Free to Be Me Childrearing

[Coito ergo sum]

Do women want to ride the motorbikes and get dirty? In my experience, they don't.

I brought my two (one girl, one boy, now in their early 20's) up pretty equally, I think - both did tree climbing, biking, cooking, cleaning, painting, whatever, and both still enjoy activities traditionally ascribed to the opposite sex, though both are firmly heterosexual (so far).

My daughter (driving) and her best friend...

08octvacation evil bikers in turkey.jpg

The question was generally speaking. About 90% of motorcycles in the US are owned by men. One would think if women wanted to ride motorcycles as much as men, that the percentage of motorcycles owned by women would reflect the fact that they are about 51% of the population.

WTF does that have to do with genetics?

Well, before one can begin to suggest a reason for a distinction, one must first identify a distinction. The fact that 90% of motorcycles are owned by men seems to indicate that there is a very clear suggestion that men generally speaking like riding motorcycles more than women do. If that were not true, then we would expect to see a closer to 50-50 split in the motorcycle market. Now, the reason for that could be some genetic reason in the male brain that causes men to be more apt to engage in those types of activities, OR the reason could be that our society and culture causes women to be discouraged and/or men to be encouraged to ride motorcycles, OR it could be some combination of the two.

There is certainly a greater tendency among men to engage in riskier activities, such as motorcycle riding. The idea that such a tendency is wholly environmental in nature, and if only we did not discriminate against women they would be just as likely to engage in all the same activities men engage in, is certainly a reasonable hypothesis, but it hasn't been established to be true. And, it is also a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that there may be genetic differences in the brains of men and women, selected for via evolution by natural selection, whereby men are more likely to engage in such risk-taking activities.

Apparently, the numbers are there to show that men do tend to engage in riskier activities far more frequently than women: http://journal.sjdm.org/jdm06016.pdf In that paper, it describes evidence that men in fact PERCEIVE less risk than women do.

And, there are some papers cited in that article that relate it to a "Darwinian" evolutionary explanation:

Buss (2003), extends Trivers' (1972) Darwinian analysis of parental investment. For physiological reasons, the minimal investment required to produce an offspring is generally much greater for a female than for a male (in humans, 9 months of gestation time vs. a few minutes). Thus, a male potentially can greatly increase his Darwinian fitness by having sex with multiple partners, whereas a female cannot. One potential consequence of this is much greater variability in male reproductive success than female. This difference may make it adaptive for males to be willing to take great risks for a chance of raising their attractiveness to mates (Buss, 2003). For example, suppose that running a 5% risk of death can move an organism's fertility from the 50th percentile for their sex to the 90th. For a male, this might pay a Darwinian dividend, whereas for females the cost would be more likely to outweigh the benefits.

And,

Perhaps women have a tendency to see greater risks than men see, not because of different selection pressure relating to mate seeking, but rather because if one perceives more risks in the world, one will be more effective at keeping safe any offspring under one's care. Human infants are exceptionally helpless for an unusually long developmental period, as compared to most animals.

And,

...the point of the present discussion is merely to suggest that any possible innate biological differences in risk perception are as likely to reflect selection pressures related to child-rearing as those related to mate-seeking.

So, while I won't go so far to say that there has been proven to be a biological or genetic link that makes men more predisposed to engage in risk-taking activities (which might include motorcycle riding), but there does appear to be some evidence for the notion, and there does appear to be a great deal of study going on which takes that idea seriously.

I find it curious that the whole idea of even talking about the concept seems to piss people off around here. It's like it's some sort of affront.

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm jumping in a bit late here, but I wanted to correct this common misconception about brains:

Do women want to ride the motorbikes and get dirty? In my experience, they don't.

Yes, you are correct. It is because they are genetically preprogrammed to dislike motorbikes and getting dirty.

Sarcasm aside, it would be a more fundamental difference that extends to such things.

One might also sneer and say, "Yes, you are correct. It is because they are "Born This Way" to like men instead of women, or women instead of men, or both." If sexual orientation can be something people are born with, then I see no reason for the idea of differing temperaments and predilections in other areas to be innate as well.

We seem to be disagreeing on what the null hypothesis should be here. I'm not claiming that men and women must necessarily be the same and I don't think anybody else is either. What I (and I think the others) are claiming is that there is no evidence that our current stereotypes are innate, or indeed that there need be personality differences.

I gave some evidence above. And, here is another: http://www.ucop.edu/sciencetoday/article/1392 "It seems there's a biological basis for the common and often times comic belief that men and women think differently. According to Dr. Larry Cahill of the University of California, Irvine, men and women use different sides of a brain structure called the amygdala to store emotional memories." That, to me, is one gigantic stereotype -- men and women thinking differently - and here is evidence that it stems from the structure of the brain. Born with.

So, to keep it short - see above where I noted evidence for distinctions in the structure of the brain leading to fundamental differences in how men and women think, remember and behave, and also the link I just cited. That is not, of course, to be interpreted to mean that I think sexual stereotypes are necessarily true and evidence based, and genetic. All I've said is that there are genetic differences between men and women's brains, and that fundamentally effects how men and women think resulting in fundamental differences in how we behave.

Yes, there are structural differences between male and female brains. Unfortunately, we currently have no real way of knowing which way causation is working here because we know that the experiences we have, what we think and feel, changes the shape of our brains. In other words, we already know that men and women think differently to some degree because even if we ignore the possibility of innate differences, there are huge societal pressures that force the majority of men and women in stereotypical gender roles. So we know that they think differently and since thoughts are generated by the brain, it is necessarily the case that our brains will look different. So when we find a study that says, "Wow, men and women's brains look different", all this tells us is that men and women think differently - which, again, we already knew.

More simply: The existence of differences in brain structures tells us nothing about whether it is an innate difference that causes men and women to fall into gender stereotypes, or whether the differential imposition of societal expectations produces different brain structures. Take any two groups of people who think differently: liberals and republicans, soccer players and rugby players, atheists and theists, etc, and you will find, inevitably, that their brains are different.

[Pappa]

it does appear that men tend not to care as much about wearing make-up as women.

In our Western culture that may be true, but it doesn't apply to all human cultures. In some, it's men who wear the make up.

[Geoff]

I find it curious that the whole idea of even talking about the concept seems to piss people off around here. It's like it's some sort of affront.

Nope, it's just that we enjoy arguing!

You seem to have wandered away from the "getting dirty" topic, and on to risk taking, with which I agree. Suppose the example of horse riding had been used instead of motorcyling (an example I know charlou will like!). That, in most countries, is much more popular amongst girls than boys, and is equally messy, if not more so. For some reason, it's seen as more "socially acceptable" for a girl to enjoy mucking out a stable than cleaning a bike, and I don't immediately see how the two would be differently selected for or against in evolutionary/genetic terms.

[Ronja]

I find it curious that the whole idea of even talking about the concept seems to piss people off around here. It's like it's some sort of affront.

Nope, it's just that we enjoy arguing!

You seem to have wandered away from the "getting dirty" topic, and on to risk taking, with which I agree. Suppose the example of horse riding had been used instead of motorcyling (an example I know charlou will like!). That, in most countries, is much more popular amongst girls than boys, and is equally messy, if not more so. For some reason, it's seen as more "socially acceptable" for a girl to enjoy mucking out a stable than cleaning a bike, and I don't immediately see how the two would be differently selected for or against in evolutionary/genetic terms.

Also, a motorbike will seldom panic or get pissed off at you and therefore throw you down or kick your brains out - a horse, however, is certainly capable of doing those things, and accidents of this nature happen. So which is the actually riskier undertaking?

I do not have an answer immediately, but comparisons could be based on accidents total, fatal accidents and/or accidents that lead to permanent disability on the one side and distance covered riding, hours spent riding or persons engaging in the hobby (e.g. number of motorcycle insurances vs. rider's insurances).

[Warren Dew]

As for diamonds, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether there is a genetic reason for women to be so overwhelmingly fond of diamonds, far more than men are. I haven't seen any studies on the subject, but it is an interesting question.

What makes you think women are more fond of diamonds than men are? After all, most diamonds are purchased by men, not by women.

[Gallstones]

I was never really much into diamonds. I much prefer colored stones, garnets especially. Those chocolate diamonds are nice though. Besides if I want or need a clear stone, CZ is good enough.

BTW, I have only ever had jewelry bought for me by a man one time. Otherwise I buy for myself or received it from my mother or grandmother. All my rings have gone missing, and I highly suspect it was a man who took them.

[Gallstones]

I like bikes. I never learned how to ride one but I'd like to. I love horses and I have had opportunity to learn to ride them and have had horses. Unlike a bike, horses interact on a personal level, they like you they hate you they tolerate you. They smell better.

[Warren Dew]

So....the tendency of girls/women to be attracted to men, and boys/men to be attracted to girls is learned? It's a cultural/environmental thing? We're not "Born This Way?"

Probably neither, actually. Most likely it is a matter of imprinting at an early age, probably between 1 and 2 years in humans.

And yes, that goes for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. The whole "homosexuality is genetic" thing has little basis in fact, but is a much easier way to get across the idea "homosexuality can't be voluntarily changed" than explaining the whole concept of imprinting. Meme popularity is based on more than just objective truth.

[Coito ergo sum]

As for diamonds, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether there is a genetic reason for women to be so overwhelmingly fond of diamonds, far more than men are. I haven't seen any studies on the subject, but it is an interesting question.

What makes you think women are more fond of diamonds than men are? After all, most diamonds are purchased by men, not by women.

Most diamonds purchased by men are purchased for women.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was never really much into diamonds. I much prefer colored stones, garnets especially. Those chocolate diamonds are nice though. Besides if I want or need a clear stone, CZ is good enough.

BTW, I have only ever had jewelry bought for me by a man one time. Otherwise I buy for myself or received it from my mother or grandmother. All my rings have gone missing, and I highly suspect it was a man who took them.

Therefore, men and women generally like diamonds about equally.

[Coito ergo sum]

So....the tendency of girls/women to be attracted to men, and boys/men to be attracted to girls is learned? It's a cultural/environmental thing? We're not "Born This Way?"

Probably neither, actually. Most likely it is a matter of imprinting at an early age, probably between 1 and 2 years in humans.

On what do you base that likelihood claim?

And, then, of course, it wouldn't be "neither actually." It would be "environmental." Imprinting at an early age means we're not born that way.

And yes, that goes for homosexuals as well as heterosexuals. The whole "homosexuality is genetic" thing has little basis in fact, but is a much easier way to get across the idea "homosexuality can't be voluntarily changed" than explaining the whole concept of imprinting. Meme popularity is based on more than just objective truth.

Well,that would explain the ease at which people will say we are "born" a certain way, and very reticent to say that it's genetic.

[Coito ergo sum]

I find it curious that the whole idea of even talking about the concept seems to piss people off around here. It's like it's some sort of affront.

Nope, it's just that we enjoy arguing!

You seem to have wandered away from the "getting dirty" topic, and on to risk taking, with which I agree. Suppose the example of horse riding had been used instead of motorcyling (an example I know charlou will like!). That, in most countries, is much more popular amongst girls than boys, and is equally messy, if not more so. For some reason, it's seen as more "socially acceptable" for a girl to enjoy mucking out a stable than cleaning a bike, and I don't immediately see how the two would be differently selected for or against in evolutionary/genetic terms.

Also, a motorbike will seldom panic or get pissed off at you and therefore throw you down or kick your brains out - a horse, however, is certainly capable of doing those things, and accidents of this nature happen. So which is the actually riskier undertaking?

I do not have an answer immediately, but comparisons could be based on accidents total, fatal accidents and/or accidents that lead to permanent disability on the one side and distance covered riding, hours spent riding or persons engaging in the hobby (e.g. number of motorcycle insurances vs. rider's insurances).

I don't think the claim that women tend to own or ride horses more than men has been established. It's been asserted.

[Coito ergo sum]

it does appear that men tend not to care as much about wearing make-up as women.

In our Western culture that may be true, but it doesn't apply to all human cultures. In some, it's men who wear the make up.

That would be interesting to flesh out the discussion. Which cultures?

[Svartalf]

As for diamonds, it is certainly a legitimate question to ask whether there is a genetic reason for women to be so overwhelmingly fond of diamonds, far more than men are. I haven't seen any studies on the subject, but it is an interesting question.

What makes you think women are more fond of diamonds than men are? After all, most diamonds are purchased by men, not by women.

Most diamonds purchased by men are purchased for women.

which still is no evidence that the women want diamonds; at best, it means the men are convinced women want them, at worst, men want them and can't conceive that women might fail to see the charm.