Conference turris::womannotes-v2

================================================================================
RAINBO::TARBET "I'm the ERA"                          2 lines  14-MAR-1989 16:43
                              -< Au contraire... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The idea that culture DOESN'T explain them can only be taken seriously
    when male war parties are a feature of EVERY culture.

================================================================================
ANT::ZARLENGA "Network partner excited"              10 lines  14-MAR-1989 17:29
       -< I disagree with .24, and the 1st sentence is strictly in jest >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	Hey ... let's not clutter up the "quotable men" topic with
    quotable women.
    
	    ;^)
    
    	Actually, they are a feature in many diverse cultures, while
    female war parties are not.  Read the article!
    
    -mike z

================================================================================
REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet."               4 lines  15-MAR-1989 09:31
                              -< You knew this. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The word "many" is not the word "every".  The former is a proper
    subset of the latter.  Do not confuse the two.
    
    						Ann B.

================================================================================
ANT::ZARLENGA "Network partner excited"              15 lines  15-MAR-1989 12:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	Of course I knew that!
    
    	It still stands that some differences between the sexes could
    have a 100% biological basis (hence a 0% cultural basis) without
    being expressed in every culture.
    
    	If such a difference is seen to be expressed across different
    (and complementary) cultural boundaries, yet not across gender
    boundaries, one *may* be able to conclude that there is no evidence
    of cultural influence.
    
    	And yes, I do know that "may be able to" is not the same as "can".
    
    -mike z

 I definitely think that some feelings and behaviors or specific to a gender.

 How many men can _know_ what it's like to have menstrual cycles, along with the
accompanying cramps and inconvenience? I think that it has been shown that there
are some behaviors linked to the menstrual cycle, PMS for one. How many women
can understand the physical sensation of an erection? (Their own :-) 

 While discussing my newborn daughter the other day with two women, we got to
talking about sleeping in the same room with the baby. One women said she 
couldn't have the baby in the same room because she wasn't able to sleep due to
all of the little noises that the baby makes. I replied that I was eventually
able to tune them out, so that only cries of discomfort or hunger would rouse
me from my REM sleep. She said that women hear everything. The other woman
agreed.

 Women seem to be far less likely to use physical violence against other women
than men are to use it against other men. As has been discussed in another note,
women use social pressures (a higher form of punishment) whereas men tend to
use the brute force approach (physical pain low level punishment.)

 While most behaviors can be shared by both sexes, some do seem to be 
predominately found in one sex or another. I think that biology has alot to do 
with this. The more that scientists discover about chemical causes for behavior,
the more likely it seems that sex has an influence on behavior in and of itself,
as men and women differ in their body chemistry.

 The Doctah

that should read "ARE specific to a gender."

    I used to believe differences in the sexes were caused by society
    and environment.  Then I had a baby.  It's extremely interesting to watch
    the behavior of very young boys and girls and notice consistencies
    within a gender and differeces between them.         
    
    We all have hormones, of course, but we have different hormones
    in different amounts.  To claim hormones don't influence behavior
    is naive.  The keyword here, however, is *influence* not *dictate*.
    
    Differences in biology are not excuses for aberrant behavior,
    descrimination, or limitted opportunity.  But they do exsist.  
    
    LZP
    

    
    LZP,
    
    Not to undermine the value of your experiences, but tests have been
    done where the same baby was given to people, who were told it was
    a girl, and the baby was described as having what we'd call traditional
     female traits, and then the _same_ baby was observed by people
    who were told it was a boy, and they described the baby as having
    the more stereotypical male traits which contradicted with what
    the first group had said. Sorry I don't have the exact reference,
    dates, etc.
    
    Could you give more specifics about your own experiences?
    
    Roberta

    re .9, but, how does anybody know if these babies really displayed
    characteristics of the opposite sex, or if since it was in the people's
    heads that the baby was a boy or girl, that they just imagined that
    the babies did?  And, just because a baby might react to being treated
    as a boy or girl for a short period of time, and react with the
    corresponding gender traits, how does that prove that it work out
    that way over a long period of time, like the next 14 yrs. of the
    child's life?
    
    I think that many traits that are considered male or female are
    caused by the way society treats boys and girls, but not all.  I
    agree with .8, that after watching babies and little kids for years,
    in some ways boys and girls act so differently that it's difficult
    to believe it could all be due to conditioning.
    
    But, I have no proof or facts to back me up, so don't ask!  I just
    felt like giving my opinion, since, after all, I do have a right
    to!
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .9 and .10
    
    My personal experiences are certainly not the basis to prove or
    disprove a hypothesis.  They're merely anecdotal evidence on which
    I base some of my own opinions.
    
    I read the study you mentioned as well as ones indicating how mothers
    of girls tend to handle and speak to their infants more than mothers
    of boys.  (Please don't ask for the specifics; I can't remember
    much more than the overall conclusion.)  I'm not arguing that
    environment doesn't play a part in forming and reinforcing sex role
    stereotypes.  However, I do believe that biology (specifically
    hormones) influence behavior.  
    
    Biology is *not* destiny, but it is an part of who we are and how we 
    behave.  
                    
    LZP
    

    I see it as heredity defining the boundaries and environment providing
    the movement within the boundaries.

    I have a boy and a girl. They are very different. Her fine motor
    skills are more advanced. His gross motor skills were better. He
    is bigger and stronger. She is more communicative and he more in-
    dependant and problem solving. I don't know how much is gender related.
    They use the same toys. (dolls, blocks etc) I truly believe that
    men should be a bit more like women and visa versa, I intentionally
    tried to raise them the same. By that I mean eliminate macho type
    stuff and math phobia, encourage sensitivity and logical problem
    solving. I've read a lot about twins reared apart. I've found the
    results astounding.
    
    I believe a person is born with x amount of seeds. How well those
    seeds grow is contingent upon social conditioning.
    
    In other words, nature and nurture are equals in the development
    of people.
    
    Kate

    
<    They cited studies which had shown that certain habitual criminals
<    had higher levels of a(?) hormone than did the control group.

      I believe the hormone you are refering to is testosterone. ;*)

      But more to the point, I don't think women want to be EQUAL to men
      in that we want to be just like them. We want equal opportunity.
      No one would deny that physically we are different. The fact that
      homosexuality remains at about 10% of the population shows that
      most of us don't mind the difference.

      However, we need a society that allows us options. Not all women
      want to play football, but if one is large enough and strong
      enough why shouldn't she have the chance? It hurts to be trapped
      in roles you were not meant to play just because most others of
      your sex may be happy in that role. liesl

    Terminology rears its ugly head again ....
    
    I've never contended that men and women are equal.  They are, however,
    equivalent.  Consequently, the goal of equal rights is not (or should
    not be) equal treatment, but equal consideration.
    
    I wonder if the "experimental ground" is partly due to the fact
    that men have two different types of chromosomes.
    
    Certainly hormone levels can encourage certain types of behavior,
    although the final choice belongs to the individual.  Given the
    range of levels across either gender, it's not something that can
    lead to any absolute conclusions.

    RE: .17
    
>    Certainly hormone levels can encourage certain types of behavior,
>    although the final choice belongs to the individual.  Given the
>    range of levels across either gender, it's not something that can
>    lead to any absolute conclusions.
     
    Excellent point!  Just because I feel at one particular moment that
    (for example) I'd like to spank my son for something he did or didn't
    do does not mean I have to give in to that 'urge'!  Absolute
    conclusions are generally harder to come by than the infamous 'in
    general'! :-)
    
    Otto.
                 

re .17

	Well, equivalent isn't quite it either. Maybe "equivalent
	rights and value". But that isn't quite right, either,
	maybe "should have equivalent rights and value". 
	Doubtless someone can improve on this too. It's
	like adding digits to PI.

						Tom_K

    Re: .20
    
    As mentioned elsewhere, I define equivalent as "neither being
    inherently greater or less than the other."
    
    Re: .19
    
    >Will this be a new defence akin to "the devil made me do it"?
    
    I recall some mention that it *is* being used as a defense.  However,
    I don't think a criminal can be disposed toward a life of crime,
    at least not in the broad sense.  I suspect that some people are
    more disposed toward violence and/or aggression than others.  In
    many cases, I think the arguments raised as a defense can be used
    as explanation but not justification.

    "Equal" in the sense of equal rights means "equal in the eyes of
    the law".  This is also expressed in terms like "one man, one vote"
    and "My money's as good as the next guy's" and "equal pay for
    equal work".
    
    						Ann B.

How 'bout "one person, one vote", and "My money's as good as anyone else's".

					:-)

						Tom_K

    "Equal pay for equal work" is the kicker - I have yet to see
    a formula for equating apples to oranges.
    

    Uh, Dana, the `old saw' *is* "equal pay for equal work" and it is
    only recently that minorities and women have been getting it.  It
    used to be that white males working, say, on an assembly line,
    would be paid more than the men of color working with them, and
    they, in turn, would make more than the women of color working
    with them (and I forget where white women went -- but they weren't
    the best paid, fer shur).
    
    You were thinking of "equal pay for equivalent work", which is a
    much newer can of worms.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .25,.26,.27:
    
    more commonly known as "comparable worth"
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /