Lonelygirl15

Lurker, are you mad at me?:(

longlostposter wrote:Lurker, are you mad at me?:(

No. Why do you ask?

ETA: Actually, I'm about to PM you, so you can tell me there.

How did it jump from longlost being a slut to longlost being upset that Lurker is mad at him/her?

Maybe Lurker his a pimp.

kwicherbichen wrote:How did it jump from longlost being a slut to longlost being upset that Lurker is mad at him/her?

Maybe Lurker his a pimp.

I'm not even going to pretend I understand half of your posts, Kwich.

This discussion of the male/female differences has been quite entertaining. I find I'm conflicted as to which "side" I take. On the one hand, Lurker had some errors in his statistics, but the other side not only closed ranks and lit the volleys, but their very tone seemed to indicate the belligerence and forcefulness normally associated with the male stereotype.

About the errors: Lurker spoke of England a century ago preferring heavy women. Actually, up until Twiggy hit the scene in (I think) the '60's, heavy women were the beauty ideal in nearly every culture in the world for every century since the beginning of recorded history. This was because fat meant enough to eat which meant survival of the species.
He also spoke of the lack of morphological evidence of a difference between the sexes. About two decades ago a study was made of the physical differences in the brain between male and female. The study showed that generally the corpus collosum (sp?) was narrower in men than in women. There was speculation that the effect of this was that men thought serially, working one side of the brain and then the other; while women thought cooperatively, using both sides of the brain simultaneously. Further, the history of mankind being dominated by men was directly related to this because the serial thinking gave men more focus to their thoughts. Women, on the other hand, tended to generalize and bring unrelated observations into a problem thus slowing the conclusion process but giving a holistic view to the answer. The result is: while women will most likely get a better answer for a solution, they will get it after men have already put a simpler, less effective but viable solution into effect.

Thanks for joining this discussion, mincartaugh, and for making it even more interesting.

mincartaugh wrote:About the errors: Lurker spoke of England a century ago preferring heavy women. Actually, up until Twiggy hit the scene in (I think) the '60's, heavy women were the beauty ideal in nearly every culture in the world for every century since the beginning of recorded history. This was because fat meant enough to eat which meant survival of the species.

I don't think that was so much an error. As you said, it was considered an ideal in multiple cultures. I was focusing on the descendants of Anglo-Saxons here, so it seemed most relevant to mention England (especially given that it was the English who colonized the country in which many of us currently live, and in the context of which this discussion has been focused).

mincartaugh wrote:He also spoke of the lack of morphological evidence of a difference between the sexes.

I guess you're talking about just the morphology of the brain (I actually acknowledged major morphological differences with the rest of the body)? I never really spoke about its morphology - just its mechanisms and processes. It's a given that male brains are typically larger (a result of the higher levels of testosterone).

mincartaugh wrote:About two decades ago a study was made of the physical differences in the brain between male and female. The study showed that generally the corpus collosum (sp?) was narrower in men than in women. There was speculation that the effect of this was that men thought serially, working one side of the brain and then the other; while women thought cooperatively, using both sides of the brain simultaneously.

I take it you're referring to Holloway and de Lacoste-Utamsing's 1982 report on this? To be fair, there's been other studies conducted since then, and they don't entirely agree with the findings of that one (or with each other for that matter). Maybe it has something to do with the sample pools of the various studies, or the sample sizes.

In any event, there's been one large meta-analysis study to report since then (in the late 90's, I believe) that there were larger corpora callosa in males, and argued that using a ratio of corpus callosum-to-brain size wasn't necessarily a logical way to go about measuring its effectiveness in the first place, especially since it fed the speculation you mentioned. Really, they didn't have any way of knowing that stuff like that was true. They were starting with those assumptions and then working backwards to try to explain them by way of corpus callosum size.

While the conclusions of that study (males having larger corpora callosa) have been contested, the fact that they've been contested isn't nearly so interesting as the findings of one of the studies which contested them. It concluded that the front half of the corpus callosum in males tends to be larger than in females, while the back half in females tends to be larger than in males - in other words, if these findings are representative, it may actually come out about the same (in which case thought processes may end up balancing out as well).

Sure, it's a morphological difference, if true. No doubt about that. But there wouldn't necessarily be a reason to believe it has any significant impact - perhaps not even noticable - on how males and females actually think. That said, I'm not trying to argue that males and females think exactly the same, as the studies I've seen do allow for an uncontested - and undefined - 1% difference. Perhaps this is the cause of it.

In any event, as it stands, the scientific community is really not in agreement on whether they can fairly say there is even a size difference at work here, much less be comfortable enough to speculate on what differences a size difference might have (they still have to get things like the significance - if any - of size ratios pinned down first).

mincartaugh wrote:Further, the history of mankind being dominated by men was directly related to this because the serial thinking gave men more focus to their thoughts. Women, on the other hand, tended to generalize and bring unrelated observations into a problem thus slowing the conclusion process but giving a holistic view to the answer. The result is: while women will most likely get a better answer for a solution, they will get it after men have already put a simpler, less effective but viable solution into effect.

This is indeed a current theory (that males' thought processes are less isotropic, thus resulting in more focused considerations) - perhaps it is the 1% - but it seems a drastic oversimplification to me to conclude that something like this alone would account for patriarchy. Even if it's true that female minds go in every direction at once equally, giving equal consideration to all items, the brain still processes data fast enough that I doubt it would really be the deciding factor between thousands of years of male chauvinism and matriarchy - or even equality of the sexes.

For that matter, arguments made to keep females as second-class citizens (or non-citizens if this were ancient Greece) - or to keep them from voting in the United States in more recent times - didn't involve the suggestion that they spent a few seconds too long thinking out matters, or that they viewed issues from too many angles. To be blunt, the argument was that their minds (if those making the arguments were generous enough to acknowledge that females had them) were not fit to process such information, and that, in fact, they were incapable of viewing issues from multiple angles (they'd go with the argument that a woman would give full attention to the most emotionally-loaded angle and ignore all else of import, no matter how illogical doing so would be).

Given males' physical advantage over females - something that cannot be contested in terms of the general population - I would put much more weight on the consideration that this is what resulted in them being dominant. If they really wanted to be, there was little to be done to stop them in a single family, and among more than one (such as in a tribe), the concern would be male usurpers.

I won't say that such thought processes had absolutely nothing to do with it, but it really seems unlikely to me given what seems a far more simple explanation like superiority of physical strength. Especially with the great importance placed on that characteristic in cultures dating from the present day to ancient history.

Again, I won't take the stance to entirely rule out what you suggested, but I would say that - on its own - I really don't think it could have ever had such results. Combined with other things (especially muscle mass), I can consider it more reasonable.


Thanks again for bringing more interesting angles into this discussion.

Well, I'm finding that the differences between the sexes have greatly diminished in the last four decades. Women are much more assertive career-wise, sexually, in relationships of all kinds, and just in general. By the same token, men have become more tolerant and less domineering, and, remarkably, aren't afraid to be sensitive anymore. The image of the "he-man" and sole-supporter of the family that was so popular in the 50's and 60's is now outdated.

IMO, these are good things; the positives from both sexes are being picked up by the other. Women have become empowered, and men are now allowed to show emotion more than ever before. Women are helping with the financial load, and men are giving up that "I'm the man" thinking that was so popular four decades ago. It's a wonderful thing to behold.

Only trust females you can't see on camera..
trust Tachyon? Yes
trust Cassie? yes


FEMALES THAT APPEAR ON CAMERA ARE EVIL

trust "Gemma" the long lost friend? BAD
trust "Lucy" the helper? BAD
trust Katherine McPhee the bowling alley broad? PROBABLY BAD
trust Alex? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

I just have to say.. this is my favorite video.. ever.

So awesome.

Maybe it was just a "filler", with no real information... BUT, it was entertaining. And that's what counts.

lurker wrote:I won't say that such thought processes had absolutely nothing to do with it, but it really seems unlikely to me given what seems a far more simple explanation like superiority of physical strength.

Granted, our physical strength is a major player in the dominance of men, as is pregnancy in women. I'd say those two together make up the majority reasons, but I maintain the thought styles of men vs. women played a small but important role as well.

longlostposter wrote:Well, I'm finding that the differences between the sexes have greatly diminished in the last four decades. Women are much more assertive career-wise, sexually, in relationships of all kinds, and just in general. By the same token, men have become more tolerant and less domineering, and, remarkably, aren't afraid to be sensitive anymore. The image of the "he-man" and sole-supporter of the family that was so popular in the 50's and 60's is now outdated.

I don't think the differences have changed at all, just the life roles. There is nothing about the 60s that would warrant such a statement. It was the industrial revolution at the beginning of the 20th century that changed the humor of the times. (humor in it's alternate meaning... archaic, but so am I). That it took 60 years for the roles to start changing is not significant considering the rate of change prior to that.

but their very tone seemed to indicate the belligerence and forcefulness normally associated with the male stereotype.

Are you trying to say I'm a man? o_O I am a GIRL!

The study showed that generally the corpus collosum (sp?) was narrower in men than in women. There was speculation that the effect of this was that men thought serially, working one side of the brain and then the other; while women thought cooperatively, using both sides of the brain simultaneously.....

LURKER This is the kind of biological basis for psychology I was talking about!

I'm not even going to pretend I understand half of your posts, Kwich.

I don't understand why you suddenly asked if Lurker was mad at you like you're his/her bitch.

I don't think the differences have changed at all, just the life roles.

GOD mincart KEEP TALKING! I like you aloooot!!!

LURKER I still do not see how you are saying there are more differences among men than between men and women. Let's say there ARE more differences... are the differences important, pertinent, or having an impact on society in general? Are the differences such that someone would WANT or feel a need to study them as much as gender studies?

kwicherbichen wrote:

but their very tone seemed to indicate the belligerence and forcefulness normally associated with the male stereotype.

Are you trying to say I'm a man? o_O I am a GIRL!

I think what my brother was so heavy handedly trying to say was that there is absolutely a spectrum within a given sex.

mincartaugh wrote:There is nothing about the 60s that would warrant such a statement. It was the industrial revolution at the beginning of the 20th century that changed the humor of the times. (humor in it's alternate meaning... archaic, but so am I). That it took 60 years for the roles to start changing is not significant considering the rate of change prior to that.

Mincar, have you forgotten Gloria Steinham, bra-burning, and the ERA? Women's rights were as much in the forefront as African-American rights.

EDIT: Fix quotes.

KWICHERBICHIN'

So far in this thread you have called me a "slut" and Lurker's "bitch". Allow me to clarify for you. I am neither a "slut", nor am I Lurker's "bitch". Lurker and I are friends. Period. I hope this satisfies your very strange curiosity about me.

ETA: I think Lurker would find this offensive also.

You were the one who brought in the topic of sluts and whores.