^ Anyone else read this?

Anyone else think much of it was mere ideology dressed up as science?

I mean look at where she talks about how women 'evolved' to cry more easily. No consideration for the fact that socially, it is normal for a woman to cry, if a man does it, he's a wimp.

She makes men and women sound like different species.

Opinions?

She makes men and women sound like different species.

Indeed they are...would you want it any other way?

We are not different species. Different, sure, but not that different.

And she makes anyone who does not fit a certain set of characteristics, sound like an anomaly who must have a hormonal problem. That doesn't fit real life at all.

We are not different species. Different, sure, but not that different.
Modern western society has tried hard for a century to make men and women the same, and to some extent it has worked...at least on the surface appearances.

In ancient times it was recognized that men and women had different cultures and were always segregated.

Even as recent as hundred years ago couples would show up for a dinner party where, after initial introductions, the men would head off to the drawing room where they could swear and drink whiskey...while the ladies retired to the parlour to fuss about their children and whatever idle gossip was going around.

And she makes anyone who does not fit a certain set of characteristics, sound like an anomaly who must have a hormonal problem.
Human behaviour is largely determined by hormonal phenomena. Especially in the least intelligent who arent capable of the rational thought which might over-ride their reactive instincts.

Testosterone for example has probably caused more harm in the world than any other molecule...with the possible exception of ethanol.

Modern western society has tried hard for a century to make men and women the same, and to some extent it has worked...at least on the surface appearances.

In ancient times it was recognized that men and women had different cultures and were always segregated.

Even as recent as hundred years ago couples would show up for a dinner party where, after initial introductions, the men would head off to the drawing room where they could swear and drink whiskey...while the ladies retired to the parlour to fuss about their children and whatever idle gossip was going around.

Swearing and drinking whiskey is caused by testosterone?! That's the first I've heard of it.

Human behaviour is largely determined by hormonal phenomena. Especially in the least intelligent who arent capable of the rational thought which might over-ride their reactive instincts.


Yes but in reality the world is not divided into hard men and gooey hypernurturing women.

Swearing and drinking whiskey is caused by testosterone?! That's the first I've heard of it.

Testosterone can induce aggression, belligerence and risk taking. Swearing and getting drunk are really just creative forms of an underlying mood.

Young women also get drunk a lot. That's not out of aggression, just for fun and to forget things, are they being male?!?!

Young women also get drunk a lot. That's not out of aggression, just for fun and to forget things, are they being male?!?!
Women dont drink as a reckless masochistic exercise...they drink to release themselves of the repressions associated with their gender.

Still, women drinking and smoking is relatively modern.

So are most things apart from giving birth, cleaning the house and passing out.

Napoleon used to say he couldnt take women seriously because..."women have no rank".

I think what he really meant is that women have no ideals.

A women is seldom moved by a philosophical argument, and will generally only 'understand' an idea when its presented in a concrete real life circumstance that speaks to her emotional/sensual characteristics.

The modern trend has been towards equalization of the sexes, but this has continually been confused with de-polarization.

De-polarization is exactly what flattens the dynamic force of life.

Just as music would be lifeless without the dynamic between consonant and dissonant intervals.

As as literature and drama would be dead without the interplay between good and evil.

Even internet forums NEED some measure of conflict between intelligence and stupidity...benevolence and malevolence.

A women is seldom moved by a philosophical argument, and will generally only 'understand' an idea when its presented in a concrete real life circumstance that speaks to her emotional/sensual characteristics.


Balls.

Balls.
Remember, when people say 'balls' they really mean testosterone.

Testosterone wants the jungle.
Estrogen wants the zoo.

Man and woman is a continuum. It is a tendency, not a toggle switch. But just because it's a tendency doesn't make the concept Man and Woman meaningless. They are very different. Even species, nevermind subspecies, can be a blurry thing if you've read Dawkins. I was reading about two different species of crickets which are identical, except for the fact that their chirps are different frequencies due to different temperatures. As a result, they do not interbreed. On the other hand, men and women are readily seen to be Very different, on average. I simply don't see how a person living on This planet can't see that. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. It is how it is.

Man and woman is a continuum. It is a tendency, not a toggle switch. But just because it's a tendency doesn't make the concept Man and Woman meaningless. They are very different. Even species, nevermind subspecies, can be a blurry thing if you've read Dawkins. I was reading about two different species of crickets which are identical, except for the fact that their chirps are different frequencies due to different temperatures. As a result, they do not interbreed. On the other hand, men and women are readily seen to be Very different, on average. I simply don't see how a person living on This planet can't see that. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. It is how it is.

True, but not THAT different. Like you just said, a continuum, not a toggle switch. We're talking differences in degree. Not, as Louann Brizendine so oversimplistically paints it, two types of human being so radically different they have almost nothing in common.

Also, what I'm taking issue with is not really the difference between men and women, it's the fact that she describes men and women as having a very specific set of traits, and implies that any individual who does not display that exact set of attributes appropriate to their sex must have some kind of disorder. Real life doesn't work that way. People are individuals, not manufactured products. I mean she describes all girls as gooey hyperempathic motherettes who only want closeness and all boys as emotionless creatures who only want sex. That's monstrously unrealistic. Most human beings I know are a mixture of the two ends of the continuum.

Remember, when people say 'balls' they really mean testosterone.

Testosterone wants the jungle.
Estrogen wants the zoo.

*sigh* Ok.

Shut up, dude. You're talking testosterone.

I won't even ask what you mean about the jungle/zoo thing. I like how you talk in metaphor a lot, it's quite poetic, but right now you're just being weird.