Physical Vs psychological difference between the sexes

Yes maybe all human behaviour for thousands of years just started and continued as an evil plot to suppress women and is in no way related to reproductive roles influencing behaviour and decisions like with all other animals, and no evolutionary drives at play, just manipulated socialisation to oppress women.

Have a look at what I wrote earlier then please confirm whether you are referring to my claims with this statement.

When we had no CHOICE about reproductive roles - i.e. until about 5 minutes ago, historically speaking, of course they would dominate the activities we were forced into. Same with manual labour forming most paid work.

The point is, we as a society have not caught up. Attitudes about 'women belonging at home' are handed down from generation to generation. Even in 2022 we see men talking about their wives 'maybe getting a little job for spending money', if they're lucky, until they have kids to be looking after.

We are beginning to see the outcomes of women's choices slowly starting to filter through. Guess what? most women aren't choosing to have 7 or 8 kids 'because that's their desire or inclination'.

But this thread veers from there is no evidence for any innate behaviour difference. Prove it.

To even if there was knowing wouldn't help.

To this discussion is bad.

Then back to all difference is socialisation.

It's circular

You do realise there are many different people contributing to the thread, right? It's not just an essay written by one or two people?

My original point was meant to be that our biology will influence our behaviour. I suppose this incorporates both traits and states and how they interact.

Our socio-economic class influences our behaviour. Whether we have children influences our behaviour. The weather influences our behaviour. The political party in power influences our behaviour. Our health, religion, music preference, where we live, almost countless factors influence our behaviour. Again, I'm wondering why you're so focused on aligning sex with behaviour, if it's just the behaviour itself you are interested in? Is your goal to be able to point to a protected characteristic and say 'this influences the jobs X group of people enjoy, so we need to make sure anything affecting these jobs doesn't disproportionately affect this group of people'? Can't we just advocate for a group of people as themselves instead of trying to force some proxy measure into a sex binary?

@Bumpitybumper @RoseslnTheHospital
how do we make care work and childcare higher status/pay? market forces push the pay downwards because they are jobs that many people have the skills to do. I suppose being a nanny for a rich family can pay well (though long hours and probably fairly high skillset).

that is not to say we can’t act against market forces - maternity leave, paternity leave, minimum wage are not set by market forces. Would you propose just raising the wages of care/childcare workers? Do you think the population would agree? If the population would take time to agree - what would you propose in the meantime? economics would say that women who have alternative better paying options than care work should opt for those (providing the job wouldn’t make them v unhappy) - then supply would decrease and wages increase.

It’s not about having more social manipulation, it’s about having less.

It can't be if there are innate reasons you'd have to provide social reward for acting against natural instinct.

Indeed this was expressed earlier about steering women away from caring career choices they may prefer due to the financial penalty, which I get, I'd counsel young woman in this way too, but if many will continue to make those choices anyway despite social reward not too, then what??

Then can we face the reality and talk about how to support those women beyond saying everyone should just do as they're told?

I agree, there’s a biological basis for cognitive differences between the sexes. Women in general excel in verbal ability, whereas men have better visual-spatial skills. Children of different sexes generally prefer different types of toys; this is borne out by studies with monkeys. There’s a visible difference in volume in certain areas of the brain between males and females. The female brain changes again in later life in response to pregnancy hormones; it’s resculpted to focus more on social attachment and these changes last for at least two years. Female brains with autism are more similar to the average male brain. There’s a lot of very reliable research on these topics and I’m not sure why it’s so controversial. We already know that male and female bodies are different so it make sense that there are brain differences too.

If women are likely to continue to make choices in a certain direction and social manipulation is unlikely to eradicate this

It’s not about having more social manipulation, it’s about having less.

Equality of opportunity (real, not just legal) may not lead to 50/50 but it will lead to more than it is now.

"It is entirely possible that women are more nurturing by nature whilst at the same time also exploited and socialised for that propensity*

Totally agree with this.

But this thread veers from there is no evidence for any innate behaviour difference. Prove it.

To even if there was knowing wouldn't help.

To this discussion is bad.

Then back to all difference is socialisation.

It's circular.

If women are likely to continue to make choices in a certain direction and social manipulation is unlikely to eradicate this it is worth knowing because we'd have to adjust our strategy for equality and give up on socialisation to change everything as the only strategy.

Also it's just good to try to understand reality.

What feminists are saying is that it doesn't matter to the outcomes for what needs to be done to society to make it work better for women. And actually, men have been dominating women for centuries. It's not just a happy accident that men used the reproductive vulnerability of women to control them. Men weren't unfortunately just driven by testosterone to deny women rights and access to vast parts of society.

Yes maybe all human behaviour for thousands of years just started and continued as an evil plot to suppress women and is in no way related to reproductive roles influencing behaviour and decisions like with all other animals, and no evolutionary drives at play, just manipulated socialisation to oppress women.

Stop making out that feminists are saying that.

It’s far more complex than that.

It is entirely possible that women are more nurturing by nature whilst at the same time also exploited and socialised for that propensity.

This discussion feels to me like this one with TRAs where you have to prove 'scientifically' men have an advantage in sport and you get so tired of having a cite studies to demonstrate something clearly observable and interpretable (and point out over and over again you know not all women are stronger than all men that's not the point) that you just give up.

Yes maybe all human behaviour for thousands of years just started and continued as an evil plot to suppress women and is in no way related to reproductive roles influencing behaviour and decisions like with all other animals, and no evolutionary drives at play, just manipulated socialisation to oppress women.

But doesn't that seem highly unlikely apart from anything else?

A small group of 21st century western feminists seem to be the only people ever to look at human behaviour and claim it's 100% socialisation and it's up to you to prove otherwise.

Biological difference though may come into play when studying certain aspects of STEM subjects involving for example spatial awareness, but then equally women may have an advantage in other areas. It would be useful to understand this if possible so that provision could be made to equally support learning for both sexes.

What's interesting is that even the three-dimensional mental rotation which shows largest sex differences and has been used to explain the scarcity of women in some STEM fields is affected by training. When a computer game for girls was created to practise this skill, all the girls got better on the test.

The point about this is that the games boys traditionally play tend to be like practising for this particular skill (various ball games, building things with blocks etc.). So even differences we believe might have an innate basis are not just that.

I also believe that the traditional play for girls practises language skills in a similar manner (doll tea parties etc.), so some of the women's superiority in verbal tests may also be due to training.

The point is that it's very hard to separate environmental effects from biological effects, and some recent research suggests that things might be even more complicated with possible causalities going in different directions between the two (not about these particular examples, but more generally).

Shed loads of "biological" animals don't nurture their young. Like most fish. Famously seahorse females don't do any nurturing. Male emperor penguins brood eggs whilst the females bugger off to sea to fish. Many bird species share care equally,midwife toad males brood their eggs.... it would probably make more sense to refer to our nearest relatives, the other Great apes rather than all animals. Maybe mountain gorillas might make a good comparator...

They are already saying those things. And they are also saying that sex is a social construct and that biology doesn't matter. And I don't believe that women are wired for certain jobs. I do believed they are wired to nurture their young though. Just like every other biological animal.

The other way of looking at it is that far from being brainwashed puppets, women are operating in a system that discriminated against them in its very structures because it was not developed with the best outcomes for women in mind. It was developed to suit men who wanted to be able to control women to further their own lifestyles. And not be held back by inconvenient practicalities like caring for their offspring. So women are constrained in their choices by the expectations of them socially, with regard to family and children.

This

Do men and women biologically lean to different types of jobs?

One way to find out would be to make women’s jobs as high status and well paid as men’s. Then see if men go into them.

What I don’t understand is why we think if one sex is good at one thing, the other sex have to be bad at it. Women obviously have more empathy than men at a collective level but that doesn’t mean they can’t be logical or gifted at maths and science. Why would it?

So you'd rather state that women are naturally inclined to do these things rather than being brainwashed puppets of the patriarchy incapable of self determination. Ok then. Both seem pretty depressing to me.

The other way of looking at it is that far from being brainwashed puppets, women are operating in a system that discriminated against them in its very structures because it was not developed with the best outcomes for women in mind. It was developed to suit men who wanted to be able to control women to further their own lifestyles. And not be held back by inconvenient practicalities like caring for their offspring. So women are constrained in their choices by the expectations of them socially, with regard to family and children. Rather than spend time and effort proving scientifically that women are prone to caring roles and empathetic careers that enable long periods of time away from work to care for children, just focus on what can be done to change society to allow for women to have families, to spend time with young children, to pick up work/career more easily when/if they do want to work. Care work should be paid better and valued more because it's vital to society and will become more so as populations continue to age. Nursery workers/childminders should be valued and paid well because society recognises that high quality childcare is better for everyone. Social work should be a respected career that's paid well because it's of value to society etc etc etc.

Why are you going on about brainwashed puppets? It doesn’t at all mean that the choice is between biological determinism and being brainwashed. Women are oppressed by the patriarchy and for many there is no realistic choice because of lower wages, men refusing to go part time, no decent childcare or inflexible employers etc. Why will it make anything better if you think it is natural or biologically determined? It’s still shit and unfair.

And when women can afford it, they outsource a lot of the work which doesn’t make sense if it’s all due to a biological drive. If it was, wouldn’t women want to do it all themselves instead of getting night-nannies, daycare and cleaners? As for men who sleep through a screaming baby, yes, a lot of them are pretending to avoid having to do it.

Here's what I think I know.

1. The vast majority of women work two jobs. By and large working outside the home has not diminished their role as primary carer even when their husbands are supportive. If that role is not biologically driven than women are still just brainwashed puppets of the patriarchy incapable of self determination.
2. The vast majority of women prioritise family over work to the determent of their career. If this choice is not biologically driven than women are still just brainwashed puppets of the patriarchy incapable of self determination.
3. The most undervalued women in society are stay at home mothers. How sad is that if nurturing is infact a biological driver? How sad is that regardless?
4. There are fundamental differences in how men and women respond to parenting. More often than not men are actually asleep when the baby is screaming. They are not just pretending. If this is not biologically driven then the patriarchy is tampering with the water.
5. Even in Scandinavia, when presented with choice, women choose careers that are in the main family friendly. If this is not biologically driven than Scandinavian women are still just brainwashed puppets of the patriarchy incapable of self determination.

And no I am not a 'tradwife'. I am a single working mother who just spent the day chainsawing. And the fact I feel the need to qualify the above with this is bloody sad too.

(I'm trying not to take any of this personally, but I am fairly sure OP would see me as "mannish" with my various traits...)

I accept not all women feel the same, but my mood, desires and ability to focus can fluctuate massively during any given cycle

These are states. We were discussing traits, I thought - characteristics, behaviour, inclinations that are fairly stable over time within oneself. Whether you are naturally good at Maths, languages, artistic, logical arguments, driving, understanding others, quick to recall facts, assertive - these are the sorts of things I thought we were talking about.

If you're talking about moods, affect, psychological stability, rationality - I think that's a separate conversation.

OP, you sound like you’re reinventing the wheel. All of this stuff has been said before, including that our periods affect our brains. It was used against us for centuries. We even have some idiots saying women can’t be pilots because our PMT might affect us. We’re just beginning to move past that and now you want to start it up again but weirdly dress it up as trying to help women. You’re not. Don’t want a career in STEM? Don’t have one. Want to stay home with your kids? Do it. Believe that your periods affect your career choices? Believe it but don’t impose it on others.
Proving that women are natural caregivers will only devalue care, not increase its value. We already know that women do most of the care, work the jobs men don’t want to do, get paid less etc. It does us no good to say “ooh did you know it’s biologically determined that we want to do these jobs”. The studies (done by actual scientists) found there aren’t brain differences so why are you so intent on proving that there are?

Thanks for the reply, Bumpity - If they are relatively poorly paid and of lower status than comparably skilled male dominated industries then the discrimination is pretty undeniable.

Right - but what do we do? what action does that inform?

Would it be, though, legally, if it related to 3% of women? Couldn't one argue that the equivalent % of men are really good at (e.g. some low-status profession like) window cleaning and that should be better paid? Or would you say that's down to the free market...

I think what I'm not quite clear on - you seem to want to map 'women' onto 'people who are inclined to caring professions' quite solidly. But why? Can't we treat 'people who are inclined to caring professions' as a deserving group on their own? Then we don't have to worry about the characteristics of which people do and don't fit into this description - it becomes a category on its own. Is this purely for Equalities Act discrimination purposes? As someone with relatives who work in social care etc I strongly believe funding and training should be prioritised far more than it is

• I'm not sure on the mechanism that would make it happen, I think the fact that social care has traditionally been done for free by women, because of the roles they have been historically put into, is a huge factor in that specific type of job, and we need to break free of that.

If it was proven to be driven by socialisation then I think we need to look at what we can do to make men more empathetic and to close the skills gap.

That is a good point.

The 'caring professions' is another thing where it's hard to draw a line between role and characteristics. 'Soft skills' like empathy/caring are likely to be valued (and devalued) in plenty of other jobs. E.g. if you are a manager in a bank, you might be a more productive and successful one if you are empathetic to your staff. Or, you might have to make hard-hearted business decisions and a less empathetic person may be more successful. Writing technical manuals requires you to put yourself in the mindset of someone else and the questions that might arise.

There are so many confounding factors to 'success' and choice of role etc, things get fuzzy quickly.

(I pretty much picked 'empathy' at random, but it seems like a useful example).
Sorry, a lot of this post is me thinking out loud...