"You may not be single but do you live with this woman or is she just a girlfriend? There is a big difference and yes it affects your points because its the difference between talking from experience as Jack is and talking through your ass.
Also,…"
How the male brain can't see the laundry pile up
G'Day fellow men,
Came across this article by Naomi Wolf which provides an interesting spin on gender roles.
Look forward to your thoughts and discussion...
How the male brain can't see the laundry pile up
North Americans of my generation grew up with the 1970s children's record Free to Be ... You and Me, on which Rosey Grier, an immense former gridiron star, sang It's All Right to Cry. The message: girls could be tough, and boys were allowed not to be.
For almost 40 years, that era's Western feminist critique of rigid sex-role stereotyping has prevailed. In many ways, it has eroded constraints that turned peaceable boys into aggressive men and stuck ambitious girls in low-paying jobs.
Feminists understandably have often shied away from scientific evidence that challenges this critique of sex roles. Because biology-based arguments have been used to justify women's subjugation, women have been reluctant to concede any innate difference. But, in view of recent scientific discoveries, has feminist resistance to accepting any signs of innate gender difference only created new biases?
The feminist critique, for example, has totally remade elementary-level education, where female decision-makers prevail: the construction of male hierarchies in the schoolyard is often redirected for fear of "bullying", with boys and girls alike expected to "share" and "process" their emotions. But many educators have begun to argue that such intervention in what may be a hard-wired aspect of "boy-ness" can lead to boys' academic underperformance relative to girls and to more frequent diagnoses of behavioural problems.
And education is just the beginning. An entire academic discipline emerged out of the wholesale critique of the male tendency to create hierarchy, engage in territoriality and be drawn to conflict.
This critique of "masculinity" dramatically affected intimate relationships: women were encouraged to express their dissatisfaction with men's refusal to "share" their inner lives. Women complained of not being heard, of men disappearing after work to tinker in the garage or zone out in front of the TV. But such complaints assumed that men choose all of their behaviour.
Now a spate of scientific analyses suggests that we must be willing to grapple with some genuine, measurable differences between the sexes.
The most famous of these studies, anthropologist Helen Fisher's Anatomy of Love, explains the evolutionary impetus for human tendencies in courtship, marriage, adultery, divorce and child rearing. Some of her findings are provocative: it seems that we are hard-wired for serial monogamy and must work hard to maintain pair-bonds; that highly orgasmic women enjoy an evolutionary advantage; and that flirtation among primates closely resembles the way young men and women in a bar show their sexual interest today.
Moreover, in her description of our evolution, Fisher notes that males who could tolerate long periods of silence (waiting for animals while in hunt mode) survived to pass on their genes, thus genetically selecting to prefer "space". By contrast, females survived best by bonding with others and building community, since such groups were needed to gather roots, nuts and berries while caring for small children.
Reading Fisher, one is more inclined to leave boys alone to challenge one another and test their environment and to accept that, as she puts it, nature designed men and women to collaborate for survival. "Collaboration" implies free will and choice; even primate males do not succeed by controlling females. In her analysis, it serves everyone for men and women to share their sometimes different but often complementary strengths - a conclusion that seems reassuring.
What Could He Be Thinking?, by Michael Gurian, a consultant in neurobiology, takes this set of insights further. Gurian argues men's brains can actually feel invaded and overwhelmed by too much verbal processing of emotion, so that men's need to zone out or do something mechanical rather than emote is often not a rejection of their spouses, but a neural need.
Gurian even posits that the male brain actually can't "see" dust or laundry piling up as the female brain often can, and men often can't hear women's lower tones, and their brains, unlike women's, have a "rest" state (he actually is sometimes thinking about "nothing"!).
Moreover, Gurian argues that men tend to rear children differently from women for similarly neurological reasons, encouraging more risk taking and independence and with less awareness of the details of their nurture. One can see the advantages to children of having both parenting styles. He urges women to try side-by-side activities, not only face-to-face verbalisation, to experience closeness with their mates.
According to Gurian, if women accept these biological differences and work around them, men respond with great appreciation and devotion (often non-verbally). Women who embrace these findings report relations with men become much smoother and more intimate.
None of this means that men and women should not try to adjust to each other's wishes. But it may mean we can understand each other better and be more patient as we seek communication.
Nor does recent scientific research imply that men (or women) are superior, much less justify discrimination. But it does suggest that a more pluralistic society, open to all kinds of difference, can learn, work and love better.
Project Syndicate
Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 June 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-the-male-brain-cant-see-the-laund...
Came across this article by Naomi Wolf which provides an interesting spin on gender roles.
Look forward to your thoughts and discussion...
How the male brain can't see the laundry pile up
North Americans of my generation grew up with the 1970s children's record Free to Be ... You and Me, on which Rosey Grier, an immense former gridiron star, sang It's All Right to Cry. The message: girls could be tough, and boys were allowed not to be.
For almost 40 years, that era's Western feminist critique of rigid sex-role stereotyping has prevailed. In many ways, it has eroded constraints that turned peaceable boys into aggressive men and stuck ambitious girls in low-paying jobs.
Feminists understandably have often shied away from scientific evidence that challenges this critique of sex roles. Because biology-based arguments have been used to justify women's subjugation, women have been reluctant to concede any innate difference. But, in view of recent scientific discoveries, has feminist resistance to accepting any signs of innate gender difference only created new biases?
The feminist critique, for example, has totally remade elementary-level education, where female decision-makers prevail: the construction of male hierarchies in the schoolyard is often redirected for fear of "bullying", with boys and girls alike expected to "share" and "process" their emotions. But many educators have begun to argue that such intervention in what may be a hard-wired aspect of "boy-ness" can lead to boys' academic underperformance relative to girls and to more frequent diagnoses of behavioural problems.
And education is just the beginning. An entire academic discipline emerged out of the wholesale critique of the male tendency to create hierarchy, engage in territoriality and be drawn to conflict.
This critique of "masculinity" dramatically affected intimate relationships: women were encouraged to express their dissatisfaction with men's refusal to "share" their inner lives. Women complained of not being heard, of men disappearing after work to tinker in the garage or zone out in front of the TV. But such complaints assumed that men choose all of their behaviour.
Now a spate of scientific analyses suggests that we must be willing to grapple with some genuine, measurable differences between the sexes.
The most famous of these studies, anthropologist Helen Fisher's Anatomy of Love, explains the evolutionary impetus for human tendencies in courtship, marriage, adultery, divorce and child rearing. Some of her findings are provocative: it seems that we are hard-wired for serial monogamy and must work hard to maintain pair-bonds; that highly orgasmic women enjoy an evolutionary advantage; and that flirtation among primates closely resembles the way young men and women in a bar show their sexual interest today.
Moreover, in her description of our evolution, Fisher notes that males who could tolerate long periods of silence (waiting for animals while in hunt mode) survived to pass on their genes, thus genetically selecting to prefer "space". By contrast, females survived best by bonding with others and building community, since such groups were needed to gather roots, nuts and berries while caring for small children.
Reading Fisher, one is more inclined to leave boys alone to challenge one another and test their environment and to accept that, as she puts it, nature designed men and women to collaborate for survival. "Collaboration" implies free will and choice; even primate males do not succeed by controlling females. In her analysis, it serves everyone for men and women to share their sometimes different but often complementary strengths - a conclusion that seems reassuring.
What Could He Be Thinking?, by Michael Gurian, a consultant in neurobiology, takes this set of insights further. Gurian argues men's brains can actually feel invaded and overwhelmed by too much verbal processing of emotion, so that men's need to zone out or do something mechanical rather than emote is often not a rejection of their spouses, but a neural need.
Gurian even posits that the male brain actually can't "see" dust or laundry piling up as the female brain often can, and men often can't hear women's lower tones, and their brains, unlike women's, have a "rest" state (he actually is sometimes thinking about "nothing"!).
Moreover, Gurian argues that men tend to rear children differently from women for similarly neurological reasons, encouraging more risk taking and independence and with less awareness of the details of their nurture. One can see the advantages to children of having both parenting styles. He urges women to try side-by-side activities, not only face-to-face verbalisation, to experience closeness with their mates.
According to Gurian, if women accept these biological differences and work around them, men respond with great appreciation and devotion (often non-verbally). Women who embrace these findings report relations with men become much smoother and more intimate.
None of this means that men and women should not try to adjust to each other's wishes. But it may mean we can understand each other better and be more patient as we seek communication.
Nor does recent scientific research imply that men (or women) are superior, much less justify discrimination. But it does suggest that a more pluralistic society, open to all kinds of difference, can learn, work and love better.
Project Syndicate
Naomi Wolf is a political activist and social critic.
Sydney Morning Herald
6 June 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-the-male-brain-cant-see-the-laund...
Tags: gender roles, relationships
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Carl Monster on -
That's exactly our arrangement.
I so hate cooking.
-
Permalink Reply by Joseph L. Rogers on -
Fookin' A! This is great, dude, and thank you for posting it. I've been reading some stuff of the same nature here and there. A favorite author, John Ringo, delves into it in several of his books.
Will, as far as seeing the laundry first, you strike me as a very quiet, somewhat passive individual. I could be wrong, but from reading your posts, and looking at your pic (head bowed, eyes downcast), this is the general impression I get. Perhaps you and your wife are members of the small subsection of the population where your genetics/impulses are reversed in this typed of thing. I've seen stranger things.
I have played roughly with my son since the day he was born. (Thinks back) Okay, maybe I waited a COUPLE months...anyway, point is, I did not want him to be afraid of physicality, in any way, shape or form. My wife has had several mini-heart attacks as a result of some of the things he's done, as well. My son is dominant in the extreme, and will (for some god-forsaken reason, I don't know WHERE he gets the chutzpah), stand up, look me in the eye, and yell at me if he's angry. I don't know whether to be proud, or knock the hell out of him. He's going to be four in July, so for now...I go with the proud. It could be a problem in about 10 years, though. I'll never forget the day in Wal-Mart when he glares at me, holds his fist up in the air because he was mad, and says "You see this?" I sat down, laughing, and couldn't move for several minutes...
-
Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on -
Well, this is from 2009, and it looks like Jenks is probably long gone, but I am going to comment here to put this back on the front page. Some people may find it interesting. I do find it interesting as well, though I am blessedly untroubled by gender battles (muhahahaha, suckers!)
No, actually, this is kind of interesting. Certainly men and women are different in how the perceive and react to the world. I liked these paragraphs:
This critique of "masculinity" dramatically affected intimate relationships: women were encouraged to express their dissatisfaction with men's refusal to "share" their inner lives. Women complained of not being heard, of men disappearing after work to tinker in the garage or zone out in front of the TV. But such complaints assumed that men choose all of their behaviour.
I liked that part because "alone time" does seem to be a point of conflict between couples. However, being alone and focusing on a specific task (such as building a model or fixing something) is very good for the brain. That kind of focused attention helps revive our "psyche," though I hate using that word.
And this one:
The most famous of these studies, anthropologist Helen Fisher's Anatomy of Love, explains the evolutionary impetus for human tendencies in courtship, marriage, adultery, divorce and child rearing. Some of her findings are provocative: it seems that we are hard-wired for serial monogamy and must work hard to maintain pair-bonds; that highly orgasmic women enjoy an evolutionary advantage; and that flirtation among primates closely resembles the way young men and women in a bar show their sexual interest today.
I like that one because I'm not always for monogamy, and because I like primate research and what it can potentially tell us about ourselves.
And these bits, because a lot of men are silent about their emotions:
Moreover, in her description of our evolution, Fisher notes that males who could tolerate long periods of silence (waiting for animals while in hunt mode) survived to pass on their genes, thus genetically selecting to prefer "space".
What Could He Be Thinking?, by Michael Gurian, a consultant in neurobiology, takes this set of insights further. Gurian argues men's brains can actually feel invaded and overwhelmed by too much verbal processing of emotion, so that men's need to zone out or do something mechanical rather than emote is often not a rejection of their spouses, but a neural need.
Zoning out is important!
Getting back to the anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher: I recognized her name because a woman online used to always go on about her and how interesting she thought she was. However, I've never found the time to check her out for some reason. But she does have a lot of talks on YouTube, if anyone is interested. Here's one I'll post, but without comment.
-
Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on
-
One thing I forgot to mention is that when we examine gender differences, one of the worst bad habits people have is to first recognize something (some behavior or inclination) and then second, jump to the conclusion that there must be something wrong with said behavior or inclination.
We should try to get beyond that.
-
Permalink Reply by Brandon Michael on -
People do that with all behavior from everyone. Behavior can change, though, but not personality so compromise is still needed on both parties in a couple.
-
Permalink Reply by Carl Monster on
-
Behavior can change, yes, and starting very young. Interesting findings on nature vs. nurture buried in this toy article on the NTY site.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/does-stripping-gender-fro...
-
Permalink Reply by Carl Monster on
-
I wish your headline was true.
Some of the biggest slobs I know have been women.
Men just naturally win out because, well, they generally smell worse.
-
Permalink Reply by Native Son on -
The big issues with the laundry in Native Son's household are the different techniques and practices used by Native Son and Mrs. Son.
Latest Activity
Nick H replied to Matthew L Weiss's discussion Sorry Doesn't Cut It"Don't forget Marion Morrison's raging alcoholism. Wish I had a career where if I became a drunk they'd simply move my work to the morning before I had time to drink myself into oblivion. I love the Duke's movies and Clint's…"
Chuck Knight commented on Leif Gunnar Selberg's blog post should I help younger brother become smoker?"He obviously equates smoking with maturity, and sees tobacco as his rite-of-passage. And he's emulating his male role models.
As an addict, you personally know the pleasures AND the pitfalls of smoking. If he is choosing to…"
Silviu Ilyevich Tulbya replied to Silviu Ilyevich Tulbya's discussion My Twenties"Getting to know your classmates is a great idea, and so is finding a professor with a research project. I never thought of that second one!
I appreciate the advice and examples. You've been really helpful!"
Silviu Ilyevich Tulbya replied to Silviu Ilyevich Tulbya's discussion My Twenties"Thanks for the post and the examples, Nick. You were right in pointing out that it's no use comparing one's self to others. And I like your father's saying.
"
Dallas the Phallus replied to Allen's discussion Identity limbo"All I can say is that any man whose identity and self worth is shaped by cartoon characters and TV sitcoms bloody well gets what he deserves. "
Jack Bauer replied to Matthew L Weiss's discussion Sorry Doesn't Cut It"Probably a good idea ... if your wife has the mind of a 5-year-old. Are these wives really too dumb to figure there are risks associated with coal mining or warfighting? Any soldier that hasn't discussed with his wife the…"
Luxinator replied to Allen's discussion Identity limbo"Well said about the absence of high heels on the necks of men.
Its more about a gentlemanly stepping aside, and in a liberal spirit men in previous generations have allowed the women to place their high heels on their necks. It was a manly…"
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
