Gender myths, challenging the stereotype

[Doctor Evo]

Yeah, but that's getting into a semantic disagreement.

That's the point. When you say, "That's a myth," your definition of "myth" becomes important within the context of this discussion. That's different from saying, "These traits are not inherent." They're two different discussions. You can dismiss it as a semantic argument, but it isn't as trivial as you seem to imply.

Because what these conditioned behavior patterns are is society limiting what kind of person someone can be. It's conditioning men to deaden their emotional sensitivity and it's conditioning women to be passive and emotionally weak. That's harmful, and even if it wasn't it's still unfair and unjust for society to tell someone that they can't be a certain way because of the shape of their genitals. Reinforcing these things is what leads to young men being bullied and tormented for crying and young women being mocked for having traditionally masculine traits or being called ****s simply for enjoying sex.

People should be allowed to be who they want to be as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. This social conditioning hinders that.

Fair enough. But how does merely acknowledging the existence of these trends constitute reinforcement?

 

[TheBat812]

What evidence do you have to back up this claim? Because that seems like another gender myth to me.

It's a college class dedicated to gender studies called Gender Communication, where they show you much of the science of the differences between sexes and how they develop from conception. The point of the class is to identify the difference betwen cultural perceptions and actual scientific evidence.

 

[The Question]

That's the point. When you say, "That's a myth," your definition of "myth" becomes important within the context of this discussion. That's different from saying, "These traits are not inherent." They're two different discussions. You can dismiss it as a semantic argument, but it isn't as trivial as you seem to imply.

You raise a fair point.

I would argue, though, that my phrasing is still valid. It is a myth that men and women think differently. It is true that many men and women think differently due to societal conditioning, but some for whom the condition did not take do not. It's a blanket statement that is not true to reality.

Fair enough. But how does merely acknowledging the existence of these trends constitute reinforcement?

Perhaps it's just me and my reaction to such things, but a plain statement of that being the way things are carries an implication of complacency. Wether one believes, erroneously, that it is due to a biological imperative, or if one understands that it's societal, stating that men and women think differently without challenging it or acknowledging the reasons for it and it's entirely unfair and artificial nature, as well as the fact that it's not 100% true anyway, sends the message that it's something to be accepted. Saying "Men are less emotional" validates that belief and reinforces it in the minds of those who hear it. Saying "society conditions men to be less emotional and that is not right" challenges an unfair system of thinking and living.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Most gender roles do have a basis in biology.

However, that doesn't mean it's absolutes. For example, the female is the more significant parent, but that doesn't mean men can't parent. And as the abortion rates show, a lot of women clearly aren't cut out for parenting.

Another example would be how men, more aggressive and stronger, are by nature, better fighters. But that doesn't mean women can't fight.

 

[TheBat812]

Men are naturally less emotional in the same way that men are more singularly focused than women due to their evolutionary necessities - men were primarily hunters, and women were the maternal caregivers. This meant they evolved in such a way that those who were physically more capable to hunt (men) did develop in such a way that was culturally influenced, and women developed to be more maternal. These were traits that each sex found appealing because together they had better chances of survival (or rather, those that sought out those traits were more successful), and as a result of evolution, these traits were passed down to through our ancestry. You're not wrong that cultural stigma plays a part, but there is also a huge part of our biology that developed this way.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

This was posted in the funny pics thread. I don't get this ****. I don't see any evidence that all women hate each other, I don't see how women are difficult to understand, and I certainly don't get what there is about women to understand that is inherently woman-ly that men don't get.

Basically, I don't see how women and men are all that different from each other.

Can you understand this one? Showed this to the g/f and she laughed and copped to it.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Men are naturally less emotional in the same way that men are more singularly focused than women due to their evolutionary necessities - men were primarily hunters, and women were the maternal caregivers. This meant they evolved in such a way that those who were physically more capable to hunt (men) did develop in such a way that was culturally influenced, and women developed to be more maternal. These were traits that each sex found appealing because together they had better chances of survival (or rather, those that sought out those traits were more successful), and as a result of evolution, these traits were passed down to through our ancestry. You're not wrong that cultural stigma plays a part, but there is also a huge part of our biology that developed this way.

Yet you've provided no support for the notion that this apparent difference in emotional states is biologically-based. All you're doing here is supporting the argument that there do exist biologically-based sexual dimorphisms (which extend to behavior), and nobody here is arguing against that.

Do you see the difference? Your initial assertion remains purely speculative.

 

[Doctor Evo]

You raise a fair point.

I would argue, though, that my phrasing is still valid. It is a myth that men and women think differently. It is true that many men and women think differently due to societal conditioning, but some for whom the condition did not take do not. It's a blanket statement that is not true to reality.

I don't think that it's necessarily implied that every man and woman conforms to the stereotype. Of course, when I make those types of statements, I usually include phrases such as, "tend," or, "tendency," etc. to avoid this type of objection.

 

[The Question]

Can you understand this one? Showed this to the g/f and she laughed and copped to it.

Nope.

 

[TheBat812]

Yet you've provided no support for the notion that this apparent difference in emotional states is biologically-based. All you're doing here is supporting the argument that there do exist biologically-based sexual dimorphisms (which extend to behavior), and nobody here is arguing against that.

Do you see the difference? Your initial assertion remains purely speculative.

I'm not going to go rebuy a textbook I've long since gotten rid of, but there was clear evidence that the pathways that connect the emotional side of the brain to the expression side of the brain were much more pronounced in females than males, making it much easier for them to communicate emotion naturally. As the two sexes grow older, they grow farther apart in that regard, which IS due to societal influences that affect the way in which the brain wires itself. Either way, if you really want the answer, do more research into the matter, I'm not going to do it for you, I was just relaying information I was taught in a class regarding the subject matter. Who knows, maybe it's outdated information from 4-5 years ago, haha.

EDIT: here's one of the first things google gave me. (Mind you, this isn't primarily a scientific site, but it does talk about exactly the same stuff that my textbook mentioned. If you want to further investigate from a scientic source, be my guest): http://www.columbiaconsult.com/pubs/v52_fall07.html

The brain is divided into two hemispheres: the left hemisphere deals with language and verbal abilities as well as the ability to process information in an orderly, logical way. The right deals with visual and spatial information, as well as abstract thinking and emotional responses. The corpus callosum, which is the part of the brain that connects both hemispheres, is thicker in women enabling them to use both the right and left sides of the brain in a more connected way than men do. Women use both sides of their brains for visual and verbal processing, and use both sides to respond to emotional experiences, while men use the right side of their brain for spatial skills and the left for verbal skills. Even within the language-centered, left-hand side of the brain, there are differences between men and women's brains. Anne Moir and David Jessel, authors of Brain Sex, claim that "the difference in the layout of the average male or female brain is found to have a direct effect on the way men and women differ in their ways of thinking -- differences in brain organization in men and women will lead to differences in the efficiency with which they perform certain tasks."

Much more at the link provided.

What exactly is the argument being made here? That men and women have identical brain patterns and thought processes upon birth and that societal influences rewire them in such a way that they end up having different ways of working? Or that they forever have the same thought processes/biological makeup? Because the former is a believable theory (although from my research, isn't scientifically viable), but the latter is simply wrong (in general terms, as there are exceptions to every rule, and literally every human being is unique to the next in that regard). note that i was specifically responding to the Questions' assessment that men and women do not physically think differently, that it is all based on cultural and societal perception.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I'm not going to go rebuy a textbook I've long since gotten rid of, but there was clear evidence that the pathways that connect the emotional side of the brain to the expression side of the brain were much more pronounced in females than males, making it much easier for them to communicate emotion naturally. As the two sexes grow older, they grow farther apart in that regard, which IS due to societal influences that affect the way in which the brain wires itself. Either way, if you really want the answer, do more research into the matter, I'm not going to do it for you, I was just relaying information I was taught in a class regarding the subject matter. Who knows, maybe it's outdated information from 4-5 years ago, haha.

EDIT: here's one of the first things google gave me. (Mind you, this isn't primarily a scientific site, but it does talk about exactly the same stuff that my textbook mentioned. If you want to further investigate from a scientic source, be my guest): http://www.columbiaconsult.com/pubs/v52_fall07.html

Much more at the link provided.

It's certainly better than what we had before.

What exactly is the argument being made here? That men and women have identical brain patterns and thought processes upon birth and that societal influences rewire them in such a way that they end up having different ways of working? Or that they forever have the same thought processes/biological makeup? Because the former is a believable theory (although from my research, isn't scientifically viable), but the latter is simply wrong (in general terms, as there are exceptions to every rule, and literally every human being is unique to the next in that regard). note that i was specifically responding to the Questions' assessment that men and women do not physically think differently, that it is all based on cultural and societal perception.

Neither. The issue was with the specific claim about the tendency for women to express emotion more freely than men being based on their biology/physiology rather than on social conditioning.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Men and women are wired differently. That's not something that is debated in educated circles.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Men and women are wired differently. That's not something that is debated in educated circles.

I must have missed something. Who's saying they aren't?

 

[Thundercrack85]

I must have missed something. Who's saying they aren't?

I got the sense that was being debated.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I got the sense that was being debated.

It wasn't.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You missed something, then.

 

[Baramos]

Well with all stereotypes they are falling into the seemingly harmless group that mostly serve as fodder for comedians ("Women find the temperature of any given room to be too cold") and the presumably troubling group that will obviously impact people's ability to get jobs or whatever ("Women are bad at driving"). So when debate over actual neurological differences comes up it would be hard to see that for actual scientific debate and not people trying to say one gender is dumber/worse than the other at things, which we must agree is the kind of BS sexist people do all the time, so it's not as if that's not something we'd have to worry about if people were talking about neurological differences, for some people to then try and make an argument that women are inferior or something. Debate about neurological differences has to be couched in the reasonable fear that bad people will misconstrue it and use it the wrong way.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'd say most men feel they are superior to women.

But then most women seem to feel superior to men. So it's a two way street.

Women are becomingly increasingly less subtle about it though.

 

[Doctor Evo]

You missed something, then.

The irony...

 

[Thundercrack85]

The irony...

I think I'm going to start ignoring you.

 

[TheBat812]

You missed something, then.

To me it seemed that that's the point that the Question was making, but maybe we misunderstood the point he was making?

And Doctor, I'd say the info I provided DOES reinforce the idea that women are more naturally able to access their feelings and share/discuss them. I agree though that because of that, society (especially American society) has drastically furthered that gap within groups - Female-female relationships tend to be bonded by the emotions they share, and male-male relationships tend to be bonded by the activities/interests they share and many men never really discuss feelings. There is no way to be conclusive one way or the other, but the science of it does reinforce the idea that women do have a biologically easier connection between emotion and language. A man not wanting to be percieved as emotionally weak/vulnerable is both biological (an evolutionary trait that would make him more likely to survive and pass those genes along) and by extension a societal one.

 

[Baramos]

Again, I think you have to be careful about misconstruing too much from scientific data and studies because said studies are based on very small sample groups and yet routinely reported as being much more "groundbreaking" or valid than they actually are. A lot of studies don't even manage to get the minimum amount of people to even begin to make a valid statistical analysis, which is 30 (and in the case of a scientific study would require 30 of both genders and a control group that is not participating in whatever conditions you've developed, possibly 30 of both genders again...so 120 people at minimum to even BEGIN to make any kind of real theorizing in the slightest...and one study obviously isn't going to be enough). You also have to look at the control conditions for objective validity of even testing what they are purporting to test.

A good example of "bad" or "crazy" studies is on the NCBI ROFL blog here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/category/ncbi-rofl/#.UPS_yfKwWSo Many are gender based and if you look at the actual descriptions of them are pretty laughable as scientific studies, and yet they are the kind that inevitably get reported in the press and get news coverage.

 

[TheBat812]

Like I said, I'm not pretending to be a scientist here, I'm just going by what the info available. I didn't say it was conclusive, I just said it's what is out there. Even if they aren't quite scientifically conclusive, it does not give license to say that therefore there IS no difference either. But given the astounding amount of information based on genetic differences in OTHER avenues (such as physical traits), it would be more scientifically reasonable to err in the side of there being a biological difference in our makeups than not.

 

[Doctor Evo]

To me it seemed that that's the point that the Question was making, but maybe we misunderstood the point he was making?

I believe that is the case, yes.

EDIT: Actually, I've been re-reading some of his posts, and I'm not sure anymore.

And Doctor, I'd say the info I provided DOES reinforce the idea that women are more naturally able to access their feelings and share/discuss them. I agree though that because of that, society (especially American society) has drastically furthered that gap within groups - Female-female relationships tend to be bonded by the emotions they share, and male-male relationships tend to be bonded by the activities/interests they share and many men never really discuss feelings. There is no way to be conclusive one way or the other, but the science of it does reinforce the idea that women do have a biologically easier connection between emotion and language.

Actually, there is a way to conclusively answer this question, but to do so would potentially require the violation of many, many ethics rules and regulations.

A man not wanting to be percieved as emotionally weak/vulnerable is both biological (an evolutionary trait that would make him more likely to survive and pass those genes along) and by extension a societal one.

Again, my only problem is that your initial assertion (as well as your rationale here) is still speculative. I appreciate that you provided further support, however. It certainly helps your case, as far as I can tell. Then again, I have very little experience in the field of neurobiology.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I think I'm going to start ignoring you.

What a tragedy. Look at how disappointed I am. ---->