Ronja wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:Do women want to ride the motorbikes and get dirty? In my experience, they don't.
If I hear you correctly, the women you have met and know fit the "female stereotype" more than at least some of the active women on RatZ and several women known to various ratz. That is easy for me to believe. Even though I am a female computer nerd, with a strong network of more or less nerdy female colleagues and friends, most women I have met during my life appear to be more "feminine" than me, at least on the surface.
However, you seem to question the importance of environment (nurture),
Not in the least. More than once I have specifically stated that such things, and culture, hugely influence human development. What I have also done is acknowledged that it appears that there are, however, certain differences, generally speaking, between the sexes. There is no reason to think that there can be differences in tits and genitals, hip bone structure, musculature, body fat content and a host of other physical differences, but then to at the same time declare as heresy the notion that there may be physical and chemical differences in the brain too.
Ronja wrote:
and specifically societal gender norms, for why so many women behave and otherwise appear "feminine". As my personal experience is that there was indeed a great deal of pressure during my childhood to conform to the "feminine" norm, and as I know that there is plenty of research evidence, both more recent and from other cultures, that points to the same, I ask you to stop to consider, at least for a moment, the following.
I will, but I will remind you that I do not deny that there is "indeed a great deal of pressure during [everyone's] childhood to conform to the [] norm, and as I know there is plenty of research evidence [to that effect]." I don't deny it. I acknowledge it. It appears quite obvious that such cultural and environmental conditioning does occur and may account for the lion's share of human behavioral characteristics. Hopefully, that clarifies my position.
Ronja wrote:
First a disclaimer / qualifier:
That boys and men also are harmed and constricted in their choices due to society's collective biases is not an argument that nullifies the harm or limits to girls and women.
I never said it would or did.
Ronja wrote:
The struggle for gender / racial / language / sexual-orientation / age / (dis)ability / whatever equality is not a competition of who suffers most, qualitatively or quantitatively. It's a struggle for more authenticity and role flexibility for everyone, and that struggle cannot be won for anyone, if we cannot accept that experiences vastly different from our personal ones are equally valid as our own.
DISCLAIMER in return: All I said was that there appear to be certain characteristics that, just like sexual orientation, are innate or with which people are "born." I do not see the relevance of any suggestion that environment/culture effects males as much as females. Sure, of course environment/culture is a huge impact on behavior and functioning. That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't also certain characteristics that, just like sexual orientation, are innate and with which people are "born" [this way].
Are they not? Is sexual orientation learned and taught by culture/environment?
I see implied in some posts here a distinct resistance to the notion that the brain may form in a way that influences behavior, tendencies and predilections. I don't know why that is. We know our thoughts and ideas and our consciousness comes from our brains, and our brains operate via neurons, synapses, structures, electricity, and biochemical reactions. Children are born with brains. Is it too much of a leap to think that a male's brain may be different, generally speaking, than a female's brain just like a male's genitals, hips, and other body parts differ? There are, of course, folks born with both genitals, and folks born with tiny micropenises all the way up to giant jagunda schlongs, and women have no breasts to big jagunda boobs and small or large vaginas and clitorises. There are ranges and statistical deviations from the "norm" in all biological things. Why not the brain?
Ronja wrote:
In other words: the weirdos are people, too.
Never said they weren't, and never mentioned the word "weirdo." Saying that someone is "born this way" is not, as far as I can tell, akin to calling him a weirdo...maybe Lady Gaga's song is politically incorrect.
Ronja wrote:
And then on to the issue at hand:
Is it possible that at least some of the women you have met during your life are more repeating what they have learned than expressing their genuine feelings and motives?
Yes, absolutely. I'm not sure how you missed the part where I said that culture, etc., was a huge influence on people.
Ronja wrote:
Is it possible, in light of the evidence, that a non-trivial percentage of women have internalized and accepted society's norms to the degree that they have come to believe that their own preferences are what is usually called "feminine" - regardless of what their natural / characteristic preferences as little girls once were? I find that at least plausible, based on the evidence thus far.
Sure, absolutely.
And, is it possible that certain fundamental differences exist within the brains of women and men that cause there to be certain fundamental differences in how their minds work? We're told that men and women argue differently and think differently, and that women have different/deeper emotions, approach sex differently than men, etc. Is it not possible that these fundamental issues are influenced at least in part by the way the brain is structured in the first instance?
Ronja wrote:
To wit: you have seen, just in this thread (and I'll give you more data in just a sec, please be patient), three women who state, without any hesitation or self-doubt, that we did not enjoy any or most of the girly stuff that was pushed on us while we were children or later. We all fought that pressure in various ways and AFAICS we have all won our lives (back), at least mostly. But we had to resist pressure, daily or weekly and for months, years or decades - acceptance of or respect for who we wanted to be and what we wanted to do did not come easy (or at all).
Once again, I don't doubt the impact of environment and culture.
Ronja wrote:
But what if a girl or woman does not want to confront and resist all or most of the time? What happens to the maybe somewhat less determined girls and women, who have some interests that we call "feminine" and some that we call "masculine". Do they get to develop both in a balanced manner? Does their environment encourage that? When and where I was a kid, usually not - and there is also research to back this up, see further down.
As far as I'm concerned, any individual ought be able to do more or less as they please, and parents should be mindful of that. This, of course, takes nothing away from the fact that there appear to be some fundamental differences between males and females. These differences generally aren't whether one likes beer or not, or whether one likes sports or not.
The evidence appears to indicate that there are about a hundred structural differences that have been identified between the male and female brain. None of us would argue the fact that men and women are physically different. The physical differences are rather obvious and most of these can be seen and easily measured. Weight, shape, size and anatomy are not political opinions but rather tangible and easily measured. The physical differences between men and women provide functional advantages and have survival value. Men usually have greater upper body strength, build muscle easily, have thicker skin, bruise less easily and have a lower threshold of awareness of injuries to their extremities. Men are essentially built for physical confrontation and the use of force. Their joints are well suited for throwing objects. A man’s skull is almost always thicker and stronger than a women’s.
Women have four times as many brain cells (neurons) connecting the right and left side of their brain. That is physical evidence that supports the observation that men rely easily and more heavily on their left brain to solve one problem one step at a time. Women have more efficient access to both sides of their brain and therefore greater use of their right brain. Women can focus on more than one problem at one time and frequently prefer to solve problems through multiple activities at a time. This also may explain why men and women tend to approach problem-solving in different ways.
Male and female memories act differently. Women have an enhanced ability to recall memories that have strong emotional components. They can also recall events or experiences that have similar emotions in common. Women are very adept at recalling information, events or experiences in which there is a common emotional theme. Men tend to recall events using strategies that rely on reconstructing the experience in terms of elements, tasks or activities that took place.
It's not hard to see that these and other fundamental differences could result in there being different behavioral tendencies. TENDENCIES. Of course there are going to be examples all over the map. We have to resist the temptation to think that because one person thinks a certain way that is outside of the "norm" that there is no "norm" at all. "Norm" is a statistical word, and I'm not using it here to imply "weird" or "bad."
Ronja wrote:
I have not met Gallstones or CP, but I have seen enough of their writings to feel safe enough to guess that they are at least as stubborn as I am (for better, for worse - strong characteristics tend to be both a blessing and a curse). Now imagine for a moment that any of us had been weaker in either our preferences or our stubbornness. Would a less pig-headed person with weaker interests in nature, math and physics, history, weapons and martial arts than me have given in to the ballet and violin lessons and expensive girly clothes that my mom showered my two sisters with? Would someone with a slightly larger part of her interests and preferences on the "feminine" side have subconsciously agreed to develop those interests more exclusively and leave her (equally genuine but not as dominant as they were for me) "masculine" interests behind?
I have no idea, and even if we knew the answer to that it would make little difference to the overall question. Your individual level of pigheadedness or stubbornness is not really at issue. It's the overall tendency.
Ronja wrote:
Looking at my sisters, my female cousins and my classmates, the answer is clear to me: girls and women who had very intense, personally important interests in something un-girly followed those interests - those who could channel their interests in socially more acceptable ways chose that route, unless they had parental or other environmental acceptance and support to do otherwise. Because it was the route of least resistance. And most people (girls, boys, men, women, intersex and transgendered) choose rather not to make life a struggle, if we have a choice.
I don't doubt that. But, nevertheless, are there not fundamental structural differences prevailing in the male and female brains?
Where in the world did you get the impression that I suggested anything to the effect that women do not have the right or the ability to be all that you can be? I mean - this seems to happen time and time again. I never said anything of the kind - not even implied it, and yet, here you are accusing me implicitly of denigrating women's rights or abilities. All I said - absolutely all I said - was that there appear to be certain fundamental differences between males and females (generally speaking). I also specifically stated that, yes, indeed, culture, etc., is/are important and very influential on people. But, of course, that doesn't mean that people aren't also born a certain way.
And, I don't doubt that at all. But, research ALSO shows that there are fundamental differences between men and women physically, including the structure of the brain, and the brain function, and as a result there are differing tendencies. We are, in fact, in some ways, "born this way." Aren't we? Do you at least acknowledge that?
Ronja wrote:
Again, there are more, and Google Scholar is your friend.
There is no need to be condescending. If you insist on being that, I will return it in kind and not kindly.
Ronja wrote:
To conclude:
In light of the above I find it very plausible that a non-trivial percentage of girls and women - also in enlightened and officially equality-valuing societies - never grow to be their authentic and whole selves,
If that is meant to be an argument against some point I raised, I can't see what. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly agree, "it is very plausible that a non-trivial percentage of girls and women never grow to be their authentic and whole selves." I can say that without any ifs, ands or buts.
Ronja wrote:
and as a part of such psycho-social stunting do not learn a significant number of skills that they would have potential for. I also know that evidence exists that a non-trivial percentage of boys and men are also stunted in their growth in a similar fashion. And to me these are the real tragedies and the reason why I feel that the personal is, indeed, also deeply political and important on a societal and global scale.
<steps down from the soapbox>
Ditto. <scratches head wondering why Ronja thought Coito disagreed with any of what she posted>
), of girls and women's right and/or ability to be all that we can be include:
. And then when they come back, they can 
