Welcome, Guest!
Boys will be boys
Published: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 7:31pm
Boys are different from girls. I know, shocking, isn’t it?
While the truth of this statement may seem blatantly obvious when first considered, there are many people in this world who would argue that women are inherently similar if not superior to men in an array of fields such as sports, science, and chess.
Yet we still think of these areas as typically male dominated.
Why is that? Is lack of encouragement for women solely to blame?
I think I have found the answer in video games. A news release from the Stanford School of Medicine in February links video games with "reward regions" in the brain. Male subjects were found to have more reward stimulation for playing a video game than female subjects were.
The study involved 11 men and 11 women playing a simple game in 24-second intervals while their brain activity was being monitored. The game itself involved clicking on as many balls as possible with a mouse. Also, there was a wall on the left side of the screen that moved to the right when a player clicked a ball, giving them more "territory," and to the left when a ball hit the wall, taking away their space.
The rewarding feelings that the men got from gaining territory reinforced ideas that men are typically more aggressive than women and will receive more stimulation from playing territorial or combat-oriented games.
From my own experience with competitive online video games, I know that there are a lot more men (or boys) playing games such as "Halo 3" or "Call of Duty 4" than there are women. In fact, I think I have only met two female gamers, both of them over "Call of Duty 4."
This innate tendency toward aggression in men can apply to more areas than video games. Look at history's great conquerors. People like Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar and other male leaders should come to mind. Why Alexander and not Mary Ann? The answer lies in the male tendencies toward aggression and territorial expansion.
What are sports if not a way to assert one's athletic dominance over another? In modern society, sports are another way to express aggression.
Don't forget chess, the so-called "game of kings." Don't let its elegant nature fool you — chess is a game where territory expansion and aggression are of the essence. In chess, the aim is usually to control the center, thus giving yourself more space to move your pieces and in turn allowing you to launch an attack on the enemy king, the ultimate target of your path of conquest.
The world of chess has been and still is dominated by strong male players, and while there are a few strong women players, women as a whole have not penetrated the upper echelons of the chess world. Once again, this may be because men feel a greater degree of stimulation for playing chess.
With such evidence, it is hard to argue with the notion that men and women are very different in specific respects.
However, while they may be pointedly different, with a broader view of humanity as a whole, they may not be so different after all. Men and women both pursue success in areas that they are passionate about. I think that makes us much more than just men and women. It makes us all people.
Comments
"Innate"?
How can you possibly assert that the differences found between the male and female gamers in that study represent innate qualities of either sex? All of the test subjects have been raised in a society that encourages certain gendered behaviors and attitudes; they have been conditioned throughout their lives, and "contaminated" by society's expectations and teachings. The only way to begin to judge innate differences would be to take boys and girls from birth and raise them in exactly the same manner, and even that probably wouldn't be conclusive.
I agree with Erin! I would
I agree with Erin! I would spend the next seven paragraphs rambling about things that she already pointed out, but I hate OG comment threads like that.
So I'll just say that surveying 22 people isn't really much of a study pool, and that we can all probably think of just as many girls that take sports too seriously as guys.
PLUS Chumin and I kick some major male posterior in MORTAL KOMBAT: ARMAGEDDON! Oh yes....
The views expressed in this
The views expressed in this blog entry are blatantly erroneous and inarguably unneccessary. I disapprove.
If this is what comes of the pressure to write weekly blog entries, perhaps they should be written more infrequently in order to ensure that more thought goes into the topics.
I agree Erin
Erin I agree with you wholeheartedly. Too much emphasis is put on biology as the reason why there is an "inherent" difference between men and women and nothing is mentioned about the social norms that we all have grown up with that enforce certain notions about men and women.
It's unfortunate that this kind of sexism is so prevalent in society that we barely seem to recognize it anymore, and that we have just begun to associate everything with biology, as if it is a given. I disapprove too.
I Also Agree
Not to beat a dead horse here, but seriously, biology is overhyped, and too many societal standards are set up because of it. For instance, Shivani and any number of other girls could outrun me anyday, even though guys are supposed to be able to run faster and longer. The same is true of video games. For some reason, some people even have a thing with being beaten by guys playing as female characters...
It's possible that Alexander
It's possible that Alexander is remembered over Mary Anne because he was a strategic genius and in Greek/Macedonian society women were basically forbidden from leaving the home, making their military victories impossible.
On the other hand, look at Codoleezza Rice, Margaret Thatcher and Jeanne d'Arc and you'll see women can be militaristic, as well.
The researchers aren't stupid.
In this study, there was no gender difference in the degree to which participants played video games (p > .05), suggesting that motivational levels were similar among the male and female subjects.
Still, as the researchers themselves said, results from this study provide only novel evidence; more studies need to be performed (including examining subjects from different cultural backgrounds and "social norms" [as Shivani said]) in order to definitively assert that there exist innate gender differences in aggressiveness or videogame play.
However, the researchers note that their findings are consistent with the many other studies describing gender differences in brain function.
@Erin: with sufficient evidence, studies CAN prove innate differences, without requiring subjects that are all exactly the same.
So I kind of skimmed this
So I kind of skimmed this blog entry first, and then saw the comments, and was first annoyed, because I'm not one of those people who gets very worked up about gender stuff and I thought such harsh reactions weren't necessary.
Once I went back and read the entry, I saw that maybe some of the points raised did deserve to be questioned. The study sounds a little off, and the stuff about Alexander the Great was completely uncalled for.
However, I don't really think Danny meant to offend when he wrote this. I think he just wanted to point out a study he found interesting. I don't think he deserved to actually be told that you disapprove of his blog entry. The point of a blog entry is to be an informal piece of writing, talking about something that Danny just found interesting. He can write about whatever he wants. It doesn't matter in the slightest that you disagree with it. You can say so, but you can say it in a way that's much less condescending. You may think you're right, but that doesn't necessarily always mean that you are right, regardless of the topic.
Also, I like Jason's points about the study.
I did not mean to offend
When I first found the news release, I thought of the possibilities of what such a psychological difference between men and women imply. I thought I would use this blog to share the news release and the different possibilities that it could imply. I did not mean to cast my opinion as absolute nor do I think that this study provided a completely comprehensive overview of men and women.
Nature and Biological Difference
1. NEUROCHEMICAL AND HORMONAL DIFFERENCES
Despite any level of cultural or societal "conditioning," there are certain natural behaviors that will always be different between men and women, no matter what. One prime example of this is a woman's maternal response to a baby's cry. There are many other more subtle behavioral and neurochemical differences between men and women. When women chit-chat, their oxytocin level -- a feel-good hormone that elicits feelings of trust, bonding and love -- rises, according to a recent study by Dr. Shelley Taylor, psychology professor at UCLA. This means they experience pleasure and feel connected with others. Also, consider other natural hormonal differences between men and women such as men's higher levels of testosterone and women's higher levels of estrogen.
2. ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT
Erin's argument ignores the likely possibility that the way our societies developed was based off innate difference between men and women. Erin's assumption is that society defines gender roles through cultural and societal "conditioning." If this assumption were to be true, how then did our society get to this point where such "constructs" exist? Look throughout the entire animal kingdom and you will find biological differences between sexes of species that define differences in behaviors of each sex, not any kind of "societal" conditioning.
What?!
Ignoring the fact that the term "woman" might imply having a certain level of adult maturity, I would just like to point out that when I hear a baby cry I want to chuck it out the window. However my mother gets mad at me when I suggest that to the kid's parents, so maybe you have a point.
And while gender roles today could possibly be based off of biological differences from thousands of years ago, that doesn't mean that they still aren't viewed as confining to people today. Since (to my knowledge) there has never been a person raised in a completely gender-neutral environment, there's absolutely no basis for assuming that a person raised in a bubble unaware of their own sex would be better or worse at math or video games or chess or fixing cars or not crying or holding doors open or pulling chairs out or offering people their jackets or whatever it is we expect men to do, depending on their gender.
Amen, sister.
Amen, sister.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear. I don't know what women Isaac's been talking to, but when I hear a baby cry, I have the same reaction as you, Laura (I want to chuck it out a window or run away).
And I agree with your second paragraph too.
Dude, men and women ARE
Dude, men and women ARE inherently different. I identify with the plight of women, and I'm an avid supporter of new-wave feminism, but it's ridiculous to try and suggest that men and women are identical at their cores. I don't believe that "gender" is a societal construct, and even if the separation and differences between men and women biologically has been stretched and distorted by modern consumerism and sexism, there must have been an initial impetus that drove "society" in that direction.
I think you guys are getting caught up in sexism. Saying that " gender" exists isn't equivalent to saying that one sex outweighs the other. First of all, it obviously must exist at this point in time, since we're discussing and arguing about it. This is the case, regardless of whether "society" created it or if it was self-generating instead. Secondly, I think that you guys are debasing biology to an unhealthy degree. Biology doesn't have to mean that girls like pink things and playing with dolls, and boys like violence and hitting. Think about things on the surface: I'm never going to be able to think like a female, because I don't have the same organs. I'm never going to give birth, and I'm never going to have a period or anything like that. That's important, and for all you know, contributed to this divide from the very beginning. In the end, while the human mind can be considered through an esoteric lens, its functioning has a basis in the physical realm. Your very opinions against using "biology" as evidence of a gender divide is a result of your biology making you think. So don't discount it.
Lastly, I think you should consider what you mean by "society." Culture isn't stagnant, and although "society" is essentially used to refer to the amalgamation of all human cultures, I'm going to assume that most of us espouse a "Western" or American sensibility when it comes to that. There are certainly cultures and subcultures (even within America) that don't follow "the societal norms." And yet, it seems archetypal that, regardless of who's in power, or whether anyone has more power (in terms of one sex vs. another), people recognize a gender divide. I don't currently have any evidence to support this, but from what I've remembered reading in the past, people have attempted to raise boys and girls in somewhat reversed roles, and it hasn't worked. This isn't because of "society," but because of these innate differences.
We respond differently to the world around us, and that shouldn't be a problem to anyone. Trying to deny gender is like trying to deny race––we're all people, and people should be treated equally, but it's okay (in fact, it's encouraged) to be different. I know Laura was speaking out against confining individuals to social prison cells, but even new-wave feminist scholars widely accept "gender." "Gender" doesn't harm anyone mentally or physically––any damage done to anyone through sexism and sexist behavior is the fault of the individual or of other "societal constructs"––not an "innate difference" between men and women, if there is one.
1. The idea that "'Gender'
1. The idea that "'Gender' doesn't harm anyone mentally or physically" is clearly erroneous. What about females who get made fun of for being "butch," or males who are bullied for being a "p***y"? That's not sexism for you, that's people reacting against others who step outside the boundaries of the gender people assume they have to identify with. The fact that these confines exist can be damaging not only to individuals, but also to the ways that we interact with each other as humans. Our expression can become limited because of what is expected of us.
2. Another big problem here, Jono, is that you're equating gender with sex, or assuming a direct connection between people with vaginas and "feminine" behaviors, and people with penises and "masculine" behaviors. The entire point that I (and others, I think) am trying to make here is that gender (a.k.a. all these behaviors we're talking about) doesn't necessarily match up with sex (a.k.a. your organs), so how can we say that these behaviors are "innate" to a certain sex?
You said: "I'm never going to be able to think like a female, because I don't have the same organs."
Just because you don't doesn't mean that nobody with a penis can. An example for you and everybody defending the viewpoints in this article: Transpeople. Think about it.
3. It disturbs me that many of the people posting here are using language suggesting that there are only two genders (one quintessentially male and the other quintessentially female). Why does there have to be this dichotomy? Most people don't fall squarely within the boundaries of what is "male" and what is "female," and there are all sorts of other gender identities out there.
4. Just FYI, it's been proven that race doesn't exist on a biological level. It's also a social construction. At least, that's what I was taught in anthropology.
Of course there a differences between men and women...
I don't think anyone is denying that there is a difference between men and women. There clearly are many differences that surface in a variety of ways. My problem, at least, with this article is that much weight is given to certain "innate" differences, so much weight that it appears as though these things are just a given. The tendencies of men and women are being discussed in an extremely narrow-minded way, as if to say that there is no other way to be. This is what is so frightening about the article.
As the editor who published
As the editor who published this blog entry, I feel that I should justify it a little bit to those of you who reacted strongly against it. I did not agree with many of the explicit and implicit assessments this blog entry contained, but I decided to publish it nonetheless because I do believe it was written in the spirit that Danny described in his comment. In addition, while there are many possible counter-arguments for his points, the overall message is not devoid of merit. There is a legitimate argument to be made that the distinction between male and female is biological, and for most people, the question is only to what degree; I find this topic to be worthy of debate, and the blog is one medium for such discussion.
I sense that many of you reacted to the seeming implication that the current male dominance of the areas Danny mentioned is an acceptable and biologically inevitable status quo, without accounting for societal factors. However, I do not believe that this precisely reflects what he wrote. Danny took the conclusions of the study on territorial behavior and used them to help explain gender disparities, but he did not explicitly rule out other factors. In fact, his conclusion includes the sentence, "Men and women both pursue success in areas that they are passionate about." This statement rather undermines the notion that innate tendencies are deterministic on the individual level.
Not that an opinion didn't come across, and it would have been better to address some of the points made in comments within the main text in the first place. Perhaps the article too lightly dismissed or downplayed the role of environmental influences, but because these judgments fall within the realm of opinion, I believe that this blog entry, dissociated from my own views, is justified for provoking thought (and, I'm glad to see, discussion) in a non-malicious and ultimately constructive way.
Post new comment