|
LadyEllen -> RE: Researchers identify "male warrior effect" (9/14/2006 6:06:17 AM)
|
Nasty - thank you for trying at least, to restore the thread to what it should have been about. I think we wasted enough pages on male achievement in male dominated culture!
There are obvious physical differences between male and female sexes in terms of reproductive arrangements; penis and testes / vagina and womb. There are obvious physical differences arising from the functions of those reproductive arrangements, in terms of hormonal influences; males being typically larger, physically stronger, hairier etc, females being typically smaller, less physically strong and less hairy.
There are less obvious differences too, in terms of how the brain is constructed, let alone its size. The Dutch post mortem research into this, using brains from het men, gay men, het women, lesbian women and mtf transsexuals, identified differences in the area thought to control sexual behaviour. Whilst the samples from het and gay men were alike, and the samples from het women and lesbian women were alike, the mtf transsexuals had female brain structures which tended to support the notion of transsexuality as a physical rather than psychological condition, and further supported the notion that in utero hormonal environment determines male or female brain development as well as reproductive function. Therefore male and female brains start life with differences between them which are not reliant on post partem gender roles or cultural influence.
This difference between male and female brains is important, because (ignoring for a moment the idea of soul or spirit), the brain is the determinant of the mind, which we can say by reference to psychological change being possible by way of intervention in the brain. So, we can say that not only are male and female brains different in size and structure, but the minds reliant on them must also be different by reference to the physical differences. Male and female psychology are at variance with one another - no surprise there.
However, we cannot entirely ignore the influence of physically determined gender roles and cultural/environmental influences. For certain, these will affect the likelihood and success of adults in producing offspring. In a simplistic way, the biggest strongest males will tend to have the highest levels of testosterone and have the most male brains and minds, and be best adapted to the male gender role. Equally simplistically, those females with the highest levels of oestrogen etc will tend to have physical traits which are attractive to males but which add up to an indication of being able to bear and support offspring most successfully, and have the most female brains and minds and be best adapted to the female gender role. In simple terms, such males and females will tend to be most successful in producing and rearing healthy offspring, and so be most attractive as partners. Thus their characteristics are likely to become more emphasised in any population over generations by way of evolution, and add to the differences between the sexes.
From such a simple scenario, it can be seen how non physically induced gender roles will arise naturally. The males will tend to become the ones who hunt, fight and defend, the females will tend to become the ones who cook, nurture and run the home. This is not sexism, it is rather a best fit cultural adaptation to environment which allocates tasks to the best person for the job according to the physical traits and gender roles arising from their sex. As long as the environment continues to make such an arrangement the best fit, then such an arrangement will persist, with offspring being educated in their gender roles from an early age, even before the developments of puberty which will demonstrate why they should have such a gender role in the environment. Thus the gender roles become cultural from being a simple group survival strategy based on differences between the sexes, and perhaps explains the male warrior effect today in the absence of the environment which once made it necessary; males are predisposed by their hormonal environment to be aggressive, but it is the cultural influence which causes them to band together rather than simply compete with one another for personal causes.
What I think confuses the whole issue for us as westerners is the intrusion of a certain middle eastern culture which valued the written word over social evolution. What this did was to prevent further gender role variation as the environment around us was improved. The respective gender roles were written as directives from God, and therefore not possible to change, rather than being environmental adaptations. The problems we seem to have now with these battles between the sexes is due in no small part to the persistence of such beliefs in parts of the population, whilst the others have abandoned these beliefs and are busily adapting to a new environment where the previous relative advantages of each sex in fulfilling tasks, is now either a neutral factor or even a contraindication of pre-eminence. Cultural gender roles arising from physical differences are becoming redundant, and whilst some feel this is good, others think it impossible or bad. If we add in the misogyny that this middle eastern cultural invasion brought with it, we begin to understand the reluctance of some to acknowledge these factors today.
Whilst then, there are differences between the sexes which have been emphasised by evolution by reference to environments, there has also been a culture in our population which not only prevented variation in gender role but actually suppressed it as the environment changed, reducing half of the population to ancient gender roles, whilst the other half were permitted to expand on their gender role. Thus we have countless great men in our history, but very few great women, thus we have men being praised as philanthropists as well as warriors, whilst women's philanthropy was expected and they were reviled for being for example, pirates.
Even with such admitted differences in the brains and thus the psychologies of the two sexes, and even with the relative numbers of historical contributors to our society by sex, the biased culture in which our society has lived for the past one and a half millennia would tend to void the notion that males are predisposed to intellectual achievement whilst females are bereft of ability to so aspire. That we have lived in such a situation pretty much up until the women's liberation movement of the 1960s and thus have only at most forty years and in most places less than twentyfive years as a period of reference by which male and female intellectual contribution can be measured with any level of parity, (one or two generations), indicates that at this stage we can really have no idea whether one or other of the sexes possesses any intellectual superiority. If we were to ask the same question a hundred years from now, then the elapsed period of parity might be sufficient to provide an indication, but we will have to leave that to future generations.
I will conclude by saying that even with the differences in size and structure of male and female brains, and even with the consequent differences in psychology, what matters most in determining eventual IQ and ability to achieve intellectually is not physical sex or brain size or structure. Were that the case, then all men would be geniuses by comparison to all women - which it is evident in our society is not the case. What matters most is the environment in which a child grows up and the amount of type of input which its brain receives. In short, it aint what you got, its what you do with it, that counts, and the widening of opportunities in our society for females in the last 25-40 years may yet prove females intellectually superior. But I doubt it. Instead I would suggest that one hundred years from now, the equal opportunities enjoyed over the preceding century will have produced equal societal contributions by the two sexes, along with equal stupidity and evil.
E
|
|
|
|
