to think that men and women ARE different?

[bejeezus]

I hold feminist views, erring on the side of radical feminist. I dont call myself either, as Im not well read enough, I dont think...

Its an on going theme...that people accuse Mumsnet of being a misandrist site. I dont believe it is; and I agree that the misandrist POV would be those saying 'its because he's a man' 'men do that' etc etc when OPs accuse their OHs of not doing fair share of cleaning/childcare/going to strip clubs etc etc. And the man-supporting POV would be'hes a grown up, of course he should do his fair share' etc etc

BUT...SOMETIMES....I think there ARE valid reasons, that the men in question may appear to be, but not be, useless;

For example, women have evolved to have better peripheral vision and ability to multi-task than men, because of them predominantly doing the childcare

For example 2; my dad and numerous other men I know, who are not sexist or useless in any way cant find things. My dad often calls my mum or one of us to help him-if something is 'not where it usually is'. I dont know the evolutionary (or other) basis for this, if there is one, but in this case it isnt because they believe it to be womens work at all

Gene regulators are DNA and produce a phenotype, therefore gene expression is a target for selection, and therefore has the capacity to evolve.
Indeed, the degree of physical sexual differentiation in human groups is different, as pointed out by a pp about problems with archaeology.
Asians are usually less marked, for example.
Native American males have no facial or body hair.

I think we're at cross purposes Lueji. I'm not saying there aren't differences in gene expression I'm saying that genes can be expressed differently according to whether a person is male or female purely due to their position on the sex chromosomes. That is a simple fact. The evolution of particular characteristics is a separate thing.

I'm saying that genes can be expressed differently according to whether a person is male or female purely due to their position on the sex chromosomes

Now, I'd like to see that explained with pictures, please. :)

there do appear at the moment to be very small behavioural differences between men and women but noone can say for definite how much is nature and how much is nuture.....

...but the differences between two random individuals are larger than the differences between Ms and Mr Average.

Very interestingly in Cordelia Fine's book, she highlights some evidence that says people who believe in stereoptyes are least objective when assessing their own skills. They perceive themselves as performing better/worse in line with their stereotype.

OTH those who have less stereotyped views are more objective and have a more accurate view of their own strengths and weaknesses.

The differences between genotypes and phenotypes are extremely hard to recognise except at the limit of human endurance. An example of this is how men have much greater physical strength and stamina potential due to greater bone density/muscle mass/heart size etc.The logical corollary is that since men have an inherent superiority in physical fitness that can not be overcome, many women, from birth, have their phenoytypes develop undertaking roles such as housecleaning that require stronger attention span and concentration.

An example of where women have an obvious genotype advantage is in their ability to efficently burn and store food in fat deposits which make them less vunlerable to starvation. These genotypes are thought to have developed in response to pregnancy.

Haven't yet had time to read all responses

But, did anyone see The Biology of Dads (or summat like that)? Was very interesting

Genotype - genes (XX, XY)
Phenotype - what genes make. (women, men)

Men vs women:
11 pair of chromosomes 100% identical between men and women
X chromosome: identical, but 1 copy in men, two copies in women
Y chromosome: carries 1 functional gene (SRY, testes determining factor)
mitochondrial genes: identical (in fact, inherited from mums).

(Most) Women have the phenotype of storing fat in particular areas (hips and breasts), which are supposed to help during pregnancy and lactation, being healthy fat, unlike fat deposits in the belly.

Evolutionary biology explains why (most) men (and in most societies) are usually stronger than women. It has nothing to do with tasks, but with sexual selection. Species with larger males usually have competition for females, NOT stable male-female pairs (where both sexes are usually indistinguishable) or random sex.
See for example, gorillas (harems) vs bonobos (basically swingers). (interestingly, it seems to correlate inversely with testicle size gorillas small testicles, bonobos big testicles).

Men also seem to have a bigger tendency towards violence (particularly towards other men) than women, which may also be explained by an adaptation to male competition for females.

Females are usually more caring, which is probably an adaptation to caring a long time for helpless babies. Men are usually also moved by children and have a drive to protect them, but usually not to the same extent as women.

I don't think it's all down to nurture. My DS has been exposed to baby dolls, play kitchens etc, but he is all about wheels. My young niece plays with her brother's toys, but she will always gravitate towards "girl" toys, even at my place.

Lueji, are you familiar with Cordelia Fine's work (mentioned above?) If not, I suggest perhaps you have a look.

You seem to be drawing some massive conclusions from selected examples in other species and assigning very subjective value judgements to the respective sexes. None of this appears to be based on any science whatsoever!

What is the definition of "caring" then, and how do you accurately prove that females "usually are more caring" than males? What about childless women? What about men who are primary carers for children? Are they all just freaks of nature?

Men are violent due to competition for females? What about those species that to not engage in such displays, who pair-bond for life? If you look at nature, you'll find plenty of examples that contradict themselves.

I've not yet seen any compelling evidence to show that we are all slaves to our biology. Fine debunks alot of the popular "studies" that appear to prove this.

I think men and women are different in the way that men and other men or women and other women are different i.e. not all the same, different strengths, weaknesses etc. Anything else is just an excuse.

I think men and women are different, very generally speaking. I think they think and act differently in similar situations. Hormonally they are different and I think hormones control a lot of our superficial day to day behaviour.

Lots of stuff is learned, too, but I don't think it's 100% one way or the other.

An example of what I'm talking about are the mutations F8 and F9 genes the cause haemophilia A and B. Due to their location on the X chromosome their expression is dependent on the sex of the child. A male is far more likely to have haemophilia than a female. Picture <a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?num=10&hl=en&biw=1680&bih=959&tbm=isch&tbnid=CsJLY4j3KY3h2M:&imgrefurl=www.haemophilia.org.au/bleedingdisorders/cid/25/parent/0/pid/1/t/bleedingdisorders/title/adults&docid=7Q9Djh-mJ_aX0M&imgurl=www.haemophilia.org.au/sitebuilder/bleedingdisorders/knowledge/asset/medium/17/Carriers.jpg&w=690&h=397&ei=9KKeT_fpH4GZ8QOxz9HhDg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=275&sig=118185847825550094861&sqi=2&page=1&tbnh=98&tbnw=171&start=0&ndsp=42&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:0,i:82&tx=40&ty=83" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here

I'm nodding at Lueji's post.

'For example, women have evolved to have better peripheral vision and ability to multi-task than men, because of them predominantly doing the childcare.'

What's your evidence that prehistoric women predominantly did the childcare?

My understanding is that, given the timescale over which evolution occurs and the (much, much, much, much, much shorter) period for which we have historical record ... we can't really tell much of anything like this, can we?

For the record, for much of human history, what we do know is that childcare has been farmed out by the rich to the less rich. I don't know if that happened amongst prehistoric humans (and neither does anyone else), but it is quite an interesting demonstration of the fact that, just because women have babies, the mother-cares-for-child, father-provides model is far from the only possible social set up.

I was quite interested in evolutionary psychology until a friend of mine did a PhD in it and then declared it be "total shit." She now does something completely different.

Surely women must have done at least preliminary childcare because of breastfeeding? Surely breastfeeding went on for a lot longer as well?

CD, I think it happens a lot on these threads though that people post some basic facts about biology and then chuck some wild speculation (aka evopsych) on the end. Then if anybody disputes the wild speculation other people will make out they are disputing biology in general and evolution in particular.

As for the original post about men not being able to find things, I wonder how they manage in monasteries.

'surely'? Why, though?

I think it's quite plausible, but there is no evidence. We don't know at what point humans started farming out childcare to other humans. All we know is that there's lots of historical evidence of societies where this happens.

I don't think it's remotely unlikely women did do the childcare. my problem is with the fact that this is a circular argument, therefore invalid. It boils down to, 'women probably did the childcare, so that's why women probably evolved to be good at childcare'.

DID, yes they did breast feed for longer, but children are dependent on adults for a very long time and for a lot of things other than breast milk. So that still leaves a lot of childcare to be done that doesn't involve breasts.

KRITIQ
You are the one massive conclusions.

I gave a few examples, but the rules extend to all animals. Species that bond for life do not usually display sexual dimorphism and hardly ever engage in disputes over females. Can you easily tell a female from a male emperor penguin, for example?
On the other hand, lions, with their prides. are much larger and have clear male traits.
Just examples, you can conduct a thorough search if you like.

Humans sort of bond for life, but not completely, as seem by the divorce rates and/or number of children out of wedlock. Harems are a part of many cultures and males clearly display competition.

I don't assign any subjective value judgements. I'm not saying what is right and what is wrong. It is for the human society to do that, even regardless of what our biology may try to dictate.

You mentioned the "freaks of nature". Hence I used the word "usually". Why do you think it is "usually" the mother who keeps the children and "usually" the father who abandons them? Or even the father who "usually" chooses not to contribute at home, because he knows that the mother won't neglect the children.
There are always exceptions, but that is the general rule.
Or is there a Dadsnet full of complaints that mothers don't contribute as much and that left the family home and hardly ever contact their children, that I don't know about?

We are not slaves to our biology. As individuals. However, as group psychology usually fares better than individual psychology at predicting behaviour, so does evolutionary biology at group level than at individual level.
I can't tell you that a particular mother will or not leave her children. But I can tell you that fewer mothers than fathers will leave their children willingly.
Why is that?

You are the one drawing massive conclusions.

I wonder how they manage in monasteries.
They have few possessions?

Lueji - have you read Delusions of Gender? it contains information about scienfic research into gender. A really good read.

You've never seen a sacristy, have you lueji!

Haha seahouses I imagine they wander around looking for stuff-thats why they denounce all worldly possessions innit-cuz they'd only loose them anyway

Was my example ok for you Lueji?