# Battle of the sexes: men are from earth, women are from earth



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

A recent meta-analysis indicates that the psychological differences between the sexes isn't as great as we sometimes judge. This apparently includes sexuality, and how we choose our sex partners and mates.

A review of the study canned found here: Genders Not So Different? : Discovery News


Thought some of you might find it interesting. I know I did. Especially since I've wondering a lot about the various socio-biological claims I've seen here on TAM. It always struck me that what was being attributed to evolution was more a product of social construction ...


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

Yep..I think most take the "differences" and make them such a far divide it gives an excuse almost like anyway to not have to "learn" the individual..and to excuse the opposite of love."indifference".

Its funny how more likely many are to "attach" themselves to "differences " of male and female that are not good attributes.Then say "its because I'ma guy or a girl"..Like its how you were "born" by virtue of gender..Its sad..


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Absolutely agree! All the difference is due to the social construction. How could we neglect the social construction that shaped our parents and even sometimes nowadays we still have it. We are still buying different toys for boys and girls, when they are in the age when the brain is developing. When I was reading the book “Men are from Mars and women are from Venus” my impression was that it was the most unprofessional book in psychology I’ve ever seen. Some examples were just completely wrong and psychological reaction was different because a man was put in typical male environment (like main provider for family) and a woman was in a different environment (like a secondary provider and mainly housewife) and the reaction was completely consistent with defending his or her interests in this particular environment. If you’d switch them they would exhibit the opposite gender’s reactions. And recently the economy switched the positions a little. And immediately we can see the typical male reaction from women and typical female reaction from men.


----------



## ComicBookLady (Feb 28, 2012)

Books that helped clarify the differences between my husband and I saved my marriage. And we do think and view things QUITE differently. Many marriages end because people fail to recognize those differences and treat the other according to their specific needs. 

I agree that doesn't mean those rules HAVE to apply to everyone. There's exceptions to almost everything (I love video games, and comic books, and horror/sci fi movies  General interests of men ). The differences set forth are but guidelines to consider in your quest for a better marriage, and end up helping a lot of people. If they don't help you, then move onto something else. But personally I owe my marriage to books like "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"

So while I don't entirely agree with the article, it was still interesting.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I read a few of those self-help books no one considers as a good source today. At the time, they were touted as helpful. We do what we think is best with what is available.

New discoveries come everyday. It is an interesting article and as society changes there are more things to learn. I agree there are many things different from thirty years ago. Thanks for the post.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

I do think men and women are more alike than what is considered true by a societal standview. But we cannot really diminish the facts like hormones, brain chemistry, genetics, differences regarding aging etc etc. So yes, we are more alike than we think, but not to the point that we are the same.

A lot of relationships would actually benefit from the view that men and women are alike.


----------



## dallasapple (Jun 20, 2012)

> brain chemistry, genetics,


THAT'S not men and women..that's "fingerprints"..


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

LOL I remember talking to one of my male friend about that mars/venus crap. I don’t remember was it in the book or in some of spin off from it but he gave me bs about difference in male/female vision. Like due to evolution man was a hunter and he had to develop a tunnel vision to stalk the animal, and a woman developed peripheral vision because she was looking after kids. That is why dirty socks on the floor don’t bother a man, he just doesn’t notice them, but they bother a woman. I just advised him to vacuum the floor and see how irritated he will get when he will have to pick up those socks before vacuum would suck it in. Not mentioning that a peripheral vision would benefit hunter too so he could see if some other animals are stalking him, or not mentioning that good driving skills, that males are so proud of, requires good peripheral vision.
Anyway, I believe in relations both spouses should think about their partner’s interests. Like it is not a big deal you leave your dirty socks everywhere, just think about the person who vacuums the floor.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

The "differences" are socially constructed and heavily ingrained. Obviously things are changing there are no absolutes but the effects of our socialization still exist to more or lesser degrees depending on the individual.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

I guess there was a positive side effect from the mars/venus crap. It was that some people at least start think that maybe another person actually have some different vision of the same things and different interests that maybe important to consider in the relations. It sometimes seems me that kids in our society were growing very unconsidered to others people needs. Parents are protecting kids from everything, even from knowing about the financial problems in the family. I always hear whatever happens but kids should feel that their home is secure. How would they understand the world if they never learned about the existence of problems? I’ve seen a movie about parents that were divorced and dad was trying to date someone and kids tried to make him go back to mom. In another movie a kid chooses a right wife for his dad. I watch it and I was disgusted, what a selfish unconsidered person is growing up! The kid doesn’t want even to think that his dad and mom actually are human with their interests, emotions. Then grown up, this kid would see only his point of view; he never would be able to understand another person’s needs.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

I meant genetics as a Y instead of an X, and brain chemistry as differences in receptor sensitivities due to hormonal differences.


----------



## Will_Kane (Feb 26, 2012)

Kintergarten Cop - Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina - YouTube


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

Interesting article. I do believe that societal conditioning has a lot to do with some of the perceived differences between the genders (eg "sexuality, and how we choose our sex partners and mates"), but I also embrace the obvious differences.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

The linked to article is about a study that took data from 130 studies and mined it to come up with their own conclusions. 

Most of the study subjects were college kids. It would be interesting to see what the outcome would have been if the subject were people who had been out in the world more, some married, some with children. 

I do think that the sexs have a lot in common. But I also believe that there are some strong differences between the sexes. I recall reading some studies that tooked at things like brain waives, the parts of the brain used to complish certain things.. and as I recall men and women use different parts of the brains for some of the same functions.

To me... we are very similar and very diffent.. it's both and that's where a lot of the problems come in.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> The linked to article is about a study that took data from 130 studies and mined it to come up with their own conclusions.
> 
> Most of the study subjects were college kids. It would be interesting to see what the outcome would have been if the subject were people who had been out in the world more, some married, some with children.
> 
> ...


What if it has to do with training, especially if the study uses adults that were raised in certain environment. As I said we buy dolls to girls and we buy cars and transformers to boys. So we train certain areas of brain. There are studies that show that brain is very trainable that sometimes if certain areas were damaged people can train other part of brain to compensate the damage to some degree. What if he did train the girl’s brain differently and it is purely the result of our own **** ups? If she studied collage kids and I think it is the most accurate to predict the future, because they have less influence of the old school traditions than our generation.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

There are actually pivotal time periods in (early) development where you are ripe to learn certain things, if you dont learn these things within this time period that window literally shuts and the opportunity is gone. Personality, enviroment, biology, its all connected and interdependent.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

hekati said:


> What if it has to do with training, especially if the study uses adults that were raised in certain environment. As I said we buy dolls to girls and we buy cars and transformers to boys. So we train certain areas of brain. There are studies that show that brain is very trainable that sometimes if certain areas were damaged people can train other part of brain to compensate the damage to some degree. What if he did train the girl’s brain differently and it is purely the result of our own **** ups? If she studied collage kids and I think it is the most accurate to predict the future, because they have less influence of the old school traditions than our generation.


Sure it could be because of training (nurture vs nature). But we have no way to measure it.

We will never get a sample of humans who is not influenced by society. Even if we tried to completely get rid of gender roles, it would take so many more generations to do it. 

The only humans who are untouched by gender based social conditioning are new born babies. There is not really a way to see if male and female baby brains are the same and then to track if differences are introduced due to nurture. At least there is no ethical way. The tests for brain activity are intrusive. So we do not do them on babies and young children unless completely necessay.

It might be of interest to do the brain activity studies and males/females of say college age, then 20 years later and in different cultures. Then we might be able to see if nurture (and social conditioning) has a large impact on making a differnce how the brains of men and women develop.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature.


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles (Oct 15, 2012)

Men and women are different. Different genetic makeup, different brain wiring, different physical design, and different behavioral patterns. Male and female infants display different preferences of things to focus on (faces vs objects) even before "socialization" has had a chance to affect them. Even in simple party tricks we see differences...

chair trick - YouTube

The Chair Lifting Experiment-- Men vs Women - YouTube

and then there is this sort of thing... 

Prager University: Men and the Power of the Visual - Male/Female Differences, 1 - YouTube

We are two sides of the same species that has evolved over millions of years to take advantage of complementary differences to enhance survival. To deny this, is to deny the obvious and to do it for dogmatic political reasons is no different than claiming the earth is flat. The goal in life is to learn to understand these things in order to better communicate and make life better for everyone involved.

Personally, when I was in my teenage years, it was a great relief for me to learn that women are not crazy... they're just "different". It has taken years for me to learn just how different they really are and I am still learning. The only thing that I am absolutely certain of about them is that, if I think I fully understand one, it's only because I haven't known them long enough.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> Men and women are different. Different genetic makeup, different brain wiring, different physical design, and different behavioral patterns. *Male and female infants display different preferences of things to focus on (faces vs objects) even before "socialization" has had a chance to affect them. Even in simple party tricks we see differences...*
> chair trick - YouTube
> 
> The Chair Lifting Experiment-- Men vs Women - YouTube
> ...


Here is where evolution comes into play,adaptability and strength of dominant traits this doesnt change nature vs, nurture ...why or how these dominant traits come into play. Parental treatment even at the earliest stages can effect what you have said as well as biased thinking in the interpretation of characteristics displayed. Men and women become different but are not inherently all that different aside from the obvious bodily differences. Not that how or why really matters....it is what it is....we have to deal with it in the here and now...


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> Sure it could be because of training (*nurture vs nature*). But we have no way to measure it.
> 
> We will never get a sample of humans who is not influenced by society. Even if we tried to completely get rid of gender roles, it would take so many more generations to do it.
> 
> ...


Nature vs nurture the great debate! There is no way to pull it apart! Babies born today will just be subject to social conditioning of today. Nobody is untouched. Gender roles are just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

Complete nonsense. All this shows is that genders are both more or less primates not how they behave or think differently or what their various emotive and emotional lives are like.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

inarut said:


> There are actually pivotal time periods in (early) development where you are ripe to learn certain things, if you dont learn these things within this time period that window literally shuts and the opportunity is gone. Personality, enviroment, biology, its all connected and interdependent.


Adult success has little to do with raw ability or tasks and everything to do with competitive acculturation. Women who are good mathematicians are still weaker at the work and business of being a mathematician, for example.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

Runs like Dog said:


> Adult success has little to do with raw ability or tasks and everything to do with competitive acculturation. Women who are good mathematicians are still weaker at the work and business of being a mathematician, for example.


My comments have nothing to do with adult success, I specifically said in early development. No, it doesnt change what you can achieve as an adult it was more about overall development of your personality as well as other aspects, inherent strengths or weakness. It wont make or break you unless you were severley neglected or had serious developmental problems as a child.

There is such a thing as raw ability, and a women can be as good or better than a man in anything or vice versa.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Sigma Uber Alles, But many women are crazy. Obsession with toilet sit position is just a harmless obsessive-compulsive disorder. But there are many others. Neglecting completely her future, relying on her husband financially would be already more harmful. And it is a result of how they were raised. They are looking for a father, not for a partner, to take care of them and kids. And it is the results of the fact that their parents never prepared them for real life, they let them slip into a dream world that especially was a major propaganda in US in 50s – a hardworking husband and a cute housewife. It is craziness then a woman doesn’t care of her health, doesn’t do any sport, gets fat, and find time to spend hours doing her nails and hair and can’t find time for fitness. Well many women in 18-19 century were even more crazy because they repressed their sexuality (that is what Freud got famous to discover) and other parts of normal human life. Nowadays they are much less crazy but still there are plenty of crazy women especially from “traditional families”.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Sigma Uber Alles said:


> Even in simple party tricks we see differences...
> 
> chair trick - YouTube
> 
> The Chair Lifting Experiment-- Men vs Women - YouTube


The chair lifting trick doesn't prove much, other than a different centre of gravity and different musculature -- all related to the more obvious physiological differences.



Sigma Uber Alles said:


> and then there is this sort of thing...
> 
> Prager University: Men and the Power of the Visual - Male/Female Differences, 1 - YouTube


I suspect much of this has to do with our culture , rather than inherent differences. If women were barraged with objectifying and overly sexualized images of men from day 1 of their lives, and if women were taught that they should focus on men's bodies to judge their potential worthiness as a mate, and if women's sexuality were celebrated and it was men who were taught that their natural desire made them slvts, then I think you'd see quite a turnaround in behaviour.

I'd be willing to bet that it would be the men complaining about objectification and loss of autonomy, while women justified their behaviour on the basis of their "natural" instincts.


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

inarut said:


> There is such a thing as raw ability, and a women can be as good or better than a man in anything or vice versa.


I'm not sure you want to adhere to that. For example, on paper women should be better distance runners but they're not. And their performance times aren't converging.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

hekati said:


> What if it has to do with training, especially if the study uses adults that were raised in certain environment. As I said we buy dolls to girls and we buy cars and transformers to boys. So we train certain areas of brain. There are studies that show that brain is very trainable that sometimes if certain areas were damaged people can train other part of brain to compensate the damage to some degree. What if he did train the girl’s brain differently and it is purely the result of our own **** ups? If she studied collage kids and I think it is the most accurate to predict the future, because they have less influence of the old school traditions than our generation.


The idea that it is all conditioning is just as absurd as the idea that it is all genetics.


----------



## Married in VA (Jan 6, 2012)

Very easy to settle this:

Genesis 1:26-28 - Man and women were created first in the image of GOD. 

Since HE created two genders, one can surmise there are natural differences between the two that have nothing to do with transformers and barbie dolls. 

Later on,

Genesis 2:7 - GOD formed a man named Adam from the dust and breathed the breath of life into him. Then GOD realized (already knew) that it was not good for man to be alone so HE caused Adam to fall asleep and Eve was created out of Adam's rib.

Why is this important? Simple, it shows that the genders came from the same source but are very different. 

Evolution is pure bunk and even Charles Darwin acknowledged that.

Thoughts?


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

What about Lilith? Wasn't she the first woman, also created out of dust...but she didn't work out. Then came Eve, woman 2.0.

I swear I am not making this up...read it somewhere in some class about the Bible. Adam wished to rule over Lilith, but she, our first feminist, wasn't down with that. She left Adam and the Garden of Eden. She claimed equality because she was made out of the same dust.

Not that I believe any of this, mind you. But if we're going to the Bible to figure this out, isn't one story as good as another?


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

_"Carothers said her interest in gender differences started at a young age. She grew up with more sports equipment than dolls, and fished with her dad from when she could stand in a boat.

"I was aware that even though boys and girls were "supposed" to be different, those rules didn't necessarily have to apply to me, or really, anyone else if they didn't want them to," she said."_

I'm sure that she brought no bias to her analysis.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

I would like to see the distributions. Math is so much more precise than the fuzzy language in this article.

Men and women could easily be statistically significantly different and still have substantial overlap in all of these measures. Anyone who has ever made a living working with statistics understands this. 

Physical strength is a good example. The average male will be noticeably stronger than that average female, but some portion of women will be stronger than some portion of the men because the distributions overlap. I has to be this way. Psychologists are overjoyed when they find metrics with a difference of one half of one standard deviation between populations, and it can take extraordinarily sophisticated tools to tease out these differences - I know, I have had to write some of them. The mistake a lot of authors make is 1) find a real measurable difference between men and women and 2) then assign every man and every woman to one side or the other. The problem isn't that men and women are different, the problem is the gross oversimplification that follows from that fact.

I might just have to read the book to get the missing details.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Married in VA said:


> Very easy to settle this:
> 
> Genesis 1:26-28 - Man and women were created first in the image of GOD.
> 
> ...


Sure, but this isn't the forum to argue creationism vs. evolution, so I'll keep them to myself.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> _"Carothers said her interest in gender differences started at a young age. She grew up with more sports equipment than dolls, and fished with her dad from when she could stand in a boat.
> 
> "I was aware that even though boys and girls were "supposed" to be different, those rules didn't necessarily have to apply to me, or really, anyone else if they didn't want them to," she said."_
> 
> I'm sure that she brought no bias to her analysis.


Since none of us is immune, I don't mind bias as long as the data backs you up. The article doesn't come close. I wonder if the book is any better.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes (Feb 11, 2010)

Married in VA said:


> Very easy to settle this:
> 
> Genesis 1:26-28 - Man and women were created first in the image of GOD.
> 
> ...


Yes, they came from the same source but not as you suggest. All embryos are female at first. This happens in all mammals except one. That's why both sexes of mammals have nipples.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Actually, anatomic- biology shows that boy infants and girl infants brains are fundamentally different as soon as they come out of the womb. The structural differences translate into functional differences that are reveale in the distinct emotional reactions, eye contact to name a few, between girl and boy infants. 

Testosterone has a profound effect on the brain and the boy fetus is exposed to high levels at a critical time in brain development. The next time they have a high level of test is at puberty and all their adult lives. It is the testosterone that makes the boy, not the penis. 

If girl babies were exposed to the ssme level of test. , they would be mentally more like boys but with no penis. Left on their own, boys will gravitate to the typical boy activities and girls to typically girl stuff. No outside pressure need be applied. These are averages and there is always overlap. 

Men and women do think differently. When I became aware of how and why, I found it much easier to communicate effectively with the men and boys around me and to let the things that usually annoyed me, go. 

The problem with the science that shows differences is the societal implications. It usually turns into a discussion of what women lack and how much they owe men for being the world builders. Women lack of contribution to great endeavors, conquering, nation building.

Women are not good at math, engineering , computer programing, less creative, less innovative, less stamina, less brain processing powers. If every man were thus talented, I would understand why this is considered an impediment to female success in these fields. But only a portion of men are gifted and excel and a portion of women are gifted and will excel too. 

We are different but we have similar potentials on an average basis. We get to the same place by different routes. The control of reproductive timing, education and persuit of careers will correspond to an uptick in women's prominence in every human enderver. 

I think our recent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a case in point. She will, i am sure, go down in history as one of the Nations 
greats. She would not have had the opportunity to exercise her unique talent if being a women automatically disqualified her. 

Scary right. ; >
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Catherine602 said:


> Actually, anatomic- biology shows that boy infants and girl infants brains are fundamentally different as soon as they come out of the womb. The structural differences translate into functional differences that are reveale in the distinct emotional reactions, eye contact to name a few, between girl and boy infants.
> 
> Testosterone has a profound effect on the brain and the boy fetus is exposed to high levels at a critical time in brain development. The next time they have a high level of test is at puberty and all their adult lives. It is the testosterone that makes the boy, not the penis.
> 
> ...


where are the reseach? There is NONE, complete BS


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Cletus said:


> I would like to see the distributions. Math is so much more precise than the fuzzy language in this article.


Math on what? On women that are alredy ****ed up by there parents? Yes, I have in-laws, competely ****ed up, because they were raised as if there always should be a man that will take care. They end up pretty much pathetic.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Come on people, I met a girl in Idaho, modern girl, younger than me, ok, from a mormon family. She lived near the ski resort and she never went skiing. Her dad thought it is not for girls, they took her brother to ski, and she was staying with her mom cooking dinner. They never thought that education is good for girls, they prepared her to be a housewife. What a ****ing math? It is 21 century and we still have girls raised same as in in dark ages!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> Women are not good at math, engineering , computer programing, less creative, less innovative, less stamina, less brain processing powers.


I'm pretty sure that all of his has been debunked at one time or another. I would need to do some serious link-hunting, though, to back it up.

No doubt the physiological differences are real, and they include hormones, muscle structure, etc. But even with these, there is much overlap between the sexes. People of mixed or uncertain gender are also a lot more common than we ever really talk about.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Tall Average Guy said:


> The idea that it is all conditioning is just as absurd as the idea that it is all genetics.


Then let's study. Maybe we should start with raising the girls the same as boys?


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Since none of us is immune, I don't mind bias as long as the data backs you up. The article doesn't come close. I wonder if the book is any better.


I agree that we all go through life with our own unique set of biases, experiences and perceptions. However, science is *supposed* to be as free from these biases as humanly possible. I agree that this article is exceptionally weak support to argue that men and women are the same. Even if you had the opportunity to review the numbers and see that whole statistical analysis, just the fact that it utilized primarily volunteer college students as a population pool is enough for me to conclude that there is no support for the claim that there are no inherent differences between men and women.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

hekati said:


> Then let's study. Maybe we should start with raising the girls the same as boys?


Or would you want to raise a boy the same as a girl? Either way, it appears to have been done.

Couple raise child as 'gender neutral' to avoid stereotyping - Telegraph

I'm not sure why there is such animosity toward the idea that men and women are inherently different.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> _
> 
> I'm sure that she brought no bias to her analysis._


_

There were 2 authors: one man, one woman._


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I'm pretty sure that all of his has been debunked at one time or another. I would need to do some serious link-hunting, though, to back it up.
> 
> No doubt the physiological differences are real, and they include hormones, muscle structure, etc. But even with these, there is much overlap between the sexes. People of mixed or uncertain gender are also a lot more common than we ever really talk about.


I agree that there are a lot of overlaps, but that doesn't mean that there aren't distinct and real differences. I am also pretty sure that I would be able to find back up to what Catherine said. Multiple studies showing infant children and toddlers with differences in play, facial recognition, etc.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

always_alone said:


> There were 2 authors: one man, one woman.


Noted. Doesn't mean that she didn't bring bias.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> I just the fact that it utilized primarily volunteer college students as a population pool is enough for me to conclude that there is no support for the claim


Ah,yes, college kids, the guinea pigs of the world. Without them, we'd have to throw out half of our social scientific conclusions


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> Noted. Doesn't mean that she didn't bring bias.


Maybe. Maybe he brought some too. Maybe it doesn't matter because they were rigorous.

How easy is it to toss out the word 'bias' to utterly dismiss something you disagree with? Isn't that the ultimate in bias?


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> Or would you want to raise a boy the same as a girl? Either way, it appears to have been done.
> 
> Couple raise child as 'gender neutral' to avoid stereotyping - Telegraph
> 
> I'm not sure why there is such animosity toward the idea that men and women are inherently different.


Give them the same education, encourage them the same, let girls think about their financial future without relying on father or husband or any other male. I don’t see difference. I never had problems with understanding typical "males". I had problems understanding female but it was because their parents didn’t develop their brain right. It is pathetic. They say they are better in understanding emotions? Ha, they are waco in understanding emotions, they pay too much attention to emotions. Some man actually are not much different, especially those that was raised in a very religious family. I know one guy that never dare to question his dad because he was a preacher and was good in guilt trips like “Jesus died for you, and what did you do?” So he is full of emotional crap and it is extremely hard to get through it to logical part of his brain.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

The majority of people are very unaware of their own biases...scientists, researches included. 

Nature and nurture both play a part in development and scientists continue to disagree about which is stronger, more predictive. You can find plenty of "evidence" either way. Bias does exist and influences research...like it or not...statistics can be manipulated...like it or not... its just the way it is.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> I agree that we all go through life with our own unique set of biases, experiences and perceptions. However, science is *supposed* to be as free from these biases as humanly possible. I agree that this article is exceptionally weak support to argue that men and women are the same. Even if you had the opportunity to review the numbers and see that whole statistical analysis, just the fact that it utilized primarily volunteer college students as a population pool is enough for me to conclude that there is no support for the claim that there are no inherent differences between men and women.


True enough. If the study group wasn't selected at random, the conclusions are probably worthless.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

hekati said:


> Come on people, I met a girl in Idaho, modern girl, younger than me, ok, from a mormon family. She lived near the ski resort and she never went skiing. Her dad thought it is not for girls, they took her brother to ski, and she was staying with her mom cooking dinner. They never thought that education is good for girls, they prepared her to be a housewife. What a ****ing math? It is 21 century and we still have girls raised same as in in dark ages!


And as a physicist, I KNOW you understand the limitations of the anecdote.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> I would like to see the distributions. Math is so much more precise than the fuzzy language in this article.
> 
> Men and women could easily be statistically significantly different and still have substantial overlap in all of these measures. Anyone who has ever made a living working with statistics understands this.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, I can't post the article because it is subscription only.

But what they did was a taxometric analysis of various physiological and psychological measures So it wasn't just a weighting of scales along gender lines seeking statistically significant differences, but another type of test designed to identify whether the different scales could be mapped along gender lines. And apparently they can't in most cases. While physiological differences were found to be taxonic, most of the psychological measures were shown to be dimensional. 

Psychological measures included "mating (sexual attitudes and behaviors, mate selectivity, sociosexual orientation), interpersonal orientation (empathy, relational-interdependent self-construal), gender-related dispositions (masculinity, femininity, care orientation, unmitigated communion, fear of success, science inclination, Big Five personality), and intimacy (intimacy prototypes and stages, social provisions, intimacy with best friend)." 

They concluded: "Average differences between men and women are not under dispute, but the dimensionality of gender indicates that these differences are inappropriate for diagnosing gender-typical psychological variables on the basis of sex"


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I'm pretty sure that all of his has been debunked at one time or another. I would need to do some serious link-hunting, though, to back it up.
> 
> No doubt the physiological differences are real, and they include hormones, muscle structure, etc. But even with these, there is much overlap between the sexes. People of mixed or uncertain gender are also a lot more common than we ever really talk about.


Given that the physiological differences between the sexes are on average so obvious and striking, I would be greatly surprised to find that there wasn't some difference in the way our brains work as well. Why should gender differences be limited only to those things we can see? 

We already know that women have on average greater connectivity across the corpus callosum than do men, albeit by a small amount. Infer what you want from that fact, but structural differences in brain morphology have to imply something.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

hekati said:


> Then let's study. Maybe we should start with raising the girls the same as boys?


Curious why your bald assertions are clear evidence where as mine require a study, but to each their own.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Unfortunately, I can't post the article because it is subscription only.
> 
> But what they did was a taxometric analysis of various physiological and psychological measures So it wasn't just a weighting of scales along gender lines seeking statistically significant differences, but another type of test designed to identify whether the different scales could be mapped along gender lines. And apparently they can't in most cases. While physiological differences were found to be taxonic, most of the psychological measures were shown to be dimensional.
> 
> ...


That sounds interesting, given that I have written taxometric analysis software for a research psychologist in the past and have more than just a passing familiarity with the subject. 

I wonder what effect sizes they were able to measure? The underlying problem in these kinds of studies always boils down to 1) how to we measure the effect and 2) how do we tease apart two distributions separated by a small difference? When you succeed, you can run a battery of tests and, with a certain accuracy, assign an individual to one group or another. 

Those who claim that gender differences exist and are measurable should be able to run tests and assign a person as a Male or Female with some accuracy without knowing anything else about the subject.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Cletus said:


> And as a physicist, I KNOW you understand the limitations of the anecdote.


I am telling you that we don’t have pure, not spoiled, experimental species. Each one that was raised properly (wasn’t treated like a little princess playing with barbies) is a deviation. Maybe the girl from Idaho is a deviation on the opposite side of the spectrum. I do hope so. But this anecdote tells you how wide is the spectrum. And I suspect that you was raised in Europe like me, because many Americans were not considered the girl too much of an anecdote. That is really scary!


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> I agree that there are a lot of overlaps, but that doesn't mean that there aren't distinct and real differences. I am also pretty sure that I would be able to find back up to what Catherine said. Multiple studies showing infant children and toddlers with differences in play, facial recognition, etc.


Here is an interesting article from Scientific American that show we are all right: there are brain differences that correlate with psychological differences, but that this doesn't mean that gender is just biological. 

Girl Brain, Boy Brain?: Scientific American

"And so, any time scientists report a difference between male and female brains, especially in adults, it begs the question, “Nature or nurture?"


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Cletus said:


> Those who claim that gender differences exist and are measurable should be able to run tests and assign a person as a Male or Female with some accuracy without knowing anything else about the subject.


Dude, take thousands identical plants (so called clone plant, that were taken as a branch from the same original plant and rooted). Put half of them in a basement with lack of sun, other half put in sun, don’t forget to plant them in a different soil. I bet you can identify from which group each plant is just by looking at them. One group could be greener and bushier, another more pale and starched toward sun…


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Given that the physiological differences between the sexes are on average so obvious and striking, I would be greatly surprised to find that there wasn't some difference in the way our brains work as well. Why should gender differences be limited only to those things we can see?
> 
> We already know that women have on average greater connectivity across the corpus callosum than do men, albeit by a small amount. Infer what you want from that fact, but structural differences in brain morphology have to imply something.


Check out the Scientific American article I just posted. Fascinating stuff!

I am not a neuroscientist, but from what I have read, this sort of finding is quite common. It 's extremely difficult to map any psychological or emotional measures onto brain structures. There always seem to be exceptions, reversals, or compensations. 

The joy of neuroplasticity.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

hekati said:


> Dude, take thousands identical plants (so called clone plant, that were taken as a branch from the same original plant and rooted). Put half of them in a basement with lack of sun, other half put in sun, don’t forget to plant them in a different soil. I bet you can identify from which group each plant is just by looking at them. One group could be greener and bushier, another more pale and starched toward sun…


And at this point, you conjecture that this accounts for all differences between the sexes. That is at best unproven, and puts you in no stronger a position than the other camp.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> That sounds interesting, given that I have written taxometric analysis software for a research psychologist in the past and have more than just a passing familiarity with the subject.
> 
> I wonder what effect sizes they were able to measure? The underlying problem in these kinds of studies always boils down to 1) how to we measure the effect and 2) how do we tease apart two distributions separated by a small difference? When you succeed, you can run a battery of tests and, with a certain accuracy, assign an individual to one group or another.


They used three different taxometric procedures. A few of the measures appeared somewhat taxonic with Baysian distribution, but even these were shown to be dimensional with other tests. Most measures came out unequivocally dimensional on all 3 procedures.

And it wasn't all college students in the samples. The authors received data from 9 different researchers, all of whom had a minimum of 300 participants, and up to 3000 in their respective studies. Ages ranged, depending on the study. And all 9 datasets showed significant differences between the sexes on at least 3 measures. 

But even so, the differences did not actually map onto gender categories, and were instead dimensionally distributed.

Intriguing!


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

always_alone said:


> How easy is it to toss out the word 'bias' to utterly dismiss something you disagree with? Isn't that the ultimate in bias?


You're right. However, that was not the spirit in which I made the statement. I was bringing it up as a point to consider (among others). But since I didn't elaborate, I can see where someone might construe that my aim was to shut down conversation and not to encourage it. I am familiar with the tactic of using specious arguments to close off discussion. That was not my intent here. More so than other disciplines however, psychology needs to guard itself against these types of influences. Given the nature of the studies, the impact of personal perceptions and biases are a constant danger, especially in studies such as this one.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

hekati said:


> Give them the same education, encourage them the same, let girls think about their financial future without relying on father or husband or any other male. I don’t see difference. I never had problems with understanding typical "males". I had problems understanding female but it was because their parents didn’t develop their brain right. It is pathetic. They say they are better in understanding emotions? Ha, they are waco in understanding emotions, they pay too much attention to emotions. Some man actually are not much different, especially those that was raised in a very religious family. I know one guy that never dare to question his dad because he was a preacher and was good in guilt trips like “Jesus died for you, and what did you do?” So he is full of emotional crap and it is extremely hard to get through it to logical part of his brain.


Maybe I'm slow today because its Monday but I'm really having a hard time figuring out the main point you're trying to develop here.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ

Not very scientific and I'm sure it will not sway anyone in this discussion one way or the other but I found this video to interesting.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Cletus said:


> And at this point, you conjecture that this accounts for all differences between the sexes. That is at best unproven, and puts you in no stronger a position than the other camp.


I am trying to point out that all the studies about sex difference so far are inconclusive. They could be explained by “nurture” not “nature”. It looks like that women’s nature was ****ed up pretty good by the traditions. Freud showed how suppressed sexuality caused certain mental damage. So my assumption that we are still ****ing up our daughter’s future at least has the same rights to be considered as those sex difference study that looks like more and more unreliable. Female became less insane since they stop suppress sexuality. Not so many hysterical reactions, rare cases they pass out in public. May be if we let them develop the areas of brain they supposed to develop they would be even more adequate to reality. 
I can give you a few common sample of typical female inadequate reaction. Couple divorced, they have a baby, mom is not working, dad works at almost minimal wage and pays child support (well he is dip****, but she knew that then she married him and still she never thought about how she is going to survive with this particular dip ****, maybe should think about career herself…) . Dad loses his job and can’t make payments. So instead of looking for a job and thinking how to survive she is spending time complaining to her relatives and friends on facebook about “how her husband doesn’t care about his own child” … bla-bla-bla… and continues her attempts to squeeze a blood from a turnip, I mean her husband that doesn’t know how to survive himself… From the moral point of view everyone supports her. He should pay because he is the dad and court said he should pay… I don’t say dad shouldn’t pay, but isn’t her behavior is a sort of insanity? Do you really think it is a natural insanity? Do you really think that mother-nature wouldn’t kill all the human species with such a pathological behavior that contradicts the surviving instincts? 
And even if there is a tiny difference why would we blow it out of proportion and use it to limit our potential instead of giving any human individual a chance to develop themselves the best they can.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Given that the physiological differences between the sexes are on average so obvious and striking, I would be greatly surprised to find that there wasn't some difference in the way our brains work as well. Why should gender differences be limited only to those things we can see?


^^This right there is what my foreparents called
" conventional wisdom."

Our brain in connection with hormones, and not social constructs , determines our affiliation to a particular gender, iMO.
An example could be men and women who are genuinely gender confused.
Their bodies are male but their brain and hormonal imbalances tells them that they are females , and view versa.

Another example could be that of female professional bodybuilders using steroids and testosterone injections / treatment.
They cannot build as much muscle mass as men without it.
Hypertrophy is natural to males, and their bodies naturally responds much faster to the same stimuli.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

hekati said:


> Dude, take thousands identical plants (so called clone plant, that were taken as a branch from the same original plant and rooted). Put half of them in a basement with lack of sun, other half put in sun, don’t forget to plant them in a different soil. I bet you can identify from which group each plant is just by looking at them. One group could be greener and bushier, another more pale and starched toward sun…


If I am following your line of reasoning correctly, you're saying that if you treat men and women differently (Put half of them in a basement with lack of sun, other half put in sun, don’t forget to plant them in a different soil) then their preferences and circumstances will be different (One group could be greener and bushier, another more pale and starched toward sun). 
However, you are making a huge assumption right up front when you say "take thousands identical plants". My position (among many others) is that you don't start with identical plants (humans). There are innate differences that influence the paths that men and women take. These innate, likely biological, differences are not the sole determining factor for what influences males and females. I believe that the environment also plays a role in shaping and guiding behaviors a bit but I believe that these societal factors are layered on top of the biological and genetic predispositions.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

hekati said:


> Freud showed how suppressed sexuality caused certain mental damage.


Really? Freud? 



hekati said:


> Female became less insane since they stop suppress sexuality. Not so many hysterical reactions, rare cases they pass out in public. May be if we let them develop the areas of brain they supposed to develop they would be even more adequate to reality.


I'm not touching this with a 10-foot pole.



hekati said:


> I don’t say dad shouldn’t pay, but isn’t her behavior is a sort of insanity? Do you really think it is a natural insanity?


Um....really don't know what to say here.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> If I am following your line of reasoning correctly, you're saying that if you treat men and women differently (Put half of them in a basement with lack of sun, other half put in sun, don’t forget to plant them in a different soil) then their preferences and circumstances will be different (One group could be greener and bushier, another more pale and starched toward sun).
> However, you are making a huge assumption right up front when you say "take thousands identical plants". My position (among many others) is that you don't start with identical plants (humans). There are innate differences that influence the paths that men and women take. These innate, likely biological, differences are not the sole determining factor for what influences males and females. I believe that the environment also plays a role in shaping and guiding behaviors a bit but I believe that these societal factors are layered on top of the biological and genetic predispositions.


Yes, and I am telling that there is still no prove that they are not identical or that the difference are negligible. I point you out that even with identical original species you could get quite different results. And you keep insisting on your assumption that nature defines the brain ability even including ability to math or science. This assumption is already dangerous for woman because it could limit their ability to pursue the career that a particular female could be good at and that could make her happy.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

hekati said:


> I am trying to point out that all the studies about sex difference so far are inconclusive. They could be explained by “nurture” not “nature”.* It looks like that women’s nature was ****ed up pretty good by the traditions*. *Freud showed how suppressed sexuality caused certain mental damage. So my assumption that we are still ****ing up our daughter’s future at least has the same rights to be considered as those sex difference study that looks like more and more unreliable. Female became less insane since they stop suppress sexuality. Not so many hysterical reactions, rare cases they pass out in public. *May be if we let them develop the areas of brain they supposed to develop they would be even more adequate to reality.
> I can give you a few common sample of typical female inadequate reaction. Couple divorced, they have a baby, mom is not working, dad works at almost minimal wage and pays child support (well he is dip****, but she knew that then she married him and still she never thought about how she is going to survive with this particular dip ****, maybe should think about career herself…) . Dad loses his job and can’t make payments. So instead of looking for a job and thinking how to survive she is spending time complaining to her relatives and friends on facebook about “how her husband doesn’t care about his own child” … bla-bla-bla… and continues her attempts to squeeze a blood from a turnip, I mean her husband that doesn’t know how to survive himself… From the moral point of view everyone supports her. He should pay because he is the dad and court said he should pay… I don’t say dad shouldn’t pay, but isn’t her behavior is a sort of insanity? Do you really think it is a natural insanity? Do you really think that mother-nature wouldn’t kill all the human species with such a pathological behavior that contradicts the surviving instincts?
> And even if there is a tiny difference why would we blow it out of proportion and use it to limit our potential instead of giving any human individual a chance to develop themselves the best they can.


Freuds analysis of "female hysteria" was frought with his own bias and men can and have been be just as "f*cked up" by gender conditioning and stereotyping as women. Your use of the terms "inadequate reactions" and the way youn are shaping these situations regarding women shows your own bias and judgments. You are saying that women are insane and pathalogical???


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

hekati said:


> Yes, and I am telling that there is still no prove that they are not identical or that the difference are negligible. I point you out that even with identical original species you could get quite different results. And you keep insisting on your assumption that nature defines the brain ability even including ability to math or science. This assumption is already dangerous for woman because it could limit their ability to pursue the career that a particular female could be good at and that could make her happy.


OK, to start, I never said anything about the ability for women to do math or science. Of course there are plenty of women that are capable of performing at high levels in any of these types of disciplines. What I am saying is that culture and societal influences are not the sole or even main reason of why there appears to be gender differences today. Obviously, you disagree with that assessment. You state that there is no proof that men and women are not identical. That is not the case. Just as you claim that there is no proof that men and women are not identical, there is no proof for the other side of the argument either. The nature/nurture argument has been going on for a long time. It seems that you are emphatically stomping your foot down on the side of nature and saying that there are no other influences. That flies in the face of millions of years of evolution, the biological sciences and common sense. There are definite biological differences (on average looking at the macro level) between the brains of men and women. 
Are you saying that throughout the course of evolution, there were no psychological constructs and framework that supported the idea of women being nurturing and caring parents for their children? According to your theory, once the Cro Mangon woman had her child, she should have been able to hand it off to its father and then go hunting wooly mammoths along with the rest of the post-partum mothers without a second thought. Are you also saying that the crazy amounts of hormones that course through young bodies (testosterone, estrogen) have absolutely no effect on how people behave and the decisions they make? 

I'm not making the argument that biology is the only deciding factor when it comes to the differences between men and women. I'm merely stating that it is the groundwork around which societies and cultures build. But it seems to me that you are 100% discounting the obviously physical and biological differences between men and women and saying that everything is driven 100% by environment and society. 

You seem to be pretty intent on discussing how insane some women are (or have been). Was there a personal experience that shaped these views?


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

hekati said:


> Absolutely agree! All the difference is due to the social construction.


Really? You want to stick with this? Its all 100% society?



hekati said:


> We are still buying different toys for boys and girls, when they are in the age when the brain is developing.


So studies that show how infants gravitate toward "gender specific" toys in an overwhelming fashion (young children as in just a couple of months old) and how one and two day old children respond to mechanical constructs vs. faces depending on gender holds no credence for you?


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> Really? You want to stick with this? Its all 100% society?
> 
> 
> 
> So studies that show how infants gravitate toward "gender specific" toys in an overwhelming fashion (young children as in just a couple of months old) and how one and two day old children respond to mechanical constructs vs. faces depending on gender holds no credence for you?


In this debate there are just too many factors that come into play. It will never be completely objective. There will be no definitive answer. Both nature and nurture are imortant and have effects. You can be on one side or the other in terms of strength. But there will never be an answer.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

hekati said:


> Dude, take thousands identical plants (so called clone plant, that were taken as a branch from the same original plant and rooted). Put half of them in a basement with lack of sun, other half put in sun, don’t forget to plant them in a different soil. I bet you can identify from which group each plant is just by looking at them. One group could be greener and bushier, another more pale and starched toward sun…


Let's get a little closer to the animal kingdom. We have been focusing on male and female differences among humans. Obviously, that is what we are concerned with. But let's take a look at other animals. One may make an argument that certain animals have a kinda/sorta society (chimpanzees, elephants, whales). But these animals have relatively complex brains compared to other species. So let's look a little further down the chain. How about lions. Some might say they are "smart" but it would be hard to argue that they don't operate from a more base and instinctual part of their brains (innate?). Are there not definite gender differences here? I didn't say one was better than the other. I just said different. What about your garden variety robin? Any differences there? Of course there are. Are you now going to argue that humans have somehow been allowed to develop outside of the evolutionary construct and that as a species, we are so awesome and powerful that we have thrown off millions of years of development simply by handing a little girl a Barbie doll and a little boy a toy truck? :rofl:


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

inarut said:


> In these types of debates there are just too many factors that come into play. It will never be completely objective. *There will be no definitive answer.* Both nature and nurture are imortant and have effects. You can be on one side or the other in terms of strength. But there will never be an answer.


I agree...to a point. With the mapping of the human genome, don't be surprised if it is announced in the next 15-20 years that science has discovered the "nurture" gene or the "all I wanna do is lay around and play video games" gene.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> I agree...to a point. With the mapping of the human genome, don't be surprised if it is announced in the next 15-20 years that science has discovered the "nurture" gene or the "all I wanna do is lay around and play video games" gene.


we'll see...ya never know....might also be disproved 100's of years later....


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> OK, to start, I never said anything about the ability for women to do math or science. Of course there are plenty of women that are capable of performing at high levels in any of these types of disciplines. What I am saying is that culture and societal influences are not the sole or even main reason of why there appears to be gender differences today. Obviously, you disagree with that assessment. You state that there is no proof that men and women are not identical. That is not the case. Just as you claim that there is no proof that men and women are not identical, there is no proof for the other side of the argument either. The nature/nurture argument has been going on for a long time. It seems that you are emphatically stomping your foot down on the side of nature and saying that there are no other influences. That flies in the face of millions of years of evolution, the biological sciences and common sense. There are definite biological differences (on average looking at the macro level) between the brains of men and women.
> Are you saying that throughout the course of evolution, there were no psychological constructs and framework that supported the idea of women being nurturing and caring parents for their children? According to your theory, once the Cro Mangon woman had her child, she should have been able to hand it off to its father and then go hunting wooly mammoths along with the rest of the post-partum mothers without a second thought. Are you also saying that the crazy amounts of hormones that course through young bodies (testosterone, estrogen) have absolutely no effect on how people behave and the decisions they make?
> 
> I'm not making the argument that biology is the only deciding factor when it comes to the differences between men and women. I'm merely stating that it is the groundwork around which societies and cultures build. But it seems to me that you are 100% discounting the obviously physical and biological differences between men and women and saying that everything is driven 100% by environment and society.
> ...


I was mainly arguing that the studies are inconclusive. Definitely men are physically stronger. I never argued that, LOL. But I think society should back off and let an individual to determine his future. Moreover old traditional gender roles are already sabotaging effective functioning into the modern society. 
Why do you need to prove that male and female are different? To justify why you can’t adapt to modern society? Just treat any human as a person with his/her advantage and disadvantage. Why do you need to say that you are bad at math because you are a female? You are just bad at math, not a big deal you are better in something else. Why do you need to say you are bad at understanding emotions because you are a male? You are just bad at it so what? Or you are just tired of useless emotions. So what? We are spending so much time arguing for what? What is the use of it? So you’ll have a probability to destroy your daughter’s future by not developing her math skill, although she happened to be a deviation and have a great potential as a mathematician? Or so you could force you son to be a scientist although he doesn’t have any skills and will only develop some identity problems?
People also are able to control their behavior inspite of any crazy hormons. There are certain cases when they don't usually it is a deviation like when mother kills her kids for example.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

hekati said:


> I was mainly arguing that the studies are inconclusive. Definitely men are physically stronger. I never argued that, LOL. But I think society should back off and let an individual to determine his future. Moreover old traditional gender roles are already sabotaging effective functioning into the modern society.
> Why do you need to prove that male and female are different? To justify why you can’t adapt to modern society? Just treat any human as a person with his/her advantage and disadvantage. Why do you need to say that you are bad at math because you are a female? You are just bad at math, not a big deal you are better in something else. Why do you need to say you are bad at understanding emotions because you are a male? You are just bad at it so what? Or you are just tired of useless emotions. So what? We are spending so much time arguing for what? What is the use of it? So you’ll have a probability to destroy your daughter’s future by not developing her math skill, although she happened to be a deviation and have a great potential as a mathematician? Or so you could force you son to be a scientist although he doesn’t have any skills and will only develop some identity problems?
> People also are able to control their behavior inspite of any crazy hormons. There are certain cases when they don't usually it is a deviation and ends up in criminal courts.


Society can never back off, we are a part of it, it will always to a large degree determine our thinking and decisions. Its unavoidable...so is our biology. We are all just individuals trying to make our own way within it.....It is the human condition.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> Let's get a little closer to the animal kingdom. We have been focusing on male and female differences among humans. Obviously, that is what we are concerned with. But let's take a look at other animals. One may make an argument that certain animals have a kinda/sorta society (chimpanzees, elephants, whales). But these animals have relatively complex brains compared to other species. So let's look a little further down the chain. How about lions. Some might say they are "smart" but it would be hard to argue that they don't operate from a more base and instinctual part of their brains (innate?). Are there not definite gender differences here? I didn't say one was better than the other. I just said different. What about your garden variety robin? Any differences there? Of course there are. Are you now going to argue that humans have somehow been allowed to develop outside of the evolutionary construct and that as a species, we are so awesome and powerful that we have thrown off millions of years of development simply by handing a little girl a Barbie doll and a little boy a toy truck? :rofl:


It already was said here that brain develops very fast in the first years, and when the time is gone it is too late. You are buying your girl a Barbie and her mom is teaching her to talk to a Barbie to play a little role games, like "now we are going to a store, she bought a new dress she is happy"… Boy got a car and he is now exploring how the car is moving on a different surfaces that develops his 3D perception . Etc etc… Should I really tell you all that? Really?


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

inarut said:


> Society can never back off, we are a part of it, it will always to a large degree determine our thinking and decisions. Its unavoidable...so is our biology. We are all just individuals trying to make our own way within it.....It is the human condition.


Actually society already back off on that. Well in general. It backed off because the traditional family is not optimal in the modern technological society. That is why we have all this discussions. We are living at the time of changes. We wouldn’t have this discussion few centuries ago, we don’t have this discussion in the part of the world where our technological civilization didn’t reach and we probably will forget this subject in about another hundred years.


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

hekati said:


> It already was said here that brain develops very fast in the first years, and when the time is gone it is too late. You are buying your girl a Barbie and her mom is teaching her to talk to a Barbie to play a little role games, like "now we are going to a store, she bought a new dress she is happy"… Boy got a car and he is now exploring how the car is moving on a different surfaces that develops his 3D perception . Etc etc… Should I really tell you all that? Really?


I agree with you on this point.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^This right there is what my foreparents called
> " conventional wisdom."
> 
> Our brain in connection with hormones, and not social constructs , determines our affiliation to a particular gender, iMO.


Conventional wisdom isn't always correct. Indeed the authors of the article in my OP begin with the observation that gender taxonomy is typically portrayed as distinct natural categories based in biological differences. It is this very conventional wisdom that tbey are seeking to evaluate.

Lo and behold, conventional wisdom doesn't hold up.

Analogous work has been done on genetics and race, and has shown that what we often observe to be distinct natural kinds (races) are not in fact supported by genetic make-up. There is more genetic variation within a "race" than between the different ones, despite the more obvious physical differences (skin color, hair color and texture, body and facial structures)


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

hekati said:


> It already was said here that brain develops very fast in the first years, and when the time is gone it is too late. You are buying your girl a Barbie and her mom is teaching her to talk to a Barbie to play a little role games, like "now we are going to a store, she bought a new dress she is happy"… Boy got a car and he is now exploring how the car is moving on a different surfaces that develops his 3D perception . Etc etc… Should I really tell you all that? Really?


Gender identity comes way before Barbies and trucks. The fetus is still in the womb when people start asking whether it is a girl or boy --start buying clothes, toys, talking to it in sex-appropriate ways, etc. Kids are slotted into their gender categories long before they start crawling, let alone walking.

And some indication of how important this can be seen at the incredible furor that arose when a couple refused to reveal he sex of their baby. It was all over the headlines!


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

hekati said:


> I was mainly arguing that the studies are inconclusive. Definitely men are physically stronger. I never argued that, LOL. But I think society should back off and let an individual to determine his future. Moreover old traditional gender roles are already sabotaging effective functioning into the modern society.


I have a daughter and a son. I have never seen any societal pressure on my daughter to not do exactly what she wants to do - which is pursue the sciences, get a biology degree, and probably go into medicine. Of course, I live in the famously liberal northwest United States, so maybe we're not representative of the nation as a whole.

But she'll never be as good as me at calculus


----------



## inarut (Feb 9, 2013)

always_alone said:


> *Conventional wisdom isn't always correct*. Indeed the authors of the article in my OP begin with the observation that gender taxonomy is typically portrayed as distinct natural categories based in biological differences. It is this very conventional wisdom that tbey are seeking to evaluate.
> 
> Lo and behold, conventional wisdom doesn't hold up.
> 
> Analogous work has been done on genetics and race, and has shown that what we often observe to be distinct natural kinds (races) are not in fact supported by genetic make-up. There is more genetic variation within a "race" than between the different ones, despite the more obvious physical differences (skin color, hair color and texture, body and facial structures)


The world was once flat!!!!


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Conventional wisdom isn't always correct.


When I used the term " conventional wisdom" I meant usage of a type of logic called " informal logic."
This has to do with sound reasoning,critical analysis ,identifying premises, creating sound arguments and finally arriving at sound conclusions.

Here is Cletus argument:

"..*Given that the physiological differences between the sexes are on average so obvious and striking,*_ I would be greatly surprised to find that there wasn't some difference in the way our brains work as well. Why should gender differences be limited only to those things we can see?_..."

This is a sound logical ,step by step argument that can be followed right through to its natural conclusion.

If men have different genitalia to females and a male is outwardly/ physiologically different to a female in every , single aspect, what determines these differences?
The brain.
Then logically it can e concluded that the neurological processes which inform and dictates these physiological differences during their developmental stages also impacts on the cognitive and other subconscious aspects of both genders.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Cletus said:


> I have a daughter and a son. I have never seen any societal pressure on my daughter to not do exactly what she wants to do - which is pursue the sciences, get a biology degree, and probably go into medicine. Of course, I live in the famously liberal northwest United States, so maybe we're not representative of the nation as a whole.
> 
> But she'll never be as good as me at calculus


And? Now you want to present this as a prove of something? Somebody here was talking about an anecdote… oh, it was you! Could be she just doesn’t want to hurt your feelings and pretends that she will never be as good as you. Or you bought her wrong toys when she was a child.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

hekati said:


> And? Now you want to present this as a prove of something? Somebody here was talking about an anecdote… oh, it was you! Could be she just doesn’t want to hurt your feelings and pretends that she will never be as good as you. Or you bought her wrong toys when she was a child.


But she DID inherit a sense of humor. The big smiley was supposed to be a tip-off.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Gender identity comes way before Barbies and trucks. The fetus is still in the womb when people start asking whether it is a girl or boy --start buying clothes, toys, talking to it in sex-appropriate ways, etc. Kids are slotted into their gender categories long before they start crawling, let alone walking.
> 
> And some indication of how important this can be seen at the incredible furor that arose when a couple refused to reveal he sex of their baby. It was all over the headlines!


Do you understand what you are saying?
You are saying that if 10 boys and 10 girls were separated at birth, placed under controlled conditions and boys raised as girls and girls raised as boys, they would both groups would act opposite of their natural gender.

My guess is as good as yours as to which gender this type of 
" _neutral conditioning_ " is designed to benefit the most.

Good luck with that....:rofl:


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles (Oct 15, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Gender identity comes way before Barbies and trucks. The fetus is still in the womb when people start asking whether it is a girl or boy --start buying clothes, toys, talking to it in sex-appropriate ways, etc. Kids are slotted into their gender categories long before they start crawling, let alone walking.
> 
> And some indication of how important this can be seen at the incredible furor that arose when a couple refused to reveal he sex of their baby. It was all over the headlines!


Do girls naturally prefer dolls to trucks? Evidence from 2 primate studies


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

hekati said:


> *Actually society already back off on that.* Well in general. It backed off because the traditional family is not optimal in the modern technological society. That is why we have all this discussions. We are living at the time of changes. We wouldn’t have this discussion few centuries ago, we don’t have this discussion in the part of the world where our technological civilization didn’t reach and we probably will forget this subject in about another hundred years.


Society can't and never will "back off". As stated earlier, humans are social animals and will forever and always (amen) be a part of some sort of society. Society can't "back off" but what it can do is change. The attitudes, perceptions and beliefs of a society can and will change. However, you make an argument of "why bother even asking the questions? Just treat an individual as an individual." I agree about treating an individual as an individual and allowing their talents (or weaknesses) to be assessed and utilized as they exist. But there is also value in "asking the question". To optimize education, wouldn't it be better to understand if there are differences so that better educational methods can be developed?
You are arguing for the blandness of sameness. Apparently, you feel as though having distinctions implies oppression and domination. Nobody in this discussion is saying that just because there may (or may not as you would argue) be gender differences, that those differences should be used or exploited. I say that distinctions and differences are to be celebrated. Understanding those differences can be utilized by society (and individuals) to greatly enhance quality of life and social interaction. If society knew that a nurturing disposition was 100 times more likely to be exhibited in women as opposed to men, would it make sense for a hospital to go to the local YMCA to do its recruiting for nurses? Does that mean that all women have a nurturing disposition? Of course not. But understanding these differences can greatly benefit society (that we are all a part of and will never escape).
It seems that in your view, even if there turns out to be (as I believe) a strong biological component to gender differences, then you would argue that the best thing for society is to try and eradicate those differences through reverse social conditioning. Based on your views, it seems as though your perfect society would be one where fetal brains are harvested in-utero and implanted into cybernetic bodies that are identical to each other and reproduction would a matter of petri dishes and incubators. As for me...no thanks.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Is the study surprising? Not really. It basically says there are average differences but that we are all individuals and the averages don't apply to many. It's not very hard to figure out why everyone stereotypes to some degree. It's a natural way of surviving in the world around us. Sometimes being "pattern finding creatures" works against us. This is when we have to rely on intellect and not be mentally lazy.

The study is more proof that compatibility and not gender roles is the holy grail of success in relationships.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

Didn't really intend on posting anymore to this thread but I happened across this article. Thought it very apropos.

Why Women Talk More Than Men: Language Protein Uncovered : Human : Science World Report


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

always_alone said:


> I'm pretty sure that all of his has been debunked at one time or another. I would need to do some serious link-hunting, though, to back it up.
> 
> No doubt the physiological differences are real, and they include hormones, muscle structure, etc. But even with these, there is much overlap between the sexes. People of mixed or uncertain gender are also a lot more common than we ever really talk about.


You appear to have misread my post or I did not right it well enough. The mathamatical and scientific ect. abilities of women are judged inferior to men. 

This is not true. I am a case in point. I am good at science and math. Although my talent was obvious in my performence and stadardizrd test, my teachers and the school councilor tried to push me towards nursing. The majority of them were women. 

The boys in my class, many of them with scores lower than mine, were encouraged to be mathematicians and doctors. 

The bias is so entrenched that even in the face of evidence to the contrary, it is still acted upon. 

The differences between men and women in math and science is contrivence of educational institutions supported by many men and women.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cosmos said:


> Things have changed, of course, and girls these days quite rightly get an equal education. Hence the gap between the sexes in science and maths is decreasing.


Decreasing, yes, but we're still a fair ways from equality. Women now outnumber men in undergraduate education, but at the higher levels, they are under-represented in many of the math and science disciplines. And the higher you go, the fewer women are judged to be capable, even when they outscore men all the way up.

It is particularly bad in the more theoretical fields in physics and math, but is also in other fields as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Like Barbie says...."Math is HARD!"


----------



## Runs like Dog (Feb 25, 2011)

I am coming to the conclusion that everyone, men and women are a getting dumber and less able. Women want to be more like men? Ok slap on that backwards hat and be a Brotard.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

always_alone said:


> Decreasing, yes, but we're still a fair ways from equality. *Oh really?*
> 
> Women now outnumber men in undergraduate education, but at the higher levels, they are under-represented in many of the math and science disciplines. *How is that anybody's fault but the women who won't pick those disciplines? Poor girls. Is society pressuring them to not go into those fields. *
> 
> ...


I see some women going here "Equality hasn't come yet, because one guy dismissed me. Men are pigs and women deserve so much better." Run hamster run.


----------



## janefw (Jun 26, 2012)

LOL. Men and women do NOT get the same pay. 

Gender pay gap persists

Gender Gap: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

The reality is that girls do not get encouraged to study the sciences - they get directed to the arts and literature instead. It's not uncommon in the institution where I work for people to address a female in scrubs as "nurse" and a male in scrubs as "doctor". I do not regularly take patient calls, but occasionally when such a call has come through on my line accidentally, there is a high proportion of people who, calling for the first time, refer to any doctor they have been referred to as "he" (even though the area I work in is OB/GYN, and you might expect that at least some of those doctors are women?) As I said, I don't regularly take those calls, so I can't imagine how many times that happens for people who field those calls on a daily basis. 

I have myself, at meetings, sometimes been assumed to be the secretary or assistant, and several times over the past couple of years, young men have mistakenly given me a drink order, at which I have referred them to the young male assistant who is waiting to take their drink/sandwich order. It's pretty funny to see their faces when I stand up to hold the meeting.  

I could give more examples, but why bother. Those that don't experience it don't believe it, because it doesn't fit their worldview.

So, anyway, women and men are both mammals from the planet earth. There are no venusians or martians.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

janefw said:


> It's not uncommon in the institution where I work for people to address a female in scrubs as "nurse" and a male in scrubs as "doctor". I do not regularly take patient calls, but occasionally when such a call has come through on my line accidentally, there is a high proportion of people who, calling for the first time, refer to any doctor they have been referred to as "he" (even though the area I work in is OB/GYN, and you might expect that at least some of those doctors are women?) As I said, I don't regularly take those calls, so I can't imagine how many times that happens for people who field those calls on a daily basis.
> 
> I have myself, at meetings, sometimes been assumed to be the secretary or assistant, and several times over the past couple of years, young men have mistakenly given me a drink order, at which I have referred them to the young male assistant who is waiting to take their drink/sandwich order. It's pretty funny to see their faces when I stand up to hold the meeting.


This reminds me of the riddle:-

"A boy is driving home with his father when their car is involved in a serious accident. Both father and son are knocked unconscious, and they are rushed to hospital, where the boy will need immediate surgery. The surgeon enters the operating room, takes one look at the boy and says: "I cannot operate on this boy. He is my son..."

Who is the doctor?


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

The boys mother
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

Catherine602 said:


> The boys mother
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Pretty obvious, Catherine, but it's amazing how some people actually have to think about it. Stereotypes!


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

8 Reasons Why The "Gender Pay Gap" Is A Total Sham

What causes the gender pay gap?

CBS News:The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

While I don't agree with the premise of the pay gap being completely a myth, I agree with these articles that there are huge contributing factors. Thus it's a subject of financial study still, not a concrete fact like the modern libfems tells us it is.

And yes, the basic confusion over occupation. I have been confused for a janitor, a waiter or a nurse some times by patients, nurses, other doctors (we don't have a dress code). I do dress well , and yes I had my identity card on lol  Am I supposed to say, "Ugh, the society is evil, it needs to change, I am being discriminated against, boo hoo complain whine complain" just because?

And again who is not encouraging girls to take on the challenges of theoretical fields? Who are these people? Am I one of those people? No. Are you ? No. Are people's independent choices not to go into such fields really that unimportant that we most say it's because of the pressure of society? Is there really a pressure, or is there the illusion of pressure? I'm going with the latter.Let's talk about high school boys dropping out twice as much, boys turning to addicts at a much higher rate at younger ages than girls, and the obvious male suicide rate increase, if we are going to talk about societal pressure and inequality.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

Cosmos said:


> Pretty obvious, Catherine, but it's amazing how some people actually have to think about it. Stereotypes!


Well, it's obvious the father was a cuckold, and the mother was having an affair with the surgeon.

Oh wait...


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> 8 Reasons Why The "Gender Pay Gap" Is A Total Sham
> 
> What causes the gender pay gap?
> 
> ...


There are always people who try to dismiss the gender pay gap. It's fine for them, because they are probably men being paid correctly.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/04/focus-3
And yes those things you have posted about young men are alarming and sad, and we should do something about them, no one is saying other wise, Why then would you not want to do something about the inequality women and girls face?

We also know that by the time men and women reach the age of 40 the inequality and life circumstances are vastly different. 

Overal men's life chances are far greater then womens, women have a far greater chance of living in poverty and whole host of other factors that really seek to devalue women and ensure that while some get ahead, that the reality for the vast majority is very different.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> This is a sound logical ,step by step argument that can be followed right through to its natural conclusion.
> 
> If men have different genitalia to females and a male is outwardly/ physiologically different to a female in every , single aspect, what determines these differences?
> The brain.
> Then logically it can e concluded that the neurological processes which inform and dictates these physiological differences during their developmental stages also impacts on the cognitive and other subconscious aspects of both genders.


Just out of curiosity, do you really mean to be this patronizing? Or is it just the way you write?

First off, it is not the brain that determines the differences, it is the DNA. This long string of code has 23 pairs of chromosomes, of which 22 are the same for both men and women.

Also, men and women are not different in every physiological aspect. We have different reproductive organs to be sure. But in some cases, more often than is often admitted, it can be difficult to tell what sex a particular infant is. Usually these individuals are assigned a gender (the one that seems most fitting) and raised that way. As for our other physiology, we all have one heart, two lungs, one liver, two kidneys, two arms and legs and so on. 

Men and women do have different hormonal balances -- on average. But these too are in a range where a woman could have more testosterone than a man. Or a man more estrogen than a woman.

So, logically, what do we conclude from that?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> How is that anybody's fault but the women who won't pick those disciplines? Poor girls. Is society pressuring them to not go into those fields.



It is not because women aren't picking these fields; it is because of well-documented habits and biases in the hiring, promotion, grant-awarding, and publication processes.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Just out of curiosity, do you really mean to be this patronizing? Or is it just the way you write?
> 
> First off, it is not the brain that determines the differences, it is the DNA. This long string of code has 23 pairs of chromosomes, of which 22 are the same for both men and women.
> 
> ...


That the distributions overlap on almost every measurable characteristic. 

Which of course is not the same as saying that the distributions don't have predictive power, on average. We can say men are stronger than women on average while still understanding that any individual woman might be stronger than some individual male.

This is how psychological taxometric analysis works. You take a bunch of measurements of things that alone are not very predictive, and which only display small differences in population averages, and try to assign an individual to a group that has a mental disorder or one that, while perhaps similar in behavior, does not. 

The fact that men and women are mostly the same carries no requirement that we have no fundamental differences, even in the way our higher brain functions work. Nor does it require that we be different. The dogmatic approach is to say one or the other must be true simply because it feels right.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> It is not because women aren't picking these fields; it is because of well-documented habits and biases in the hiring, promotion, grant-awarding, and publication processes.


In my experience, that's not true.

I'm not saying societal pressure isn't playing a huge role, but by the time you get to college, women are already grossly underrepresented in many of the science and math disciplines. Society might have weeded them out already - the hiring manager doesn't stand a chance.

When I graduated in electrical engineering, every one of the women in my graduating class was snatched up for employment immediately - including the one I personally know was barely able to do the work (yeah, I knew a guy or two who fit that description too, don't paint me the misogynist). My field has been desperate to increase the ranks of women, and dozens of articles lamenting their low numbers have been penned and scrutinized and lamented over. 

But if they don't enter the discipline to begin with, they can't compete for the money, jobs, or grants.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> That the distributions overlap on almost every measurable characteristic.
> 
> Which of course is not the same as saying that the distributions don't have predictive power, on average. We can say men are stronger than women on average while still understanding that any individual woman might be stronger than some individual male.
> 
> This is how psychological taxometric analysis works.


True. But then we can come back to the study that is in my original OP -- that finds that the distributions do not have predictive powers when it comes to a wide range of psychological measures.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> True. But then we can come back to the study that is in my original OP -- that finds that the distributions do not have predictive powers when it comes to a wide range of psychological measures.


True enough - to which we should wonder "Did they ask the right questions?"


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Every individual has the opportunity to prove how valuable they are and the command respect and salary accordingly (not talking about 3rd world countries). Men on average take more risk and men on average become workaholics so there's two items the directly effect pay scale.

Men and women alike want to complain about what Mr Jones has or makes rather than take care of there own business. If it's not men then it's tall people or thin people or pretty people. We can always find someone to be envious of or mad at. Fact is everyone with an average or higher IQ in this country (U.S) has the ability to be wealthy if willing to make sacrifices.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

*LittleDeer* said:


> There are always people who try to dismiss the gender pay gap. *It's fine for them, because they are probably men being paid correctly*.
> Focus: America's gender wage gap | The Economist
> And yes those things you have posted about young men are alarming and sad, and we should do something about them, no one is saying other wise, Why then would you not want to do something about the inequality women and girls face?
> 
> ...


So here's one woman with a differing opinion:
Kay Hymowitz: Why Women Make Less Than Men - WSJ.com
And another:
Christina Hoff Sommers: Wage Gap Myth Exposed -- By Feminists
And another:
It's Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth - Forbes
Oh...and one more for good measure. This one is a study conducted by Stephanie R. Thomas of *Thomas *Econometrics. I have attached a .pdf of the actual study.
View attachment 2442


Plus...the article that you cited just says that there is a difference _*on average*_ with what men and women get paid. It says nothing as to why the difference is there. Nobody who says that the pay gap is a myth is not saying that there is no difference in what men and women get paid *on average*, they are saying that the gap has far, far less to do with sexist attitudes than it does with work/life choices. Are there still holdover discriminating attitudes from when women were not in the workplace as much? Sure. And you will never eliminate 100% of biased attitudes. No matter what the subject. 
I have worked in Fortune 150 companies, small companies and a rather large medical center. If anything, there is a large measure of overcautious attitudes being careful to not do even the teeny tiniest thing that might be considered sexist for fear that a lawsuit will be placed and take down the organization. In any case where there is a man and a woman in equal running for a new position or opportunity, if the two are essentially "tied", then it is deferred to the woman, in the name of diversity. 
You mentioned that there will always be people that will try to dismiss the gender pay gap. That is true. Because there will always be people trying to go deeper than what is on the surface and not relying on tired, worn out cliches about how sexist modern society has become. 
It's time for women to put their "big girl" pants on and stop the whining.


----------



## Sigma Uber Alles (Oct 15, 2012)

janefw said:


> LOL. Men and women do NOT get the same pay.
> 
> Gender pay gap persists
> 
> ...


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Jane, I'm going to say this as politely and kindly as I know how...

First, you need to go back and CAREFULLY reread the USA TODAY article you referenced. Take your feminist blinders off though before you do. Allow me, as a male , to help you parse through it.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

"Among recent college graduates, full-time working women on average earn 82% of what their male peers earn, according to a study released todayby the AAUW (American Association of University Women)."

AAUW ? NO BIAS THERE IS THERE? :rofl:

"The result is similar to a broader study by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, which said that in 2011, the gender wage gap for working women of all ages was 82.2%"

IWPR ? NO AGENDA THERE EITHER, RIGHT? :rofl::rofl:

But here is the part your feminist blinders didn't allow you to absorb...

"Women earn less for a *several reasons*, experts say, *including* their college majors, occupation and *the number of hours they work*. Today, *women still tend to enter lower-paid fields* such as education and social sciences, while men typically major in engineering and computer science.

AAUW took a closer look at the difference between men and women who enter the same occupation. The apples-to-apples comparison found that women *still earned about 7% less *than their male counterparts. Give their similarities, this pay gap is unexplained, and *gender discrimination is one potential factor*, the study says."

The actual difference is 7% and "unexplained" because the AAUW doesn't want to accept that women have CHOSEN what they are doing, how long they work, and the fact that it isn't due to gender discrimination, but is instead due to womens lack of aggression in the workplace. (Maybe because they lack testosterone?)

"A lot of people think that stereotypes are a thing of the past," says Catherine Hill, director of research at AAUW. "But we see that these things are continuing and real."

That statement is PURE OPINION AIMED AT AN AGENDA.
NO BIAS THERE< RIGHT? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

And what policy do these paragons of feminist "equality" pushers propose as the solution to solving pay inequality ? 

"What can be done about the pay gap? "Women could pick higher-paying majors, such as nursing, computer science, math, science and engineering" Hartmann says. " (but since that didn't suit their agenda, they had to add.. "The employer has the responsibility to ensure that they do not treat men and women differently." )

In other words, women could work harder. 

and then finally they had to leave you with the last political bullet which aimed at their true agenda of equal outcomes regardless of effort or choice on the part of women...

"And the government also has responsibility. We have equal-pay laws that have been on the books for a very long time, but we still have unequal pay, which *suggests* a need for stronger enforcement or new legislation."

NOTE: NON OF THE 7% RESIDUAL DIFFERENCE OF PAY ACTUALLY IS EVIDENCED TO BE OF GENDER BIAS ORIGIN, BUT RATHER SEEMS TO BE A RESULT OF WOMEN'S EXERCISING THEIR OWN CHOICES. NEVERTHELESS THESE "SO-CALLED UNBIASED" EXPERT FEMINIST RESEARCH STUDY GROUPS INSIST IT IS STILL GENDER DISCRIMINATION.

WHAT UTTER LIES, DECEIT, AND POLITICAL PROPAGANDA.

:soapbox:


----------



## janefw (Jun 26, 2012)

To the writer with the post with all the :rofl: - your contempt and patronizing attitude makes it impossible to read whatever you wrote, so .. whatever.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Since we're talking averages and generalities here; men feel like we're supposed to provide. We are more often consumed with aquiring positions of power as well. This is not accidental. Having a position of respect and power makes us more appealing to women in our minds. Similar to women wearing makeup to feel more appealing to men. Because of this, we invest more of our self worth into our success often to our detriment. By the way when women start going after scrubs instead of providers then this may change.

Women (in general) have a better balance of work-is-work and home-is-home. The added baggage of self worth isn't so tied up in carreer as much or as often and therefore they aren't as desparate to get those positions.

I have threee boys but if I had a daughter and she was complaining about glass ceilings and pay scales, I'd tell her to drop the pity party and stop being self defeated. I've been denied raises and promotions before and left one company for a higher paying job even though I really liked it there and had a lot of security. That was a risk that many women aren't willing to take because they have better since maybe. But the risk is what put me in a better place.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Cletus said:


> True enough - to which we should wonder "Did they ask the right questions?"


:iagree:


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> True enough - to which we should wonder "Did they ask the right questions?"


You tell me! I can't reasonably provide the full list but here are some of the measures they've used. Note that they deliberately selected measures where large gender differences have been found or implicated in other studies.

*Sexual Attitudes and Behaviour*
appeal of sex with more than one partnee
appeal of having sex with a stranger 
unwillingness to have sex without love 
how often they have an orgasm during intercourse 
how often they think about sex 
masturbation frequency 

*Mate Selectivity*
ranked importance of the following factors in choosing a mate: 
chastity 
good looks 
similar education 
education level
intelligence 
good financial prospect 
ambition and industriousness
favorable social status
number of children desired 
desire for home and children 
preferred marriage age 
dependable character 
emotional stability
pleasing disposition
maturity

*Intimacy *
love prototype scale
Modified Eriksonian Psychosocial Stage Inventory (Darling-Fisher & Leidy, 1988) measuring identity and intimacy stage resolution.
Modified Personal Assessment of Intimacy in Relationships Scale 


*Sociosexual orientation*
willingness to have sex outside a committed relationship 
number of one-night stands, 
how often they fantasize about someone other than their partner and comfort levels with this 
comfort with sex without love, 
comfort with casual sex
requiring closeness for sex

*Empathy *
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Fantasy, Empathic Concern, Perspective Taking, and Personal Distress subscales)

*Relational Interdependence*
Relational-Interdependent Self-Construal Survey, an 11-item measurement of how much a person's relationships make up his or her sense of self. 

*Gender-Related Dispositions*
Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire regarding positive (desirable) and negative (undesirable) masculinity and femininity
Bern Sex-Role Inventory
Lessons Learned Questionnaire of moral orientation

Science Inclination
Big Five Personality Traits


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

always_alone said:


> You tell me! I can't reasonably provide the full list but here are some of the measures they've used. Note that they deliberately selected measures where large gender differences have been found or implicated in other studies.
> 
> *Sexual Attitudes and Behaviour*
> ...
> ...


Well, I'm dumbfounded. It you can't find a meaningful difference that would allow you to classify someone as male or female with a 90% confidence interval on these three questions alone, I don't know what to say.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Well, I'm dumbfounded. It you can't find a meaningful difference that would allow you to classify someone as male or female with a 90% confidence interval on these three questions alone, I don't know what to say.


Again, :iagree:


*Confirmation Bias Definition:*

The confirmation bias refers to the tendency to selectively search for and consider information that confirms one's beliefs.

*Confirmation Bias Examples:*

There are a number of possible examples of the confirmation bias. 
Below are a few examples.
1] A student who is going to write a research paper may primarily search for information that would confirm his or her beliefs. The student may fail to search for or fully consider information that is inconsistent with his or her beliefs.
2] A reporter who is writing an article on an important issue may only interview experts that support her or his views on the issue.
3] An employer who believes that a job applicant is highly intelligent may pay attention to only information that is consistent with the belief that the job applicant is highly intelligent.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Again, :iagree:
> 
> 
> *Confirmation Bias Definition:*
> ...


But you wouldn't ever be guilty of this now, would you?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Cletus said:


> Well, I'm dumbfounded. It you can't find a meaningful difference that would allow you to classify someone as male or female with a 90% confidence interval on these three questions alone, I don't know what to say.


Surprise! All three were found dimensional on three separate taxometric procedures.


----------



## *LittleDeer* (Apr 19, 2012)

Here is some government data about the gender wage gap in my country, which I know mirrors the USA.
http://www.wgea.gov.au/Information_...istics/Gender_Pay_Gap_Fact_Sheet_May_2012.pdf

I don't believe that women having children makes up for the fact that at 65, for exactly the same job (and qualifications) women will be earning less. 

Also it shows that women are penalised for having children, something men usually want too, to have a family. Work places should be more family friendly for men and women allowing them to share the load more equally if they like.

I know that if my child is sick, my ex will never take a leave day to care for him. Why should be penalised because I have to?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> But you wouldn't ever be guilty of this now, would you?


Let me ask you a simple common sense question.

Which of the two sexes are more likely to abandon their offspring,
Male or Female, and why ?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> But you wouldn't ever be guilty of this now, would you?


Always_Alone,

I understand your * perception * and the context in which your arguments are framed.
But the question is , do you really , really need to pretend that women and men are the same in order to challenge the status quo of discrimination against women?
Assuming that women and men are the same is doing a disservice to both genders, and women ultimately suffer more.
The obvious reason being that the male stereotype would become the new norm, which females would be expected to meet.
Perpetuating the myth of the male norm means ignoring women’s real, biological differences in severity and susceptibility. Most importantly, It also ignores the different ways that they process thoughts and therefore perceive what is important.
[ _Hence the question in my previous post._ ]

But the differences between men and women is no more a justification for the institutionalized discrimination against women than the differences between races.
That men and women have different ways of thinking about things does not make women inferior. 
Conventional wisdom dictates that we both acknowledge the ways in which we are unique , and approach our problems from that perspective, rather than the pusillanimous calumny and pseudo intellectualism designed to widened the divide between the genders. 

We all have_ different_ strengths.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> But the differences between men and women is no more a justification for the institutionalized discrimination against women than the differences between races.
> That men and women have different ways of thinking about things does not make women inferior.
> Conventional wisdom dictates that we both acknowledge the ways in which we are unique , and approach our problems from that perspective, rather than the pusillanimous calumny and pseudo intellectualism designed to widened the divide between the genders.
> 
> We all have_ different_ strengths.


:iagree:

Until we call a truce on this war between the sexes, and both genders learn to work together and adapt to the changes in society, _in a fair and equitable way_, both genders will continue to lose out.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

*LittleDeer* said:


> Here is some government data about the gender wage gap in my country, which I know mirrors the USA.
> http://www.wgea.gov.au/Information_...istics/Gender_Pay_Gap_Fact_Sheet_May_2012.pdf
> 
> I don't believe that women having children makes up for the fact that at 65, for exactly the same job (and qualifications) women will be earning less.
> ...


I agree many women are penalized on the whole, but that won't change until many women stop excepting that childcare will primarily fall on their shoulders.
Businesses won't compensate for relationship/ childcare dynamics in a relationship any time soon.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> I agree many women are penalized on the whole, but that won't change until many women except that childcare will primarily fall on their shoulders.
> Businesses won't compensate for relationship/ childcare dynamics in a relationship any time soon.


I think you're right, TB, and this is why I believe couples must plan and discuss very carefully how they're going to deal with raising a family in addition to holding down their careers.

Deciding to have children, of course, isn't just about choice; it's a natural need that most humans have (and where would we be if we didn't?!), but parents have to be prepared to make compromises when it comes to their earning capacities.

As you say, [comparatively few] businesses aren't going to compensate for this dynamic anytime soon.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

Cosmos said:


> I think you're right, TB, and this is why I believe couples must plan and discuss very carefully how they're going to deal with raising a family in addition to holding down their careers.
> 
> Deciding to have children, of course, isn't just about choice; it's a natural need that most humans have (and where would we be if we didn't?!), but parents have to be prepared to make compromises when it comes to their earning capacities.
> 
> As you say, [comparatively few] businesses aren't going to compensate for this dynamic anytime soon.


Totally agree, it needs to be made clear that both instead of one will compromise (if that is what someone wants) before actually having children.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Always_Alone,
> 
> I understand your * perception * and the context in which your arguments are framed.
> But the question is , do you really , really need to pretend that women and men are the same in order to challenge the status quo of discrimination against women?
> ...


That's an awful lot of words you've stuffed down my throat, and a few nice insults to top it off.Please allow me to clarify:

I am not pretending or assuming anything. I am simply reporting on a study that I thought people here might find interesting. There is so much discussion on the gender divide here, I thought some might be interested in a different perspective, one that showed how similar we are in places where we often think we are incompatible.

I also just thought it was interesting how much, as Thundarr pointed out earlier, it shows us that we need to approach problems from an individual perspective, rather than a gender divide problem.

Simply assuming men and women are different in certain ways also does both genders a disservice. Why shouldn't men want to be SAHDs, for example? Or take on traditional women's work?

And just how is it that pointing to our similarities is a devious ploy designed to widened the gap between us? Why does it offend you so that women might like to masturbate or have casual sex as much as men? Or that home and children might be as important to men as they are to women?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Let me ask you a simple common sense question.
> 
> Which of the two sexes are more likely to abandon their offspring,
> Male or Female, and why ?


I know that in some cultures, male abandonment of their offspring is currently a huge problem. But at the same time, isn't it conventional wisdom that one of the main reasons that the institution of marriage exists is so that men can keep better track of their children?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I know that in some cultures, male abandonment of their offspring is currently a huge problem. *But at the same time, isn't it conventional wisdom that one of the main reasons that the institution of marriage exists is so that men can keep better track of their children?*


And therin lies the fallacy of the study in your original post or any study that attempts to put both genders in any box/ category labelled " same."
The institution of marriage was designed by our ancestors to deal with a fundamental , psychological difference between the genders.

One wired to " spread his seed " and the other wired to bring life into the world and nurture it.
Our earliest ancestors recognized this difference,and the problems that were created when the differences and strengths were not utilized in a productive way.
Chaos and mayhem resulted in such societies, and life was nasty brutish and short.
Through conventional wisdom , not any scientific research, they were able to devise an institution such as marriage to harness the human resources in a meaningful way that caused great civilizations to be built. 
Maybe we too , could learn from our past?

As Cosmos so eloquently put it in her post:

"...*Until we call a truce on this war between the sexes, and both genders learn to work together and adapt to the changes in society, in a fair and equitable way, both genders will continue to lose out.*..."


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> And therin lies the fallacy of the study in your original post or any study that attempts to put both genders in any box/ category labelled " same."
> The institution of marriage was designed by our ancestors to deal with a fundamental , psychological difference between the genders.
> 
> One wired to " spread his seed " and the other wired to bring life into the world and nurture it.
> ...


Women are designed to bring life into the world and nurture, as well as wired to receive many different seed. Both are designed to spread genetics.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> That's an awful lot of words you've stuffed down my throat, and a few nice insults to top it off.Please allow me to clarify:
> 
> I am not pretending or assuming anything. I am simply reporting on a study that I thought people here might find interesting. There is so much discussion on the gender divide here, I thought some might be interested in a different perspective, one that showed how similar we are in places where we often think we are incompatible.
> 
> ...


Here is an excerpt from Riess, one of the researchers in the original project which was the subject matter your original post.

"....“*Although gender differences on average are not under dispute, the idea of consistently and inflexibly gender-typed individuals is*,
*That is, there are not two distinct genders, but instead there are linear gradations of variables associated with sex, such as masculinity or intimacy, all of which are continuous....*”

Analyzing 122 different characteristics from 13,301 individuals in 13 studies, the researchers concluded that differences between men and women were best seen as dimensional rather than categorical. *In other words, the differences between men and women should be viewed as a matter of degree rather than a sign of consistent differences between two distinct groups.*

Bobbi J. Carothers Washington University , St. Louis 
Harry T. Reis University of Rochester 

Clearly, this issue is even more complicated than whether women should have more casual sex or masturbate as frequently as men, which in my opinion, in both cases, they actually do. 

Hope this answers your questions.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> Women are designed to bring life into the world and nurture, as well as wired to receive many different seed. Both are designed to spread genetics.


Well I don't know if a woman could " spread genetics."
But I know she could only get pregnant for ONE man during a period of 9 months whilst a man could impregnate hundreds even thousands of women in that same time frame.
That in itself is a physiological / biological difference. My argument is that the physiological affects the psychological.
A human being is a complete unit. No part of our body operates independently of our brain and consciousness.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I don't know if a woman could " spread genetics."
> But I know she could only get pregnant for ONE man during a period of 9 months whilst a man could impregnate hundreds even thousands of women in that same time frame.


That doesn't stop a woman caring about her genetics though. It's partly why women prefer tall men and bad boys, if she has a son he is more likely to be tall and be better 'mating' potential in the future, she will more likely have more grandchildren and her genetics spread further.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

TiggyBlue said:


> That doesn't stop a woman caring about her genetics though. It's partly why women prefer tall men and bad boys, if she has a son he is more likely to be tall and be better 'mating' potential in the future, she will more likely have more grandchildren and her genetics spread further.


:iagree:

Ok,
I understand the context of your statement, and you are correct.

But even then, the psychological difference between the genders is apparent. 
Men could mate with any woman.
Women tend to be more picky, based on the some of the criteria you outlined.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

*LittleDeer* said:


> Here is some government data about the gender wage gap in my country, which I know mirrors the USA.
> http://www.wgea.gov.au/Information_...istics/Gender_Pay_Gap_Fact_Sheet_May_2012.pdf


And here is a study http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Gender-Wage-Gap-Final-Report.pdf from the government of my country (US) that concludes that sex discrimination makes up a very small portion of the gender wage gap. However, the very same administration that produced this report, then turns around and tries to push through massively burdensome regulations all in the name of rectifying the pay gap that their own report said doesn't exist, at least not to the extent as to be determined by sex discrimination. Is there any wonder why people are fed up with government?



*LittleDeer* said:


> I don't believe that women having children makes up for the fact that at 65, for exactly the same job (and qualifications) women will be earning less.


Women having children is only one of several factors that account for the discrepancy. 



*LittleDeer* said:


> Also it shows that women are penalised for having children, something men usually want too, to have a family. *Work places should be more family friendly for men and women allowing them to share the load more equally if they like.*


And exactly how are women penalized and by whom? And exactly how are work places supposed to _*allow*_ men and women to share the load "more equally if they like"? What does the work place have to do with how you raise your children?



*LittleDeer* said:


> I know that if my child is sick, *my ex will never take a leave day to care for him*. Why should be penalised because I have to?


Again, who is doing the penalizing? Your child gets sick....your ex/husband won't stay home and watch the child, instead staying at work.....you stay home and watch your child foregoing work, thereby dropping your chances at promotion, advancement, etc......Exactly how is this the fault of your employer or society as a whole? Your ex never taking a day of leave is/was between you and your ex. Having your child was a decision that you (and hopefully your ex) made together. Child care and what was going to happen when the child gets sick is one of those discussions to be had prior to the situation happening.

Your child is the responsibility of you and his father, not private employers and not the government. If your employer offers on-site daycare and free sick-child care, good for you. That's great. But if they don't, you have no *right* to those things simply because they would be helpful to you.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Ok,
> I understand the context of your statement, and you are correct.
> ...


Not just any, though... Surely males, at least some level, are looking for a mate to enhance their gene pool, too? Certainly males have the opportunity to procreate more often, but one would imagine that there is a degree of biological selectivity involved?


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Unfortunately, I can't post the article because it is subscription only.
> 
> But what they did was a taxometric analysis of various physiological and psychological measures So it wasn't just a weighting of scales along gender lines seeking statistically significant differences, but another type of test designed to identify whether the different scales could be mapped along gender lines. And apparently they can't in most cases. While physiological differences were found to be taxonic, most of the psychological measures were shown to be dimensional.
> 
> ...


PLOS ONE: The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality

Here is a research study that concluded:

"In conclusion, we believe we made it clear that the true extent of sex differences in human personality has been consistently underestimated. While our current estimate represents a substantial improvement on the existing literature, we urge researchers to replicate this type of analysis with other datasets and different personality measures. An especially critical task will be to compare self-reported personality with observer ratings and other, more objective evaluation methods. Of course, the methodological guidelines presented in this paper can and should be applied to domains of individual differences other than personality, including vocational interests, cognitive abilities, creativity, and so forth. Moreover, the pattern of global sex differences in these domains may help elucidate the meaning and generality of the broad dimension of individual differences known as “masculinity-femininity” [11]. In this way, it will be possible to build a solid foundation for the scientific study of psychological sex differences and their biological and cultural origins."

Given the title of this thread, I thought this study was aptly named.


----------



## Zatol Ugot? (Mar 5, 2012)

always_alone said:


> It is not because women aren't picking these fields; it is because of well-documented habits and biases in the hiring, promotion, grant-awarding, and publication processes.


Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

Counter to your argument:

*ABSTRACT*
"Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings. "


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> PLOS ONE: The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality


That was a good article, and freely available.

Looks like 90% of women really are more sensitive than men. Who could have guessed?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> And therin lies the fallacy of the study in your original post or any study that attempts to put both genders in any box/ category labelled " same."
> The institution of marriage was designed by our ancestors to deal with a fundamental , psychological difference between the genders.
> 
> One wired to " spread his seed " and the other wired to bring life into the world and nurture it.
> ...


I agree with Cosmos's quote, but not with your caricature of human history. Your Hobbesian picture of our early ancestors simply does not do justice to the facts. Marriage is not just a lockdown to prevent or control men from spreading their seed. Rather, in many respects it is a lockdown on women, trying to make sure that the daddy knows which one is his baby.

Also, the study in question is not trying to "put both genders in any box/ category labelled " same."". It is testing whether our conventional wisdom on this issue is correct. That's what science does. You may disagree with the methods or analysis, but it's pretty disingenuous to wholesale reject the study just because it doesn't fit with your version of conventional wisdom.

My two cents.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Here is an excerpt from Riess, one of the researchers in the original project which was the subject matter your original post.
> 
> "....“*Although gender differences on average are not under dispute, the idea of consistently and inflexibly gender-typed individuals is*,
> *That is, there are not two distinct genders, but instead there are linear gradations of variables associated with sex, such as masculinity or intimacy, all of which are continuous....*”
> ...


No, sorry, but it doesn't. I read the study before I posted it, so I do know what it is about. I just chose those particular three examples as an illustration because they are the ones that Cletus singled out and that you agreed with. I realize it is more complicated -- indeed I posted a list of some of the measures to show how complicated it is.

However, the results overall do point to the conclusion that our essentialized and naturalized categories of gender are likely false --that is, we cannot predict gender based on these psychological attributes, nor can we predict these psychological attributes based solely on gender.

And for the record, this is gender we're talking about, not sex.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I agree with Cosmos's quote, but not with your caricature of human history. Your Hobbesian picture of our early ancestors simply does not do justice to the facts. Marriage is not just a lockdown to prevent or control men from spreading their seed. Rather, in many respects it is a lockdown on women, trying to make sure that the daddy knows which one is his baby.


:iagree: This is true,




> Marriage’s primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man’s children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man’s property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: “I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring.” Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.


----------



## TiggyBlue (Jul 29, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Ok,
> I understand the context of your statement, and you are correct.
> ...


More picky yes, but in a world with billions in it even being picky leaves you with many options and opportunities.


----------



## Fledgling (Feb 3, 2013)

ComicBookLady said:


> Books that helped clarify the differences between my husband and I saved my marriage. And we do think and view things QUITE differently. Many marriages end because people fail to recognize those differences and treat the other according to their specific needs.
> 
> I agree that doesn't mean those rules HAVE to apply to everyone. There's exceptions to almost everything (I love video games, and comic books, and horror/sci fi movies  General interests of men ). The differences set forth are but guidelines to consider in your quest for a better marriage, and end up helping a lot of people. If they don't help you, then move onto something else. But personally I owe my marriage to books like "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"
> 
> So while I don't entirely agree with the article, it was still interesting.


:iagree:

I will say, though, that we choose our partners because they have exhibited the ability to understand and empathize with us and our values. For instance many men at the beginning of a courtship are genuinely able to identify a woman's feelings and viewpoints and validate her almost instinctively. Yet somehow they seem to lose the ability during marriage and fall on cliches like "I'm a man, not a mind reader." etc etc etc. In marriages, we allow our innate abilities as a compassionate human beings to atrophy. We lose our ability to be comfortable with vulnerability.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> I agree with Cosmos's quote, but not with your caricature of human history. Your Hobbesian picture of our early ancestors simply does not do justice to the facts. Marriage is not just a lockdown to prevent or control men from spreading their seed. Rather, in many respects it is a lockdown on women, trying to make sure that the daddy knows which one is his baby.
> 
> Also, the study in question is not trying to "put both genders in any box/ category labelled " same."". It is testing whether our conventional wisdom on this issue is correct. That's what science does. You may disagree with the methods or analysis, but it's pretty disingenuous to wholesale reject the study just because it doesn't fit with your version of conventional wisdom.
> 
> My two cents.


Firstly, it doesn't matter if you agree with my
" caricature of human history " or not because even if I told you today is Friday March 01, you wouldn't agree, but that's ok with me.
I _know_ the history.
What matters is that my " caricature of human history " is actually representative of the truth ,could face the scrutiny of historical records, and is not an attempt to rewrite it in favour of or against a particular gender.

So here are the facts, and not my " two cents."

The main purpose of marriage during the earliest civilizations was to ensure that wealth and property stayed within the bloodline of a family's descendants. Hence most marriages were arranged.

Another purpose was to bring order to society.
People have always been free to have sex with whom they please , and whenever they please. But the main by product from sex between men and women is offspring, who need tremendous resources for their survival. In order to ensure their survival, in came the concept of a legal contract binding two people together.
That contract is called marriage.
Civilizations are built on societies,
Which are built on communities, which are built on families, 
Which are built on the principle of ,
Or the contract of MARRIAGE.
Without marriage, there would have been disenfranchised offspring, with no claim to property , having no means of survival but to steal, plunder ,rape and kill.
That could only breed chaos in any society.

This may come as a shock to you, but here are the FACTS;

The earliest known civilization, the Mesopotamian empire , of over 12000 years ago ,had strict laws regarding how property and wealth were to divided if a husband passed away, and what portion or a husband's property and wealth were to be given as alimony to his wife if they were divorced.
The easiest grounds for divorce was adultery, whether on the part of the male or female.
Yes, FEMALES HAD EQUAL TREATMENT under the law in Mesopotamia. That is what made the Summerians a great civilization.

If you don't understand the history of marriage, then maybe you should read reliable sources of history on the subject matter.
You could probably start here with this, 

TED Video on the surprising history of Monogamous marriage.

If you need some more information, I would gladly supply you with it.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Firstly, it doesn't matter if you agree with my
> " caricature of human history " or not because even if I told you today is Friday March 01, you wouldn't agree, but that's ok with me.
> I _know_ the history.
> What matters is that my " caricature of human history " is actually representative of the truth ,could face the scrutiny of historical records, and is not an attempt to rewrite it in favour of or against a particular gender.
> ...


Wow. How little you think of me. 

I am not trying to disrespect your knowledge of history or Mesopotamia. And I will watch the video link you have posted, just as I've downloaded the articles that others have put up.

All I meant to say is that there are/was a world of societies that managed to provide both peace, family, and childcare entirely independently of the code of hammurabi or Mesopotamian civilization. To suggest that all life in these societies is "nasty, brutish and short", or that they all just had sex whenever and wherever they wanted does them a great disservice, and is indeed a caricature.



Caribbean Man said:


> The easiest grounds for divorce was adultery, whether on the part of the male or female.
> Yes, FEMALES HAD EQUAL TREATMENT under the law in Mesopotamia.


Code of Hammurabi:
129. If a man's wife be caught lying with another, they shall be strangled and cast into the water.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> Wow.
> 
> All I meant to say is that there are/was a world of societies that managed to provide both peace, family, and childcare entirely independently of the code of hammurabi or Mesopotamian civilization. To suggest that all life in these societies is "nasty, brutish and short", or that they all just had sex whenever and wherever they wanted does them a great disservice, and is indeed a caricature.
> 
> ...


Maybe you can give an example of the " world of societies that managed to provide both peace family and child care entirely independent of the code of Hammurabi ."
Archeological facts don't seem to support your theory. 
The Mesopotamia civilization consisting of Summerians and later Akkadian people was actually an amalgamation of small nomadic tribes ,settling in little groups along the Euphrates and Tigris river . They were the first to actually build permanent dwelling places , invented irrigation and a functional , productive agricultural system , on a massive scale, all year round .
They invented one language and began to build a civilization based on strict laws guarding the family system because they realized it was the glue that held the different families in tribe together , and ensured their tribe's survival within the larger amalgam of tribes. 
They recognized that without law and order, life would be ;
" _nasty brutish ,and short._"

So we come to your reference of Hammurabi's code # 129.
"...._If a mans wife be caught lying with another , *THEY*
( ie: *both man and woman *) shall be strangled and cast into water_.."
The operative word being " they " , which reinforces the fact that both met with equal punishment.

Again, you need to understand the history of societies and how they were engineered. These great civilizations didn't just " pop" and appear. They were the products of thousands of years of small tribes of people battling against the vagaries of harsh weather , predatory beasts ,fighting amongst themselves trying to survive in an extremely hostile environment.
The need for survival forced them together , they made laws to govern themselves , and then became great.

If you consider this a " _caricature of history _", them maybe should provide some evidence , names , dates , geographic locations etc. to prove otherwise.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

]


Caribbean Man said:


> These great civilizations didn't just " pop" and appear. They were the products of thousands of years of small tribes of people battling against the vagaries of harsh weather , predatory beasts ,fighting amongst themselves trying to survive in an extremely hostile environment.
> The need for survival forced them together , they made laws to govern themselves , and then became great.
> 
> If you consider this a " _caricature of history _", them maybe should provide some evidence , names , dates , geographic locations etc. to prove otherwise.


All societies have language, a system for organizing families and providing childcare, and social norms or codes of conduct. We might want to call some of these "greater " than others, but I don't quite understand what that has to do with whether or not men and women are psychologically similar.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> ]
> 
> 
> All societies have language, a system for organizing families and providing childcare, and social norms or codes of conduct. We might want to call some of these "greater " than others, *but I don't quite understand what that has to do with whether or not men and women are psychologically similar.*


_We have reached this point because a few pages before I asked you pointed questions about certain obvious psychological differences between the sexes and instead of giving a direct answer, you countered with a biased, incorrect view on the history of marriage _.

So to get the thread back on track, I'll ask the same questions again.

1]Which of the sexes , male or female is more likely to abandon THEIR offspring and why?

2]Which of the sexes male or female is more likely to react violently to any given situation, and why?

3] Why do men vastly outnumber women in prison systems all over the world, in every , single category of criminal activity, be it white collar crimes of fraud , embezzlement and corruption to violent crimes of premeditated murder ,manslaughter , malicious wounding etc?

4]Which of the sexes, male or female are more likely to exhibit deviant and predatory sexual behaviours , including rape, incest , molestation, sexual harassment , sexual aggression
and why?

5]Which of the sexes , male or female are more likely to engage in dangerous , life threatening, risk-taking behaviours , and why?

So there you have it.
The answer to these questions should provide you with some insight into whether there are psychological differences between the sexes ,and why , or whether they are the same in every aspect.

Looking forward to your responses.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> ]
> 
> 
> All societies have language, a system for organizing families and providing childcare, and social norms or codes of conduct. We might want to call some of these "greater " than others,


In order to get a proper perspective on early history and the origins of man , you need to understand that everything evolved.There were different 
" epochs " ,archaeologists and anthropologists have established there was a " prehistory period ."
They have categorized it into a three age system called ;
1]Stone Age
2]Bronze Age
3]Iron Age.
During this periodization of history,
Language evolved.
Numerical systems evolved
Codes of conduct evolved
Laws evolved
Economic systems evolved
Religions evolved

Then societies began to emerge, after which we had civilizations.

Of course this information is tangential to your main discussion, however I just wanted to point out that your assumptions about history are inaccurate.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Of course this information is tangential to your main discussion, however I just wanted to point out that your assumptions about history are inaccurate.


Yes, this is totally tangential, but it's interesting and I can't help responding.

Too often the term evolution is used to justify an extremely simplistic picture of progression from primitive to complex, or from maladapted to well adapted. But evolution is much messier than that. Changes are mutations, not progressions, and are not always well adapted. Darwin was very clear about this, even if many people who throw around the term evolution are not.

It is even messier when you take this biological concept and apply it to society. We, as a culture, or cultures did not progress in a straight line from uncivilized to civilized. Nor is something like technological advance an indication of moral superiority. Just because the rules are codified into laws doesn't make them more just. 

Indeed, even using the concept of evolution to apply to culture and society is problematic and reeks of early colonialism.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> _We have reached this point because a few pages before I asked you pointed questions about certain obvious psychological differences between the sexes and instead of giving a direct answer, you countered with a biased, incorrect view on the history of marriage _.
> 
> So to get the thread back on track, I'll ask the same questions again.
> 
> ...


My first response to your question about abandonment was meant to suggest that men probably don't want to abandon their children--since it was men who were the ones who were so upset that they couldn't keep track of them. This may have had much more to do with wanting to preserve family power than any sort of care for their offspring -- but all I was trying to say was that marriage is not proof that men are more likely leave their kids --it is proof they care.

I also find it interesting that all of your examples are ones that paint men in a very poor light. I'm almost tempted to create a poll for the men here on TAM asking whether they identify with this portrait -- and if they all accept criminal and a$$hole behaviour as the main thing that distinguishes them from women.

There are no doubt differences between the sexes, undeniable physiological differences that do have an impact on what we can and possibly want to do. But do these then translate into psychological differences that require us to conform to static and stereotypical social roles for all time and all cultures? Why can't men chose to be SAHDs? Why can't women get involved in front line combat duty? Because the former is going to abandon his children in a park? Because the latter is not going to be able to pull the trigger?


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Zatol Ugot? said:


> PLOS ONE: The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality
> 
> Given the title of this thread, I thought this study was aptly named.


Thanks for posting this. It was an interesting study,and looked at quite different measures than the one I posted. Much more focused on aspects of personality than on gender attitudes about sex, relationships, and intimacy.

One problem with multivariate analysis, though is that it magnifies effects. Validation involves looking at getting univariate measures independently --and these were said to have very small effect.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

As research has shown that men and women use their brains differently, it is conceivable that we will have different psychological responses because of our different way of thinking... 
_
Men also have approximately 6.5 times more gray matter in the brain than women, but before the heads of all the men out there start to swell - women have about 10 times more white matter than men do [source: Carey]. This difference may account for differences in how men and women think. Men seem to think with their gray matter, which is full of active neurons. Women think with the white matter, which consists more of connections between the neurons. In this way, a woman's brain is a bit more complicated in setup, but those connections may allow a woman's brain to work faster than a man's [source: Hotz]._

Whether these differences are due to nature or nurture is an interesting question, and:-

_Sandra Witelson, the psychologist..., disagrees with [an] environmental assessment, and she uses an unlikely source to support her belief that our brains are structured at birth: Albert Einstein. Witelson had the opportunity to study pieces of Einstein's brain, and she found its unique structure to be a sort of confirmation that some brain differences simply can't be explained away with social or environmental reasons [source: Hotz]. She didn't look at Einstein's intelligence or accomplishments, but she simply observed that he had a unique brain structure that was likely already formed at birth._

HowStuffWorks "Male and Female Brain Structure"


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> My first response to your question about abandonment was meant to suggest that men probably don't want to abandon their children--since it was men who were the ones who were so upset that they couldn't keep track of them. This may have had much more to do with wanting to preserve family power than any sort of care for their offspring -- but all I was trying to say was that marriage is not proof that men are more likely leave their kids --it is proof they care.
> 
> I also find it interesting that all of your examples are ones that paint men in a very poor light. I'm almost tempted to create a poll for the men here on TAM asking whether they identify with this portrait -- and if they all accept criminal and a$$hole behaviour as the main thing that distinguishes them from women.
> 
> There are no doubt differences between the sexes, undeniable physiological differences that do have an impact on what we can and possibly want to do. But do these then translate into psychological differences that require us to conform to static and stereotypical social roles for all time and all cultures? Why can't men chose to be SAHDs? Why can't women get involved in front line combat duty? Because the former is going to abandon his children in a park? Because the latter is not going to be able to pull the trigger?


Ok,
I would try to make this as simple as possible.
Firstly ,I am finding it puzzling that you grudgingly admit that there are psychological differences between men and women.
If there were none, or if they were so insignificant , that they didn't matter, then historically the roles that women played in society, would have been vastly different across different civilizations and cultures.
For instance, was the role of an Aztec woman different to that of a Mesopotamian woman who existed in a completely different timeframe thousands of years later?
Was the role of an early Chinese woman different to that of Medo Persian, even though the existed at parallel tmeframes but were not connected?
Throughout civilizations, women's role generally were the same.
Fast forward to the present.
What has happened, is that technology is changing the way we perceive things around us, hence we are doing things much differently and easier than 100 years ago.

I would give you a local example. 
30 years ago, I witnessed a huge project taking place in our country, The construction of a series of freeways and interchanges to ease traffic congestion in our main city.
That project took years to complete with hundreds of male labourers , tower cranes, heavy equipment and hundreds of man hours in traffic congestion.
Two years ago the government decided to build another set of freeways and interchanges at a very busy junction of one of the main arteries intersecting a 6-lane highway from south to another one coming from east. The rate of vehicular traffic was around 20 000 vehicles per hour crossing that intersection where the new series of interchanges were to be built.
They hired a French civil engineering company for this logistically complex project.
This company did the job in SIX MONTHS!
How did they do it?
The used Satellite GPS system to plot the exact locations of the pylons ,the angles , the curvature of the main elevated ramp connecting south to west. This floating ramp is almost one mile long, and was the most complex part of the system of interchanges.
Then they manufactured the supporting steel beams in England, custom made and cut to exact specifications, shipped it to location. On location at the western end of the ramp , were some hydraulic jacks that push the beams into place on the pylons , for almost one mile, forming a huge arc of about 90 degrees.
It was fascinating to look at them work, just under 100 workers,no traffic congestions , no heavy equipment lifting cumbersome beams into place and men balancing precariously on beams with heavy power tools in hand doing jobs that " _only men could do_.." Yes, there were quite a few women working on the project, from civil engineers , to consultants to labourers.
Technology made this possible.

There has never been any conspiracy to deprive women of anything by confining then to particular roles or social constructs. Over the last 100 years technology has made it possible for women to advance into areas that were traditionally dominated by men. Women can now go on the front lines of the battlefield because of advances in satellite & GPS technology, unmanned surveillance equipment , communication and safety equipment.
The face and style of war has changed drastically
Even automatic weapons are manufactured of lighter alloys, making them much lighter, with less recoil.
In other words, a woman would not have been able to handle the cumbersome M16 rifle in Vietnam , but now she could handle a M4 automatic rifle like what was used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do you really think women could have survived the front lines of Vietnam , WW I and WWII where the loss of life was unacceptably high and the casualties were maimed and disfigured for life?

Again, please stop with the conspiracies.
As technology progresses, roles are being changed and new boundaries are being challenged by women. This is all good.
However , it does not mean that there are no psychological differences between men and women.
Also there is no need to take from one sex to enhance the role of another. A woman could be a sniper in a special unit in the army and still be a good mother to her kids, and a wife to her husband. No need for her husband to sacrifice anything to become a SAHD.
It does not make him more of a man than her being a sniper in an elite unit makes her more of a woman.
They both_ still _have different psychological needs.


----------



## always_alone (Dec 11, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> I would try to make this as simple as possible.
> Firstly ,I am finding it puzzling that you grudgingly admit that there are psychological differences between men and women.
> If there were none, or if they were so insignificant , that they didn't matter, then historically the roles that women played in society, would have been vastly different across different civilizations and cultures.


So let me make this real simple for you: Women have occupied a number of roles throughout history and prehistory, including priestess, healer, hunter, tool-maker, and builder. There is archeological evidence to suggest they women likely invented nets and various traps to catch game, which they also killed and butchered. They also likely invented many of the tools used in the paleolithic era, especially for agriculture and food production, but also for construction. They were often responsible for building and repairing the shelters, and helped defend the community from invaders. In some cultures they were evenpolitical leaders, responsible for decision-making and rule enforcement.

This idea that men were the hunters and did all of the work while women sat around and nursed babies is a myth, worthy only of a Flintstone's episode. The fact is that women have played a wide-ranging set of roles that required strength, intelligence, and leadership in many different cultures throughout history.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

always_alone said:


> So let me make this real simple for you: Women have occupied a number of roles throughout history and prehistory, including priestess, healer, hunter, tool-maker, and builder. There is archeological evidence to suggest they women likely invented nets and various traps to catch game, which they also killed and butchered. They also likely invented many of the tools used in the paleolithic era, especially for agriculture and food production, but also for construction. They were often responsible for building and repairing the shelters, and helped defend the community from invaders. In some cultures they were evenpolitical leaders, responsible for decision-making and rule enforcement.
> 
> *This idea that men were the hunters and did all of the work while women sat around and nursed babies is a myth, worthy only of a Flintstone's episode. * The fact is that women have played a wide-ranging set of roles that required strength, intelligence, and leadership in many different cultures throughout history.


:lol::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

"......_Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarcha_l...."

Matriarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Again, 
The examples you made reference to are what is called " the exception"
Let me remind you of some old conventional wisdom which says:
"...The exception that proves the rule.."

It simply means, in your case than not because some societies actually had women who did these things, that it was the norm for most civilizations.
Rather, because they are the exception , they prove the norm 
[ the opposite] to be true.

In the pre Columbus history of South America and the Caribbean, the Carib Indians were a very fierce and warlike tribe. EVEN THEIR WOMEN FOUGHT in wars, and hunted, but only the men were initiated as warriors. The Arawaks on the other hand were peaceful, only the men fought.
The Caribs decimated the Arawaks.
But the Caribs never built any civilization like the Aztecs in the Mexican marshlands, the Incas in the Andes Mountains and the Mayans from the Yucatan peninsula, who were incredibly , scientifically advanced, [ _They even had their own numerical system and the best documented calender of any civilization _] . They were just a small group of Indians, at a different stage of development ,trying to enlarge their territory, spreading up the Caribbean archipelago. Christopher Columbus , Walter Raleigh and Fransisco Pizzaro decimated them.

Anyway,
If you have any such evidence that women took the leadership roles in most of or all civilizations and tribes, historically and were the hunters and gatherers and warriors,
Please post the links here.
If not, 
Please, just concede.


----------

