The Difference Between Men And Women

The release Between hands And Wo handsUnderstanding The Difference Between Men And Wo custodyFor centuries, the differences betwixt spiel force and wo hands were soci whollyy defined and distorted through and through a lens of depend uponism in which custody startd headmasterity over wo custody and primary(prenominal)tained it through domination. As the goal of equality mingled with men and women now grows closer we atomic number 18 also losing our aw arness of classic differences. In round circles of smart set, politic totallyy correct call ining is obliterating important tidings as healthy as our aw atomic number 18ness of the similarities and differences amongst men and women. The mickle of equality between the sexes has narrowed the possibilities for disco truly of what truly exists inside a small-arm and within a wo human racehood. The world is less(prenominal) interesting when every intimacy is alike(p). It is my aim that men and women be equal th at confrontation. When I distinguish equal, I retrieve that men and women convey a right to equal probability and protection under the law. The point that multitude in this country be assured these rights does non negate my observation that men and women atomic number 18 at least(prenominal) as diametric psycho tenaciously as they ar forciblely.n iodin of us would argue the particular that men and women are physiologically opposite. The physical differences are sooner obvious and around of these place be seen and tardily measured. Weight, shape, size and anatomy are non political opinions still sort of tangible and easy measured. The physical differences between men and women provide utilitarian advantages and defy survival value. Men usually flummox greater fastness body strength, build muscle easily, have thicker skin, bruise less easily and have a lower threshold of awareness of injuries to their extremities. Men are essentially built for physical confrontation and the utilization of force. Their joints are sanitary suited for throwing objects. A mans skull is almost al ship government agency thicker and vehementer than a womens. The stereotype that men are untold thick-headed than women is non far fetched. A mans thick headedness, and other(a) anatomical differences have been associated with a uniquely young-begetting(prenominal) person attraction to high speed activities and reckless demeanour that usually involve collisions with other anthropoids or automobiles. Men invented the game chicken, non women. Men, and a number of other male species of animal seem to stir up and crash into all(prenominal) other a great deal in their spare duration.Women on the other hand have four measure as many brain cells (neurons) connecting the right and left side of their brain. This latter(prenominal) finding provides physical certify that realizes the observation that men curse easily and to a greater extent heavily on their left brain to realise one chore one step at a time. Women have much(prenominal) efficient access to twain sides of their brain and on that pointfore greater use of their right brain. Women push aside focus on to a greater extent than than one problem at one time and frequently prefer to solve problems through multiple activities at a time. Nearly every parent has discovered how young girls find the talks of young boys boring. Young boys express confusion and would rather play sports than participate actively in a confabulation between 5 girls who are discussing as many as three subjects at erstwhileThe psychological differences between man and women are less obvious. They feces be difficult to discover. Yet these differences lavatory pro anchorly influence how we casting and maintain affinitys that sack range from work and friendships to marriage and parenting. Recognizing, sympathy, discussing as well as acting skillfully in light of the differences betwe en men and women mickle be difficult. Our failure to recognize and appreciate these differences mickle beseem a life long source of disappointment, frustration, tension and nonethelesstually our downslope in a relationship. Not whole understructure these differences destroy a promising relationship, but most lot provide grudgingly master or learn to live with the consequences. Eventually they find some agree or air to cope. Few people ever work bygone these difficulties. People feed to accept what they dont envision when they ascertain powerless to change it. Relationships between men and women are non unworkable or necessarily difficult. Problems simply arise when we expect or bust the opposite sex should withdraw, liveliness or act the way we do. Its not that men and women live in completely different realities. Rather, our privation of go throughledge and mutual experience gives rise to our difficulties.Despite great strides in this country toward equality , modern society hasnt made relationships between men and women any easier. Todays society has taught us and has imposed on us the expectation that men and women should live together continuously, in communion, and in harmony. These expectations are not still unrealistic but ultimately they buy the farm people ruling unloved, inadequate, cynical, apathetic or ashamed. The challenge facing men and women is to plough aware of their identities, to accept their differences, and to live their lives fully and as skillfully as possible. To do this we mustiness initiatory earn in what ways we are different. We must avoid trying to change others to suit our hires. The succeeding(a) illustrates some important differences between men and women. These differences are not absolute. They describe how men and women are in most situations most of the time.ProblemsMen and women snuggle problems with similar goals but with different comitys. While men and women shadower solve problems equ ally well, their approach and their process are a good deal quit different. For most women, sharing and discussing a problem presents an opportunity to look for, deepen or ratify the relationship with the person they are talking with. Woman are usually more concerned closely how problems are solved than merely closure the problem itself. For women, understand a problem tush profoundly push whether they feel closer and less alone or whether they feel upstage and less connected. The process of solving a problem can lace or weaken a relationship. Most men are less concerned and do not feel the same as women when solving a problem. Men approach problems in a very different manner than women. For most men, solving a problem presents an opportunity to render their competence, their strength of resolve, and their commitment to a relationship. How the problem is solved is not nearly as important as solving it effectively and in the high hat possible manner. Men have a feedenc y to dominate and to assume authority in a problem solving process. They set deviation their feelings provided the dominance hierarchy was agreed upon in advance and respected. They are often distracted and do not at go well to the quality of the relationship while solving problems. Some of the more important differences can be illustrated by observing groups of young teenage boys and groups of young teenage girls when they seek to find their way out of a maze. A group of boys principally establish a hierarchy or chain of command with a exceeder who emerges on his own or through demonstrations of ability and power. Boys explore the maze using scouts while remaining in distant law of proximity to each other. Groups of girls tend to explore the maze together as a group without establishing a clear or dominant leader. Relationships tends to be co-equal. Girls tend to elicit discussion and employ collective intelligence to the toil of discovering a way out. Girls tend to work the ir way through the maze as a group. Boys tend to search and explore using structured link and a chain of command.ThinkingWhile men and women can name similar closings and rack up similar decisions, the process they use can be quit different and in some cases can lead to only if different outcomes. In general, men and women consider and process liveledge differently. Women tend to be intuitive orbiculate thinkers. They consider multiple sources of information within a process that can be described as simultaneous, global in perspective and will ensure elements in the task in terms of their interconnectedness. Women come to understand and consider problems all at once. They entertain a broad or collective perspective, and they view elements in a task as interconnected and interdependent. Women are prone to become overwhelmed with complexities that exist, or may exist, and may have difficulty separating their person-to-person experience from problems. Men tend to focus on one problem at a time or a limited number of problems at a time. They have an enhanced ability to separate themselves from problems and minimize the complexity that may exist. Men come to understand and consider problems one piece at a time. They discover a linear or sequential perspective, and view elements in a task as less interconnected and more independent. Men are prone to minimize and fail to appreciate subtleties that can be crucial to successful solutions. A male may work through a problem repeatedly, talking about(predicate) the same thing over and over, rather than trying to address the the problem all at once. While there are differences in the ways that men and women think, it must be emphasized that they can and do solve problems in a similar manner. there are no absolutes, only tendencies.MemoryWomen have an enhanced ability to recall memories that have strong worked up components. They can also recall events or experiences that have similar emotions in common. Wo men are very adept at recalling information, events or experiences in which there is a common emotional theme. Men tend to recall events using strategies that rely on reconstructing the experience in terms of elements, tasks or activities that took place. Profound experiences that are associated with competition or physical activities are more easily recalled. in that respect appears to be a structural and chemical basis for observed retrospection differences. For instance, the hippocampus, the area in the brain primarily responsible for memory, reacts differently to testosterone in men and it reacts differently to changing levels of estrogen and progesterone in women. Women tend to remember or be reminded of different emotional memories and content to some extent as part of their menstrual cycle.SensitivityThere is license to suggest that a great deal of the sensibility that exists within men and women has a physiological basis. It has been observed that is many cases, women ha ve an enhanced physical alarm answer to danger or threat. Their autonomic and sympathetic systems have a lower threshold of arousal and greater reactivity than men. In both men and women, higher levels of testosterone directly affect the aggressive response and appearance centers of the brain. Increasing estrogen and progesterone in men has a feminizing effect. Sexually aggressive males become less foc employ on internal aggressive behavior and content when they are given egg-producing(prenominal) hormones. On the other hand, changing estrogen and progesterone levels in women during menstrual cycles can produce a flood of memories as well as strong emotions. Increasing or high levels of testosterone can produce an emotional insensitivity, empathetic block and increased indifference to the distress others. At the heart of sensitivity is our capacity to form, appreciate and maintain relationships that are recognise. Even here there are important differences. For men, what demonst rates a solid relationship is quite different from that of most women. Men feel closer and validated through telld up activities. Such activities include sports, competition, outdoor activities or sexual activities that are decidedly active and physical. While both men and women can appreciate and necessitate in these activities they often have preferential differences. Women, on the other hand, feel closer and validated through communication, dialogue and intimate sharing of experience, emotional content and personal perspectives. Many men tend to find much(prenominal) sharing and involvement uncomfortable, if not, overwhelming.The Task Of Relationship Facing Men and WomenThe task that faces men and women is to learn to accept their differences, avoid taking their differences as personal attempts to frustrate each other, and to compromise whenever possible. The idea that one grammatical gender can think and feel like the other if they truly loved each is rather absurd. Sure, a man or women could act in consideration of the others needs, but this would not necessarily be rewarding and honest. Holding the bene give-up the ghost of another above our own is rewarding. But from time to time, and more often for most of us, it is important to be our self and to be accepted, and not to be the source of distress and disappointment in the lives of people we love.The Role Of Counseling and TherapyCounseling and therapy can function a geminate understand and appreciate each other, and even benefit from their differences. Understanding these differences intellectually is not enough. A counselor or therapist can help point out these differences, as they surface, and guide a couple to a greater level of relationship. Understanding that differences are not intentional and that misunderstandings are merely the go out of expectations that are not realistic can wee a huge difference in a relationship. The differences that can be sensed between a man and women can deepen their relationship. more than importantly, when men seek to understand and appreciate that which is distaff, they come to a deeper understanding of their self. And when a women seeks to understand that which is male in men, they come to appreciate and understand more about their own masculinity.THE SOCIAL ROLES OF MEN AND WOMENIn all societies the obvious biological difference between men and women is used as a excuse for forcing them into different favorable roles which limit and shape their attitudes and behavior. That is to say, no society is content with the vivid difference of sex, but each insists on adding to it a cultural difference of gender. The simple physical positions therefore endlessly become associated with complex psychological qualities. It is not enough for a man to be male he also has to appear masculine. A woman, in addition to being female, must also be feminine.However, once the pipeline between men and women has been increased and accentuated in th is fashion, it is usually taken as a further manifestation of biological differences which confirm the need for different social roles. Or, to put it another way, sex differences are used to construct gender differences which are accordingly explained as sex differences which, in turn, await gender differences, and so on. This may be no more than philippic reasoning, but it is socially very effective. For example, in our own patriarchal society males enjoy a socially dominant position. Thus, from an early age, boys are helped to acquire a masculinity that allows them to assume and maintain that position. By the same token, girls are taught to cultivate a submissive muliebrity. The resulting difference in the male and female character is hence described as inborn and used to react the existing power arrangement. Only those who accept it are normal, and only they can expect to succeed. The male social role is designed to reward masculine men, while the female social role offers its relative advantages only to feminine women. (The aggressive man will run the bigger business the pretty, harmonical woman will find the richer husband.) In other watchwords, masculinity and femininity are gender qualities which are developed in response to social discrimination. However, once they have been developed, they just nowify and cement it. The masculine and feminine gender roles mutually reinforce each other and thereby perpetuate the discrimination on which they are based. Obviously, this psychological mechanism can operate only as long as the behavior of men and women does not appal the generally accepted limits. Every society tries therefore to prevent much(prenominal) transgressions by calling the socially defined gender roles intrinsic, eternal, and unchangeable. Any person who refuses to accept them is persecuted as a deviant and punished as an wrongdoer not only against society, but against nature itself. An historical example of such(prenominal) devi ance is the case of Joan of Arc who, as a young girl, not only led the French army to victory over the English, but also wore male clothing. In her later trial she was promptly charge of having thus violated the laws of nature.Over the centuries, many people have, of form, wondered why allegedly natural roles should need such rigorous social enforcement. by and by all, if they were truly natural, they would come course to both men and women. However, it is noteworthy that the advocates of the so-called natural inequality of the sexes resent nothing more than letting nature take its course. Yet, if their arguments were square(a), there would be no need to deny women equal opportunities, since they would be unable to compete with men. If women were naturally inferior, men would have nothing to fear. Therefore, the fact that many men do fear such competition raises fitting doubt as to the validity of their claim.The truth is that human desires and capacities have a magnetic incli nation to go beyond the narrow limits of our traditional gender roles. Indeed, it takes a constant combined effort by all social political science to keep this tendency under control. Such social control appears not only externally, in the form of parental guidance, peer-group pressure, and law enforcement, but also internally in the form of concepts and values which determine the self-image of every individual, and it is in the individual mind where the confusion of sex and gender can earn the most serious problems.For instance, men and women who feel that they do not fit the masculine and feminine stereotypes, or who resent them as too restrictive, may also develop ambiguous feelings about their biological sex. They may arrest to wish for different bodies which would allow them to play a role more to their liking. Or, to take another example, since men have been told that women are socially and sexually peaceful, they are usually gravely disturbed by encountering a woman who is socially aggressive and who takes the initiative in sexual intercourse. Confronted with this lack of femininity in a woman, a man may feel tempted to departure her womanhood. If this contention does not hold up in face of the evidence, he may instead begin to doubt his own masculinity and become sexually dysfunctional. Conversely, a handsome, gentle, and passive male may invite raillery and may be denounced as a pervert or queer. significant women may regard him as less than a real man and therefore reject him as a sexual partner.However, the confusion goes stock-still further. The notion that in every sexual encounter there has to be one active (masculine) and one passive (feminine) partner is so relentless that it not only ruins many heterosexual relationships, but also influences the behavior of certain homosexuals who feel compelled to model themselves after these stereotypes. By doing so, they give support to the curious principle that even in sexual relationships between members of the same sex, there always has to be one to play the man, while the other must assume the role of the woman. There is, in fact a general impression that every homosexual couple (whether male or female) consists of one active, masculine and one passive, feminine partner. People who hold this belief are, of course, at a total loss to explain phenomena like the celebrated homosexual elite troops of ancient Greece, which consisted entirely of male lovers. every of these views are based on a wrong purpose raddled from a false assumption. The false assumption states that women are naturally passive, while men are naturally active. The wrong conclusion asserts that every passive person is playing a feminine role and that every active person is playing a masculine role. However, in actual fact neither sex nor gender need be characterized in this fashion. After all, in some human societies the role assignment for men and women is the run off of our own. In short, there is not hing natural or definite about our sexual stereotypes. By the same token, full human equality will not be achieved until it becomes conceivable to both sexes that active and passive attitudes can be appropriate for either of them, and that even dickens active or two passive partners can have a rewarding relationship.This does not mean that, in an ideal future, all human differences will disappear. Indeed, once the old stereotypes have been discarded, the differences between individuals within each sex are likely to increase. Furthermore, under conditions of social equality, these individuals may also happily happen to play different gender roles. There should be no need to point out that there is nothing wrong with gender differences as such. They can greatly enrich our lives, as long as we understand that, in human beings, different does not have to mean superior or inferior. In other words, those who demand equal rights for men and women are not asking for drab uniformity, but f or a social temper in which variety can flourish without being exploited.The following pages first elaborate further on the basic concepts of sex and gender and therefore offer a brief discussion of the different moral standards for men and women.Male logic and Womens IntuitionThe split in our thinking between masculine and feminine is plausibly as old as wording itself. Human beings seem to have a natural tendency to divide things into matess good/bad, light/dark, subject/object and so on. It is not surprising, then, that the male/female or masculine/feminine dichotomy is used to associate things other than men and women. Many wordings actually classify all nouns as masculine or feminine (although not very conformablely for example, the Spanish masculine noun pollo means hen, while the feminine polla is slang for penis). This is perfectly natural it is part of the way categorisation works in language. This does not, however, mean that it is right. It is belike unimportant whether a table or a chair is scene of as masculine or feminine. It may not even be very important these days whether we think of the sun as male and the moon as female (like the ancient Greeks) or vice versa (like most of the German tribes). However, when we start associating mulct concepts like Reason or personality with men and women, we run into serious difficulties.The association of Reason with men and record with women is well- get laidn, and has been widely criticised. Aristotle defined Man as a rational animal, and by that he really meant men, not human beings. Unlike Plato, he truism women as less able to reason, hence less human and more animal. In Europe, well into the twentieth century, women were generally seen as in some way intellectually deficient. An English woman recently became Oxfords oldest graduate be guinea pig although she had completed her degree course in the 1920s, at that time the university did not award degrees to female students. presumably it would have decreased the status of the university to award degrees to an intellectually inferior sexNearly all societies, from hunting and gathering tribes to post-industrial nations, offer some kind of compensation to those who lose out in the status game. For example, among the practically matricentric Zuni Indians of New Mexico, the economically powerless men were credited with the ability to hasten rain. Black slaves in the American South were thought to be naturally stronger (which they generally were), amend at music and dancing (which they may have been) and more cheerful (highly unlikely for slaves, but a good justification for treating them badly). In the same way, women are compensated for their supposed inability to think rationally by a mysterious womens intuition. Attempts were made to cut this in biological terms women were seen as naturally more emotional and/or in touch with Nature because of their strange biology (menstruation, hormones, vapours or whatever). T his was about as scientific as the Zuni Indians theory that men could make rain.Men and women are, of course, biologically different. There are even significant differences in male and female brains women, for example, have a thicker corpus callosum (the thing that connects the two halves of the brain). However, it is a giant leap from observing that there are neurological differences between the sexes to assuming that these differences correspond to the classic Reason/Nature or logic/emotion dichotomies. In fact, some of these differences may even assign the opposite. The left hemisphere of the brain generally deals with linear processing, as found in language and some types of mathematics, and this hemisphere develops faster in girls than in boys. The old 11 plus test of verbal reasoning used in British schools was actually adjusted to bring boys scores up to the level of girls Whatever the case, it is a mistake to look at peoples brains and then decide that they must think in a certain way it would be far better to try and find out how people actually think, and then to see if this corresponds to brain structure.When we talk about the way men and women think, we are actually dealing with not one, but at least three separate things how men and women usually think, how men and women can think, and how we think men and women think. Usually when we think we are looking at the first or second subjects, we are actually only describing the third. Since our main guide to how people think is their language, the fact that in most cultures men and women talk in different ways, and about different things, may lead us to false conclusions about the way they think in general. Womens conversation tends to emphasise feelings more, which may also mean that they think about feelings more. It does not, however, mean that woman are more emotional. It is perfectly possible that men are just as emotional, but for social reasons they talk (and think) about their feelings less. S imilarly, the fact that in most cultures men argue more about abstract things does not mean that men are naturally more logical, it just means that the things men prefer to talk about require logical argument more than they require expression of feelings. Obviously the more you argue, the better you get at it, hence the prejudice that men are in some manner biologically more logical. This would be like assuming that I am biologically better at speaking English (my first language) than Turkish (my second).Problems also arise with the actual words we use logic, reason, intuition and emotion. Logic is simply a set of principles for getting from something we already knew, to something we didnt. If we know that all cows eat grass, and we know that Daisy is a cow, we can use very simple logic to say that Daisy eats grass, even if we have never seen her eat anything. The more complex logic that we use in constructing philosophical arguments or designing computers is really only doing the same kind of thing. The word rational is a little more problematic, since it involves an assessment of aims and actions. If our aims are consistent with each other and our actions achieve our aims, then we can fairly say that we are behaving rationally. If we act in a way that prevents us from realising our aims, then we are behaving irrationally, or in other words, stupidly. For example, if I know that I will have a better relationship with my wife if I dont shout at her, but I still shout at her because I am in a bad mood, my problem is not that I am being emotional, it is that I am being stupid.The opposite of rational is not, then, emotional but irrational. If we set up a pair of opposites, rational/emotional, we are likely to make the assumption that women are more emotional and therefore irrational, which is a polite way of saying that women are stupid. While having strong emotions can sometimes interfere with your thought processes, this is not automatically the case. For exa mple, I often get quite excited when I am working on a new theory or project, but this usually makes my thinking better, not worse. Strong negative emotions such as rage, jealousy or depression are usually the result of irrational thinking as much as a cause of it, and men are just as vulnerable to this type of folly as women.Intuition is an even trickier concept. We usually say that we arrive at an idea or solution to a problem intuitively when we know something without knowing how we came to know it. A scientist may arrive at a new theory because the idea just pops into his or her head, or even turns up in a dream. You may get an intuitive feeling that a person is dishonest without actually having heard them say something you know to be untrue. In both these cases, what seems to be happening is that the mind stores and sorts information unconsciously, providing us only with the end result of this process. There is no guarantee, of course, that this conclusion will be true a scient ist would still have to discharge experiments to prove their intuitive theory, and you would probably want some hard evidence to prove that the person you feel is dishonest really does tell lies.There is therefore nothing particularly strange or mystical about intuition it is something we do all the time. Why, then, do we talk about womens intuition, as though men never arrive at a conclusion without consciously following all the stages that were necessary to reach it? Again, the answer is probably linguistic. As we have seen, traditionally womens conversation is less formal, less argumentative, and more concerned with feelings than mens conversation. Intuitive conclusions are therefore more acceptable in an all-female group. Men, on the other hand, are expected to argue more, and to argue more logically, presenting evidence in a systematic way to back up their conclusions. It is less socially acceptable in an all-male conversation (or a conversation where the men are doing most of the talking) to say Well guys, I dont know why, but I just get this kind of feeling that e=mc2.We can see, then, that these pairs of opposites, logic/intuition and rational/emotional, are not only false, but also damaging, particularly to women. It therefore surprising that some feminists actually support a version of this patriarchal nonsense. Particularly at the more spiritual end of the Radical Feminist community, there is a tendency to glorify womens intuition and closeness to Nature, and to avoid logic as somehow male, as though it were a psychological problem resulting from too much testosterone. The fact that men often use logic, or at least logical-sounding arguments, to put women in their place is not a jailbreak of logic, it is the fault of those mens sexism and lack of social skills. More innocently, men are often impeach of being too cold and logical, not because there is anything wrong with their ideas, but because they do not understand the unspoken rules of female conversation, in the same way that women are often accused of being illogical or emotional because they do not argue using the same language as men.If women reject logic and rely solely on feelings, they are left in the weak position of having to argue with feelings. Feeling that something is true does not make it true, and it will not convince anyone else that it is true either. You can say, I feel X, but the person you are arguing with can just as well reply, Well I dont. The result is that the argument usually goes nowhere. This is particularly damaging in arguments between men and women, since both sides are likely to go away with their prejudices strengthened the men think women are subjective, emotional and illogical, and the women think men are impersonal, cold and over-intellectual.To justify their feelings of hurt at being beaten in an argument, the women concerned may go further and dismiss the whole thing as male logic, as though there were two types of logic, on for men and anoth