Battle of Sexes?

[faroukfarouk]

In my house i am the slave.I have to work very hard everyday to keep the boss happy.
In my bedroom i am the boss.Here i have to work overtime to keep the slave happy.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I haven't really done research into this but it seems rather obvious that differences exist. Testosterone does wonders for men: it makes us more aggressive, egotistical, promiscuous and driven and I think most men fall within a range where they meet these qualities.

Any exceptions are what are called outliers in the world of stats or standard deviations outside the mean. Society is trying to downplay the differences by injecting a lot of social theories which I think are just plain wrong, but in the end science will figure out the truth.

Nature plays a part in everything we are. Whether it be morality, gender and orientation. Just like a minority of people are homosexual, I believe a minority of people are gender fluid. But the majority aren't.

Testosterone, fwiw, begins to drop significantly in men with average gonad health after 40. How manly are these people? Are they still men? Are they less of a man because of testosterone levels dropping? Men who produce estrogen, get breast tissue and incidents of breast cancer....are they not as manly somehow? Should they feel unmanly because of the change in bodily function and processes?

IMO, there is no reason to single out testosterone as The Proof of why societies perceive gender stratifications and norms. Gender determinist arguments tend to conflate testosterone to an all-important status of dominance in a society and relegate estrogen as the hormone to why women are better suited for caretaking roles and out of the public sphere. Plus, the arguments from determinists not only elevate one hormone above all the rest as reasons for why one gender is more suited to such-and-such role, but ignore other hormones as interestingly extraneous in the grand scheme of things.

It's like male ejaculatory bias in sexuality. Sex isn't really "sex" without a male ejaculating at some point, according to many. Sex also typcially considers what a penis is or isn't doing to determine the label or definition, with little to no consideration for what a clitoris is doing in determining if the act itself is completed.

Testosterone is the marker for bias in determining how genders are "placed" or "defined" in society. It's the easiest and most recognizable hormone in male gonad production...and therefore in male-dominated societies, it's the most talked about as the reason "why" men do what they do and why men are successful in _________. Men have it a lot, women not so much. The simple-minded looks at that and yells out "WIN!" I think it's funny when that happens.

There are arguments regarding testosterone rising after sports games where riots occur, assault and battery rates rise, and property damage, which may suggest that men are more naturally violent and out of control than women. Are you absolutely sure that we want to go into that area? Because the insistence behind men being as good as women in parenting, conflict resolution, justice, and leadership (because of emotional instablity and greater propensity toward violence) flies out the door. If we were to conflate testosterone as the end-all be-all of why men are more aggressive, then why should the conversation turn toward testosterone being the end-all be-all of why men are more violent? And therefore, not as capable as women in parenting, justice, or caretaking? If men want more parental rights after divorce, more opportunities in child care, and less discrimination in societal assumptions about men being around kids and being in women-dominated spaces, then trotting out the Testosterone argument in describing why men are the way they are actually works AGAINST men in these marches toward equality in society.

I'm not saying that you yourself are suggesting that. But there are many folks who insist that testosterone is the marker for assertiveness and leadership, and therefore why men will dominate women in all spheres, and therefore women should respect that. The testosterone argument always comes back to bite these same folks in the butt when studies indicate levels of aberrant behavior correlated with testosterone levels, too.

Which, ironically, fluctuate from external stimuli....such as sporting events, stress, and diminishing resource acquisition. And makes men just as human as women since testosterone is by far not the only hormone important in health.

Now, let's single out prolactin. Both sexes produce it, but it's far more prevalent in women, and even far far more prevalent in lactating women. It functions not only as the stimulant in milk production and the let-down reflex, but it in that good-feeling sexual satisfaction in both genders (also generated by seratonin and dopamine, btw).

So, in reductionism, I should claim that women with far greater amounts of prolactin enjoy sex far more than men, and therefore know better by nature alone what sex is all about and are the experts naturally in what all of society should and shouldn't be doing in the bedroom due to prolactin alone. Not only that, but lactating women are the real experts in understanding sexual satisfaction far more than anyone else. Because prolactin.

Doesn't that sound weird?

 

[spiritualhitchhiker]

Male dominant? In the past in most cultures perhaps. But here and now?

#3 Children don't care about rules.

Is the dog in your avatar sad that it ran wild and had the flame die out?

 

[Deidre]

In my house i am the slave.I have to work very hard everyday to keep the boss happy.
In my bedroom i am the boss.Here i have to work overtime to keep the slave happy.

ROFL! I like it ^_^

 

[MD]

Testosterone, fwiw, begins to drop significantly in men with average gonad health after 40. How manly are these people? Are they still men? Are they less of a man because of testosterone levels dropping? Men who produce estrogen, get breast tissue and incidents of breast cancer....are they not as manly somehow? Should they feel unmanly because of the change in bodily function and processes?

Test does drop, which is why men become more docile and agreeable and less violent as they age. The overall test they have still far surpasses women, so yes they are still men. Test shapes our brains for years, so the manliness remains even after the levels start to decrease. Also test has been shown to increase when men are more successful or physically active.

IMO, there is no reason to single out testosterone as The Proof of why societies perceive gender stratifications and norms. Gender determinist arguments tend to conflate testosterone to an all-important status of dominance in a society and relegate estrogen as the hormone to why women are better suited for caretaking roles and out of the public sphere. Plus, the arguments from determinists not only elevate one hormone above all the rest as reasons for why one gender is more suited to such-and-such role, but ignore other hormones as interestingly extraneous in the grand scheme of things.

I see nothing wrong with this. determinism is a foundation of all science. It's not about elevating test over the rest, it's about different roles. Feminism has confused men into thinking like women and women into thinking like men, when we are both different. Fathers and mothers have different roles too and while fathers can be excellent caretakers, generally women are better caretakers. Men are better at providing a sense of structure and discipline, especially to boys.

It's like male ejaculatory bias in sexuality. Sex isn't really "sex" without a male ejaculating at some point, according to many. Sex also typcially considers what a penis is or isn't doing to determine the label or definition, with little to no consideration for what a clitoris is doing in determining if the act itself is completed.

From a biological perspective, the very existence of a species is to propagate itself and as such ejaculation is a must. The female orgasm exists to position the uterus in a way where it is more receptive to sperm and fertilization.

Testosterone is the marker for bias in determining how genders are "placed" or "defined" in society. It's the easiest and most recognizable hormone in male gonad production...and therefore in male-dominated societies, it's the most talked about as the reason "why" men do what they do and why men are successful in _________. Men have it a lot, women not so much. The simple-minded looks at that and yells out "WIN!" I think it's funny when that happens.

It's not so much a matter of winning, but a matter of perspective, why is care taking bad? Why is aggressiveness good? In fact in trying to make women like men, feminists are indirectly saying that test is good and estrogen is bad. Estrogen keeps societies together and families functional. It is stability.

There are arguments regarding testosterone rising after sports games where riots occur, assault and battery rates rise, and property damage, which may suggest that men are more naturally violent and out of control than women. Are you absolutely sure that we want to go into that area? Because the insistence behind men being as good as women in parenting, conflict resolution, justice, and leadership (because of emotional instablity and greater propensity toward violence) flies out the door. If we were to conflate testosterone as the end-all be-all of why men are more aggressive, then why should the conversation turn toward testosterone being the end-all be-all of why men are more violent? And therefore, not as capable as women in parenting, justice, or caretaking? If men want more parental rights after divorce, more opportunities in child care, and less discrimination in societal assumptions about men being around kids and being in women-dominated spaces, then trotting out the Testosterone argument in describing why men are the way they are actually works AGAINST men in these marches toward equality in society.

Men are more physically violent than women, hands down. But estrogen does predispose women to mood swings as well. Men and women are different, we have our strengths and weaknesses. There is no such are true equality, that we are the same. That is a biological lie. There should be equality in the sense that we have the same opportunities.

I'm not saying that you yourself are suggesting that. But there are many folks who insist that testosterone is the marker for assertiveness and leadership, and therefore why men will dominate women in all spheres, and therefore women should respect that. The testosterone argument always comes back to bite these same folks in the butt when studies indicate levels of aberrant behavior correlated with testosterone levels, too.

I am saying that test is the marker for assertiveness, but leadership is a much more complicated area where women do well too.

Now, let's single out prolactin. Both sexes produce it, but it's far more prevalent in women, and even far far more prevalent in lactating women. It functions not only as the stimulant in milk production and the let-down reflex, but it in that good-feeling sexual satisfaction in both genders (also generated by seratonin and dopamine, btw).

I didn't know prolactin gave that feeling of sexual pleasure, but it also does explain why women enjoy sex and orgasm much more strongly than men.

So, in reductionism, I should claim that women with far greater amounts of prolactin enjoy sex far more than men, and therefore know better by nature alone what sex is all about and are the experts naturally in what all of society should and shouldn't be doing in the bedroom due to prolactin alone. Not only that, but lactating women are the real experts in understanding sexual satisfaction far more than anyone else. Because prolactin.

Doesn't that sound weird?

To be honest I haven't researched these things. But I'm basing it on my scientific knowledge and my life experiences. There are differences between the genders that are not so fluid. I can give you that there might be a little fluidity at a younger age, but generally the identifications are pretty set by the time people mature. I haven't read anything from peer reviewed journals so it is simply a matter of opinion for myself here. I do tend to trust scientific analysis which looks for values within the 95% confidence interval and does not focus on the 5% outliers, which is what I feel a lot of non scientific fields do when trying to prove a point.

 

[Marisa]

Are there innate differences between men and women? If so, what are they?

Physiologically, yes. Men and women have different centers of gravity.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Test does drop, which is why men become more docile and agreeable and less violent as they age. The overall test they have still far surpasses women, so yes they are still men. Test shapes our brains for years, so the manliness remains even after the levels start to decrease. Also test has been shown to increase when men are more successful or physically active.

Again testosterone is not the end all, be all of male-ness or assertiveness or aggression. Such behaviors are established largely through customary tradition.

I see nothing wrong with this. determinism is a foundation of all science. It's not about elevating test over the rest, it's about different roles. Feminism has confused men into thinking like women and women into thinking like men, when we are both different. Fathers and mothers have different roles too and while fathers can be excellent caretakers, generally women are better caretakers. Men are better at providing a sense of structure and discipline, especially to boys.

Feminism has historically been about dismantling oppressive systems that have resulted in violence and dehumanization against women at disparate rates because of expected gender roles women were supposed to abide by. If it's been confusing people, that's the result of cultural expectations clashing with the successes of women having the vote, owning property, getting lines of credit, running entire countries, etc.

Plus, are you willing to go toe-to-toe with men's rights activists who complain about gender disparity when child custody favors mothers in divorces? You can't have it both ways, M, by calling out about feminisms fight for equality in all spheres private and public while acknowledging father should have equal consideration in custody hearings (which is a feminist issue as well as a men's rights issue). I don't know if you agree with MRA's or egalitarians or not, but I have found gender determinists to use these arguments by some self-described egalitarians and many MRA's when it's most convenient for them.

The argument comes across as......"Women shouldn't be in this man-space because men and women are different. In marriage, women should be around kids more and taking care of the house. Men are more violent than women, and women should dress and act in deference of male aggression (we can't help it). But if divorce comes around, men are just as good parents and just as victimized in rape and assault/battery. So in other words, just shut up and let us talk."

From a biological perspective, the very existence of a species is to propagate itself and as such ejaculation is a must. The female orgasm exists to position the uterus in a way where it is more receptive to sperm and fertilization.

I find that to be another example of an ejaculatory bias (thank you for proving my point ). There is no ovulation bias in these conversations even though a million fertile and ovulating women could just use a single ejaculate from a man to harvest the sperm for procreation. That in and of itself makes for ejaculate to be rather, how do I say, not as necessary to be prevalent, yeah?

And your assumption on the evolution of the female orgasm is rather reptilian and has less to do with us as Homo sapiens and more to do with cultural assumptions that female orgasms assist the male ejaculate rather than being just as important a player in our evolution. The development of pair-bonding is the progenitor of many cultures base assumptions about marriage, though pair-bonding involves much more than spreading seed everywhere and alpha/beta male selection by the female. It's language, the ability and desire to face your mate during sex and not in the positioning seen most in the animal kingdom, the evolution of the female orgasm and desire perpetuated even when infertile or post-menopausal, the ability for orgasm in males without ejaculate, the existence of a menstrual cycle instead of the estrus cycle.

It's not so much a matter of winning, but a matter of perspective, why is care taking bad? Why is aggressiveness good? In fact in trying to make women like men, feminists are indirectly saying that test is good and estrogen is bad. Estrogen keeps societies together and families functional. It is stability.

Yeah, thats a straw man. Feminists do not think women should be more like men. We have said we should have the same opportunities, rights, liberties, and protections that men have. These conversations with anti-feminist determinist stances fall back on these fallacies often. When that happens, the debate goes round and round in circles while one fallacy after the other about feminists and feminism is offered at rapid fire. Unless you can point to mainstream feminist literature or movements where the aim is to "be more like men." I haven't seen them, and I've read a lot of feminist literature.

Also, the aim is not to elevate or demean testosterone or estrogen. When it comes to any conversation that includes these two hormones, feminists typically point to the lack of support for reproductive health for women (estrogen and progesterone), and the canard of testosterone being the excuse for why "boys will be boys". Feminists argue against the notion that if males are violent, obnoxious, out of control, or act any any way that is destructive to others, that testosterone is given as the reason, and not character or cultural conditioning. Basically, it's uncool to use testosterone as an excuse to be a violent jack***.

Men are more physically violent than women, hands down. But estrogen does predispose women to mood swings as well. Men and women are different, we have our strengths and weaknesses. There is no such are true equality, that we are the same. That is a biological lie. There should be equality in the sense that we have the same opportunities.

There is far more overlap than there is difference. Here is another link for reference:

Source - Men and Women: No Big Difference

Mars-Venus sex differences appear to be as mythical as the Man in the Moon. A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership. Psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, discovered that males and females from childhood to adulthood are more alike than different on most psychological variables, resulting in what she calls a gender similarities hypothesis. Using meta-analytical techniques that revolutionized the study of gender differences starting in the 1980s, she analyzed how prior research assessed the impact of gender on many psychological traits and abilities, including cognitive abilities, verbal and nonverbal communication, aggression, leadership, self-esteem, moral reasoning and motor behaviors.

I am saying that test is the marker for assertiveness, but leadership is a much more complicated area where women do well too.

Yet, men are typically assumed to be better leaders culturally. I find that to be argumentative and based on normative reasoning and not hard science.

I didn't know prolactin gave that feeling of sexual pleasure, but it also does explain why women enjoy sex and orgasm much more strongly than men.

As an amateur sexologist for the last couple of decades, I can safely attest to the difference in refractory periods overall between men and women, the various locations of engorgement of primary sex organs and the various processes of orgasm. But suggesting women enjoy sex more than men is subjective and a matter of opinion. I joke about it, but in all seriousness I can't say for certain. The research into female sexuality is still in its infancy. Even sex-positive feminists
will find themselves in amazement learning the shape and the processes of the stimulated clitoris because it's so little known, though the research is established far and wide across cultures.

To be honest I haven't researched these things. But I'm basing it on my scientific knowledge and my life experiences. There are differences between the genders that are not so fluid. I can give you that there might be a little fluidity at a younger age, but generally the identifications are pretty set by the time people mature. I haven't read anything from peer reviewed journals so it is simply a matter of opinion for myself here. I do tend to trust scientific analysis which looks for values within the 95% confidence interval and does not focus on the 5% outliers, which is what I feel a lot of non scientific fields do when trying to prove a point.

I encourage reading some of the abstracts offered online. They're fascinating and blows away a lot of assumptions about men and women and aging and sex and health.

 

[sun rise]

Yeah, my mom is the boss at home too. Not to mention my sisters bossing around too

As for the here and now point (allow me to get serious ) I still see the vast majority of rulers, acting rulers, huge business owners, warlords, terrorists... and others, are males. I could be wrong in my observations of course. It is just what I see.

True enough. Very few women have been in such positions in the past. John of Arc was one. And there are a fair number in history and legend. List of women warriors in folklore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sun rise]

T
...
Now, let's single out prolactin. Both sexes produce it, but it's far more prevalent in women, and even far far more prevalent in lactating women. It functions not only as the stimulant in milk production and the let-down reflex, but it in that good-feeling sexual satisfaction in both genders (also generated by seratonin and dopamine, btw).

So, in reductionism, I should claim that women with far greater amounts of prolactin enjoy sex far more than men, and therefore know better by nature alone what sex is all about and are the experts naturally in what all of society should and shouldn't be doing in the bedroom due to prolactin alone. Not only that, but lactating women are the real experts in understanding sexual satisfaction far more than anyone else. Because prolactin.

Doesn't that sound weird?

And women can have multiple orgasms but men can't or at least most men can't. So if people are keeping score women have an innate advantage when it comes to sex

 

[Curious George]

.



To be honest I haven't researched these things. But I'm basing it on my scientific knowledge and my life experiences. There are differences between the genders that are not so fluid. I can give you that there might be a little fluidity at a younger age, but generally the identifications are pretty set by the time people mature. I haven't read anything from peer reviewed journals so it is simply a matter of opinion for myself here. I do tend to trust scientific analysis which looks for values within the 95% confidence interval and does not focus on the 5% outliers, which is what I feel a lot of non scientific fields do when trying to prove a point.

The problem is not so much science and statistics but people's misunderstanding and misuse of these fields.

We note significant differences in order to show correlation. Significant is somewhat of a misnomer here because it's statistical or scientific use varies greatly from its everyday usage. When science claims a significant difference this means at a rate which exceeds the probability for random. This is just .05 or .025 depending on the methodology. Now I am not suggesting that such a low rate is the difference in most studies relating to sex difference, but please marinate in that for a second.

Take a difference, such as men excel better than women in navigational intelligence. We can find research that shows this. But what is it really showing? We must look at the methodology and actual results. The study could show that out of several cohorts of 100 men and 100 women, men did only slightly better in each cohort. Now, don't misunderstand: most experiments are much more complex and in depth. But when you realize that the vast majority of the men and women could have scored the exact same and that the amount of "better" was really one more question rightly answered, you gain perspective. This is why understanding of the research is so paramount.

Now, people take these statistics and then try to force then upon individual cases or apply them to make policy arguments. This is folly.

But it gets worse, there are countless erroneous assumptions made as well. All along the line people are confusing correlation with causation, assuming unnecessary requirements and restraints in functionality, succumbing to confirmation bias, and making unnecessary and potentially harmful leaps in logic. Of course they shout my view is supported by science! Or worse still, my view is how God/gods intended.

 

[Wirey]

I'm glad men and women are different. Life would suck if I had to marry me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm glad men and women are different. Life would suck if I had to marry me.

I found the perfect anniversary gift for you to get Mrs Wirey....

 

[Revoltingest]

Mrs Revolt might like one too, but I'd rather not remind her.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm glad men and women are different. Life would suck if I had to marry me.

I wish I could marry me. I'm perfect

 

[Izdaari]

Yes, there are differences, biological, hormonal, center of gravity. But the differences between individuals are greater.

 

[Penumbra]

Are there innate differences between men and women? If so, what are they?

Most complex species of animals have some innate behavioral differences and instincts between the sexes. It's most obvious for behaviors of mating and reproduction but for many animals they have other differences in other areas as well. For one example, male amazon parrots tend to be louder and more talkative than female amazon parrots. They look practically identical with very little sexual dimorphism, but there are some behavioral differences. This will often manifest itself even if you take a young bird as a pet and it never really knows other birds of its kind. So it's basically innate, not some artifact of parrot culture to the extent that such a thing can exist. Of course it's always possible to have a quiet male or a loud female, though.

Most evidence shows that humans are no different in this regard; lots of studies show neurological and behavioral differences between men and women, and testosterone and estrogen tend to affect people differently as well. But those differences refer to the middle of the bell curves, and there is considerable overlap of those bell curves. To assume that a man would have certain characteristics because he's a man, and that a woman would have certain characteristics because she's a woman, would be a misuse of statistics by assuming that most people are like the middle of the bell curves. In truth, there are quite a number of people towards various ends of a bell curve. Like, for any given trait, there are more people that have some degree of difference between themselves and the exact average, compared to people that literally fall right on that average. For example if the bell curve of American male height is centered at 5'10", there are more men that are not 5'10" than there are that are 5'10", even if 5'10" is the most common number of inches for them to be compared to any other specific number of inches.

So when behavioral differences are compared, in most cases although there is an identifiable divide between averages of each gender, the overlap can be very, very large. To fall mildly or moderately far from the center of any given trait is normal and expected, and biology, culture, and individual experiences all have some degree of influence.

 

[Kirran]

Testosterone, fwiw, begins to drop significantly in men with average gonad health after 40. How manly are these people? Are they still men? Are they less of a man because of testosterone levels dropping? Men who produce estrogen, get breast tissue and incidents of breast cancer....are they not as manly somehow? Should they feel unmanly because of the change in bodily function and processes?

IMO, there is no reason to single out testosterone as The Proof of why societies perceive gender stratifications and norms. Gender determinist arguments tend to conflate testosterone to an all-important status of dominance in a society and relegate estrogen as the hormone to why women are better suited for caretaking roles and out of the public sphere. Plus, the arguments from determinists not only elevate one hormone above all the rest as reasons for why one gender is more suited to such-and-such role, but ignore other hormones as interestingly extraneous in the grand scheme of things.

It's like male ejaculatory bias in sexuality. Sex isn't really "sex" without a male ejaculating at some point, according to many. Sex also typcially considers what a penis is or isn't doing to determine the label or definition, with little to no consideration for what a clitoris is doing in determining if the act itself is completed.

Testosterone is the marker for bias in determining how genders are "placed" or "defined" in society. It's the easiest and most recognizable hormone in male gonad production...and therefore in male-dominated societies, it's the most talked about as the reason "why" men do what they do and why men are successful in _________. Men have it a lot, women not so much. The simple-minded looks at that and yells out "WIN!" I think it's funny when that happens.

There are arguments regarding testosterone rising after sports games where riots occur, assault and battery rates rise, and property damage, which may suggest that men are more naturally violent and out of control than women. Are you absolutely sure that we want to go into that area? Because the insistence behind men being as good as women in parenting, conflict resolution, justice, and leadership (because of emotional instablity and greater propensity toward violence) flies out the door. If we were to conflate testosterone as the end-all be-all of why men are more aggressive, then why should the conversation turn toward testosterone being the end-all be-all of why men are more violent? And therefore, not as capable as women in parenting, justice, or caretaking? If men want more parental rights after divorce, more opportunities in child care, and less discrimination in societal assumptions about men being around kids and being in women-dominated spaces, then trotting out the Testosterone argument in describing why men are the way they are actually works AGAINST men in these marches toward equality in society.

I'm not saying that you yourself are suggesting that. But there are many folks who insist that testosterone is the marker for assertiveness and leadership, and therefore why men will dominate women in all spheres, and therefore women should respect that. The testosterone argument always comes back to bite these same folks in the butt when studies indicate levels of aberrant behavior correlated with testosterone levels, too.

Which, ironically, fluctuate from external stimuli....such as sporting events, stress, and diminishing resource acquisition. And makes men just as human as women since testosterone is by far not the only hormone important in health.

Now, let's single out prolactin. Both sexes produce it, but it's far more prevalent in women, and even far far more prevalent in lactating women. It functions not only as the stimulant in milk production and the let-down reflex, but it in that good-feeling sexual satisfaction in both genders (also generated by seratonin and dopamine, btw).

So, in reductionism, I should claim that women with far greater amounts of prolactin enjoy sex far more than men, and therefore know better by nature alone what sex is all about and are the experts naturally in what all of society should and shouldn't be doing in the bedroom due to prolactin alone. Not only that, but lactating women are the real experts in understanding sexual satisfaction far more than anyone else. Because prolactin.

Doesn't that sound weird?

That is just incredibly reasonable and sensible.

 

[Kirran]

I wish I could marry me. I'm perfect

Well, you and I are pretty similar, so I guess the next best thing...

 

[Smart_Guy]

Well, you and I are pretty similar, so I guess the next best thing...

Dude, pretty similar is not identical. There is no next best thing to me other than me
Wait... I'm suddenly feeling creeped out for some reason... brrr...

 

[Kirran]

Dude, pretty similar is not identical. There is no next best thing to me other than me
Wait... I'm suddenly feeling creeped out for some reason... brrr...