Differences between women and men

[WastingMyYoungYears]

I think that there are differences between women and men. But it's difficult to know what these differences actually are because both females and males are socially conditioned to conform to genderised norms from birth. Nonetheless, if you think about any particular characteristic, the bell curves for women and men are highly likely to overlap significantly. It isn't helpful to say that men are more X characteristic and women are more Y characteristic though. Even positive gender stereotypes can have negative consequences, e.g. women are more organised / are better at multi-tasking - this results in the general acceptance that John, who by day heads a large multi-disciplinary international team, can't possibly be expected to sort out birthday cards for his side of the family, but his wife Jane, who may (or may not - that in itself being a separate discussion) have similar work demands, can.

Any thoughts? Be gentle, I'm just working through all of this in my head .

I don't think there's very widespread acceptance of ladybrain around here, to be honest. My view (and I think it's the widely held one) is that when I give birth to this baby, it won't have any preprogrammed expectations or behaviours. They'll all be layered on by socialisation, however hard I struggle to let this child be itself.

Apocalypse, it's interesting to hear your opinion. I struggle to believe that there are no inbuilt differences between women and men though - I don't believe that the effects of evolution on women and men (who would have had genderised roles within family life / society) can be negligible / immeasurable. The differences in androgen levels alone support that.

I don't think there is anything that l would say is an all male or all female trait.

What do you believe the biological differences are in regards to the family? I believe it is 100% socialisation.

There are differences clearly but they are biological. So I would say differences between men and women are, generally. Men have penises and testicles women have vaginas and ovaries. Men are generally taller and have a lower body fat %. That sort of thing.

Even getting into things that people can do physically, and to an extent the size thing, there is an argument that part of that at least is culturally conditioned eg in many societies boys are fed better than girls so grow bigger and stronger, male strength is prized but in women is seen as undesirable, they are supposed to be small and delicate etc etc. So even with the "obvious" things, maybe they aren't as true or extreme as we assume.

On personality traits - which is what you are thinking about I think, I don't see that it is possible to determine what is nature and what is nurture. Also I have read that the differences within the sexes are larger than any differences on average between them. And also that it is important to be cautious as in a sexist world, any determination that X or Y is a trait related to being male/female is generally used to oppress and results in a horrible time for those who don't display whatever the trait is.

Can I ask where your assumption that men and women have always had genderised roles comes from, OP?

" I don't believe that the effects of evolution on women and men (who would have had genderised roles within family life / society) can be negligible / immeasurable. "

Like how? Did they?

Women give birth and BF but apart from that why would things have been "genderised"? Is that an assumption?

There is not a lot of patience for the evo-psych "women like pink because of foraging for red berries" stuff on here either TBH.

x-post

I'm with Buffy on this one.
Put it this way. More people of African descent suffer from sickle cell anaemia. This is useful for a doctor to know as if a patient presents with certain symptoms and is of African origin it would be wise to test early for sickle cell. However, that doesn't mean a Caucasian person will never be tested, or that all African people with certain symptoms have sickle cell. It would be wrong, and dangerous to decree that no Caucasian person ever has sickle cell. It's rare but it happens. The facts about sickle cell are just a guide and must be used in conjunction with evidence.
Equally, it's true that many more women than men get great cancer, but saying no men get breast cancer is dangerous and untrue.
Fixating on population measurements and ignoring what's right in front of you is idiotic. If a doctor sat there in front of a Caucasian person showing all the signs of sickle cell or a man with an obviously sinister breast lump and shook her head and refused to even consider these illnesses due to the rarity in the population she would be quite rightly be considered incompetent.
And yet when it comes to sex differences in personality and aptitude - which say entirely vague things about huge populations with massively different circumstances, tastes, backgrounds, hopes, ambitions etc etc,- it seems to be accepted that if you find one slightly significant difference between two small samples out of billions, then that difference must apply to everyone in that group, all over the world, regardless of any evidence. It's just stupid thinking, and pointless to boot.

That should be breast cancer

Ah nature v. nurture. Have you googled that phrase? Try it - lots of ink out there!

For what it's worth I tend to believe there probably are some gender-linked traits. The amount of testosterone men have has got to have some effect (hormones and effect on thinking anyone ). But between individual differences and, even more, cultural overlays, it's insignificant.

We are a cultural species. There was some work done showing how language learning actually grows the brain, forges new neuron connections. The sheer number of different - yes they are different, male/ female relations, even adult/ child relations vary - cultures, languages and basically ways of behaving and thinking we have invented as a species past and present proves this to me. We are not our biology. Quite exciting really: we can change. Anything. (so let's get to it !)

And that - the possibility of change - might be a reason why it is important to understand this Buffy? Especially at this time, with so much going wrong, with an election looming?

I think most differences are down to socialisation. I hate all that 'she likes pink because she has a vagina' kind of talk.

I remember when my 1 year old nephew clung to my top once. His grandmother said "Straight for the boobs - typical boy."

general acceptance that John, who by day heads a large multi-disciplinary international team, can't possibly be expected to sort out birthday cards for his side of the family, but his wife Jane, who may (or may not - that in itself being a separate discussion) have similar work demands, can.

I was in a recent discussion where this topic showed up, and the high flying women did recognise that family things do drop. I certainly don't easily remember birthdays, often end up forgetting to call on the day. I only think of meals when I start them and have a vague idea of what I might do during the week when I shop.
Not that I am particularly high flying, but I am a University teacher.
The main difference is that men aren't blamed and women are, I think.

Eek, I haven't disappeared - I'm at a family thing but I'll have time to come back later.

I agree with Buffy - the important question is "why does it matter".

Why does it matter? I cannot think of one single reason.

About hormones and thinking. Is there any scientific proof that when you get "hormonal" (what does that mean?) you can't think straight (again, what does that actually mean?)? And do men not get "hormonal", whatever that means?

TBH I am impatient with this. Why does it matter?

I have many issues to problematise but what I specifically had in mind was you saying "why does this question have such significance? Why does it matter so much to understand this?"" Well that's one significance. If we are hardwired by biology to behave in way x, then a) it's difficult to change anything and b) we should excuse people for acting like that. E.g. if we're biologically hardwired for male dominance we should all accept it and excuse the poor little mannikins. If we're not, as we all believe here, then clearly we shouldn't.

Strike a) difficult and replace with a) impossible. Does that start to answer you too, M'LordCopper?

And the hormonal thing...it was a joke. The point being that men do have hormones too. I did a smiley face and everything. Not funny now I've explained it. sheesh...

I really do not think we have been around enough for the roles women have played - even since the stone ages - to have been incorporated in an evolutionary sense. Even if it were the case that more 'feminine' women were 'chosen' by a male in pre-historic ages and passed on their genes, we haven't been around long enough for that to really have any kind of evolutionary effect. For example, humans have had pet cats for thousands of years but cats haven't adapted at all - a cat born today is the same physically, genetically, etc as a cat born 2000 years ago; we just tame them. Same with humans - there has to have been millions of years pass I think for evolution to really have a physical effect.

I agree that history should have proven that male/ female relations are nurture by now, but that was part of this thread's point... The exact nature v nurture component in behaviour generally might still be more of an issue in law. Wasn't there some thinking a while ago in psychology that psychotics were born not made and so are incurable?

Mumsnetting's great for effecting change. So my family who want me to get off it and do something else think anyway. < see that? Not v funny either, sorry.

I think there probably are a few differences, but there are a lot more similarities, and we know (as has been mentioned above) how much is down to socialisation. Also, while living a life tends to wire things into a brain, it's not set in stone, which is why people can learn to speak again after a stroke, or learn to use limbs after an accident - the brain can develop new, different neural pathways, different from whatever it used before it experienced damage for whatever reason.