20th August 2007, 21:24
This is a little bit off topic, but one of the themes of this forum is the refutation of the Marxist/feminist myth that gender is a cultural construct, and the reaffirmation of the concept of essential biological differences between the genders.
(Those differences may seem self-evident, but even to this day, much of the politically-driven Humanities education in universities is predicated on the absurd denial of gender differences.)
Well, here's another nail in the cultural-materialist coffin, and another victory for the truth of essentialism: According to a new study, the female preference for the colour pink is not a societal construct, but is, as one might expect, the result of essential biological tendences:
Here's the link:
And an excerpt:
LONDON (Reuters) - Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn't much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.
Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces....
For men, thinking about colors was less important because as hunters they just needed to spot something dark and shoot it, Hurlbert said.
It may be a symbolic victory, but it's also indicative of more fundamental truths. It's sad to think how much effort has been spent over the last century trying to persuade women to deny their essential feminine natures - at the cost of their own happiness, and to the detriment of society as a whole.
The sooner our society accepts and even celebrates essential gender differences, the sooner the restoration of healthy relationships, in a healthy culture, can begin.
21st August 2007, 21:06
That particular study may be nothing more than an amusing footnote, but scientific evidence is revealing ever-more profound essential differences between the sexes.
In other words, it turns out that those supposedly outmoded Old World notions of the differences between femininity and masculinity were right after all -- they have a solid grounding in fact. By contrast, modern material ideologies are being exposed as nothing more than ideologically-driven hoaxes.
Here's a recent review of a groundbreaking, comprehensive scientific inquiry into male/female brain patterns:
In case the text at the above link disappears, I'm going to post the majority of the article here. It's long, but it's well worth reading. It blows many modern social myths completely out of the water.
Feminism begs to differ, but unisex brain is a fantasy
September 27, 2006
ONLY a girl could write The Female Brain and walk away with life and reputation intact. This new book may be contentious, but in fact modern science is merely playing catch-up with what we know intuitively. Girls are different from boys.
Mind-blowing news, huh?
But here's the really brave bit: the unisex brain is a feminist fabrication. Louann Brizendine, an American neuro-psychiatrist, has written a book debunking stubborn notions that girls are different only because society makes them so. It's much more to do with the brain, she says. The female brain, to be more precise.
Here's a snap brain quiz. Which sex uses, on average, about 20,000 words a day, in contrast to the 7000 uttered by the other sex? Who has two-and-a-half times the amount of brain space devoted to sexual drive, meaning they think about sex, on average, every 52 seconds? When their feelings are hurt by someone they love, which sex reacts by assuming the relationship is over? Who has larger sections of the brain for action and aggression? If you answered, in order, women, men, women, men, you've been watching too many Woody Allen movies. Now, science is confirming that Woody was right all along.
While more than 99 per cent of male and female genetic coding is the same, it's the less than 1 per cent of difference that packs a punch in marking out women from men. Drawing upon advances in gene technology and brain-imaging techniques that have revolutionised neuro-scientific research, Brizendine presents a heady cocktail of structural, chemical, genetic, hormonal and functional differences between women and men...
[T]here is plenty [in Brizendine's book] that will upset the old bra-burning feminists who steadfastly refuse to allow biology to get in the way of ideology. Let's start with how girls choose a mate. According to Brizendine, "our (female) brains size up a potential partner, and if he fits our ancestral wish list, we get a jolt of chemicals that dizzy us with a rush of laser-focused attention".
And that ancestral wish list has not changed much in the past 1000 years. Brizendine points to a study of 10,000 people across 37 different cultures, that reveals women are less interested in how a man looks and more interested in his wallet and social standing. It may not fit the picture of the modern girl fending for herself but Brizendine is concerned with evidence, and not imagery. And the evidence suggests that, for all the economic and social advances women have made, the powerful desire to have and care for children means many women are still interested in finding a provider. It's part of what Brizendine calls the "inherited architecture of the female brain's mate-choice system".
Equality feminists will be even more disturbed by science that confirms what most of us already know: women are more emotional than men. Cutting to the chase, that means girls are more prone to over-reaction than boys. Were we to map the female brain, Brizendine says the connecting routes for emotion look more like super-highways, compared with the country roads you'd find inside the male brain. In a Stanford University study, when volunteers were shown emotional images while having their brains scanned, nine different areas lit up in women. In men, two areas lit up.
The author concludes that "there's no getting around the fact that women have different emotional perceptions, realities, responses and memories than do men, and these differences - based on brain circuitry and function - are at the heart of many misunderstandings". And it's in the hard-wiring of the brain, rather than environment.
Last year, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, told an academic conference that his young daughter, when given two trucks in another effort of gender-neutral parenting, treated them like dolls, calling one "daddy truck" and the other "baby truck". Some in the audience reacted with disgust to Summers's address. A biologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology walked out, later saying leaving was the only option, otherwise "I would've either blacked out or thrown up". Another quick test: was the tetchy academic a woman or a man?
In a interview later, the biologist, Nancy Hopkins, said: "It's so upsetting that all these brilliant young women (at Harvard) are being led by a man who views them this way." Summers's leadership did not last long. The uproar came when he hypothesised that genetics, more than environment, might explain the dearth of women in science and engineering. Suggesting that genes may explain why statistical distributions of men's and women's quantitative and spatial abilities are not identical, with more men coming in at the higher end of the scale, did not go down well in academe. Lawrence was eventually hounded out of Harvard.
Not everyone was hoodwinked by ideology. Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology who teaches classes on the human mind, told The Harvard Crimson: "Good grief, shouldn't everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigour? That's the difference between a university and a madrassa ... People who storm out of a meeting at the mention of a hypothesis, or declare it taboo or offensive without providing arguments or evidence, don't get the concept of a university or free inquiry."
Talking about genetic differences between men and women has long been taboo because, according to feminist orthodoxy, if women were different it necessarily meant they were inferior. But that competition-between-the-sexes business is so old hat these days.
Ignoring the differences, and framing public policy on a pretence that women are something they are not only ends up hurting women. For instance, in the heady days of 1970s feminism, it was assumed that universal child care would free women to achieve true equality with men. We now know that many women would prefer not to outsource the raising of their children. And so we need public policy and workplace changes that recognise that biological drive.
One reviewer suggests the book is "destined to become a classic in the field of gender studies". If Harvard is anything to go by, that will have to happen outside the blinkered world of academe.And outside the propaganda world of the mass media, as well...
26th December 2007, 18:11
it turns out that those supposedly outmoded Old World notions of the differences between femininity and masculinity were right after all -- they have a solid grounding in fact. By contrast, modern material ideologies are being exposed as nothing more than ideologically-driven hoaxes.
Very much so. The shrillness of the cultural-materialists' indoctrination is in direct proportion to the untenability of their position. Mankind is not how they wish it to be, so they seek to refashion humanity according to their ideological scheme.
They wish: <i>If only</I> humanity had no gender differences; <i>if only</I> humanity had no desires, or personal ambition; <i>if only</I> humanity were identical, and no one had superior talent, or superior beauty.
In an effort to create such a world--a world of indistinguishable worker-drones, of humans reduced to farm animals in pens--they claim that <i>their</i> notion of humanity is the correct one.
But not only are all of their claims false, but even their ideal is corrupt. It represents not a utopia, but a dystopia of human beings reduced to lobotomized labourers, fit only for menial drudgery, with no great cultural achievements, no passion, nothing but a brain-dead, uniform existence.
Men and women are profoundly different, gloriously so--and hence, they form an ideal compliment to one another; just as in nature, the sublime compliments the beautiful. What a sad world it would be if those rich differences were eradicated. The variety in humanity, the distinctions between genders and peoples, the lofty achievements of exceptional individuals, soaring to heights which leave the rest in awe, are the very spice of life. These distinictions are what have made man great throughout history.
This topic links directly to the theme of our Web site, for the modern, ideologically-driven effort to eliminate the differences between the genders is precisely what has led to the cultural erasure of women with full, vividly feminine curves (visible markers of gender), and the imposition of an artificial, androgynous ideal.
Every plus-size goddess is a living refutation of the cultural-materialist deception, and a confirmation of traditional wisdom of gender distinctions.
Chloe Agnew in her preferred pink, from Celtic Woman's <i>Christmas Celebration,</i> 2007.<p><center><img src="http://www.judgmentofparis.com/ca/xmas02.jpg"></center><p>- <a href="http://turnabout.ath.cx:8000/node/2" target="_blank">Counterpoint . . .</a>
27th December 2007, 02:23
It's really too bad that, in this day and age, the feminine is still being subtly devalued -- and by women, no less -- as though "different" somehow means "less than." It's not only "okay" that we differ from each other, it's...kind of the whole point.
vBulletin v3.0.7, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.