Science Says ‘Lean In’ Is Filled With Flawed Advice, Likely to Hurt Women

[dystopian]

I am talking about parts of the brain that control numerous basic and non-sexual aspects of human cognition and behavior. It doesn't mean that they are prone to act like cartoonish stereotypes of women (because even most women do not act this way).

Then don't fucking respond to someone stating that said cartoonish behavior is just a stereotype by saying that they're completely wrong.

There is a growing large body of scientific evidence that is the basis for my claims and which shows your claims to be blind faith ideology and anti-science.

Right. I'm a blind faith-based ideologue who'se anti-science because I objected, not to your claim that there are biological differences between gay and straight brains (there are); but to the very strong impression you presented that this difference explains why gay men act in a certain stereotypical flamboyant way.

 

[Juma]

There is a growing large body of scientific evidence that is the basis for my claims and which shows your claims to be blind faith ideology and anti-science.

Maybe you would care to actually back up that with: 1) a clear descriotion of what your claims actually are
2) references of reasearch that backs thus up
3) references that backs up your statement about it being a "growing large body of scientific evidence"

 

[arkirk]

There is a growing large body of scientific evidence that is the basis for my claims and which shows your claims to be blind faith ideology and anti-science.

Maybe you would care to actually back up that with: 1) a clear descriotion of what your claims actually are
2) references of reasearch that backs thus up
3) references that backs up your statement about it being a "growing large body of scientific evidence"

"Science" has shown that when straight men discuss gay men and when gay men discuss straight men and when they both discuss women and Bonobos, the arguments become more and more abstruse, overheated, bombastic and wrong, the longer the issue is argued. Because the information to be settled on is of so little impact on the lives of those arguing about it, the arguments tend to actually be contests of will between the arguers far more than some sort of quest for the truth. All contests for intellectual dominance are bound to failure...for sure failure to establish friendly relations and a workable relationship on matters that do matter...which is surely not some staright guy's idea of what goes on in the "gay" brain.

 

[barbos]

Sorry, but this is completely false.

Let me guess, you haven't been around many gay men, have you?

If you had, you would know that what's completely false is the notion that gay men are in any way more inclined to feminine behavior. Only a small percentage of gay men act like that.

You do realize that you contradict yourself?

 

[barbos]

because male and female brains differ in many ways,.

But they are exactly the same in much more aspects.
And how big are these differences really? There is a huge spectrum on both sides and to say that the these distributions doesnt overlap is definitely misleading.

Go and tell that to a person who work to earn money for sex change operation.

 

[Juma]

Let me guess, you haven't been around many gay men, have you?

If you had, you would know that what's completely false is the notion that gay men are in any way more inclined to feminine behavior. Only a small percentage of gay men act like that.

You do realize that you contradict yourself?

Do you that he doesnt?

 

[Juma]

But they are exactly the same in much more aspects.
And how big are these differences really? There is a huge spectrum on both sides and to say that the these distributions doesnt overlap is definitely misleading.

Go and tell that to a person who work to earn money for sex change operation.

? Your argument being what exactly?

 

[barbos]

Go and tell that to a person who work to earn money for sex change operation.

? Your argument being what exactly?

My argument was that you had no argument. You are being intentionally dense.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that you contradict yourself?

Do you that he doesnt?

He does.

 

[Juma]

? Your argument being what exactly?

My argument was that you had no argument. You are being intentionally dense.

Why bother writing such posts?

 

[Togo]

There is a growing large body of scientific evidence that is the basis for my claims and which shows your claims to be blind faith ideology and anti-science.

Maybe you would care to actually back up that with: 1) a clear descriotion of what your claims actually are
2) references of reasearch that backs thus up
3) references that backs up your statement about it being a "growing large body of scientific evidence"

I would also like to see this evidence, since I don't recognise any studies that would support these claims.

I looked at your previous citation, which turned out to be a wiki description of the hypothalamus, and can not understand how you thought that would support you. Can you explain?

- - - Updated - - -

There is a growing large body of scientific evidence that is the basis for my claims and which shows your claims to be blind faith ideology and anti-science.

Maybe you would care to actually back up that with: 1) a clear descriotion of what your claims actually are
2) references of reasearch that backs thus up
3) references that backs up your statement about it being a "growing large body of scientific evidence"

I would also like to see this evidence, since I don't recognise any studies that would support these claims.

I looked at your previous citation, which turned out to be a wiki description of the hypothalamus, and can not understand how you thought that would support you. Can you explain?

 

[Togo]

It's not "reduced to" science - however, science can inform us about behaviour.

So why is none being cited?

The main issue with the observer article quotations that you've posted is that they are behavioural folk-lore. People have an idea, based on hazy ideas of hunter-gatherer societies or genetic social roles, and look for a sex difference. They find something, publish the findings in a scientific study with some disappointment as to the conclusions that 'the science' will actually support, and then rush to opinion pieces or lecture circuit to push their political views as 'based on science'.

In practice, sex differences in behaviour tend to be tiny. While sex differences in business settings tend to be very large. Trying to explain one with the other involves a lot of hand waving.

It doesn't help that the observer article is written by someone who clearly has a very dim of the behaviour of woman, and is claiming that they are less successful in business because they behave badly, rather than because the workplace is designed around an all-male environment.

If you really want, feel free to come up with the actual studies being relied on here, and I can show you in detail how they don't support the claims being made.

 

[repoman]

I think that the middle and high school age behaviour of boys and girls is probably the most hard wired dimorphic from each other.

They are trying to first gain status and second gain a mate or mates. Because with out societal intervention we should all have been reproducing by the end of high school in the stone age. During mid and late adulthood that ship has sailed for the most part so se have to look back and try and remember that time.

It seems to me that for boys questions of hierarchy seem to be more obvious and they just don't have the social turmoil that girls have trying to scramble for status and the best boys.

 

[barbos]

It's not "reduced to" science - however, science can inform us about behaviour.

So why is none being cited?

Have been cited million times already.
each time it's quietly ignored and thread dies... until another is started few months later.

 

[ronburgundy]

Then don't fucking respond to someone stating that said cartoonish behavior is just a stereotype by saying that they're completely wrong.

I didn't. They didn't merely say that the cartoonish femininity was as stereotype. They said there are zero differences between hetero and homosexual men other than preference of sex partner. A completely wrong claim. In my initial reply, I explicitly acknowledged that the flamboyant hair stylist was an exaggerated act, thus acknowledging their was socialized exaggeration. Yet, you rejected my whole argument which about brain differences where gay men were more similar to females, and repeated a version of the completely false claim when you said.....

If you had, you would know that what's completely false is the notion that gay men are in any way more inclined to feminine behavior.

This is what you said in response to my pointing to research showing that gay men have brain features that are more similar to females than males, and that control many aspects of behavior.

I'm a blind faith-based ideologue who'se anti-science because I objected, not to your claim that there are biological differences between gay and straight brains (there are);

This is backpeddling revisionism of your post. You absolutely did reject the science showing brain and behavioral differences, as clearly evidenced in your quote above. In my post that you completely dismissed because " haven't been around many gay men", I pointed out that those differences which are strongly tied to various behaviors are the same differences between hetero men and women. BTW, one of those differences (in the hypothalamus) also controls how men and women respond differently to estrogen exposure, with woman (and gay men) responding by producing a pituitary luteinizing hormome. The scientific fact is that gay men do have various qualities that are more in line with females, and you were clearly rejecting this idea in your reply above.

but to the very strong impression you presented that this difference explains why gay men act in a certain stereotypical flamboyant way.

I very explicitly stated that the brain differences would not produce the extreme flamboyant behaviors since these are not actually common in woman either, so I gave no such impression. And again, you are misrepresenting your own arguments to try and weasel out of them now. Your quote above goes well beyond the issue of extreme flamboyant behavior and completely rejects any differences between gay and straight men that are similar to the differences between straight men and women.

 

[Togo]

So why is none being cited?

Have been cited million times already.
each time it's quietly ignored and thread dies... until another is started few months later.

I read and comment on every article that's cited to me. If you have a link, put it up.

 

[barbos]

Have been cited million times already.
each time it's quietly ignored and thread dies... until another is started few months later.

I read and comment on every article that's cited to me. If you have a link, put it up.

- - - Updated - - -

So why is none being cited?

Have been cited million times already.
each time it's quietly ignored and thread dies... until another is started few months later.

I read and comment on every article that's cited to me. If you have a link, put it up.

www.google.com
www.wikipedia.org

 

[Jokodo]

So why is none being cited?

Have been cited million times already.
each time it's quietly ignored and thread dies... until another is started few months later.

My experience is quite the opposite: Each time someone patiently points out why the cited articles don't show what you all want them to show, and then you're never back to discuss them.

- - - Updated - - -

I read and comment on every article that's cited to me. If you have a link, put it up.

- - - Updated - - -

So why is none being cited?

Have been cited million times already.
each time it's quietly ignored and thread dies... until another is started few months later.

I read and comment on every article that's cited to me. If you have a link, put it up.

www.google.com
www.wikipedia.org

You admit defeat?

Good.

 

[barbos]

Have been cited million times already.
each time it's quietly ignored and thread dies... until another is started few months later.

My experience is quite the opposite: Each time someone patiently points out why the cited articles don't show what you all want them to show, and then you're never back to discuss them.

Bullshit and lie. It is what I said it was.

- - - Updated - - -

I read and comment on every article that's cited to me. If you have a link, put it up.

- - - Updated - - -

So why is none being cited?

Have been cited million times already.
each time it's quietly ignored and thread dies... until another is started few months later.

I read and comment on every article that's cited to me. If you have a link, put it up.

www.google.com
www.wikipedia.org

You admit defeat?

Good.

No, you admitted defeat when you asked for links which had been posted million time already.
And yes, I remember you, you were among these who ignored them.

 

[barbos]

OK, for intentionally dense individuals who are intentionally "search challenged" here is your fucking link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaydar
And I believe wikipedia as a matter of policy requires all proper citation.
so read it and comment here.

 

[Togo]

OK, for intentionally dense individuals who are intentionally "search challenged" here is your fucking link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaydar
And I believe wikipedia as a matter of policy requires all proper citation.
so read it and comment here.

Barbos has posted a link to the wiki definition of the phenomenon of Gaydar, the ability people claim to have to detect gay people from their behaviour.

How this is relevant is not clear. It doesn't connect to the point I made about hazy ideas of hunter-gatherer societies being parlayed into narratives on genetic differences without any scientific evidence. Nor does it relate to Ronburgundy's claims about genetic behaviour and the hypothalamus, or Aulux's narrative on gender roles in the workplace. And it certainly doesn't tell us anything about the article in the OP.

The only vaguely relevant reference I could find was Rieger, Linsenmeier, Gygax & Baily's 2008 study on childhood videos, where researchers suggest that children who display gender non-conformity are more likely to be homosexual as adults. I'd make two comments - the first is that gender non-conformity is the not the same as conformity to the opposite gender'. And the second is that children who do display strong gender-conformity are less likely to grow into adults who publically self-report as homosexuals for reasons that have nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

In short, this isn't evidence that supports the claims being made.