I remember being put in the naughty corner a few years ago for saying that a woman friend of mine was 'male brained', a half-serious throw-away comment. I got a lecture on how womens and mens brains were completely the same, from a neuroscientist no less. In the interest of getting along with this person, I didn't push them on that. Of course, I knew there was published research showing that in fact, there are subtle but important difference in our brains, for instance, a women's hippocampi tend to be larger than mens, while men tend to have larger amygdala. There are different patterns of activation in response to stimuli. There are demonstrated differences in intrahemisphere connectivity. Sex hormones bind to many sites throughout the brain, and the effects of these hormones impact cognition. To the end reader: None of that is to say that one is better than the other, of course. But it is to say that the idea of sex-related differences is well supported.
Liberal women I have spoken to over the years tend to be highly suspicious of this topic, a heuristic no doubt, borne of it being employed by people they deem to be patriarchal and sexist (in some cases with good reason).
But it always struck me as rather odd to sweep such things under the rug, when quite clearly people are quite willing to acknowledge differences in our psychology when it suites them. Ask a liberal women why men commit most of the violence in society, keep probing, usually they will arrive at a position that it has something to do with the way men are inclined. Similarly with relationships, it's obvious to any women, no matter how progressive, that men and women, as a mean generalisation, approach relationships differently. Removing individual differences from the equation, there are certainly patterns of similarity between what different men are after, and the same is true for women.
The rub is that few are willing to acknowledge that a large part of it could be an innate disposition. Most only wish to see the learned. In fact, the learned, the social-construction, it became the total, as you alluded to. A suggestion, it might have something to do with agency. Take the violence example. If men are only violent because of how they were taught, then they can be 'reprogrammed', for an anxious person, who may have had bad experiences with men, that notion is likely comforting. If men are violent in part by nature, then men will always have to be viewed with suspicion in that person's eyes, they can never be trusted, and the anxious person can never be fully at ease.
On a personal level also, to some 'I can change what I am' makes them feel agentic. To others 'I am what I am' is freedom.
Great comment, and elaborated on my point, describing some neuroscience facts I didn't know.
I wonder where such patriarchal and sexist men are - at least at the university, they seem to be closer to masochistic betas.
Mmm, my suspicion is that much of the university sphere is controlled by feminist dogma, and frankly, it's embarrassing they call themselves 'psychologists' if they cannot accept sex differences of mind. They're certainly not acting scientifically, that's for sure.
I think you're right it's connected to agency (or the perception of). An outgrowth of the blankslatism of liberal society. They do not want to be defined by limits, including that of biology - and I understand the power of such a belief. Mmm, that's well put.
It is a shame. back in the 80s there were discussion going on about the effect of both testosterone and estrogen on brain development in adolescences. both chemicals are used in the brain and make differences. They also effect glans that produce other chemical that the brain uses. These were college level class room discussion in the 80s if you were in the right science class. I have yet to see data I would trust that say those two chemical do not effect brain development.
Interesting stuff.
I remember being put in the naughty corner a few years ago for saying that a woman friend of mine was 'male brained', a half-serious throw-away comment. I got a lecture on how womens and mens brains were completely the same, from a neuroscientist no less. In the interest of getting along with this person, I didn't push them on that. Of course, I knew there was published research showing that in fact, there are subtle but important difference in our brains, for instance, a women's hippocampi tend to be larger than mens, while men tend to have larger amygdala. There are different patterns of activation in response to stimuli. There are demonstrated differences in intrahemisphere connectivity. Sex hormones bind to many sites throughout the brain, and the effects of these hormones impact cognition. To the end reader: None of that is to say that one is better than the other, of course. But it is to say that the idea of sex-related differences is well supported.
Liberal women I have spoken to over the years tend to be highly suspicious of this topic, a heuristic no doubt, borne of it being employed by people they deem to be patriarchal and sexist (in some cases with good reason).
But it always struck me as rather odd to sweep such things under the rug, when quite clearly people are quite willing to acknowledge differences in our psychology when it suites them. Ask a liberal women why men commit most of the violence in society, keep probing, usually they will arrive at a position that it has something to do with the way men are inclined. Similarly with relationships, it's obvious to any women, no matter how progressive, that men and women, as a mean generalisation, approach relationships differently. Removing individual differences from the equation, there are certainly patterns of similarity between what different men are after, and the same is true for women.
The rub is that few are willing to acknowledge that a large part of it could be an innate disposition. Most only wish to see the learned. In fact, the learned, the social-construction, it became the total, as you alluded to. A suggestion, it might have something to do with agency. Take the violence example. If men are only violent because of how they were taught, then they can be 'reprogrammed', for an anxious person, who may have had bad experiences with men, that notion is likely comforting. If men are violent in part by nature, then men will always have to be viewed with suspicion in that person's eyes, they can never be trusted, and the anxious person can never be fully at ease.
On a personal level also, to some 'I can change what I am' makes them feel agentic. To others 'I am what I am' is freedom.
Great comment, and elaborated on my point, describing some neuroscience facts I didn't know.
I wonder where such patriarchal and sexist men are - at least at the university, they seem to be closer to masochistic betas.
Mmm, my suspicion is that much of the university sphere is controlled by feminist dogma, and frankly, it's embarrassing they call themselves 'psychologists' if they cannot accept sex differences of mind. They're certainly not acting scientifically, that's for sure.
I think you're right it's connected to agency (or the perception of). An outgrowth of the blankslatism of liberal society. They do not want to be defined by limits, including that of biology - and I understand the power of such a belief. Mmm, that's well put.
It is a shame. back in the 80s there were discussion going on about the effect of both testosterone and estrogen on brain development in adolescences. both chemicals are used in the brain and make differences. They also effect glans that produce other chemical that the brain uses. These were college level class room discussion in the 80s if you were in the right science class. I have yet to see data I would trust that say those two chemical do not effect brain development.
You're right. Its on the level of the absurd now.
It's absurd we have allowed this to happen, eh.