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 .

Green - pondered if a trick question.

What's that 3-legged stool study supposed to show?

Brown-eyed person questions the point of the question.

Blue eyed person read the whole thread before checking the article so cannot answer fairly.

The point about eyes is ridiculous and you know it. The point about the question is , that it seems women will give a different answer from men. On the occasion I was asked that was the case and on the couple of occasions I've asked it that was the case.

I said at the beginning I didn't vouch for it and gave it merely as an example of how there might be a difference. You know , possibility to think about, not having a closed mind to the issue.

Gosh you're all so witty !

Phaedra, I'm not mocking you. I'm pointing out that sex differences are by far and away the largest area of study when it comes to biology, and the fact that so many studies happen compared to say, eye colour or height difference or deaf vs hearing or whatever tells me that a lot of people probably aren't starting with a null hypotheses.

Though I'm baffled why you took that personally, tbh.

I've got blue eyes and said 3 legs can't wobble.

Then got a bit ranty about it and nearly posted this a.m. but the train went in a tunnel so you were all spared that

PP who said that the article gives a hint is right though. Also that it's in the Gulf news. Also whoever pointed out that unsurprisingly the results weren't "all the men were like this and all the women were like that" but more spread.

I was interested in the post upthread about risk, and risk-taking behaviour. It is widely accepted that males engage in "risky" baheviour more than females. I was mulling this over and thinking, well I'm not sure that's true. How do these things define "risk" in the first place? Risk of death? Actual levels of death? Thrill seeking / adrenalin? Are "good" risks vs "bad" risks discussed in the same way? Is the whole idea of what constitutes a "risk" constructed from a male perspective in the first place? There is a whole bunch of stuff around definition, and society and all sorts of things that are very interesting with this.

That was what I was thinking about when I came out the tunnel at the end of the day

All these women-are-stupid/men-are-clever or women-are-nurturing/men-are-something-else or women-are-empathetic/men-are-analytic studies should be treated with the amount of respect they deserve, that is, none. IM-not-very-HO. Not interested in a debate about this. I'm going now.

Lol @ "women are stupid" studies.

That is exactly how I read them too

How anyone can sit there and think "hmm this is interesting, it has a reasonable point" when it is saying "well the thing is, women are pretty fucking thick" is beyond me

"How do these things define "risk" in the first place?"

Well exactly. It's like the thing of crossing the road vs going on a plane flight. Given the amount of violence meted out by men to women in their own homes, women are arguably taking the biggest risk by simply living with a man

And another risk by deciding to have kids, given (a) pregnancy complications and (b) correlation of increase of DV post kids.

That's the sort of direction I was heading in - I was thinking more about sex though and risk of pregnancy thus childbirth (high risk of death in some pats of the world) violence etc

Also interesting to think around substance abuse often seen as a "risky" behaviour, growing up I saw no difference in the levels consumed between females and males.

Also many things are / are constructed by society as being "risky" for women - we are told we are constantly at risk from attack for example - and so arguably lots of women are getting an adrenaline response every time they do something as innocuous as walk alone after dark.

I think it's really interesting and yet again because of my experience / and my friends growing up I don't see "risky behaviour" as being a trait displayed by males more than females at all - at least before children (?) - which makes me think around it more.

xpost

Oh God, I'm lurking on my own thread now, because I haven't had time to catch up on it properly .

Note to self: Only start a thread if you have some spare time...

I don't get how the stool question resolves any nature v nurture debate. If boys are pushed towards construct /destruct play and girls towards care/creative play, then boys will have worked that out long ago, on average. Or at least, exercised the parts of the brain necessary to do so.

And, yes, risk. Funny how it is celebrated in men, but women are derided for taking risks like shock walking home in the dark.

prehistoric peoples relied much more on foraging for their survival then hunting, and that both men and women foraged.

That's correct. Even in current hunter-gatherer cultures, most of the food is from foraging than from meat. Hunting seldom offers rewards, although it could be said that protein is also very important and one successful hunt could bring in food for the whole community.
I suppose the main reason why women didn't/don't hunt is that they wouldn't be able to travel long distances for days as men can, nor could they trust the children not to make noise. The same for warfare.
Eventually, one thing becomes a "man's" job and another a "woman's" job by tradition.
But also, hunting and wars are dangerous affairs. And men are less valuable from a reproductive point of view. It takes one fertile man to impregnate a whole village full of fertile women. So, expendable.

Regarding risk, females who avoid risk probably have/had better chances of carrying their offspring to term and raising them. Whereas males who survive risk are seen as having superior genes and are desirable fathers for fitter children. Men taking risks is in line with males such a peacocks having extra long and visible tails. And females taking less risks in line with peahens being much more discrete.

In today's society risks are pretty low and any selection pressure will have been reduced, but I suspect mothers (rather than women in general) still have more risk aversion than fathers, regardless of social pressure. Not sure if that has been studied.

It is a problem, though, when these biological tendencies (not determinants) are used to constrain people socially. Even worse if they are used to blame victims. But just as bad when men are put down for being afraid of something, for example.

I'd say if you ask 10 milkmaids the three legged table question, the milkmaids would get it. I got it because I sometimes use a tripod. Not really sure what the point is.

This sort of exercise is not unlike racial experiments to try to figure out which races are "naturally" better at certain things. The purpose usually seems to devolve into maintaining the status quo of oppressive behaviour.

I got the stool question right because i took a course in woodworking. Which just proves what a load of baloney those studies are.

It doesn't test innate "conceptualising" or whatever. It just tests which gender are more likely to have woodworking/building related experience.

Having said that my lovely 3 legged stool that I made myself may not wobble but I wouldn't sit on it to milk a cow!

All this talk about stools suddenly reminded me of a class I am teaching tomorrow. It doesn't involve legs...