NationStates Jolt Archive

Help me analyse the following article. When I first read it, something kind of stuck me as wrong about it...I mean, yes, it states it's talking about stereotypes, but I just think...change it around a bit, call it, "Why do women utilize psychological services MORE than men" and would this article be then passed around the workplace?

I just feel weird about it...

PRIORITY ONE Wellness Letter
April 2005

MEN and Psychotherapy



Why do men utilize psychological services less than women?

Gender shapes how people experience themselves and others. Studies of gender difference report that men and women tend to approach relationships differently (Levant, 1990). For example, research suggests that women may be more oriented to emotional expression and cohesion while men may be oriented to independence, leadership and organization. Therefore, what constitutes wellbeing and appropriate responses to distressing or problematic issues may be different for women than for men (Levant, 1990)

The gender norms may affect the quality of the psychotherapy experience for men. Studies indicate that females tend to derive more benefit from therapy than males (Levant, 1990). Researchers claim that differences in the therapeutic experience could be due to gender norms such as a man’s sense of self tends to be more reliant on independence, distinction and suppression of their emotions. While these studies are not based on strong empirical research but rather on psychologist’s clinical experience, there appears to be strong evidence that male socialization has a negative effect on the psychotherapy experience.

Our gender-conscious society requires that men be independent, strong, self reliant, competitive, achievement-oriented, powerful, adventurous and emotionally restrained (Levant, 1990). These are the characteristics that make it difficult for men to seek and utilize psychological services. According to Levant (1990), there are four major factors that relate to men’s negative attitudes toward seeking therapy:

1. Difficulty in admitting the existence of a problem (men are socialized to be strong – seeking help can be considered a weakness).

2. Difficulty in asking for help (men are socialized to be independent and powerful).

3. Difficulty in identifying and processing emotional states (men are socialized to be emotionally restrained).

4. Difficulty in the intimate therapeutic encounter (men are socialized to seek distance and autonomy).

The male role makes it difficult for men to seek counseling. Men who endorse traditional beliefs about gender roles (independence, autonomy, self sufficiency), when compared to women, have less social support and are less likely to seek help from their friends, partners and families. Lack of support has a negative impact on men’s health. Researchers claim that numerous problematic links between aspects of masculinity and men’s mental health. Men who have greater masculinity are more psychologically distressed and have more difficulty with interpersonal intimacy, have greater bio medical concerns and poorer health behavior (Scher, 1990).
In the last ten years, increasing attention has been paid to men as clients of psychotherapy. An important fact of therapy is that men must be understood within their gender role restrictions to which they are socialized. According to Pleck’s (1995) “gender role strain paradigm”, in many ways these gender roles are dysfunctional in their expectations and unforgiving when their rigid standards are violated. Pleck (1995) suggests that men have paid the price in terms of damage to both their physical and emotional wellbeing. This is evidenced in their decreased life expectancy and their common experiences of loneliness and personal powerlessness. In reaction to the “male gender role strain” is the appearance of a men’s movement that has gained attention since the 1970’s. This movement is fueled by a commitment to countering sociocultural forces and is evidenced by men’s support groups (ie; Father’s Rights, annual national conference on Men and Masculinity). Bly (1990) had a significant influence on the “men’s movement” by promoting literature of “the deep masculine spirit”. The recognition of men’s issues has reverberated into professional organization of mental health (ie; The American Psychological Association).

The American Psychological Association focuses on helping men find answers to their distress by examining theoretical frameworks on masculinity and empirically supported treatment. Inevitably, cultural changes, has helped bridge the gap between gender and who seeks psychotherapy. Men are now finding their way into counseling settings. Cultural changes has convinced men that seeking therapy can be positive and helpful. Efforts to improve men’s access to psychological information and the use of mental health services have taken the form of customizing traditional therapy modalities by reframing, re-labeling and repackaging them. For example, instead of using traditional therapeutic language it is useful to offer “coaching” to male clients. Coaching does not carry the same stigma that psychotherapy carries. Customizing the components of therapy depends on each man’s individual needs. Empirically supported research identifies that therapy or coaching must be action-oriented, and must focus on problem-solving strategies and setting goals in order to be effective for men (Pleck, 1995).

It is necessary that when counseling men the normative challenges and developmental stages of the male life cycle (boyhood, midlife, late-life issues) be considered. For example, therapy must consider the intersection of masculinity (independence, autonomy, and emotional restraint) and the demands of marriage, fatherhood, career and emotional connection with others. Most men will share common experiences and challenges such as: the taunting and bullying of boy culture, the insidious existential dilemmas of midlife, the fears and losses of later life. One of the biggest challenges men face is fatherhood and the ability to develop nurturing skills to father more emotionally connected than they were fathered themselves. Unraveling relationship commitments, family, work and career add additional complexity to men’s lives. These experiences provide evidence that men must have access to psychological services in order to develop the necessary skills to negotiate the challenges that males in our culture face.

References
Levant, R. (1990). Psychological services designed for men: a psychoeducational approach. Psychotherapy, 27, 3, 309-314.
Pleck, J.H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm. New psychology of men: New York, Basic Books.
Scher, M (1990). Effect of gender role incongruities on men’s experience as clients in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 27, (3), 322-326.

Help me analyse the following article. When I first read it, something kind of stuck me as wrong about it...I mean, yes, it states it's talking about stereotypes, but I just think...change it around a bit, call it, "Why do women utilize psychological services MORE than men" and would this article be then passed around the workplace?

I just feel weird about it...
This is nothing new. We've known for quite some time that women tend to be more concerned about relationships than men. It's just a fact of genetics.

This is nothing new. We've known for quite some time that women tend to be more concerned about relationships than men. It's just a fact of genetics.
This article never says its about genetics, in fact it clearly states these differences are because of gender norms and social gender roles.

Yes and no. While it is true that in this country we have very set lines men and women are supposed to walk, it's not a gender issue, it is a SOCIAL issue. Women are just as independant and competative as men, but they are raised differently. If they were raised the same as men and vice versa, their would be no problem. It is a terrible thing that happens for men that they can't as for any sort of help, but that is simply because of how they are raised and has little/nothing to do with genetics, although certain people male or female have harder time asking for help and support, etc.

I guess my point is (and I want confirmation or rebuttal) that if this letter had gone around the office and was talking about stereotypical roles of women, would it have escaped unanalysed and untalked about? Would no one have been upset by these stereotypes, or is this letter just bringing stereotypes out in the open? I just can't decide...

This article never says its about genetics, in fact it clearly states these differences are because of gender norms and social gender roles.

very true

This article never says its about genetics, in fact it clearly states these differences are because of gender norms and social gender roles.
Ok. I'd love to debate that with them. They're sociologists, not geneticists. As with many issues relating to things like personality, gender roles, etc., there's a continuing debate about whether these things have a genetic component or are largely determined by socialization. My personal take on it is that socialization tends to reinforce genetic predispositions.

I guess my point is (and I want confirmation or rebuttal) that if this letter had gone around the office and was talking about stereotypical roles of women, would it have escaped unanalysed and untalked about? Would no one have been upset by these stereotypes, or is this letter just bringing stereotypes out in the open? I just can't decide...

I don't think there is anything wrong with it. It is rather clear that these differences are not ingrained, but socialized. Men may benefit from therapy, but often do not seek it due to our "gender norms".

Depending on the culture, people of either gender may not seek therapy. Hispanic cultures, for instance, tend to discourage seeking outside therapy. Problems are to be dealt with within the family structure and those seeking therapy are seen as being someone who must be crazy.

Help me analyse the following article. When I first read it, something kind of stuck me as wrong about it...I mean, yes, it states it's talking about stereotypes, but I just think...change it around a bit, call it, "Why do women utilize psychological services MORE than men" and would this article be then passed around the workplace?

I just feel weird about it...

The article is not seeking to reinforce stereotypes. To the contrary, it is explaining how gender stereotypes harm men.

Unwillingness to seek therapy that could help = bad

Due to gender roles and stereotypes, men are less willing to seek therapy that could help.

Gender roles and stereotypes = bad

{off topic} Sinuhue -- I thought you were taking a 3 week break? Don't get me wrong, I think you're wonderful.. but *confused* :confused:

--Edit-- I meant I was confused about you still being here, not that I think you're confused. :D

Help me analyse the following article. When I first read it, something kind of stuck me as wrong about it...I mean, yes, it states it's talking about stereotypes, but I just think...change it around a bit, call it, "Why do women utilize psychological services MORE than men" and would this article be then passed around the workplace?

I just feel weird about it...

The article is pretty accurate. I wouldn't say it is sexist. It's contents are the results of both genentic and environmental factors, particularly the latter, that do include sexist stereotypse and training. Still, the contents are not really debateable. The stats bare that out pretty well...

Ok, since people tend to be a little farsighted when dealing with behavior, I'm going to go back to the animal example I've used before. If I was to ask you what differences there were in bears between male and female, what would you say? I'm sure you'd come up with a list of them and say males are...more aggressive, not good parents, loners, etc. Then the females...good, protective mothers, not as aggressive, still loners, of course, except for their children. A male parrot is more likely to bond with a female human and a female will bond with a male human. In gorillas, a male is aggressive and domineering, the females are more submissive and much better at social relations. Why is it so hard to believe that some of this is genetic? Of course, you can say that it's due to the way they are in their "family environment" but what about the ones that are orphaned and raised in the zoo? What's the name of the one female gorilla that adopted the little kitten and took care of it? And our brains are physiologically different. They're designed different. Why wouldn't they function differently too?

snip


Of course then the lion and lioness comes along.... the lions sole job is to protect the pack from invading males/prides and impregnate the female. The female both raises the young, and does ALL the hunting. Then there's the anglerfish, where the male is many orders of magnitude smaller, and so "submissive" (in a sense) that it actually becomes a part of the female. (in pictures of the female anglerfish, it is not uncommon to see the tailfins of the male sticking out the side of the female as she absorbs them. Often several tailfins (multiple mates)

{off topic} Sinuhue -- I thought you were taking a 3 week break? Don't get me wrong, I think you're wonderful.. but *confused* :confused:

--Edit-- I meant I was confused about you still being here, not that I think you're confused. :D
I'm off starting Monday...I was just giving some advance notice:)

You missed the point. My point isn't that all males are dominant. My point is that I believe behavior can be attributed to genetics. :rolleyes:

It doesnt express opinions, it talks about research results. How can that be sexist? There are differences between the genders in behaviour, should we ban research into this because it makes us uncomfortable?

Nature is sexist. It makes a difference what sex one is. Men and women should learn to explore and enjoy the differences. A Columbian girl I dated in college told me this, "Columbian girls are different than American girls. We enjoy the differences in men and women. Men pay for the meal and women save their money for sexy underwear. Everybody's happy."

You too can achieve greater happiness by celebrating the differences. We are not to different from dogs. Feed us and love us, we will be very loyal.

It doesnt express opinions, it talks about research results. How can that be sexist? There are differences between the genders in behaviour, should we ban research into this because it makes us uncomfortable?
No...not at all. In fact, we need this sort of awareness of it so we can deal with the negative impacts of gender roles.

I guess, I just wanted a reality check...I thought it was good to point some of these things out, but a male coworker was saying how it was crap, and no one would ever say that women were this that and the other thing...

Nature is sexist. It makes a difference what sex one is. Men and women should learn to explore and enjoy the differences. A Columbian girl I dated in college told me this, "Columbian girls are different than American girls. We enjoy the differences in men and women. Men pay for the meal and women save their money for sexy underwear. Everybody's happy."

You too can achieve greater happiness by celebrating the differences. We are not to different from dogs. Feed us and love us, we will be very loyal.
I predict a severe flame storm in your future... :D

You missed the point. My point isn't that all males are dominant. My point is that I believe behavior can be attributed to genetics. :rolleyes:

I don't think anyone would try to argue that no behavior can be attributed to genetics. However, those who wish to attribute all gender roles directly to genetics are on the opposite extreme, and are just as silly.

This article never says its about genetics, in fact it clearly states these differences are because of gender norms and social gender roles.
Very true.

No, I wouldn't consider it sexist. I think it's a restatement of social conditioning. Boys are raised to be one way, and girls another. Yes, it is possible to have reverse roles, but, either way, it's not sexist, so much as it is a statement of facts based on social conditioning that is engrained into us at an early age.

I don't think anyone would try to argue that no behavior can be attributed to genetics. However, those who wish to attribute all gender roles directly to genetics are on the opposite extreme, and are just as silly.
I agree. However, the point is that men are berated for being...men. It's expected that men should change because it's no longer politically correct to act a certain way. And high stress men tend to die earlier? What about high-stress women? If you ask why men should change, the argument that will be given is, those type of behaviors are no longer needed in modern society. Says who? A group of "forward" thinking people get to determine what we're going to need as a race to survive. That's ridiculous.

I agree. However, the point is that men are berated for being...men. It's expected that men should change because it's no longer politically correct to act a certain way. And high stress men tend to die earlier? What about high-stress women? If you ask why men should change, the argument that will be given is, those type of behaviors are no longer needed in modern society. Says who? A group of "forward" thinking people get to determine what we're going to need as a race to survive. That's ridiculous.

Who is berating? Who is asking someone to change? We are simply pointing out stereotypes which can be harmful, and the fact that they do not apply to everyone.

Who is berating? Who is asking someone to change? We are simply pointing out stereotypes which can be harmful, and the fact that they do not apply to everyone.
But what's learned behaviour and what's genetic?

But what's learned behaviour and what's genetic?

Isn't that the 10billion dollar question?

Isn't that the 10billion dollar question?
Well, I definitely think it should be answered before we start telling guys the way they SHOULD be acting...

I don't think there is anything sexist about this article. It's a fact that men tend to look for helpful services than women. (WARNING: generalization) We are less likely to see any kind of doctor, to ask for directions, to read intructions when building something, to not fix our car, stove, radio on our own rather than seek out a professional, etc. Men as a gender on the average don't seek help unless it's absolutely necessary. Most people that could benefit from therapy are functional. In the eyes of most men, if it ain't broken don't fix it.

Well, I definitely think it should be answered before we start telling guys the way they SHOULD be acting...

I agree with this. I think when we ignore the biology behind behaviors we push people into contradictory (to biology) and confusing roles. It's like forcing a homosexual (differences in brain structure are becoming more and more apparent) to date women.

Well, I definitely think it should be answered before we start telling guys the way they SHOULD be acting...

I'm still wondering where in this thread anyone has said anything about how guys *should* be acting?

I'm still wondering where in this thread anyone has said anything about how guys *should* be acting?
The whole implication of the article (in post 2) was that men SHOULD be utilizing psychologists more and talking about their feelings so they live longer.

I'm still wondering where in this thread anyone has said anything about how guys *should* be acting?

Perhaps no one is suggesting a solution, but it certainly has been said, here and many other places, that gender roles are inherently bad. While we shouldn't force all people into a given role, we also shouldn't be encouraging people to behave in a way contrary to biology except where it is necessary to protect the rights of others.

We all know biology makes us different. We should be trying to eradicate the behaviors that are inherently bad for us (avoiding medical and psychological help, for example) and encouraging those behaviors that celebrate our differences (special treatment for pregnant women, for example).

*rubbing her hands together and chuckling evily*

Now that I have lured Jocabia and Dempublicents into my trap, I shall simply sit back and watch them destroy one another. MUAHAHAHAHHAA!

The whole implication of the article (in post 2) was that men SHOULD be utilizing psychologists more and talking about their feelings so they live longer.

I don't agree. It seems to me the article is focused on explaining why men don't use these service when they might be harmful. I don't see that it suggests anything about what men should do.

*rubbing her hands together and chuckling evily*

Now that I have lured Jocabia and Dempublicents into my trap, I shall simply sit back and watch them destroy one another. MUAHAHAHAHHAA!

I think I actually sit somewhere in the overlap between Dem and Suk.

The whole implication of the article (in post 2) was that men SHOULD be utilizing psychologists more and talking about their feelings so they live longer.

Not really. It was suggesting that they might benefit, but that they don't go. This is no different than the fact that men might benefit from yearly prostate exams (especially at higher ages), but most don't go. Should we not encourage (not force, but encourage) men to go get these exams?

Meanwhile, I seriously doubt that use or non-use of psychology is genetic. Psychology hasn't really been around all that long.

I pretty much agree with Eutrusca. I think society reinforces genetic tendencies, not always to peoples benefit.

I think men could be happier if they felt more comfortable asking for help. But I don't want to give men the idea that they should give up their independence either. I know I like mine, and men tend to value it very highly. Women tend more towards interdependence. A balance is nice.

Perhaps no one is suggesting a solution, but it certainly has been said, here and many other places, that gender roles are inherently bad. While we shouldn't force all people into a given role, we also shouldn't be encouraging people to behave in a way contrary to biology except where it is necessary to protect the rights of others.

The problem with gender roles is not that they are "inherently bad". The problem is assuming that all members of a given gender will magically fit into them. If more men want to go into pro sports and more women want to be homemakers, no problem. However, society shouldn't present the idea that men have to be better at sports (as many don't like it and many women are very good at sports) or that women have to be homemakers (as many women don't enjoy it and many men do).

We should be trying to eradicate the behaviors that are inherently bad for us (avoiding medical and psychological help, for example) and encouraging those behaviors that celebrate our differences (special treatment for pregnant women, for example).

Would you treat a man with a condition that made him feel much like a pregnant woman any different from a pregnant woman?

Not really. It was suggesting that they might benefit, but that they don't go. This is no different than the fact that men might benefit from yearly prostate exams (especially at higher ages), but most don't go. Should we not encourage (not force, but encourage) men to go get these exams?

Meanwhile, I seriously doubt that use or non-use of psychology is genetic. Psychology hasn't really been around all that long.

I hope you're kidding. This an oversimplification of biology to the point of absurdity. It would be like saying the fact that women get in less side-impact accidents can't be attributed to biology because cars haven't been around that long. Note: women have much better peripheral vision (clearer and wider) than men.

The problem with gender roles is not that they are "inherently bad". The problem is assuming that all members of a given gender will magically fit into them. If more men want to go into pro sports and more women want to be homemakers, no problem. However, society shouldn't present the idea that men have to be better at sports (as many don't like it and many women are very good at sports) or that women have to be homemakers (as many women don't enjoy it and many men do).

Agreed. We do, to a degree, have to cater to that which is most common. Most stores don't carry clothes for men seven feet tall. This is not because they don't exist, but just because it's uncommon. It doesn't mean we should pretend like seven-foot tall men don't exist just that they are less commong then shorter men. Yes, yes, I know I used an example that is more rare than what you are talking about.

Would you treat a man with a condition that made him feel much like a pregnant woman any different from a pregnant woman?

Depend on what kinds of treatment you're talking about. If you'll let me assume you mean in ways that make sense, then yes, of course I would.

I hope you're kidding. This an oversimplification of biology to the point of absurdity. It would be like saying the fact that women get in less side-impact accidents can't be attributed to biology because cars haven't been around that long. Note: women have much better peripheral vision (clearer and wider) than men.

No, it wouldn't. There is a clear connection between peripheral vision and spatial awareness. Such a difference would affect other factors as well.

Going, or not going, to a psychologist is a purely psychological trait.

Edit: Meanwhile, there is quite a bit of evidence that this is a social trait. For instance, those who grow up in a predominantly Hispanic community (male or female) are often less likely to go to a psychologist. Why? Because it is looked down upon in their society. This is not necessarily true of other societies, and those other groups tend to use pyschologists more often.

Depend on what kinds of treatment you're talking about. If you'll let me assume you mean in ways that make sense, then yes, of course I would.

What type of special treatment were you talking about? I was thinking along the lines of giving up a seat on the bus.

No, it wouldn't. There is a clear connection between peripheral vision and spatial awareness. Such a difference would affect other factors as well.

Going, or not going, to a psychologist is a purely psychological trait.

Evidence? How can you make this assertion? PURELY? Considering the number of instances where men refuse to ask for help where it is needed, it would be very difficult to make the assertion that this is simply related to the idea of psychology.

Also, peripheral vision and spatial awareness are not related. Men excel at spatial relations which is why they have far less frontal collisions than women. Women excel at peripheral vision as I already pointed out. (add in general to all of my sentences - to stop someone from yelling at me) Side impact collisions have more injuries and do more damage which tends to be the reason for higher insurance premiums. Also women in general see twice as many colors as men and men see better in the dark. Men focus their vision better than women which makes them better at tracking game. Women have a broader focus which is why they tend to be better at finding things (men have to scan the refrigerator systematically to find the butter, women can look at the whole refrigerator at once).

Evidence? How can you make this assertion? PURELY?

Yes. Whether or not you feel comfortable going to a psychologist is a purely psychological trait. There is no disorder we have discovered that would make someone have a physical aversion to it.

Considering the number of instances where men refuse to ask for help where it is needed, it would be very difficult to make the assertion that this is simply related to the idea of psychology.

Not in the least. Men don't ask for help because they feel uncomfortable doing so. That is pyschological.

What type of special treatment were you talking about? I was thinking along the lines of giving up a seat on the bus.

All kinds. That. When I was a waiter I wouldn't serve alcohol to pregnant women. Helping them up. Carrying things for them. Running errands for them. Anything like that. I was mostly joking about not everything, though I would rub a pregnant woman's belly if she asked me too, but not some guy with a tumor.

All kinds. That. When I was a waiter I wouldn't serve alcohol to pregnant women. Helping them up. Carrying things for them. Running errands for them. Anything like that. I was mostly joking about not everything, though I would rub a pregnant woman's belly if she asked me too, but not some guy with a tumor.

If a man sat down at your table and you knew he had a condition that could make him drinking alcohol dangerous to himself and others, would you serve it to him?

If a man had a condition that made him have trouble getting up, carrying things, or running errands, would you help him?

Yes. Whether or not you feel comfortable going to a psychologist is a purely psychological trait. There is no disorder we have discovered that would make someone have a physical aversion to it.



Not in the least. Men don't ask for help because they feel uncomfortable doing so. That is pyschological.

Being related to biology does not make it a disorder. Have less peripheral vision than a women does not mean I have a disorder. It means I have a masculized body (there is a spectrum that is based on the amount of testerone received during development). A psychological trait? Like being gay is a psychological trait? That does not mean it is not also related to biology. Men not asking for help is not a strictly learned behavior which is what you're claiming. It is a fact that the male and female brain deal with things differently so your claim that it is purely psychological is specious.

Sin, TG.

If a man sat down at your table and you knew he had a condition that could make him drinking alcohol dangerous to himself and others, would you serve it to him?

If a man had a condition that made him have trouble getting up, carrying things, or running errands, would you help him?

I don't like repeating myself. Please read my original reply.

Help me analyse the following article. When I first read it, something kind of stuck me as wrong about it...I mean, yes, it states it's talking about stereotypes, but I just think...change it around a bit, call it, "Why do women utilize psychological services MORE than men" and would this article be then passed around the workplace?

I just feel weird about it...

Doesn't seem sexist to me. They're talking about roles ingrained into society, which is true. Those stereotypes are reinforced. They're not universal and unchangeable, but they are prolific and predominant. Had the article tried to suggest that those traits were somehow genetic and inflexible, then I'd be inclined to mark it as sexist.

Being related to biology does not make it a disorder.

True. But having a physical problem with entering a psychologist's office would be.

A psychological trait? Like being gay is a psychological trait?

Sexuality is not a purely psychological trait. In fact, sexuality is much more defined by physical reactions than psychological ones.

Men not asking for help is not a strictly learned behavior which is what you're claiming.

It is? *looks for where I claimed that*

I don't like repeating myself. Please read my original reply.

Your reply didn't answer the question. The best I can tell, you said that you would treat such a man differently where you deemed it reasonable. How do I know what you deem reasonable? I certainly wouldn't find it reasonable to treat a man with such conditions any differently than I would a pregnant woman, but you might.

True. But having a physical problem with entering a psychologist's office would be.



Sexuality is not a purely psychological trait. In fact, sexuality is much more defined by physical reactions than psychological ones.



It is? *looks for where I claimed that*

Let's see, sexuality is partly physical so it is not purely psychological. So if an aversion to asking for help is purely psychological than it is not physical at all. Seems clear. There are biological holdovers from earlier times that press a man to not ask for help. They can be overcome and overcoming them would be psychological, but the causes are at least as much physical as they are psychological, which is why the problem is so universal. Does it mean we should accept it simply because it's partially physical? No. But it does mean that we have to explore the physical aspects rather than making absurd statements like it's PURELY psychological with no real evidence or biology to support such a superlative statement.

Your reply didn't answer the question. The best I can tell, you said that you would treat such a man differently where you deemed it reasonable. How do I know what you deem reasonable? I certainly wouldn't find it reasonable to treat a man with such conditions any differently than I would a pregnant woman, but you might.

Depend on what kinds of treatment you're talking about. If you'll let me assume you mean in ways that make sense, then yes, of course I would.

What type of special treatment were you talking about? I was thinking along the lines of giving up a seat on the bus.

All kinds. That. When I was a waiter I wouldn't serve alcohol to pregnant women. Helping them up. Carrying things for them. Running errands for them. Anything like that. I was mostly joking about not everything, though I would rub a pregnant woman's belly if she asked me too, but not some guy with a tumor.

I think I made myself clear. I would treat a man who needed treatment similar to being pregnant exactly as I would a woman in every way that is reasonable. I'm not going to define reasonable as I think I've made it obvious. And I gave you an example of what would be unreasonable, rubbing a man with a tumor's belly. I told you I was joking when I qualified the statement so why are you arguing with me about something so inane?

Let's see, sexuality is partly physical so it is not purely psychological. So if an aversion to asking for help is purely psychological than it is not physical at all.

Of course, the other corrolary to this would be that all things psychological are not learned, which you seem to be ignoring.

There are biological holdovers from earlier times that press a man to not ask for help.

Such as? When in the history of humankind has a man been able to live alone, outside of society? In what ape groups do we see males who do not cooperate with the rest of their society thriving?

They can be overcome and overcoming them would be psychological, but the causes are at least as much physical as they are psychological, which is why the problem is so universal.

Except, of course, that it isn't universal. It is specific to and much more prevalent in given cultures where asking for help is discouraged.

But it does mean that we have to explore the physical aspects rather than making absurd statements like it's PURELY psychological with no real evidence or biology to support such a superlative statement.

I'm still waiting for you to point out the physical aspects involved here, since you want evidence in biology and all that - perhaps you should provide some.

I think I made myself clear. I would treat a man who needed treatment similar to being pregnant exactly as I would a woman in every way that is reasonable. I'm not going to define reasonable as I think I've made it obvious. And I gave you an example of what would be unreasonable, rubbing a man with a tumor's belly. I told you I was joking when I qualified the statement so why are you arguing with me about something so inane?

Well, for one thing, that isn't what you said. I'm sorry for being confused when you answered a question other than that which was asked.

I asked if you would treat a man differently and you replied, as you quoted above, "of course I would."

Well, for one thing, that isn't what you said. I'm sorry for being confused when you answered a question other than that which was asked.

I asked if you would treat a man differently and you replied, as you quoted above, "of course I would."

Actually, I can see how it might have been a confusing answer although I did point out that in the cases where I said I would treat him differently I was mostly joking.

This article never says its about genetics, in fact it clearly states these differences are because of gender norms and social gender roles.

The way men and women differ in the way they treat relationships is not just based on gender norms and social gender roles. Anatomy has a huge part to play.

Men can only have an active sexual relationship with someone that can arouse them into an erection. Simply put for men attraction is not just a luxory, it is a neccesity.

For women, this is not the case, a high level of arousal is important, but it is still physically possible to have a sexual relationship without a high level of arousal.

This helps to explain why men tend to be more "shallow" in their selections of partners, meaning they are much more likely to choose a physical attraction over a personality attrcation (putting aside the notion that the mind is the most erogenous zone).

It also explains why there are so many more "gold diggers" among females than males, it is very difficult for a man to have a relationship with someone they find "grotesque", just because they are rich.

Of course, the other corrolary to this would be that all things psychological are not learned, which you seem to be ignoring.

Such as? When in the history of humankind has a man been able to live alone, outside of society? In what ape groups do we see males who do not cooperate with the rest of their society thriving?

Except, of course, that it isn't universal. It is specific to and much more prevalent in given cultures where asking for help is discouraged.

I'm still waiting for you to point out the physical aspects involved here, since you want evidence in biology and all that - perhaps you should provide some.

I try to be respectful, but you make it difficult when you oversimplify things in this way.

If we're not talking about learned then what counts as physical and what counts as psychological? Perhaps we define the terms differently. Because everything you say or do is motivated by chemical reactions and electrical pulses in the body.

Male homosexuality is now thought to be caused by not enough testerone being produced by the fetus during the phase when the brain developes (actually not the same as the phase where the body becomes male in every way save genetically, read: he grows balls). This means the brain does masculize to the extent of a heterosexual causing it to process information in way similar to a woman (to a varied degree) and causing the brain to send signals to the body to behave in certain ways similar to a woman. The effects of this can be that the male produces less testerone than his heterosexual counterparts (this also varies dramatically) but it does cause this male to be attracted to men. Female homosexuals are essentially the opposite. This is why there is such a prevelance of homosexuals that tend to have some of the physical traits of the other gender.

Asking for help and cooperating are not the same thing. Men are more likely to have a buddy help them build a deck than hire a professional builder. Don't believe me... do your own personal survey. You could complete it in the mall in about fifteen minutes. Trust me, that's not just about money. I can go to the doctor for free, but I actually have an aversion to it. I am not an exception. Men are not simply socialized to be strong. There is a biological imperative to appear to be the alpha-male. This manifests itself in the desire for a man to show he is strong, can care for a woman (provide food, shelter, etc) and their children, and has good genes, no disorders or weaknesses. Men don't want help from professionals because it suggests an inability to provide for their family (certainly you can see how this came about in our evolution, can you not?) and specifically when going to doctors it shows a physical weakness which is not just socialized to be unattractive but it is unattractive biologically because it suggests a weakness that could be passed to children. It's a double-whammy on doctors because they are professionals and going shows weakness. Men, in fact, are much less likely to take their children to the doctor than women as well. This is for the professionals reason I stated above.

Men don't have the same expectation of women because men can impregnate more than one woman. There is no need for him to be selective in this way. For this reason, women have an added ability to detect (through smell) genetic compatibility during the part of the month when they are most fertile (when they are ovulating) which men do not have. Women have an actually biological ability to detect weakness that men don't have.

There are errors in the article. It claims men are simply socialized to appear strong. And they are not socialized to be self-sufficient at all. Clearly, the fact that men are socialized to find mates (it also biological, but certainly you can see where it is socialized) and it was up until recently expected that the woman care for the home (not just the children, the home), a claim that society socializes men to be self-sufficient could be easily disputed.

Doesn't seem sexist to me. They're talking about roles ingrained into society, which is true. Those stereotypes are reinforced. They're not universal and unchangeable, but they are prolific and predominant. Had the article tried to suggest that those traits were somehow genetic and inflexible, then I'd be inclined to mark it as sexist.

You'd claim the article was sexist if it claimed certain traits to be genetic? Thats ridiculous, a research result cant be sexist. An opinion can, but a fact cant, unless the methods used to obtain the fact skewed the result one way over the other.

You'd claim the article was sexist if it claimed certain traits to be genetic? Thats ridiculous, a research result cant be sexist. An opinion can, but a fact cant, unless the methods used to obtain the fact skewed the result one way over the other.

No, I'd tend to think the article was sexist if it stated that those particular traits mentioned in the article were stated as genetic rather than social.


I'm perfectly aware of the difference between fact and opinion, thank you.

No, I'd tend to think the article was sexist if it stated that those particular traits mentioned in the article were stated as genetic rather than social.


I'm perfectly aware of the difference between fact and opinion, thank you.

So falsely attributing traits to social convention = not sexist. Accurately attributing traits to biology = sexist. Good to know that evidence has no place in your decisions about what amounts to sexism.

So falsely attributing traits to social convention = not sexist. Accurately attributing traits to biology = sexist. Good to know that evidence has no place in your decisions about what amounts to sexism.

You're presuming that attributing the traits mentioned in the article to social influence is false.

1. Difficulty in admitting the existence of a problem (men are socialized to be strong – seeking help can be considered a weakness).

2. Difficulty in asking for help (men are socialized to be independent and powerful).

3. Difficulty in identifying and processing emotional states (men are socialized to be emotionally restrained).

4. Difficulty in the intimate therapeutic encounter (men are socialized to seek distance and autonomy).

Granted these are oversimplified and not explained thoroughly, but they are clearly social and not biological.

Example: Take #1 and #2; these are common stereotypes amongst men, at least in the American society. Who are our heroes? Lone wolves. The solitary, quiet hero, with the do or die attitude. Coincidence? I think not.

In primitive, hunter-gatherer societies men are encouraged to work together to achieve goals and not marked as weak when they need assistance from others to succeed.

What in biology would make men consider it a weakness to have the help and aid of their own kind? Nothing I can think of...

You're presuming that attributing the traits mentioned in the article to social influence is false.


I think he was talking in general rather than with regard to that article.

If solid research was done and in multiple sources those traits were found to be genetic (i'm not saying this is going to happen, its just another ridiculous hypothetical) it couldnt be considered sexist, because it would be fact.

You're presuming that attributing the traits mentioned in the article to social influence is false.

Granted these are oversimplified and not explained thoroughly, but they are clearly social and not biological.

Example: Take #1 and #2; these are common stereotypes amongst men, at least in the American society. Who are our heroes? Lone wolves. The solitary, quiet hero, with the do or die attitude. Coincidence? I think not.

In primitive, hunter-gatherer societies men are encouraged to work together to achieve goals and not marked as weak when they need assistance from others to succeed.

What in biology would make men consider it a weakness to have the help and aid of their own kind? Nothing I can think of...

Not presuming it's false. It is false.

Men did work together, but if a man were to stay back and let someone else hunt in his place it would have been considered weak. To work together is strong. To let someone else do it for you is weak. The fact that socialization supports this biological trait does not make it socialized. Socialization encourages men to be bigger and stronger than women but does not cause men to be bigger and stronger than women. Men don't consider it a weakness to have aid from their own kind. They consider it a weakness to let someone do it for them. This goes back to the idea of providing for their families.

Men are socialized to be strong but there is also biological backing as I explained earlier. The idea of the alphamale isn't something that came about as a result of western society. Women are biologically designed to select men that are best suited to reproduce with them and create children that will also be able to reproduce. This selection requires men to compete to show that they are genetically superior to other men. Men are genetically predisposed to actions that show this and women are genetically predisposed to evaluating those actions.

I don't agree that men are socialized to be independent. Men have for centuries been in clubs that were strictly men where those men used each other to get ahead. This is interdependence and it has been used in western society for generations. Cowboys were strongly interdependent despite stereotypes. Oh, and have you ever heard of the good ol' boys clubs. It's the precise reason that women had a hard time breaking into the workforce. It's because men created their own interdependent society in business and women were not permitted to join (at first).

Now as far as an intimate therapuetic encounter (read: intimate emotional encounter) and identifying and processing emotional states - men are not ONLY socialized in a way that hinders this. They are biologically less capable of this. Did you know women have more whites in their eyes? This allows them to better communicate emotion to other females (men can't ordinarily pick up on the nuances)? Women's sight (broad focused sight allows them to see all of the facial expressions and body language that are included in conversation versus the point focus sight of men that is better suited to hunting, and women can see more colors to help them better notice changes that signify emotional distress or illness), hearing (women can hear changes in the voice that convey emotion better than men), smell (certain emotions release chemicals that can be smelled by women) and touch (women are far more sensitive to touch and use touch to convery emotion) are all better suited to handle emotional encounters. Women's brains handle emotions differently than men. This is hardly simply socialization.

Read it this way 1. shows genetic viability. 2 shows an ability to provide for the family (bring children to adulthood to allow them to reproduce in turn). 3 and 4 has to do with a basic difference in men and women that allowed women to adapt to better care for children while men adapted to be better suited to hunt. Adaptations that were often in opposing directions. All of this clearly shows, that while socialization supports these gender roles that biology often plays into them. Simply chalking them up to socialization requires an ignorance of biological fact.

So am I a sexist for noting the physiological and studied differences between men and women?

Well, I definitely think it should be answered before we start telling guys the way they SHOULD be acting...

You are assuming it can be answered.

You are also assuming that, if behavior is genetic-based, it cannot be altered.

Given that we know the characteristics described in the article are not universal, are at least somewhat based on socialization, and can be altered to at least some degree, NO. We shouldn't wait until we have answered your side-question before seeking to help people.

Help me analyse the following article. When I first read it, something kind of stuck me as wrong about it...I mean, yes, it states it's talking about stereotypes, but I just think...change it around a bit, call it, "Why do women utilize psychological services MORE than men" and would this article be then passed around the workplace?

I just feel weird about it...

I'd say that it's not that bad. My humanities elective, Women in the Modern Era, spent a good two weeks talking about this subject. It sounds well-thought out and well-reasoned (although I wouldn't know if it is or not, whatever) and the social stereotypes ARE clearly labelled as social stereotypes. So I see no problems.

Help me analyse the following article. When I first read it, something kind of stuck me as wrong about it...I mean, yes, it states it's talking about stereotypes, but I just think...change it around a bit, call it, "Why do women utilize psychological services MORE than men" and would this article be then passed around the workplace?

I just feel weird about it...
Well stop. I'll respond with this here, instead of the response I was writting in the other thread, that seems to have went dormant.

One of the most interesting differences between males and females (to me) is that physiologically, woman make "better" fighter pilots because of their better ability to tolerate high g forces (all other things being equal of course). Does this diminish the ability of men, who make up the majority of fighter pilots, including all of the most decorated ones (who often flew less demanding aircraft)?

Of course not. It's just one example, of a great many, where the genders diverge in natural aptitude. Men an women are equal but not identical. The differences we see today exist because of millions of years of speciallization, that wealth of specialization should be exploited. It'd didn't come for free. It shouldn't be discounted. How to best exploit it is a difficult problem, but I would humbly suggest that pretending it doesn't exist is an obscene waste of resources.

There are several studies with humans on why boys (typically) choose to play with cars and why girls (typically) choose to play with dolls filled with all kinds of speculation, and the caveat that the gender rolls might well be artificially introduced by society at an early age. Well, it's been done with chimpanzees. And wouldn't you know it, chimps prefered toys that their human counterparts did.

One of the things that rubs me wrong about your argument is that it's ultimately a wish to obscure, or abandon the search for, the truth because of how someone's potential misinturpritation of it might reflect upon your image. It is the difference in ideal between the egalitarian tyranny of Harrison Bergeron and a meritocracy where people are allowed to be exceptional.

I try to be respectful, but you make it difficult when you oversimplify things in this way.

I am not oversimplifying. If a guy gets a buddy to help him, that is still asking for help. It may not be asking for help from a professional, but that isn't simply a male trait. Most people feel more comfortable getting help from people they know.

Male homosexuality is now thought to be caused by not enough testerone being produced by the fetus during the phase when the brain developes (actually not the same as the phase where the body becomes male in every way save genetically, read: he grows balls). This means the brain does masculize to the extent of a heterosexual causing it to process information in way similar to a woman (to a varied degree) and causing the brain to send signals to the body to behave in certain ways similar to a woman. The effects of this can be that the male produces less testerone than his heterosexual counterparts (this also varies dramatically) but it does cause this male to be attracted to men. Female homosexuals are essentially the opposite. This is why there is such a prevelance of homosexuals that tend to have some of the physical traits of the other gender.

Now that is an oversimplifiaction. Sexality is thought to be partially caused by this. It is not a magic bullet.

Asking for help and cooperating are not the same thing. Men are more likely to have a buddy help them build a deck than hire a professional builder.

...which is still asking for help.

Men are not simply socialized to be strong. There is a biological imperative to appear to be the alpha-male. This manifests itself in the desire for a man to show he is strong, can care for a woman (provide food, shelter, etc) and their children, and has good genes, no disorders or weaknesses. Men don't want help from professionals because it suggests an inability to provide for their family (certainly you can see how this came about in our evolution, can you not?) and specifically when going to doctors it shows a physical weakness which is not just socialized to be unattractive but it is unattractive biologically because it suggests a weakness that could be passed to children.

(a) All men are not naturally strong, nor do all men wish to be the alpha-male. In many species, there is no push to be the alpha-male. If the male is not, he is not.

(b) The idea of what constitutes "strong" is socialized. Our social structure teaches us that asking for help is being weak. Other social structures do not.

There are errors in the article. It claims men are simply socialized to appear strong.

There is no "simply" in the article. It claims that men are socialized to believe that appearing strong is a necessity. Surely you will not dispute this?

And again, the definition of what is and is not "strong" comes from society.

And they are not socialized to be self-sufficient at all.

I would disagree, as I see *everyone* being socialized to be self-sufficient.

Clearly, the fact that men are socialized to find mates (it also biological, but certainly you can see where it is socialized) and it was up until recently expected that the woman care for the home (not just the children, the home), a claim that society socializes men to be self-sufficient could be easily disputed.

Not really. Women were expected to care for the home and the children because it was a social custom that they do so. Was this custom partially based in the fact that women are statistically less physically strong? Probably. But it was still a social structure.

You'd be surprised how much science can be manipulated for social reasons.

I am not oversimplifying. If a guy gets a buddy to help him, that is still asking for help. It may not be asking for help from a professional, but that isn't simply a male trait. Most people feel more comfortable getting help from people they know.

Now that is an oversimplifiaction. Sexality is thought to be partially caused by this. It is not a magic bullet.

...which is still asking for help.

(a) All men are not naturally strong, nor do all men wish to be the alpha-male. In many species, there is no push to be the alpha-male. If the male is not, he is not.

(b) The idea of what constitutes "strong" is socialized. Our social structure teaches us that asking for help is being weak. Other social structures do not.

There is no "simply" in the article. It claims that men are socialized to believe that appearing strong is a necessity. Surely you will not dispute this?

And again, the definition of what is and is not "strong" comes from society.

I would disagree, as I see *everyone* being socialized to be self-sufficient.

Not really. Women were expected to care for the home and the children because it was a social custom that they do so. Was this custom partially based in the fact that women are statistically less physically strong? Probably. But it was still a social structure.

I refuse to reply until you offer more than assertions. You offer no explanations other than the social structure is some factor (clue: social means two people interacting, alphamale genetic traits are social). You're a scientist. Offer up some science.

I refuse to reply until you offer more than assertions.

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

You offer no explanations other than the social structure is some factor (clue: social means two people interacting, alphamale genetic traits are social).

I have already pointed out that, in cultures where seeking psychological help is seen as a weakness or a sickness, that is less likely in all members of the culture (male and female). In cultures where it is not seen as being a weakness, more people seek out therapy when they need it. This, in and of itself, is evidence that socialization is the overriding factor here.

You're a scientist. Offer up some science.

There aren't any concrete studies on this that can be done. It is all correlative and speculations. We certainly haven't found a set of genes that make people unable/unwilling to ask for help.

Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

I have already pointed out that, in cultures where seeking psychological help is seen as a weakness or a sickness, that is less likely in all members of the culture (male and female). In cultures where it is not seen as being a weakness, more people seek out therapy when they need it. This, in and of itself, is evidence that socialization is the overriding factor here.

There aren't any concrete studies on this that can be done. It is all correlative and speculations. We certainly haven't found a set of genes that make people unable/unwilling to ask for help.

As far as assertions, I gave a anthropological description of the way people interact to show they are interdependent and not independent and your response was nuh-uh. When you decide to do better, I'll make an effort to reply.

And they are not socialized to be self-sufficient at all. Clearly, the fact that men are socialized to find mates (it also biological, but certainly you can see where it is socialized) and it was up until recently expected that the woman care for the home (not just the children, the home), a claim that society socializes men to be self-sufficient could be easily disputed.

I don't agree that men are socialized to be independent. Men have for centuries been in clubs that were strictly men where those men used each other to get ahead. This is interdependence and it has been used in western society for generations. Cowboys were strongly interdependent despite stereotypes. Oh, and have you ever heard of the good ol' boys clubs. It's the precise reason that women had a hard time breaking into the workforce. It's because men created their own interdependent society in business and women were not permitted to join (at first).

I would disagree, as I see *everyone* being socialized to be self-sufficient. That was your entire reply. In other words, 'nuh-uh'.

As far as assertions, I gave a anthropological description of the way people interact to show they are interdependent and not independent and your response was nuh-uh. When you decide to do better, I'll make an effort to reply.

That was your entire reply. In other words, 'nuh-uh'.

In other words, my personal experience is that everyone around me is socialized to be self-sufficient. Self-sufficient does not, in any way, mean that you can have no interactions with other people. It means that you do not need such interactions. A man wishes to find a mate, yes, but does not need that to survive. Men have been parts of clubs, but if they need that club, they are seen as being weak.

In other words, my personal experience is that everyone around me is socialized to be self-sufficient. Self-sufficient does not, in any way, mean that you can have no interactions with other people. It means that you do not need such interactions. A man wishes to find a mate, yes, but does not need that to survive. Men have been parts of clubs, but if they need that club, they are seen as being weak.

In other words, your personal experiences are subjective and can only be used as ancillary evidence. To the bold, I didn't suggest it doesn't. I suggested that men are socialized to lean on each other and work in groups. It was true thousands of years ago and it is true now. You suggested it is no longer true. As I've stated several times, and as you've ignored several times without showing any evidence to the contrary, men are socialized to lean on each other but not to step out of the interaction altogether. Okay, so now you can throw out another nuh-uh or how about some made-up example that doesn't relate to the conversation or how about you disprove the exact opposite of my statement and make it seem like it somehow relates or any of the other 85 types of arguments you try without actually saying anything or offering anything other than anecdotal evidence. I don't see you actually saying the evidence I've presented isn't accurate. You can't, because it is.

The way I see it, as someone completely unconcerned with the business of analysing human behaviour, is that I have absolutely no problem with what people say is a "typical behaviour for someone of that gender".

But if someone was to suggest that this is therefore how we should act, that we should follow this or that behaviour pattern due to it being the scientifically determined norm for men or women, then I would get rather annoyed and tell them exactly where they could stick their bloody research.

You are assuming it can be answered.

You are also assuming that, if behavior is genetic-based, it cannot be altered.

Given that we know the characteristics described in the article are not universal, are at least somewhat based on socialization, and can be altered to at least some degree, NO. We shouldn't wait until we have answered your side-question before seeking to help people.

You know I made this point, verbally, to someone here in my office regarding this subject, but I think I seemed to suggest the opposite on here. I totally agree with you that we need to recognize that biological factors playing into negative behavior does not excuse that behavior. Because I might have biology that makes me unbalanced this should not excuse me killing people for example. This type of thing is just a much, much less extreme example of behavior that should not be reinforced regardless of the causes.

It isn't really surprising, look at the suicide rates between men and women.
In Australia the highest age and gender bracket of deaths is Males 18-30 or something similar to that
However I think it is a social issue that stems from physiological differences that arose during the evolution of humankind. A book I read summarised it as
Men = Lunch-getters while Women = Nest-protectors
What the book meant (I forgot the title) is that men supply the food, women watch the house. So while men would look out for bears and other physical threats, women would look out for social and domestic threats. Thus the reason that women actions are more emotionally influenced, and hence why men are ess emotionally influenced. All this relate to the article and evidence because therapy is largely emotional in effect, which is more the women sphere, than the mens. Add to this the social and cultural influences and it's really not that surprising

In other words, your personal experiences are subjective and can only be used as ancillary evidence. To the bold, I didn't suggest it doesn't. I suggested that men are socialized to lean on each other and work in groups. It was true thousands of years ago and it is true now. You suggested it is no longer true. As I've stated several times, and as you've ignored several times without showing any evidence to the contrary, men are socialized to lean on each other but not to step out of the interaction altogether. Okay, so now you can throw out another nuh-uh or how about some made-up example that doesn't relate to the conversation or how about you disprove the exact opposite of my statement and make it seem like it somehow relates or any of the other 85 types of arguments you try without actually saying anything or offering anything other than anecdotal evidence. I don't see you actually saying the evidence I've presented isn't accurate. You can't, because it is.

Of course I didn't say the information you have presented isn't accurate. I have simply pointed out that it is not evidence for what you say it is. Meanwhile, you have provided nothing but assertions either, basically because that is all there is to present. You suggest that men have been socialized to work in groups, but that does not preclude men being socialized to be self-sufficient. As I pointed out, there is a difference between being completely alone and being self-sufficient.

Well, the article states taht it is men who fit into certain groups (i.e. masculinizd, macho) that have the most trouble when it come to therapy and emotional support because they refuse to show emotions and want to be independant. It's not that all men are like that, just this group of men. I don't see how that's sexist, really.

Here's the point:

There are social reinforcements of biological imperatives, find a mate, have children, etc. There are social reinforcements of things that are rooted in biology, men are stronger, women are more sensitive, men are more agressive, women are better at developing and maintaining domestic relationships, etc. Simply identifying that some things are socially encourage or even socially discouraged does not change the relationship to biology, genetics and the physiological differences in the sexes. The behaviors described in the article are not simply caused by gender constructs that today's society places on children (even if those constructs exasperate the problem). There is physiological evidence and anthropologic that these behaviors have developed over tens of thousands of years. Brain topographical evidence supports this. As I mentioned before dismissing the physiological and genetic influences on this problem is like suggesting that we can just take homosexuals (which there is equal physiological evidence for) and teach them to be straight (for those who consider this to be a problem). While men can and should be encouraged to take better care of themselves physically and mentally, this is no simple matter.

Of course then the lion and lioness comes along.... the lions sole job is to protect the pack from invading males/prides and impregnate the female. The female both raises the young, and does ALL the hunting. Then there's the anglerfish, where the male is many orders of magnitude smaller, and so "submissive" (in a sense) that it actually becomes a part of the female. (in pictures of the female anglerfish, it is not uncommon to see the tailfins of the male sticking out the side of the female as she absorbs them. Often several tailfins (multiple mates)
However it could be said that these are the exceptions that prove the rule. In most cases the male would be the more dominating one, of couse there are exceptions like birds of prey and stuff but if I had to make a guess on sex of an animal based on size alone than most of the time i would say that the male is the bigger animal. just my 2 cents. Out of intest where does that phrase come from

Here's the point:

There are social reinforcements of biological imperatives, find a mate, have children, etc. There are social reinforcements of things that are rooted in biology, men are stronger, women are more sensitive, men are more agressive, women are better at developing and maintaining domestic relationships, etc. Simply identifying that some things are socially encourage or even socially discouraged does not change the relationship to biology, genetics and the physiological differences in the sexes. The behaviors described in the article are not simply caused by gender constructs that today's society places on children (even if those constructs exasperate the problem). There is physiological evidence and anthropologic that these behaviors have developed over tens of thousands of years. Brain topographical evidence supports this. As I mentioned before dismissing the physiological and genetic influences on this problem is like suggesting that we can just take homosexuals (which there is equal physiological evidence for) and teach them to be straight (for those who consider this to be a problem). While men can and should be encouraged to take better care of themselves physically and mentally, this is no simple matter.

You miss the point that biological imperatives cause a man to wish to be strong. They do not cause him to believe that going to a psychologist makes him weak. What we define as strength and weakness (from any other than a physical viewpoint) is defined by society, not by biological imperative. Certain societies define seeing a psychologist as being weak. As such, men (and women) do not want to do it, as they would appear weak. In other societies, it is portrayed less so, and more people (men and women) are willing to go.

Meanwhile, because of the statistical differences between men and women, men are told that, to be manly, they have to be even stronger than women. As such, the need to meet society's defintion of "strong" is socialized into them as well. There may or may not be a biological imperative in any given man to be seen as stronger than those around him. However, there is definitely a socialized imperative.

However it could be said that these are the exceptions that prove the rule. In most cases the male would be the more dominating one, of couse there are exceptions like birds of prey and stuff but if I had to make a guess on sex of an animal based on size alone than most of the time i would say that the male is the bigger animal. just my 2 cents. Out of intest where does that phrase come from

Do you know how biologists in the field used to define the male of a species in most cases? They did it by whichever animal was doing the humping. They figured the humper was male and the humpee was female. Of course, then they got really confused when some of the pairings switched places...

You miss the point that biological imperatives cause a man to wish to be strong. They do not cause him to believe that going to a psychologist makes him weak. What we define as strength and weakness (from any other than a physical viewpoint) is defined by society, not by biological imperative. Certain societies define seeing a psychologist as being weak. As such, men (and women) do not want to do it, as they would appear weak. In other societies, it is portrayed less so, and more people (men and women) are willing to go.

Meanwhile, because of the statistical differences between men and women, men are told that, to be manly, they have to be even stronger than women. As such, the need to meet society's defintion of "strong" is socialized into them as well. There may or may not be a biological imperative in any given man to be seen as stronger than those around him. However, there is definitely a socialized imperative.

HA! Says you while ignoring all physiological and anthropological evidence to the contrary. Explain the additional physiological factors that give women the methods to more adequately discern 'stronger' specimens. Explain the studies that show women are naturally more attracted to men with symmetric faces (a sign of having no deformaties, read: genetic difficiencies).

Showing physical and mental weakness is far more than socialized and I've shown you a lot of the physiological factors that you choose to ignore. Again, show some support for the fact that this is only a societal construct and there is no biology behind it. It's not simply about strength, we have a very natural urge to show genetic superiority. That urge would exist if you took a bunch of infants and threw them on an island. I think you would be hard pressed to find a sociologist, anthropologist or biologist that would say that admitting you have mental or physical disorders isn't counter to the desire to show genetic superiority.

Your evidence is, um, well, societal factors play some role in this so they must be the only role. You can't say it is the only role without showing how those natural, physiological urges are in line with visiting a physician and/or psychologist. You haven't. That western (and many others) society fell in line with physiological factors is no shocker, only men in the military, men go to work, women stay at home, etc. It doesn't dismiss the physiological factors. The only way to do so is to show that their existence is counter to evidence or that there is no evidence for their existence. Too bad neither of those things are true.

You made an absolute statement that this problem is PURELY PSYCHOLOGICAL. Admit that evidence to the contrary exists and continues to be uncovered. Admit that you have said here even remotely shows that to be untrue. Like I said, scream at the dark if you like. I've got the lights on.

I guess for me it would only become discriminatory if they used these statistics against men. For example since men are harder to treat for these types of disorders we should be allowed to charge them more.
Kind of like what they do with car insurance.

I guess for me it would only become discriminatory if they used these statistics against men. For example since men are harder to treat for these types of disorders we should be allowed to charge them more.
Kind of like what they do with car insurance.

Car insurance is more expensive because men are involved in more side collision accidents. This causes more damage and is more expensive. This cannot be mitigated by only the individuals involved in the accident as that would defeat the need for insurance. Should everyone have to pay more because men are involved in more of these kinds of accidents? Is it fair to charge more to younger drivers because they are involved in more accidents? Is it fair to charge smokers more for medical insurance because of their higher incidence of medical care (yes, not exactly the same since this is a choice)?

Car insurance is more expensive because men are involved in more side collision accidents. This causes more damage and is more expensive. This cannot be mitigated by only the individuals involved in the accident as that would defeat the need for insurance. Should everyone have to pay more because men are involved in more of these kinds of accidents? Is it fair to charge more to younger drivers because they are involved in more accidents? Is it fair to charge smokers more for medical insurance because of their higher incidence of medical care (yes, not exactly the same since this is a choice)?
What is a choice? Here is Iowa it is a law to have insurance if you drive. No choice since public tranist can't get me to work & back.
I did not have the choice of being male & I have never had a side inpact collision. Where is the choice.
If the statistics were turned the other way you'd never see insurance companies get away with it.
You also do not see them profile race, color, or religion. Should catholics be charged higher rates because more catholics then hindus have car accidents.
How would that fly?

HA! Says you while ignoring all physiological and anthropological evidence to the contrary.

You have provided no evidence contrary to anything I have said. Are you actually reading my posts? You have a tendency to argue with things I have never said.

Explain the additional physiological factors that give women the methods to more adequately discern 'stronger' specimens. Explain the studies that show women are naturally more attracted to men with symmetric faces (a sign of having no deformaties, read: genetic difficiencies).

This has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Showing physical and mental weakness is far more than socialized and I've shown you a lot of the physiological factors that you choose to ignore.

Wow, you really don't read my posts, since I explicitly stated that wishing to not show weakness is not purely socialized.

Again, show some support for the fact that this is only a societal construct and there is no biology behind it.

Well, if I had made that statement you would have a point here.

Your evidence is, um, well, societal factors play some role in this so they must be the only role.

I have not said this at all. In fact, the quote you used explicitly says otherwise.

You made an absolute statement that this problem is PURELY PSYCHOLOGICAL.

And I explicitly stated that all things psychological are not necessarily learned. What is your point, exactly?

My question to Joc and Dem is...WHY DO YOU PERSIST IN TORTURING YOURSELVES LIKE THIS!!??? You have this evil attraction to one another that I think is becoming unhealthy...I rarely see one of you without the other, and I am starting to think that perhaps you are indeed the same person evincing multiple personalities:) I KNOW it's hard to let it go when someone seems to be taking your arguments and words out of context, but sometimes you just have to THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!

Peace people, sometimes means biting your tongue and pretending you don't want to rip someone to proverbial shreds...

What is a choice? Here is Iowa it is a law to have insurance if you drive. No choice since public tranist can't get me to work & back.
I did not have the choice of being male & I have never had a side inpact collision. Where is the choice.
If the statistics were turned the other way you'd never see insurance companies get away with it.
You also do not see them profile race, color, or religion. Should catholics be charged higher rates because more catholics then hindus have car accidents.
How would that fly?

Read my parens statement again. It was part of the question about smoking and medical insurance. I said smoking is a choice, versus being young or being male not being a choice.

Men have more side-impact accidents, not because they are worse drivers, but because they have worse peripheral vision than women. Men also hit more pedestrians for the same reason. Women have more rear-end collisions because their eyes don't register distances as well as men. Men's accidents are more expensive. How do you propose insurance companies address this if not by raising the rates of the group that costs more? Raising the rates of only those with these types of accidents would not cover the costs. It would require them to charge so much that those people couldn't afford insurance. Yes, I know you and I and other men who haven't had these accidents find it upsetting, but offer an alternative.

My question to Joc and Dem is...WHY DO YOU PERSIST IN TORTURING YOURSELVES LIKE THIS!!???

Me? I'm a glutton for punishment.

Him? I have all ideas that he looks for any post of mine and argues with what he would like it to say, even when he agrees with me in principle.

Peace people, sometimes means biting your tongue and pretending you don't want to rip someone to proverbial shreds...

I don't want to rip him to shreds. As odd as it may sound, I must say I find it amusing when someone is arguing against points I haven't made and making accusatory statements that apply just as well, if not moreso, to themselves.

Me? I'm a glutton for punishment.

Him? I have all ideas that he looks for any post of mine and argues with what he would like it to say, even when he agrees with me in principle.



I don't want to rip him to shreds. As odd as it may sound, I must say I find it amusing when someone is arguing against points I haven't made and making accusatory statements that apply just as well, if not moreso, to themselves.
Dem, I have a feeling Jocabia is going to post almost exactly the same thing about you:) I think you two feed off of deliberate, AND unintentional misunderstandings like it's a form of foreplay :eek: Not that's it not good entertainment.... :D

Dem, I have a feeling Jocabia is going to post almost exactly the same thing about you:)

Perhaps. The thing is, I point out where we are actually agreeing, and still get lambasted.

I think you two feed off of deliberate, AND unintentional misunderstandings like it's a form of foreplay :eek: Not that's it not good entertainment.... :D

I try to stay away from intentional misunderstandings, unless I am being sarcastic, of course. As for foreplay, hmmm, is this something I have to admit to my boyfriend? hehe

Read my parens statement again. It was part of the question about smoking and medical insurance. I said smoking is a choice, versus being young or being male not being a choice.

Men have more side-impact accidents, not because they are worse drivers, but because they have worse peripheral vision than women. Men also hit more pedestrians for the same reason. Women have more rear-end collisions because their eyes don't register distances as well as men. Men's accidents are more expensive. How do you propose insurance companies address this if not by raising the rates of the group that costs more? Raising the rates of only those with these types of accidents would not cover the costs. It would require them to charge so much that those people couldn't afford insurance. Yes, I know you and I and other men who haven't had these accidents find it upsetting, but offer an alternative.
Again. I have never had this type of accident so don't lump me in like that.
My alternative is this gender shpould not be factored into cost of insurance plain & simple. Men & women should pay the same rate flat out. Somewhere in betewwn the male & female rate so the costs balance out. Much like they do in cases of race. I'm sure one ethnic group has a higher accident then the others. Should they have to pay more? No Never! Not acceptable.

Again. I have never had this type of accident so don't lump me in like that.
My alternative is this gender shpould not be factored into cost of insurance plain & simple. Men & women should pay the same rate flat out. Somewhere in betewwn the male & female rate so the costs balance out. Much like they do in cases of race. I'm sure one ethnic group has a higher accident then the others. Should they have to pay more? No Never! Not acceptable.

Now my point was that it does not become discriminatory unless these statistics are used against one group or the other.
Gender studies are done all the time because there are differences between men & women both physically & psychologically. They will continue to be done as science becomes more detailed. ow we use this info is where the ethical question comes in.

Again. I have never had this type of accident so don't lump me in like that.
My alternative is this gender shpould not be factored into cost of insurance plain & simple. Men & women should pay the same rate flat out. Somewhere in betewwn the male & female rate so the costs balance out. Much like they do in cases of race. I'm sure one ethnic group has a higher accident then the others. Should they have to pay more? No Never! Not acceptable.

A woman of childbearing age is overwhelmingly more likely to incur huge medical costs (due to childbearing) than her male counterpart. Should insurance companies eat that cost? Should they make males pay for the fact that females need more insurance money? Or should they get the money from those who need the insurance in the first place?

Ok. I have been reading through the posts that Dem and Joc have been making. It seems that there is some confusion in terms of definitions of biological and psychological.

Jocabia is essentially saying that a psychological aversion to seeking counselling is based both in physical and social factors.

Dem is essentially saying the same thing.

I don't think anyone would try to argue that no behavior can be attributed to genetics. However, those who wish to attribute all gender roles directly to genetics are on the opposite extreme, and are just as silly.

I agree with this. I think when we ignore the biology behind behaviors we push people into contradictory (to biology) and confusing roles. It's like forcing a homosexual (differences in brain structure are becoming more and more apparent) to date women.

Where the confusion seemed to come in was here:

Meanwhile, I seriously doubt that use or non-use of psychology is genetic. Psychology hasn't really been around all that long.

I hope you're kidding. This an oversimplification of biology to the point of absurdity. It would be like saying the fact that women get in less side-impact accidents can't be attributed to biology because cars haven't been around that long. Note: women have much better peripheral vision (clearer and wider) than men.

Alright (rolls up sleeves). I think Dem was trying to say that there is not a direct link between biology and seeking psychological counselling, but rather that men's aversion to doing so happens via societies perceptions of what is weak and strong.

Jocabia seemed to think that comment meant there was NO biological link at all to a man asking for help. However, Dem had stated at the beginning that she found extreme views one way or the other rather undefendable.

Things got more confused here:
Going, or not going, to a psychologist is a purely psychological trait.

To boil this one down, I think Jocabia believed that the word psychology was used to mean "societally influenced" only. Dem seemed to think that psychology means biology mediated by societal expectations. Which is how I believe BOTH parties view this word, but simply didn't realise there was some confusion on the side of the other. So, Jocabia is arguing that society alone does not cause men to seek counseling less, and Dem is also arguing the same thing. Jocabia assumes that Dem is arguing for a purely social aversion, and Dem assumes Jocabia is arguing a purely biological aversion, when really, they both agree more than they disagree.


I rule this an agreement (with slight variations on specific views) marred by semantical misunderstandings only.

:D

A woman of childbearing age is overwhelmingly more likely to incur huge medical costs (due to childbearing) than her male counterpart. Should insurance companies eat that cost? Should they make males pay for the fact that females need more insurance money? Or should they get the money from those who need the insurance in the first place?
I have never seen a male vs a female rate for health insurance so men are already eating that every time they pay their monthly premium.
I think you just made my argument. Thank You!

Ok. I have been reading through the posts that Dem and Joc have been making. It seems that there is some confusion in terms of definitions of biological and psychological.

Jocabia is essentially saying that a psychological aversion to seeking counselling is based both in physical and social factors.

Dem is essentially saying the same thing.

Exactly!! =)

You're so awesome, Sin.

I have never seen a male vs a female rate for health insurance so men are already eating that every time they pay their monthly premium.
I think you just made my argument. Thank You!

Actually, female health insurance during childbearing years is astronomically higher, unless you specifically get a policy that does not cover pregnancy.

Yes but most people have group rate insurance from their employers. They therefore pay the same premium as their male counterparts & the costs are equally ate among the males & the females. Perhaps this is just an Iowa thing but I have never taken home a company health plan where their was a male & female rate attached. Just smoker & non-smoker.

Statements 1-4 in that article seem to validly describe... me. hehe

Yes but most people have group rate insurance from their employers. They therefore pay the same premium as their male counterparts & the costs are equally ate among the males & the females. Perhaps this is just an Iowa thing but I have never taken home a company health plan where their was a male & female rate attached. Just smoker & non-smoker.

Since you are a guy (right?), I will assume that you did not check whether or not the policy covered pregnancy?

Exactly!! =)

You're so awesome, Sin.
Well, yes, I am, thanks for noticing:)

That doesn't mean I don't do the same damn thing:( There are some people I can't seem to make myself clear to, and who can not seem to make themselves clear to me (re: Anti anti-kid rant), and the more we try to make ourselves clear, the more we seem to be at odds, when really I'm not sure we are.

*sigh*

Since you are a guy (right?), I will assume that you did not check whether or not the policy covered pregnancy?
Actually since I am married an intend to have kids yes I did. & the insurance covers the expenses entirely.

Its always hard to get someone to understand what you're saying, and its even worse on a message board. A lot of the time i cant even get people to understand what i'm saying, let alone get them to change their mind, i have changed my mind about a couple of things from reading NS though.

Again. I have never had this type of accident so don't lump me in like that.
My alternative is this gender shpould not be factored into cost of insurance plain & simple. Men & women should pay the same rate flat out. Somewhere in betewwn the male & female rate so the costs balance out. Much like they do in cases of race. I'm sure one ethnic group has a higher accident then the others. Should they have to pay more? No Never! Not acceptable.

So you paying for an accident you didn't have even though you are far more likely to have it is unfair, however, others paying for this type of accident is fair though they are far less likely to have it? Did I get that right? Also, little side note, I think you'll find that fairness is not guaranteed in business. Shocking, I know, but true.

As far as race or ethnicity is concerned, I sincerely doubt that you will find genetic factors by race that increase your likelihood of having an accident. My guess is that if you can show an increase in accident costs for a given group that it can also be shown that it's related to frequency of driving and experience or any of a dozen other factors. If you can find a factor that makes everyone in the ethnicity far more likely to have accidents then I think you would have an argument. Men are born with less peripheral vision than women with rare exception. This means you have a physiological difference that makes you more likely to have an accident. Insurance is just gambling done by companies and they have to play the odds.

Vehicle insurance is a government required fraud that guarantees private companies a captive market at whatever rates they feel are acceptable, without truly offering competition (in terms of TRULY competative rates...IE an insurance company that judges you on your driving RECORD not your genitals). A government allowed private monopoly. [/rant I truly believe in]

Actually since I am married an intend to have kids yes I did. & the insurance covers the expenses entirely.

Interesting. No policy I have seen has done this and been the same for men and women. *shrug*

As far as race or ethnicity is concerned, I sincerely doubt that you will find genetic factors by race that increase your likelihood of having an accident.

Considering that we can't even find genetic factors with which to define race, I would say this is almost certainly correct.

Ok. I have been reading through the posts that Dem and Joc have been making. It seems that there is some confusion in terms of definitions of biological and psychological.

Jocabia is essentially saying that a psychological aversion to seeking counselling is based both in physical and social factors.

Dem is essentially saying the same thing.

Where the confusion seemed to come in was here:

Alright (rolls up sleeves). I think Dem was trying to say that there is not a direct link between biology and seeking psychological counselling, but rather that men's aversion to doing so happens via societies perceptions of what is weak and strong.

Jocabia seemed to think that comment meant there was NO biological link at all to a man asking for help. However, Dem had stated at the beginning that she found extreme views one way or the other rather undefendable.

Things got more confused here:

To boil this one down, I think Jocabia believed that the word psychology was used to mean "societally influenced" only. Dem seemed to think that psychology means biology mediated by societal expectations. Which is how I believe BOTH parties view this word, but simply didn't realise there was some confusion on the side of the other. So, Jocabia is arguing that society alone does not cause men to seek counseling less, and Dem is also arguing the same thing. Jocabia assumes that Dem is arguing for a purely social aversion, and Dem assumes Jocabia is arguing a purely biological aversion, when really, they both agree more than they disagree.


I rule this an agreement (with slight variations on specific views) marred by semantical misunderstandings only.

:D
That would be convenient way to end the discussion if no other quotes were used. Unfortunately, she said other things that don't agree with your assessment

I would like to point out where the discussion began. It was a discussion between Suklaa and Dem and it started like this.

But what's learned behaviour and what's genetic?

A little further down in that discussion is where Dem said that she highly doubted not going to the doctor was genetic. Where, oh, where did I get the idea that she was saying it was learned? Can anyone figure out this mystery?

Now my reaction to the quote that Sin used was that it was absurd and would be like saying men having a higher incidence of side-impact accidents can't be biological because cars haven't been around long enough. Let's see what her reply was, shall we?

There is a clear connection between peripheral vision and spatial awareness. Such a difference would affect other factors as well.

Going, or not going, to a psychologist is a purely psychological trait.

The incidence of particular types of accidents have a physiological factor so they are not purely psychological and going, or not going, to a psychologist is purely psychological (so a fair assumption is there is no physiological tie).

But maybe I read it wrong. Let's read other quotes, shall we.

Sexuality is not a purely psychological trait. In fact, sexuality is much more defined by physical reactions than psychological ones.

Hey, look, if it's physical it's not psychological. One might argue that she believes that psychological factors include the effects of the natural differences of the brain but that would mean she is actually claiming here that our sexuality is mostly defined by factors not controlled by the brain, e.g. homosexuality is caused by dysfunction of the body in some way (See quote 1A).

1A - Yes. Whether or not you feel comfortable going to a psychologist is a purely psychological trait. There is no disorder we have discovered that would make someone have a physical aversion to it.

Okay, so there is no physiological issue that causes men to not want to go to the psychologist, according to her, right?

But wait, I don't think I've made my point. She could still mean that there are also physical factors, couldn't she?

But it does mean that we have to explore the physical aspects rather than making absurd statements like it's PURELY psychological with no real evidence or biology to support such a superlative statement.

I'm still waiting for you to point out the physical aspects involved here, since you want evidence in biology and all that - perhaps you should provide some.

Wow, if she meant that PURELY psychological could include physical factors she must not have realized it because here she says that she is aware of no evidence that physical factors exist. Unless, she is saying that only the evidence that I have presented matters. I can't imagine that though. Why would anyone feign ignorance just to be difficult?

And just for good measure she even goes so far as to deny that a biological imperative for men to appear strong has even been shown to exist (note: both she and I have several times made clear that we were not simply talking about their ability to lift objects or withstand blows. Strength here refers to physical and mental sturdiness) -

There may or may not be a biological imperative in any given man to be seen as stronger than those around him.

Sorry, Sin. I know you were trying to be the peacemaker, but I'm not letting her pretend like we were in agreement all along and I just misunderstood her. She knows what she said. She knows what she meant.

So we're clear, everyone, Dem now says that there are biological factors in the behaviors described in the article. She agrees with me on this. We won't see anymore claims from her that there is no biological/physical factors.

*sigh*

I still think that Dem's definition of psychological means:

Societally moulded attitudes based on biological differences.

Meaning, what one society sees as a strong thing to do (clubbing women over the head and dragging them into a cave, or bottling in emotions), may be considered weak actions in other societies. If the biological imperative is, "BE STRONG", fine, but it is SOCIETY that makes the ultimate decision about how strength is exhibited (mentally, physical, emotionally and so on).

If that is how she is approaching this term, then she hasn't actually contradicted herself. She seems to think that you are claiming a DIRECT link between biology and an aversion to counseling (as in there would be a biological consequence to going, such as, men who seek counseling would have lower sperm counts or something). She disagreed, and said that the link was made through psychology (based on society based on biology).

But now I need to stop this too.

*sigh*

I still think that Dem's definition of psychological means:

Societally moulded attitudes based on biological differences.

Meaning, what one society sees as a strong thing to do (clubbing women over the head and dragging them into a cave, or bottling in emotions), may be considered weak actions in other societies. If the biological imperative is, "BE STRONG", fine, but it is SOCIETY that makes the ultimate decision about how strength is exhibited (mentally, physical, emotionally and so on).

If that is how she is approaching this term, then she hasn't actually contradicted herself. She seems to think that you are claiming a DIRECT link between biology and an aversion to counseling (as in there would be a biological consequence to going, such as, men who seek counseling would have lower sperm counts or something). She disagreed, and said that the link was made through psychology (based on society based on biology).

But now I need to stop this too.

I appreciate what you're trying to do. And you're right that Dem was trying to say some of these things. That what is considered a show of strength or weakness is a societal construct.

Unfortunately, the attitudes of men towards healthcare aren't just (yes, purely means only) societally moulded. That's the point. Men have a more limited ability to communicate and evaluate emotion caused by physiological differences. This makes it more difficult for men and causes some of the aversion to it. Also, while some types of strength are decided by societal norms, others like an ability to fight off disease are not societal but biological. Whether or not a man's natural desire to not show weakness (show genetic superiority) by not displaying mental or physical difficiencies is further exasperated by societal pressures, we cannot deny that this natural desire exists. It is important that we identify and accept these biological pressures in order to better assist men to do things that are in their own best interest. I've stated this before and it was disputed by Dempublicents1. The article also does not address the fact that men are not just socialized to view emotion differently but they physically process emotions differently in their brains as evidenced by topographical differences that have been discovered in the male and female brains.

I will accept your assessment if she was trying to say when she stated that homosexuality is not purely psychological that there would be some sort of physical detriment to either following or not following your natural sexuality, e.g. low sperm counts. If not, then your assessment doesn't really align itself with Dem's statements. Again, I appreciate your attempts at the peace-making process.

And just for good measure she even goes so far as to deny that a biological imperative for men to appear strong has even been shown to exist (note: both she and I have several times made clear that we were not simply talking about their ability to lift objects or withstand blows. Strength here refers to physical and mental sturdiness) -

Try to read what you actually quote. I said there may or may not be such an imperative in a *given* man. In other words, it exists in some and not in others. Surely you aren't making the claim that all men are the same?

Sorry, Sin. I know you were trying to be the peacemaker, but I'm not letting her pretend like we were in agreement all along and I just misunderstood her. She knows what she said. She knows what she meant.

All along? At the beginning? Yes. In the middle? Mostly. At then end? Yes.

Like I said, I find it amusing when someone is saying basically the same thing as me, but still attempting to argue.

Unfortunately, the attitudes of men towards healthcare aren't just (yes, purely means only) societally moulded.

Well, psychology isn't purely societally determined. But it is mostly societaly molded.

That's the point. Men have a more limited ability to communicate and evaluate emotion caused by physiological differences.

Not to the extent that it manifests itself.

I will accept your assessment if she was trying to say when she stated that homosexuality is not purely psychological that there would be some sort of physical detriment to either following or not following your natural sexuality, e.g. low sperm counts. If not, then your assessment doesn't really align itself with Dem's statements. Again, I appreciate your attempts at the peace-making process.

That's just silly. The physical factors involved in homosexuality are obvious. A male homosexual will be physically attracted to another male. In other words, his body will show physical signs of attraction towards that male. Why does a physical aspect have to be a detriment?

Not really. Women were expected to care for the home and the children because it was a social custom that they do so. Was this custom partially based in the fact that women are statistically less physically strong? Probably. But it was still a social structure.

Interesting conversation. I would then ask, if we consider biological evolution, how much of our social structures influence our biological development?

Interesting conversation. I would then ask, if we consider biological evolution, how much of our social structures influence our biological development?

Hard to tell. Once human beings developed intelligence and sapience, probably less than you might think. After that, a person didn't really need to fit the gender roles from a biological standpoint, they just had to be able to appear as if they did. A man or woman would certainly know what was seen as being the proper role to fit to get a mate, so they would simply have to act as if they met it or learn how to meet it. Thus, there would be less "weeding out", if you will.

Well, psychology isn't purely societally determined. But it is mostly societaly molded.

Absolutely true. If that one statement was made in absense of all the other statements I might buy that you meant this.

Not to the extent that it manifests itself.

And on what do you base this assertion on? Your vast experience with men? Forgive me for not bowing to your knowledge and expecting you to support your arguments. Give some biology that supports this statement.

That's just silly. The physical factors involved in homosexuality are obvious. A male homosexual will be physically attracted to another male. In other words, his body will show physical signs of attraction towards that male. Why does a physical aspect have to be a detriment?

Seriously do you even read the statements I'm replying to? What I said was a direct rewording of Sinuhue's claim. a claim she made based on quotes from you. Perhaps you should do some more reading before you reply.

Absolutely true. If that one statement was made in absense of all the other statements I might buy that you meant this.

Yes, Mr. Mind-reader.

And on what do you base this assertion on? Your vast experience with men? Forgive me for not bowing to your knowledge and expecting you to support your arguments. Give some biology that supports this statement.

The fact that it is true. I doubt you will deny the fact that some men are not the alpha male, or that some do not want to be. I doubt you will deny the fact that men are pushed by society to fill a certain mold, just as women are. And I doubt you will deny the fact that many psychological problems stem from being forced into a mold that you don't fit.

Seriously do you even read the statements I'm replying to? What I said was a direct rewording of Sinuhue's claim. a claim she made based on quotes from you. Perhaps you should do some more reading before you reply.

I read the statement you were replying to. What you said did not in any way follow. You assumed that, because she used a detriment as a physical manifestation, all physical manifestations must be detrimental.

Try to read what you actually quote. I said there may or may not be such an imperative in a *given* man. In other words, it exists in some and not in others. Surely you aren't making the claim that all men are the same?

We are speaking probability since we are replying to an article about statistical evidence. Finding a rare exception does not really make an argument now does it? It has been found that a lack of testerone during the brain forming process makes a male brain form and function much like a female brain, but to the extent where this imperative ceases to exist is unusual. Do men act counter to this imperative? Yes, of course. We are thinking beings. However, the imperative is there to help us be reproductive success, so it makes sense that a very few men ever don't have the imperative. Suggesting that all men have a basic biological urge is hardly claiming they are identical. Do you argue that except for the rare exception that all men have a basic biological urge to reproduce (though occasionally overwhelmed by phsychology) is not true?

All along? At the beginning? Yes. In the middle? Mostly. At then end? Yes.

Ok, so all along you were saying that there are genetic reasons for why men have an aversion to seeing the psychologist. Good, I'm glad you've seen the light.

Like I said, I find it amusing when someone is saying basically the same thing as me, but still attempting to argue.

If you were stating the above then I am sorry we argued. Are you claiming that you believed all along that there are basic physiological differences in men that cause an aversion to visiting doctors? Because if you are, then you should review what you wrote and make your writings more consistent with your opinion.

We are speaking probability since we are replying to an article about statistical evidence. Finding a rare exception does not really make an argument now does it?

What makes you think it is so rare?

Do you argue that except for the rare exception that all men have a basic biological urge to reproduce (though occasionally overwhelmed by phsychology) is not true?

I would say that, with rare exceptions, all people have a basic biological urge to reproduce. This is true even of those who are attracted to mates with whom they cannot reproduce.

Ok, so all along you were saying that there are genetic reasons for why men have an aversion to seeing the psychologist. Good, I'm glad you've seen the light.

It has nothing to do with seeing the light. I have been consistent the entire time. There is no genetic urge to avoid a doctor. There is a biological urge to appear strong. Depending on what a given society says about going to the doctor, that urge may manifest itself as an aversion to going to the doctor.

If you were stating the above then I am sorry we argued. Are you claiming that you believed all along that there are basic physiological differences in men that cause an aversion to visiting doctors? Because if you are, then you should review what you wrote and make your writings more consistent with your opinion.

I haven't said anything inconsistent. You have consistently taken what I have said and extrapolated it well beyond what was actually said. When it was clarified, you were so convinced that I was wrong that you continued to argue.

Interestingly enough, the urge to appear strong is found in females as well, although to a lesser extent. Thus, the fact that, in societies where visiting a therapist is seen as "weak" or "crazy", no one goes.

Yes, Mr. Mind-reader.

I don't have to read your mind. I can just quote you. Look above.

The fact that it is true. I doubt you will deny the fact that some men are not the alpha male, or that some do not want to be. I doubt you will deny the fact that men are pushed by society to fill a certain mold, just as women are. And I doubt you will deny the fact that many psychological problems stem from being forced into a mold that you don't fit.

Wow, you managed not to support another statement. Excellent.

"Show me evidence of your statement."
"Uh, cuz it's true."

Does society reinforce physiological factors? Yes. Show that this causes the result to be disproportionate as you claim. Citing exception again does not help a case where we are talking about generalities. Also, the exception you cite could just as easily be caused by societal pressures going against physiology (some men don't WANT to be alphamale). My point is and has always been that we have to consider the physiological factors as much as the societal factors and you denied that. Do you deny that men who are asked to show their feelings and react to the feelings of others can also have psychological problems as a result of being forced into a mold that they don't fit?

I read the statement you were replying to. What you said did not in any way follow. You assumed that, because she used a detriment as a physical manifestation, all physical manifestations must be detrimental.

Seriously? Do you seriously want to continue this arguement? Cuz you just give more stuff you write to quote and make you look silly. You just continually contradict yourself and show your incredible biases. My statement was if you believed physical factors means that men will have physical manifestations (such as a low-sperm count) for going against their natural physiology (which is what Sin claimed) then it would mean that this holds for any time you claimed that there are physical factors as a result of contradicting your biology so if a homosexual slept with a woman they would have the same types of physical manifestations. Since the physical manifestation was made up I would suppose I could use the same manifestation in both examples. Or are you actually claiming that the only manifestations that could exist in the averstion to doctors are detrimental where the aversion to sleeping with women wouldn't necessarily create detrimental manifestations if you were to go against it?

I don't have to read your mind. I can just quote you. Look above.

And, if the quotes you use actually said what you want them to, you might have a point.

Wow, you managed not to support another statement. Excellent.

"Show me evidence of your statement."
"Uh, cuz it's true."

Pot. kettle. Black.

Does society reinforce physiological factors? Yes. Show that this causes the result to be disproportionate as you claim.

Show that it isn't.

You can't, because it is impossible to separate the physical factors from the societal ones. Human beings do not live in a vacuum.

Meanwhile, the very fact that so many people do have mental problems caused by not fitting society's view of manhood or womanhood are evidence that the societal pressures do cause problems and that many people do not fit into the social mold they are shoved into. Until we do away with the societal stereotypes pushing people to be one way or another, there will be no way to accurately determine the biological impulses.

Citing exception again does not help a case where we are talking about generalities.

If there are exceptions, and those exceptions tend to fall in line with societal views (which they do), then it is evident that the phenotype is being manifested more because of societal views.

My point is and has always been that we have to consider the physiological factors as much as the societal factors and you denied that.

I didn't deny it so much as point out its uselessness. We cannot determine the physiological factors from the sociological factors without altering the sociological factors - so that it where we must start. We can never change the physiological factors, nor, I would argue, should we.

Do you deny that men who are asked to show their feelings and react to the feelings of others can also have psychological problems as a result of being forced into a mold that they don't fit?

Of course not. Psychological problems can be caused by trying to shove someone into any mold they do not fit.

Seriously? Do you seriously want to continue this arguement? Cuz you just give more stuff you write to quote and make you look silly. You just continually contradict yourself and show your incredible biases.

Seriously? Do you seriously want to continue this argument? Cuz you just give more stuff you write to quote and make you look silly. You just continually extrapolate things that are never said and show your incredible biases.

My statement was if you believed physical factors means that men will have physical manifestations (such as a low-sperm count) for going against their natural physiology (which is what Sin claimed) then it would mean that this holds for any time you claimed that there are physical factors as a result of contradicting your biology so if a homosexual slept with a woman they would have the same types of physical manifestations.

And this is an illogical claim. What on earth makes you think that all contradictions of biological urges would have to be similar?

Meanwhile, I never claimed that there were physical factors as a result of contradicting homosexuality (nor am I claiming that there are not). I claimed that homosexuality manifests itself in physical ways.

What makes you think it is so rare?

Show that it's not. You know science. If it's so common you should be able to support this with evidence. Considering it is generally accepted that men wish to appear strong (even by you see bolding below) show that any exception is anything other than a rarity. Otherwise, I will just consider this another of your wild and unsupported claims.

I would say that, with rare exceptions, all people have a basic biological urge to reproduce. This is true even of those who are attracted to mates with whom they cannot reproduce.

Wait, you can't say that or you're saying that all people are the same (according to your logic). Yes, and societal forces are actually responsible for us being attracted to mates with whom we cannot reproduce. Again, women have a physiological ability to select men who are primed to reproduce with them. It is societal and learned forces that cause women to go against that physiology. Men don't need those same forces because the male physiology encourages a man to mate with any woman that wants to mate with him. It is societal and learned forces that cause men to go against their physiology.

It has nothing to do with seeing the light. I have been consistent the entire time. There is no genetic urge to avoid a doctor. There is a biological urge to appear strong. Depending on what a given society says about going to the doctor, that urge may manifest itself as an aversion to going to the doctor.

And I have claimed that there are genetics and physiology that makes men not want to share their feelings, to appear unflawed (no mental or physical defects) and to appear strong. Whether or not society says so, men are going to have an aversion to showing mental or physical defect. Western society doesn't portray going to the medical doctor as weak (in fact many consider avoiding it to be stupid), yet men have an aversion to that as well. Mental and physical defects being bad is not really an interpretation and suggesting it is shows a complete and utter ignorance of basic biology.

I haven't said anything inconsistent. You have consistently taken what I have said and extrapolated it well beyond what was actually said. When it was clarified, you were so convinced that I was wrong that you continued to argue.

"Jocabia is essentially saying that a psychological aversion to seeking counselling is based both in physical and social factors.

Dem is essentially saying the same thing."

You agreed with this. If you haven't been inconsistent then what physical factors are there that are not genetic? If you can't show that then you have been inconsistent. It has nothing to do with my extrapolation.

Interestingly enough, the urge to appear strong is found in females as well, although to a lesser extent. Thus, the fact that, in societies where visiting a therapist is seen as "weak" or "crazy", no one goes.

Great. You've shown that societies can be a factor or are even likely to be a factor. I haven't disagreed with this. Show that physiology cannot be a factor. You haven't and you can't. Can you show me a society where men go to the psychiatrist and women don't? Wonder why that doesn't exist... maybe because it's not as simple as you like to make it.

The urge to appear strong in women is not nearly as physiological supported. There is no selection of the alphafemale by the male. Men don't have the same physiological abilities to find a genetic mate. Men's physiology is designed behind survival (as women's are) toward a show of genetic superiority (as women's don't need to be) and toward being able to provide for the woman and their children in order to bring them to reproductive age. I've given a number of examples of how this physiologically manifests itself and can continue giving more all day long. I have given anthropological evidence for why this occurs and will give more if need be. If you would like to show me the physiological and anthropological evidence that women have a basic urge to appear strong, I would love to be educated on this. EVIDENCE, not just assertions.

Show that it's not.

This is no more possible than showing that it is. That is the problem. We cannot separate what is physiological in our behavior from what is sociological. We can make logical deductions, yes, but nothing is for sure. And, the fact that human beings have been intelligent, sapient, and social for longer than we have had recorded history simply complicates things.

Considering it is generally accepted that men wish to appear strong (even by you see bolding below) show that any exception is anything other than a rarity.

Wanting to appear strong does not, in and of itself, necessitate a biological imperative. A man may wish to appear strong because he has been told that he should. A man who does not wish to be strong would, indeed, be a rarity. However, there is no way to determine whether a man without the biological, rather than sociological, imperative to appear strong is a rarity.

Yes, and societal forces are actually responsible for us being attracted to mates with whom we cannot reproduce.

Really? So does that mean that only heterosexuality is a biological imperative? Funny, considering that homosexuality and bisexuality are common in the animal world.

And I have claimed that there are genetics and physiology that makes men not want to share their feelings, to appear unflawed (no mental or physical defects) and to appear strong. Whether or not society says so, men are going to have an aversion to showing mental or physical defect. Western society doesn't portray going to the medical doctor as weak (in fact many consider avoiding it to be stupid), yet men have an aversion to that as well. Mental and physical defects being bad is not really an interpretation and suggesting it is shows a complete and utter ignorance of basic biology.

And here is the problem. You assume, as many societies do, that someone going to a therapist must have a mental defect. This is not true. You assume that someone going to the doctor must have a physical defect. This is equally untrue. And these are the societally defined factors I was talking about. These are the reason that many see going to either as a show of weakness.

You agreed with this. If you haven't been inconsistent then what physical factors are there that are not genetic?

First off, I have not made a comment that is at all dependent on whether or not all physical factors are genetic. Secondly:

What physical factors aren't genetic? Do you want a list? Nutrition is not genetic. Hormone balance is not necessarily genetic. Hormone balance in the womb has little, if anything, to do with the genetics of the developing embryo/fetus. Much of neuronal development (as far as exact connections made) does not seem to be genetic. Skin and hair color are not entirely genetic. There are all sorts of physical factors that are not genetic.

If you can't show that then you have been inconsistent. It has nothing to do with my extrapolation.

Even if all physical factors were genetic, I have said nothing that would contradict myself on this factor. I challenge you to show anything that has truly been contradictory, and wasn't a product of your own biases of what I might say.

Show that physiology cannot be a factor. You haven't and you can't.

Why would I want to? I have yet to claim that physiology cannot be a factor.

Can you show me a society where men go to the psychiatrist and women don't? Wonder why that doesn't exist... maybe because it's not as simple as you like to make it.

Can you show me a society where the gender roles in society are exactly reversed, but all else is the same?

The urge to appear strong in women is not nearly as physiological supported. There is no selection of the alphafemale by the male.

Really? Funny, behavioral biology would show that the alpha female is rather common in social animals. And she usually has more power and gets to mate more.

Men's physiology is designed behind survival (as women's are) toward a show of genetic superiority (as women's don't need to be) and toward being able to provide for the woman and their children in order to bring them to reproductive age.

Do you mean to suggest that there are no trends for a male to pick a desirable female? Given the choice, most males will mate with any old female around?

I have given anthropological evidence for why this occurs and will give more if need be. If you would like to show me the physiological and anthropological evidence that women have a basic urge to appear strong, I would love to be educated on this. EVIDENCE, not just assertions.

Jocabia, it is cute how you keep asking for EVIDENCE, when you have provided none. You have done the same as I. We have both provided a view of society and biology and what that view might be extrapolated as. You and I have both yet to provide hard and fast evidence, mostly because there really isn't any. There is society, and an interpretation of it.

The funny thing is, we still aren't really arguing. You are bitching that I said things that I never said and then getting angry when I point out that I never said them and that you got that from your biased interpretation of what I have said. The only disagreement we seem to have is how much society affects things. You seem to think that society's effect is insignificant. Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever for that claim. I think that society's effect is very large, and more importantly, is the only effect we have any control over. If we don't tell men that they have to fit a given stereotype, then society's effect will be lessened. Note, this does not equate to telling them that they must fit another stereotype.

And, if the quotes you use actually said what you want them to, you might have a point.

It's okay. I understand that you have a lot of difficulty remembering what you say and stating things clearly. I would say I won't hold it against you, but holding it against you is just too fun.

Pot. kettle. Black.

Ha. That's great. I guess I'll quote myself. Here's one explaining why men have difficulty entering a situation where they have to discuss their emotions.

They are biologically less capable of this (emotional intimacy). Did you know women have more whites in their eyes? This allows them to better communicate emotion to other females (men can't ordinarily pick up on the nuances)? Women's sight (broad focused sight allows them to see all of the facial expressions and body language that are included in conversation versus the point focus sight of men that is better suited to hunting, and women can see more colors to help them better notice changes that signify emotional distress or illness), hearing (women can hear changes in the voice that convey emotion better than men), smell (certain emotions release chemicals that can be smelled by women) and touch (women are far more sensitive to touch and use touch to convery emotion) are all better suited to handle emotional encounters. Women's brains handle emotions differently than men.

Meanwhile one of the times I asked you for evidence and your response was this -

In other words, my personal experience is that everyone around me is socialized to be self-sufficient.

Another time you said, because it's true. Wow, I am impressed by the way you present evidence.

Oh, and you admit below that I do provide evidence. You just suggest I summarize it incorrectly.

I don't see you actually saying the evidence I've presented isn't accurate. You can't, because it is.

Of course I didn't say the information you have presented isn't accurate. I have simply pointed out that it is not evidence for what you say it is.

Good. You admit that I present evidence and even that this evidence is accurate. So I won't hear this claim anymore. Now if you would like to show evidence for any of your claims, feel free to quote yourself. I'm not asking you for sources even. I just want you to show any evidence that your claims about the biology of men is actually supported by, you know, the biology of men.

Show that it isn't.

You can't, because it is impossible to separate the physical factors from the societal ones. Human beings do not live in a vacuum.

Meanwhile, the very fact that so many people do have mental problems caused by not fitting society's view of manhood or womanhood are evidence that the societal pressures do cause problems and that many people do not fit into the social mold they are shoved into. Until we do away with the societal stereotypes pushing people to be one way or another, there will be no way to accurately determine the biological impulses.

No, it's not even remotely impossible.

The claim was made that homosexuality is caused solely by learned pressures. This was refuted and it has since been shown that the primary cause is due to formation of the body and brain during gestation. We have yet to discover the reason for the variances in testerone production during gestation. It is still disputed by people who don't want it to be true (much like evolution is), but it is pretty strongly held that homosexuality is mostly physiological.

We can show the physiological factors and how they would manifest themselves. Society falls in line with those factors typically and this shows that they are dominating. There are rare exceptions where society goes against physiology. You make the claim that these physiological issues are exasperated by society, but you claim it's impossible to show this? Huh, I seem to thing that anthropologists, sociologists and biologist would tend to disagree. Since showing the effects of physiology and society are kind of their job. They are constantly showing that things we believed to be caused by society and/or learned responses are more caused by physiological issues (such as sociopaths). They are constantly seperating and examining the physiological factors from the societal/learned factors (not all learned factors are societal which is why I keep mentioning both).

If there are exceptions, and those exceptions tend to fall in line with societal views (which they do), then it is evident that the phenotype is being manifested more because of societal views.

The exceptions are falling in line with the societal views? Really? It seems like your exceptions fall outside of the societal views. So would that be evidence that these things are being manifested more because of physiological concerns? Man, you really need to read more about what you write.

In fact you were making the claim that the problem (men appearing strong) is exasperated by societal stereotypes. Now you're making the opposite claim. But as long as you say you're always consistent, then you must be.

I didn't deny it so much as point out its uselessness. We cannot determine the physiological factors from the sociological factors without altering the sociological factors - so that it where we must start. We can never change the physiological factors, nor, I would argue, should we.

I would say that claiming that it was purely psychological is denying it, but let's pretend you didn't say that (since you are). Yes, we can in fact seperately look at physiological factors and sociological factors. As you yourself pointed out it is important not to force people into a mold that they don't fit. We need to examine the physiological factors so the help that men need is given in a way that makes sense. We need to examine the physiological factors so the changes we make aren't just exasperating the problem. I'm glad that you agree.

Of course not. Psychological problems can be caused by trying to shove someone into any mold they do not fit.

Good. So this suggests that forcing men to go to a doctor when there are physiological reasons pressing them not to go is forcing them into an unfit mold and potentially causing psychological problems. Exactly the reason why it is so important to review all of the factors before making blanket claims.

Seriously? Do you seriously want to continue this argument? Cuz you just give more stuff you write to quote and make you look silly. You just continually extrapolate things that are never said and show your incredible biases.

Quote me. I have yet to see you do it. Show that I did this. Please, please, please, show this. I would thoroughly enjoy that.

And this is an illogical claim. What on earth makes you think that all contradictions of biological urges would have to be similar?

Seriously you should take a class in debate. Her claim was fallacious and I showed it as such by turning to apply to another similar claim. You're debating the validity of that claim actually reinforces my claim that it's silly. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Meanwhile, I never claimed that there were physical factors as a result of contradicting homosexuality (nor am I claiming that there are not). I claimed that homosexuality manifests itself in physical ways.

No, I know you didn't (and plainly said so). That was my point. So for Sin to claim that you misunderstood my point about physical factors and men not going to the doctor would be silly. Thank you again for so adequately showing my point.

so what are we arguing about here?

It's okay. I understand that you have a lot of difficulty remembering what you say and stating things clearly. I would say I won't hold it against you, but holding it against you is just too fun.

Your personal attacks are cute, darling, but I would suggest that you quit with them. If you aren't going to take what I say seriously, why are you even still here?

Ha. That's great. I guess I'll quote myself. Here's one explaining why men have difficulty entering a situation where they have to discuss their emotions.

You explain why men might have difficulty expressing their emotions, yes.

Meanwhile one of the times I asked you for evidence and your response was this -

Your claim prior to that was "Men have clubs, so obviously they are not socialized to be self-suficient." Do you really call that evidence, considering that you have presented no evidence that men are called upon to be reliant upon these clubs?

Oh, and you admit below that I do provide evidence.

Not hard evidence. This entire discussion has been in the realm of rhetoric and interpretation.

I just want you to show any evidence that your claims about the biology of men is actually supported by, you know, the biology of men.

I don't know what you are looking for here, since I have made no claims about the biology of men other than the fact that all men are not the same.

The claim was made that homosexuality is caused solely by learned pressures. This was refuted and it has since been shown that the primary cause is due to formation of the body and brain during gestation.

This was shown in animal studies. Do you have a magical animal model of not going to the doctor?

Meanwhile, it was not shown that this is the primary cause at all. It has been shown that it is a part of the cause in many cases. Statistically, those animals experiencing certain hormone levels in utero tended towards homosexuality. There were exceptions to this rule. There were degrees of the phenotypic expression.

You make the claim that these physiological issues are exasperated by society, but you claim it's impossible to show this?

Not in the least. I claim it is impossible to determine the exact degree of each.

Huh, I seem to thing that anthropologists, sociologists and biologist would tend to disagree. Since showing the effects of physiology and society are kind of their job. They are constantly showing that things we believed to be caused by society and/or learned responses are more caused by physiological issues (such as sociopaths). They are constantly seperating and examining the physiological factors from the societal/learned factors (not all learned factors are societal which is why I keep mentioning both).

How many of them would claim to know the exact degree? Show me one and I will show you a very poor scientist indeed. Meanwhile, your example of sociopaths is flawed. Sociopaths are going against societal norms, thus it is easy to pick them out and study possible physiological differences. We are talking about cases in which people are socialized into societal norms.

The exceptions are falling in line with the societal views? Really? It seems like your exceptions fall outside of the societal views. So would that be evidence that these things are being manifested more because of physiological concerns? Man, you really need to read more about what you write.

Maybe you should read what I write?

As I have stated several times now, those who do not feel a strong biological imperative would feel a societal imperative. As such, their behavior would likely still reflect societal norms. Of course, this could be psychologically damaging, and would thus manifest itself as such.

In fact you were making the claim that the problem (men appearing strong) is exasperated by societal stereotypes. Now you're making the opposite claim. But as long as you say you're always consistent, then you must be.

I don't know what you are reading, but it obviously isn't what I write. I have never made the opposite claim. My claim has, and always has been, that the biological imperative to appear strong (which I have never claimed is a problem in and of itself) is forced onto many by societal stereotypes. It becomes a problem because society defines some things as "strong" that can, in fact, cause problems.

I would say that claiming that it was purely psychological is denying it, but let's pretend you didn't say that (since you are).

As I have pointed out before, psychology is affected by numerous factors.

Yes, we can in fact seperately look at physiological factors and sociological factors.

Not with any certainty so long as society continues to expect men to fit a certain mold.

As you yourself pointed out it is important not to force people into a mold that they don't fit. We need to examine the physiological factors so the help that men need is given in a way that makes sense. We need to examine the physiological factors so the changes we make aren't just exasperating the problem. I'm glad that you agree.

Maybe we just need to stop going by stereotypes and look at things on a case-by-case basis.

Good. So this suggests that forcing men to go to a doctor when there are physiological reasons pressing them not to go is forcing them into an unfit mold and potentially causing psychological problems. Exactly the reason why it is so important to review all of the factors before making blanket claims.

I am not the one making blanket claims here. I have, in fact, been doing just the opposite, by pointing out that all human beings are different.

I have also never made the claim that we should force anybody to do anything.

Quote me. I have yet to see you do it. Show that I did this. Please, please, please, show this. I would thoroughly enjoy that.

Every statement you have made regarding my posts has been flawed.

Seriously you should take a class in debate. Her claim was fallacious and I showed it as such by turning to apply to another similar claim. You're debating the validity of that claim actually reinforces my claim that it's silly. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Actually, what you did was set up a strawman argument, by claiming that a detrimental effect seen in one instance must, of necessity, be seen in all instances of going against a biological imperative.

Sin used a physical detriment as an example, and you clung to that like it was the main point.

so what are we arguing about here?

As usual with Jocab, essentially nothing.

He makes claims that I said X+100, when I in fact said X, then attempts to insult me when I point this out. He then ignores where I point out that we are almost entirely in agreement, with degree being the only argument.

*shrug*

Just another day on general forums.

I think we're saying that men and women are different... Big news. If you can't get that from looking at your family and your friends you must need serious help.
Except that if your a man you wouldn't ask for it, and if you were a woman you wouldn't be able to read the map to find the psycologists.*

No seriously though. Don't social differences between men and women stem from not only a genetic background but also the fact that sex is involved at all. I know that in most animals the fmale provides the larger of the gametes which form the offspring. In this sense she is providing more "energy" into the offspring already. Once this began to happen, the other parent evolved (over time) smaller eggs and became the male. Because the 'female' was putting more energy into creating the gamete in the first place it was advantageous to her to continue to raise it and look after it because she had more to lose than the 'male'. Genetically they had the same to lose (50% of the genes in the offspring) but through sexual reproduction the female has more to lose because of her initial input.

- I imagine this came about because if both gametes were the same size then they would both stand to lose the same amount, and they would both want to mate with as many of the opposite sex as possible (to increase offspring). This would lead eventually to a promiscuous system where neither parent wanted the responsibitlity of looking after the child. This would possibly lead to loss of offspring as sex's tried to err... out shag each other? Can I say that.... well I just did -

Because of this then it came about that it was often the female of the species who looked and provided for the young and thus needed better peripheral vision to spot predators, better emotional gear to guess what her children wanted, and the other interesting factor is that the woman often became the one to choose a mate because obviously she had more to lose by chosing a bad one. (Btw - In partnerships which lasted throughout the rearing of offspring the males often became the hunters - hence, better focusing and 'stright vision' -sorry don't know the proper word - non-peripheral vision.... you see what I'm getting at anyway...)

Because the female could then choose a mate, the males are now in competition with one another leading to, (through evolution), incresed aggression ( with production of testosterone and things), displays for mating and, well, more competitiveness. This has led to societal views of weakness in men being those who seek help.

Societal views are based on genetics and mating. You can't really seperate one and the other. The societal views then re-enforce the genetic ones through natural selection, as the females will want to choose mates who will not only provide her with the best offspring but will also give her offspring the best chance to find a mate too by passing on 'good' genes...

I know alot of this is theory but it does have a fair amonut of basis in practical studies of evolutionary differences of males and females.

* - this is a joke. Albeit a slightly sexist one. Don't comment on it.

This is no more possible than showing that it is. That is the problem. We cannot separate what is physiological in our behavior from what is sociological. We can make logical deductions, yes, but nothing is for sure. And, the fact that human beings have been intelligent, sapient, and social for longer than we have had recorded history simply complicates things.

Great you just defined science. We can make logical deductions but nothing is for sure. Thank you. However, you asked why I considered it rare and I told you why. You have yet to give any evidence that it is not.

Wanting to appear strong does not, in and of itself, necessitate a biological imperative. A man may wish to appear strong because he has been told that he should. A man who does not wish to be strong would, indeed, be a rarity. However, there is no way to determine whether a man without the biological, rather than sociological, imperative to appear strong is a rarity.

Um, yes, there is. We have brain topography and genetic mapping that helps determine the frequency of men fitting into the basic physiological function of man. That would be the way to determine it. It has been researched and discovered that a man has to go pretty far down the spectrum before losing his urge to be manly.

Really? So does that mean that only heterosexuality is a biological imperative? Funny, considering that homosexuality and bisexuality are common in the animal world.

Common? What would you consider common? Does it occur? Yes. But it doesn't have a high incidence. Male on male sex is generally for the purpose of domination. It was at one time common for men to dominate men in specifically this way in Western society. It had very little to do with their sexuality, however. There are rare occurances of males who do not wish to have sex with the females of their species. They are rare because they obviously don't reproduce.

And here is the problem. You assume, as many societies do, that someone going to a therapist must have a mental defect. This is not true. You assume that someone going to the doctor must have a physical defect. This is equally untrue. And these are the societally defined factors I was talking about. These are the reason that many see going to either as a show of weakness.

I don't assume this. I said that their is a natural assumption to be made there. To suggest that this assumption isn't natural or common is silly.

Now, if men have a physiological desire to not talk about their feelings, then explain to me why they would go to psychologist to do just that unless something was wrong? It seems like it's society that is making the assumption that men would benefit from going without a disorder to address.

First off, I have not made a comment that is at all dependent on whether or not all physical factors are genetic. Secondly:

What physical factors aren't genetic? Do you want a list? Nutrition is not genetic. Hormone balance is not necessarily genetic. Hormone balance in the womb has little, if anything, to do with the genetics of the developing embryo/fetus. Much of neuronal development (as far as exact connections made) does not seem to be genetic. Skin and hair color are not entirely genetic. There are all sorts of physical factors that are not genetic.

Even if all physical factors were genetic, I have said nothing that would contradict myself on this factor. I challenge you to show anything that has truly been contradictory, and wasn't a product of your own biases of what I might say.

Uh-huh. Fine I'll go back to saying physiological and you can go back to make absurd statements like PURELY psychological. Secondly, I showed that there are genetic factors. You have yet to dispute them. You did however say there are NO genetic factors in the use or lack thereof of psychologists. Something you have since clearly admitted to being inaccurate.


Why would I want to? I have yet to claim that physiology cannot be a factor.

Huh, you must have missed it when you said there was no evidence for physical factors or when you said there was NO genetic factors.

Can you show me a society where the gender roles in society are exactly reversed, but all else is the same?

No. Thank you for making my point, AGAIN.

Really? Funny, behavioral biology would show that the alpha female is rather common in social animals. And she usually has more power and gets to mate more.

In humans? Really? But let's include other animals because we know we are so closely related. Give me the incidence of alphafemales in social animals. What social animals have alphafemales? Also, I was pretty much under the impression that females can only get pregnant while pregnant. In many species, females reproduce with a set regularity. They can't reproduce more. In other species, they mate as often as they are fertile and chance determines the regularity of reproduction.

Do you mean to suggest that there are no trends for a male to pick a desirable female? Given the choice, most males will mate with any old female around? Hell, there goes natural selection - right out the window. Apparently, it only applies to males.

As you are well aware biological selection is about survival. So it occurs regardless of the behavior of an animal species. Also, men don't have to select women because they are capable of impregnating multiple women (again as you are well aware). This is why it is very common among so many species for the male to go through intricate mating rituals to convince the female that she should mate with him. And again, I listed physiological factors for how a woman is able to select the perfect mate. Men don't have those factors so it seems that biology agrees with me.

Jocabia, it is cute how you keep asking for EVIDENCE, when you have provided none. You have done the same as I. We have both provided a view of society and biology and what that view might be extrapolated as. You and I have both yet to provide hard and fast evidence, mostly because there really isn't any. There is society, and an interpretation of it.

I think I have provided some (accurate) evidence and you've admitted as much, except when it fits your argument to argue otherwise. But, you did say you never contradict yourself, so this MUST be true. Tell me what specific evidence you need other than for counters to your unsupported claims and I will provide it.

In humans? Really? But let's include other animals because we know we are so closely related. Give me the incidence of alphafemales in social animals. What social animals have alphafemales? Also, I was pretty much under the impression that females can only get pregnant while pregnant. In many species, females reproduce with a set regularity. They can't reproduce more. In other species, they mate as often as they are fertile and chance determines the regularity of reproduction.

There are many examples of Alpha females in social groups such as wolves and 'pack' animals. The Alpha female usually gets to eat first and raises the first litter of pups and things. She 'goes out' with the Alpha male.

However, you asked why I considered it rare and I told you why. You have yet to give any evidence that it is not.

You consider it rare because it is behaviorally abnormal. Of course, I'm talking about instances in which behavior and biological imperative do not match up. The sheer numbers of people who do not fit into a given societal mold of male or female are ample evidence that exceptions to the statistical average are not rare.

Um, yes, there is. We have brain topography and genetic mapping that helps determine the frequency of men fitting into the basic physiological function of man. That would be the way to determine it. It has been researched and discovered that a man has to go pretty far down the spectrum before losing his urge to be manly.

...which still tells you nothing about how much of that is influenced by society, especially since much of the physical structure of the brain is decided after birth, when society is already impressing upon children what roles they should fit.

Besides, how did they determine this? Did they ask the men how manly they felt? Was there a clear dose-response relationship?

Common? What would you consider common? Does it occur? Yes. But it doesn't have a high incidence.

It occurs in nearly every mammal species we have made large amounts of observation on and in many bird species as well. I would say that makes it pretty common. The percentages in a given species are low, but they are there in nearly every species.

Male on male sex is generally for the purpose of domination.

An outdated idea that is being contradicted by current behavioral biology. Were you aware that male birds displaying homosexuality or bisexuality often have a completely different mating dance to attract othe rmales? Were you aware that many homosexual animals will mate to the point of orgasm, and then switch places? Were you aware that, in apes, both males and females often perform mutual masturbation?

There are rare occurances of males who do not wish to have sex with the females of their species. They are rare because they obviously don't reproduce.

You don't go into the homosexuality threads at all, do you? This is a patent falsehood, right up there with the claim that we would all go extinct if there were more homosexuals. There are animals that, when given a choice, choose a same sex mate. That does not mean that they never reproduce. Male-male pair bonds in birds, for instance often mate. One will go outside the pair-bond and mate with a female. Once she lays the eggs, they chase her off and mate togther. Female-female pair bonds will often mate with a male, either voluntarily or not. Male dolphins will seek out a female mate to reproduce, but only form lasting pair-bonds with other males.

I don't assume this. I said that their is a natural assumption to be made there. To suggest that this assumption isn't natural or common is silly.

I didn't say the assumption isn't common. I pointed out that it is a falsehood propogated by sociological norms.

Now, if men have a physiological desire to not talk about their feelings, then explain to me why they would go to psychologist to do just that unless something was wrong? It seems like it's society that is making the assumption that men would benefit from going without a disorder to address.

(a) You have provided evidence that men may express their feelings differently, but it is only an interpretation that has led to the idea that they have a desire not to express them at all. Many men express a desire to talk about their feelings - they just state that they don't know how.

(b) Research has already shown that both men and women can benefit from therapy. It is hardly an assumption.

Uh-huh. Fine I'll go back to saying physiological and you can go back to make absurd statements like PURELY psychological.

Psychological does not preclude physiological. By physiological, I assume you were talking about things like neurological connections. This is not the same as the way I used the term physical vs. psychological, which is to refer to things like, for instance, a homosexual man getting an erection from seeing another man.

Secondly, I showed that there are genetic factors. You have yet to dispute them. You did however say there are NO genetic factors in the use or lack thereof of psychologists. Something you have since clearly admitted to being inaccurate.

I never said that there are no genetic factors influencing the use of psychologists. This is another of your illogical extrapolations. I said that there is no direct genetic cause keeping men from going to psychologists. It is a product of the urge to appear strong. This urge, and the dependence of the therapist situation upon it, is mediated by the following factors:

(a) A biological imperative to appear strong.
(b) A societal imperative that men must be strong
(c) A societal view that those who go to therapy must be weak.

Huh, you must have missed it when you said there was no evidence for physical factors or when you said there was NO genetic factors.

You mean when you assumed that what I meant was what you wanted to argue with?

As I stated before, physical v. psychological is not the same as genetic v. societal.

And "genetic factors" is rather different from "genetic cause."

No. Thank you for making my point, AGAIN.

It doesn't make your point. In order to make the demonstration you wanted, we would have to find the society I mentioned. One does not exist, so we cannot make assumptions based on a non-existant society.

In humans? Really? But let's include other animals because we know we are so closely related.

Are you implying that we are not?

Give me the incidence of alphafemales in social animals.

Wolf packs, social cat species, many types of apes. In many wolf packs, the alpha female and alpha male are the only mating pair. There is a beta pair that may or may not mate, depending on resources. In other social animals, the alpha female gets the most attention from males, and the most deference from other females.

A somewhat related high school analog might be the most popular girl in a high school. Most girls want to be around her/like her. Most boys want to date her. Everyone given a choice (and assuming she is willing), she would likely get to mate more than the other females.

Also, I was pretty much under the impression that females can only get pregnant while pregnant. In many species, females reproduce with a set regularity. They can't reproduce more. In other species, they mate as often as they are fertile and chance determines the regularity of reproduction.

This is true in some species. Many species have an estrous cycle and the females can only mate at that time. This does not mean that every single female gets mated with every single time she is on the proper cycle.

As you are well aware biological selection is about survival. So it occurs regardless of the behavior of an animal species. Also, men don't have to select women because they are capable of impregnating multiple women (again as you are well aware).

Show me a man who would try to impregnate a woman who seemed infirm just for the hell of it. Show me a male animal who will attempt to mate with a female that seems infirm or dying.

I think I have provided some (accurate) evidence and you've admitted as much, except when it fits your argument to argue otherwise. But, you did say you never contradict yourself, so this MUST be true.

(a) You have provided evidence. As for linking that to your claims, you have provided suppositions. As a general rule, I have used the same evidence. And since, I am not arguing with you in principle, had no need to provide anything more.

(b) I have never once said that I never contradict myself. I have stated that I have not contradicted myself in this particular instance.

Did you, by any chance, watch the presidential debates? Not that either of us are presidential candidates, but observe the following basic conversation:

Kerry: I am personally opposed to abortion, but that is a tenet of my faith, so I would not legislate it.

Bush: My opponent voted against the partial birth abortion ban and against a law requiring minors to obtain parental support.

Kerry: I will not vote for such a law that does not provide for the health of the mother, nor will I vote for a law that would require a 12-year old victim of incest to ask her father to approve of her abortion.

Bush: Whatever! You're either for it or against it!

As you are well aware biological selection is about survival. So it occurs regardless of the behavior of an animal species. Also, men don't have to select women because they are capable of impregnating multiple women (again as you are well aware). This is why it is very common among so many species for the male to go through intricate mating rituals to convince the female that she should mate with him. And again, I listed physiological factors for how a woman is able to select the perfect mate. Men don't have those factors so it seems that biology agrees with me.

Biological selection is about survial.

I have no idea what the next bit is saying. :confused:

Are you saying that survival occurs regardless of of behavior, or that natural selection occurs regardless of behavior. Either way you are blatently wrong.

Behavior plays an important part in biological selection. This is why males go thorugh mating rituals. You're contradicting yourself entirely.

Besides which I htink you're getting confused with the reason why animals mate. It is not to ensure the survival of the species. It is to ensure the survival of there own genes.