Male and Female brains wired differently, scans reveal.
207 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Glitchman;43055703]As soon as we start throwing away our recognition of what makes each sex special, we will lose a beautiful ying-yang type relationship that makes humans great. So yes, we're all equal, but being equal with our rights and respects doesn't mean we can just forget that men and women are different in positive ways.[/QUOTE]
This all sounds very pleasant on the face of it, but when you say "men and women are different", what you're actually saying is "men are the same as other men and women are the same as other women", which is just flat out wrong and it means people who don't fit into your neat little boxes of what men and women should be are marginalized.
I think positive human relationships in general are beautiful, not just those with a man who fits a particular predefined role and a woman who fits another particular predefined role because "that's how things are are supposed to be". Hell, I think relationships that don't even involve one man and one woman are beautiful - where does that fit into your yin-yang dichotomy?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43058110]Oh yeah that beautiful relationship that caused women to be oppressed in many areas of the world for centuries. Whether there is any genetic basis for the differences, they should be treated as though there was almost no difference at all.[/QUOTE]
So wait, the difference that women have LEAD to them being 'oppressed in many areas of the world for centuries.'
Wow, way to be sexist.
You have to understand that there are differences, plugging your ears and lalalala'ing everyone won't fix problems, it'll make them. Giving everyone equal rights, equal punishment, and so on should be the aim, not to abstract the differences people have. Do you also want everyone to confirm to a single ideology? So that everyone just becomes a blank slate for the rest of their life?
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tweevle;43058579]This all sounds very pleasant on the face of it, but when you say "men and women are different", what you're actually saying is "men are the same as other men and women are the same as other women", which is just flat out wrong and it means people who don't fit into your neat little boxes of what men and women should be are marginalized.
I think positive human relationships in general are beautiful, not just those with a man who fits a particular predefined role and a woman who fits another particular predefined role because "that's how things are are supposed to be". Hell, I think relationships that don't even involve one man and one woman are beautiful - where does that fit into your yin-yang dichotomy?[/QUOTE]
A male is male because it was born biosex male. A female is female, because it was born biosex female. The reason male and female came into existence, was because it was evolutionarily beneficial for the Gene pool.
We group things because it give us knowledge on what they are, Males are MALES because they have a penis, and testes, females have a Vagina and Uterus. If a human wanted to have an offspring, it would need to find one of the other group, and copulate.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43058624]So wait, the difference that women have LEAD to them being 'oppressed in many areas of the world for centuries.'
Wow, way to be sexist.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty well known that the idea of women being somehow physically weaker has been used to justify sexism for centuries, that's what I'm getting at. All I want is absolute equality. Not sure how you managed to twist it into me being sexist.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43058624]You have to understand that there are differences, plugging your ears and lalalala'ing everyone won't fix problems, it'll make them. Giving everyone equal rights, equal punishment, and so on should be the aim, not to abstract the differences people have. Do you also want everyone to confirm to a single ideology? So that everyone just becomes a blank slate for the rest of their life?[/QUOTE]
I'm not actually sure what you're getting at here. All I want is total equality for both sexes, nothing more, but most certainly nothing less. Of course there are some physical differences such as women being able to give birth that are obvious separaters, but I do not believe there are any significant differences that should lead to any difference in treatment beyond help with childbearing.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43058747]It's pretty well known that the idea of women being somehow physically weaker has been used to justify sexism for centuries, that's what I'm getting at. All I want is absolute equality. Not sure how you managed to twist it into me being sexist.
[/QUOTE]
So because it can be used to oppress, the information should be suppressed?
Sexism will happen regardless of evidence - but suppressing the information will only cause problems.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43058747]I'm not actually sure what you're getting at here. All I want is total equality for both sexes, nothing more, but most certainly nothing less. Of course there are some physical differences such as women being able to give birth that are obvious separators, but I do not believe there are any significant differences that should lead to any difference in treatment beyond help with childbearing.[/QUOTE]
What does total equality justify? That women can play in NFL or 'mens' sports? Go ahead. That they can work on any/all industries men can? Go ahead!
I don't see any real discrimination against women on a large scale to prevent them to do things men are doing, sure there are social issues regarding them getting into politics and the like, but that's old men territory anyway, once they die off and the younger generations get into power you'll start seeing many more females in politics.
Jeep-Eep ordered too many boxes and is trying to get rid of them as fast as possible.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43058747]It's pretty well known that the idea of women being somehow physically weaker has been used to justify sexism for centuries, that's what I'm getting at. All I want is absolute equality. Not sure how you managed to twist it into me being sexist.
I'm not actually sure what you're getting at here. All I want is total equality for both sexes, nothing more, but most certainly nothing less. Of course there are some physical differences such as women being able to give birth that are obvious separaters, but I do not believe there are any significant differences that should lead to any difference in treatment beyond help with childbearing.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean with absolute equality?
There are people suggesting a quota for women upon corporations to put more women in charge, even if they don´t have the necessary skills for that.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43058624]A male is male because it was born biosex male. A female is female, because it was born biosex female. The reason male and female came into existence, was because it was evolutionarily beneficial for the Gene pool.
We group things because it give us knowledge on what they are, Males are MALES because they have a penis, and testes, females have a Vagina and Uterus. If a human wanted to have an offspring, it would need to find one of the other group, and copulate.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I don't see how that's relevant to what I was saying, though; the person I was responding to was pretty clearly not just talking about physical differences in genitalia. Not to mention you get men with vaginas and women with penises, so this doesn't really say much.
[QUOTE=Tweevle;43058917]Sure, I don't see how that's relevant to what I was saying, though; the person I was responding to was pretty clearly not just talking about physical differences in genitalia. Not to mention you get men with vaginas and women with penises, so this doesn't really say much.[/QUOTE]
The case of people born as hermaphrodites is rather low, and is usually caused by a mixup of XX and XY chromosome pairs.
Most/all Hermaphrodites are sterile, so they cannot produce offspring; they are genetically 'moot'.
i have a female brain trapped in a males cranium.
:(
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43059017]The case of people born as hermaphrodites is rather low, and is usually caused by a mixup of XX and XY chromosome pairs.
Most/all Hermaphrodites are sterile, so they cannot produce offspring; they are genetically 'moot'.[/QUOTE]
You have trans* people along with intersex people, and being a minority doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'm still not seeing why this is relevant to what I said, anyway?
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43058893]
What does total equality justify? That women can play in NFL or 'mens' sports? Go ahead. That they can work on any/all industries men can? Go ahead!
I don't see any real discrimination against women on a large scale to prevent them to do things men are doing, sure there are social issues regarding them getting into politics and the like, but that's old men territory anyway, once they die off and the younger generations get into power you'll start seeing many more females in politics.
Jeep-Eep ordered too many boxes and is trying to get rid of them as fast as possible.[/QUOTE]
Here in Britain women are literally not allowed to serve in army combat roles. This is a very clear example of women being discriminated against with reduced career prospects. This again is probably based on the stupid "men strong, women weak" idea still present in society.
So yes there very much is real discrimination against women still going on.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SuddenImpact;43058903]What do you mean with absolute equality?
There are people suggesting a quota for women upon corporations to put more women in charge, even if they don´t have the necessary skills for that.[/QUOTE]
No I don't agree with shit like that. But I do think people should attempt to squash sexism as much as possible without affirmative action.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43059241]Here in Britain women are literally not allowed to serve in army combat roles. This is a very clear example of women being discriminated against with reduced career prospects. This again is probably based on the stupid "men strong, women weak" idea still present in society.
[/QUOTE]
Much more complicated than you make it out to be.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43059295]Much more complicated than you make it out to be.[/QUOTE]
Well other countries manage to facilitate women in combat roles so unless British women are special in some way I don't see how it's justified in any way.
"Wired differently" can mean anything, this is a pointless study
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;43059440]"Wired differently" can mean anything, this is a pointless study[/QUOTE]
You obviously didn´t read the article then.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;43059440]"Wired differently" can mean anything, this is a pointless study[/QUOTE]
apparently "wired differently" can't mean anything because it means nothing.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
but it's not a pointless study. science is useful even when you can't see the point. it just becomes tiring because anything to do with difference between genders/sexes, climate, or race ends up becoming warped by people with an agenda.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43054745]this is a really really old argument that is pretty terrible and shows very little awareness of how modern human societies have been shaped and created
the reason almost all modern societies are patriarchal is simple: because modern societies are based on ownership. prior to modern civilisation, ie. agriculture and everything that comes with it, humans were not patriarchal creatures. there are numerous tribes that still exhibit this today. the reason the trend moved toward patriarchy was because we developed the idea of ownership, and ownership facilitated the need for lineage and inheritance. this wasn't possible in the current structure because, to put it bluntly, there was a lot of fucking. there was so much fucking that no male human knew who their kids were. this is still present in a lot of current-day tribes, and in primates, where there is no such concept of a biological father and, in fact, the thing closest to what we consider a father-figure is usually the mother's brother, the uncle, because there is no doubt that the uncle is family
but i digress. the idea that "societies all across the world turned out to be massively patriarchal so therefore it's human nature so that makes it okay because it's nature :)" is just wrong. the societies you're citing all come from the same point - ownership - and then on top of that they all come from almost exactly the same religious backdrop[/QUOTE]
"Patriarchal ownership" as you term it, existed in the stone age, when organized religion was yelling incoherently at the sun in the morning.
[QUOTE=27X;43060636]"Patriarchal ownership" as you term it, existed in the stone age, when organized religion was yelling incoherently at the sun in the morning.[/QUOTE]
uh what
religion in the stone age was anything but organized
I'm not coordinated and I can't see for shit.
Even when it comes down to the basics of my existence I suck.
Thanks, Darwin.
[editline]3rd December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43053245]stereotypes exist because some people are lazy idiots that are willing to judge people based on their appearance rather than their individual merits. they don't exist for a 'reason' other than that[/QUOTE]
No, stereotypes are essentially generalizations. If I say "Most black people listen to rap music" and you tell me that's not the case I'm going to fucking laugh at you
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;43059440]"Wired differently" can mean anything, this is a pointless study[/QUOTE]
who are you to declare anything "pointless" lol
[QUOTE=27X;43060636]"Patriarchal ownership" as you term it, existed in the stone age, when organized religion was yelling incoherently at the sun in the morning.[/QUOTE]
this post is a complete miss. i don't think anything you said here has much validity.
[QUOTE=Glitchman;43055703]The gender debate on FP makes my blood boil more than anything else. I've probably stated several times that gender equality =/= gender differences. It's like people are afraid that saying men and and women are different because brings on sexism or something. Women are badass and men are badass, but there are differences that go beyond just having a dick/vag.[/QUOTE]
And those differences do not matter because there is more variance within sexes than between sexes.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43060885]uh what
religion in the stone age was anything but organized[/QUOTE]
That's exactly the point. To say such behavior was reinforced as a modern advent with religious overtones is ridiculous. It was in place far, far earlier than that. Ownership conception was just as prevalent then as it is in aboriginal cultures in Brazil and Papau New Guinea now. Religion had fuck all to do with it, and was used as a justification much much later.
[editline]4th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43061167]this post is a complete miss. i don't think anything you said here has much validity.[/QUOTE]
Of course you do, because you haven't done any research on it, preferring to be an armchair uber-sociologist. Gender roles and lineal possessiveness has been a phenomenon well before mass integration and resource sharing/gathering was ever viable by human beings.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43061264]And those differences do not matter because there is more variance within sexes than between sexes.[/QUOTE]
How do they not matter, they are a delta, yes? You might be looking for statistically insignificant, but we need more research to conclude that.
[QUOTE=27X;43063948]Of course you do, because you haven't done any research on it, preferring to be an armchair uber-sociologist. Gender roles and lineal possessiveness has been a phenomenon well before mass integration and resource sharing/gathering was ever viable by human beings.[/QUOTE]
well gender roles originated from somewhere. so it might serve a function for sexual selection or something.
but gender inequality is a newer concept. hunter-gatherer societies can't operate with men and women having wildly different roles in the group. to gather 1000 calories' worth of food, you had to expend around 1000 calories. if men were out hunting and women sat around eating stone bon-bons all day then everyone would starve. if you are capable of gathering, you gather. if you are capable of hunting, you hunt. if you are capable of tool-making, you make tools. everyone has to chip in and most people do a little of everything.
gender roles, if they are innate, and evolved to serve a function, it was probably to facilitate socialization. it makes it easier for men and women to "select" people to have sex with. it becomes not just a matter of "fertility" or "beauty", but about culture and behavior. but that's just postulation. we don't know much about how gender roles came about or what purpose they likely served.
[editline]4th December 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;43064311]How do they not matter, they are a delta, yes? You might be looking for statistically insignificant, but we need more research to conclude that.[/QUOTE]
it is useful for scientific purposes, but not incredibly useful for policy or worldview.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43059241]Here in Britain women are literally not allowed to serve in army combat roles. This is a very clear example of women being discriminated against with reduced career prospects. This again is probably based on the stupid "men strong, women weak" idea still present in society.
[/QUOTE]
Methinks it's less likely about "men strong, women weak!" as is apparent, males + females have the ability to produce offspring, and if you have mixed sex units in the military, there could be unneeded drama or problems regarding pregnancy. You could institute some sort of mandatory temporary chemical sterilization, but that might not go down well. There are logistical ways of having a mixed sex military, but I don't know where you'd start; IIRC the US allows females in the support ranks and in a few other countries they can fill active combat roles.
Checking wikipedia it actually brings some good points up.
[quote]Some people think having women in a combat unit would hurt unit cohesion, because men could not trust them. There are worries about romantic or sexual relationships developing, potentially inappropriate fraternization, or that a woman might get pregnant to avoid combat. Some people are not willing to accept the risk of women being captured and tortured and possibly sexually assaulted, which happened to then-Major Rhonda Cornum. Some argue that there is a shortage of male combat soldiers and that women should not be treated as second-class citizens in the military.
However, according to Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Israeli soldiers reacted with uncontrollable protectiveness and aggression after seeing a woman wounded. Grossman also notes that Islamic militants rarely, if ever, surrender to female soldiers, lessening the IDF's ability to interrogate prisoners. On the other hand, Iraqi and Afghan civilians are often not intimidated by female soldiers. However, in such environments, having female soldiers serving in a combat unit does have the advantage of allowing for searches on female civilians. Children and women are more likely to talk to female soldiers than to male soldiers.
A more insidious issue is the rape of women in the military by their own. Some have alleged that a woman in the military is three times more likely than a woman in the general population to be raped, and in Iraq are more likely to be attacked by one of their own than an insurgent. There is currently a lawsuit in the US military in which the plaintiffs claim to have been subjected to sexual assaults in the military.A documentary called The Invisible War has been made on this lawsuit and topic.[/quote]
[QUOTE=27X;43063948]That's exactly the point. To say such behavior was reinforced as a modern advent with religious overtones is ridiculous. It was in place far, far earlier than that. Ownership conception was just as prevalent then as it is in aboriginal cultures in Brazil and Papau New Guinea now. Religion had fuck all to do with it, and was used as a justification much much later.
[/QUOTE]
the religion thing was only a secondary point to his post anyway, his main point was obviously lineage
