Male perceptions of women at the neurological level, part II

58 posts / 0 new

Sun, 2009-06-14 13:14

500_Apples

I tried to come up with a thread title which is obviously linked to the first thread, which is less offensive than the first thread's title, and which is still informative as to what's going on.

The first thread is here: http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/men-really-do-see-scantily-cl...

I believe some of the comments and criticisms may be due to a lack of familiarity with scientific culture, and the way research is currently done.

Dana Larsen wrote:
And once again, without any corresponding look at how females brains react to the same stimuli, this study by itself cannot tell us anything about sexual differences.
The debate here is based upon the conclusion that women's brains wouldn't show the same results, but we don't know if that is the case. ...

It seems to me that by itself very little is learned by this study.
What would be more interesting is to do this kind of analysis across a wider spectrum of people, genders and ages.
How do the brains of homosexuals react? What about people who are asexual, or people who haven't yet hit puberty? And what about other cultures? For instance, in cultures where men and women are more often unclothed and see each other naked more frequently, do these same effects occur?

I am not sure, but I believe this criticism is that there is less value in looking at one thing at a time.

That is true, but looking at one thing at a time does not mean looking at only one thing. It could be that they are planning on doing so in a follow-up study, or other people have already done so. MRI machines are very expensive. I mentioned before I was in a study and got paid $35 for 2 hours. They also had to rent the machine that time, they had to pay graduate students to supervise data acquisition... and then you have to pay people or invest the time yourself to process the data and put it together into a document. With 21 volounteers, who also took time to fill out a questionnaire, it's likely the costs were on the area of ~$5000. By having 21 volounteers of a similar demographic she can constrain some statistics properly, whereas if they were all of different demographics no statistics could be constrained. Very often with these sorts of things you publish a paper on some small set of findings, then apply for money to do the same thing with a larger sample. You mention other cultures... there's a financial cost in transportation there. MRI machines are in a set number of places, and it's sometimes hard to find study participants.

The nature of funding, along with the possibility of surprises, encourage a system of breaking up large questions into small pieces and eventually writing a review article, rather than being comprehensive the first time around.

Mon, 2009-06-15 00:22

martin dufresne

Dana's imputations about what Fiske et al. were trying to establish seem to me inaccurate. Read the abstract again (below). There was variation between the study subjects, and, more to the point, there was significant variation among the pictures presented. It is the link between this variance and that of the subjects' cerebral responses that is of interest, especially since it correlates with sexism in the subjects. 500 Apples' defense is equally weak because it accepts Dana's straw men instead of looking at what the authors did and wrote.

From Subjects to Objects:
Sexist Attitudes and Neural Responses to Sexualized Targets

Mina Cikara
Princeton University

Jennifer L. Eberhardt
Stanford University

Susan T. Fiske
Princeton University

When do we treat other people as tools? Our overarching question for this program of research is how people can objectify another person, treating the person instrumentally, as in effect a tool. As a first step in this line of research, we examine the impact of sexual instrumentality and sexist attitudes on memory for and neural responses to passively viewed images of men and women, sexualized and fully clothed. We use questionnaire, memory, and fMRI methods.
Our first hypothesis was that the pictured people's gender and level of dress, as a manipulation of instrumentality, should influence memory. Specifically, if sexualized women serve some potentially instrumental function, they should be better recognized than the other three kinds of images. And, indeed, heterosexual men, in a surprise memory test, were significantly better at recognizing bikini-clad female bodies (with the heads removed), than they were at recognizing any of the other three types of images or any kind of faces.
Second, some objects are mentally represented not only as what they are useful for, but how they are physically used. We predicted that viewing sexualized female images would activate brain regions that have previously been identified as responding more to action-associated objects, like tools, as compared to other sorts of non-human entities. We were particularly interested to see if any regions that responded more to sexualized women as compared to the other three types of images would correlate with participants' ability to remember sexualized female images. As predicted, neuroimaging data demonstrated that memory for sexualized women's bodies correlated with activation areas previously associated with tool-use or manipulable objects (premotor cortex, posterior middle temporal gyrus). That is, greater activity in these premotor areas predicted better recognition. We did not observe this memory-motor relationship for other types of images.
Finally, we predicted that if in fact sexualized women were seen more like instruments, then looking at them should affect activity in areas associated with social cognition. In particular, we focused on areas implicated in people considering other people's thoughts and feelings, a phenomenon termed mentalizing. Because participants with high hostile sexism scores have previously been shown to see women as less human, we predicted that hostile sexists might especially neglect the minds of sexualized women. As predicted, hostile sexism predicted less activation of otherwise reliable social cognition networks (mPFC, posterior cingulate, and bilateral temporal poles) in response to looking at bikini-clad women. This implicates more hostile attitudes in predicting deactivation of the mentalizing network, consistent with viewing sexualized women as less human.
Although all these findings require follow-up, they fit other work showing that people can treat others as less than fully human, depending on their goals for engaging (or not engaging) them.

Mon, 2009-06-15 04:40

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

this shit aint men being men it a systematic societal thing. I seen studies b4 (dont even remember shit) n women see almost naked women the same way cuz it put into the bacc of ur head. It how both blacc n white ppl subconciously view blacc ppl as more threatening then white ppl. If u were to say there white ppl are naturally racist it would be incorrect but to say that it aint raicst or stereotypical cuz we see it too would also be incorrect cuz it bigger then individual shit.

it proly shows up more with heterosexual men because when ur seeing a sexualized image ur primal instincts to mate are takin over are they not? and at that moment ur gonna see that shit is dif when ur turned on the problem is when it happens everywhere or am I wrong here? My point is like this think about when u fuccin n u say somethin to her n normally shed cut ur dicc off for sayin it but at that moment it turns her on more cuz both yall in ur primal gotta fucc mode am I right? The male bein dominant shit I mean. Like walk up to a women u dont know n ask her some shit like whos pussy is that n see what happens. Yall bangin tho it another story. Or the whoz ur daddy shit lol. Yall know what I mean?

And I guess the study proves that because with more clothes on it didnt happen. And should they test the other way too with women and men in speedoz? cuz then is it a primal thing or is it a product of this society.

Personally I think it a bit of both.

Mon, 2009-06-15 07:33

Michelle

I'm not sure the study was putting the blame on individual men, or even saying that they are "hardwired" to react like that, are they? I don't think they were saying that socialization isn't the reason that their brains are reacting like that.

Mon, 2009-06-15 08:29

martin dufresne

The point is the Fiske et al. study did NOT go into possible explanations. It simply established the subjects' differential response to pictures of differently clothed women in terms of memory and capacity for mentalization.

Here is an interesting article from Natalie Angiers and Kenneth Chang from a few years back about brain matters - when Harvard president Lawrence H. Summers pubklicly speculated about innate differences to justify women's marginalization in tenured positions - and how women are viewed.

Mon, 2009-06-15 09:46

500_Apples

Martin, the level of variation suggested by Dana and the level that was actually there are distinct.

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:04

remind

Really it seems to me some men are trying to deny the objectification of women, by men.

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:44

martin dufresne

500, I am well aware of that distinction; I just don't accept it as a valid critique. It's generally considered bad form to criticize an author on the basis of what s/he should have written - although Dale Spender has pointed out (in Women of Ideas and What Men Have Done to Them) that it is one of the standard ploys used to dismiss women's writing.

Joanna Russ on similar tactics:
She didn't write it. She wrote it but she shouldn't have. She wrote it, but look what she wrote about. She wrote it but she wrote only one of it. She wrote it, but she isn't really an artist, but it isn't really art. She wrote it, but she had help. She wrote it, but she's an anomaly. She wrote it, BUT ...

(How To Suppress Women's Writing. Joanna Russ. 1983. )

Mon, 2009-06-15 11:11

Catchfire

What does Joanna Russ have to do with anything? Are you interested in anything other than drawing the conclusion (which, according to the abstract, the study did not draw) that men objectify women? What would be the point of that? Instead, when people bring up questions about (i.e. not in contradiction of) the study, you call them 'full of straw' (I don't even know what you mean by this) as if they are defending the rights of men to objectify women. It's not even clear if you are reading anyone's actual posts--you see words you don't understand and interpret them as an excuse to quote Russ a propos of nothing.

Mon, 2009-06-15 12:56

#10

martin dufresne

Keep propping it up and that straw man will eventually stand on its own...

Mon, 2009-06-15 13:39

#11

Noise

Martin, I have no clue where you are seeing strawmen... Dana begins his entire post with "It seems to me that by itself very little is learned by this study." and then goes on to say what other information would be needed (or nice to see) so that conclusions can be drawn. How that qualified as a critique of the study to get you all defensive is a lil beyond me.
Is asking for a study to differentiate the reaction between a picture and a real person also setting up straw-experiments too?

Mon, 2009-06-15 15:18

#12

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

k im out this topic still cant understand the posts no more lol aint even joking

Mon, 2009-06-15 15:22

#13

martin dufresne

There are two different problems here: people faulting the research for not having examined something other than what it did (e.g. gay or female viewers, real people instead of photographs, friends instead of unknowns, asexual folks, cultures where people go nude, etc.), as if the validity of its findings was somehow impugned by their implicit critique of various unstated generalizations that the study doesn't make. There are also people claiming that the study said A or B (it didn't) and criticizing it for doing so. This was also noted by Michelle in post #3. There are also Catchfire's attacks about what he says I am trying to say the study says - but charity forces me to leave this otherwise unaddressed, since his hostility seems correlated to not understanding what I am in fact saying...

Mon, 2009-06-15 15:28

#14

Catchfire

you're not alone, R_P. I have no idea what martin is talking about. If he wasn't talking about imaginary straw men, he would be saying nothing at all (some might contend he is doing that anyway).

Mon, 2009-06-15 15:41

#15

Noise

Quote:
people faulting the research for not having examined something else ... as if the validity of its findings was somehow impugned by their implicit critique of various unstated generalizations that the study doesn't make.

Fine line between saying what additional information you'd like to see and faulting this study for not providing it I guess. As Dana put it:

Quote:
Without being able to compare these results to those of other groups we simply cannot draw any conclusions about gender or social differences between unstudied groups.

I don't see this as faulting the study (or challenging it's validity), but pointing out that additional data is needed (by expanding the sample demographic) to draw further conclusions.

I guess I understand where you're coming from now atleast...though I think you're mistaking people coming from the viewpoint of 'What other info do we need to extend on these conclusions' as challenging the validity of this study.

If anything, you're proving Dana's quote even more valid

Quote:
Everyone comes to a study like this with their own preconceived ideas about what the results will be and what they mean.

Mon, 2009-06-15 16:15

#16

martin dufresne

Smokescreen artists...

Mon, 2009-06-15 16:33

#17

Catchfire

Exactly, Noise. No one is challenging the results of the study, nor the simplistic conclusion drawn by the original OP article. Yet that doesn't stop martin from ignoring what you (and many others) have said and simply posting antagonistic, baiting bullshit.

Mon, 2009-06-15 16:53

#18

Nicole D

Catchfire wrote:

you're not alone, R_P. I have no idea what martin is talking about. If he wasn't talking about imaginary straw men, he would be saying nothing at all (some might contend he is doing that anyway).

I think martin makes some very good points - and it is not kind or productive to attack people personally for expressing their opinions. It's off-putting if anything. I think it's an interesting article.

Mon, 2009-06-15 17:30

#19

Catchfire

Actually, Nicole, I agree that it is a very interesting study--in fact, that's why the first thread (which 500 Apples links to in the first post) generated so much response. But martin isn't actually interested in that, in fact, he's interested in dis-interesting the study and polarizing it into an a) the study is true and men objectify women and b) the study is false, men don't objectify women (aka what he presumes Dana, Noise and myself believe). When, in actuality, no one has denied objectification at all, and merely have tried to tease out further meaning from the study, which, indeed, is what science is actually supposed to do. martin, unfortunately, throughout the last thread, has attempted with very tenuous grammatical sense, to dismiss such discussion with baiting, charlatanism and outright accusations of anti-feminism.

Tue, 2009-06-16 10:09

#20

remind

All I see is a denial by some men that objectification of women is proven to be occuring on a neurological level, and no attempt to "tease out" anything.

The only teasing out is a basic point expressed by some as; "ya but how do we know all people don't do it, the study is invalid until it proves that other "people", aka non-hetero males, either do it too, or don't do it.

Even going to the absurb point of trying to suggest pictures are not valid representations of people in order to scapegoat themselves.

Tue, 2009-06-16 10:19

#21

Caissa

This article seems to provide a good discussion of the concept of validity.

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/introval.php

Tue, 2009-06-16 12:24

#22

Noise

Remind, more proof that we really only see what we want to see, no? You're very wrong if you think any of my statements can be reduced to 'this study is invalid'.

Slumberjack, was curious what you thought on this (if you're still reading the thread that is)...lets assume there is a biological component behind homosexuality for this discussion...what would it mean if we did this same test for a group of homosexual males and observed the same trend as this study?

I know it'd be up for interpretation, please find as many holes in this as possible...if the difference between homo and hetero is biological but this trend spans both sides, would that suggest that this neurological conditioning occurs primarily on a social level instead of a biological level? It'd be really interesting to then compare that to the results from the female population...if there was a measurable difference between the response of homosexual females and their hetero counter parts, we'd be back to potentially a biological cause instead.

Tue, 2009-06-16 12:37

#23

remind

It has to occur on a social level and not a biological one, or ALL males, would show the neurological firing, not just a majority.

Tue, 2009-06-16 12:56

#24

Noise

All males are biologically identical, or just the majority are?

A high rate of females showing the same pattern would really show how socially engrained it is...no?

Tue, 2009-06-16 13:21

#25

remind

Women in the majority do not exhibit the behaviour and actions that indicate objectification of people. Get back to me when and if we do, until then I am all for using studies such as this, that indicate physiological occurances happen based upon sociological conditioning, and which when they go unchallenged and/or not understood, cause great harm to a specific segment of the population, based upon gender.

Brian functions occur on a predictable level, that is how the brain was able to be mapped, now they are mapping the more smaller areas of what was more loosely mapped before. This study I consider to be just a part of that mapping, it is interesting to me, only beause of its implications for women and how we are impacted by operant conditioning of males to the point that their neurological functioning is different.

Tue, 2009-06-16 13:36

#26

Noise

Quote:
Women in the majority do not exhibit the behaviour and actions that indicate objectification of people.

;) Had the sample set inlcuded women, we could have said this confidently. Although I agree with you that women don't exhibit the same objectification as men will, this is not to say that women, having experienced the same conditioning that men have, could display the same nuerological conditioning (whether they act upon it or not). Once again, not to attack the validity of this study, but to further understand this conditioning and how it manifests.

Quote:
it is interesting to me, only beause of its implications for women and how we are impacted by operant conditioning of males to the point that their neurological functioning is different.

So is this where you get your implied right to attack anyone who could be interested in the study to draw other conclusions?

Tue, 2009-06-16 13:53

#27

remind

Where did I attack anyone? That is a skewing on your part, so please do slap up any quotes of mine that you feel were attacking so we can see if they really are.

No actually, we can say this confidently because there have been many many studies on objectification of women by men, this study was not the "first rodeo" by any means, just a different one.

Then we have the absolute heiious number of men who murder they wives and children because they are just possessions to them, which apparently cannot exist without them.

Then we have the high rates of violence against women by men, the high rates of stalking of women by men, and then we have the absolute truth of patriarchy and its parmeters itself. Pretty damn hard to deny the objectification by men of women, and indeed children, too many examples otherwise.

I will refer you back to the description of the process/means/description of objectification that I posted, as well.

Tue, 2009-06-16 17:29

#28

Noise

I consider reduction of a post to 'Really it seems to me some men are trying to deny the objectification of women, by men' an attack...at very least it's misrepresenting. Your referral back to "Pretty damn hard to deny the objectification by men of women" and attempting to frame the discussion as denying objectification is also misleading. Catchfire pointed it out... you are

Quote:
polarizing it into an a) the study is true and men objectify women and b) the study is false, men don't objectify women

Quote:
No actually, we can say this confidently because there have been many many [b]studies on objectification of women by men[/b], this study was not the "first rodeo" by any means, just a different one.

My question posed there was towards what effects the social conditioning has on women (not men) and what we can learn from that...along with what the differences between gay men and women would be as it would give some insight into the biological vs social component. I think there's alot of merit in expanding on this study, if only there was a way to express this without having my comment reduced into one of your 2 categories. Oh, thanks for the referral back to the objectification process as that has alot to do with what the results a larger test demographic for this study might imply.

Tue, 2009-06-16 18:13

#29

remind

Well, IMV, it is a denial, some men might say not, or it is a matter of degree denial, or even variations of; "maybe other segments do to" how do we know we alone do it" unless the study is expanded denial. It is hardly an attack to indicate women have long struggled against the denial of men that there is objectification occuring, and resulting abuse from it too. We do not need to have more tests and larger to studies to realize and experience objectification, it is happening all the time. But sure just blow past all the statistics that indicate men are mass murdering women and indeed children, and that they are raping and abusing in larger numbers, than perhaps ever before.

So if you choose to take my comments personally, and see them as an attack, then that is your problem, not mine. I never once directed a comment at anyone specific.

Also, I give a rat's ass if some men think there is polarization in the framing, as I believe men are trying to. I know what women experience and I know the denial that men put forth to excuse their actions and patriarchial control mechanisms. And a study that indicates neurological processes occuring is not what they want to recognize and denial, as well as justisifcations, excusing are happening. Some men require wriggle room to appease themselves, and I say fuck that.

Tue, 2009-06-16 18:39

#30

Noise

Quote:
"maybe other segments do to" how do we know we alone do it"

You're grouping "maybe other segments do to, what can we learn from them" into the same category as "well other people might too which somehow validates male objectification of women" and accusing people in the former of belonging to the latter...seems like an attack, no?

Quote:
But sure just blow past all the statistics that indicate men are mass murdering women and indeed children, and that they are raping and abusing in larger numbers, than perhaps ever before.

?!?! I don't understand this remind...you are using the statistics that men abuse women to denounce people for wanting to expand on studies that look at causes as to why men abuse women. I just can't connect the dots there and it's confusing as hell

Quote:
We do not need to have more tests and larger to studies to realize and experience objectification, it is happening all the time.

We do need larger studies to further our understanding as to why (not if it occours, we're past that discussion as you repeatedly point out)...

Quote:
And a study that indicates neurological processes occuring is not what they want to recognize and denial, as well as justisifcations, excusing are happening. Some men require wriggle room to appease themselves, and I say fuck that.

and you would say that wanting to have other sample sets to compare this data to is denial/wiggleroom? I say fuck that, you are stifling any discussion that would explore the 'why' and causes behind it under some self righteous "men abuse women, end of story no point looking at it any further" banner

Tue, 2009-06-16 19:26

#31

remind

I am not stifling anything, the study did not study those things, it studied what it studied, as far as I am concerned speculation about what it could have studied, should have studied, what more could be studied, whether or not pictures are representations, and other assorted commentaries, other than what the study found, and how it proves conclusively that neurologically male objectification of women is real, as such it is at best an avoidance of what the implications are.

Taking it out of contextual findings, and dismissing the findings, is just another objectification of women, by men. The plight that women suffer under is being ignored completely. Seems to be now about "men not being alone in this activity", even though stats show otherwise. Not saying that some women do not, of course they do. But they are not the problem in society to the extent that men who objectify are.

Tue, 2009-06-16 21:26

#32

al-Qa'bong

Well, I don't deny that men can objectify certain images of women under certain circumstances.

So what?

Tue, 2009-06-16 22:05

#33

Slumberjack

Noise wrote:
Slumberjack, was curious what you thought on this (if you're still reading the thread that is)...lets assume there is a biological component behind homosexuality for this discussion...what would it mean if we did this same test for a group of homosexual males and observed the same trend as this study? I know it'd be up for interpretation, please find as many holes in this as possible...if the difference between homo and hetero is biological but this trend spans both sides, would that suggest that this neurological conditioning occurs primarily on a social level instead of a biological level? It'd be really interesting to then compare that to the results from the female population...if there was a measurable difference between the response of homosexual females and their hetero counter parts, we'd be back to potentially a biological cause instead.

If you are talking about readings within the brain, where in this instance, and in other potential studies that you allude to, there exists some physical attraction toward the image by the individual viewing it, where reactions to specific gender preferences are being measured, then it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if readings were detected that might appear similar to the study being discussed here. All of that would be beside the point though. The objectification that occurs when people look at stimulating images can have a detrimental effect beyond the imagery itself, and the effects can be compounded by the frequency in which the same sorts of images are continually being transmitted to the brain, where there is a constant barrage of opportunities within the prevailing culture for the same correlations to be repeated continually to the point where the likeness becomes an object regardless if it is seen in two or three dimensional form. Now the stimulus could be scantily clad women, or scantily clad men for that matter, but again besides the point. What is important to bear in mind when discussing objectification and the potential detrimental effects it can have, is when the traditional dominating segment of society cannot tell the difference between an object repeatedly represented to them through visual media in a predictably consistent manner, and an individual who may be standing in front of them. If there is a physical power imbalance, the potential circumstances of the interaction that can occur as a result, and it really is left to the discretion and comprehension of the larger of the two, in many cases can have tragic results.

Whether or not involuntary attractions arise from cultural or biological influences, I believe that debate is extraneous to the issue as well. But hey, I'm no expert at this, it's just off the top so take it from there.

Tue, 2009-06-16 23:48

#34

martin dufresne

Some men require wriggle room to appease themselves...

Wahahahaha!!! so true... or to wriggle off the hook whan a study seems to slight "involuntary attractions" connoisseurs. "How dare you say part of mah brain turns off, Madam!"

Wed, 2009-06-17 00:43

#35

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

That was good SJ, real good. Thanks for making me think.

Wed, 2009-06-17 12:53

#36

Noise

Well written Slumberjack. I want to highlight this part:

Quote:
What is important to bear in mind when discussing objectification and the potential detrimental effects it can have, is when the traditional dominating segment of society cannot tell the difference between an object repeatedly represented to them through visual media in a predictably consistent manner, and an individual who may be standing in front of them.

The part that I disagree with:

Quote:
Whether or not involuntary attractions arise from cultural or biological influences, I believe that debate is extraneous to the issue as well.

If it is infact biological, then we're dealing with something that people have apparently been dealing with for a long time. If it's purely cultural/social, then our continued movement to a porn-saturated culture where these images can be repeatedly viewed nearly on demand...would it not suggest this trend is going to get worse if not addressed?

In that light, is that conversation still extraneous to the topic? I take it more as an identification of a root cause, which should be a part of the discussion.

Another piece that I'm curious about is what Remind added a bit ago... if/how this reaction to sexualized women also translates into an ability to objectify a child to the same degree.

Remind:

Quote:
I am concerned speculation about what it could have studied, should have studied, [b]what more could be studied[/b], whether or not pictures are representations, and other assorted commentaries, other than what the study found, and how it proves conclusively that neurologically male objectification of women is real, as such it is at best an avoidance of what the implications are.

How do you think this study ever came about if someone didn't speculate "what more" from another study and predict that we'd see a correlation in nuerlogical response to sexualized images and tools? I don't understand how you think research / studies occour if you think these discussions can be reduced to denial/avoidance...they don't spontaneosly come into being, nor are they created by people consumed by denial. Quick, there's a thread discussing what the impacts of an El-Nino might be over on wunderground, go accuse everyone in that thread for avoiding the implications of Global Warming!

I also think it's valid to question if pictures are valid representations...not to deny anything which is quite hard since speculation and denial are apparently synonyms to some people, but to promote a new study that would put an end to this speculation and give us new avenues to discuss. Or will we wait until a new study spontaneously comes to being so we can line up to chirp about how men objectify women, why can't people understand that?

Wed, 2009-06-17 14:33

#37

remind

Of course pictures are valid representations, and I cannot believe the debate even went there. Would men jerk off to centre folds if they were not? Would pedeophiles want pictures of children if they were not? Would we carry around pictures of our children and partners and look at them lovingly if they were not?

There is no speculation on objectification of women and children, unless one is in denial about it.

New avenues to discuss with new studies? You won't even discuss the implications that this study has found.

Wed, 2009-06-17 15:36

#38

Slumberjack

Noise wrote:
If it is infact biological, then we're dealing with something that people have apparently been dealing with for a long time. If it's purely cultural/social, then our continued movement to a porn-saturated culture where these images can be repeatedly viewed nearly on demand...would it not suggest this trend is going to get worse if not addressed? In that light, is that conversation still extraneous to the topic? I take it more as an identification of a root cause, which should be a part of the discussion.

I believe the chicken or the egg approach, although simplistic, is useful here, as in which came first, biological or cultural. Which segment was and is more predisposed, through self desire and through the structures created to achieve outcomes associated with those desires, to define and impose cultural norms, and how would the cultural implications have come into being without the biological functions of the brain serving as the catalyst for creating the culture, and the physical presence to enforce it as the standard. The origins I would say are biological, while the cultural aspects in all of its forms have been put in place throughout history to not only reinforce gender repression, but to increasingly compound its effects.

As for discussion about the lack of companion studies to examine alongside the one here, involving non-male or non-hetero test subjects, to my knowledge, there wouldn't exist a sufficient body of follow on evidence, certainly nothing comparable to what exists within the hetero male demographic, of the horrific effects that cultural objectification combined with biological proclivity can bring upon innocent victims.

Wed, 2009-06-17 16:03

#39

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

about the women thing think it was posted on here it was about how much different male and female sexuality is. For example like a hetero man would get turned on by the obv things and it str8 forward. While womenz is more widely encompassing or w.e like it said something how a hetero womenz brain responded to a lesbian scene by the part of the brain with imagination lighting up or some shit n a man in there. and that the objectification is social because women ended up showing the same shit towards other women ill find the study after cuz I know yall dont believe me but it aint biological.

And yea if it was biological all men or all hetero men I guess would show the same reaction just like all men have a longer ring then index finger the difference depends but yea.

Wed, 2009-06-17 16:06

#40

Noise

Remind, have you seriously been involved in anything the least bit academic over the past few years? All assumptions are to be challenged and proven experimentally. In no way is this dismissing or denying the link provided in this study, it re-enforces the need for more to be done along these lines to continue to provide more insights.

I probably should have avoided this thread and deferred to Apples first post... "I believe some of the comments and criticisms may be due to a lack of familiarity with scientific culture, and the way research is currently done."

Wed, 2009-06-17 16:15

#41

martin dufresne

Slumberjack: I believe the chicken or the egg approach, although simplistic, is useful here, as in which came first,...

The answer is: the rooster, as most males.

Wed, 2009-06-17 16:17

#42

Slumberjack

I thought women came first, or so the story goes, but I take your point.

Wed, 2009-06-17 16:25

#43

Noise

Slumberjack:

Quote:
I believe the chicken or the egg approach, although simplistic, is useful here, as in which came first, biological or cultural.

I do agree with this, but there was a time in our history prior to the dominance of agricultural that religious dieties were 50/50 male or female. We can go down that line further if you want, but utlimately there were several times in our history under a 'earth mother' goddess view that we could have maintained a Matriarchy set-up instead of the overwhelming patriarchy we see today. If it is true that we can arrange ourselves in that manner, would that mean cultural conditioning has more of an impact than biological?

I guess the other side of this would be that it's been a biological drive through-out history, it's just much more capable of manifesting in today's society.

Quote:
there wouldn't exist a sufficient body of follow on evidence, certainly nothing comparable to what exists within the hetero male demographic, of the horrific effects that cultural objectification combined with biological proclivity can bring upon innocent victims

Oh of course not, I wouldn't suggest otherwise. Any desire to get additional information along these lines would be to compare to hetero-male behaviour to see what else can be learned.

Wed, 2009-06-17 16:51

#44

Slumberjack

My interest in this discussion, and the basic grasp of the concepts that I've highlighted, is the result of self preservation as a male, of course. If this trend continues, and if they're anything like we've been as they form dominant society, then I'm afraid the piper will have to be paid eventually. My advice, get on board now with the emerging realities. There's still time.

Taller Women by Year 2000 (1949)

The December 24, 1949 Daily Capital News (Jefferson City, MO) ran an Associated Press article titled, "Authorities Predict Gals Will 'Rise' to New Heights by 2000." An excerpt along with the piece in its entirety appear below.

Wed, 2009-06-17 17:07

#45

martin dufresne

...matriarchy still exist in many places...

Name one, with credible evidence.

Wed, 2009-06-17 17:10

#46

martin dufresne

Slumberjack: My interest in this discussion, and the basic grasp of the concepts that I've highlighted, is the result of self preservation as a male, of course.

As a male, can I say you are not preserving but discrediting us with such paranoid logic?...

Wed, 2009-06-17 17:13

#47

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

say word im not seein this tho well with white girls maybe but other girls stayin below 56 5'3 or 4 to 5'5 or 6 seems to be the regular. But I guess at the same time men are taller too so relatively it stayin about the same.

Idk there just seem to be more really tall n skinny white girls then others. the others stayin about the same only seen like a couple inches on avg difference between africans and asians for example and even then enuff asian girls that are a bit taller. Girls are getting taller but I thikn I seen 1 girl ever who was close to 6feet otherwise na tallest I seen would be like 5 9 or 10 n that doesnt seem that all anymore cuz I grew lol.

Guess for the most part im seeing the 1950z shit. Dam tho I looked at the bottom size 3? really? fucc bro. 1950z but with feet maybe 1 size bigger seems to be what im seein. I only know 1 girl who got size 11 n she aint tall she just got long toes lol.

Any1 know why there could be a reason im seeing this difference? I know ppl in the tropics are shorter that could be a big n maybe the only part. I think the chart overstated comparing to lets say 20-30 years ago my momz is 5ft 4 n like size 8 n that where most girls are today. lol jus to be safe I asked my sister n she like yea with most white girls they feet gotten bigger to like 10 or 11 but they still like 8 or 9(she said around her height). but for shoe size like she 9 most other girls 8 or 7 so part of it right or maybe just getting there.

Real talk tho when I seen the 2000 I was just like dam NAA man. Cuz me personally like 5 4 might b too short for me a bit unless she wearin heels idk lol 6 or 7 mayb 8 is strechin personal.

but all dem heights n shit is a guesstimate im proly right but like I love women lol but I dont go around measurin they height n shit man but ill still bet money that im on the money lol.

but noise thats my point matriarchy still exist in many places n u have to test with that too.

Wed, 2009-06-17 17:14

#48

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

...matriarchy still exist in many places...

Name one, with credible evidence.

most african tribes period.I aint gonna start namin tribes and clans tho thas somethin that u dont do.

Wed, 2009-06-17 17:20

#49

martin dufresne

Fair enough.

Still, you may want to check out the difference between "matrilinear" and "matriarchal".

Wed, 2009-06-17 17:31

#50

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

Fair enough.

Still, you may want to check out the difference between "matrilinear" and "matriarchal".

if you know let me ask is it like matrilinear is bare places like u trace it by ur mothers roots. but matriarichal would mean women are in power, or it even, or w.e? I think the 2nd becoming increasingly rare and diluted since arab and european conquests. And this my personal theory dont know if u agree or not but what I noticed is generally the more warlike a place is the more patriarichal and also towards capitalism and matieralistic it becomes.

Example Europe historically been the most wartorn look at the culture generally now except for lets say the southern regions which got a obvious moorish and african influence (one and the same but moorish also got islamic influences on it).

Then take other places and compare it less most places didnt reach feudalism or it stopped there no knowing if it would have gone further but they stayed in a feudal like state for a long ass time.

Wed, 2009-06-17 17:35

#51

Slumberjack

martin dufresne wrote:
As a male, can I say you are not preserving but discrediting us with such paranoid logic?...

It was an attempt at humour, as in not to be taken seriously, but in jest. I say attempt because it flew past you. Question though...who is this "us" you refer to?

Male perceptions of women at the neurological level, part II

Pages