Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Question about the brain gender

34 replies

honeyandmarmitesandwiches · 26/05/2016 16:30

Hi all,

I've been reading some of the feminism threads and trying to educate myself a bit more. I would describe myself as a feminist but until recently hadn't done much deep thinking about it. Anyway, I have a question...

I understand the difference between 'sex' and 'gender', sex being whether you're born physically male or female, gender being to do with the social construct of girl stuff and boy stuff, pink and blue, supposed male and female strengths and weaknesses and how we're all 'supposed' to behave. So (most) feminists really reject any suggestion of a 'ladybrain' and all the crap that usually goes with that. I'm with you so far... HOWEVER

Is it at all true that male and female brains ARE, on average, different? Not that this should ever be used as an excuse for putting women in a box and telling them they're no good at maths or rational thinking etc etc, but...
What about the influence of hormones, for example? Men have more testosterone, could this make them more aggressive, less empathetic etc on average? Is there something to this or has it also been debunked?

I know there is a book called Delusions of Gender, I have just ordered It for a read.

I noticed on amazon at the same time though that there were books in genre like 'The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain' by Simon Baron-Cohen and 'The Female Brain' by Louann Brizendine.

I haven't actually read any of them yet but would like to ask if anybody else has, and whether there is any real scientific consensus or is the debate still ongoing? In other words do we know if our brains truly are gender neutral or not?

Hope this doesn't come across as goady, it's not meant like that at all btw!

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
VestalVirgin · 30/05/2016 20:58

This blog is not one I would usually link to (the blogger seems to have some hate for radical feminists) but I found this explanation rather interesting:

dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.de/2016/03/transgender-brains-effects-of.html

So there is such a thing as brain sex - but if transpeople were born with a brain belonging to the sex they identify as, then there would be no changes in sexual attraction after taking hormones. But there are!

Of course, this has nothing at all to do with liking dinosaurs or pink, or hunting or gathering. It is just about sexual attraction - apparently, sexual orientation and if it is same-sex or other-sex is hardwired in the brain, and will change accordingly if the brain is fooled into thinking that the body changed sex.

PalmerViolet · 30/05/2016 19:12

Interesting Framey, I'll let the HG society I lived with know that they have been debunked Grin

scallopsrgreat · 30/05/2016 07:49

I think it should also be noted that any women displaying 'genius' tendencies, until recently, is likely to have been locked up as troublesome or mentally unstable.

As someone else mentioned there are also problems in how intelligence is measured. By men, for men springs to mind.

I think the overall thing I took from Cordia Fine's book was how much brains responded to conditioning. They aren't innate immovable organs like some people like to describe. They respond to their surroundings and the stimulii provided.

FrameyMcFrame · 29/05/2016 19:48

The idea of male hunters and female gatherers is a Victorian creation, to fit in with accepted gender roles of the time...

FrameyMcFrame · 29/05/2016 19:41

The hunter gatherer stuff has all been debunked by archeology. Early women played a prime role, not just berries and shit.

It's interesting that studies prove that female babies develop right or left hand dominance well before males though.

sandarella · 29/05/2016 13:29

It has been reported that male populations show a broader distribution of various abilities – the result being that there may be more males at the gifted end of the ability spectrum than females, even if the average ability in the two populations is the same. I've seen this used by scientists to defend why there are relatively few female top scientists, which I think is highly problematic - top scientists are not all geniuses, for a start; Einstein was mediocre at school and bad at maths... plus, there is no particular set of abilities that is critical for success in science (or anything else).

Delusions of Gender is brilliant. I reviewed it in a series of blog posts here: meaningandtruth.wordpress.com/category/delusions-of-gender/

AHellOfABird · 28/05/2016 13:57

Good point jilly

Often lion packs hunting do not successfully kill any prey. That is an enormous waste of bodily resources. But unavoidable of course as lions are carnivores and can't set traps etc.

I think the lionesses have more success than the lions according to a dimly remembered documentary... Certainly our own social lens is put on cave society!

JillyTheDependableBoot · 28/05/2016 10:40

I know very little about hunter gatherers, but logically it would make sense that a lot of the animals that were hunted would be small, surely - rabbits and the like - and they'd be caught using traps and snares, which involves completely different skills than the cliché of chasing down a woolly mammoth and killing it with spears. See also catching fish.

honeyandmarmitesandwiches · 28/05/2016 09:49

Thanks for the replies, I haven't had a chance to check out that video yet but will definitely do so.

OP posts:
GreenTomatoJam · 27/05/2016 05:04

There was some series on BBC2 recently where a bloke went and stayed with various tribes who still live relatively how they'd done for years.

He was all about worshipping the hunters and the absolute necessity of the hunt, yet in more than one episode, ie. in more than one tribe, they went out on the hunt, came back with nothing, and fell back on the roots/fruit/veg that had been gathered instead.

Actually, in these tribes, it was the men that went hunting, and the women who gathered - but that could easily be how this guy wanted his TV cut, there were a few things he said that had me almost throwing things at the TV - fawning over these men and boys disappearing into the bush for a couple of days and perhaps bringing back something to eat. Not that they weren't both skilled and brave - just that while they did it, the women were back at home finding other food, looking after the kids etc. but according to him that was neither vital, nor worth talking about.

Nothing to do with brain sex.. sorry..

There's that thing about the length of your index finger indicating maths skill, because of something to do with testosterone in the womb, and I thought that one of the justifications for male geniuses was that they had only 1 X chromosome so if there was a gene for genius/stupidity on the bit of the X that the Y is missing, then it would definitely be expressed, whereas women would likely have a moderating one on their second X. I think that is one of those dangerous theories that seem quite sensible until you think more deeply about it.

Dervel · 27/05/2016 02:06

Socrates had the right of it thousands of years ago. Whatever differences there may be are not massive, and certainly not enough to bar women from engaging in any area of life men do.

EBearhug · 27/05/2016 00:00

Daphna Joel published a report on this last year. Gina Rippon is also very good - and if you get the chance to hear her speak, do go; she's great! She's also on radio once in a while. She's worked a lot with Cordelia Fine. She (Rippon) has opinions about Baron-Cohen and Brizendine's work which are not supportive of them.

Gina Rippon says that there are differences between male and female brains, but there are far, far more similarities - if you plot abilities of brains on a graph, you get a bell curve for male brains and for female brains, and they nearly overlap, but not quite. I can't quote you sources at this time of night, but if you google for Daphna Joel, Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon, you'll probably get links for the relevant papers.

One of the issues with studying brain differences is that brains are so plastic (as in they can change, rather than literally being plastic, obviously.) Linguistic studies on which bits of the brain light up when performing certain language tasks - if that bit of the brain is damaged though a stroke or accident, then with practice, the brain will forge new links and use other parts of the brain. It's not totally simple like that - some brain damage will cause permanent damage, depending on the area of the brain and severity.

But the point is that use changes the brain - like the example above with the London taxi drivers who do the Knowledge. It's why when you learn new things, they get easier with practice - there's that thing about the 4 stages of competence - unconscious incompetence, where you don't know just how rubbish you are; concious incompetence, where you have learnt enough to know just how much more you need to learn; concious competence, where you recognise you are good at the subject; and finally unconscious competence, where you do things almost automatically. If you drive, do you always have to think about changing gear, or do you do it because you are receiving signals from the sound of the engine, how smoothly the car is running and so on, which you're not fully aware of? Or touch typing, not having to look for the letters on the keyboard. That sort of thing is unconscious competence, and you get there by hours and hours of practice of whatever the skill is. The exact number of hours will depend on the person, how well they're taught, how much time they dedicate to it, and how often, but over time, your brain learns new path ways, and repetitive use makes those pathways stronger.

So, if your bedroom is painted pink, and all your family tells you girls like pink, and you're dressed in pink skirts, and you see a pink aisle at the toy shop, and the girls' things at nursery are pink - no one has consciously taught you that pink is for girls, but everywhere you go, the message is being constantly reinforced, in pretty much the same way that we learn the sounds of the language around us and so on.

It's also something which is quite difficult to research. It's not ethical to take a baby at birth and try to fix the input into their brain until adulthood, to see how they turn out, to work out how much is nature and how much is nurture - plus, unless you got twins and separated them you don't have a control, either (and not even then), because people do have their own personalities, and siblings who grow up in the same household with a lot of the same influences still end up different.

AHellOfABird · 26/05/2016 23:30

I think it might be based on the distribution. Of firsts, 2:1s etc at certain universities.

But again, what is intelligence testing? Spatial reasoning? Verbal reasining? There is no test if innate intelligence that can be divorced from our social settings.

singingsixpence82 · 26/05/2016 22:58

I've heard a few people (men strangely!) claim that while on average, women and men are as intelligent as each other but that the distribution is different. Most of the women are in the centre of the distribution while most geniuses are men (as are most dunces). I have the Cordelia Fine book but am only part of the way through and couldn't see anything about this in the contents or index. I was just wondering if anyone knew if this was based on a lot of evidence?

AHellOfABird · 26/05/2016 22:43

Baron Cohen has said that there are male brains and female brains, but that some women have male brains (he isn't referring to trans with this)

Well, thanks, Simon.

AHellOfABird · 26/05/2016 22:41

"Biologically this was essential when we were hunter gatherers with different roles."

Echoing what others have said - the majority of nutrients came from gathering and was done by all, AFAIK. I'm also not sure what evidence there is that women didn't take part in the hunt, given the data we have is largely stick figure drawings.

And what would the evolutionary advantage of brain difference? Those best at getting food would have an advantage, but why would evolution care if men or women were better spear carvers - a good spear carver gets to survive longer than a bad spear carver, whatever the sex.

GirlSailor · 26/05/2016 22:38

Indeed, Buffy. I always get a bit confused as to why people think much is innate in the brain, considering how long it takes to do anything well.

shinynewusername · 26/05/2016 21:45

Each decade brings its own version of this biological determinist crap. We've had zoology, evolutionologists Smile and now neurologists/endocrinologists "proving' that male superiority is the natural order of things based on their highly selective interpretations of the data.

Clearly there are anatomical & physiological differences between men and women. But, if you look back in history at all the things men have said women cannot/should not do, 90% of them have been proven wrong and those that haven't are nothing to do with the brain but with muscle strength. ( It is amazing how many men think that being stronger/taller than women makes them better yet they do not draw the same conclusion about men who are stronger/taller than they are Wink) Victorian doctors genuinely believed that too much study would shrink women's wombs - this was a mainstream idea, not just a few loons.

EmpressTomatoKetchup · 26/05/2016 21:24

I've read Delusions. It helped me make sense of a lot of I've experienced, heard, seen, like what PP says about boys being unable to sit still someone please tell my DD a lot this male brain female brain crap is parroted like its scientifically proven fact, it is mostly lots of sexist assumptions based on flawed research, carried out largely by men, ahem

shinynewusername · 26/05/2016 21:14

Simon Baron-Cohen is a delightful man (I worked with him briefly) but an absolute loon. Read Cordelia Fine.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 26/05/2016 21:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GirlSailor · 26/05/2016 20:58

I'm no expert in prehistoric humans but as with all research, we don't look at the past from a neutral starting point. For example, now we have dna analysis available we have realised that women were often warriors, but having been buried with a sword and shield they were assumed to be male, as men are warriors.

My understanding of the meta data is that the studies that have found differences haven't been able to be replicated so don't hold much water.

We're so far away from even finding any real structural differences, let alone discover if the differences we haven't found are innate. London cabbies develop certain areas of their brains through learning the knowledge, rather than have an innate brain advantage in this area.

almondpudding · 26/05/2016 20:45

Yes, Lurcio.

Or my son's habit of pretending toy guns were hair dryers.

PalmerViolet · 26/05/2016 20:43

That would fit with the HG society I spent time in. That the hinting part was less important/regular than the gathering and that everyone gathered.

Evopsych is at best contentious and at worst supportive of the kind of misogynist twaddle that underpins some of the more ridiculous "gender" based discrimination and narrows opportunity for both sexes.

BuffytheReasonableFeminist · 26/05/2016 20:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.