Differences between men and women

[magicmiles]

Not entirely sure if this is the correct section, please move it if inappropriate.

Thread can begin with Lucifer's opinion:

Maybe a thread exploring the natural difference between men and women are in order?

Men have dicks, are taller, tend to live less and tend to become stronger than women. Women have boobs, a vagina, are shorter, have a tendency to accumulate fat and tend to live longer than men. Natural differences explored.

There are quite clearly more than physical differences between men and women.

For a start, women are gentler.

[One Above All]

Men have dicks, are taller, tend to live less and tend to become stronger than women. Women have boobs, a vagina, are shorter, have a tendency to accumulate fat and tend to live longer than men. Natural differences explored.

[magicmiles]

Men have dicks, are taller, tend to live less and tend to become stronger than women. Women have boobs, a vagina, are shorter, have a tendency to accumulate fat and tend to live longer than men. Natural differences explored.

Did you forget to add something?

[One Above All]

Apparently.
I was trying to point out that women and men are only physically different. Anything else is a fabrication of society - a stereotype/lie - to manipulate them into following a specific pattern.

[magicmiles]

I was trying to point out that women and men are only physically different. Anything else is a fabrication of society - a stereotype/lie - to manipulate them into following a specific pattern.

Experience and observation tells a very different story.

[One Above All]

Really? Wait until our female members get here so they can tell you just how much "gentler" women are.

[magicmiles]

So you've never noticed that boys, from a very early age, tend to play roughly with each other?

[One Above All]

So you've never noticed that boys, from a very early age, tend to play roughly with each other?

Because they are expected to. Of course, not everyone follows the same pattern. Some realized that what they're expected to do isn't what they want to do, and that what they want to do is more important than what they're expected to do.
I, for one, disliked violence and "playing rough". I didn't like sports, or physical activity of any kind. I liked puzzles. I liked learning. I liked silence (total absence of noise; not that "sounds of nature" BS people call silence) I enjoyed cooking (I played with "girls' toys" to pretend, since I couldn't actually cook), but I was ridiculed/demeaned/berated for it, because it's not what I was "supposed to do".
I liked dolls and stuffed animals. I liked watching ants working on their tunnels (obviously I couldn't see through the ground, but you know what I mean).
Of course, my tastes changed over the years. I still like stuffed animals and cooking. I still like puzzles and silence. I no longer like dolls. I still don't like physical activity or violence.

[magicmiles]

So you've never noticed that boys, from a very early age, tend to play roughly with each other?

Because they are expected to.

No, because they are driven to. It's very obvious. I pick my kids up from school a lot these days, and I see the games being played by boys and girls. You really think there's a conspiracy to engineer this behaviour? That's just madness.

Of course, not everyone follows the same pattern. Some realized that what they're expected to do isn't what they want to do, and that what they want to do is more important than what they're expected to do.
I, for one, disliked violence and "playing rough". I didn't like sports, or physical activity of any kind. I liked puzzles. I liked learning. I liked silence (total absence of noise; not that "sounds of nature" BS people call silence) I enjoyed cooking (I played with "girls' toys" to pretend, since I couldn't actually cook), but I was ridiculed/demeaned/berated for it, because it's not what I was "supposed to do".
I liked dolls and stuffed animals. I liked watching ants working on their tunnels (obviously I couldn't see through the ground, but you know what I mean).
Of course, my tastes changed over the years. I still like stuffed animals and cooking. I still like puzzles and silence. I no longer like dolls. I still don't like physical activity or violence.

You make my point. Nobody was forcing you to like those things, were they? You just did. But you seem to think that in the vast majority of cases where boys do prefer trucks and mud and banging their brother on the head with a saucepan....that is just them following what is expected of them.

[One Above All]

No, because they are driven to. It's very obvious.

Protip: If your argument rests on "It's very obvious", it's most likely not a very good one.

I pick my kids up from school a lot these days, and I see the games being played by boys and girls. You really think there's a conspiracy to engineer this behaviour? That's just madness.

Can anyone say... strawman?
Anyway, it's not a conspiracy. Social evolution led to gender roles which led to expectations regarding behaviour. The fact that people still use words like "girly" and "manly" as if they actually had any meaning is proof of this.

You make my point. Nobody was forcing you to like those things, were they? You just did.

Nope. They were forcing me to do the opposite - to be more "like a boy".

But you seem to think that in the vast majority of cases where boys do prefer trucks and mud and banging their brother on the head with a saucepan....that is just them following what is expected of them.

More or less. Most parents don't actively communicate "do this". They just give them praise when they do something they like and ridicule them (or don't pay attention) when they do something they don't like. Then there's the "boys will be boys" excuse for some behaviour, which is utter bullshit.

[magicmiles]

No, because they are driven to. It's very obvious.

Protip: If your argument rests on "It's very obvious", it's most likely not a very good one.

Fine. Feel free to substitute with 'the observable behaviours bare out my point of view'

I pick my kids up from school a lot these days, and I see the games being played by boys and girls. You really think there's a conspiracy to engineer this behaviour? That's just madness.

Can anyone say... strawman?

How about clarifying your position rather than pulling that out of the holster so early?

Anyway, it's not a conspiracy. Social evolution led to gender roles which led to expectations regarding behaviour. 

There is probably a lot of truth in that, but it certainly doesn't change the fact that there are naturally occuring differences between the genders. These differences are observable from a very young age and have nothing to do with what society expects.

You make my point. Nobody was forcing you to like those things, were they? You just did.

Nope. They were forcing me to do the opposite - to be more "like a boy".

And do you think that, because this was your experience, that was also the experience of most boys? And if you were bullied, for want of a better word, into more 'boy appropriate' behaviours, do you think you would have taken on those sorts of behaviours happily and seemingly quite naturally? I hardly think so. A fish out of water isn't hard to spot.

But you seem to think that in the vast majority of cases where boys do prefer trucks and mud and banging their brother on the head with a saucepan....that is just them following what is expected of them.

More or less. Most parents don't actively communicate "do this". They just give them praise when they do something they like and ridicule them (or don't pay attention) when they do something they don't like.

And how were the parents able to praise the boyish behaviour in the first place?

[One Above All]

How about clarifying your position rather than pulling that out of the holster so early?

I did on the very next line. I also never used the words "conspiracy" or "intentional" in this thread, as far as I know.

There is probably a lot of truth in that, but it certainly doesn't change the fact that there are naturally occuring differences between the genders. These differences are observable from a very young age and have nothing to do with what society expects.

True. Boys have dicks, girls have vaginas. These are observable at birth and sometimes before.

And do you think that, because this was your experience, that was also the experience of most boys?

Nope. I was exposing my experience because it shows that boys and girls' differences only exist in the minds of their parents. Boys like things girls like. Girls like things boys like. Unless you want to claim that virtually every one of them is a "fish out of water", I think it shows who's right and who's wrong on this matter.

And if you were bullied, for want of a better word, into more 'boy appropriate' behaviours, do you think you would have taken on those sorts of behaviours happily and seemingly quite naturally? I hardly think so. A fish out of water isn't hard to spot.

This part has the "benefit" of assuming there is a "water" to be in.

And how were the parents able to praise the boyish behaviour in the first place?

Who said they were? My mother and grandmother were more than happy to threaten and hit me until I did what they wanted. They still think that's the proper way to deal with my "bad behaviour"[1], even if what they call "hitting" feels like little more than a tap to me. They kept on doing it until I told them to their faces that I was sick of it (although it didn't hurt it was quite annoying, like the sound a fly's wings make) and that I would defend myself (no matter what that might entail) if they continued.

1.	Read: Behaviour they disapprove of.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Fine. Feel free to substitute with 'the observable behaviours bare out my point of view'

Unfortunately I think that is exactly where the disagreement is happening. Technically what you are doing is begging the question in a sense. You are saying that what supports your contention that boys naturally act different to girls is that if you look boys are acting different to girls. That is a simplification of what you are saying of course but if I really unpack the last string of posts that is all I can get from them.

The issue is that this exact same "evidence" also bear out the other users point. If boys are acting different because of societal expectations then this can also be evidenced by simply saying "Well look, it must be true because they is the way they are acting".

I think you are in danger of underestimating societal impact in this regard. Gender roles are imprinted on children from almost the beginning. It is in the cartoons people use to distract their kids. It is in the fairy tales we read to our kids of the battling princes and fair soft maidens in distress. It is built into the toys we choose for our own children or for the children of others. It is even built into how we treat them from an earlier age as we subconsciously act like one sex is more delicate than the other. Or as the user above pointed out we reward or seek to repeat behaviors that fit our preconceptions of what the child's sex suggests to us they should be engaged in.

To evidence a counter claim therefore that all these different formative influences from day 1 are not actually the cause of gender role differences, and that it is in fact natural behavioral differences between the sexes one needs to provide a lot more substance than essentially saying "It must be natural because that is the way they act from early on". As I said, this is just begging the question because you are using the behavior in question as evidence for the behavior in question thus making progress in the conversation nigh impossible for the other user above.

[Samuelxcs]

The differences are obvious - Men are ugly, women are beautiful (although not all) and men are idiots and some women are less idiotic. Men are learly worse than women and their only purpose is to help reprodue.

[magicmiles]

There is probably a lot of truth in that, but it certainly doesn't change the fact that there are naturally occuring differences between the genders. These differences are observable from a very young age and have nothing to do with what society expects.

True. Boys have dicks, girls have vaginas. These are observable at birth and sometimes before.

If that's all you see I'm quite sorry, but it doesn't mean there isn't more.

And do you think that, because this was your experience, that was also the experience of most boys?

Nope. I was exposing my experience because it shows that boys and girls' differences only exist in the minds of their parents. Boys like things girls like. Girls like things boys like. Unless you want to claim that virtually every one of them is a "fish out of water", I think it shows who's right and who's wrong on this matter.

It does show who is wrong, and it's you. You admit that your experience was not necessarily that of other boys, so how can you not see that those boys who do display the boyish behaviour (most of them) do so quite naturally?

And if you were bullied, for want of a better word, into more 'boy appropriate' behaviours, do you think you would have taken on those sorts of behaviours happily and seemingly quite naturally? I hardly think so. A fish out of water isn't hard to spot.

This part has the "benefit" of assuming there is a "water" to be in.

The 'water' is the world.

And how were the parents able to praise the boyish behaviour in the first place?

Who said they were?

You did. You said parents praised kids for doing something the parents liked.

My mother and grandmother were more than happy to threaten and hit me until I did what they wanted. They still think that's the proper way to deal with my "bad behaviour"[1], even if what they call "hitting" feels like little more than a tap to me. They kept on doing it until I told them to their faces that I was sick of it (although it didn't hurt it was quite annoying, like the sound a fly's wings make) and that I would defend myself (no matter what that might entail) if they continued.

1.	Read: Behaviour they disapprove of.

I fail to see how this advances your point in any way at all. I don't dispute that some boys are forced to act boyish.

[One Above All]

If that's all you see I'm quite sorry, but it doesn't mean there isn't more.

Actually I don't see either one of them (most of the time). I learned it in Biology.
Anyway, of course there are more differences! I like cooking. Some boys don't. Some boys like cars. Others like turtles. Some girls like everything you consider "manly" and dislike everything you consider "girly". What does that prove? That that behaviour and their tastes are not tied to their genders.

It does show who is wrong, and it's you. You admit that your experience was not necessarily that of other boys, so how can you not see that those boys who do display the boyish behaviour (most of them) do so quite naturally?

It does show who's wrong, and it's you. You admit you have no knowledge of why other boys do what they do, so how can you not see that those other boys who do display the boyish behaviour (most of them) do so quite unnaturally?

I'm trying to make a point here. You can guess what it is.

The 'water' is the world.

Sorry, I'm in the world. I don't think they have Internet in outer space.

You did. You said parents praised kids for doing something the parents liked.

My apologies; I misread the post and thought you were talking about mine.
Kids act the way they want to. Parents then praise behaviour they think is good and punish behaviour they think is bad.

I fail to see how this advances your point in any way at all. I don't dispute that some boys are forced to act boyish.

It's to point out the harm the belief in gender roles causes. That's just the tip of the iceberg, however. I could go into just how "broken" I am, but it'd take too long.

[Traveler]

...There are quite clearly more than physical differences between men and women.

For a start, women are gentler.

I apologize for not reading the thread before answering, but I've got a migraine and am on my way back to bed. This is an example of incorrect thinking. Just because many women are gentler than many men does NOT make women gentler. Any individual man might be gentler than the average woman. And any individual woman might not be gentle at all.

Generalities about gender, or any other factor, don't represent any specific individual and their ability.

[magicmiles]

Fine. Feel free to substitute with 'the observable behaviours bare out my point of view'

You are saying that what supports your contention that boys naturally act different to girls is that if you look boys are acting different to girls.

Yeah!

The issue is that this exact same "evidence" also bear out the other users point. If boys are acting different because of societal expectations then this can also be evidenced by simply saying "Well look, it must be true because they is the way they are acting".

No. As I pointed out to Lucifer, and he didn't contradict me, being forced to act a certain way may achieve a certain type of behaviour but no way in hell will it be or look natural.

I think you are in danger of underestimating societal impact in this regard.

Possibly..a little.

Gender roles are imprinted on children from almost the beginning. It is in the cartoons people use to distract their kids. It is in the fairy tales we read to our kids of the battling princes and fair soft maidens in distress. It is built into the toys we choose for our own children or for the children of others. It is even built into how we treat them from an earlier age as we subconsciously act like one sex is more delicate than the other. Or as the user above pointed out we reward or seek to repeat behaviors that fit our preconceptions of what the child's sex suggests to us they should be engaged in.

I hear you. But let me re-write that a little to see how it works, using my favourite boys name, Calvin. (waves to Screwtape, 'Piss off' snarls he). Sorry, Nozz, ignore that last bit. I'm just being cheeky.

Anyway:

" Calvin won't be distracted by anything other than those dinosaur cartoons. He seems to really like them "

" Calvin really struggles to fall asleep. I tried reading him lots of books, but he only seemed to enjoy the one with the Princes battling dragons..."

See what I mean? What is impacting them is what naturally appeals to them.

To evidence a counter claim therefore that all these different formative influences from day 1 are not actually the cause of gender role differences, and that it is in fact natural behavioral differences between the sexes one needs to provide a lot more substance than essentially saying "It must be natural because that is the way they act from early on". As I said, this is just begging the question because you are using the behavior in question as evidence for the behavior in question thus making progress in the conversation nigh impossible for the other user above.

Wow, seems unfair to penalise a perspective because it's based on observations. I know what you're saying, and you say it well too. But unless someone can show me something which demonstrates babies are picking up societal pressures and trends inside the womb, I'm going to hold firm on my perspective on this issue.

[magicmiles]

I apologize for not reading the thread before answering, but I've got a migraine and am on my way back to bed. This is an example of incorrect thinking. Just because many women are gentler than many men does NOT make women gentler. Any individual man might be gentler than the average woman. And any individual woman might not be gentle at all.

Generalities about gender, or any other factor, don't represent any specific individual and their ability.

I get your point, and I of course recognise that we're all individuals.

[One Above All]

No. As I pointed out to Lucifer, and he didn't contradict me, being forced to act a certain way may achieve a certain type of behaviour but no way in hell will it be or look natural.

Homosexual homophobes look natural enough, don't they?

Humans are very good at mimicking what others do. "Monkey see, monkey do."
'Nuff said.

[magicmiles]

Anyway, of course there are more differences!

Then why did you claim, twice, that the differences were only anatomical? Not very helpful.

 I like cooking. Some boys don't. Some boys like cars. Others like turtles. Some girls like everything you consider "manly" and dislike everything you consider "girly". What does that prove? That that behaviour and their tastes are not tied to their genders.

It isn't a matter of being tied to a gender. It's the fact that (in some things, not all) most boys trend in certain directions and most girls trend in others

It does show who's wrong, and it's you. You admit you have no knowledge of why other boys do what they do, so how can you not see that those other boys who do display the boyish behaviour (most of them) do so quite unnaturally?

I'm trying to make a point here. You can guess what it is.

I'll wait till you actually make it, all the same.

You did. You said parents praised kids for doing something the parents liked.

My apologies; I misread the post and thought you were talking about mine.
Kids act the way they want to. Parents then praise behaviour they think is good and punish behaviour they think is bad.

I think we can agree there. But it doesn't advance your case.

I fail to see how this advances your point in any way at all. I don't dispute that some boys are forced to act boyish.

It's to point out the harm the belief in gender roles causes. That's just the tip of the iceberg, however. I could go into just how "broken" I am, but it'd take too long.

There's no need to, because this issue can't really be discussed with any real insight at the individual level.

It's my bedtime.

[magicmiles]

No. As I pointed out to Lucifer, and he didn't contradict me, being forced to act a certain way may achieve a certain type of behaviour but no way in hell will it be or look natural.

Homosexual homophobes look natural enough, don't they?

Humans are very good at mimicking what others do. "Monkey see, monkey do."
'Nuff said.

'Nuff not said..not be me. But it will wait.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

being forced to act a certain way may achieve a certain type of behaviour but no way in hell will it be or look natural.

Firstly no one is talking about forcing. The issue is about constant, reinforced, roles that a developing child is led on almost from day one which slowly, subtly but massively sculpt their behaviors later in life. And that very much would look "natural". Words like "forcing" cloud the issue as for the most part not only is the intention of those influences not to "force" anything but in fact most of them parents and people around those children are likely not even aware they are doing.

" Calvin won't be distracted by anything other than those dinosaur cartoons. He seems to really like them " " Calvin really struggles to fall asleep. I tried reading him lots of books, but he only seemed to enjoy the one with the Princes battling dragons..."

This is still begging the question however as you have not established on any level that this is in fact what is happening. It is just assumed in your approach. One would need more than anecdote to support it too. Where are the studies that show that all things being equal boys do gravitate towards male roled books and girls do gravitate towards girl role books.

Further those studies would actually have to account for what we are discussing, otherwise they would be making the same error I highlighted you making in my first post. If from day one we are influencing one sex towards one role then this likely influences them towards books that fit that role too. So your "natural" gravitation towards one type of book might be wholly imagined in that it is also caused by the very thing I suggested in my first post too. This is why anecdote in these matters are so poor.

On top of all that one must normalize such a study for the interest the reader has in the material too. Whether I realize it or not for example if I read two books one about my little pony and fairies, and one about sword wielding knights I am likely to be more involved and interested in the latter and this too will transmit itself to the listener. So what you mistake as a natural gravitation towards one type of book might also be influenced heavily by the readers interest in that material. If we are going to throw out anecdotes then my own is that my 20 month old daughter is at this time equally interested in my reading her books about trains, cars and police as she is about Heidi, Ponies and Fairies. She has quite a thing for tractors too.

So once again you seem to be falling prey to a willingness to simply observe behavior and use that behavior as conclusive evidence that the behavior is natural which is as I said before both begging the question and circular reasoning. This would be analogous to watching a series of moths immolate themselves on a flame and say because we observe the behavior then this behavior is natural and it is just what moths do. The reasons for such behavior in moths however is deeper than that and is related to how they use the moon for navigation.

To support any contention that gender roles are natural from that early an age you simply have to find more substantiation for the claim than the existence of the behavior itself and I am simply not seeing that being presented here. A fact that is much more than, as you painted it, "penalizing a perspective because it's based on observations". That's an unfortunate and rather disingenuous way of putting what I have been espousing. The issue is actually with observing an event and basing conclusions on it on nothing but the fact you have observed the event.

[One Above All]

Then why did you claim, twice, that the differences were only anatomical? Not very helpful.

Read the part below and you'll see that I was trying to make a point. The differences are at the individual level, not for the whole gender.

It isn't a matter of being tied to a gender. It's the fact that (in some things, not all) most boys trend in certain directions and most girls trend in others

Humans are alike. All humans. Their genders are irrelevant to those similarities. If you don't believe me, prove it. For every case you can show of a group of boys "trending in certain directions", I'll find a group of girls "trending in those directions".
Also, if it's not tied to a gender, then what the hell is your argument? If the differences are not along the imaginary gender lines, why are you saying "most boys like this, so most girls won't like this"? Because that is what you're saying. You're saying that because something is preferred by boys, that makes it "boyish behavior" and that girls won't/shouldn't like it.

I'll wait till you actually make it, all the same.

The part I quoted and rewrote is not an argument. "It's obvious" isn't an argument, because it hinges on confirmation bias.

I think we can agree there. But it doesn't advance your case.

It does because that's how behaviour is determined later in life. Unless you want to claim that your god puts tiny little souls in every human before they're even born and that those tiny little souls determine their personality forever, in which case you'll need to prove it.

[Azdgari]

The belief that environmental influences do not affect a child's psychology, self-image, and behaviour - in this context and in others - is an excellent way to justify lazy parenting.  If it's all nature, then the parent is off the hook for everything.  Gender roles are just a common instance; it can be extended to other behaviour and psychology that a child adopts as it grows.

Magicmiles, what was the first set of "girl's" clothing and toys that you gave to your son?  At what age did you do so?

[Bad Pear]

I can't believe that no one has mentioned hormonal influences yet. Most (if not all) of the physical differences that Lucifer mentioned are due to hormone levels at certain stages of development. Hormone levels also greatly impact our behavior[1][2]. Many behavioral differences between males and females are both natural and physical at the same time. All of this is in addition to the very real effects of gender conditioning and other influences relating to the "nurture" side of things.

You two seem to be arguing over a false dichotomy.

1.	http://www.springerlink.com/content/p15621u6l73w3125/
2.	http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0018506X88900682

[magicmiles]

The belief that environmental influences do not affect a child's psychology, self-image, and behaviour - in this context and in others - is an excellent way to justify lazy parenting.  If it's all nature, then the parent is off the hook for everything.  Gender roles are just a common instance; it can be extended to other behaviour and psychology that a child adopts as it grows.

I agree 100%

Magicmiles, what was the first set of "girl's" clothing and toys that you gave to your son?  At what age did you do so?

I promised my wife I wouldn't discuss my kids on here any more. Probably sounds OTT, but hey..I generally try to do what she wants.

[Bad Pear]

Also, how do you respond to an infant? Think about it for a second. If I hand you my newborn and say that it's a boy how would you interact with it vs if I had said it's a girl. It's an infant, and unless you check under the diaper I could be lying. Aside from what may or may not be between it's legs there is virtually no outward gender expression, yet you would treat it differently depending on what I told you it was.[1]

It affects everything, from pronoun usage to pet names like "sweetheart" and "champ", to adjectives like "strong" and "handsome" vs "beautiful" and "precious".

1.	As an aside my wife and I currently live and work in China. People here often will not even look at their newborns after they find out it's a girl. It takes many of them a long time to warm up to their daughters, if they ever do. What impact do you think that has on the psyche of these girls?

[Azdgari]

I agree 100%

That's...odd, in the context of this thread! 

Magicmiles, what was the first set of "girl's" clothing and toys that you gave to your son?  At what age did you do so?

I promised my wife I wouldn't discuss my kids on here any more. Probably sounds OTT, but hey..I generally try to do what she wants.

Alright.  But do you take my point, here - without specific reference to your own children?