonally mediated.

I'll post a little more when I have time and my thoughts together but didn't want you to think I'd forgotten this thread; I just have a sick doggie and a daughter with a big sewing project that's keeping me busy on my so called "days off". 

More soon...


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Apr 11, 2008)

Miss Vickie said:


> One thing she discusses is how they (somehow) measure how much testosterone fetuses around 18 weeks have; then they looked at those same kids when they were much older and outside the womb and the kids with the least testosterone were the ones liked most by their peers because they were easier to get along with.
> QUOTE]
> 
> This doesn't surprise me. I recall a study that was done about ten years ago on testosterone levels and socialization: it turned out that the men with the highest testosterone levels were all in prison. Apparently, high testosterone levels predisposed an individual towards aggression while severely limiting his ability to focus his attention. This might keep one from being Mr. Congeniality.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 11, 2008)

I strongly believe gender is hard wired into the human brain. This is not a bad thing. Nor does it mean one is better than the other. Just different.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 11, 2008)

Gingembre said:


> No offense taken, but there _is_ a lot of truth in it. Trust me, I'm a science geek! I would elaborate, but it's 2.45am and typing is becoming increasingly difficult! Gonna go sleep now! I will just say, however, that the book's more proper science than popular science, if you see what i mean, and I think you should give it a read before passing judgement. The author is the director of the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. *All the book's really saying is that generally females develop faster in empathy and males in systemizing, with autistic people showing the extreme male profile (good systemizing skills but very poor empathy).*



Does this explain the weight board? 



On a more serious note.....

Years ago, I read a magazine article that talked about research that had discovered actual physical differences between male and female brains. One brain has a membrane covering the top while the other has a divisive line (I can't remember exactly who has what because it was a long time ago that I read it but I believe the females have the membrane?).
This meant differences in how the two sides of the brain interacted with each other. The article further went on to talk about research involving infants. They placed children of each gender inside an area filled with toys and physical things for babies to do. Around this area, they put many people talking, interacting, etc. The research showed that the male babies tended to be more interested in the physical things around them while the females seemed more interested in the social aspect of the people around them. It was definitely an interesting article. (could it have been in Popular Science magazine? I remember having a stack of old ones from the library years ago....)


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 12, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> I strongly believe gender is hard wired into the human brain. This is not a bad thing. Nor does it mean one is better than the other. Just different.



I believe that the differences are probably quite necessary for survival of the human race


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 12, 2008)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Does this explain the weight board?



You know, actually, I think it does.

Men do possess less empathy than women. Some far, *FAR* less and that would help explain (*but not excuse*) the levels of cruelty and degradation of some extreme male fetishes. 

I think having less empathy also relates to on a lesser level to men lacking or having less of what I would call an inner voice. That thing that tells you what you are about to say is going to be hurtful or make you look like an ass.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 12, 2008)

One of the things she addresses early in the book is aggression. She said when she started the project, she was all arm and fuzzy about how women aren't aggressive like boys and men are; yet she learned from her research (personal and professional) that women and girls are just as adept at getting what they want and running the show, but they just do it in more verbal ways. Even using what looks like cooperative language on the surface like "let's play dress up" is actually a way of kind of manipulating things, albeit in a more subtle way.

As one of you wise folks said, it's probably a necessity for the survival of our species. And as for brain differences, there are many. Women have a much greater percentage of their brains dedicated to communication and language than men. Our brains are smaller, which used to lead researchers to think we were intellectually inferior; however, our brains are packed more densely with neurons (which I'm guessing leads to some of the connectedness that we seem to notice more in women than men).

It's interesting reading, so far. I hadn't realized that there was so much current research out there, so it's been an eye opener to me.


----------



## olwen (Apr 12, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> You know, actually, I think it does.
> 
> Men do possess less empathy than women. Some far, *FAR* less and that would help explain (*but not excuse*) the levels of cruelty and degradation of some extreme male fetishes.
> 
> I think having less empathy also relates to on a lesser level to men lacking or having less of what I would call an inner voice. That thing that tells you what you are about to say is going to be hurtful or make you look like an ass.



I disagree on the last point. Women can be just as hurtful, maybe even more so, since women are more inclined to fight with words than with fists. Well I'm thinking of teenaged girls here. Maybe women are just better at not looking like an ass when they say hurtful stuff.

Aside: For as long as you have that pic as your avatar, I'm going to hear Dr. Girlfriend's voice in my head when I read your posts...


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 12, 2008)

Miss Vickie said:


> One of the things she addresses early in the book is aggression. She said when she started the project, she was all arm and fuzzy about how women aren't aggressive like boys and men are; yet she learned from her research (personal and professional) that women and girls are just as adept at getting what they want and running the show, but they just do it in more verbal ways. Even using what looks like cooperative language on the surface like "let's play dress up" is actually a way of kind of manipulating things, albeit in a more subtle way.
> 
> As one of you wise folks said, it's probably a necessity for the survival of our species. And as for brain differences, there are many. Women have a much greater percentage of their brains dedicated to communication and language than men. Our brains are smaller, which used to lead researchers to think we were intellectually inferior; however, our brains are packed more densely with neurons (which I'm guessing leads to some of the connectedness that we seem to notice more in women than men).
> 
> It's interesting reading, so far. I hadn't realized that there was so much current research out there, so it's been an eye opener to me.




Lol...couldn't our brains "be smaller" not because of a deficiency in intelligence, but because our bodies are usually smaller in many ways, too?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 12, 2008)

olwen said:


> I disagree on the last point. Women can be just as hurtful, maybe even more so, since women are more inclined to fight with words than with fists.



Let me try to explain what I meant better and I've seen this a lot.

Even when men are not actually trying to be rude, they will still inadvertently say something hurtful and honestly cannot fathom why what they said is upsetting.

BTW: I can do a pretty good impression of Dr Girlfriend.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 12, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Even when men are not actually trying to be rude, they will still inadvertently say something hurtful and honestly cannot fathom why what they said is upsetting.



This is borne out in her studies, because men have fewer brain space dedicated to things like reading facial expressions and hearing subtle cues in voices that even little girls pick up at early ages. So they really, most of the time, honestly don't get it. 

I'm looking forward to her next book which I hope will be "The Male Brain".

Oh, and GEF you're right -- the fact that we're smaller is certainly part of it. Our brains are perfectly sized for our bodies. And they're jam packed with neuronal goodness.


----------



## olwen (Apr 12, 2008)

Miss Vickie said:


> This is borne out in her studies, because men have fewer brain space dedicated to things like reading facial expressions and hearing subtle cues in voices that even little girls pick up at early ages. So they really, most of the time, honestly don't get it.
> 
> I'm looking forward to her next book which I hope will be "The Male Brain".
> 
> Oh, and GEF you're right -- the fact that we're smaller is certainly part of it. Our brains are perfectly sized for our bodies. And they're jam packed with neuronal goodness.



I don't know. I've been told on more than one occasion that I have foot in mouth syndrome. I think I'm just being honest, but other people think otherwise. But if I know what I'm thinking really is mean, I just stay quiet. Could I be a female with a male brain?


----------



## olwen (Apr 12, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Let me try to explain what I meant better and I've seen this a lot.
> 
> Even when men are not actually trying to be rude, they will still inadvertently say something hurtful and honestly cannot fathom why what they said is upsetting.
> 
> BTW: I can do a pretty good impression of Dr Girlfriend.



1. I'd love to hear your impression one day. 
2. I get what you're saying now.


----------



## Gingembre (Apr 12, 2008)

olwen said:


> Could I be a female with a male brain?



You could be. The way I see it, it's like a spectrum with male brain at one end, and female brain at the other end, and each individual is at a different point on the spectrum. It's not completely female or completely male. Does that make sense?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 12, 2008)

olwen said:


> I don't know. I've been told on more than one occasion that I have foot in mouth syndrome. I think I'm just being honest, but other people think otherwise. But if I know what I'm thinking really is mean, I just stay quiet. Could I be a female with a male brain?



I think like anything, it's a spectrum. I've raised two daughters, both of whom are wildly different in temperament and the degree to which they exhibit what we perceive as female behaviors. Just as my son isn't a "boy's boy" (or a "man's man" since he's all grown up) I think some women have more of these traits than others. Maybe it's how they're wired (it would be interesting to find out) or maybe it's how they were raised. Most likely? I think it's probably both.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 12, 2008)

Miss Vickie said:


> I think like anything, it's a spectrum. I've raised two daughters, both of whom are wildly different in temperament and the degree to which they exhibit what we perceive as female behaviors. Just as my son isn't a "boy's boy" (or a "man's man" since he's all grown up) I think some women have more of these traits than others. Maybe it's how they're wired (it would be interesting to find out) or maybe it's how they were raised. Most likely? I think it's probably both.



Agreed. I'm very mannish in many ways that are sort of contrary to the way I was raised. But I've always been this way. Even as a toddler I was reticent about my emotions, competitive, unaffectionate, and kind of an ass.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 12, 2008)

Waxwing said:


> Agreed. I'm very mannish in many ways that are sort of contrary to the way I was raised. But I've always been this way. Even as a toddler I was reticent about my emotions, competitive, unaffectionate, and kind of an ass.



You're no ass, Waxwing. I think you're awesome.

Me? Totally steeped in estrogen, have been since I was a little girl. Played with a room full of dolls, had major dreams of being a mommie, and now have happily settled into a "helping" field like nursing. And among nurses I'm the "nursie" kind of nurse -- particularly warm and cuddly, loving and kind, deeply empathetic to my patients, some may say too much so. I love spending hours talking about emotions, thinking about relationships between people, that kind of thing.

Oh yeah. I got it baaaad.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Apr 12, 2008)

Miss Vickie said:


> This is borne out in her studies, because men have fewer brain space dedicated to things like reading facial expressions and hearing subtle cues in voices that even little girls pick up at early ages. So they really, most of the time, honestly don't get it.



This may help explain a stumbling block I've observed in male-female communication. Since women are more attuned to subtle cues, they often communicate in subtexts as well as literally ("Darling!" = "You bitch!", etc.). And since most men (of my acquaintance, anyway) _don't_ use subtexts, women often go crazy looking for the hidden message that isn't there.

He; "Do you like lasagna?"
She: "How can you say a thing like that after all we've meant to each other?"


----------



## olwen (Apr 12, 2008)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> This may help explain a stumbling block I've observed in male-female communication. Since women are more attuned to subtle cues, they often communicate in subtexts as well as literally ("Darling!" = "You bitch!", etc.). And since most men (of my acquaintance, anyway) _don't_ use subtexts, women often go crazy looking for the hidden message that isn't there.
> 
> He; "Do you like lasagna?"
> She: "How can you say a thing like that after all we've meant to each other?"



Oh I think men read those cues, it's just that they put them to uses a woman wouldn't necessarily use. For example, a good salesman has to know how to read people. So would a con artist or, a man who is very good at seduction, or the CEO of a fortune 500 company. Women read those cues and use them in everyday life, whereas men maybe only use them in certain situations, kind of like a super power.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Apr 12, 2008)

Miss Vickie said:


> I think like anything, it's a spectrum. I've raised two daughters, both of whom are wildly different in temperament and the degree to which they exhibit what we perceive as female behaviors. Just as my son isn't a "boy's boy" (or a "man's man" since he's all grown up) I think some women have more of these traits than others. Maybe it's how they're wired (it would be interesting to find out) or maybe it's how they were raised. Most likely? I think it's probably both.




I think you are right about the way were were raised more then how we were wired. I was the only girl in my family,with 3 older brothers. While I do have some feminine traits I am still very mannish. I love sports and I love doing more things outdoors then in. I loath housework and anything that has to do with what I perceive as very feminine behavior. I do not wear make-up nor do I style my hair beyond wash and go or pull up. When I go shopping it is not for the latest trendy styles but for what fits and looks half way presentable. 

I do try to keep from hurting other's feeling but I am like Olwen, if I think some thing needs to be said I usually say it. I am very honest and blunt.


----------



## olwen (Apr 12, 2008)

Gingembre said:


> You could be. The way I see it, it's like a spectrum with male brain at one end, and female brain at the other end, and each individual is at a different point on the spectrum. It's not completely female or completely male. Does that make sense?





Miss Vickie said:


> I think like anything, it's a spectrum. I've raised two daughters, both of whom are wildly different in temperament and the degree to which they exhibit what we perceive as female behaviors. Just as my son isn't a "boy's boy" (or a "man's man" since he's all grown up) I think some women have more of these traits than others. Maybe it's how they're wired (it would be interesting to find out) or maybe it's how they were raised. Most likely? I think it's probably both.



The spectrum thing makes sense. The primate brain is so complex.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 12, 2008)

Since we have moved onto "way we were raised vs. wiring", I just want to say that I, too, can be quite..."mannish". On the surface, I appear quite feminine, with the exception for work I wear dresses and skirts almost all the time. My hair and make up is always in place before I leave my home. I love flowers, chocolate and bubble baths (you don't get much more girlie than that do ya?  ) 
On the flip side though...I prefer to spend my time hanging with chess players (overwhelming majority male), poker players (same deal), can curse like a sailor when angry and will compete....or fight, if necessary, with any male if I'm in the mood for it. Hell, isn't a lot of my humor on the forums "mannish" even? 
I want to add more but I'm realizing it might be more upbringing/environment than mental. 
I have had an ex-bf call me "mannish" or "dominant" at times....my counselor went so far as to explain to me that I "adopted" some male ways. Why? Because I felt victimized as a female and viewed males as being "stronger" hence, trying to become more like them, emulating some of their ways, as a protection. 
In short, I think it's environment/upbringing...and my need for male company/activities is probably from being raised primarily by an older brother and an absent father. 
I viewed the females in my family as victims....or weak/incapable. I don't like seeing myself that way.


----------



## olwen (Apr 12, 2008)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Since we have moved onto "way we were raised vs. wiring", I just want to say that I, too, can be quite..."mannish". On the surface, I appear quite feminine, with the exception for work I wear dresses and skirts almost all the time. My hair and make up is always in place before I leave my home. I love flowers, chocolate and bubble baths (you don't get much more girlie than that do ya?  )
> On the flip side though...I prefer to spend my time hanging with chess players (overwhelming majority male), poker players (same deal), can curse like a sailor when angry and will compete....or fight, if necessary, with any male if I'm in the mood for it. Hell, isn't a lot of my humor on the forums "mannish" even?
> I want to add more but I'm realizing it might be more upbringing/environment than mental.
> I have had an ex-bf call me "mannish" or "dominant" at times....my counselor went so far as to explain to me that I "adopted" some male ways. Why? Because I felt victimized as a female and viewed males as being "stronger" hence, trying to become more like them, emulating some of their ways, as a protection.
> ...




Well then now we have to ask the question, what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman. Or put another way, how do we construct femininity and masculinity. I also believe a lot of it is environmental. The problem is that so many people believe that the environmental factors are actually innate characteristics that they don't see them for what they are and then we end up doing studies on our brains to try to suss out the difference.

I can't help but to wonder what masculine and feminine mean for some alien species on some far away planet. If they were to come here would they recognize themselves in us?


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Apr 12, 2008)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I have had an ex-bf call me "mannish" or "dominant" at times....my counselor went so far as to explain to me that I "adopted" some male ways. Why? Because I felt victimized as a female and viewed males as being "stronger" hence, trying to become more like them, emulating some of their ways, as a protection.
> In short, I think it's environment/upbringing...and my need for male company/activities is probably from being raised primarily by an older brother and an absent father.
> I viewed the females in my family as victims....or weak/incapable. I don't like seeing myself that way.




I believe a lot of us have become mannish or dominant because of outside factors. If you are in a bad marriage and your husband ignores you then you start to become independent from the marriage. That in turns cause you to do more things for yourself and in this world if you do not have a male attitude when dealing with business some one is going to walk all over you.

I think being a single parent changes you as well. It changes your perspective on how to deal with things in life. Most people do not deal well with a woman they see as to feminine or weak. They do try to advantage of what they consider a weak woman. 

I know that my being a tomboy most of my life has helped when I have had to deal with men in what is considered a male only area. Take car buying for example. I had the money to buy a car and went looking for one. I took one of my brothers to kind of keep me company and give me some input. Every dealership we went to all of the salesmen addressed him first,shook his hand and asked him what he was looking for. I was overlooked many times. My brother would tell them he was not looking for anything but I was and it seems since they had ignored me they weren't selling me a car. When I finally did get a salesman to talk to me and show me a car,the first thing he did was show me where the make up mirror was on the visor. He looked shocked when I asked about the size of the motor and the mpg. When I did find the car I wanted I talk to the salesman about the price I wanted to pay. He went to his manager and instead of trying to make a deal,he kept trying to get me to agree to pay what was listed on the car. We haggled for over an hour and he would never come down on the price of the car and I never went up. He was even so stupid as to go get a different car and try to sell it to me for the price I wanted. I stood up shook his hand and walked out the door without a car.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Apr 12, 2008)

olwen said:


> I can't help but to wonder what masculine and feminine mean for some alien species on some far away planet. If they were to come here would they recognize themselves in us?



You don't have to travel that far: take a look at other animals that form permanent male-female bonds. Rabbits tend to form couples, and I can tell you from experience that the female is usually dominant. So, I am told, are lionesses, though I have never wanted to get close enough to verify this.


----------



## Risible (Apr 12, 2008)

Waxwing said:


> Agreed. I'm very mannish in many ways that are sort of contrary to the way I was raised. But I've always been this way. Even as a toddler I was reticent about my emotions, competitive, unaffectionate, and kind of an ass.



Not germaine to the OT necessarily, but I was recently told (in PM) by another Dims member that he had an acquaintance who is blind (another Dims member) who thought I was a man. So, apparently, I post like a man. 

And, I've been referred to as "he" a couple of times in Hyde Park.

I even felt compelled to bust out the ole "Ris rack" photo one time in HP to prove my bona fides.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 12, 2008)

olwen said:


> Oh I think men read those cues, it's just that they put them to uses a woman wouldn't necessarily use. For example, a good salesman has to know how to read people.



Being a trained observer is not the same thing is having inborn empathy. 

In other words, men can be taught to look for reactions or visible clues to a persons reactions or expressions and try to gage what they may be thinking. But a salesmen or conman trained to look for visible cues to exploit people is in no way the same as a womans innate empathy or natural awareness of another humans emotional state.


----------



## olwen (Apr 12, 2008)

I see what you're saying Jack. But I do know men who have that ability and women who don't.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 12, 2008)

Ive noticed that when these types of discussions come up there are always women that will proudly proclaim they act like a guy. Ive always found it quite sad when I read things like women trying to distance themselves from their perceived inferior feminine traits and trying to emulate men. 

Im not judging and I understand society does place an over emphasis on men and masculinity. I just find it depressing.


----------



## olwen (Apr 12, 2008)

Well, to play devil's advocate: what's a girl to do?


----------



## olwen (Apr 12, 2008)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> You don't have to travel that far: take a look at other animals that form permanent male-female bonds. Rabbits tend to form couples, and I can tell you from experience that the female is usually dominant. So, I am told, are lionesses, though I have never wanted to get close enough to verify this.



Rabbits really? Weird. Penguins, elephants, dolphins, monkeys. Seems weird that rabbits would pair bond. Dunno, just seems weird.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 12, 2008)

BubbleButtBabe said:


> I do try to keep from hurting other's feeling but I am like Olwen, if I think some thing needs to be said I usually say it. I am very honest and blunt.



I would say there is a big difference in a woman being blunt and a guy being oblivious. 

When you are being blunt you realize that what you are saying is worded very strongly and could be taken harshly. Which I feel is completely different from a man inadvertently saying something stupid and being completely clueless of why what they said was upsetting.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 12, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> I’ve noticed that when these types of discussions come up there are always women that will proudly proclaim they act like a guy. I’ve always found it quite sad when I read things like women trying to distance themselves from their perceived inferior feminine traits and trying to emulate men.
> 
> I’m not judging and I understand society does place an over emphasis on men and masculinity. I just find it depressing.



I am about to offend various and sundry so before I do, let me say that in no way do I believe that the stereotypes are true. I'm just listing them.

I think you're right to a certain extent, but why is it sad? I think that it's a commentary on how innately....lame stereotypes about women are. A lot of us do not want to be a part of it. 

I do NOT believe that this is what we women are. But it is what we're often TOLD we are. So here's the run-down of the worst of the worst of these things we're told:

A woman screams when she sees a spider, is jealous of everyone, hates porn, doesn't understand baseball, nags men ceaselessly. She is humorless, sexually frigid, emotionally unstable, easily offended. She is the one who doesn't let you buy the HD tv in the Best Buy commercial. Alternatively she is the dumb blond who asks you what kind of ball those men are throwing. A woman won't hit back in a fight. A woman competes with her friends. A woman is high maintenance. A woman likes romantic comedies. A woman asks you if her butt looks fat, wants to ask for directions, can't read a map, talks about her biological clock, can't have sex without getting emotional. A woman is no fun. 

In some ways, that's what we grow up seeing. Why would we want to be that? 

So, Jack, I think you are right. A lot of us who are SO SURE that we're really "mannish" are just afraid of being that awful incorrect offensive stereotype *that we know we shouldn't listen to but can't help but fear. * In a way, we perpetuate it. 

And by the way-- that emotional sensitivity thing is wholly learned. That has fuck all to do with your gender. Women are raised to be aware of those things, and many men are not. Just another example of how we condition children to fit the mold.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 13, 2008)

Waxy, I understand what you are saying and I do understand why some women would want to distance themselves from the percieved inferiority of women. 



Waxwing said:


> And by the way-- that emotional sensitivity thing is wholly learned. That has fuck all to do with your gender. Women are raised to be aware of those things, and many men are not. Just another example of how we condition children to fit the mold.



This is where I respectfully disagree. 

I believe male and female brains are wired differently and there is a lot of science that supports this. I believe women's brains being different is good thing and in many ways the female brain is far more complex than males. Again I feel this a positive thing. 

I am of the opinion we should not be changing women to think like men, we should be changing our culture to better understand and respect women.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Apr 13, 2008)

I think our culture is changing in that direction. With so many single Moms raising sons,the sons have a different attitude about women then say 20 to 30 years ago..


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Apr 13, 2008)

Waxwing said:


> I am about to offend various and sundry so before I do, let me say that in no way do I believe that the stereotypes are true. I'm just listing them.
> 
> I think you're right to a certain extent, but why is it sad? I think that it's a commentary on how innately....lame stereotypes about women are. A lot of us do not want to be a part of it.
> 
> ...




"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Waxwing again."

Bravo!!!!!:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:

Not to mention, that no two people are the same regardless of gender. We may have a tendency towards certain traits, but how we are raised, how we are socialized, what type of reactions are allowed in the home when growing up, these all play a huge factor in how a woman or a man expresses themselves in daily life. There can be sensitive men and completely insensitive women. Maybe those people have hormonal imbalances, but they nonetheless exist. To argue that not all women are the same or fit the stereotype is not an attempt to try to be something you're not, it is actually an attempt to assert the right of every person to just be themselves. There is nothing sad about a woman who has no interest in traditionally female things. She is merely someone with her own unique interests. That is actually the main problem with stereotypes. It always amounts to someone else trying to tell you how you think and feel. Really, only each individual person can answer that. And the truth is, women are different from each other and interested in different things, have different strengths and emotional lives. If a person believes that not all men are mindless brutes (and I'm pretty sure all of the men who have replied to this thread are NOT mindless brutes) or even that no two men are the same, they have to believe that women are individuals too. To believe otherwise is what is sexist.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 13, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> There is nothing sad about a woman who has no interest in traditionally female things.



Let me elaborate on the sad thing. I find it sad that there are some women that can only see positive traits (like strength of character, courage, etc.) in men. 

It honestly does make me cringe when I read stuff to the effect of “I’m like a guy. Not like a weak woman.” It makes me mad at our culture. Women are not weak. Considering that our culture is geared to the specific advancement of males in schools and jobs, I feel it’s a testament to the strength of women that they achieve so much in such an unlevel playing field. I sincerely doubt men could have had things been reversed.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Apr 13, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Let me elaborate on the sad thing. I find it sad that there are some women that can only see positive traits (like strength of character, courage, etc.) in men.
> 
> It honestly does make me cringe when I read stuff to the effect of Im like a guy. Not like a weak woman. It makes me mad at our culture. Women are not weak. Considering that our culture is geared to the specific advancement of males in schools and jobs, I feel its a testament to the strength of women that they achieve so much in such an unlevel playing field. I sincerely doubt men could have had things been reversed.



I see your point. That kind of comment is unfortunate, the idea that strength, etc is only a masculine trait. And I understand what you mean. But I also think that sometimes, as Waxwing pointed out, our culture also makes it very clear that certain things are supposed to be "female" so when a woman knows that she does not feel that way, think that way or what have you, she might come to the conclusion that she is "more like a guy" even though the truth is she is just herself.


----------



## tonynyc (Apr 13, 2008)

Now what would be wrong about having both traits. Consdier this arguement.
This is along the lines of what other have mentioned -but, brings up another point.

" Usually, bright or creative people tend to be androgynous. Androgynous people are more adaptable. They behave in ways appropriate to the given situation  regardless of whether the behavior is masculine or feminine. For example, when subjected to group pressures, androgynous women are more assertive and independent than feminine women. 

Likewise, androgynous men are more nuturant than masculine men. Androgynous men feel more comfortable holding, touching and playing with babies. They are more able to show empathy and offer support to others. "

Soruce: http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/Androgyny.htm


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 13, 2008)

tonynyc said:


> androgynous women are more assertive and independent than feminine women.



I'll say it again, feminine does not equal weakness or lack of assertiveness. Feminine is not a bad thing and a girl that likes to run and climb trees does not make her "androgynous" or masculine. It makes her a girl that likes to run and climb trees.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 13, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Let me elaborate on the sad thing. I find it sad that there are some women that can only see positive traits (like strength of character, courage, etc.) in men.
> 
> It honestly does make me cringe when I read stuff to the effect of “I’m like a guy. Not like a weak woman.” It makes me mad at our culture. Women are not weak. Considering that our culture is geared to the specific advancement of males in schools and jobs, I feel it’s a testament to the strength of women that they achieve so much in such an unlevel playing field. I sincerely doubt men could have had things been reversed.



It makes me sad, too, Jack.....and it won't let me rep you.

I mostly find it sad because it's this shit we not only wholly buy into for ourselves, but pass down to our daughters and sons.

"The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world". Some of our hands need to be steadier, I do believe.

We are the Mothers of the Earth- that alone is a helluva lot of power. Too bad we don't always realize our own strength/power.


I have another admission....whenever I see a man behaving badly, I blame a woman for it....his Mother. Right or wrong....fair or unfair....


----------



## olwen (Apr 13, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Let me elaborate on the sad thing. I find it sad that there are some women that can only see positive traits (like strength of character, courage, etc.) in men.
> 
> It honestly does make me cringe when I read stuff to the effect of “I’m like a guy. Not like a weak woman.” It makes me mad at our culture. Women are not weak. Considering that our culture is geared to the specific advancement of males in schools and jobs, I feel it’s a testament to the strength of women that they achieve so much in such an unlevel playing field. I sincerely doubt men could have had things been reversed.



And that Jack is part of what Feminism is all about.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Apr 13, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> Let me elaborate on the sad thing. I find it sad that there are some women that can only see positive traits (like strength of character, courage, etc.) in men.
> 
> _I don't think it is because some women can only see the positive traits but rather we have been taught that these are what get men ahead in life.It is the traits that get the men the better paying jobs,the corner office,gets them into a part of the good ole boy's club,get them what they want out of the job life. So we try to emulate those traits to even the playing field._
> 
> It honestly does make me cringe when I read stuff to the effect of Im like a guy. Not like a weak woman. It makes me mad at our culture. Women are not weak. Considering that our culture is geared to the specific advancement of males in schools and jobs, I feel its a testament to the strength of women that they achieve so much in such an unlevel playing field. I sincerely doubt men could have had things been reversed.



_You are right women are not weak,as a matter of fact at times I think they are the stronger sex. It is just that for so many generations we have been spoon fed how we are suppose to act and feel weak to feed a man's ego. Some of us bought into that lie. Now we see it as a weakness to show our femininity. _



Jack Skellington said:


> I'll say it again, feminine does not equal weakness or lack of assertiveness. Feminine is not a bad thing and a girl that likes to run and climb trees does not make her "androgynous" or masculine. It makes her a girl that likes to run and climb trees.



_Your right. We just need our culture to come to the same realization. I still say it will in time. Us baby boomers are getting older and this next generation was raised very differently then we were. I hope with more of an open mind and the ability to see things as they truly are and not as we want them to be in some fantasy world. _

_I just need to clear up some facts about my statement. I really do think my "mannish" behavior came from the fact my Mom worked all the time and I was around my Dad and brothers more then her. When she was home it was to cook supper,help with homework and get us ready for bed. So I was with a male influence about 16 out of 24 hours a day._


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 13, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> I am of the opinion we should not be changing women to think like men, we should be changing our culture to better understand and respect women.



You got it. I absolutely agree with you, and even little things like this thread might make that more possible.

Instead of wincing about "typical" female behavior, I'd rather show the world what women really are.

Oh by the way-- I'll hit back in a fight, and I dislike romantic comedies, but I will cry if you hurt my feelings, and spiders make me shiver. So, I guess I really AM a girl


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Apr 13, 2008)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I have another admission....whenever I see a man behaving badly, I blame a woman for it....his Mother. Right or wrong....fair or unfair....



Don't let his father off the hook. I have read that we tend to take our basic outlook (optimistic/pessimistic, extroverted/introverted)from the parent of the _opposite_ sex and our strategies for dealing with life from the parent of the _same_ sex. I don't know if it's true generally, but it certainly is in my case!


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 13, 2008)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Don't let his father off the hook. I have read that we tend to take our basic outlook (optimistic/pessimistic, extroverted/introverted)from the parent of the _opposite_ sex and our strategies for dealing with life from the parent of the _same_ sex. I don't know if it's true generally, but it certainly is in my case!



Well, my absentee father was mentally ill, so that means my basic outlook is INSANE.

Aw shit, that explains a lot. 


heeeee.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 13, 2008)

Dr. Feelgood said:


> Don't let his father off the hook. I have read that we tend to take our basic outlook (optimistic/pessimistic, extroverted/introverted)from the parent of the _opposite_ sex and our strategies for dealing with life from the parent of the _same_ sex. I don't know if it's true generally, but it certainly is in my case!



I realized a few years back that, indeed, I had let my father "off the hook" so to speak. I now see how totally unfair that is to my Mom (though she is responsible for her own actions in things, where the fuck was Dad?) and take it into regard as a Mother myself now. 



Waxwing said:


> Well, my absentee father was mentally ill, so that means my basic outlook is INSANE.
> 
> Aw shit, that explains a lot.
> 
> ...



I know you meant this tongue in cheek, to a degree but my Mom was the mentally ill one. My father left three children with her four states away- knowing she was. He worked and paid his child support on time, made sure to visit with us twice a year, encouraged us to attend college/trade school (something my Mom said I shouldn't do- even though I was given scholarships :doh and in many ways, made my life better than it could have been. 
I give him credit for that part......but why leave your kids alone with a mentally ill person.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Apr 13, 2008)

Hey folks, just checking into this thread. I've been working so I haven't had a chance to read more but I'm enjoying the thread. I mentioned the book to a co-worker and she's going to read it; she in turn recommended this book.

I think the whole nature versus nurture debate is interesting. It's probably never truly solvable, but it's fun to talk about, isn't it?


----------



## Littleghost (Apr 13, 2008)

Miss Vickie said:


> Hey folks, just checking into this thread. I've been working so I haven't had a chance to read more but I'm enjoying the thread. I mentioned the book to a co-worker and she's going to read it; she in turn recommended this book.
> 
> I think the whole nature versus nurture debate is interesting. It's probably never truly solvable, but it's fun to talk about, isn't it?



Sounds like a book that's right up my alley! Has it mentioned anything about memories and how they're processed or stored? I was reading something not too long ago about how women tend to describe things in detail emotionally, because they "keep" the emotional memories with the facts; whereas men tend to separate them while storing and focus more on the nuts and bolts of the event. It seems a pretty interesting difference and I haven't seen how supported it was and how deep the divide. Or how it actually occurs, for that matter.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Apr 13, 2008)

Waxwing said:


> You got it. I absolutely agree with you, and even little things like this thread might make that more possible.
> 
> Instead of wincing about "typical" female behavior, I'd rather show the world what women really are.
> 
> Oh by the way-- I'll hit back in a fight, and I dislike romantic comedies, but I will cry if you hurt my feelings, and spiders make me shiver. So, I guess I really AM a girl



I cry while I kill the spiders. Seriously though, bravo again Waxwing. And I wanted to add that I did not mean to imply in an earlier post that I thought anything I read in this thread was sexist. I did not mean that at all. I think you all are pretty awesome folk whether your brains are male or female. I was just defining what i thought was sexist, not referring to anything I read by any posters. And I especially was not taking any jabs at Jack Skellington, of whom I am an unabashed fan.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 13, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> I was just defining what i thought was sexist, not referring to anything I read by any posters. And I especially was not taking any jabs at Jack Skellington, of whom I am an unabashed fan.



I knew what you meant. It's all good. 

And it's always nice to know one's spite is appreciated.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 14, 2008)

I like you for more than your spite, Jack...... :wubu:


----------



## Tad (Apr 14, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Waxwing again."
> 
> Bravo!!!!!:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:



Got her for you (well, and for myself too).


----------



## Tad (Apr 14, 2008)

(again, basing this on what I read in 'Brainsex.' It was written close to 20 years ago, so hopefully those who have more up to date references will respond if the science on this has changed).

Our brain develops in stages. That is, certain functions develop before other functions. So changes in the uterine environment--maternal nutrition, stress, environmental contamination, or diet, fetus's own hormone production, illness, medications aimed at either mother or fetus, random hiccups--can affect one 'system' of the brain, but not others. If you don't dose a fetus with testosterone at all*, they stay with a very female brain, if you dose it with the expected testosterone levels, they get a male brain. If that dosage is uneven, they may end up very male in certain regards, but female in others, or somewhere in between, etc. So some people may be very 'male' in some ways, but more mixed in other, and female in yet others. Most people are pretty consistent, but a substantial minority are less so.

Some of the brain wiring only really seems to respond or work in the presence of hormones. Some of the basic male wiring seems to come into play more or less strongly based on testosterone levels. That is, people with their brains that way will show certain behaviors/tendencies/abilities** that correlate with how much testosterone they have in their systems. However people whose brains don't have that wiring do not respond to testosterone in the same way. A woman who has a 'male' brain in that regard, who is dosed with testosterone, will respond, but most won't, or to only a much lower degree.

* There is a rare-ish mutation where girls do not have ovaries. The ovaries normally secrete the small amount of testosterone present in the female body, including in utero. These girls and women apparently exhibit extremely 'feminine' behavior by all sorts of standards all of their life. So even 'average' women are not at one end of the spectrum.

** One classic example: the much vaunted male sense of direction has be shown in multiple experiments to vary with testosterone levels--even within the same individual (so yes, it tends to fade with age, which is probably why the stereotype is of the middle aged guy refusing to ask for directions even though lost--he is probably used to being able to find his way without them, but it is fading).

This is my summary of stuff from a book that I read a few weeks ago and have since returned to the library, so I probably didn't phrase it well and I'm sure I didn't get the details described with crisp accuracy.

-Ed


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 14, 2008)

That's really interesting stuff. I need to ponder and post later when my brain is working. Typical woman.


----------



## Tad (Apr 14, 2008)

Actually I'd say the opposite  Women are supposed to be the awesome multi-taskers, guys the focussed on one thing at a time crew. So guys are the ones supposed to be saying "can't think now", while you women are supposed to always have multiple thoughts going on.

See how 100%, completely and entirely accurate these generalizations are? *L*

In other words, I think the science is interesting, but I don't think we really understand what it MEANS, person-to-person, day-to-day. So while I'm recounting all of that stuff, I still at least in part agree with you that a lot of what we do is learned, and I more than partly agree that a lot of what we choose to do is learned. I'm still suspecting that a woman who spends a lot of time finding her way around has better sense of direction than a guy who never does, no matter testosterone levels or anything like that. Genetics is not destiny.


----------



## BubbleButtBabe (Apr 14, 2008)

Funny thing about genetic tho. My son, who was not raised around his Dad since he was 2, has a lot of his Dad's mannerisms and traits. His way of thinking and personality are learned from me but certain things he does, that he isn't even aware of, come from his Dad. Use to drive me nuts when he was younger. I would complain that I divorced that man a long time ago and didn't know why I was still seeing some of his traits and/or mannerisms. To this day the way he sits a certain way or certain things he does I can see his Dad in them. Spooky at times.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 14, 2008)

edx said:


> Actually I'd say the opposite  Women are supposed to be the awesome multi-taskers, guys the focussed on one thing at a time crew. So guys are the ones supposed to be saying "can't think now", while you women are supposed to always have multiple thoughts going on.
> 
> See how 100%, completely and entirely accurate these generalizations are? *L*
> 
> In other words, I think the science is interesting, but I don't think we really understand what it MEANS, person-to-person, day-to-day. So while I'm recounting all of that stuff, I still at least in part agree with you that a lot of what we do is learned, and I more than partly agree that a lot of what we choose to do is learned. I'm still suspecting that a woman who spends a lot of time finding her way around has better sense of direction than a guy who never does, no matter testosterone levels or anything like that. Genetics is not destiny.



Agreed on all counts.

I never thought it was that men were supposed to have better senses of direction but that women were supposed to be more willing to ask for directions. Isn't that the stereotype?

I have a damn good sense of direction, but everyone gets lost sometimes. Still, no matter how lost I am, I would rather be lost all night than ask anyone.


----------



## butch (Apr 16, 2008)

One thing I notice about this thread is, no matter how many variations and deviations we come up with from the 'typical' male and female brain/behavior/hormones/emotions/etc, we still cling to the binary of male and female. I think what this research is showing, and what our own observations are showing, is that whether its nature or nurture, we do ourselves a big disservice when we can only look at gender in 2 very stark divisions.

Wouldn't it make more sense, and actually integrate the whole nature/nurture positions in useful ways, if we talked about 'genders' and conceptualized different aspects of femininity and masculinity so that there would be more than one choice in how one lives and expresses their gender? That to me seems more useful and more beneficial than trying to detect the sequence of DNA that makes some women cry at "Steel Magnolias" and some men cry at "Field of Dreams." 

Oh, and as far as learning goes-there are more than just 'female' ways of learning and 'male' ways of learning, and the pedagogy about teaching today stresses integrating teaching techniques to hit all the various forms of learning, so that no one, male or female, is left out from learning in the style that is most accesible for them.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 16, 2008)

butch said:


> we still cling to the binary of male and female.



I personally believe and I feel science supports gender binaries or male and female brains. But that not to say variances dont occur. Like with rare chromosomal disorders like Klinefelter's syndrome or Intersexed people. But thats probably really another discussion.

And for the record, I thought both Steel Magnolias and Field of Dreams were incredibly dull.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Apr 16, 2008)

butch said:


> One thing I notice about this thread is, no matter how many variations and deviations we come up with from the 'typical' male and female brain/behavior/hormones/emotions/etc, we still cling to the binary of male and female. I think what this research is showing, and what our own observations are showing, is that whether its nature or nurture, we do ourselves a big disservice when we can only look at gender in 2 very stark divisions.
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense, and actually integrate the whole nature/nurture positions in useful ways, if we talked about 'genders' and conceptualized different aspects of femininity and masculinity so that there would be more than one choice in how one lives and expresses their gender? That to me seems more useful and more beneficial than trying to detect the sequence of DNA that makes some women cry at "Steel Magnolias" and some men cry at "Field of Dreams."
> 
> Oh, and as far as learning goes-there are more than just 'female' ways of learning and 'male' ways of learning, and the pedagogy about teaching today stresses integrating teaching techniques to hit all the various forms of learning, so that no one, male or female, is left out from learning in the style that is most accesible for them.



I think you bring up an interesting point in your post about more than one way of looking at gender expression. And since I think I was one of the people who brought up the "learning" thing, I didn't mean that I actually thought there were male and female ways of learning, I was just trying to think of a place where the application of this research might be useful without automatically being dangerous (and by that I mean manipulated to have a sexist application). Education was just something that I thought of because of the whole issue a while back when the president of Harvard made the comment that women weren't good at science, or some such thing. It seemed to me that around that time there was some discussion about studying whether there were differences in processing information between males and females. It was just an area where I could see a book like this being of related interest. I never actually meant to imply that we have to learn in different ways entirely or at all. I was just trying to think of a serious angle where this sort of study could have a useful application, more serious, than, you know, explaining why Lifetime television network exists. (my apologies in advance for offending any Lifetime television network fans.)


----------



## olwen (Apr 17, 2008)

I think I've come across an article or two somewhere about new elementary schools that separate the girls and the boys. The teachers who advocate this way of teaching say the students benefit because they do think that boys and girls learn differently - that their grades go up as a result and that it should be mandatory.


----------



## olwen (Apr 17, 2008)

butch said:


> One thing I notice about this thread is, no matter how many variations and deviations we come up with from the 'typical' male and female brain/behavior/hormones/emotions/etc, we still cling to the binary of male and female. I think what this research is showing, and what our own observations are showing, is that whether its nature or nurture, we do ourselves a big disservice when we can only look at gender in 2 very stark divisions.
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense, and actually integrate the whole nature/nurture positions in useful ways, if we talked about 'genders' and conceptualized different aspects of femininity and masculinity so that there would be more than one choice in how one lives and expresses their gender? That to me seems more useful and more beneficial than trying to detect the sequence of DNA that makes some women cry at "Steel Magnolias" and some men cry at "Field of Dreams."
> 
> Oh, and as far as learning goes-there are more than just 'female' ways of learning and 'male' ways of learning, and the pedagogy about teaching today stresses integrating teaching techniques to hit all the various forms of learning, so that no one, male or female, is left out from learning in the style that is most accesible for them.




Very good point. I sometimes think that "fat" ought to be it's own gender. Just because, for me as a woman anyway, I feel like my femininity gets taken away from me sometimes. I wonder if men my size or bigger feel the same way. Makes me question the nature of such constructs as feminine/masculine and the in-betweens. I admit, I probably need to do more gender studies reading to have a better understanding of it all.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 17, 2008)

butch said:


> One thing I notice about this thread is, no matter how many variations and deviations we come up with from the 'typical' male and female brain/behavior/hormones/emotions/etc, we still cling to the binary of male and female. I think what this research is showing, and what our own observations are showing, is that whether its nature or nurture, we do ourselves a big disservice when we can only look at gender in 2 very stark divisions.
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense, and actually integrate the whole nature/nurture positions in useful ways, if we talked about 'genders' and conceptualized different aspects of femininity and masculinity so that there would be more than one choice in how one lives and expresses their gender? That to me seems more useful and more beneficial than trying to detect the sequence of DNA that makes some women cry at "Steel Magnolias" and some men cry at "Field of Dreams."
> 
> Oh, and as far as learning goes-there are more than just 'female' ways of learning and 'male' ways of learning, and the pedagogy about teaching today stresses integrating teaching techniques to hit all the various forms of learning, so that no one, male or female, is left out from learning in the style that is most accesible for them.



I'm outta rep for the day, Butch, but I want you to know how much I appreciate this post. You're right that we forget that it's not all black and white male and female. Gender is a complicated thing and we can't be slotted into one category or another so easily.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 18, 2008)

You know, I really dont get why women would want to lay claim to any of the exclusively male traits. All that mindless chest thumping and knuckle dragging really isnt nearly as glamorous as it is made out to be. 

Or if you want to get into even more offensive stereotypes

I know some would probably cringe at the stereotype that women throw things like baby showers and men throw bachelor parties. All I know is Id rather be enjoying the stereotype of sitting around talking and exchanging gifts while drinking coffee than being stuck in a seedy motel with a bunch of drunken horny men masterbating to porn. Not to mention after getting barfed on (or worse) by said drunken males you would quickly get the stark realization of Ah! So, this is what Hell is like.

Yes, Im being cruel and yes I am sure Ive offended both genders by now. Ill be back to that whole kinder gentler thing tomorrow or as kind as I get. Which to be fair really isnt all that nice. I do take great pride in my spite after all. 

Anyhoo, Im just voicing my pent up frustration at culture that constantly reinforces that women are less than men and women have to embrace male traits to be considered equal. Yes, I know that there are many traits that both genders share, like strength of character and courage and so on. But in my opinion that doesnt mean we cannot or should not celebrate or appreciate the unique traits of women.


----------



## olwen (Apr 18, 2008)

Can't rep ya Jack. Here! here!


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Apr 18, 2008)

I think one of the reasons that many women, myself included, get very nervous when too much emphasis is placed on gender differences is that history has always shown that it somehow gets twisted to oppress women further. The separate but equal argument is exactly the one that fundamentalist Islam uses to force women for the most part out of public life. I do not think it is right to only attribute characteristics like strength, intelligence or competence only to men. I also don't think it's right to assume that because someone is one gender or another they automatically have certain strengths or interests. They may, but they may not and the problem is that for those who don't or who even have a mixture of interests, all this emphasis on difference could lead to the hopes and dreams of women being placed in jeopardy. The truth is women throughout the world have fought long and hard for the right to pursue the interests, careers and dreams they have. Too often in the past, a dismissive belief that certain fields or interests weren't "women's things" kept women shut out and frustrated. And while I am not denying that it would be nice if women and traits traditionally associated with women were given equal respect, the fact is that so many of those things become side arguments and used as reasons for excluding us from certain fields in large numbers. I think most women would just like to not be prejudged one way or the other. Let us prove ourselves or not. Let us build the lives that work for us and our particular partner/family. It is just as dehumanizing to be placed on a pedestal as it is to be looked down upon, because both of those things deny our individuality. That is not to say there is anything wrong with traditionally female things, but even among women who prefer those things, that is usually just a part of who and what they are. Again, I say the problem is not the research but what is taken away from it. And sadly, I doubt that information presented in this book and others like it will ever be utilized in a way that actually HELPS women. That's just my cynical suspicion, but I can't help it.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 18, 2008)

Dr. P Marshall said:


> It is just as dehumanizing to be placed on a pedestal as it is to be looked down upon, because both of those things deny our individuality.



I understand what you are saying. But thats not really the point I was trying to make in my barely coherent rant. Besides our culture already puts men on a pedestal and I think it is only fair women should be up there with them.


----------



## olwen (Apr 18, 2008)

For the record fundamentalist muslims don't think women are equal at all.


----------



## Tad (Apr 18, 2008)

Sorry, this post has turned into a rant that maybe would be better off in Hyde Part :doh: And is without doubt an over reaction to some pretty mild comments of "This stuff makes me nervous" sort. I think it is really more of a reaction to some other stuff I've been seeing in the media that has been bugging me. But you know, it is good for the system to get a rant out occasionally (at least it feels good), and the immediate trigger that started me writing was in here, so here goes anyway. Not much on topic though, so feel more than free to skip over it.

======================================================
<rant>

Im pretty firmly in the camp that while ignorance may seem like bliss, it not actually a good thing. I think it _is_ a good thing when we understand more the science of how our bodies (brains included) work. 'We' both in the sense of a small academic community figuring this stuff out, and in terms of the broader public.

Will some researchers twist things to support their personal views? Yes, that happens, but in the long run those twists dont hold up (although they can take a long time to fall apart, I admit). Will those publicizing such information do it poorly, picking up on the more prurient or shocking details and skipping the deeper conclusions, presenting only one side of the issues, and often getting it outright wrong? Yep, almost for sure, but then someone else will push another part of the overall package, and some people will read deeper, and the next generation of students in certain subject areas will learn all of it more or less straight up, and take that as givens, and as stepping stones to more understanding. Will large parts of the public only pay attention to those parts of the information that supports their own prejudices? As with everything else, yes. But some will pay more attention, and maybe break down a prejudice, and some will really want to know, and a new generation will grow up exposed to a more full understanding, which cuts through some of the old prejudices.

This sort of thing has happened with all sorts of areas of scientific advance. Some dont like it because it challenges existing beliefs, some dont like it because they think it will divert, pervert, or subvert the masses. Some dont like it just because it is uncomfortable. But this is not a philosophy or a novel, this stuff is based on the scientific method: look at what is known, come up with a hypothesis, test it, find out if it holds up or not. Repeat. Keep going. 

The scientific method has proven itself amazingly resilient to errors, obfuscations, and fashions, over the past couple of centuries or so. That is, all of those things happen, but because findings are always being tested, and new tests will disclose if old ones came out incorrectly, so while the progress might look a bit like a drunkards stagger, swaying one way and back the other, it does keep making forward progress all the same.

I agree that a little knowledge can be dangerous, but the cure for that is not ignorance, but more knowledge. So I think that it is awesome that people are studying this stuff, and that others are trying to communicate the findings to the public. But I also think that it is important to remember that this is our understanding at this time, and that next year, or next decade, or next generation, new science may show that the conclusions we are reaching now were broadly incorrect.

Over the past few generations weve seen things swing from It is all inherited to It is all upbringing to It is mostly genetics modified by upbringing. I think we are now beginning to understand that it is even more complicated than that. There is epigenetics (I think that is the right word), which is the issue of which genes are active and which are shut off, which is something that can be partially inherited but also partially more random and individual. And there are events in fetal development, which may be triggered by genetics, epigenitics, maternal environment, or other factors that we dont really understand yet. 

I probably wont live to see us totally understand these issues, especially as my odds of dying younger are higher than human average, because Im a male  But I think it is worthwhile to understand what we can, when we can, even knowing that this understanding will never be complete or perfect.

</rant>


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Apr 18, 2008)

edx said:


> Sorry, this post has turned into a rant that maybe would be better off in Hyde Part :doh: ...
> 
> </rant>



Whoa, there ed. I was not in any way saying that I think this research shouldn't be done or paid attention to. In fact, I think it is interesting and important. My problem is not with the science, my problem is what societies do with such information. That is why I said I thought none of this would actually help women. It will most likely be neutral. The point I was trying to address was Jack's question about why women would want to claim male traits that he finds unattractive. It is a nice idea to exalt the characteristics that people associate with females and give them equal respect, it is. The problem is that even when a culture or society attempts to do that, or states it as their purpose, it never results in the elevation of women in reality. It can be a very slippery slope. Too much emphasis on female traits has a tendency to split those traits off and leave them as the only ones associated with females. The traits that we all share, strength, courage, what have you suddenly end up back in the male only camp. It's true that fundamentalist Islam does not see women as equal in reality, but the Imams would argue that women are equal before God, but different. And that these very differences are why women must be kept "safe" and "protected" from the men. They will say that covering a woman head to foot and not letting her travel without a male relative is actually a sign of respect for her exalted status as a woman. Now, you can all guess what my feelings on such an argument are, but the point is this is the sort of argument that gets made in the real world in the name of acknowledging and celebrating femininity. I don't think we're the same or that we should ignore the science at all. I think it is important and we should talk about it. But I also think that the reason every time this comes up women clamor to point out that they are the exception or different from the stereotypes, or what have you is that there is a fear of things being twisted. That is not a comment on science, that is a comment on society. You're right, ed, there is no reason for ignorance in fact it is ignorance that usually gets things twisted in the first place. But I still think it is that fear of good science being perverted to bad aims that causes books like this to be more controversial than they should be and that causes women to point out that we are not THAT different. Because if we are seen as being that different, we may find ourselves pushed right back out of society. That was my point, why this elicits such a strong response, not that books like this shouldn't be read and discussed.


----------



## Tad (Apr 18, 2008)

Like I said, this was not so much about what was in this thread as....other stuff. Been hearing a lot of stuff in the media lately that is frankly anti-scientific, and it has my hackles up.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Apr 18, 2008)

edx said:


> Like I said, this was not so much about what was in this thread as....other stuff. Been hearing a lot of stuff in the media lately that is frankly anti-scientific, and it has my hackles up.



Oh, I hear you on that one Ed. That would actually be a good thread for Hyde Park. Although, for the sake of my own blood pressure, I probably wouldn't be able to stand reading some of the responses.


----------



## olwen (Apr 18, 2008)

edx said:


> Like I said, this was not so much about what was in this thread as....other stuff. Been hearing a lot of stuff in the media lately that is frankly anti-scientific, and it has my hackles up.



Same here. Just makes you want to roll your eyes.


----------



## Littleghost (Apr 18, 2008)

Jack Skellington said:


> I personally believe and I feel science supports gender binaries or male and female brains. But that not to say variances dont occur. Like with rare chromosomal disorders like Klinefelter's syndrome or Intersexed people. But thats probably really another discussion.



The fun thing to think about, is how much (or little) of that science might have inherent biases unintentionally brought in by the scientists themselves?


----------



## butch (Apr 18, 2008)

Littleghost said:


> The fun thing to think about, is how much (or little) of that science might have inherent biases unintentionally brought in by the scientists themselves?



BINGO! As long as science is administered by humans, who are incapable of total objectivity, science will never be totally objective. Some of today's scientific truths will be tomorrow's discriminatory myths. Just read Stephen Jay Gould's _The Mismeasure of Man_ to see what I mean.

I'm all for the expansion of knowledge, but as long as that knowledge isn't used as a cage to restrain people, to thwart people, and to make them adhere to a category that they don't fit, then we're golden. But if it is used to support tired stereotypes about men and women, then count me out, because nature has already proven that there are more than 2 genders (interesex), and the research being done with the human genome is still fixated on a binary model. 

Check out isna.org to learn more about why intersex indivduals challenge our assumptions about gender and embodiment in a way that science has yet to deal with rationally and humanely.


----------



## olwen (Apr 18, 2008)

It might be cool if we were all born sexless so to speak and then chose the sex we wanted later on in life. Oh wait, I'm thinking of the sci-fi novel The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula Le Guin. In it the alien species is ungendered until it's time to make love. So they don't know which sex organs they'll have until they're in the moment and they are never the same gender when with a new person. When a human is among them and expresses disbelief and an inability to comprehend their biology they think he's backwards. I thought that was interesting - I guess it stuck with me.


----------



## Tad (Apr 21, 2008)

olwen said:


> ...... Oh wait, I'm thinking of the sci-fi novel The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula Le Guin. In it the alien species is ungendered until it's time to make love. So they don't know which sex organs they'll have until they're in the moment and they are never the same gender when with a new person. When a human is among them and expresses disbelief and an inability to comprehend their biology they think he's backwards. I thought that was interesting - I guess it stuck with me.



Oh yah, I read that novel in my teens and it just dazzled me. It was a serious case of "Oh, yah, _now_ I know what I always wanted without realizing it." Fixed, static, binary, genders always chafed with me before, but I just had not realized it in so many words until reading that novel. It was a real milestone in my maturing.....it didn't change anything, but at the same time it was like being able to see in blue tones for the first time or something, suddenly I saw aspects of things I'd never been able to grasp before.

It is frustrating to long for something that never was and never will be.


----------



## olwen (Apr 21, 2008)

That novel is the reason she's always on the top of my favorite writers list. At the time I was taking in massive doses of sci-fi literature. I came across her amazing book and saw that she explored territory the male writers hadn't even dared to tread. Just amazing. Simply amazing.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Apr 21, 2008)

This reminds me of a fave UKL quote that kind of summarizes this whole thread in many regards, I think:
"There are no right answers to wrong questions." ~ Ursula K. Le Guin


----------



## olwen (Apr 21, 2008)

There's Ernest - always thinkin.


----------



## Waxwing (Apr 22, 2008)

butch said:


> Check out isna.org to learn more about why intersex indivduals challenge our assumptions about gender and embodiment in a way that science has yet to deal with rationally and humanely.



This is a great site that I've visited in the past to learn more. Also (may have mentioned this earlier but am too lazy to read back) having transgendered friends over the years has really taught me that there are more shades of self than just man and woman. While a close friend was going through transition I asked a LOT of questions. 

One day while we were having many many beers I asked him if he would have felt the drive to transition if we as a society would simply allow for a third category. Rather than forcing someone to be one or the other, what if we just allowed people to be themselves?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Apr 22, 2008)

Waxwing said:


> One day while we were having many many beers I asked him if he would have felt the drive to transition if we as a society would simply allow for a third category.



Yes the vast majority would and that's probably why there has been such prejudice in the Gay community against Transsexuals. It is getting better from what I hear but there is still a fair amount of hatred towards Transsexuals from misogynist Gay males and the extreme Lesbian Feminists.


----------



## olwen (Apr 22, 2008)

What I don't get is the kind of thinking that says that our gender roles are innate. Reading about gender roles in arabic culture has helped me see how pervasive this is. No matter what culture you are in you believe that your role is just automatic. It just seems so strange. But I honestly think that had it not been for my size, I never would have challenged, these are assumptions at all.


----------



## butch (Apr 22, 2008)

olwen said:


> What I don't get is the kind of thinking that says that our gender roles are innate. Reading about gender roles in arabic culture has helped me see how pervasive this is. No matter what culture you are in you believe that your role is just automatic. It just seems so strange. But I honestly think that had it not been for my size, I never would have challenged, these are assumptions at all.



That last point is very interesting, olwen, especially since there are often debates about how the materiality of fat calls into question typical gender roles. There have been discussions here about whether fat 'masculinizes' women, or instead makes them hyper feminine, and similar discussions about fat men (does it 'feminize' them, or make them hyper masculine). Its interesting to think that this dynamic mught be played out internally as well in the minds of fat people, at least in terms of questioning the status quo on gender and maybe, maybe, longing for accepted variations of the current limiting gender roles and embodiments.


----------



## olwen (Apr 22, 2008)

Oh I'm aware of that too. Fat men make for convincing draq queens after all. Those very points are issues I've struggled with. Part of it for me too is that I have side burns (but not pcos tho), so whenever someone approached me from the side, no matter what I was wearing, I mean I could have been wearing a skirt, heels, big huge earrings, and makeup and I'd always be addressed as "Sir" which would then be followed by a hasty and embarrased apology after they hear me speak. I worked in retail for a long time so it happened a lot. Those are the people I _know _don't think about their gender roles. But it made me think about not only how powerful those assumptions are but where they are in some gender heirarchy. A person sees "feminine" and "masculine", but choose masculine? I wonder about how many people make these calculations and choose feminine or suspend judgement until they hear me talk? It always pissed me off and I wondered too about what they would choose if I were much much much thinner. Would they even question it if I were thinner?


----------



## Tad (Apr 29, 2008)

....but I thought the people reading this thread might also find this article interesting: 
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/04/29/women-university.html

It looks at the factors behind why more women than men are enrolling in universities now (data factors, not theorizing factors), with some interesting tidbits on how some factors differ between genders, such as:



> .... parental income is completely irrelevant in determining if a boy will go to university, while for girls, higher parental income is associated with a greater probability of attending university.


----------



## olwen (Apr 29, 2008)

Rates have gone up between 1971 and now....I'd think the seeds that were planted during the second wave of the women's movement are now bearing fruit. Girls now know they don't have to be housewives if they don't want to. I'd think their parents know that too and probably push them harder than boys. I don't know, how many parents look at what boys do and just go "Oh, boys will be boys..." and kinda leave them to their devices. I mean girls in the 1970's weren't stupider than boys in the 1970's. They were just encouraged to do things that women were expected to do. How many of those things involved college? So it could just be as simple as, since women don't have to rely on men anymore, we just dare to be more ambitious than ever before.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Apr 29, 2008)

I think today's world has different expectations than say 40-50 years ago. I think this shift in attitudes has helped to evolutionize women not only in the workplace- but in their own eyes, as well.


----------

