Biological Determinism, Again
OhSojourner
way they are:
http://www.freespeech.org/amygdala/articles/culture/faces.htm
Gerard S. Harbison
Interesting.
In fact Patricia Hausman showed that women who excel at math and science
also tend to have more stereotypically masculine shapes. Do women who
are good at math tend to be sexually dominant, I wonder?
john_c
Does this just devolve to Testosterone being the controlling factor?
ie: What makes men (stereotypically) manly?
--
(ężę) John C
www.socmen.org - it's your site
OhSojourner
> OhSojourner wrote:
>> This URL was posted to alt.feminism. It "explains" why dominant women
>> are the way they are:
http://www.freespeech.org/amygdala/articles/culture/faces.htm
> Interesting.
> In fact Patricia Hausman showed that women who excel at math and science
> also tend to have more stereotypically masculine shapes. Do women who
> are good at math tend to be sexually dominant, I wonder?
I had a geometry teacher in high school who was rather severe both in
appearance and behavior. We referred to her as "Sergeant ------". She always
seemed to be in a bad mood and everyone was scared of her. I hated that
class because of the teacher's unpleasant personality, but looking back, now I
just feel kind of sorry for her.
I don't think I'd want to imagine her in any sexual situations, tho. Yikes!
OhSojourner
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:18:11 -0500, "Gerard S. Harbison"
> <ge...@setanta.unl.edu> wrote:
>> OhSojourner wrote:
>>> This URL was posted to alt.feminism. It "explains" why dominant women
>>> are the way they are:
>>> http://www.freespeech.org/amygdala/articles/culture/faces.htm
>> Interesting.
>> In fact Patricia Hausman showed that women who excel at math and
>> science also tend to have more stereotypically masculine shapes. Do
>> women who are good at math tend to be sexually dominant, I wonder?
> Does this just devolve to Testosterone being the controlling factor? ie:
> What makes men (stereotypically) manly?
There's more to it than that, usually -- certain gender-specific behaviors are
hardwired into the brain during fetal development (which is why altered cats
and dogs still retain some of their gender-specific personality differences).
Nevertheless, testosterone is the "fuel" that helps facilitate focus,
motivation, well-being, competitiveness and sex drive -- and of course, that
helps tremendously. I read somewhere that men have seven times as much in
their system as women do.
Some women have naturally higher testosterone levels or are more sensitive to
it. From what I understand, testosterone opposes progesterone, the
"tranquilizing" female hormone that can make one tend to want to sit back and
just let life happen. Women with naturally higher progesterone levels are thus
less likely to be concerned with competition and achievement.
Gerard S. Harbison
John, C wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:18:11 -0500, "Gerard S. Harbison"
> <ge...@setanta.unl.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >OhSojourner wrote:
> >>
> >> This URL was posted to alt.feminism. It "explains" why dominant women are the
> >> way they are:
> >>
> >> http://www.freespeech.org/amygdala/articles/culture/faces.htm
> >
> >Interesting.
> >
> >In fact Patricia Hausman showed that women who excel at math and science
> >also tend to have more stereotypically masculine shapes. Do women who
> >are good at math tend to be sexually dominant, I wonder?
>
> Does this just devolve to Testosterone being the controlling factor?
> ie: What makes men (stereotypically) manly?
Not quite. It depends on exposure to testosterone at certain key times
during gestation. There is limited but intriguing evidence that
while testosterone levels early in pregnacy control development of the
genitals, later in pregnancy (and possibly shortly after birth) they may
control stereotypically male/female metantal abilities, character
traits, and even possibly sexual oritentation.
Testosterone in adulthood makes you hairy, makes you feel good, and
controls your libido, but it it doesn't make you better at math or
straight rather than gay.
john_c
wrote:
I may be wrong about this, but I'd thought that the reason for the
physical brain differences (the 'hard-wired' stuff) was due to the
presence of testosterone and other masculinizing hormones during
foetal development. I've heard of a syndrome of some type that caused
excess testosterone in developing female foetus', and this resulted in
females with more masculine traits, such as focus, concentration,
higher math abilities, lower language skills, etc.
OhSojourner
>>John C. wrote:
>>>> OhSojourner wrote:
>>>>> http://www.freespeech.org/amygdala/articles/culture/faces.htm
>>>> Interesting.
I think what you're referring to here is a condition known as congenital
adrenal hyperplasia, which can affect a fetus in the womb or manifest itself
later on in life.
http://medlineplus.adam.com/ency/article/000411.htm
There are other factors besides this one which can create anomalies, including
the presence of too much *estrogen* or estrogen-like substances in the mother's
body. To make matters even more complicated, there are other variables at work
like the amount of hormone receptors; androgen sensitivity, personality traits
inherited from parents, etc. I don't have a source to quote from, but I
believe that even the amount of stress a child endures when very young can have
a lasting impact.
I've posted a number of links on this subject in the past. Here are some,
along with a couple related topics:
http://x54.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=672727066
http://x75.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=665870551
http://x71.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=629272091
http://x71.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=630065432
http://x70.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=670686664
john_c
wrote:
>I think what you're referring to here is a condition known as congenital
>adrenal hyperplasia, which can affect a fetus in the womb or manifest itself
>later on in life.
Yup. I think that rings a bell.
>http://medlineplus.adam.com/ency/article/000411.htm
>
>There are other factors besides this one which can create anomalies, including
>the presence of too much *estrogen* or estrogen-like substances in the mother's
>body. To make matters even more complicated, there are other variables at work
>like the amount of hormone receptors; androgen sensitivity, personality traits
>inherited from parents, etc. I don't have a source to quote from, but I
>believe that even the amount of stress a child endures when very young can have
>a lasting impact.
Complex critters, aren't we? You too Oh. (that's A Good Thing) It's
a fascinating area for study. It reminds me of the research into
brain function accomplished due to the many different battlefield
brain injures experienced by men.
OhSojourner
>> http://medlineplus.adam.com/ency/article/000411.htm
Yup, I figured the most rational way to approach the subject is to try to
examine and understand the nitty-gritty mechanics behind it. Interesting
what they're finding out now with the newer med technologies.
(Hopefully you might find some of those links useful to include on your
site. The topics of sexual dimorphism and nature/nurture seem to appear
with regular frequency on these ngs!)
john_c
wrote:
>(Hopefully you might find some of those links useful to include on your
>site. The topics of sexual dimorphism and nature/nurture seem to appear
>with regular frequency on these ngs!)
Whoops. Thanks for the reminder, I forgot to clip them. Done so now.
Whew! Alt.Feminism seems more hostile than soc.men. I'll just stay
over here and play with the boys. <G>
Nice stuff, by the way. Now if I only had permission to copy your
posts. <hint><hint> Your choice if you want attribution or not.
(that's not a religious thing)
OhSojourner
>On 27 Sep 2000 20:51:35 GMT, ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner)
>wrote:
>>(Hopefully you might find some of those links useful to include on your
>>site. The topics of sexual dimorphism and nature/nurture seem to appear
>>with regular frequency on these ngs!)
>Whoops. Thanks for the reminder, I forgot to clip them. Done so now.
>Whew! Alt.Feminism seems more hostile than soc.men. I'll just stay
>over here and play with the boys. <G>
>Nice stuff, by the way. Now if I only had permission to copy your
>posts. <hint><hint>
Permission granted. (Wish I'd edited some of them better, but what the hey.)
(Other than being an oddball, keep in mind that I'm not really much of an
expert on the subject, but my curiousity led me to a bit of perusing on the
Net. I think it was that "John/Joan" article that first appeared in ROLLING
STONE a few years ago that really got me to thinking.)
>Your choice if you want attribution or not.
>(that's not a religious thing)
:-D Go for it.
Michael Snyder
>
> OhSojourner wrote:
> >
> > This URL was posted to alt.feminism. It "explains" why dominant women are the
> > way they are:
> >
> > http://www.freespeech.org/amygdala/articles/culture/faces.htm
>
> while back:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/fertility/nhands.html
>
> Unfortunately they haven't put the "box-out" online that looked
> at how the ratio between the lengths of your index finger and
> ring finger predicted masculinity/feminity (and also to a lesser
> extent, AIR, gayness in men, or was it lesbianism, I forget).
> Anyway, AIR, if your ring finger's longer than your index finger
> you tend towards the masculine, and vice versa.
Damn! Mine are equal. I'm an androgyne!
Actually, this would explain a lot... ;-)
Tony Bounds
On the left side a picture of a man: The caption below says...
"He didn't want a child. He ran away. Shirked his responsibilities and
didn't pay child support. Hes the scum of the earth. Hes a deadbeat dad."
On the right side a picture of a woman: The caption below says...
"She didn't want a child. Its her body and shes pro-choice. She had an
abortion."
I kinda liked it. #B^) Some people just have a way with words when pointing
out the truth.
--
Tony
Tony Bounds
msn...@ispchannel.com wrote on 10/2/00 10:48 PM:
> Tony, I want a copy! Can you find and purchase a few?
> I'm sure other guys 'n' gals here would like one too.
> This is probably the first pro-C4M print ad I've ever heard of.
Unfortunately I just caught the tail end of a mention of it on the radio. I
didn't hear what newspaper it was. #B^( Of course theres nothing saying we
couldn't make our own. #B^)
--
Tony
Tony Bounds
ncav...@crosswinds.net wrote on 10/2/00 11:41 PM:
> PRO c4m? THAT was PRO c4m?
Theres three ways to look at it. Pro C4M, Pro Life or both. What do you see
it as?
--
Tony
Anna
>
> This URL was posted to alt.feminism. It "explains" why dominant women are the
> way they are:
>
> http://www.freespeech.org/amygdala/articles/culture/faces.htm
This reminded me of an interesting article in New Scientist a
while back:
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/fertility/nhands.html
Unfortunately they haven't put the "box-out" online that looked
at how the ratio between the lengths of your index finger and
ring finger predicted masculinity/feminity (and also to a lesser
extent, AIR, gayness in men, or was it lesbianism, I forget).
Anyway, AIR, if your ring finger's longer than your index finger
you tend towards the masculine, and vice versa.
Anna
Michael Snyder
Tony Bounds wrote in message ...
Michael Snyder
Stephen Morgan wrote in message <8FC25D551wil...@62.253.162.103>...
>On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 07:53:06 GMT, Tony Bounds <tbo...@gci.net> wrote in
>soc.men...
could've
>sworn it meant he was scum, she was just being herself, making her own
>decisions, being a murderer. Him, evil, her, good, type of thing.
It meant "it's hypocritical to call him scum, when we
acknowledge her as only doing what is within her rights".
john_c
<msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>Damn! Mine are equal. I'm an androgyne!
>Actually, this would explain a lot... ;-)
Try bending all of them to the side, by pressing on the side of the
index finger, like this....
--
(ężę) John C
www.socmen.org - it's your site (new and recently updated)
john_c
wrote:
>in article BifC5.3551$dB4.6...@news1.onlynews.com, Michael Snyder at
>msn...@ispchannel.com wrote on 10/2/00 10:48 PM:
>
>> Tony, I want a copy! Can you find and purchase a few?
>> I'm sure other guys 'n' gals here would like one too.
>> This is probably the first pro-C4M print ad I've ever heard of.
>
>Unfortunately I just caught the tail end of a mention of it on the radio. I
>didn't hear what newspaper it was. #B^( Of course theres nothing saying we
>couldn't make our own. #B^)
If anyone could scan a copy, I'll post it at socmen.org
Gerard S. Harbison
Anna wrote:
> Unfortunately they haven't put the "box-out" online that looked
> at how the ratio between the lengths of your index finger and
> ring finger predicted masculinity/feminity (and also to a lesser
> extent, AIR, gayness in men, or was it lesbianism, I forget).
> Anyway, AIR, if your ring finger's longer than your index finger
> you tend towards the masculine, and vice versa.
Oh damn.
john_c
<ge...@setanta.unl.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Anna wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately they haven't put the "box-out" online that looked
>> at how the ratio between the lengths of your index finger and
>> ring finger predicted masculinity/feminity (and also to a lesser
>> extent, AIR, gayness in men, or was it lesbianism, I forget).
>> Anyway, AIR, if your ring finger's longer than your index finger
>> you tend towards the masculine, and vice versa.
>
>
>Oh damn.
Not only that, just imagine for a moment the number of male netizens
out there right this minute comparing hands and finger lengths with
concern.
--
(ężę) John C
www.socmen.org - government approved for your viewing pleasure