NationStates Jolt Archive

The ideological movement known as feminism has accomplished substantive gains in achieving political and social equality for women. It has also opened a widespread and diverse discourse on what it means to be female in our modern society and making sense of the roles that women play in it. Unfortunately, no such discourse exists for men, leaving us to make sense of our ever-changing role based on media images, flawed traditions, and popular misconceptions. I think it's time that such a discourse existed, one that could be called "masculinism". I say this not to be sexist; quite the reverse, actually: if men are able to rediscover their place in a dynamic society, it will allow greater strides in the direction of equality and positive relations between the sexes. Unfortunately, some factions of the feminist movement (see the recent thread on "Feminazis"), as well as these pre-existing media images of "manly men" and the flawed traditions of the dominant male make such a discourse in danger of being derailed on specious charges of sexism. Right now, though, there are a wide array of possibilities of what a woman is "allowed" to be, while the culturally acceptable options for men are much more limited. I think it's time that men were allowed to search for new possibilities of what it means to be a man, since the traditional concepts of masculinity are rapidly becoming obsolete.

The ideological movement known as feminism has accomplished substantive gains in achieving political and social equality for women. It has also opened a widespread and diverse discourse on what it means to be female in our modern society and making sense of the roles that women play in it. Unfortunately, no such discourse exists for men, leaving us to make sense of our ever-changing role based on media images, flawed traditions, and popular misconceptions. I think it's time that such a discourse existed, one that could be called "masculinism". I say this not to be sexist; quite the reverse, actually: if men are able to rediscover their place in a dynamic society, it will allow greater strides in the direction of equality and positive relations between the sexes. Unfortunately, some factions of the feminist movement (see the recent thread on "Feminazis"), as well as these pre-existing media images of "manly men" and the flawed traditions of the dominant male make such a discourse in danger of being derailed on specious charges of sexism. Right now, though, there are a wide array of possibilities of what a woman is "allowed" to be, while the culturally acceptable options for men are much more limited. I think it's time that men were allowed to search for new possibilities of what it means to be a man, since the traditional concepts of masculinity are rapidly becoming obsolete.

Feminism: a movement that seeks the abolition of gender inequality and the abolition of gender roles. No pre-set gender roles means that a man can define what he wants to do to "be a man". There is no conflict between feminism and masculinity.

I think that this thread serves as a reminder that patriarchy hasn't been abolished yet.

They really could have picked a better term for FEMinizm.

May Equalitarinism? or somthing like that. I know it's not as catchy, but people do actually believe Feminism is only about bringing females up to a better standing, and is seperate from ideas of equality.

i say go for it.

its unreasonable to expect that women can define what it means to be a man in modern society to men's satisfaction. only men can work it out and come to a new view of masculinity that really works.

if you can get enough men willing to join up and figure it out, great. the more discourse there is, the better it is for everyone.

Yeah. Bloke power!!!

You take your meta-physical belt to feminism and chain her back to her kitchen sink!:rolleyes:

i say go for it.

its unreasonable to expect that women can define what it means to be a man in modern society to men's satisfaction. only men can work it out and come to a new view of masculinity that really works.

if you can get enough men willing to join up and figure it out, great. the more discourse there is, the better it is for everyone.

Like I posted before, that's already part of the feminist tradition. Feminism is as much about removing gender role standards from men as it is about removing them from women.

I think it's a mistake to artifivcially remove "gender roles."

Yes, I said artificially and I meant it.

Men and Women are equal. They are not equivalent.

If a man and a woman do the same job at the same level of experience and competence, they ought to be paid the same. By the same token, if a woman chooses, by her own initiative, to stay at home and be a homemaker, she ought not to get flak for it any more than a man ought to should he choose to be the one to stay at home.

I say this because there are those who would ridicule and criticize a woman for choosing to remain at home with the kids, as if somehow she's wasting her life. This is as sexist as criticizing a woman for working. It's just coming from the opposite side.

But that's not to say a man and a woman are equivalent. There are certain things women do better than men. There are things men do better. A truly enlightened society would embrace those differences and make the best use of them. One of the flaws of our society is that we are led to believe the best option is to ignore those differences and proceed as if they didn't exist.

Feminism: a movement that seeks the abolition of gender inequality and the abolition of gender roles. No pre-set gender roles means that a man can define what he wants to do to "be a man". There is no conflict between feminism and masculinity.

I think that this thread serves as a reminder that patriarchy hasn't been abolished yet.

Testify! "Masculinism" (or whatever) is redundant.

And amusingly, feminist orgs have been screaming & shouting for twenty years, urging us men to get off our asses and start figuring out what we're all about.

Dispair not, however. Though we have no unified ism to unite under at present, plenty of orgs do exist. Hell, I helped start one some years back. If you're interested in accomplishing something & not just take potshots at the femi movement, I suggest you first use Google to locate whatever group(s) exist near you, and failing that, get in contact with your local feminist orgs & get their help in starting your own shit. They have the experience & resources to help, and they're fucking dying for some men to show a bit of initiative & interest.

Men and Women are equal.

Equal before what? Certainly not before the law or the public in most nations.

Like I posted before, that's already part of the feminist tradition. Feminism is as much about removing gender role standards from men as it is about removing them from women.

yes it is.

but women cant force men to accept what we think is best for them.

if deep world can start a men's movement that seeks to reconcile men with the realities of the modern world, its a good thing. if they want to call their own movement to work toward the equality of men and women masculism, go for it. does it matter that they are doing the same work as feminism is? not that i can see.

Equal before what? Certainly not before the law or the public in most nations.Before reality kicks in ;)

We're all equals, big small, fat, slim, cripple, athlete.. We're human beings. It's just that most of us don't really want to believe it, especially in societies that actively rewards ignoring it - which just happens to be every fucking society on this planet.

Doesn't mean we should give up on the idea & abandon all hope. Nothing was ever achieved by twiddling thumbs & moaning in dark corners.

Before reality kicks in ;)

We're all equals, big small, fat, slim, cripple, athlete.. We're human beings. It's just that most of us don't really want to believe it, especially in societies that actively rewards ignoring it - which just happens to be every fucking society on this planet.

Doesn't mean we should give up on the idea & abandon all hope. Nothing was ever achieved by twiddling thumbs & moaning in dark corners.

...which just raises the issue of single-issue politics and the neccessity to transform society completely.

yes it is.

but women cant force men to accept what we think is best for them.

Why not? Men were pretty darn successful at forcing women to do that for the past three millenia or so.

There are certain things women do better than men. There are things men do better..

What are these "things", and how do you know that you are observing anything more than socially-enforced gender roles?

Why do you think the abolition of socially-enforced gender roles would at all amount to the forcible suppression of natural differences (assuming they exist to any significant degree)?

So shouldn't a better name for it be "asexism" then? Feminism seems to imply that it has a naturally female lean. Not that it means 100% that it does have a female lean, merely that one might arrive by that conclusion based on the name.

What are these "things", and how do you know that you are observing anything more than socially-enforced gender roles?

Things involving stamina and bearance of pain, frex. I think we can pretty safely declare those not to be social constructs.

So shouldn't a better name for it be "asexism" then?

Thus the move to use terms such as 'gender politics' or 'gender studies'.

Why not? Men were pretty darn successful at forcing women to do that for the past three millenia or so.

because that would make us feminazis not feminists.

because that would make us feminazis not feminists.

But what if you are right? What is the real difference between forcing by persuasion and forcing by proscription?

Feminism seems to imply that it has a naturally female lean.

Only insofar as females are now, and have been historically (in our society, anyway), socially subordinated to males.

It follows that a movement to emancipate people from gender roles and social subordination on the basis of sex must necessarily focus more on securing the interests and autonomy of females, at least until genuine equality is reached.

Equal before what? Certainly not before the law or the public in most nations.

Wow you'd think a statement like "Men and Women are equal" would be unlikely to get a criticism. May I express my opinion, please? Hey thanks so much.

Things involving stamina and bearance of pain, frex. I think we can pretty safely declare those not to be social constructs.

And what kind of social recognition of those differences is necessary?

Wow you'd think a statement like "Men and Women are equal" would be unlikely to get a criticism. May I express my opinion, please? Hey thanks so much.

It was a more a statement aimed towards raising questions of what equality actually is, not an attack on the idea. We may agree that men and women are (or should be) equal, but why? Would we also consider the pre-adult young to be equal? Certainly western society only really gives a token nod towards the notion of equality between members of the same sex/gender, never mind across those divides.

In other words... what does it mean to be equal, and what is the philosophical background for it, or is it just a primitive assumption?

What are these "things", and how do you know that you are observing anything more than socially-enforced gender roles?

Why do you think the abolition of socially-enforced gender roles would at all amount to the forcible suppression of natural differences (assuming they exist to any significant degree)?

First of all, it's a biological fact that the male brain is more proficient at mathematics while the female brain is more proficient at language. Those are just two examples from an impressive list.

And if you can demonstrate to me that somehow mathematics and language are some sort of socially enforced templtes, I'd be highly impressed.

If you read my post carefully, rather than dredging for something to argue with, you'll see that I'm pointing out that the "equality" movement is trying to supress those differences rather than embrace them. It's the opposite of what you're suggesting I said. I happen to think people shouldn't be forced either way, and let them do what they do best.

And what kind of social recognition of those differences is necessary?

I don't think I claimed one was needed, but having said that we see them in operation in sports, for good or ill.

you'll see that I'm pointing out that the "equality" movement is trying to supress those differences rather than embrace them.

No, it isn't.

It's saying exactly what you're saying:

people shouldn't be forced either way

It was a more a statement aimed towards raising questions of what equality actually is, not an attack on the idea. We may agree that men and women are (or should be) equal, but why? Would we also consider the pre-adult young to be equal? Certainly western society only really gives a token nod towards the notion of equality between members of the same sex/gender, never mind across those divides.

In other words... what does it mean to be equal, and what is the philosophical background for it, or is it just a primitive assumption?

Ah forgive my defensiveness. I actually read another post before yours so my mind was already in counterattack mode.

I assert that men and women are equal based upon the idea that we all hold equal value in the eyes of God, and ideally, one another. Who is to say that men are worth more or women are worth more? Not I. None of us would be qualified even if such a statement were apropriate.

Sadly, most of human history as well as a big chunk of the world still sees women as inferior. I think there's a lot of reasons for that but none of them really mean anything in the big picture.

First of all, it's a biological fact that the male brain is more proficient at mathematics while the female brain is more proficient at language. Those are just two examples from an impressive list.

Really?

Linky?

Has it been determined whether this, if is true, is due to nature or nurture?

What defines a male brain as opposed to a female brain - is it determined just by the sexual characteristics of the body they are attached to, or is it possible for a man to have a female brain and vice-versa?

Feminism: a movement that seeks the abolition of gender inequality and the abolition of gender roles. No pre-set gender roles means that a man can define what he wants to do to "be a man". There is no conflict between feminism and masculinity.

I think that this thread serves as a reminder that patriarchy hasn't been abolished yet.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Nicely donely.

I don't think I claimed one was needed,

"None" would have been a perfectly legitimate answer.

but having said that we see them in operation in sports, for good or ill.

Sure. Does that mean our society should start telling females interested in sports not to bother, because "males are naturally better"?

No, it isn't.

It's saying exactly what you're saying:

I think maybe you'r emisunderstanding something. In my view, the femenist movement IS trying to force roles on people.

Recently I was listening to the radio where they were interviewing a woman who had written a book which basically derided women who chose to stay at home and take care of the household and children. She suggested, as a representative of the femenist movement (probably an extremist, of course) that any woman who chose, even on her own initiative, to stay at home and be a homemaker was somehow brainwashed and victimized by a male dominated society. She wasn't evcen willing to entertain the possibility of another explanation, like a simple choice.

Needless to say, my fiancee, who was riding in the car with me, was outraged. She was offended by the idea that this woman was just as sexist as the people she was accusing, in that she believed that woman were so weak they couldn't possibly make such a decision without it being trhe product of pressure from the rest of society.

So you see, I'm saying that such pressures ought to be removed, and allow people to be who they are.

Only insofar as females are now, and have been historically (in our society, anyway), socially subordinated to males.

It follows that a movement to emancipate people from gender roles and social subordination on the basis of sex must necessarily focus more on securing the interests and autonomy of females, at least until genuine equality is reached.

I can see that. Though I would argue that now, at least, things are beginning to shift to a point where acceptance of men in "feminine roles" and so on is becoming an issue. Stay-at-home husbands, for instance. In which case I think a shift should be made towards a more all-encompassing movement.

I'm probably wrong, though.

Sure. Does that mean our society should start telling females interested in sports not to bother, because "males are naturally better"?

You're making big leaps there. Having a female body makes you better at certain sports while having a male body makes you better at certain others.

As to telling people not to bother... the point ain't to win, just to take part.

Really?

Linky?

Has it been determined whether this, if is true, is due to nature or nurture?

What defines a male brain as opposed to a female brain - is it determined just by the sexual characteristics of the body they are attached to, or is it possible for a man to have a female brain and vice-versa?

Funny you should ask. My fiancee' sent me this link just the other day:

Article (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030624-000003.html)

I think maybe you'r emisunderstanding something. In my view, the femenist movement IS trying to force roles on people.

Recently I was listening to the radio where they were interviewing a woman who had written a book which basically derided women who chose to stay at home and take care of the household and children. She suggested, as a representative of the femenist movement (probably an extremist, of course) that any woman who chose, even on her own initiative, to stay at home and be a homemaker was somehow brainwashed and victimized by a male dominated society. She wasn't evcen willing to entertain the possibility of another explanation, like a simple choice.

Needless to say, my fiancee, who was riding in the car with me, was outraged. She was offended by the idea that this woman was just as sexist as the people she was accusing, in that she believed that woman were so weak they couldn't possibly make such a decision without it being trhe product of pressure from the rest of society.

So you see, I'm saying that such pressures ought to be removed, and allow people to be who they are.

I think YOU are misunderstanding several things -- feminism, equality, etc.

Maybe your account of some anonymous woman you heard on the radio is not really "representative of the fem[i]nist movement."

Maybe there are crackpots out there from all genders.

But what if you are right? What is the real difference between forcing by persuasion and forcing by proscription?

ill answer as soon as you tell me what those 2 things mean.

mostly men have changed mostly because women have changed. some men dont like that. *shrug* for most men its just too bad. women arent going to go back. the majority of men seem to appreciate the changes.

Recently I was listening to the radio where they were interviewing a woman who had written a book which basically derided women who chose to stay at home and take care of the household and children. She suggested, as a representative of the femenist movement (probably an extremist, of course) that any woman who chose, even on her own initiative, to stay at home and be a homemaker was somehow brainwashed and victimized by a male dominated society. She wasn't evcen willing to entertain the possibility of another explanation, like a simple choice.

So a single woman who wrote a book is "the feminist movement"?

So you see, I'm saying that such pressures ought to be removed, and allow people to be who they are.

I agree.

What I was referring to, more specifically, was the aspect of feminism involved with expanding and refining women's gender roles in society and seeking to make sense of them. For example, my college has a "women's issues group" dedicated to this purpose.

It's interesting that, in some ways, feminism in the sense of advancing women has actually worked to accomplish "more" than equality; for example, there are a great many scholarships for women only, despite the fact that more women attend college now than men. While this makes sense in certain fields where women are still under-represented (such as science), in general it has outlived its usefulness as an affirmative action policy, the legal and ethical ramifications aside. While it's undeniably true that women still receive inferior treatment to men in many circumstances (pay scales, etc.) and that many examples of sexism exist on both sides of the gender divide, I think it would be constructive for both men and women to be able to confront these issues with healthy and open discussion. Right now, there is something of a double-standard; women are "allowed" to take pride in being female and to openly discuss their identities as women, but men, for political-correctness-driven fear of being mislabeled "sexist", aren't given the same consideration. As a result, things like "boys' clubs" are still able to exist because no means of effectively dismantling them exists without this dialog.

First of all, it's a biological fact that the male brain is more proficient at mathematics while the female brain is more proficient at language. Those are just two examples from an impressive list.

Funny you should ask. My fiancee' sent me this link just the other day:

Article (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20030624-000003.html)

Does it even mention mathematics in there? I certainly can't see it.

ill answer as soon as you tell me what those 2 things mean.

Persuasion - convincing someone that they shouldn't do X because it is wrong.

Proscription - forcing someone not to do X by threat of punishment.

I think maybe you'r emisunderstanding something. In my view, the femenist movement IS trying to force roles on people.

Recently I was listening to the radio where they were interviewing a woman who had written a book which basically derided women who chose to stay at home and take care of the household and children. She suggested, as a representative of the femenist movement (probably an extremist, of course) that any woman who chose, even on her own initiative, to stay at home and be a homemaker was somehow brainwashed and victimized by a male dominated society. She wasn't evcen willing to entertain the possibility of another explanation, like a simple choice.

Needless to say, my fiancee, who was riding in the car with me, was outraged. She was offended by the idea that this woman was just as sexist as the people she was accusing, in that she believed that woman were so weak they couldn't possibly make such a decision without it being trhe product of pressure from the rest of society.

So you see, I'm saying that such pressures ought to be removed, and allow people to be who they are.

what makes you think that any woman feels pressured by this book? there are more women choosing to stay home at least when their children are young than there has been in a generation. id say that her book is useless.

I could qualify for this label. I tend to ruthlessly fight against all attempts to stereotyping men, so I guess...

First of all, it's a biological fact that the male brain is more proficient at mathematics while the female brain is more proficient at language. Those are just two examples from an impressive list.

And if you can demonstrate to me that somehow mathematics and language are some sort of socially enforced templtes, I'd be highly impressed.

If you read my post carefully, rather than dredging for something to argue with, you'll see that I'm pointing out that the "equality" movement is trying to supress those differences rather than embrace them. It's the opposite of what you're suggesting I said. I happen to think people shouldn't be forced either way, and let them do what they do best.

see this is where you lose me.

so what if men have a more mathematical brain and women are more language oriented? all people in the modern world need both mathematics and language.

anyone bright enough to get into college is proficient enough in both.

what possible difference can it make in the aggregate? are we supposed to treat men and women differently because of it? are we supposed to ignore female math geniuses and male language geniuses?

really, SO WHAT?

see this is where you lose me.

so what if men have a more mathematical brain and women are more language oriented? all people in the modern world need both mathematics and language.

anyone bright enough to get into college is proficient enough in both.

what possible difference can it make in the aggregate? are we supposed to treat men and women differently because of it? are we supposed to ignore female math geniuses and male language geniuses?

really, SO WHAT?

A quick read of the article NB linked to might be worthwhile, if that is the totality of their evidence, then they are accidentally misrepresenting what it actually says (at best).

Persuasion - convincing someone that they shouldn't do X because it is wrong.

Proscription - forcing someone not to do X by threat of punishment.

so what are you asking me? is it really better to persuade than to force?

i think so.

if men who now think they are getting the shaft come to realize that this whole gender equality/gender role dismantling thing is as good for them as it is for women, they will embrace the change rather than try to hold onto anitquated ideas of proper male and female roles.

What I was referring to, more specifically, was the aspect of feminism involved with expanding and refining women's gender roles in society and seeking to make sense of them. For example, my college has a "women's issues group" dedicated to this purpose.

It's interesting that, in some ways, feminism in the sense of advancing women has actually worked to accomplish "more" than equality; for example, there are a great many scholarships for women only, despite the fact that more women attend college now than men. While this makes sense in certain fields where women are still under-represented (such as science), in general it has outlived its usefulness as an affirmative action policy, the legal and ethical ramifications aside. While it's undeniably true that women still receive inferior treatment to men in many circumstances (pay scales, etc.) and that many examples of sexism exist on both sides of the gender divide, I think it would be constructive for both men and women to be able to confront these issues with healthy and open discussion. Right now, there is something of a double-standard; women are "allowed" to take pride in being female and to openly discuss their identities as women, but men, for political-correctness-driven fear of being mislabeled "sexist", aren't given the same consideration. As a result, things like "boys' clubs" are still able to exist because no means of effectively dismantling them exists without this dialog.

your great plan for masculism is for men to get together and fight against women's scholarships?

*sigh*

What I was referring to, more specifically, was the aspect of feminism involved with expanding and refining women's gender roles in society and seeking to make sense of them. For example, my college has a "women's issues group" dedicated to this purpose.

It's interesting that, in some ways, feminism in the sense of advancing women has actually worked to accomplish "more" than equality; for example, there are a great many scholarships for women only, despite the fact that more women attend college now than men. While this makes sense in certain fields where women are still under-represented (such as science), in general it has outlived its usefulness as an affirmative action policy, the legal and ethical ramifications aside. While it's undeniably true that women still receive inferior treatment to men in many circumstances (pay scales, etc.) and that many examples of sexism exist on both sides of the gender divide, I think it would be constructive for both men and women to be able to confront these issues with healthy and open discussion. Right now, there is something of a double-standard; women are "allowed" to take pride in being female and to openly discuss their identities as women, but men, for political-correctness-driven fear of being mislabeled "sexist", aren't given the same consideration. As a result, things like "boys' clubs" are still able to exist because no means of effectively dismantling them exists without this dialog.

Surprise, surprise. You aren't really so much concerned with "masculinism" as you are with ranting against feminism and so-called "political correctness."

Men have the overwhelmingly disproportionate advantage of wealth and power in our society. You can't really believe that men live in fear of some gender thought police.

Calvin and Hobbes is a Masculinist propaganda machine, as demonstrated by this actual quote:

Calvin: Well, I suppose I'd be mad if I had two X chromosomes too.


Yeah, that's roughly an actual quote from Calvin and Hobbes. It's kinda funny.

Surprise, surprise. You aren't really so much concerned with "masculinism" as you are with ranting against feminism and so-called "political correctness."

Men have the overwhelmingly disproportionate advantage of wealth and power in our society. You can't really believe that men live in fear of some gender thought police.

You seem to misunderstand me. I'm all for feminism. I believe that, now that it is no longer socially acceptable for men to act as though they are dominant over women, now there needs to be a dialogue on the subject of what it means to be a man today, since the traditional precept is now thoroughly obsolete. I agree, though, that political correctness is badly over-applied. It still has its uses, true, but being so terrified of offending someone that we can't discuss important issues openly and honestly is almost as bad as the discrimination that political correctness was designed to combat in the first place. One of the symptoms of the abuse of political correctness is that there emerges a double standard against the formerly dominant groups; in practice, political correctness often has the unintended (or sometimes intended) side effect of disparaging white straight males because they weren't historically disadvantaged. I'm white, straight, and male, and that does not make me evil or insensitive or less deserving than a woman and/or a minority. It does not make me one iota more deserving, either. It makes me a human who fits into a number of significant but ultimately arbitrary categories, who can live with some preferential treatment, without some other preferential treatment that goes to someone else more deserving, and content with the knowledge that it's just fine to be who I am. Just because some white straight males are bigots, does not mean that it should be assumed that I have to bear responsibility for that and therefore not be allowed to do some things that everyone else can get away with because they aren't white straight males. I'm not worried about being discriminated against per se, I just think that there are definite stumbles on the way to genuine equality and we should be aware of undeserved backlashes.

First of all, it's a biological fact that the male brain is more proficient at mathematics while the female brain is more proficient at language. Those are just two examples from an impressive list.


As a female who was something of a math prodigy as a child, this is a subject I've followed fairly closely, and I've never seen any evidence to support this assertion.

(Oh, and I checked your link - I'd seen all the info in it before, and none of it seems to support your statement, anyway.)

Really?

Linky?

Has it been determined whether this, if is true, is due to nature or nurture?

What defines a male brain as opposed to a female brain - is it determined just by the sexual characteristics of the body they are attached to, or is it possible for a man to have a female brain and vice-versa?
Here's some:
neuroscientists have found that male and female brains are wired differently because of the role of testosterone and other male hormones during gestation. Brains growing under the influence of male hormones are slightly larger and have denser concentrations of neurons in some regions.

Male brains also contain a greater proportion of gray matter, the part of the brain responsible for computation, while women have relatively more white matter, which specializes in making connections between brain cells.

Brain-imaging studies suggest that both sexes can exploit the differences to their benefit. UCLA researchers have done brain scans of men and women who scored in the top 1 percent on the math section of the SAT. As they worked on math problems, the men relied heavily on the gray matter in the brain's parietal and cerebral cortices. Women showed greater activity in areas dominated by the well-connected white matter.

Intelligence tests have found that men, on average, perform better on spatial tasks that require mentally manipulating objects. Men also do better on tests of mathematical reasoning. Women tend to do better on tasks requiring verbal memory and distinguishing whether objects are similar. The relative strengths tend to even out, studies indicate.
Nature vs. nurture (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/02/28/nature_vs_nurture_divides_academia/)

Jill M. Goldstein of Harvard Medical School and her colleagues, for example, used MRI to measure the sizes of many cortical and subcortical areas. Among other things, these investigators found that parts of the frontal cortex, the seat of many higher cognitive functions, are bulkier in women than in men, as are parts of the limbic cortex, which is involved in emotional responses. In men, on the other hand, parts of the parietal cortex, which is involved in space perception, are bigger than in women, as is the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure that responds to emotionally arousing information--to anything that gets the heart pumping and the adrenaline flowing.
...
Several intriguing behavioral studies add to the evidence that some sex differences in the brain arise before a baby draws its first breath.
His Brain, Her Brain (http://scientificamerican.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000363E3-1806-1264-980683414B7F0000)


The Evolution of Sex Differences in Language, Sexuality, and Visual–Spatial Skills (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/aseb/2000/00000029/00000001/00221045)


And, fyi, you have something with your last question:
Male-to-Female Transsexuals Have Female Neuron Numbers in a Limbic Nucleus (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034)