Is the male or female more of a creature of nature, are they equal or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoeberto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeldy

This is completely (and stereotypically) socially constructed. Biologically, there is no "female instinct" or "desire to nurture". There's no reason why a woman can't be the breadwinner - why must the woman always take the expressive role?

---

I'll agree that there is no reason that a woman can't be the breadwinner, but I think it's pretty damn ingrained biologically for women to have a desire to nurture. Considering woman have their offspring developing inside of them for nine months, and then have the physical facilities to keep it fed after birth, women's bodies are biologically built for nurturing.

That doesn't mean that a woman automatically has to take care of all of the people in their life, or that they must stay home and be house moms their whole lives. But you're kind of ignoring all of the biological factors that woman are pretty much built to nurture their offspring.

---

Aaaah yes actually you make a good point there, my sociology textbook doesn't include an answer for that - hm.

The point that TSoL made goes even deeper than simply what a boy in socially encouraged to play with and what a girl is. Even the speech patterns and games all reinforce the socially accepted gender norms. Boys are encouraged to play games where there is a clear winner and a loser. Girls play games that encourage a victory for everyone. A woman who expresses male speech patterns is called a bitch, while a man with female speech patterns is called a sissy. In reality though, someone who is able to use both a male and female speech pattern will be better adapted to succeed. Because in male speech pattern it is insulting to try and mirror a situation (eg if I was in that situation I would have done this and that) while that is what is expected in many situations with a female speech pattern.

To see if a specific gender is inclined to any specific habits, you need to take a few hundred children, isolate them from all contact with humanity, and present them with several random "boy", "girl", and "gender neutral" objects. This is also going to cause these children to be socially inept, and damage them beyond repair as a child needs contact with other humans to develop language skills from a very early age, or the ability to learn language will be lost. (This is referring to the child's first language) so the ethics of such an experiment make it impossible to actually do.

Freyas niece was most likely exposed to some message that conveys girls like flowers. Most likely through a visual exposure through TV, or watching her mother enjoying flowers.

either that or the first time she brought flowers, there was a positive reaction and that positive reaction taught her that flowers make Mommy happy, so I should bring more flowers to make Mommy even happier.

For those with attention deficiency disorders, here is a summarized snippet of the general ramblings for you to ponder over - Gender roles are ingrained everywhere in culture. You can only see if there are true gender differences in behavior by using experiments that will severly damage many children. Have a nice day :p

No the point of my example was that even though my niece was exposed to neutral or even male things she still liked the stereotypical female like of flowers.

Scott don't talk about my family as if you know them. My sister painted and designed her entire bathroom in a spiderman theme. If anything the girl should have been climbing walls not picking flowers. The point of my example wasn't "well she probably saw something on tv and was like that." No the point was she was exposed to neutral things yet she still showed a more feminine personality, NATURALLY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeldy

Aaaah yes actually you make a good point there, my sociology textbook doesn't include an answer for that - hm.

---

That's because the truth is sometimes too politically incorrect. People can get away with more BS in sociology and psychology than in hard science like biochemistry and genetics.

What happened the first time she brought someone flowers? If it resulted in a positive reaction the child will be inclined to repeat that action, and associate flowers as being a good thing, thus liking flowers. If a child sticks a fork in the electrical socket and gets shocked, you can bet they wont do it again anytime soon because they will associate the action with the pain, and then would avoid the action that causes the pain.

I just used a general example using an action noted previously, which happened to be that of your niece. Remove the words "Freya's" and replaced it with Jane Smith's and the example still holds.

Women are necessary to setup your mom jokes, but it's more fun to say these jokes to a male. This is what scientifically proves we are equal and robots are better than everything else. Still waiting for my book deal on this one.

Yes, a female toddler can liken to flower-picking without any influence, but a female toddler can also play with Transformer toys and roll in the dirt without any influence too.

People do what they want. And then they get older, and realize there are specific things greater society wants them to do.

There are some demonstrable biological differences between men and women. Men, on average, are taller, and there is a difference in distribution of mass (women aren't as top-heavy). There is some, albeit somewhat controversial, scientific evidence that men and women think differently (men better at math, women more right-brained, etc.). It is plausible that thousands and thousands of years of doing certain tasks resulted in our brains being evolutionary hard-wired a certain way depending on our sex, which justifies some differences, though those are largely superficial (even if men are on average better at math, that does not in any way suggest any given woman could not outperform most men in that area).

That being said, I'm not aware of any evidence against the basic premise that the vast majority of "gender roles" are entirely social constructs. Women liking the color pink, cooking, jewelry, taking care of kids, etc. -- that's all manufactured crap (most of it rather sickening).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

There are some demonstrable biological differences between men and women. Men, on average, are taller, and there is a difference in distribution of mass (women aren't as top-heavy). There is some, albeit somewhat controversial, scientific evidence that men and women think differently (men better at math, women more right-brained, etc.). It is plausible that thousands and thousands of years of doing certain tasks resulted in our brains being evolutionary hard-wired a certain way depending on our sex, which justifies some differences, though those are largely superficial (even if men are on average better at math, that does not in any way suggest any given woman could not outperform most men in that area).

---

One of the biggest differences between men and women is the amount of testosterone in their bodies. This hormone is basically the biggest drive behind 'typical male behaviour' - ie the will to dominate others, violence, ambition, jerkass behavior, it makes muscles grow, etc etc. Men with little amount of testosterone are more similar to women, physically and in their behavior. It works to other way around if women have more testosterone too. There's no single "social construct" theory that can deny this.

Quote:

---

She would pick the flowers and bring them to us. So you have the nature thing about liking flowers.

---

I think picking flowers is fine for boys or girls. My middle nephew picks me flowers all the time because he has a gentle, artistic soul<3

anyway. Let's talk about babies.

Growing up, I didn't care for babies. I never interacted with any until my first nephew was born, and then I had no idea what to do with one. I really was much more comfortable when they all grew up a bit.

However, I have been assured from many sectors over the last few months that the maternal bond that forms when one carries a child is incredibly strong and true. I never really thought about "a mother's love" before, mostly considered it sentimental hogwash. But maybe there is something there.

But I don't believe it's there from birth. I remember having a baby doll, but I was more interested in the ways its eyes would open and shut than pretending to feed it or change its diaper.

Young girls are often encouraged to form such bonds with children long before childbearing age by given them dolls, or making them (or incentivizing them to) babysit. I think qwerty and TSoL have a valid point about the validation of such approved behaviors.

but, as you all know, I am an engineer, not a psychologist, or even sociologist. My only tool is observation and logical thought

I think like most things, it's a mix between instinct and societal pressure and influence.

Actually there seems to be no conclusive evidence on whether gender-based preferences are inbuilt or social constructions: Even 9-Month-Olds Choose 'Gender-Specific' Toys - BusinessWeek

Anyway I thought the consensus on nature vs. nurture was "A little from column A, a little from column B"? And that regardless of broad trends there are always exceptions for a multitude of reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Anyway I thought the consensus on nature vs. nurture was "A little from column A, a little from column B"? And that regardless of broad trends there are always exceptions for a multitude of reasons?

---

People are missing out on the fact that "nurture" is a direct result of "nature". Society and culture just didn't drop out of outer space, they're the result of human interactions caused by our biology.

It's commonly thought that males are the creatures of habbit.

"Give a man health and a course to steer, and he'll never stop to trouble about whether he's happy or not."

Inventions are natural