When life was simpler

[alanschu]

keep in mind, alanschu, there is a very large biological difference between women and men in regards to one specific area: hormones. women and men have completely different body chemistry, which does effect both their brain and body functions.

 

taks

 

 

That is true, but what effect that has our gender roles and whatnot is unclear. Estrogen doesn't make women like "girly" colours or want to play with dolls, or make the content being Suzy homemaker for their husband.

 

 

The biggest thing the hormonal difference contributes, as far as I can tell, is physical strength. In this way weaker people will always be disadvantaged at jobs that require a high amount of physical strength. In this regard, all I have to say is "tough ****" to people that complain about it.

[alanschu]

My point isn't that women don't suffer from discrimination. ...And I respect your post in this regard, alan. Especially since it touches on points I was actually trying to make. The loom, for instance. Men are stronger than women. There are physical differences. To accuse me of sexism for pointing out an unavoidable fact doesn't change it. Pointing out that this specific woman over here is stronger than that specific man over there doesn't change the general rule either. So, discrimination exists, but it works in a variety of ways. Ways we don't even understand. Ways we will probably never understand.

 

I never accused you of sexism, and in my own post I commented on physical strength. I'm also not stupid enough to think that some women that are stronger than men means that it's not the general rule. However, I will not buy into the argument that men and women tend to drift towards different jobs based on biological difference (rather than social expectation). The physical strength argument doesn't break jobs down into men vs. women, but rather physically strong vs. physically weak. I am curious what other biological difference you feel contribute, and in what way.

[Aristes]

Really? You don't think testosterone makes a difference in psychology? You think the only physiological difference between men and women is strength? Ridiculous. Now, I'm basing this response on your statement: "The biggest thing the hormonal difference contributes, as far as I can tell, is physical strength."

 

I especially have a hard time figuring out how you can say "[t]hat is true, but what effect that has our gender roles and whatnot is unclear." in the next breath you say "[h]owever, I will not buy into the argument that men and women tend to drift towards different jobs based on biological difference (rather than social expectation)." You admit ignorance in one statement and then profess better understanding in one breath.

 

The fact is, we don't know the difference that hormones make between men and women. However, there is clearly a wide variety of differences between men and women based on hormonal levels, most particualarly testosterone and estrogen. The most obvious difference is strength, but citing the most obvious characteristic and then claiming that it's either the only real difference or even the most significant one? How about brain size? I don't, in any way, suggest that men are smarter than women, but the male brain is larger. How would that make a difference? Do we really understand all that is entailed in the human mind and how each and every chemical effects it differently? ...And make no mistake, men and women have different chemistry.

 

Once again, I don't deny that discrimination exists, but if you're trying to sell me on the idea that discrimination is the sole cause for these problems, then you lost that sale a long time ago. I'm not even sold that it's the primary cause, let alone the sole one.

Edited April 11, 2009 by Aristes

[alanschu]

Really? You don't think testosterone makes a difference in psychology? You think the only physiological difference between men and women is strength? Ridiculous. Now, I'm basing this response on your statement: "The biggest thing the hormonal difference contributes, as far as I can tell, is physical strength."

 

The strength is a byproduct of the testosterone, as testosterone is an anabolic steroid. I didn't spell put that connection because I didn't think it was necessary. I made an assumption that people here are intelligent enough to know what causes the increase in strength for men. Men aren't just "magically" stronger...they are stronger because their body facilitates the growth of muscle mass. By acknowledging the strength difference I implicitly acknowledged the role testosterone has (which is the physiological difference).

 

And at no point did I ever state that the only "physiological difference" between men and women is physical strength. Since you decided to put words in my mouth, I am going to be a bit of an ass and clarify to you that physical strength itself, is not a "physiological difference." It's the byproduct of the difference in testosterone levels.

 

I especially have a hard time figuring out how you can say "[t]hat is true, but what effect that has our gender roles and whatnot is unclear." in the next breath you say "[h]owever, I will not buy into the argument that men and women tend to drift towards different jobs based on biological difference (rather than social expectation)." You admit ignorance in one statement and then profess better understanding in one breath.

 

First of all, you're comparing two different things. My "unclear" statement was about "gender roles" and the second statement was specifically about whether "women tend to drift towards different jobs" (emphasis added) These two things are NOT equivalent. I stand by my statement. I've seen lots of evidence and support for societal and psychological influences. I've seen little support for hormones telling girls to go play with dolls and to be all frilly and girly. I don't buy into the idea that women seek different types of employment based on their biological makeup because by doing so, I help people rationalize the systemic discrimination the exists in our society. The arguments that you're using are the same arguments that the male dominated labour unions of the industrial revolution used to keep women out, ensuring the status quo and continuing to undermine the opportunities available for women. I can't think of anything to suggest that the general division of labour in the paid market between men and women is better explained through biological means than some other means.

 

The fact is, we don't know the difference that hormones make between men and women. However, there is clearly a wide variety of differences between men and women based on hormonal levels, most particualarly testosterone and estrogen. The most obvious difference is strength, but citing the most obvious characteristic and then claiming that it's either the only real difference or even the most significant one? How about brain size? I don't, in any way, suggest that men are smarter than women, but the male brain is larger. How would that make a difference? Do we really understand all that is entailed in the human mind and how each and every chemical effects it differently? ...And make no mistake, men and women have different chemistry.

 

Does a larger brain correlate with anything, outside of the fact that men tend to be larger, complete with larger skulls and hence more room for more brain matter? If brain size had anywhere near the impact in making a difference between men and women that physical strength does, we'd already have seen it because the strength one is THAT obvious. The correlation would be exceptionally strong. Instead, you're just throwing out "what ifs" that aren't supported by anything. It's a convenient way for people to ignore the perspectives that they don't want to believe, and you see this everywhere too. You'll get people on both sides of the climate change argument saying "well we don't understand exactly how things work" on BOTH sides of the argument to support BOTH ideas. Stop the cognitive dissonance that we experience, by rationalizing a different explanation.

 

Once again, I don't deny that discrimination exists, but if you're trying to sell me on the idea that discrimination is the sole cause for these problems, then you lost that sale a long time ago.

 

I don't just post for your pleasure I'm sorry to say. I just happen to disagree vehemently with your stance of "well despite all of the evidence and demonstrable differences between cultures that exist, the idea that men and women are physically different leads me to believe that this is why they drift towards the tasks and interests, in spite of demonstrable proof."

 

I'm not even sold that it's the primary cause, let alone the sole one.

 

Of course, it's easier that way. I mean, if it's all biological, then people can sleep soundly knowing that there's nothing they do about it. Because it's genetic that women just don't want to be doctors. It's a safe and easy way to remove cognitive dissonance.

 

Even if you aren't sold it's the primary cause, you're just putting your head in the sand if you can't acknowledge that it's a significant cause.

Edited April 11, 2009 by alanschu

[Aristes]

You're right, Alan. You're being an ass. Not that I mind. I figure folks can't always agree on everything.

 

However, you words, "ince you decided to put words in my mouth..." sound a bit hollow when you say, "[e]ven if you aren't sold it's the primary cause, you're just putting your head in the sand if you can't acknowledge that it's a significant cause." It appears as if you know a thing or two about putting words in someone's mouth. After all, my statement was, "I'm not even sold that it's the primary cause, let alone the sole one." I only suggest that discrimination may not be the primary cause. I'm sure it's not the only cause, but I never suggested that it's not a significant cause.

 

As to your defining the terms, such as physiological... I wish I used the rolling eyes smiley. Sorry, bro. I don't buy it. At all. We take common usage for words in these threads because our ponderously long posts would be even longer otherwise. You want to pull out a dictionary next? Maybe point out a mispelling or typo? [Note, these are Clearly ironical questions] hahaha Okay, fair enough. You needed to point out that men were not "magically stronger" to whom in this thread, man? There are at most five of us engaged in the specific discussion. I get that you're not trying to impress me. I get that you're holding forth for a larger audience. I'm just wondering who the hell it is.

 

For the record, since we're both standing by our statements, I still take my point to be valid. Until we know all of the ins and outs of the issue, we cannot understand it. The fact that we will never understand it entirely is no excuse to stop at certain point and go no further. In fact, I never suggest that we do. It's like global climate change on both sides. Both sides point to a set of facts and make definitive statements. Discrimination is not only the primary culprit. It may also be the only one. How about this, why don't we study the issue.

 

Is it so terribly wrong to study the issue? As I understand it, although the number spread is different, there's very little difference between the intelligence (which is to say the results of intelligence tests) between men and women. If anything, women may be smarter. However, they do not and have not performed equally in specific aptitude tests. As someone who apparently hates discrimination (and I say that without any irony), don't you think that establishing the cause of would be useful. After all, I've entertained the possibility that I could be wrong the whole time. You, by implication at least, have done what so many people have done in the last few decades, branded me a sexist by implication. Oh, you didn't come out and say it, but you sure as hell implied it. My point is, I think there are physiological differences and these differences may impact lifestyle choices. Oh, and I like how I can't pose hypothetical questions because they don't fit how you'd like to frame the debate. If this is a discussion between friendly people of good will, then we're forced to allow ourselves some leeway.

 

So, here's a question for you, is sexual orientation genetic or not? How about transgender? What makes folks prefer blue or red or pink? Just because we don't know the answers to these questions doesn't mean that they might not impact the central question. ...And I don't ask these questions to trick anyone. They're not rhetorical questions. They are honest. If you have a good answer, I'm listening with an open mind. THAT, my friend, is the only time I really thought you were being an ass. You want to win an argument? Fine. You've won. I'd like to have a discussion, and the only thing you've done that irritates me is pretend I'm throwing out questions just to trip you up. I assumed you were a person of good faith. I don't ask a question without being willing to entertain your answer.

 

I did find an interesting article on brain size, though:

 

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/129/2/386

Edited April 11, 2009 by Aristes

[Tigranes]

Finally, as for you Tig, you're a great guy. I've enjoyed your views on games and politics. Your pictures of Korea bring back memories of my days there when I was younger. I'm sorry that I didn't take pleasure in the rolling off your chair, guffaw inducing original post, but I'm sure I've offended you more at this point than the cartoon offended me. grin.gif

 

I actually had nothing in my head when I posted.

 

I'll probably reply when I get around to reading the thread.

[Aristes]

Well, when you get around to reading the whole thread, please read all my words with more charity than I used in writing some of them.

[Gorth]

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/129/2/386

Gorths summary: Left handed people are too stupid to be even considered for a job and if we had been given more tax payer money for bigger and better equipment, we could have produced useful results?

 

What did left handed people do to offend you?

[Aristes]

Haha I didn't do the study. I just thought it was interesting. I did find the left handed part strange.

 

You know, I think you guys misunderstand me in regards to this stuff. I don't deny that discrimination exists. If anything, I've cited discrimination as an effect on society as a whole, and gender relations specifically, from the very beginning. To me, it is clear that there are physiological differences that arise from the disparate levels of hormones. The relationship between testosterone and aggression is largely accepted, even though the jury is still out regarding causation. There are differences between men and women, and those differences transcend body strength and reproductive organs. Should that be used as an excuse to persecute women? Of course not. [Notice, when I ask a rhetorical question, I give an honest answer. Even then, in most cases, I'm willing to listen to a reasonable dissenting answer. In this case, of course, I draw the line at persecution, but I hope you get the point.]

 

I have a wife. I have a mother and sisters. I'm proud of them. They are all productive members of society. They are all intelligent women. My wife has been in her profession for 20 years and my sisters have likewise done well at their professions. I admire them no less than my brothers. I don't want to see women persecuted.

 

However, I simply don't understand why folks are more more willing to accept all sorts of conditions as congenital, such as homosexuality, aggression, and a host of other characteristics that were formally classified as choices, but questions regarding essentially the same sorts of characteristics between women and men are taboo. Not only taboo, but merely bringing up the differences between men and women draws fire as bigoted. Why is that? I'm not saying that men and women should be treated differently. If we have a man and a woman with the exact same education, years of service, and capabilities, of course the woman should not make less. ...But there are factors that political correctness does not allow us to consider. Men are apparently more aggressive than women. Women are apparently more likely to desire to leave the work force to raise a family. Would it be better to have both parents refuse to put aside their profession for the sake of their children? [Notice that this is a rhetorical sort of question, but I will gladly entertain honest answers.]

 

I'm not trying to insult anyone and I understand that alan and cyclone are morally outraged by discrimination against women, but we should be able to ask questions regarding physiological differences between sexes. Yes, some folks have misused physiology as an excuse to persecute people, but legitimate studies that are not conducted merely as a tool to promote bigotry should not suffer repudiation. After all, such questions and the ensuing answers have been quite helpful in, say, treating people with sickle cell anemia.

[alanschu]

You're right, Alan. You're being an ass. Not that I mind. I figure folks can't always agree on everything.

 

However, you words, "ince you decided to put words in my mouth..." sound a bit hollow when you say, "[e]ven if you aren't sold it's the primary cause, you're just putting your head in the sand if you can't acknowledge that it's a significant cause." It appears as if you know a thing or two about putting words in someone's mouth. After all, my statement was, "I'm not even sold that it's the primary cause, let alone the sole one." I only suggest that discrimination may not be the primary cause. I'm sure it's not the only cause, but I never suggested that it's not a significant cause.

 

You certainly have NOT given that impression at all. You've done little but minimize the entire perspective, while contributing nothing but vague questions yourself. We can play the "what if there's more" game. But if you want to argue semantics and worse use some more, you'll notice I used the word "if."

 

As to your defining the terms, such as physiological... I wish I used the rolling eyes smiley. Sorry, bro. I don't buy it. At all. We take common usage for words in these threads because our ponderously long posts would be even longer otherwise. You want to pull out a dictionary next? Maybe point out a mispelling or typo? [Note, these are Clearly ironical questions] hahaha Okay, fair enough.

 

Then don't be a doofus and ridicule me asserting the possibility that I feel the only difference between men and women in physical strength, and then mention testosterone as if it's unrelated to the point I was making.

 

 

There are at most five of us engaged in the specific discussion. I get that you're not trying to impress me. I get that you're holding forth for a larger audience. I'm just wondering who the hell it is.

 

Any person that might stroll into this thread, and read what you're writing, because I certainly do not want people reading it, and then interpreting your position as somehow being one that convinces people that the OTHER issues are in fact WRONG. Exhibit A: Climate Change. Quite frankly, I think you grossly understate the sociological and psychological effects on people. That's why I say it. History is overflowing with people that have tried to use genetics and biological explanations for why people should be undermined, held back, and restricted (or sometimes worse and outright exterminated and/or euthanized). You get people like Cesare Lombroso and the idea of the born criminal, and using his research to "prove" biological traits that lead to criminal behaviour, resulting in people discriminating against those that have those traits, even if they aren't a criminal.

 

 

For the record, since we're both standing by our statements, I still take my point to be valid. Until we know all of the ins and outs of the issue, we cannot understand it. The fact that we will never understand it entirely is no excuse to stop at certain point and go no further. In fact, I never suggest that we do. It's like global climate change on both sides. Both sides point to a set of facts and make definitive statements. Discrimination is not only the primary culprit. It may also be the only one. How about this, why don't we study the issue.

 

We are studying the issue. People have been studying what you're asking about for a long time. Who gives a **** if discrimination isn't even the primary culprit....it is something that can be changed, and it IS something that has shown conclusively to have powerful effects on human behaviour. Should we NOT research the human body more? Absolutely not, and I never made a claim. However, However, if there were significant differences in intellectual capability of men and women, I would be exceptionally surprised if we haven't actually found it yet. There IS ideas that men tend to be more logical and so forth, but that can't even escape the influence of society and how we raise boys and girls differently.

 

 

 

Is it so terribly wrong to study the issue? As I understand it, although the number spread is different, there's very little difference between the intelligence (which is to say the results of intelligence tests) between men and women. If anything, women may be smarter. However, they do not and have not performed equally in specific aptitude tests. As someone who apparently hates discrimination (and I say that without any irony), don't you think that establishing the cause of would be useful. After all, I've entertained the possibility that I could be wrong the whole time. You, by implication at least, have done what so many people have done in the last few decades, branded me a sexist by implication. Oh, you didn't come out and say it, but you sure as hell implied it. My point is, I think there are physiological differences and these differences may impact lifestyle choices. Oh, and I like how I can't pose hypothetical questions because they don't fit how you'd like to frame the debate. If this is a discussion between friendly people of good will, then we're forced to allow ourselves some leeway.

 

I've never implied you're sexist. If anything I've implied that you have blinders on and are insisting on minimizing volumes of research that has been done because of some "well maybes." Posing hypothetical questions is nice and all...but ultimately what does it accomplish? You're wrong if you think you're the only person asking these questions. Should they be asked? Absolutely. But you cannot do it at the expensive of overlooking and ignoring the actual data that has been researched and analyzed. To me, it's like you have this mountain of data, such as twin studies, cultural analysis between cultures, analysis of the same culture over different times, and all that it says, and you've on a hunch decided "you know, I think it's more biological."

 

So, here's a question for you, is sexual orientation genetic or not? How about transgender? What makes folks prefer blue or red or pink? Just because we don't know the answers to these questions doesn't mean that they might not impact the central question.

 

They seem pretty ancillary (at best) to a discussion about how men and women tend to behave differently in my opinion. Look at your post on the first page, where you start talking about how you feel women tend to prefer feminine things, and then completely miss the point by making comments such as: "Should we despise a woman who decides that her family is more important than her career? ... Should we make fun of a girl who likes a frilly pink dress more than blue jeans?" If you feel that women are more likely to want to play with dolls, wear makeup, and tend to act more feminine based on their physiological make up, then that's your prerogative. I adamantly disagree. As for your questions, I do feel that sexual orientation is genetic. I could split hairs on transgender, since gender itself is a social construct, but I'll go with biological on that sense. People preferring blue or red or pink? I'm skeptical towards a biological predisposition to preferring certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. But when twin studies show twins growing up separated in very different environments having such a profound effect on how they behave, I strongly favour nurture over nature when it comes to these types of scenarios. Why do you feel so strongly that it's biological?

 

 

 

EDIT: (removed a block of text since it'd only contniue the bickering)

Edited April 11, 2009 by alanschu

[Gorth]

The paper you linked to was "flawed" because they couldn't get their numbers right, so they segregated out a group of people and even then they only got partial correlation between their hypothesis and the measured results, hence me being a bit sarcastic

 

I think men and women are born with not only different physiology but also different psychologial makeups, hence what works for one doesn't always work for another. Try looking for studies of boys with behavioural problems that were raised the same way as girls. Both as infants and adults, the sexes have (as a result of evolution) different inbred traits, not at least how they express themselves.

 

There is no excuse for not offereing equal opportunities though, i.e. same rights, same pay for same work etc. because that is indeed a construct made by society and shouldn't be in one (society) that consider itself "elightened".

 

I think I made it my lifes goal to make a mockery of the selfish gene and try to identify everytime I think something that could in reality be the Homo Somethingveryoldus speaking through our racial memory.

[alanschu]

That sounds a lot like Carl Jung's hypothesis about the collective unconsciousness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious ).

 

 

I still feel that much of how boys and girls express themselves and whatnot are socially constructed expectations. For instance, boys and girls both cry when hurt when young, but this behaviour is deemed unacceptable for boys at a very early stage, and they condition themselves not to cry when experiencing physical pain (or even emotional pain). I think the idea of men and women expressing themselves differently is also based upon the norms and mores of a society. A man will get ridiculed for expressing his feelings (I know, I have hahaha). It's my own confrimation bias, but I struggle to understand why anything physiological would affect such a social action.

 

 

Can this psychological makeup be passed on? I'm not so sure. I tend to think Jung is a bit of a crackpot with this theory, and the unfortunate thing is that it's not a falsifiable one. As a result I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it.

 

 

 

EDIT: It seems the relationship between testosterone and aggression continues to be controversial. The general idea it seems, from some quick reading I did just now, that the presence of testosterone may result in an increased likelihood of aggressive behaviour, given the appropriate stimulus from the environment. However, there have been studies that have demonstrated that people with aggressive behaviour of a sample group exhibited less testosterone than the people lacking in aggression.

 

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...eb1/csante.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8885586 (unfortunately just an abstract and old)

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/46365/abstract (merging biological and social factors)

Edited April 11, 2009 by alanschu

[Aristes]

I'm skeptical towards a biological predisposition to preferring certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. But when twin studies show twins growing up separated in very different environments having such a profound effect on how they behave, I strongly favour nurture over nature when it comes to these types of scenarios. Why do you feel so strongly that it's biological?

 

I don't feel that biology is the only factor. In fact, I don't even think it is the primary factor. However, the reason I keep asking these questions is because they don't have answers and we won't find them if posing the very question brands you a sexist. I'm actually happy to hear that you're not branding me a sexist. I'd rather be misguided than be a willful bigot.

 

You trivialize color choice, but I see it as part of a larger whole. Why do some people prefer to be the center of attention and some don't? You can trivialize "frilly dresses" all you want, but the point isn't that a girl prefers a particular frilly dress. The point is that girls might naturally want to dress in a way that society dictates as enticing to young men. Society might dictate the specific (ie frilly dress or tight jeans) but nature might provide that urge for the girl to make herself appealing.

 

In terms of people using research for questionable ends, I refer you to my previous post. Legitimate sources of research should have some leeway to ask these questions and get good answers. heh. You know, my wife's left arm hurt recently. Since I've always understood it to be a warning sign for a heart attack. I don't like to panic, and she was marginally worried about it so I didn't want to sound worried also, but I was. I couldn't sleep because I was listening to make sure her breathing was normally. Finally, I went and looked online and found out that warning signs signalling a heart attack are actually different between men and women. Go figure. There are so many things different between men and women, don't you think we can take an honest look at some of the psychological differences without deciding the answer before we ask the question? Going into research with the motive of proving your predetermined position is wrong, no matter which side you favor.

 

Finally, there is all sorts of research that shows different apptitudes for men and women. Previously, folks have thought that the reason was biological in most cases. That position has fallen out of favor, which is fine, as long as the reason it fell out of favor were the supporting facts and not societal pressure.

 

As to you, Gorth, I thought the Oxford article was interesting, but it was too technical for me to assess in a greater sense. I'm reasonably well educated, but not in the field. lol I did read through the article and paid special attention to the summary. It raised an eyebrow to see an entire group was excluded from much of the research.

[Calax]

http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/129/2/386

Gorths summary: Left handed people are too stupid to be even considered for a job and if we had been given more tax payer money for bigger and better equipment, we could have produced useful results?

 

What did left handed people do to offend you?

Everyone starts right handed, only the gifted overcome this fault

[taks]

what is the % of japanese that are left-handed? something like 9%% or more, correct?

 

taks

[Maria Caliban]

It's a bit funny how we all join in and attack a feminist agenda, when in fact one has not actually been presented.

 

Just a thought.

 

Thank you.

 

yeah. and they better make sure to keep 'em available and keep up with that kitchen work if they want any respect from me.

 

wait, dammit... i'm the one that does the dishes in my house. argh. of course, that's because my wife won't trust me with anything else but cooking and cleaning the kitchen. that doesn't sound good, either. i'm suffering man point losses. she gets the laundry and everything else for that matter. phew, i won, and have retained a few man points.

 

taks

 

PS: how on earth did this turn into another woman bashing thread? didn't we already have one of those recently?

 

Thank you.

 

 

Don't provoke me or lesbians will be brought into the fray.

 

 

Ive seen lesbians in reality, ok? And I think we should be glad that those women stick to other women.

 

Go **** yourself.

[Aristes]

You know, Maria, I'm curious as to your opinion regarding differences between men and women. Leaving aside the cartoon, which folks continue to despise and cite as proof societal discrimination, I mean the question as a whole. What do you think of the larger argument?

 

I intend not to respond to your answer, so this isn't an invitation to a fight. In fact, I won't even use a third party post as an excuse to surreptitiously respond. I'm genuinely curious.

 

That the cartoon, as satire, should be used as proof of discrimination, when there are so many real examples boggles my mind. Still, I guess that's my parting shot. I'll simply lurk in this thread rather than clog it.

[Gorth]

what is the % of japanese that are left-handed? something like 9%% or more, correct?

 

taks

In this test, it was a significantly larger number (check out the male, non-CRH's) http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/conten.../129/2/386/TBL1

[alanschu]

You trivialize color choice, but I see it as part of a larger whole. Why do some people prefer to be the center of attention and some don't? You can trivialize "frilly dresses" all you want, but the point isn't that a girl prefers a particular frilly dress. The point is that girls might naturally want to dress in a way that society dictates as enticing to young men. Society might dictate the specific (ie frilly dress or tight jeans) but nature might provide that urge for the girl to make herself appealing.

 

The problem with this is that if there was something biological, I would expect it to be more constant despite cultural differences. That is, the actions performed wouldn't vary by culture. I will agree that there will be biological pressures to seek a mate, but feel that human beings as social creatures socially create much of the process, and the fact that what is deemed attractive changes so much even within cultures, leads me to believe a primary influence of social and psychological factors. In order to procreate and satisfy the biological desire, all people need to do is have sex. As we all know though, in reality it's a lot more complicated to find a mate! The thing is, people really aren't just looking for someone to copulate with, and I think that that is very much a social construction.

 

 

I am not closed minded to the issue of biological influence. I just feel it's not nearly as significant. If I see something that shows me otherwise, I will change my tune, because I've already changed my tune. I used to buy into the biological perspective a lot more, and I don't discount it has its place, but with a lot of my education and reading I have done, I've changed my perspective. I've done it for a great deal of things. In fact the other issue I have actually discussed quite passionately about on these very fora is the death penalty. But that's a whole other ball of wax.

Edited April 12, 2009 by alanschu

[Blank]

However, there have been studies that have demonstrated that people with aggressive behaviour of a sample group exhibited less testosterone than the people lacking in aggression.

That's because true manly men control their aggression. Weak men aggress flippantly.

[alanschu]

LOL!

[Kaftan Barlast]

So that means my blatant cowardice is a sign of true manhood? Sweet!