It Seems The Study Of Anthropology Makes Me A Misogynistic, Backwards Thinker.

[Paul Beardsley]

Perhaps that is due to the way in which intelligence is defined and measured, so by definition when defining all aspects of intelligence, men and women have to be the same on average. <scratching head/puzzled smiley>

Yeah, I didn't think of that.

[Perikles]

And possibly because some people are wary of generalisations, even true ones, if they think they might be forced to conform to them..

Coincidentally, Harrods store in London has redesigned its children's department to make it completely non-sex specific. Report here. Note this

If Harrods hopes to loosen the gender-specific tyranny of toys, it has a battle on its hands. While the Lego and Hornby train-filled Wonderland was crammed with small boys intent on destruction on the Guardian's visit this week, the Enchanted Forest, with fairy voices emanating from multicoloured flowers and hundreds of dolls, was the main draw for girls.

So are these children conforming to what is expected of them? Or is this spontaneous choice of interest?

[Sardonicone]

I'll give you the sense of vulnerability that goes with it, especially the pregnant belly part.

Well, since the wife refuses give us a daughter, this works out doubly well.

Have you tried any of the AXE body care products?

Funny you bring that up. My son actually got me started on the path of using Axe, and Axe only . Been using Dark Temptation now for the last 3 years.

Shortly after I became a redhead, I happened to feel a man's fingers touching my hair. :-\ I knew him just well enough not to get angry, and pulled away (I'm married). And thus began my adventures as a redhead...(back on topic).

I can understand how uncomfortable that can/could be. Was there no conversation before hand or did just start (for lack of a better way to put this) petting you?

This probably amused you when you wrote it but it trivialises the issue without actually being clever or funny.

In your opinion, maybe. The fact you weren't the only person to respond to it, and you were the only one who deigned to feel the need to take issue with it would make you WRONG.

Lighten up. I don't believe people should be touched against their will.

[Gillianren]

Now there's an interesting point. I have noticed what's negative about them, but I've always assumed that this is what the advert makers consider a win for the women. In my limited experience, I've got the impression that a lot of women agree - it's nice to hear one disagree.

I think you'll find that most women disagree, honestly, but my sample is as biased as yours, I'm sure. I know nothing irritates the women I know about advertising more than the women who are shown coming home from work--in a business suit, so she's clearly got a serious job--to a family which is sitting around the kitchen table, waiting for her to come home and start cooking. Or one where the man is actually expected to cook, so he throws in a frozen pizza or buys chicken in a bucket and saves the day.

But the thing is, the man is frequently shown as not getting the hot woman. In one that springs to mind, a hot woman feeds the man various foods traditionally considered aphrodisiac. She nonverbally promises hm a very good time. She handcuffs him to the bed... and then leaves him. All because he borrowed her car without asking. In post 134 I gave the example of a hot woman leading on a vulnerable man simply because she could. The message that seems to be coming from these adverts, and a fair few other TV programmes, is that the thing that gives a woman the most pleasure is dumping or rejecting a man.

Now, me, I'd have a man who borrowed my car without asking arrested, because that's theft and I'm touchy on the subject. And, yes, that is a message that gets shown--and I think it's more damaging to women than men. I think it shows that women only have their sexuality as a tool, and that they enjoy using it. I think it helps make men expect that from women, and I think it influences how women are treated.

Then there are the "quit smoking" adverts. Men dress up in giant cigarette costumes, and women beat them up. The apparent message is that smoking is yet another male thing that females have to endure or fight, although the message I read into it is that the young woman in question is pretty stupid to have taken up smoking in the first place in this day and age.

Yeah, I don't understand smoking pretty much full stop. And I haven't seen those (a combination of not watching much TV lately and being on the other side of the ocean, I suspect), so I can't make an informed statement on them.

Sometimes it is hormonal - a female boss once shouted and screamed at me because of a legitimate concern I'd raised - but except for obvious cases like this, I absolutely don't assume it. The example you give, while undoubtedly sexist, is other bad things too, such as invasion of privacy.

Yes, sometimes it is. However, studies consistently show that men can't tell when it's hormonal and when it isn't. Studies have consistently shown that men have a hard time identifying PMS unless they were already aware of the woman's cycle. And in fact this guy, who should surely know better, is wrong sometimes. As in, it can't be PMS if her period ended three days earlier. The invasion of privacy is probably what makes me angriest, I'll admit, but the implicit assumptions involved run a close second. Followed immediately by "and he thinks this is funny."

Points taken, although I was also thinking of things like epidurals and ultrasound.

Both of which stem from technology men use as well. And indeed, epidurals have improved substantially over the last few years. There were problems with them to the point that plenty of women refused them because of legitimate medical concerns. Of course, there's also a friend of mine who isn't going to have one because she's terrified of needles.

Now here is where I run into problems. It seems men can be blamed for making contraceptives unavailable, but can't take the credit for causing them to exist in the first place.

Oh, they can take credit. They can take all the credit they want. However, birth control, as I see it, isn't just for women. For one thing, it's consistently been shown that societies where women have free and clear access to contraception are societies which have a better chance of rising out of poverty. There are several reasons for that, but reducing the birth rate helps a society in plenty of ways. Also, ideally, the man will be having something to do with the raising of his children, and if he doesn't want children, being able to prevent them is a benefit to him as well. Birth control isn't a gift to women from men. It's a gift to society.

I'm not going to argue that it's fair, I'm going to argue that it's sensible. If a woman really doesn't want to be pregnant, then the obvious solution is to ensure that she can't get pregnant. The alternative solution - to ensure that her man can't get her pregnant - has obvious problems.

Yes, but isn't it also reasonable for a man who doesn't want to have children to take steps? Sure, the woman has the larger responsibility, because it's her body; it's a lot harder for her to duck out on the whole thing. However, there are plenty of men out there who don't trust the women in their lives to use birth control. Wouldn't it be intelligent to double up efforts? Especially given that there is only one foolproof method of preventing conception, and by having the birth control discussion, you're implying that you will not be using that method.

It's spelt "caesarean".

Fair enough. But my computer doesn't know that, either, or else I would have quietly change the error and not pointed it out. It doesn't know epidural in the plural, which is weird, and it didn't even offer me the option of Caesarean.

[SkepticJ]

Indeed. In fact, the very fact that men and women do seem to be equal in terms of intelligence is curious in its own right.

Why?

Are there other species where one sex is smarter than the other?

Aside from certain arthropods, most creatures have relatively little difference in body size between the sexes. And most creatures pull their own weight as adults; they can't afford to mooch off of the intelligence of another.

[Buttercup]

I can understand how uncomfortable that can/could be. Was there no conversation before hand or did just start (for lack of a better way to put this) petting you?

No conversation beforehand, and my back was turned to him (and his wife was nearby!!). My husband wasn't present. I was surprised (I no longer am).

[Paul Beardsley]

I think you'll find that most women disagree, honestly, but my sample is as biased as yours, I'm sure.

I hope you're right.

I know nothing irritates the women I know about advertising more than the women who are shown coming home from work--in a business suit, so she's clearly got a serious job--to a family which is sitting around the kitchen table, waiting for her to come home and start cooking. Or one where the man is actually expected to cook, so he throws in a frozen pizza or buys chicken in a bucket and saves the day.

I haven't seen adverts like this for some time. Then again, we're on different sides of the pond, and also new technology has made it easier to avoid adverts. But I thought the "superwoman" idea - the woman who has a high powered job and runs the home in a similar manner - had gone out of vogue some time ago. I am no expert on the subject, though.

Now, me, I'd have a man who borrowed my car without asking arrested, because that's theft and I'm touchy on the subject.

Maybe it's just me. If you're in that kind of relationship with someone, and they're presumably on your insurance, it seems a trivial matter. I dunno.

Oh, they can take credit. They can take all the credit they want. However, birth control, as I see it, isn't just for women. For one thing, it's consistently been shown that societies where women have free and clear access to contraception are societies which have a better chance of rising out of poverty. There are several reasons for that, but reducing the birth rate helps a society in plenty of ways. Also, ideally, the man will be having something to do with the raising of his children, and if he doesn't want children, being able to prevent them is a benefit to him as well. Birth control isn't a gift to women from men. It's a gift to society.

I'm sure it will come as little or no surprise to you that I broadly agree with all this. This is why I think fairness is important. In almost any case of unfairness in society, the victim of the unfairness suffers immediately, and society suffers in the long term. (I actually think that irresponsible men are the main beneficiaries of contraception, but that's another issue.) There's a tendency to think it's okay to be unfair to certain groups because they've had the upper hand in the past. Going back to an earlier point, boys and young men (up to around 25, probably) have never known a time when the media wasn't reinforcing the idea that they were useless.

But whether reliable contraceptives are regarded as gifts to women or gifts to society, they still get treated as if they grew on trees. The contribution made by men is too often denigrated. (Not by you, of course.)

Yes, but isn't it also reasonable for a man who doesn't want to have children to take steps? Sure, the woman has the larger responsibility, because it's her body; it's a lot harder for her to duck out on the whole thing. However, there are plenty of men out there who don't trust the women in their lives to use birth control. Wouldn't it be intelligent to double up efforts?

Well of course. But the man being careful isn't going to help if the woman is raped, or she strays.

Fair enough. But my computer doesn't know that, either, or else I would have quietly change the error and not pointed it out. It doesn't know epidural in the plural, which is weird, and it didn't even offer me the option of Caesarean.

MS Word and Google both spotted the mistake when I entered the misspelling (which, incidentally, I didn't spot myself). It's just the way the different spellcheck algorithms works. It's not as if some sexist programmer thought caesareans were a female thing and therefore not worth bothering with... which I presume is not what you're saying.

[Gillianren]

I hope you're right.

And I don't think we'll have any way of knowing one way or another. Who are we going to find who doesn't have a biased sample?

I haven't seen adverts like this for some time. Then again, we're on different sides of the pond, and also new technology has made it easier to avoid adverts. But I thought the "superwoman" idea - the woman who has a high powered job and runs the home in a similar manner - had gone out of vogue some time ago. I am no expert on the subject, though.

The last time I watched any serious amount of commercial TV was October, which is when our local cable company stopped offering bulk rates. (In fact, the last time I watched any serious amount of commercial TV was very shortly after that; we stayed at my aunt's house for a couple of weeks, and she still has cable. But it was still October.) However, I would still see those commercials.

Maybe it's just me. If you're in that kind of relationship with someone, and they're presumably on your insurance, it seems a trivial matter. I dunno.

It would have to be a pretty serious relationship before I put them on my car insurance. And in that case, maybe not arrested, but certainly a long and serious talk about boundaries.

I'm sure it will come as little or no surprise to you that I broadly agree with all this. This is why I think fairness is important. In almost any case of unfairness in society, the victim of the unfairness suffers immediately, and society suffers in the long term. (I actually think that irresponsible men are the main beneficiaries of contraception, but that's another issue.) There's a tendency to think it's okay to be unfair to certain groups because they've had the upper hand in the past. Going back to an earlier point, boys and young men (up to around 25, probably) have never known a time when the media wasn't reinforcing the idea that they were useless.

I disagree. Yes, you get a lot of worthless men, but you get a lot more men who are the heroes of their stories. This summer saw the first Pixar movie to have a heroine instead of a hero--and she was still, sigh, a princess. The last female superhero to carry her own story successfully was Wonder Woman in the 1970s; the current attempted reboot was so flawed that it never aired. On kids' shows, the boys are almost always the protagonists. Graham watches one where the boys are inventing amazing things and having exciting adventures . . . and their older sister is trying to bring them down and get them in trouble for it. Getting her brothers in trouble would be the greatest thing she had ever done. Yes, there is the occasional Ron Stoppable to the hypercompetent Kim Possible, but heck, it's eventually shown that one of Kim's female friends can't do what Ron does . . . which somehow leads to a villain's taking over the world. I think the sheer number of stories with a male hero overbalances those where he's kind of a dimwit.

But whether reliable contraceptives are regarded as gifts to women or gifts to society, they still get treated as if they grew on trees. The contribution made by men is too often denigrated. (Not by you, of course.)

I think demanding attention paid to the fact that men invented them is a bit resting on laurels at this point, frankly. The birth control pill is fifty years old, for heaven's sake. Depo-Provera is older than I am, though its release in the US is merely older than my daughter. There is little new in the field of contraceptives invented by men or women, and the last one marketed to me as "new" had a lot of weird things about it. (Here's a free hint, guys--if you have a female roommate, and she leaves a mysterious brown paper bag in your refrigerator, it might not be food.) It used to be that women lied about needing their cycles regulated to get on the Pill, but I think the fact that there are women who do need their cycles regulated and still can't get their insurance to cover it rather outweighs that.

Well of course. But the man being careful isn't going to help if the woman is raped, or she strays.

"Strays"? But you're right, of course . . . which is why birth control from either side of the relationship that you can't actively see is a sign of trust.

MS Word and Google both spotted the mistake when I entered the misspelling (which, incidentally, I didn't spot myself). It's just the way the different spellcheck algorithms works. It's not as if some sexist programmer thought caesareans were a female thing and therefore not worth bothering with... which I presume is not what you're saying.

Okay, but why isn't it in the algorithm? I'm sure quite a lot of male-oriented things aren't, either, though I do not much feel like testing the programming. Heaven knows I've had to add enough words to mine over the years, mostly including names and jargon. But no, my thought was that it simply didn't occur to whoever-it-was that "caesarean" is even a word.

[Paul Beardsley]

I think demanding attention paid to the fact that men invented them is a bit resting on laurels at this point, frankly.

That's not what I'm doing at all. And with that, I think I'm losing interest in the discussion.

Okay, but why isn't it in the algorithm?

Because they didn't anticipate every possible way that someone would misspell a word?

[Gillianren]

But the actual word still shows up as misspelled!

[Van Rijn]

But the actual word still shows up as misspelled!

So they got it wrong. Very different subject, but recently I was double checking something on Mars through Google, and up popped a direct message on Google that Mars has over 60% of the Earth's mass (it comes up like a calculator result). But I knew it's actually less the 11% of the Earth's mass. They've now changed the number, but last I looked, while it was much closer, it is still a fair bit off the number I find at pretty much every space/astronomy site. This is for something that should have been static for decades at this level of detail. Moral of the story: Don't assume Google is getting it right.

[SkepticJ]

So they got it wrong.

Don't be naive, man!

It's clearly proof that the spellchecking software field is dominated by men who, if they don't have outright distain for women, at least have an unspoken--and perhaps unconscious--attitude that all words relating to the Female Experience are less deserving of being spelled correctly.

[whimsyfree]

It's spelt "caesarean".

Americans might prefer "cesarean". They generally kill classical diphthongs.

[Perikles]

Americans might prefer "cesarean". They generally kill classical diphthongs.

I don't think the 'ae' in this case is a diphthong, just the spelling of a long vowel something like sigh, but I suppose this is debatable. [polite smiley]

[Nick Theodorakis]

Americans might prefer "cesarean". ...

We do? I've never seen it spelled that way.

Nick

[SeanF]

Americans might prefer "cesarean". ...

We do? I've never seen it spelled that way.

Nick

According to dictionary.com, "Caesarean," "Caesarian," "Cesarean," and "Cesarian" are all acceptable, and my Firefox spell-check accepts them all.

[Gillianren]

I've never seen it spelled that way, either, but that appears to be what my spellcheck thinks is the correct spelling. Well. That's a different complaint, then.

[IreneAnt]

The trouble with this kind of discussion is the fear of making some general statement which is perceived to be denigrating one sex, when really you are just rying to be objective. I shall risk stating the assertion that brain function in women is not quite the same as in men. Generally, women excel in some areas and men in others. This is how we have evolved as a species. Sexual equality cannot be simply about insisting that men and women have to be equally capable at everything, that is just nonsense. I am not surprised that some areas of study are male-dominated - why would you expect equal numbers?

Edit: That was not intended as a personal attack, just a general question.

As a female scientist, in the "hard sciences", I would like to offer my observations on this issue.

Yes, men and women do tend to excel at different things. But those things are not physics vs psychology (for example). The things that women do well from an evolutionary stand point (like categorizing, sorting, gleaning, understanding nuances, and working in groups to name just a few) are very well suited to the hard sciences. The problem, I have found, is that the science that is done using traditionally "female" skills is considered sub-standard in western science circles. Even though so many of our scientific advances are based on large surveys, meticulous (some might say boring) sifting through data, and so on, this is not generally the work that makes the cover of Science. So, I don't think that it's a lack of interest in STEM that turns off a lot of women, I think it is the strong lack of appreciation for the strengths that women do bring to science that drives so many away. And since women are statistically more sensitive to this kind of thing, they will naturally wander to some place where their innate skill set does get respect (like the medical or social sciences).

[HenrikOlsen]

Why?

Are there other species where one sex is smarter than the other?

Aside from certain arthropods, most creatures have relatively little difference in body size between the sexes. And most creatures pull their own weight as adults; they can't afford to mooch off of the intelligence of another.

Humans are surprisingly non-sexually dimorphic even for mammals.

It's actually a valid observation.

Makes you wonder if this discussion would even have been possible to have in a species with strong dimorphism.

[SkepticJ]

Humans are surprisingly non-sexually dimorphic even for mammals.

It's actually a valid observation.

Makes you wonder if this discussion would even have been possible to have in a species with strong dimorphism.

That's true, but sexual dimorphism is window dressing, isn't it? I mean peacocks look like they do because that's what peahens want. Male moose have their huge racks for the same reason. They're grown bling, "Hey, look at me!"

Except for a few odd cases, like anglerfish, most vertebrates are the same where it really counts. Yes, males are usually a little-to-somewhat larger (and that's because males are competing with one another in games of strength), but I don't really see a substantive difference between a male tiger or a female tiger, a male bear or a female bear, a male falcon or a female falcon, a male T-rex or a female T-rex, a male squid or a female squid . . . The traits that differentiate the genders aren't essential from an environmental fitness standpoint, but are the product of sexual selection.

Now, arthropods are a different story, where males and females can be wildly different sizes. See some spiders and termites. Why this is the case I do not know; maybe it has something to do with how egg cells are always much larger than sperm, and when an animal gets very small, but still needs to create lots of young, this gets to be a selection pressure. Males can be smaller, so they are.

Are there animals that have strong dimorphism where both the sexes aren't basically instinct-driven robots? I say basically because it has been shown that flies are capable of very rudimentary learning. If flies, then it seems likely that other arthropods can too.

[whimsyfree]

I don't think the 'ae' in this case is a diphthong, just the spelling of a long vowel something like sigh, but I suppose this is debatable. [polite smiley]

Traditionally such ligatures have been referred to as diphthongs. A search on "diphthong" reveals several references that give "Caesar" as an example! Whether this is technically correct is a little too far off topic to discuss here I think. [polite smiley]

We do? I've never seen it spelled that way.

Maybe not in Indiana. I think you will concede that you don't often see "paedophile", "encyclopaedia" or "diarrhoea" (or "oeconomics", but no-one writes that) in US usage. Oddly a word which must be common in the US, "subpoena", resists this trend.

[Perikles]

Traditionally such ligatures have been referred to as diphthongs. .

Yes, you are quite correct. [hat-raising smiley]

[korjik]

What, a discussion of spelling and a discussion of sexual dimorphism and no one talking about how much of a misogynist Don is?

[Perikles]

What, a discussion of spelling and a discussion of sexual dimorphism and no one talking about how much of a misogynist Don is?

Mea maxima culpa. I thought this was an insightful post, and on-topic:

As a female scientist, in the "hard sciences", I would like to offer my observations on this issue.

Yes, men and women do tend to excel at different things. But those things are not physics vs psychology (for example). The things that women do well from an evolutionary stand point (like categorizing, sorting, gleaning, understanding nuances, and working in groups to name just a few) are very well suited to the hard sciences. The problem, I have found, is that the science that is done using traditionally "female" skills is considered sub-standard in western science circles. Even though so many of our scientific advances are based on large surveys, meticulous (some might say boring) sifting through data, and so on, this is not generally the work that makes the cover of Science. So, I don't think that it's a lack of interest in STEM that turns off a lot of women, I think it is the strong lack of appreciation for the strengths that women do bring to science that drives so many away. And since women are statistically more sensitive to this kind of thing, they will naturally wander to some place where their innate skill set does get respect (like the medical or social sciences).

[whimsyfree]

Mea maxima culpa. I thought this was an insightful post, and on-topic:

I though it was interesting but relied on misandrist stereotypes. Men work in groups just fine and men can perform meticulous analysis.

[IreneAnt]

I though it was interesting but relied on misandrist stereotypes. Men work in groups just fine and men can perform meticulous analysis.

Hi whimsyfree,

I'm sorry if I came off as a misandrist. I certainly didn't intend to be. My point was not that men don't have these skills, or that only women do. My point was that when science is done using these kinds of skills, it doesn't get the respect it deserves (regardless of whether it is done by men or women). Since women are more likely to be sensitive to this kind of pressure, statistically more women will be driven off this way then men, and so their absence will be more noticeable (e.g. chase away 90% of women, but only 50% of men from an originally half-and-half pool and you will have less than 20% women, so people notice that the women left, but they don't notice that many men left too).

Also, I stress that I am speaking from a statistical stand point. As we all know, statistics and generalizations are useful for predicting group trends, but not so much individual behaviours. This is something I am well aware of, since I am one of those women who clearly doesn't follow the generalizations I outlined. <Grin>

Regards
Irene Ant

[Nicolas]

Since women are more likely to be sensitive to this [it doesn't get the respect it deserves] kind of pressure

Are you sure about this, if so why do you think that is/do you have examples of this being the case?

Because of the limitations of written conversation, I'll add that you need to read this as a neutral question. I don't know whether or not women are more sensitive to getting the deserved amount of respect than men, and I'd like to hear your opinion and insights.

[Disinfo Agent]

Denied contraceptives... Serious question (because I don't know the answer): who invented reliable and safe contraceptives? And safer methods of delivering children? I strongly suspect men were the main players in this [...]

While contraceptives have a long and complex history, there's a case to be made that women had to do a fair amount of the legwork in the sexual revolution by themselves.

I shall risk stating the assertion that brain function in women is not quite the same as in men. Generally, women excel in some areas and men in others.

Those two statements may well be true, but the latter isn't necessarily explained by the former.

I actually think that irresponsible men are the main beneficiaries of contraception, but that's another issue.

I know you put this remark in parentheses, but I had to come back to it. I disagree. Irresponsible men will not care for the consequences either way. But contraception benefits responsible men tremendously, because it allows them to choose the best time and the best conditions to become fathers.

[IreneAnt]

Are you sure about this, if so why do you think that is/do you have examples of this being the case?

Because of the limitations of written conversation, I'll add that you need to read this as a neutral question. I don't know whether or not women are more sensitive to getting the deserved amount of respect than men, and I'd like to hear your opinion and insights.

Well, I am not an anthropologist so I am definitely stepping out of my element here. That said, my understanding from popular science readings is that women are more likely to self-ostracize from a group where they find the dynamics uncomfortable. That is the kind of pressure I was referring to. Do I have examples or studies of this? No, as it is not my field of expertise.

I'd love to have an anthropologist weigh in and provide some real data on this issue, one way or another....

[Perikles]

As a light-hearted description of different brain functions, this youtube video might be worth watching (Am I allowed Youtube links?)

This might be stereotyping, and way over the top, but I think it contains a grain of truth.