Why do women make up the majority?

by daniel-p 124 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TD

  On the topic of gender related behavior, I was amused by this article:

  http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/108552

  (Feeble attempt at injecting some humor into the discussion)
• 

  daniel-p

  "Why women stay in many religions longer than man? In my own experience it is because most of them are much more faithful to the cause they chose than men, just like in a marriage men are more likely to go astray simply because they are lacking that particular dimension/virtue of sticking-to-itness."
  
  Zagor, in order to defend what you see as an attack on women and why more of them seek solace in religion, you have fallen prey to supporting many stereotypes of men. My original question had absolutely no "inferred" meaning to it. I simply asked why it seems women are more prevalent in religion. It has nothing or little to do with intelegence, because we all know there is no difference in average intelegence between men and women. I had hoped we could all be adults about this, but it seems some just can't resist the urge to heap their own personal prejudicial baggage into the argument.
• 

  daniel-p

  With the above stated, I think many of you need to stop watching so much TV, where stereotypes of men and women abound. It insults the intelligence I know you MUST have....
• 

  LDH

  TD, *that* was freaking hilarious.
• 

  funkyderek

  I'm back after a loooonnnnggg Paddy's Day weekend

  Justitia Themis:

  1) Ms. Mead didn't make the claim [that there was no physiological basis for gender roles] because she died before a scientific basis to make the statment was discovered.

  Dr. Mead didn't make such a claim because it was clearly nonsense. Unfortunately, one of the primary dogmas of certain forms of feminism has been that any observed differences between men and women are cultural in origin. Those who cling to such absurdities have often desperately tried to find scientific support for their claims.

  As I said in a prior post, the human genome has been mapped; there are no codons that are male or female specific. That means that every possible gene a man has, a women has. There is no gene on the y chromosome that is not on a X chromosome.

  And yet, men and women look - and, despite your bleating, behave - significantly differently. The fact that genetically there is only half a chromosome between them, doesn't prevent men being taller, stronger, hairier and more aggressive than women. Why should it prevent them being mentally different as well as physically?

  It's obvious to even those with the most rudimentary education that there is little genetic difference between the males and females of any species, and yet it is also clear that in many species there are huge differences in appearance and behaviour between males and females. Elephant seals are an extreme example. Males can be up to ten times the size of females, and continually fight each other for control of harems of females.

  I DO believe there are differences in how women and men ACT. However, I agree with Ms. Meade that these differences occur because of social programming (nurture), not nature.

  You seem hellbent on having Margaret Mead on your side despite the fact that nothing she claimed comes close to the ludicrous "blank slate" hypothesis that you seem to espouse and that the specific peculiar gender roles of the Chambri tribe were shown to have arisen recently under unusual circumstances.

  From the moment we place a boy in blue and a girl in pink we are socializing them. We lower our voices with boy babies and say, "Aren't you a BIG guy!" and we raise our voices with little girls and say, "Aren't you a cutie!" And so it begins....

  Cultural reinforcement of gender-based stereotypes can certainly lead to greater conformity. Boys who like to play with dolls will be embarrassed to do so if the culture they are brought up in deems it to be wrong or strange. However, regardless of the culture most boys would prefer to play with cars and guns rather than dolls.

  FD: If there is a physiological basis for gender roles, please state the physiological basis, and cite your references, scholarly works only.

  Simply because it's so blindingly obvious, I'm going to boldly make the claim without any supporting texts, that women are physically better adapted to look after young children because they can lactate. I am also going to make the similar claim that men are better adapted to hunting, farming or other labour-intensive work because they are larger and stronger. If anyone disagrees with either of these claims, they should start a separate thread in which to be ridiculed mercilessly.

  Anyway, I have some links on information about the (slightly) less obvious - but just as innate - differences between males and females. I have no intention of writing a thesis here.

  Simon Baron-Cohen on the inherent differences between male and female brains and links to appropriate scholarly sources:

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4649492-111414,00.html

  Sex differences in the brain:

  http://www.womenshealthresearch.org/hs/facts_brain.htm

  The tragic story of David Reimer:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

  Even the study TD posted as a joke indicates differences between male and female behaviour in humans and other primates.

  http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/108552

  I will not be responding to any more posts on this thread. It has become too nasty.

  Nothing I've said, I hope.

  FD, I hope you and I are around to speak in 20 years. It will be interesting to compare your opinions then.

  Well, you're already holding on to beliefs that were thoroughly discredited decades ago. I doubt you'll change.