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...

Tags: gender roles, relationships

Views: 369

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's exactly our arrangement.

I so hate cooking.
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...

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.

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...
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.

The big issues with the laundry in Native Son's household are the different techniques and practices used by Native Son and Mrs. Son.  

RSS

Latest Activity

Brad Williams replied to Brad Williams's discussion Can Men and Women be Just Friends
"Well put."
5 minutes ago
John Lee Pettimore replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"You said you were fighting 5 guys. Along with your comments regarding religion being child abuse you reminded me of the Crusades. If you don't have a shield then perhaps a banner or flag? Something to rally your troops? All militant groups…"
6 minutes ago
Brad Williams replied to Brad Williams's discussion Hunting Big Game if you Could?
"In the fictional world (all this is for the book series I'm writing), they are hunting for food and hides and whatever else the animal can offer.  So that should help a bit.  The elephants as being very sentient and emotional is very…"
9 minutes ago
Brad Williams replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"Okay, I'll drop it.  I know everyone wants me to shut up, so I will.  Let me just make few points of summation and then I'll leave this thread, quite happy with it and proud of my conduct, whatever comments may come…"
13 minutes ago
John Lee Pettimore replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"Ok, this is the second time I've had to tell you this: I don't have a side."
15 minutes ago
Brad Williams replied to Brad Williams's discussion Hunting Big Game if you Could?
"That's very interesting about Roosevelt.  I didn't know that.  It's especially interesting because Roosevelt hunted with Frederick Selous who was one of the real-life people who inspired the character Quatermain."
1 hour ago
Brad Williams replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"Okay, then I don't have a shield and if I did I wouldn't have a symbol on it.  I'm so confused by your line of inquiry here.  You're asking me to take your sarcasm seriously???  Why?"
1 hour ago
Brad Williams replied to Josh Allen's discussion If you can tell me what religion you are then you are in a prison.
"I could give you about 500 reasons off the top of my head. But again, that's like asking me if I have proof that purple and blue giraffes don't exist.  If you claim they exist, the burden of proof is on you.  That there is no…"
1 hour ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service