It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Men and womens brains are fundamentally different.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Are men and women fundamentally different? This is a contentious issue which is bound to spark a storm of controversy whenever it is brought up. However more and more science is beginning to support the contenton that Men and Women are fundamentally different beyond the genitalia. Are the brains of men and women fundamentally or structurally different? Micheal Gurian a psychologist seems to think so. Based on his research Micheal Gurian has identified over 100 structural difference between the male and female brain, which he atrributes to genes on the Y chromomse. While his theory as to the cause of these differences is unconfirmed it does stand to reason that the Y chromosme, which women do not have, may encode for differences in the brains structure.
 



www.cnn.com...
(CNN) -- It's an argument that's as old as it is contentious: that male and female brains work differently.

It's also spawned countless self-help books (think "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus") and bland jokes about women being unable to read maps, or men never asking for directions.

It's a brave expert who'll chart a course through these controversial waters.

But that hasn't stopped Michael Gurian, psychologist and author of "What Could He Be Thinking?".

He believes there are about a hundred structural differences that have been identified between the male and female brain.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


As more and more insight into the brain is uncovered it is becomming more and more clear that the two sexes, while certainly equal, are not the same. Whether this will cause a return to traditional gender roles, or a less repressive version of those roles remains to be seen. But maybe just maybe our ancestors knew what they were doing.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by mwm1331]

[edit on 16-2-2005 by mwm1331]

[edit on 16-2-2005 by mwm1331]




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Whether this will cause a return to traditional gender roles, or a less repressive version of those roles remains to be seen. But maybe just maybe our ancestors knew what they were doing.


Why would this lead to a return to gender roles of the past? (Not that we've even escaped 'those traditional roles)
While the structures of the mind may be different between the two sexes, and more research indicates this, I don't see how this could lead us back, as it's far from saying women are specifically suited for this or that and vice versa.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   


As more and more insight into the brain is uncovered it is becomming more and more clear that the two sexes, while certainly equal, are not the same. Whether this will cause a return to traditional gender roles, or a less repressive version of those roles remains to be seen. But maybe just maybe our ancestors knew what they were doing.


I fail to see how because their is a difference in brain structure between the two sexes this means reverting back to gender roles of old, how did you remotely put those two together or are you just throwing an idea out there?
We're two different sexes, it's hardly surprising that our brains are made up differently, I don't see how that should suddenly lead to a "get back to the kitchen" roll call.

In fact, if you want to go that far after the research it may turn out it's men who are getting sent to the kitchen.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Well let me put it this way, if it could be conclusivly proven that women are n fact more suited psychologically to be caregivers of children, would it not make sense for more women to return to being stay at home mothers if the families income allowed it?
Ad yes John I am just kinda running deas up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes it but it makes for an interesting dscussion none the less.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
actually, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the motive behind the study....

of course, it will backfire on everybody....since, science can soon learn that you're better equipped for that yucky minimum wage job picking apples in the orchard and well, you're just not capable of operating that computer....so, guess you get to pick apples...

by the way, it's also a proven fact that the kids get benefits from their relationships with BOTH PARENTS!!! So, a child can gain just as much benefit (although not exactly the same benefits) from the fathers as from the mothers, thus, who's to say weather or not it's beneficial for the moms to stay home all day and the dads to be working 60 or more hours a week away...

what would make sense would be for people to live and let live!!!
it's my life, I'll run it thank you!

[edit on 16-2-2005 by dawnstar]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I think this just proves things we've suspected all along. Women muti-task better: they can run a household and raise children easier. Men can still do it, but they might frazzle easier.
I'm sure we can all list things than women do better than men and vice versa. Usually. For example, I know a woman who CANNOT figure out how to prepare a meal and get all of it to be ready to serve at the same time. So much for multi-tasking.
How many behaviors are learned and how many are hard-wired into our brains?

I know that men can drink more alcohol than women. But, I always thought it was because women had more body fat . And that somehow slowed the processing and breakdown of alcohol from the body



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Well heres the thing dawnstar, I have no problem wth women in the workforce, in point of fact I have a policy of heavily investing in companies with women ceo's as they have had to work twce as hard and be twce as smart as thier male countrparts to attain that rank. However I also believe that on average, women are better suited to being care givers if only becuase they have mammary glands.

It only makes sense that God (or nature if you prefer) would endow those who carry the children to term and deliver them into this world with a predispostion and insticts that would assist in raising them into healthy adults.
However I have often been accused of sexism due to this (what I believe to be) logical belief.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   
IMO - this is just part of an ongoing campaign to say everything is "genetic" - and lead us back to Eugenics programs.

...It totally begs the issue of "nurture" - and ignores the fact that contaminations in our food, air and water cause genetic mutations, a far cry from what we're being told genetics is.

....One of the funniest 'news' articles I've seen says science proved that some women are "genetically" wired to be promiscuous.


...Talk about altering science to suit political objectives. ...Multi-pronged propaganda. Nothing else.



.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
well, here's the thing mwm......

probably 50% of the women in the country are not in any position to stay home and not earn a paycheck.

such beliefs seem to lead to the conclusion that the women is primarily the caregiver of the kids, and if she is seeking work, well it is only to suppliment her husbands income or give her a little bit of spending money.
Which will inadvertantly lead to more favoritism in hire and wage policies.

and well, there has always been and always will be women out their in your world who NEED to be the primary wage earner in their homes if their kids are to eat.

and well, while we're piling on the crap anyways,
even the most stable, loving mother can crack in some circumstances when stuck caring for the kids 24/7....the dad's have to accept some responsibility for it for her own mental health....don't care what any danged scientist says.

and, you're nuts if you think that picking up after your ars and wiping your kid's noses will keep all women content and self fullfilled....it won't, never has..

trace back your idea of what the "traditional family" came from...a system where women were traded and sold, commands from the king ordered them into obedience, and well, I'm sorry, but dependency leads to servitude...and that is what the original traditional family was....A SLAVE SYSTEM!



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
I disagree completly dawnstar. While I have no doubts that some women were treated as chattel not all were, to say any different is to imply all men are slave drivers which is sexist in and of itself.
My wife and I have a traditional family, primarily because I make enough of an income to support us both. However as we do not have kids she has used the time she used to spend working to get her masters degree in biophysics. When we do have kids she will most likely be the primary (note primary not solitary) caregiver, smply because even with a PHD she has allmost no chance of matching my income, then again neither does (statisticly speaking) 99% of the worlds population.
The traditonal family unit actually evolved during Humter gatherer times when the men would hunt and the women stayed home to collect herbs and rase the young. 9edited to nclude BTW there is a lot of evidence that the societies in place when this tradtional family unit evolved was matriarchial in nature)
I disagree that the belief that women are predisposed to parenting leads to discrimination in the workforce, I thnk the belief that men are superior leads to discrimination in the workforce.
I agree that not all families can afford the tradtional family unit, however if a family can support themselves on one parents income then I think the other parent should stay home with the kids, whether that parent be the father or mother is IMHO irrelevant.
Nor do I recall posting that beeing a parent will keep all woman content, however you seem to have the attitude (and forgive me if I have misinterperted you) that a woman who is fulfilled by that is less than a woman who has a carreer. I personally feel that being a stay at home parent is a profession and carreeer, quite possibly the most important carreer of all.

[edit on 16-2-2005 by mwm1331]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Well let me put it this way, if it could be conclusivly proven that women are n fact more suited psychologically to be caregivers of children, would it not make sense for more women to return to being stay at home mothers if the families income allowed it?


Actually a recent article I saw on this (brain differences, not the genetic Y theory) in a scientific journal indicated a somewhat significant difference by gender in actual brain area's used and their functionality, though it didn't appear to influence results. Meaning there's a difference in how genders think, but not necessarily the destination regarding IQ, arts or sciences, etc. But differences nonetheless.

I'll search some out, but basically women used much more brain area than men and some areas men don't at all which tended to focus them more toward long term associations and memory skills for problem solving. In other words, bigger hard drives, more stored and accesible data used for abstract thinking. Whereas men used a much smaller different portion of the brain for clean slate processing (is that like RAM
) which could have it's own advantages, like...
Bah, I've probably screwed up what the article said exactly so forgive me, but I am just a man after all.


The implications I drew though weren't remotely related to "traditional" gender roles. Unless of course you go far enough back to men only needing fight or flight problem solving skills when faced with burly mastadons on the hunt and women doing all the long term planning, survival guidance and retention of wisdom.

Given these predisposed 'specialties' then why would a company prefer a gender uniquely qualified to run away from bears and fire to one more suited to achieving a 5 or 10 year success plan? Or why would a country (not on the brink of being eaten by mountain lions or crushed by ice flows) even consider male candidates for leadership roles like President?

As for raising children, I'm sure with enough guidance from women men could handle that themselves along with the other daily chores their less active short term brains are more suited to, like daily food gathering and home protection.


Hillary for President!



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Actually a recent article I saw on this (brain differences, not the genetic Y theory) in a scientific journal indicated a somewhat significant difference by gender in actual brain area's used and their functionality, though it didn't appear to influence results. Meaning there's a difference in how genders think, but not necessarily the destination regarding IQ, arts or sciences, etc. But differences nonetheless.

I'll search some out, but basically women used much more brain area than men and some areas men don't at all which tended to focus them more toward long term associations and memory skills for problem solving. In other words, bigger hard drives, more stored and accesible data used for abstract thinking. Whereas men used a much smaller different portion of the brain for clean slate processing (is that like RAM
) which could have it's own advantages, like...
Bah, I've probably screwed up what the article said exactly so forgive me, but I am just a man after all.




Read the same article - think you pretty much got it.


IMO - raising children is the most important responsibility any individual and society has - and everybody is responsible for the way it all turns out.


.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I'm not implying that all men are slave drivers....but rather, mankind has evolved since biblical times.....when, throughout a large portion of the world, women were sold and traded (men were too), kings order women's obedience to men (again a biblical story), and well, dependency usually does lead to servitude......an employee depends on his boss for the money for his food, so he has to do what he says......well, the modern day employee is just the evolved form of the slave in the past!!! Man has evolved, so no, most men are not slave drivers...some still are though.....take a look around in our world....

The first socieities of hunters/gatherers, are you sure they actually had family units like us....or maybe when the hunters came home, they had one or two favorite places to stop and trade with, those women made better baskets, and tanned their furs better, so they wanted to trade with them....so they come to them....and well, relationships developed like that...it's so long ago, who knows....But, well, once the goddess became a god.....(the end of many of these matriarchal societies), it appears more likely that in order for men to retain parental rights that they sought to control the women.....in some pretty extreme ways.....women were sold and traded, many times without their feeling being considered, and even in the beginning of our country, women were being auctioned off as wives in new orleans....

and well, texas would be a good example of the types of discrimination that can result from this belief system....I haven't been there in over a decade, but well I spent a decade there. If ANY MAN was seeking work in an area a women was, he'd get the job, the idea was the man had a family to support the women had a man supporting her..or she sure the heck should have one if she didn't. I know of only one single women who lived there who could manage to keep a decent paying job and raise her kids in above proverty conditions.....and well, she wasn't with her husband because her husband left her, for another man.....a fact, I am sure, most texan men would sypathize with her for.
So, if your wife will probably never use that phd, why waste the resources getting it? Will this way of thinking be used to decrease the opportunities women have in gaining an education also.....which, by the way, historically speaking, was more than common back in the good ole days.....
I believe it was the japanese women who created their own little language to embroider messages to one another onto their garmets and such....since they weren't allowed to learn the written language!



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
She got the degree because she wanted too, isn't that enough of a reason?
Or do you only believe in eductional equality for women who have or want a career?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I believe that anyone in this country should be free to follow their dreams and desires....weather or not their desire is to stay home and take full charge of their kids, or work....they should be able to do what they want, only constrained by their own abilities......
I also believe that its my job, as a women, to aid and assist my husband in any way possible in achieving his dreams and desires....
BUT IT IS ALSO HIS RESPONSIBLITY TO AID AND ASSIST ME!!

Which, well, if that means he gets to play caregiver for 4 to 10 hours during his "free time", tough crap!!!



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Dawnstar you seem a bit embittered torwards men, why?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   
wow, this finding is amazing!!!

psssst, here's a little secret for ya.......

men and women are different in some other ways too

:




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
I'll search some out, but basically women used much more brain area than men and some areas men don't at all which tended to focus them more toward long term associations and memory skills for problem solving. In other words, bigger hard drives, more stored and accesible data used for abstract thinking. Whereas men used a much smaller different portion of the brain for clean slate processing (is that like RAM
) which could have it's own advantages, like...
Bah, I've probably screwed up what the article said exactly so forgive me, but I am just a man after all.


*SNIP*

Hillary for President!

RANT, I think I love you for saying that

Now,could you find a less abrasive female candidate to run in '08 or '12? Maybe I'd jump parties!

If either you of Sofi could point me in the direction of that article, I'd be much obliged



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Hmmm less abrasive..............
how about .....................
Luara Bush?
Or Condi rice?



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 05:09 AM
link   


Many times and oft it has been asked us, with unaffected seriousness, "what do you women want? what are you aiming at?" Many have manifested a laudable curiosity to know what the wives and daughters could complain of in republican America, where their sires and sons have so bravely fought for freedom and gloriously secured their independence, trampling all tyranny, bigotry and caste in the dust, and declaring to a waiting world the divine truth that all men are created equal. What can woman want under such a government? Admit a radical difference in sex and you demand different spheres -- water for fish, and air for birds.

It is impossible to make the southern planter believe that his slave feels and reasons just as he does -- that injustice and subjection are as galling as to him -- that the degradation of living by the will of another, the mere dependent on his caprice, at the mercy of his passions, is as keenly felt by him as his master. If you can force on his unwilling vision a vivid picture of the negro's wrongs and for a moment touch his soul, his logic brings him instant consolation. He says, the slave does not feel this as I would. Here, gentlemen, is our difficulty: When we plead our cause before the law makers and savants of the republic, they cannot take in the idea that men and women are alike; and so long as the mass rest in this delusion, the public mind will not be so much startled by the revelations made of the injustice and degradation of woman's position as by the fact that she should at length wake up to a sense of it.

If you, too, are thus deluded, what avails it that we show by your statute books that your laws are unjust -- that woman is the victim of avarice and power? What avails it that we point out the wrongs of woman in social life; the victim of passion and lust? You scorn the thought that she has any natural love of freedom burning in her breast, any clear perception of justice urging her on to demand her rights.

Would to God you could know the burning indignation that fills woman's soul when she turns over the pages of your statute books, and sees there how like feudal barons you freemen hold your women. Would that you could know the humiliation she feels for her sex, when she thinks of all the beardless boys in your law offices, learning these ideas of one-sided justice -- taking their first lessons in contempt for all womankind -- being indoctrinated into the incapacities of their mothers, and the lordly, absolute rights of man over all women, children and property, and to know that these are to be our future Presidents, Judges, Husbands and Fathers; in sorrow we exclaim, alas! for that nation whose sons bow not in loyalty to woman. The mother is the first object of the child's veneration and love, and they who root out this holy sentiment, dream not of the blighting effect it has on the boy and the man. The impression left on law students, fresh from your statute books, is most unfavorable to woman's influence; hence you see but few lawyers chivalrous and high-toned in their sentiments toward woman. They cannot escape the legal view which, by constant reading, has become familiarized to their minds: "Femme covert," "dower," "widow's claims," "protection," "incapacities," "incumbrance," is written on the brow every woman they meet.

But if gentlemen, you take the ground that the sexes are alike, and, therefore, you are our faithful representatives -- then why all these special laws for woman? Would not one code answer for all of like needs and wants? Christ's golden rule is better than all the special legislation that the ingenuity of man can devise: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" [Matt. 7:12]. This, men are brethren, is all we ask at your hands. We ask no better laws than those you have made for yourselves. We need no other protection than that which your present laws secure to you.

In conclusion, then, let us say, in behalf of the women of this state, we ask for all that you have asked for yourselves in the progress of your development, since the May Flower cast anchor side [sic] Plymouth rock; and simply on the ground that the rights of every human being are the same and identical. You may say that the mass of the women of this State do not make the demand; it comes from a few sour, disappointed old maids and childless women.

You are mistaken; the mass speak through us. A very large majority of the women of this state support themselves and their children, and many their husbands too. Go into any village you please, of three or four thousand inhabitants, and you will find as many as fifty men or more, whose only business is to discuss religion and politics, as they watch the trains come and go at the depot, or the passage of a canal boat through a lock; to laugh at the vagaries of some drunken brother, or the capers of a monkey dancing to the music of his master's organ. All these are supported by their mothers, wives or sisters.

Now, do you candidly think these wives do not wish to control the wages they earn -- to own the land they buy -- the houses they build? to have at their disposal their own children, without being subject to the constant interference and tyranny of an idle, worthless profligate? Do you suppose that any woman is such a pattern of devotion and submission that she willingly stitches all day for the small sum of fifty cents, that she may enjoy the unspeakable privilege, in obedience to your laws, of paying for her husband's tobacco and rum? Think you the wife of the confirmed, beastly drunkard would consent to share with him her home and bed, if law and public sentiment would release her from such gross companionship? Verily, no! Think you the wife, with whom endurance has ceased to be a virtue, who, through much suffering has lost all faith in the justice of both Heaven and earth, takes the law in her own hand, severs the unholy bond and turns her back forever upon him whom she once called husband, consents to the law that in such an hour tears her child from her -- all that she has left on earth to love and cherish? The drunkards' wives speak through us, and they number 50,000. Think you that the woman who has worked hard all her days, in helping her husband to accumulate a large property, consents to the law that places this wholly at his disposal? Would not the mother, whose only child is bound out for a term of years, against her expressed wishes, deprive the father of this absolute power if she could?

For all these, then, we speak. If to this long list you add all the laboring women who are loudly demanding remuneration for their unending toil -- those women who teach in our seminaries, academies and common schools for a miserable pittance; the widows, who are taxed without mercy; the unfortunate ones in our work houses, poor houses, and prisons; who are they that we do not now represent? But a small class of fashionable butterflies, who, through the short summer days, seek the sunshine and the flowers; but the cool breezes of autumn and the hoary frosts of winter will soon chase all these away; then, they too will need and seek protection, and through other lips demand, in their turn, justice and equity at your hands.

Elizabeth Stanton
www.edchange.org...





[edit on 17-2-2005 by dawnstar]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join