Scientific Sexism

[Hexen]

You know, one of the things that has been bothering me recently where I read somewhere that women's brains are smaller than men's brains (which the very same thing used against against racial groups in the 19th century better known as Scientific Racism) which I wonder if this is a example and product of Scientific Sexism used against women by Capitalist/bourgeois society?

[Raúl Duke]

I think I heard of that too but to compensate women have more neurons packed in their brain than men (So my brain has more "air" or "fluid").

Most of what may be scientific sexism comes from controversial evolutionary psychology.

Look for Nathalie's Angier's Men, Women, Sex, and Darwin and Stephen Gould's Women's Brain (these are short essays I think)

There's also a book with a title: Alas, poor Darwin but I don't remember the sub-title.

[Lost In Translation]

I saw that study somewhere as well. I almost gagged when I saw that. Personally, I think most of us are beyond the mudslinging towards the other gender. It may be scientifically correct, but the way it was presented was just disgusting. Even if they do have smaller brains, they'll probably have bigger brains compared to their body size. Take THAT, sexist scientists!

[dirtycommiebastard]

Interesting.

Size of brain does play a role to a certain extent. The fact that we started eating more meat as a result of tool-making allowed our brains to grow and contributed to the development of our mental abilities. This further allowed us to develop our use of tools and so on and so forth.

As for size of brain now, it is a completely ridiculous claim. I believe Neanderthals had larger brains that Homo sapiens.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

If brain size was the only factor then how would biology account for African Grey Parrots?

Anyway, there are anatomical differences in the structure of human brains based on gender; not only sex.

I've never heard of a size difference, but in female (and transgendered male) brains the corpus callosum is significantly larger. This is the area of the brain that connects the left and right hemispheres together. The opposite is true for male (or transgendered female) brains.

This allows greater inter-cerebral communication within the female brain.

What some theories (and studies) suggest this means in practical terms is the female brain allows for better multitasking. The average woman can with greater ease carry out a conversation, watch television, and do a crossword at the same time, for example.

Men, on the other hand, while not as talented at multitasking, can concentrate on a single, simple task (such as counting people who pass by a designated area) longer without getting as bored.

So women can multi-task while men don't get bored. . .

Also the corpus callosum tends to be larger in musicians then non-musical people and in left-handed people.

So what if you're a left-handed female musician?

I'll try to cite sources later when I get a chance.

[Module]

It is true that women's brains are smaller than men's brains.
However, it is also true that women have more brain cells than men (Of course that little fact you don't hear anywhere near as often).

Women's brains are more densely packed than men's; this may be used to explain why women are more prone to anxiety disorders and the like.

It also just so happens that a Neanderthal's brain was bigger than your average human being, too, so I think it's quite obvious - Quality over quantity. ;)
Those who try to claim 'scientific sexism' in men's brains being bigger ironically overlook the fact that science has shown there is no difference in the levels of intelligence between men and women.

[Holden Caulfield]

differances in physiology that i am aware of in humans are only things like women having better scope of periferal vision and males better spacial awareness, as highlighted by studies with empirical evidence,

even differances like these make neither sex superior,

[Devrim]

I think the connection to intelligence is not directly to brain size, but to brain size related to body mass. Women tend to have smaller brains than men, but also tend to have lower body mass.

Devrim

[JazzRemington]

While I can't recall the exact regions, but the part of the brain that deals with speech in a female is generally larger than that of a male. Further, I believe the whole right side is larger in females and the left is lager in males (though I could have those mixed up).

[Hexen]

It is true that women's brains are smaller than men's brains.


Any proof of this? Like can you post a picture of both the actual male and female brain organs standing both to side to side of each angle? since I haven't seen any proof so far...

[Dystisis]

While I can't recall the exact regions, but the part of the brain that deals with speech in a female is generally larger than that of a male. Further, I believe the whole right side is larger in females and the left is lager in males (though I could have those mixed up).
You probably don't have those mixed up, the right side of the brain is classically connected to creativity, emotion, symbols and seeing the bigger pictures while the left side is more about logic, details and 'facts'.

I am not sure it is as you say though, that one side is typically larger in men/women... I'd think both sides would be about equal but one is generally used more (men uses left more, women right - relatively to each other at least).

[Holden Caulfield]

While I can't recall the exact regions


Broca's & Wernicke's?

[JazzRemington]

Broca's & Wernicke's?

Sounds about right, but I could be wrong.

But as for the left or right sides being bigger, I cannot seem to find something credible that says this (I recall being told of this by a psychologist who studied sex for most of his life); however, the parts of the brain that deal with emotions (the limbic system) tend to be bigger in females than in males.

But I've always wondered if this is natural or the outcome of thousands of years of social condition. There is evidence that the external world can influence brain development. For instance, taxi drivers tend to have larger hippocampuses (which actually grows larger the longer the driver is on the job).

[Hexen]

Or maybe the truth is in fact that every individuals brain is different regardless of gender.

[Dystisis]

But I've always wondered if this is natural or the outcome of thousands of years of social condition. There is evidence that the external world can influence brain development. For instance, taxi drivers tend to have larger hippocampuses (which actually grows larger the longer the driver is on the job).
I am most interested in what your definition of the difference between something being "natural" and something being "the outcome of thousands of years of social condition" is. For me, "natural" is a very blurry and stupid word as it sometimes refers to all of reality and sometimes only certain parts.

[JazzRemington]

I am most interested in what your definition of the difference between something being "natural" and something being "the outcome of thousands of years of social condition" is. For me, "natural" is a very blurry and stupid word as it sometimes refers to all of reality and sometimes only certain parts.

"Natural," in our case, as in outside of any social conditioning or influence. Meaning, if women weren't always taught and conditioned to be specifically to raise children or to be more communicative would the aforementioned parts of their brains be whatever size they are?

As I've said before, there seems to be evidence to support that at least external conditions influence brain sizes, such as with the case of taxi drivers. Thus if a person isn't a taxi driver then his or her hippocampus wouldn't be as large probably.

[Module]

Any proof of this? Like can you post a picture of both the actual male and female brain organs standing both to side to side of each angle? since I haven't seen any proof so far...
I don't have a picture of it, though it's a generally accepted scientific fact;
Here are a couple of articles on these differences.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/302152.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1653687.stm
If you Google it, I'm sure you'll find more information on it. :)

[TC]

Of course the statistical average brain size for women is smaller then men; on average men have bigger toes, bigger livers, bigger ears, longer thigh bones, etc, because on average men are bigger.

This is totally unremarkable and uninteresting.

What is interesting is that the media frequently reports differences in the statistical average between male and female brains as if these were basic, differential distinctions between men and women, the way chromosomes and genitals are...and yet no one seems to think that way when they observe that men are as a population taller than women since they see that many women are taller than many men. The same is true in terms of all of the neuroanatomical size differences; they just aren't reported that way because it makes psudo-scientific evo-psych theories less compelling and therefore less ideologically useful.

[zelda]

We are equally intelligent regardless.

[JazzRemington]

Of course the statistical average brain size for women is smaller then men; on average men have bigger toes, bigger livers, bigger ears, longer thigh bones, etc, because on average men are bigger.

This is totally unremarkable and uninteresting.

Because of androgens - testosterone specifically.But what isinteresting about this is that for a fetus to develop as a male, androgens need to be introduced. Without the androgens, the fetus develops as a female. Thus, the "natural development track" of a fetus would be female and if, and only if, androgens are introduced will the fetus develop as a male. Something needs to be added to make a male whereas if that thing isn't added we have a female.

[TC]

Because of androgens - testosterone specifically.

Or you could say because of genetics which determine neurological structure which chemical signals to produce testosterone, because of gonadal differences which produce different levels of testosterone in males then females...you are overattributing causality to part of a system when it could as easily be attributed elsewhere; its a basic error in interpreting scientific data (made frequently by scientists who are weak in methodological theory).

And, incidentally, most of those particular differences have as much or more to do with human growth hormone and other hormones and with the degree to which tissues are genetically receptive to them as with testosterone levels.


But what isinteresting about this is that for a fetus to develop as a male, androgens need to be introduced. Without the androgens, the fetus develops as a female. Thus, the "natural development track" of a fetus would be female

That sort of depends on your definition of 'natural.' You're trying to make what amounts to a metaphysical claim without supporting it. When does 'natural' mean without additional hormones?


and if, and only if, androgens are introduced will the fetus develop as a male. Something needs to be added to make a male whereas if that thing isn't added we have a female.Again, not really, hormones are also required for female fetal development.

[JazzRemington]

Or you could say because of genetics which determine neurological structure which chemical signals to produce testosterone, because of gonadal differences which produce different levels of testosterone in males then females...you are overattributing causality to part of a system when it could as easily be attributed elsewhere; its a basic error in interpreting scientific data (made frequently by scientists who are weak in methodological theory).

And, incidentally, most of those particular differences have as much or more to do with human growth hormone and other hormones and with the degree to which tissues are genetically receptive to them as with testosterone levels.



That sort of depends on your definition of 'natural.' You're trying to make what amounts to a metaphysical claim without supporting it. When does 'natural' mean without additional hormones?
Again, not really, hormones are also required for female fetal development.


Except for the potential contained within the genetic content of its chromosomes and the subsequent formation of primordial tissue, the human embryo is essentially asexual for the first weeks of its life. It has been shown that the undifferentiated gonads are destined to become ovaries unless acted upon by TDF (testis determining factor), which is genetically encoded on the Y chromosome. Therefore the default sex of the human embryo is female. The information for TDF is contained in the SRY (sex determining region of the Y chromosome). It is the translocation of the genes encoding for the TDF to the X chromosome that can result in the abovementioned XX male, who ultimately will be infertile.
http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/eyw_050901.htm


Sexual differentiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation) in mammals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammals) is biased towards developing as a female (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female), so that it has often been said that female is the "default" developmental pathway, in the sense that elimination of any of several gene actions necessary for formation of male genitalia leads to the development of external female genitalia (though development of functional ovaries requires effective action of several less understood sex-specific genes).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeminization_and_masculinization


It has been an indisputable fact that the constitutive sex in mammalian fetal development is female. Furthermore, a functioning ovary is not required for the female phenotype, whereas a testis is mandatory for male development.
https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/351/8/748

And lastly, I've had Dr. David Rowland, a world-renowned and respected expert in the study of sexual reproduction, explain this to me.

Any other concerns I could alleviate?

[Hexen]

I was going create a new thread but I might aswell post it here.

Another thing that is been bothering me is the fact that sexist scientists are now blaming gender equality to be cause of Neanderthal extinction (Neanderthal women hunting along side with men) which as if their using the whole "Homo-Sapian men hunted whilist Sapian women stayed and gathered" myth as a bases of this theory since I truly believe that Homo-Sapian women also hunted along side with men in the High Paleolithic era aswell just like the Neanderthals and possibly the rest of the other human species at the time. (since back then were so harsh which women also had to hunt which I could imagine that pre-historic women look like todays female body-builders than most women look today)