Men and women's brains are wired differently. Really..........

(I thought quite a few feminists on this board were scientists, incidentally.)

I know you referred to the BBC article, and I agree it's important, but it's far from the only way the research is being diffused. If you looked at the Guardian one whose headline has been mentioned, you might see why people get fed up.

I do think the BBC was quite good. But I don't think people were being quite as unnuanced as you reckon, to be honest - you have actually misrepresented what was being said a bit, IMO.

In my post, I refer to the BBC article, which is more important as this is how the research is being diffused. I though the BBC article was quite good as it gets quotes from a few researchers in the field, even ending on this considered note: "A more subtle possibility is that bringing a child up in a particular gender could affect how our brains are wired."

I don't believe that a lot of feminists on this board DO have nuanced views of scientists, which is what prompted my post.

Oh, and the religious right-wing references were about the funding of the study, I think.

'Only a certain section of feminists believe scientists think humans are 'hardwired' and nurture is not important - no scientist worth his/her salt would agree with this.'

That might be true, but I think the issue (as people have said) that the media reports it that way. I do have issues with the terminology these specific scientists used - you may not think they are 'worth their salt' but they did quite clearly use the terms 'designed' and 'structured' in their article. I would suggest that describing a brain as 'designed' makes you look more of a poor scientist even than using the term 'hardwired', but doubtless someone will be along to suggest silly little words don't matter and we can't expect scientists to actually say what they mean.

I think you've also reversed the logic with the point made about opposite sex attraction. Of course, as a generalization, men fancy women and women fancy men. Of course the exception doesn't make the generalization invalid. But originally, if I understand rightly, googly was saying that because we're attracted to the opposite sex, therefore such a thing as a gendered brain must exist.

You only need an exception to disprove that. Not everyone is attracted to the opposite sex, therefore, if that's your rationale for believing in such a thing as a 'male brain', it is inadequate.

Having read Delusions of Gender and a couple of other books, I thought what a pile of old bollocks when I read the Guardian article, particularly some whiffle about skiing which seemed to suggest that only men would be good at skiing which is patently also bollocks.

Anyhow, as a bit of light relief, this might amuse: www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/brain-study-gives-men-and-women-new-ways-to-blame-each-other-2013120381650

I find your type of contribution frustrating too LeBFG it's just sniping rather than engaging or putting forward another perspective.

We know scientists have a rather more nuanced view on these things than the average copywriter with a deadine. But it's the copywriters that the general public get their information on, not scientific abstracts. that is rather the point

For those of you who are interested in what scientists are saying about this paper.
(it also has some useful links)

storify.com/deevybee/postpublication-peer-review-on-sex-differences-in

Thanks Melanie. Good to see Cordelia Fine's analysis. Some key quotes:

'In an larger earlier study (from which the participants of the PNAS study were a subset), the same research team compellingly demonstrated that the sex differences in the psychological skills they measured – executive control, memory, reasoning, spatial processing, sensorimotor skills, and social cognition – are almost all trivially small.

To give a sense of the huge overlap in behaviour between males and females, of the twenty-six possible comparisons, eleven sex differences were either non-existent, or so small that if you were to select a boy and girl at random and compare their scores on a task, the “right” sex would be superior less than 53% of the time.'

Have you read the academic article on which the media coverage is based, LeBFG? It takes for granted that men and women's brains are structured differently and doesn't look at the effects of nurture at all.

theconversation.com/new-insights-into-gendered-brain-wiring-or-a-perfect-case-study-in-neurosexism-21083

sorry, forgot to convert the link!

Here is Cordelia Fine's reaction to the reporting theconversation.com/new-insights-into-gendered-brain-wiring-or-a-perfect-case-study-in-neurosexism-21083

The BBC article cites quite clearly a neuroscientist: We know that there is no such thing as 'hard wiring' when it comes to brain connections. Connections can change throughout life, in response to experience and learning. So the article does tackle head on the notion of been hard wired and cognitive adaptation during life. Only a certain section of feminists believe scientists think humans are 'hardwired' and nurture is not important - no scientist worth his/her salt would agree with this.

Wrt the gender thing. Of course we (humans as a group) have natural instincts to fancy the opposite sex. The exceptions to the rule don't disprove the rule. When we say men fancy women and women fancy men this is just referring to the group as a class and isn't dictating what each and every member of the class should fancy. This is NOT religious right wing though FFS it's basic biology!

I find this sort of debate on the FWR board frustrating - it seems to me only a narrow section of feminist thought is represented. From some reading I've done recently, I've finally discovered the label: gender feminism.

If women can't read maps, why aren't women doing the driving and men sitting in the navigator's seat?

I lent my copy to someone and never got it back

I solved the risk of that happening to my copy of Gender Differences by giving copies to people.

There's a good book on this - 'Pink brain, blue brain' - which talks a lot about social influences and the brain's plasticity. Sadly I lent my copy to someone and never got it back...

I'm another one who read this - I thought, well, on average, men and women may end up wired differently - but that doesn't mean they start off that way, and there's been plenty of evidence of how the brain can learn new ways of doing things after a stroke or something, so that suggests to me there's probably a lot more nurture than nature at work, and I'd need a lot more evidence to believe we are really that different. Not least because I'm pretty sure I'm a woman, and yet I still manage to do a techy job and read maps and parallel park the car and stuff.

At work, if anyone has read it, they've had the sense not to try talking to me about it. And not just because it's been manically busy.

It is certainly true that they have assumed sexual stereotypes are true and worked backwards.

What would have happened if they took, say a group of female engineers/physicists/mathematicians (who you'd perhaps expect to have good spatial awareness, etc. etc.) and tested them? Would they get a typical "male" pattern of "wiring", as they insist on calling it? Would they get a typically "female" pattern as they are women? Would these researchers jump to the conclusion, if they had "male" patterns, that they had male brains, rather than that their training had developed their spatial skills? If they had "female" brains, would they accept that the "wiring" isn't why "women can't read maps" (don't get me started!)?

I find the reference to complementarianism disturbing, due to its religious roots and use in justifying the patriarchy. The lack of any reference to different social expectations of the sexes is worrying too.

Far too many gross assumptions here, too much stereotyping and jumping to conclusions going unchecked, and poor reporting by the media, as per usual.

Incidentally, the main author of this study is a mathematician (admittedly with experience of imaging of the brain). This struck me as unusual.

Tellingly, the prof. in charge here has done much previous work on sex differences as related to MH issues, and actually says "it will also give us more insight into the roots of neuropsychiatric disorders, which are often sex related". Hmm, lots of extra funding for his research, then. But I'm sure he wasn't thinking about that at all, was he?

Would love to see the peer-review of this study. I have a suspicion it will be ripped to shreds. But the media won't report on that.

And at kasey.

I'm sorry, I may have put that badly, but I never meant to suggest I did think gender had anything to do with physical sex. I think gender is a social construct and sex is a physical characteristic.

All I mean to say is, leaving aside my personal views, it is not logically valid to claim that, because transgenderism exists, therefore there is such a thing as 'the female brain' or 'the male brain', in which physical structure correlates to gendered behaviour.

And to remind everyone that it seems that a right wing christian (probably) group somewhere has commissioned this "research" and the spammed worldwide news with incomplete facts and bollocks conclusions and a nice picture that they all have the same.

This "men and women ARE wired differently" headline has been set deliberately and globally.

Who would do that and why and can we try and work it out would be really meaningful things to try to work out right now I think?

What I would like to know is why everyone automatically assumes that hunting is the only activity that develops spatial awareness/map reading abilities.

When the women went out gathering/foraging I'm guessing they didn't find those pinkedy pink berries in their back yard and that there weren't road signs leading the way in the wilderness. That there weren't any nice Waitrose signs saying "Fruit and Veg" this way.

I'm pretty sure that spatial awareness would be a nice thing to have when lost in a three dimensional wilderness.

On second thoughts maybe that's why they developed boobs - to attract the nearest caveman into giving them directions!!!

I would like to discuss transgender in the context of this thread but think it would result in it going hopelessly off-kilter - and no-one has to abide by that but I'd rather not go there now.

LRD I don't think that gender has anything at all do do with physical sex. That's kind of the point, for me. The most "feminine" looking women can have the most "masculine" jobs, interests and hobbies and vice versa.

And yes googly I understand where you are coming from but I would like for people to be how they are without all this crap around it. I think I get very excercised by this as it's been a thing that has impacted me since my teens in that I look a certain way but my talents and interests are a different way. I just hate stereotyping, full stop. Being out there in the world and hearing people guessing at other's sexuality, talents, personality and a million other things based on their sex and how far (or not) they adhere to their gender role. It's all rubbish. Just let people get on with it is what I say, and everyone will be a lot happier. (Not aimed at you! Just my view in a nutshell).

Just to pick up on the transgender question - I hope you won't mind me responding when this isn't something I know about personally. But there is a woman I know, who I met recently and who is transgendered, and she is not 'stereotypically female' at all. I think that issue is much more complicated than the stereotypes.

From a more simply logical perspective, it would not be proof that all men's and women's brains were inherently different along gender lines if a minority demonstrably were. I don't personally believe that transsexuality shows that men's and women's brains do have innate gendered characteristics. But even if I did believe that, I don't follow why it would be ok to generalize from that small number of people to everyone - surely that would be like me saying 'well I am a woman attracted to women, so that proves all women are lesbians'?

No, not 4 out of 4. I also have a daughter who is very 'typical'! I apologise for using 'atypical' but hoped the quote marks conveyed what I wanted to get across. I just meant not stereotypically male/ female. Whatever that means! I spent my whole childhood being called a freak by my dad because I wasn't what he or society would have thought of as having typical female traits so I'm about as violently opposed to labelling people like that as you can get. As I said, just not articulate enough to say what I want to say exactly how I want to say it.

Absolutely agree that whatever the fuck I do is 'typically female' as I am a woman. Full stop. But society hasn't always seen it that way.

Out of interest how does the theory re nurture work when it comes to transgendered individuals then? Does that not support the view that female/ male brains are inherently different? My cousin is male/ female transgendered and says he always knew he had a 'woman's brain' in a man's/ boy's body