Jackson Free Press

This past weekend I went on a date with a man eight years my junior. (I'll pause so that all the older women may give me mental high-fives and formulate extremely personal questions that will not be answered in this column. And no, I'm not going to state my age.)

Suffice it to say, I am old enough that eight years younger still makes him legal to drink. This is a good thing, as I had several drinks myself before agreeing to go on the date. I met him in a random situation and began the relationship with a belief that he was much older than he really was. Or rather, at least a few years older.

OK, OK, I thought he was at least two years older. All right, damnit, I knew he was a boy, but within 10 minutes of our meeting, he said he was a "radical feminist," and I thought I might pass out.

I also decided to have his children on the spot. The rest of it was pure rationalization. It's amazing what my defense mechanisms will wrap up and present to me on random Mondays in May. It must be the beautiful weather.

I will admit that as much as I tout "women's lib" on this page most weeks, I still have issues with dating a man this much younger than I am.

I've always gone for the older man. My mother attributes this to an advanced level of maturity. I attribute it to a love of nice cars, interesting conversation, good wine and a thorough indoctrination into proper sex roles. The etiology doesn't really matter.

What matters is why I have a mental block that immediately removes large parts of the male dating pool. Or at least those who were born after 1981. Younger men can be great, right? Just look at Demi and Ashton. Susan and Tim. There are countless others who demonstrate that the idea is worthwhile.

There is even a new fad term for older women who date younger men: "Cougars." Isn't that freaking fabulous? It makes me feel sleek and dangerous—the cougar is the exact opposite of my normally bumbling and very "unsleek" reality.

After checking jail times and reading "The Graduate," I decided I had nothing to lose but a really embarrassing experience. Because I frequently fall into those naturally, younger man or not, it seemed unimportant, and we set a time and place. Lucky for me, when I arrived at said time and place, it unexpectedly included a table of my best friends and my ex-boyfriend. Have you ever had a date where you thought, "Great, if only my high-school English teacher was in the restaurant, this circle of hell would be complete?"

I quickly calmed down after we began a conversation, and I realized that maybe going out with a younger man wasn't so bad. In fact, right after he looked across the table and said, "You are sexy," I thought it couldn't get much better.

Unfortunately, I spent a better part of the date freaking out about the age difference instead of just enjoying the interesting conversation. At one point, I called him a boy. After he finally told me I was being "cute" about the age gap, I actually tossed my hair, giggled and settled into myself.

Settling into yourself on a first date is difficult with anyone, much less with someone whose age makes you feel outdated, cynical and old.

He seemed to take my penchant for cursing and sarcasm in stride. Occasionally, he looked at me, and I thought that maybe the age thing wasn't such a big thing. After three hours of talking about everything I could think of, I looked straight at him and said, "I like you." He looked at me intently and just sat there.

He held my eyes and finally returned, "I'm just a boy, remember?" Jesus, he was smart. He was also tall and had dark curly hair. In most situations this automatically makes me a goner. In this one, it just made the entire situation even more confusing. He was just a boy.

But in that one moment, despite my 30 years of experience and my Southern female socialization whispering in different ears, I became a girl. I was simple and sweet things that would make him laugh. I was no longer sad stories and deep wounds. I was no longer the disappointments by which I had allowed myself to be defined. I was just a girl.

That's when I realized that it wasn't so much that he was younger as it was that he was a lost part of myself. I tried to understand my attraction to him in terms of loving parts of my own being—the parts that used to believe in the world and good things, before the times of broken hearts and paying bills. I realized how much I absolutely ached for them. I had remembered them faintly on certain sunny days. I do not know exactly when they vanished, but I was assured in their absence by my constant caustic laugh and inability simply to giggle, toss my hair and settle into myself.

Instead of reminding me of all the things I thought I'd lost, he handed them back to me in one simple statement.

Isn't that all a woman ever really wants? Just to be a girl?

Or rather, just to be a girl cougar.

Previous Comments

ID

72428

Comment

I knew you were a warm and fuzzy person

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-05-25T10:17:23-06:00

ID

72429

Comment

Shhh! Don't tell anyone...

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-25T10:22:19-06:00

ID

72430

Comment

I didn't want to be the first one to comment on this column, and perhaps I still shouldn't comment, but I will for a brief moment. I've been told, and the older I get the more I believe, that age is just a number. It appears women are bothered by dating younger men when they themselves are still young or relatively young. This problem seems to go away as they age. It further seems at some point that women suddenly realize a younger man can provide a thing or two that an older man can't. Or perhaps women's desires and needs are realized, crystallized, or maybe altered as they age. Likely as women age they realize they don't need a man for financial or even emotional stability or support. Additionally, as women age perhaps they're more honest and intelligent about what they really need or want. I don't know but I have my opinions about it. Alternatively, I don't know if men ever have a problem with dating younger women. I imagine many, if not most, would spend thier whole lives this way if they could get away with it. I also supect many older men would have a problem marrying younger women on the basis they think young women aren't capable of making good financial, business, futuristic, or emotional decisions. I won't even mention problems relative to conversational interest and intellectual sparring or agreements and support. It has been said that the age of a woman has a lot to do with how she responds to stress. For instance an older women learning her husband is cheating on her would likely just go along with it, get comfort from her friends, find her a boyfriend, seek an amicable divorce, or have a civilized fight. Contrast this to a younger women who would burn up the house (Lisa "left eye" Lopez), burn up the man's clothes and car (Angela Basset in a movie), run into the guy's car (a friend), break into the meeting place of the husband/boyfriend and his girlfriend and start a fight with both (a client), try to take the man to the cleaners (too numerous to mention), or something even crazier. I don't know much, but it seems to me that people should accept what they want or need regardless of an age limitations or restrictions as long as the sitation involves something legal and moral. From my perspective, all men a re ugly. On the otherhand, I know of nothing more wonderful and beautiful than a refined, self-assured, self-respecting, respectful, accomplished, loving, and giving of herself women 40 years of age and above. The wonderful thing about this is that I have seen many women under forty with these same attributes. So, maybe age isn't nothing but a number.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-25T11:18:31-06:00

ID

72431

Comment

Beautiful comments, Ray. Women are so obsessed with age; of course, some men are, too. But I think we have to own our age; we earned every year of it, and we have things to offer at every stage. I find youth-obsessed people very sad. That doesn't mean we should make ourselves old, as so many people do. And Todd is 10 years younger than I am, and that's wonderful. The truth is, people can be immature at any age, and some never mature. The key is to find someone who is a kindred spirit.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-05-25T11:24:06-06:00

ID

72432

Comment

For those who would be too quick to agree with me that older women act more mature in handling stress in relationships, allow me to tell you about a case in Greenville many years ago. As I was told by reliable sources, an older woman was dating a younger man who was cheating on her. The older woman found out about it and confronted the younger man about. During the discussion the older woman wounded up shooting the younger man four times. I wasn't really surprised by this, but I was surprised that she shot him with 3 different guns. Can anybody tell me why? Luckily, the young fellow lived to see another day, was forgiven, and accepted back by the older woman. Would a young woman have done that?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-25T11:29:51-06:00

ID

72433

Comment

Well, I think you're right in general. ;-) Certainly, women who aren't just self-focused babies anymore can understand mistakes people make and deal with things more maturely by taking a full look at the situation. That doesn't mean they are lapdogs or will put with with silliness for long, though!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-05-25T11:41:22-06:00

ID

72434

Comment

Yeah, I don't deal well with silliness. Thank God I'm a pacifist, huh? ;) Thanks for the comments. I'm actually still "sitting" with this situation as I think the dates led to even bigger decisions in my life. The after-effect has been very interesting. Just for the record, I didn't shoot him. He's way too cute. :)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-25T11:48:41-06:00

ID

72435

Comment

Does "sitting" means still talking with and trying to learn who the person really is? If you looked in the most unusual place but still found the shiniest and least defective diamond would you put the diamond back or would you keep it? We humans, probably women in aprticular, are quite concerned about perception or appearances. As we grow older we realize self-interest or self-satisfaction is sometime more important than apperances. I think this is particularly so as it relates to matters of the heart, body, mental state and soul. Do you know what you want or are looking for? You have to know this in order to recognize it when you see it. If he's worth the time then I say go for it. You won't look as awkward as you think. Instead, you're likely to look as though you got it going on. Sure, some of us will look at you crazylike and wonder if you're one of those high school teacher slaying another school-aged boys. Smile. (I still don't know why boys over 15 turns the teacher in. I probably would have given her a plaque or placard thanking her). But true friends won't be bothered by what you're doing if it's legal and good for you. Still, others will talk and gossip regardless. But if others were really happy and living fulfilled lives they wouldn't have much time to be concerned about your situation. The young lucky fellow would look like he got it going on too because he's dating outside his age group. Others would likely figure he's mature and confident. After a few more dates both of you will forget the age difference if he's really mature. If he's not a diamond or diamond in the rough, and is instead only a mirage or fraud then you know what to do with him. If it all works out, thank me, and send me my money for giving good advice. If it fails, forget I said anything. After all, I'm "ignant" and don't know what I'm talking about anyway.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-25T14:44:24-06:00

ID

72436

Comment

Ray, you are further from "ignant" than anybody I know. ;) As you say, he's FINE with the age difference. :) As are his friends...

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-25T14:51:34-06:00

ID

72437

Comment

One other thing, Ali. I'm getting worried that I'm giving up too much informatuin since I'm writing books to pass on to my grandchildren about life and the opposite sex. My book for my grandson is called "What I Learned About Women While Walking My Dog Phantom." Anyway, we have to learn the difference between what we want and what we need. They're often different things. A friend of mines a couple of days ago said he accidentally watched a Nelly video and wanted every women he saw in it. But we all know he didn't need any of them. What we need is something that's truly good for us and has lasting affect. What we want is often something to make us feel good right then or for the moment. When we can get both in one, or at at the same time, it's something to behold. When we can't achieve both in one, we have to weight the risks and make the decision that best suits us while being forever mindful of what the situation really is. This same friend mentioned above was a skinny, sky, unnoticeable fellow during our college days, and because of it, all the girls overlooked him when seeking dates or mates. Now that this friend is outgoing, bulky, tall, smart, accomplished, and makes a lot of money, all of the single girls from back then are trying to hook him. He simply says to them "back then you didn't want me, now I'm hot, you all on me." You know many of them curse him out once he says this. A few of my perverted friends urge him to go ahead and sleep with them then come back and tell us what they're like. How sick in the head is this? No women would consider doing such a thing. Only a man is low down enough to poseess such notion. Right, ladies? Alright, let me get out before I run out as usual. By the way, my book for my granddaugter is entitled "100 Reasons Why You Need A Good Man."

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-25T15:53:06-06:00

ID

72438

Comment

Ali, there is nothing wrong with being with a younger guy. My girlfriend is 12½ years older than I am. I'm 31½ and she just turned 44 a month ago. We've temporarily broken up (long-distance issues), but at the same time, I didn't have any problems with the difference. In some ways, I've been attracted to older women, but I never thought it would've actually happen. If you saw my gf, you'd thought she was ten years younger. I thought the same thing when I first saw her. As long as the both of you are happy about it, let no man put asunder.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2006-05-27T22:28:13-06:00

ID

72439

Comment

Personally, I would never be with a woman who was substantially younger than I am. I know that goes against the grain of both this thread and general practice. Of course, relationships between people of different ages can work, but there are complications. That aside, I wouldn't date a woman in her early 20s because I do not think that they are attractive. Yes, they are fresh and full of energy and have girlish figures. But they are not, by my way of thinking, women. I think females only become women when they approach 30. Women, as opposed to girls, tend to be comfortable with their sexuality and they have a knowing wickedness that I find delightful. They have grown up, both physically and mentally. Why would anyone waste time with some scrawny teenager? Who could put up with that obnoxious naivete, that innocence?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-05-28T15:56:59-06:00

ID

72440

Comment

Brian, did you mean date or marry a woman in her early twenties? If you're referring to dating temporarily and you're the average man, I imagine there are millions of women all over the world who could make you eat those words. But I could be wrong. I imagine you're talking about a real relationship of dating with some expectation of longevity. Don't get me wrong, I agree about the wonderfulness of the aged woman. A little bird told me that 30 and 44 are the magical year for a woman! Is it true? Anybody know?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-30T08:52:17-06:00

ID

72441

Comment

God, I hope that 30 is one of the magical years for women. ;) I'll be there in a few months. Other than that, I agree that older women are just BETTER. :) "obnoxious naivete"? Brian, if I didn't love you so much I'd slap you just for being so damn cynical.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-30T10:23:10-06:00

ID

72442

Comment

If it's true as the sagacious author writes that all a woman really wants is to "feel like a girl or girl cougar", shouldn't we be compelled to take classes or to get training on how to make women feel like this before the relationship begins? After all, they're our greatest co-equals or superiors. As far as I know there are no classes on how to achieve this. Consequently, we're left to conclude as we see fit. Any women should know by now that we learn very slowly. I believe we were described one time as annoying. If sex is remotely involved in this process or accomplishment, and if you take it upon yourself to get some experience or training outside the relationship or house, or in one known case within the house like the Oval office, you will get vilified, impeached, hated, and put on rationing or never-again. Practice or training is hard to get once you have gotten into the relationship, I imagine, but I don't know. Perhaps the wise and knowing author would be so nice as to tell us how to achieve this this lofty goal. We men wait, ready to learn. Please help us out.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-30T10:26:31-06:00

ID

72443

Comment

By the way, I see I was off a few months. I thought I had guessed the ages of two women with accuracy.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-30T10:28:13-06:00

ID

72444

Comment

I'm on deadline, but for the moment, let me just say this. Although I have a deep respect for Islam, I cannot imagine a fate worse than getting saddled with 72 virgins, which is one of many reasons why I will never become a martyr for the faith. All of that clutching and crying and carrying on? Understand that I mean no disrespect to women by writing that--I could write 10,000 words on all the ways in which men lie about "losing" their virginity. (The only thing lost, for either men or women, is obnoxious naivete.) I would much rather be with a woman who has been around the block, or the bases, or whatever, a few times or even several hundred times rather than a rookie. Good Lord virgins are annoying.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-05-30T10:51:46-06:00

ID

72445

Comment

I think its supposed to be appealing because then you can "train" them, you don't only have sex with them once

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-05-30T10:55:58-06:00

ID

72446

Comment

Excuse me for getting a little impertinent...but why in Buddha's name would you want to TRAIN someone? Wouldn't you rather get them fully functioning and with their own bag of tricks? And, Brian, Don't say it.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-30T11:04:26-06:00

ID

72447

Comment

Your 30s are infinitely more interesting than your 20s, Ali -- if you allow them to be. Same for 40s. Don't know about 50s, yet. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-05-30T11:08:25-06:00

ID

72448

Comment

Wouldn't you rather get them fully functioning and with their own bag of tricks? Well when you are with someone for awhile you have to learn what you like and they like together, if one prefers rough, holes in the drywall, and the other prefers something else well there is a conflict.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-05-30T11:23:50-06:00

ID

72449

Comment

So, is it OK for the man to be a virgin and not a woman? We men had to start somewhere, but we should expect the woman to be experience already?

Author

golden eagle

Date

2006-05-30T11:33:01-06:00

ID

72450

Comment

I think it's OK for people to be whatever the hell they want. :P I discussed this with some folks on a feminist blog a while back. Personally, I'm one of those people who doesn't believe in having sex outside of long-term relationships--yes, ladies and gentlemen, your friendly neighborhood pro-choice liberal is going on record here in support of ABSTINENCE--but I could give a rip how experienced my future sexual partner is or isn't. The fact of the matter is that you're only a virgin once anyway, so unless you plan on only having sex once during the relationship... And no matter how many times you've had sex, the first time you have sex with a specific person is the first time you've had sex with that specific person. The bigger problem for me is the idea that virginal women are particularly expensive "prizes," where you're supposed to flap around the bloody sheet outside the tent or whatever to prove you were her first, her last, her eeeeeeverything. I don't get that part. If Ms. Right is my first sexual partner and I'm her 20th, no big whoop. As for younger men and younger women, I didn't see this thread screaming out for Tom Head's verdict, but if anyone's interested, I refer to my first sentence above. As long as both parties are consenting adults, and one party isn't exploiting a position of great institutional power over the other to get laid (sorry, Mr. President), none of this is any of my business or even within my power to judge. And Brian, not to quibble with your point above, but women in their early twenties aren't all unattractive to me. I think it's probably now safe to admit that I had a silly (and, for obvious reasons, one-sided!) crush on now-23, then-20ish Casey Parks once, and if you didn't, you're a better man than I am. :P Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-30T12:12:11-06:00

ID

72451

Comment

Donna, I hear that 50 is the new 65! No, wait, I might have that backwards... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-30T12:13:52-06:00

ID

72452

Comment

I'm yet to meet a women to admit she wanted a virgin. From what I remember, the younger woman wants someone who knows what he's doing because she doesn't. Smile. And she wants a home run hit everytime (but who doesn't even if a slowly hit one) or she demeans or leaves the man. This is true unless he has big money which makes it worth keeping him around for a while. An older woman perhaps is more open to a virgin or inexperience man due to the teaching possibilities, debt he would then owe her, and the lad's eagerness (which causes many mishaps or quick disasters) to learn. Can you hear me? Not to mention another thing or two. But with the advent of medicines an older man is able to trump the truly young man until he dies now. So what if you have a heart attach. Just let it come or occur afterward (not before) and everything gonna be alright. Back to "feeling like a girl." Still guessing, but I figure a lot of this is mental. I imagine it is possible to have the physical ability but not the mental ability and still fail to make a woman feel like a girl. After all, how much talk about rap music, clubbing, clothes and girlish things can a woman stand. I agree with Brian and Ali about virgins. Wouldn't want to go thru that over and over again. As to the training, which you women know we so sorely need, why not agree to it? We could do so much better if y'all would just approve of training schools. Believe me, we want to learn to do better! Add to that, letting us choose our own teachers. What a wonderful world it could be? All for the ultimate benefit of all to boot.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-30T12:14:56-06:00

ID

72453

Comment

Hey, I fell in love with Todd, who is 10 years my junior, because we could talk for hours and hours and hours about things that matter, and some things that didn't. That, and the fact that he sang standards and country songs to me for about 24 hours straight on a midnight trip to Dodge City. I'm happy to report that we still talk for hours, and he still sings to me on road trips. For whatever it's worth. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-05-30T12:27:11-06:00

ID

72454

Comment

Oh, and I should add the other reason: because he has always accepted me for who I am, and encouraged me to be me.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-05-30T12:27:46-06:00

ID

72455

Comment

Kindred spirit and love. How great. Ali find out if he can sing.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-30T12:29:04-06:00

ID

72456

Comment

From what I've heard, Ali could do the singing in that relationship. ;-) I don't sing. I've just listened to Todd sing, while bursting with pride and love, in piano bars, in the car, in the shower, at karaoke nights ... OK, I'll embarass him if I say more, so I'll stop. Let's just say I love being on the receiving end of his talent. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-05-30T12:35:20-06:00

ID

72457

Comment

OK, I'll embarass him if I say more, so I'll stop. Let's just say I love being on the receiving end of his talent. ;-D See, Dat's what I'm talkin' about. People should come with their own TRICKS. ;) Ray-He actually does sing. And play the guitar. That doesn't suck. If I did that training it would have to be a weekend course and I would DEFINITELY have to charge. With me soon to be unemployed, there's no way I'd be giving out that information for free! :)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-30T13:45:56-06:00

ID

72458

Comment

These love stories are heartwarming. I won't tell my story because it would destroy my macho, tough guy image. We're all tough until the right one comes along. While in college, I would walk past women who would start singing the o'Jays' hit song "henpecked" and I wasn't even henpecked yet. I later learned many of them were trying to bait me into spreading the love around. Everyone on campus knew we were a couple, and to this day whenever these people see one of us, they ask where is the other one. I sometimes say we broke up in college and they immediately say "you're lying". Almost 30 years and she's still around. Better than my dad and all my brothers who swears they couldn't stay with the same woman all these years. They said something is wrong with me. They adore her but know one woman could never be enough. My son is just like his granddaddy and uncles. Fellows when these women find something good they won't leave! If you don't want to keep them, just refuse to be good and most will just leave. A few of them you will just have to call the police on. Watch out there now!! In their defense, they'll never be as crazy and disturbed as we men often are when jilted or unwanted. If you think a crying woman looks sad wait until you see an ugly allegedly macho man doing the same thing. I know the women can feel me on this.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-30T14:41:55-06:00

ID

72459

Comment

Finally, I always knew if you could sing, play and instrument, or dance women would easily love you. At least the ones with some sense. The ones with no sense or little sense like the jocks - the wife beaters, girlfriend abusers, and ones who substitute brute for brains. One of my friend's wife told him she would leave him immediately if Luther Vandross ever came calling. Yet Luther probably didn't really like girls. What does this say about hitting notes? If the wife ever leaves me, the first thing I'm going to do is sign up for music lessons.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-30T15:14:17-06:00

ID

72460

Comment

I disagree, they may easily love you ray, but being broke eventually takes it toll. If your kid wants guitar lessons, take away his allowance so he is prepared to not have any money, or break his fingers so he can't play. I would offer a complete opposite argument where the ones with little sense like the music men, who just as easily could be wife beaters, girlfriend abusers and substitute chords for brains.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-05-30T15:26:55-06:00

ID

72461

Comment

I understand Superstar. I won't be singing for a career or to put bread on the table. I'm talking about doing it just to get women. It you sing well enough they won't know you broke until too late. See what I'm saying? When Elvis sung "love me tenderly" the women didn't care whether he had any money or not. When Luther sung " a house is not a home" he could have been popping the women up side their heads as he sung and many of them would have still gone home with him. Love songs are cryponite to women. Feel me? It's one of their defects. The only one I might add.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-30T16:18:42-06:00

ID

72462

Comment

do you believe in life after love? I can feel something inside me saying i really dont think your strong enough ohhh. Door is open, come on in ladies

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-05-30T16:20:58-06:00

ID

72463

Comment

Superstar, you lost me on that one. I have no idea what you mean or is saying.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-30T16:25:07-06:00

ID

72464

Comment

hah dude i'm crooning trying to serenade all i can

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-05-30T16:26:30-06:00

ID

72465

Comment

Yeah, um, but Superstar? You're using CHER to do it. Ray is a straight man...this is why he is not understanding. :P

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-30T16:31:29-06:00

ID

72466

Comment

Ray-I agree about the singing and instrument thing. If a man wants a date, he should learn to play the guitar. I've dated many a guitar player...and you are right...I really didn't care what they looked like or how much money they made. I just cared that THEY PLAYED THE GUITAR! How hot! ;)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-30T16:36:16-06:00

ID

72467

Comment

I can play a mean cher and pink floyd on my strat. If you would have heard it ali it wouldnt matter that was in a high C and it was darn good

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-05-30T16:50:23-06:00

ID

72468

Comment

And when Todd sings "One More for the Road" ... oh, never mind ...

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2006-05-30T20:51:12-06:00

ID

72469

Comment

Ray, With all due respect, I become so bored with men who play this same old refrain, that we are emotionally slow-witted and require infinite patience from our women. The truth is that there is no difference between men and women in emotional candor, introspection or sophistication--except to the extent that the vestiges of cowboy masculinity, the silent, stupid, ultimately passive aggressive persona of the men of yesteryear remain. Personality and upbringing mark the difference between men and women in emotional intelligence, plain and simple. What's more, such talk inspires arrogance in women, who may feign such intimacy with their emotions that they pursue their own interests--just like a man--all the while pretending that they are the responsible, "sensitive" party in the relationship. Meanwhile, men act may act like the strong, silent type simply to play emotional games worthy of any "1950s housewife." Stereotypes are always dull. As for age, the real point is that for a relationship to be dignified, you must make a genuine emotional wager. To wit, you must risk something, and that is unlikely to happen with someone substantially younger than yourself. Certainly, it is not impossible, and to those who find the right someone, age really doesn't matter. But by and large people use such language to obscure, both from themselves and others, the fact that the relationship fails this standard. As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with having something you want. But why must we lie to ourselves and others about what it is we are doing? Plato tells the parable of the clumsy lover. The clumsy lover tells his mate that they he has never truly loved anyone else before, and that he will be with his mate forever, even beyond death. The knowing lover needs no embellishments, no soft lies to hold close to his mate, to express his love genuinely. There are very few young knowing lovers.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-05-30T22:18:17-06:00

ID

72470

Comment

Brian writes: As for age, the real point is that for a relationship to be dignified, you must make a genuine emotional wager. To wit, you must risk something, and that is unlikely to happen with someone substantially younger than yourself. But if you're dating someone substantially older than yourself, wouldn't this suggest that that person isn't risking something, and that therefore any relationship with an age disparity must be, at best, half-dignified? Personally, I'm interested in settling down with a peer. Not someone who smiles up to me like I'm her father. Not someone who smiles down to me like I'm her child. I honestly have no idea how old she'll be, and I doubt age will be the deciding factor in any case. My brother married someone a couple of years older than he is; my father and grandfather were each ten years older than their significant others. I do know that women tend to marry, on average, about three years younger than men do. But then women are encouraged to settle down and turn into baby factories as early as possible rather than building careers, so... As for how many lovers are knowing or clumsy (this conversation is beginning to sound more and more like a dirty Leonard Cohen song), I haven't schtupped enough people to notice. I'll take yours and Plato's word for it, with hope that you're talking about the Plato of the Dialogues (who proposed that soldiers should kick butt by day and make sweet love with each other by night, to improve, uhm, unit cohesion) and not the Plato of the Laws (a veritable John Ashcroft of the ancient world who wanted to ban all sex out of wedlock--including wanking, for the love of Pete!). And I'm not touching your conversation with Ray with a ten-foot...pole, except to say that (a) I'm glad to see another diehard male feminist on the board but (b) I doubt Ray's tongue was very far from his cheek when he posted that. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-31T00:14:18-06:00

ID

72471

Comment

Tom Head writes: I honestly have no idea how old she'll be, and I doubt age will be the deciding factor in any case. ...within reason. It goes without saying that we're all talking about adults here, but I just know some idiot from another site is sitting there cutting-and-pasting out of context snippets. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-31T03:59:53-06:00

ID

72472

Comment

Brian, I nearly totally agree with your first paragraph. Yes, I play the slow witted and unlearned guy for the purpose of empowering women to open up and relax, and to get sympathy and honesty rather early from them. Many are certainly willing to fall into the trap or game. But don't tell any women I said this. I also do it for the purpose of placating women who have been abused by males. We all need to hear another side of an issue and to feel good about ourselves. Finally, as it relates to this issue I'm often only joking in my posts, and rarely anyone can truly guage when I'm serious versus joking unless you trully know me. You should see how I have my life-long friend spinning their wheels in disbelief on many occasions before they figure out I'm bullcrapping. The key is to ignore me about half the time, and to expect me to ultimately do and say the right thing. I will do the right then when it really matters. I appluaud you guys who are totally serious and without any games. This is the biggest reason I like reading Tom's post. I see great intellect, seriousness, and honesty in his posts. You will see a range of things from me. I don't like being serious all the time. I fear such position would wear me down and make me predictable and boring.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-31T08:34:20-06:00

ID

72473

Comment

I should add that I think I'm doing an honorable thing when I can make a woman feel she has great worth and purpose, and deserve love despite what other men or women think of her. Brian, I call waht I do CHIVALRY. I'm siglehandledly trying to keep it alive. Ali walk over to Brian's desk and pop him up side of head for questioning or trying to kill chivalry.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-31T08:46:00-06:00

ID

72474

Comment

You should see how I have my life-long friend spinning their wheels in disbelief on many occasions before they figure out I'm bullcrapping. The key is to ignore me about half the time, and to expect me to ultimately do and say the right thing. I will do the right then when it really matters. I get this about you, Ray. Mainly because I'm not too far away from that description myself. I tell people to ignore me half the time. Most of the time I'm just saying or doing something to push the envelope and get you to wrap your head around it. The truth is that there is no difference between men and women in emotional candor, introspection or sophistication--except to the extent that the vestiges of cowboy masculinity, the silent, stupid, ultimately passive aggressive persona of the men of yesteryear remain. Personality and upbringing mark the difference between men and women in emotional intelligence, plain and simple. Brain, I almost disagree with this. I say "almost" because I get the concept and really, really wish it was true...and believe that it is true in certain situations. Not that many, but some. There is an interesting theory that says children's brains develop differently according to the environment in which they were raised. (Eco-psychology and one other one I can't remember ;)). Basically meaning that baby's brains aren't fully developed when born (well, that part ain't a part of a 'theory', its fact.) and continue to make "connections" well into adolescence. Its why children taught a language will only be fluent in that language if taught it before the age of twelve. The language centers of the brain "close" after that age. (forgive me, that explanation was crazily simple) So, if you look at it from that perspective, and you understand how deeply rooted our evironment and "how" we are raised figures into our actual brain development, one could say that boys and girls are automatically going to be different in their "emotional" capabilities and candor if they were raised in the way most American children are...which means discouraging a boy from crying while encouraging a girl to express her sadness. This doesn't even bring up the fact that male and female brains are fundamentally different and bathed in competing hormones in uetero that have two completely different functions. Unfortunatley, in America, boy and girl children are still raised extremely differently when it comes to parents repecting their right to emotionally express themselves. I think this stunts a boy for life. No, seriously. I believe that a male, while ultimately able to TEACH HIMSELF how to be emotionally honest, will never truly be able to reach a female's level of "emotional candor" simply because his organic brain is different in regards to that. And he will only be able to reach that level if he consciously tries. So, you are right about the old "cowboy mentality" of yesteryear ruining it for the guys. It will continue to truly encourage a rift between a male and female's ability for emotional expression. But, I don't believe that its as easy as you say it is for a man to truly reach a level of 'emotional candor" that is on par for a female. Now, I'm not saying that having a "boy brain" is worse than having a "girl brain". I'm just saying...its different. And, YOU KNOW THIS. Alright, who's head is going to explode first? ;)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-31T09:03:17-06:00

ID

72475

Comment

(Just for fun) A recent report from London, England documents consistent sex differences in brain anatomy which are visible to the naked eye (with the help of an MRI scanner). Male brains consistently show more hemispheric asymmetry: the left hemisphere looks different from the right hemisphere. In women, the two hemispheres are much more alike. In women, there is proportionately more grey matter, and less white matter; vice versa for men. Women have a higher concentration of grey matter in the neocortex (the phylogenetically 'newer' part of the cerebral cortex), whereas men had proportionately more grey matter in the entorhinal cortex, one of the 'older' areas of the brain. Source: C. D. Good, I. Johnsrude, et al. Cerebral asymmetry and the effects of sex and handedness on brain structure: a voxel-based morphometric analysis of 465 normal adult human brains. Neuroimage, September 2001, 14(3):685-700. Likewise, many studies demonstrate sex differences in the organization of the brain. For example, researchers at Johns Hopkins found substantial sex differences in the anatomy of the "higher association cortex" -- the part of the brain thought to be responsible for our most complex mental operations, "higher-order multimodal convergence integrating all aspects of mental function," including both cognitive and emotional experiences. Specifically, these researchers found that these areas of the brain were markedly asymmetric in men but not in women; and in men, these brain areas were larger on the left, whereas to the extent that there was asymmetry in the brain, women's association cortex was larger on the right.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-31T09:03:48-06:00

ID

72476

Comment

Lastly, let me say that I'm changing my ways due to Brian's honest revelation. I'm growing up. Taking my manhood back. I can't even remember when some women took it away from me. From this point forward I will attempt to become more like Tom and Brian - serious, intellectual and honest. For instance, in the future, if a woman should ask me whether she looks good in that dress; I will look then give an honest answer, even if negative, rather than automatically saying "yes, but you look good in everything." I had been misled into believing that women wanted to hear something sweet and tantalizing whether true or not. I was also misled into believing honey begets honey. I now know I was wrong. I'm just wondering whether I will still be able to get basically whatever I want from women whenever I need or want it with my newfound honesty and manhood. Should I not be able to, I'll know who to blame. All is far in love. Peace.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-31T10:05:28-06:00

ID

72477

Comment

For instance, evolutionary psychologists argue that women value emotional attachment most while men value sexual fidelity most. On the female side, this is to ensure that the man sticks around and helps take care of the child, while on the male side, it's to ensure that kid he's raising is his. That seems to make sense but the evidence for it is appallingly poor. Bullsh1t. You know as well as I know that the chemicals secreted in a male and female brain after sex are completely opposite and encourage two exact opposite conditions. You also know that all of science currently out there is on my side on this issue. I think that anyone who fails to acknowledge it is simply living in a world where they WANT men and women to be emotionally equal. The only problem is...that isn't true. Sounds good, makes us feel progressive. But evolutionary pscyhology, neurology and all the other "ologies" you state impart data that says something much different. As per all the other crap I just fought with you (Brian) on IM about...I will now state it in abbreviated form so that other's may share: Brian agreed that a child's upbringing with regard to its gender identity DOES have an effect on a child's neural pathway. Therefore, I am right and he is wrong. :)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-31T16:00:25-06:00

ID

72478

Comment

What about humor? That seems an aphrodesiac (sp?) for women as far as I can tell? I know, I know, it depends on what kind of humor she goes for Lately, Ive decided that if any type of woman appreciates my off-the-wall, absurd sense of humor it would be someone like Abby the lab technician on NCIS (and Pauley Perrette is hot too!)

Author

Philip

Date

2006-05-31T16:42:15-06:00

ID

72479

Comment

All I know is that if a beautiful women is debating Plato, Aristotle, Einstein or any of the other smart men or women, when the debate is over, and both say "come on Ray", I'm going with the women, regardless of science, research, or the performance during the debate.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-05-31T16:43:40-06:00

ID

72480

Comment

Ali, there is indeed a great deal of science to support your position. Unfortunately, most of it is spectacularly bad science. There are problems with Steven Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, but his basic history of how people have been classified is fascinating. In the 19th century, it was remarkably easy to "prove" that whites were more intelligent than blacks because of social factors; and it is still easy to do, as The Bell Curve shows us. Yet African immigrants to the United States are, somehow, perceived--even by most howling racists--as intellectually equal to whites. Fascinating that there would be any racial disparity, then, because most African Americans in the United States have some white ancestry--Henry Louis Gates did a documentary on this a little while back; he discovered to his horror that he, a renowned expert on his African-American heritage, was in fact more European-American than African-American--and most African immigrants to the United States, for obvious reasons, do not. So how could The Bell Curve and similar studies possibly be meaningful? Consider also the criminal anthropology movement of the late 19th century. Folks like Richard Dugdale and Cesare Lombroso believed that you could determine someone's criminality by looking at their family history and physical characteristics. Dugdale more or less "proved" this in his landmark work The Jukes, and ever since then the idea of genetic criminality has lived on. Is there any truth to it? But if there were any truth to that idea, Australia and New Zealand, which originated as penal colonies, would be overrun with bandits--and in fact both countries have exceptionally low crime rates. The natural extension of all of this--race "science," criminal anthropology, and so on--is eugenics. If some things are inborn and some things are not, then you try to weed out the things that aren't and thereby improve the human race. We all know where that went. So when scientists do a study today that appears to show that women are dumb in math and attracted to dominant men, or that men are naturally aggressive and unable to express their emotions, and attribute it to biology rather than culture--well, I'm skeptical. Because they have no real way of determining what is biology and what isn't. Now, that said, there's no question in my mind that there are some differences in the male and female brain due, if nothing else, to sex hormones--anyone who has been through menopause, or taken hormone supplements for other reasons, knows this stuff isn't inconsequential. But dramatic, across-the-board differences that affect every woman and every man, that render every man better or worse at some things than every woman? I think we sell ourselves short as human beings, I think we unnecessarily restrict our options in life, if we say that. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-31T18:08:28-06:00

ID

72481

Comment

"as intellectually equal" --> "as more intellectually equal" Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-31T18:09:41-06:00

ID

72482

Comment

Well, Tom...I would agree with you...if you were right. I'm talking basic brain functioning. Science has shown that trauma in children at a young age actually reroutes their neural pathways. Not LARGE organic parts of the brain...but more of the "fundamental level" of how you think. Now, if traumatic events can reroute or have a definitive effect on children that go thru them, how do you think gender identity (one of the largest parts of our personality formation) doesn't have the same effect on our brain? I'm not saying it makes you "retarded" for life, or anything. I'm just saying that being a more "emotional" human being (if raised as in a traditional male stereotypical American way) will always be a mental process that is more difficult for the male than the female. Mainly because she's routed the other way. Now, I never said that men couldnt' be "emotional beings". I just said that due to neural pathway development, its ultimately going to be an easier thought process for a female. And...gender studies are completely different from studies about race. Don't give me that crap. Mainly because if looking at a BRAIN...one could tell with the visible eye whether it was male or female...but they wouldn't be able to tell if it was black or white.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-05-31T21:15:42-06:00

ID

72483

Comment

That's okay, Ali. I would agree with you if you were right, too. :P I have no doubt that neural pathways can be rerouted by history, but I don't think we can look at differently routed male and female brains, throw our hands in the air, and say "Well, no need to work too hard on changing the culture and breaking down patriarchal systems--men are men and women are women and that's all there is to it." Neutral pathways don't even begin to tell the whole story of how human beings think. I was born with a cranial vault disorder--Crouzon Syndrome, or craniofacial synostosis--that caused several of my futures to fuse prematurely. My brain had no room to grow. After some really good neurosurgeons did a procedure called a cranioplasty, the same procedure my mother (who has the same condition--it's genetic) had done, everyone thought I'd have a normal life. Then, months later, doctors discovered that the cranioplasty was botched. They'd missed a suture. So they took off my skull from the back of my head to my eyebrows, broke it up into little jigsaw pieces, and put it back on--a much more radical procedure called a morcellation craniectomy. Thanks to the wonders of molding helmets, I have a normally-shaped skull with no soft spots. And thanks to the botched cranioplasty, I also have a severely damaged parietal lobe. As a kid, I couldn't navigate supermarkets. I had to be accompanied by an adult--usually one of my parents--and would follow them like ducks. If I lost visual contact, I'd be completely lost. Now I can navigate buildings as well as anyone. I can't drive because my spatial mapping is too slow, but I can do spatial mapping. I ushered at huge Episcopal services for years with no problem, which many normal people can't do well. How did I manage? Adaptation. If you took a CAT scan of my brain while I was doing spatial mapping, you would find that my parietal lobe functioning has been rerouted through other parts of my brain--my neurologist thinks I process space verbally. He suspects that's why I'm so doggone verbose: My verbal center has become Ahnold from all the parietal lobe function it has had to take over. Now, does that mean that what I'm doing isn't spatial mapping? Of course not. I am, in fact, doing the exact same thing that you do when you map space. It just uses different parts of the brain. Neurologists know darned little about how our brains work. When they speculate, extrapolating cultural factors and slapping it on top of biology, pushing an agenda that women are feminine by nature and men are masculine by nature (and isn't it convenient that this is exactly what everybody thought back when they blamed it all on something involving Adam's rib and an outsized bearded white guy in the sky), they are doing exactly the same thing that race theorists and cultural anthropologists did: Looking at the gaps in our knowledge and putting their agenda there. Don't fall for it! Women can be smart at math and men can be nurturers, just as surely as whites can play basketball and blacks can be astrophysicists, just as surely as the child of a drug dealer can grow up to be a Supreme Court justice and the child of a Supreme Court justice can grow up to be a drug dealer. Every human being has supreme potential and supreme unpredictability. We are our genes, we are our testicles, we are our ovaries--but we are also human. And that trumps all. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-31T21:43:11-06:00

ID

72484

Comment

"futures to fuse" --> "sutures to fuse." Some of my futures have probably fused prematurely, too, but that's more of an existential issue... :P Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-31T21:43:52-06:00

ID

72485

Comment

And let me clarify that next to last paragraphs: It isn't neurologists who are doing the speculating. Neurologists are, in fact, generally the first to point out how little we know about all of this, and how little sense it makes to assume a biological basis for culturally-entrenched gender roles. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-05-31T21:45:03-06:00

ID

72486

Comment

Okay, first of all...you are taking this personally. I have no doubt you rerouted. You know how many people with genetic defects or those in horrific accidents actually reroute their paths and pick up extra abilities that scientist never thought they could? Tons. I get that part when you are saying that scientist really have no clue. You're right. They can't definitely say which abilities people are going to have vs. what they aren't when faced with disorders. Second of all, you aren't understanding what I am saying. I am NOT saying it "can't be done", or that men are "always" going to be one way and not another. Christ, I'm saying that there are fundamental differences between men and women and we should respect them. These fundamental differences begin in our brains and neural pathways. As well you know, that is part of actually BEING a "radical feminist".

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T07:46:54-06:00

ID

72487

Comment

Don't fall for it! Women can be smart at math and men can be nurturers, just as surely as whites can play basketball and blacks can be astrophysicists, just as surely as the child of a drug dealer can grow up to be a Supreme Court justice and the child of a Supreme Court justice can grow up to be a drug dealer. Every human being has supreme potential and supreme unpredictability. We are our genes, we are our testicles, we are our ovaries--but we are also human. And that trumps all. By the way-this is almost condescending in its sunshine "blow the potential of the human spirit up my ass" sort of way that it made me ill. Tom, please don't ever assume that I have "fallen" for something.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T07:48:34-06:00

ID

72488

Comment

Wonderful comments by all except me possibly. Anyway, I accept the differences between men and women and am so glad they exist. Like many people, I believe there is a thin line separating the behavior and makeup of males and females. And I enjoy seeing both sexes break down stereotypes of what can and can't be done by each, just as I do about race. That line separating the sexes can be frightening as I have seen males I thought were women. I don't particulary like this. I prefer to clearly and readily identify the sex of the person. "On love, one heart, let's get together and feel alright."

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-01T08:42:44-06:00

ID

72489

Comment

The Smoking Gun is reporting that Lisa Frodella, another teacher, has been arrested for having sex with a 16 year old boy. In this case, she purchased or gave him a mercedes for his services or something like that. I won't make any more jokes about this phenomenon which is occurring way too often. If someone understand this situation, please explain it to me. I imagine it's possible that these women didn't grow up properly, didn't achieve the excitement or fun they wanted while a student and is trying to live it now, and worse just like teenaged boys instead of men. I can't understand this as the average 16 year old boy can barely find his thang at that age.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-01T10:44:53-06:00

ID

72490

Comment

Yeah, I don't really understand that phenomenon as well. I think you are right that it has to do with women looking for some sort of approval they didn't get in high school. Or maybe some form of arrested development. What I need to know is how in the hell a teacher was able to afford a merceded? Because she needs to help a poor social worker out. ;)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T11:03:55-06:00

ID

72491

Comment

I can't understand this as the average 16 year old boy can barely find his thang at that age Ummm...no.. You never had a hot teacher that you wished you could get with? There was the one a while back where she(the teacher) went to jail got out on probation and then sent him videos on myspace and got arrested again. Videos=not equal to ml700

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-06-01T11:11:06-06:00

ID

72492

Comment

Per my above entry....Does that mean my development arrested right after college? Oh hell. This explains a lot.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T11:11:31-06:00

ID

72493

Comment

Superstar, I was attracted to several female teachers, not to mention most of the female students. I understand why the boys would do it. But I have been a college teacher three times and I refused to date students although many good looking women approached me offering themselves for grades and otherwise. "Don't date the students was the only advice I was given when hired". It was wrong and I couldn't do it anyway. I was going to have to get fired for a good reason not something senseless like that. Ali, you know what the say about some of y'all; when y'all find something you really like, you'll do a lot to keep it. What's a mercedes for some good stuff. Charles Mansion had women killing to stay with him. She probably worked over time or got a second job to be able to get him the car. None of us knew then or now that if you're good enough you can get a free car. Maybe Stedman Graham knows. I won't even mention all the free stuff we give up just to be with y'all. And the overpricing by so many! Can you fellows feel me on this?

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-01T12:12:21-06:00

ID

72494

Comment

Ali, you keep evading the point, which is that knowing there are different "neural pathways" doesn't tell us shit. It does not tell us that women are more emotional than men, that women are more sexually faithful than men, etc. As Tom said, you're pretending that asserting physiological differences ends the argument because hazaa! if male and female brains are different then every other assertion about how men and women differ must be true as well, even cliches directly challenged by evidence. Sloppy thinking, but then you are a woman, with different neural pathways. Generally, both biologists and neurologists are embarrassed by sociobiological speculation of the kind you seem to adore. These scientists work very hard to describe one feature of the brain, or the structure of one protein, and it is all about evidence. Then you have sociobiologists come in, give prejudicial questionnaires to undergrads, and claim that they have "proven" something about "human nature." Embarrassing, especially since further studies usually dispute the finding. Or they just make up bizarre stories about men bringing home mastadon meat to their grateful wives, though this has almost nothing to do with how hunter-gatherers like our evolutionary forebearers lived. As Tom argued so well, the brain is very plastic, and the correspondence of physical features in the brain with features of "mind" like emotions is very poorly understood. I do not doubt that such a correspondence exists--I do not believe in the soul--but it is just a shameless bluff for you to pretend that science has "proven" that "neural pathways" make women more emotional.

Author

Brian Johnson

Date

2006-06-01T12:50:48-06:00

ID

72495

Comment

Ali, you keep evading the point, which is that knowing there are different "neural pathways" doesn't tell us s***. It does not tell us that women are more emotional than men, that women are more sexually faithful than men, etc. As Tom said, you're pretending that asserting physiological differences ends the argument because hazaa! if male and female brains are different then every other assertion about how men and women differ must be true as well, even cliches directly challenged by evidence. Sloppy thinking, but then you are a woman, with different neural pathways. Generally, both biologists and neurologists are embarrassed by sociobiological speculation of the kind you seem to adore. These scientists work very hard to describe one feature of the brain, or the structure of one protein, and it is all about evidence. Then you have sociobiologists come in, give prejudicial questionnaires to undergrads, and claim that they have "proven" something about "human nature." Embarrassing, especially since further studies usually dispute the finding. Or they just make up bizarre stories about men bringing home mastadon meat to their grateful wives, though this has almost nothing to do with how hunter-gatherers like our evolutionary forebearers lived. As Tom argued so well, the brain is very plastic, and the correspondence of physical features in the brain with features of "mind" like emotions is very poorly understood. I do not doubt that such a correspondence exists--I do not believe in the soul--but it is just a shameless bluff for you to pretend that science has "proven" that "neural pathways" make women more emotional.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-01T13:03:27-06:00

ID

72496

Comment

First of all, you aren't getting my point. My point was more about the fact that there ARE fundamental differences in the way that men and women process information. You keep saying that it can't be "proven" that women are more emotional than men. This is right. I'm more about the fact that there are basic fundamental differences in the way we process information. There are also different chemicals in men's and women's bodies that also lead to this "different processing". As much as you and Tom WANT to be women, you are not. This entire conversation is about vagina envy. (and yes, I've been waiting on you to join us again so I could use that line.)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T13:31:05-06:00

ID

72497

Comment

This is for Ray.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T13:34:27-06:00

ID

72498

Comment

First of all, I fully admit to having vagina envy. Freud obviously didn't spend much time downtown if he thought the vagina is an "absence," and the male organ is downright boring by comparison. I would go into more detail but it would probably get me banned from the site. ;) Beyond that, what are the "fundamental" differences? You've now gone beyond the claim that women are more in touch with their emotions--whatever that really means--to the claim that there are "fundamental" differences in how we process information. What the hell are you talking about?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-01T13:45:03-06:00

ID

72499

Comment

No, because you are purposely "playing retarded" now.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T13:48:20-06:00

ID

72500

Comment

Thanks, Ali. Those little boys must really know how to do something. It just occurred to me that i should meet and talk to some of these boys to learn what it is about these women that make them want teenaged boys. I suspect I could write a best seller with this information. Don't be jealous Tom and Brian as Ali claims. A good women will let us play with theirs.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-01T13:51:15-06:00

ID

72501

Comment

Here. I shall begin the a$$load.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T13:53:44-06:00

ID

72502

Comment

go down about half way (and NO, you dirty little minx, I didn't mean that way) Here. I particularly like this part: That view, however, has now been knocked aside by a surge of findings that highlight the influence of sex on many areas of cognition and behavior, including memory, emotion, vision, hearing, the processing of faces and the brain's response to stress hormones. This progress has been accelerated in the past five to 10 years by the growing use of sophisticated noninvasive imaging techniques such as positron-emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which can peer into the brains of living subjects. These imaging experiments reveal that anatomical variations occur in an assortment of regions throughout the brain. Jill M. Goldstein of Harvard Medical School and her colleagues, for example, used MRI to measure the sizes of many cortical and subcortical areas. Among other things, these investigators found that parts of the frontal cortex, the seat of many higher cognitive functions, are bulkier in women than in men, as are parts of the limbic cortex, which is involved in emotional responses. In men, on the other hand, parts of the parietal cortex, which is involved in space perception, are bigger than in women, as is the amygdala, an almond-shaped structure that responds to emotionally arousing information--to anything that gets the heart pumping and the adrenaline flowing. These size differences, as well as others mentioned throughout the article, are relative: they refer to the overall volume of the structure relative to the overall volume of the brain.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T14:01:37-06:00

ID

72503

Comment

"Ali win! Ali wins! Down goes Johnson! Down goes Johnson? She set him up all night with the jab then knocked him out with a right cross. Down goes Johnson." Cosell and Carter.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-01T14:03:09-06:00

ID

72504

Comment

I think that you guys assume I mean either sex is either "better" or "worse" depending upon which traits are dominant in both. You assume the wrong thing. We should understand the differences between male and female brain processes, recognize the strengths in these differences and then use them to our advantage. I know I use them to my advantage every day...but those aren't really brain processes. But, I'll let you call them that if you would like...;)

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T14:05:35-06:00

ID

72505

Comment

IT says harvard so i believe it

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2006-06-01T14:40:06-06:00

ID

72506

Comment

Ah, yes. Much like when Jessica Simpson says something...I simply believe it.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T14:42:20-06:00

ID

72507

Comment

Ali writes: You keep saying that it can't be "proven" that women are more emotional than men. This is right. I'm more about the fact that there are basic fundamental differences in the way we process information. The trouble is that it can't be proven that there are substantive fundamental differences in the way we process information, either--at least not differences that can be traced to nature rather than nurture. Certainly hormones affect brain chemistry and brain development, but the degree to which they do so, and the permanence of those changes, and the substantiveness of those changes, are all purely theoretical matters. Ali, I am not at all offended by your point of view, but I think you are placing an exclamation point on the end of a sentence that should have a question mark. We cannot conclusively prove, using science, that there are or aren't substantive biological differences of the kind you describe based on gender. But every time you say "women are more emotionally mature than men," you are singing "Shave and a haircut..." and leaving the chauvinists to sing "...two bits!" Because if you say that women are more emotionally mature, you are giving the troglodytes an immediate in to say that men are more intellectually mature. Those studies you cite (which prove nothing relevant to our argument)? Look at how they're being used on the op-ed pages of major national newspapers, in books like Harvey Mansfield's Manliness, and so on and so forth. The reason I brought up my personal history was to demonstrate that looking at activity in various regions of the brain does not tell us how similar or different people are. If you take apart your television set, you will not find Lucy and Ricky inside. Personal differences--based on social constructs of gender, or anything else--are more matters of software than hardware, and we have no idea whether we're talking about software that people are born with (and, if so, whether that software can be upgraded), or software that people download later. And the reason I brought up race theory was because in the 19th century, scientists had absolutely no way of knowing that there were not substantive differences between the way whites and non-whites processed information. Using incidental studies very much like the ones you cite, and what seemed at the time to be very credible measurements of skull size, many of them "proved" that black folks were less intelligent than white folks. Their hypotheses, now laughably flimsy, appeared formidable at the time, and were used to prop up the institutions of slavery and segregation. Likewise, the hypothesis of fundamental neuropsychological gender difference is being used to support the idea that women, being more "emotionally mature," should marry young, stay out of the workforce, and spend their lives using their talents more effectively in the area of childrearing; and that more "intellectually mature" men should run the world. So this is not an issue of pure science, and should not be mistaken for one; and while nobody could accuse you of not being a feminist (you are, in fact, stating a fairly orthodox version of cultural feminism--a tradition that I respect but disagree with for the reasons stated here), the hypothesis you're using is one that anti-feminists are more than happy to adapt to their purposes, whether it's Larry Summers arguing that women might be "dumb at math" or Harvey Mansfield arguing that men should run the world (both of these chuckleheads hailing from Harvard, I might add). And flipping the idea on its head and saying that women are superior in all elements of the inner life won't work, because the anti-feminists will be all too happy to pat you on the head and say "Of course you are, dear" as they continue to use the parts of your argument that they like to support their own purposes. There is a wonderful book on this subject that I think you'd enjoy. You might not agree with it, but maybe it would at least articulate my position well enough for you to not mistake it for "vagina envy." (Though I do aspire to feminist virtues, and I am fairly androgynous. Hell, I'm a NOW officer; I'd be lying if I said I was, or particularly wanted to be, macho.) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T17:00:58-06:00

ID

72508

Comment

Actually, Tom. You're still missing the point. You assume I care what other people use these same studies to prove. They can use them to support whatever theories they would like (ex. by saying women are more emotional so therefore men are more intellectual-although several of those studies clearly state women process more quickly than men) People will use research to prove all sorts of things. I'm not. I'm saying there are differences. What you take from that statement is ...well, for lack of a better term, something us therapists call "Your own shit."

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T17:10:28-06:00

ID

72509

Comment

I hear you, Ali. You're saying there are differences, they're saying there are differences--hell, I'm saying there are differences, though I don't think we have any way of knowing what they are, how substantive they are, how they develop, or what they really mean. The bigger issue here, though, is that the more you play into the idea that men and women are fundamentally different--no matter how well you qualify that with the statement that you believe that women are both intellectually and emotionally better-equipped--the more you're giving credence to the idea that they should have different, pre-set roles. And because men still basically run the world, you can take a wild guess at what those roles would be. Your line of reasoning on this also poses some serious problems for transgender persons and others who live on gender margins. I would be able to buy into all of this myself if the science supporting it were strong enough, but the truth is that I'm very familiar with the relevant studies and they make a conspicuously weak case for fundamental, substantive differences in the way gendered brains work. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T18:04:13-06:00

ID

72510

Comment

I also wonder to what extent your idea of gender allows room for individual differences. Should women play sports if they have inferior spatial processing? Should gay male couples be allowed to raise children if their gender makes them inferior nurturers? Is Larry Summers right that women might just be dumb at math, and should choose a nice, girly major like English literature instead? If we don't let humanism trump gender-ism, if we don't respect the supreme worth and potential of every human being, then we reduce people's options. We tell potential great female athletes and great female mathematicians, potential great male counselors and great male parents, that they shouldn't even bother because we know what they're really capable of because, doggonit, we read a study. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T18:09:30-06:00

ID

72511

Comment

no matter how well you qualify that with the statement that you believe that women are both intellectually and emotionally better-equipped--the more you're giving credence to the idea that they should have different, pre-set roles. And because men still basically run the world, you can take a wild guess at what those roles would be. Actually, no, I don't. The more YOU do with the assumptions that you make with what people do with the information. I'm not qualifying the information. I'm asking you to refute this one fact "There are fundamental differences in male and female brains and the way we process information" Please, prove that statement false. I would be able to buy into all of this myself if the science supporting it were strong enough, but the truth is that I'm very familiar with the relevant studies and they make a conspicuously weak case for fundamental, substantive differences in the way gendered brains work. Subjective opinion from a man who has vested personal interest in it being false. I also wonder to what extent your idea of gender allows room for individual differences. Should women play sports if they have inferior spatial processing? Should gay male couples be allowed to raise children if their gender makes them inferior nurturers? Is Larry Summers right that women might just be dumb at math, and should choose a nice, girly major like English literature instead? ---I never said any of this. This is what you do have done this entire argument. You have taken scientific information and extrapolated what society would use this information for...and then used that supposition to make a point about the study being false. I never said that. I believe that individual differences make the world go round. But, I'm not stupid enough to not also think there are general categories about things that are true. Its why stereotypes exist...there is usually a fundamental truth in them that has been perverted. I'm handing you the fundamental truth. You are perverting it.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T20:57:36-06:00

ID

72512

Comment

Ali writes: I'm asking you to refute this one fact "There are fundamental differences in male and female brains and the way we process information" Please, prove that statement false. I can't prove that statement to be false any more than you can prove that statement to be true. Neuropsychiatry is a very young science; we simply don't know enough about how men or women process information to say with confidence that they do so in a fundamentally different way. Subjective opinion from a man who has vested personal interest in it being false. All opinions are subjective by definition--and yes, as a feminist, I certainly have a personal interest in the statement being false. It may well be that you have no correlating personal interest in the statement being true. Your position may in fact be more objective than mine; that doesn't make it true. I never said any of this. This is what you do have done this entire argument. You have taken scientific information and extrapolated what society would use this information for...and then used that supposition to make a point about the study being false. None of the studies, per se, are false; but then neither of the studies, per se, say that women and men process information in fundamentally different ways. The people who conducted the studies may or may not happen to personally believe that, but there is insufficient evidence to bring us to a clear conclusion either way. Or at least that's the way I feel about it--and if you've got an alternative conclusion to push based on these very speculative theories, you should at least be aware of the societal ramifications of them. I believe that individual differences make the world go round. But, I'm not stupid enough to not also think there are general categories about things that are true. General categories of things, maybe. But I think we need to be careful about the general statements we make about groups of people, and what they are and aren't capable of doing with their lives--especially when we're dealing with an area of inquiry about which very little is known. Its why stereotypes exist...there is usually a fundamental truth in them that has been perverted. And the fundamental truth of gender role stereotypes may, I think, have more to do with 50,000 years of institutional sexism from which we still have not escaped than a few recent speculative studies on brain size and social behavior. Just a wild guess. I'm handing you the fundamental truth. Very few statements in neuropsychiatry have risen to the level of fundamental truth. We can't even cure schizophrenia in a satisfactory way, much less unsnarl the gender-knot. Let's resume this discussion in 50 years or so; maybe by then we'll have some data we can actually use. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T21:50:08-06:00

ID

72513

Comment

How about we resume the discussion when I get thru kicking your a$$?

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T21:53:19-06:00

ID

72514

Comment

Incidentally, here's a really good debate on the issue from Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke, who know much more about this area than I do. Pinker (who is no troglodyte) is taking a position comparable to yours, and Spelke (who is neither "stupid" nor "perverting [a] fundamental truth") is taking a position comparable to mine. Money quote from Spelke: Male and female infants are equally interested in objects. Male and female infants make the same inferences about object motion, at the same time in development. They learn the same things about object mechanics at the same time. Across large numbers of studies, occasionally a study will favor one sex over the other. For example, girls learn that the force with which something is hit influences the distance it moves a month earlier than boys do. But these differences are small and scattered. For the most part, we see high convergence across the sexes. Common paths of learning continue through the preschool years, as kids start manipulating objects to see if they can get a rectangular block into a circular hole. If you look at the rates at which boys and girls figure these things out, you don't find any differences. We see equal developmental paths. I think this research supports an important conclusion. In discussions of sex differences, we need to ask what's common across the two sexes. One thing that's common is infants don't divide up the labor of understanding the world, with males focusing on mechanics and females focusing on emotions. Male and female infants are both interested in objects and in people, and they learn about both. The conclusions that Maccoby and Jacklin drew in the early 1970s are well supported by research since that time. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T21:55:06-06:00

ID

72515

Comment

My, what a large amygdala you have, Ali. ;o) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T21:57:24-06:00

ID

72516

Comment

Yes. That's a new science Tom, they offer degrees in this...if people were just searching for their a$$holes with flashlights, I might tend to agree with you here. Its not that I don't get where you are coming from...I just don't think its rooted in reality...AT ALL. I think its rooted in what you hope the world to be.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T21:59:19-06:00

ID

72517

Comment

Ali, neuropsychiatry is certainly not an illegitimate science; somewhere around here I have a copy of Eccles and Popper's The Self and Its Brain from 1979, and it's really good stuff. But the brain is a new scientific frontier, more comparable to quantum mechanics than elementary physics. We know precious little about it. We are in no position to speak with confidence about the collective potential of women versus men in various endeavors. You may be right; you may be wrong. It will be a very long time before we are in a position to say. Meanwhile, barring evidence in favor of the idea of fundamental differences in gendered brains, we should proceed on the assumption that men and women as groups are equal, should be regarded as equal, and should be encouraged to follow their personal visions and aspirations rather than the better-funded half of a highly speculative and highly abstract argument. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T22:03:42-06:00

ID

72518

Comment

Or at least that's the way I feel about it--and if you've got an alternative conclusion to push based on these very speculative theories, you should at least be aware of the societal ramifications of them. Are you saying that scientist should base the subjects they research on the social ramifications of the outcomes?

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T22:04:52-06:00

ID

72519

Comment

Not at all, but neither of us are performing experiments. This isn't really a discussion about science, Ali; it's still very much in the realm of philosophy. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T22:06:13-06:00

ID

72520

Comment

Meanwhile, barring evidence in favor of the idea of fundamental differences in gendered brains, we should proceed on the assumption that men and women as groups are equal, should be regarded as equal, and should be encouraged to follow their personal visions and aspirations rather than the better-funded half of a highly speculative and highly abstract argument. Oh, Tom. I'm "out" after this...but "barring evidence"? Give me a freaking break here... I think everyone should follow their "personal visions and aspirations", but if those personal visions and aspirations include purple monkies that tell them to kill Darth Vadar...I'm going to say they are crazy and that ain't speculative and abstract. I'm also going to tell you that when women bond after sex and men don't...that ain't speculative and abstract. I'm also going to tell you when women obsess over tiny details in relationships and men let them go...that ain't speculative and abstract. There are exceptions to every rule...but to deny the rule in its essence because you believe in only the exceptions is just plain stupid.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T22:09:05-06:00

ID

72521

Comment

Y'all are so glib. We should consult Xenu for the answer. (I'm sorry. I'm full of one-liners but have nothing of substance to add. However, it's interesting conversation for sure.)

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-01T22:45:50-06:00

ID

72522

Comment

Xenu would say we all need some vitamins and lots of exercise. Screw him. What does he know? Wine and tacos have the same nutritional benefits. PROVE THAT, TOM :P

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T22:48:06-06:00

ID

72523

Comment

I thought it was wine and chocolate. Because wine and chocolate make me happy and so do anti-depressants. So they must be the same thing. I also had the same experience with a frito and a twix bar today, but that right there is some lunar cycle. Which also explains the random outbursts of one-liners.

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-01T22:54:44-06:00

ID

72524

Comment

Well, that explains my voracious posting of twenty liners. Bask. We are now standing in a thread with two men that wished they had such reasons to eat Fritos and Twix.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T22:58:56-06:00

ID

72525

Comment

I don't quite know how this has become border-line ugly, but at the risk of getting my ass kicked, I'll weigh in. Yes Ali, there are differences in the brains of men and women, and they process information differently to some degree. The problem is that despite your protests to the contrary, you keep making this leap between what we know and what you think is true. So, women obsess over tiny details in relationships and men let them go. First, that is not true of all men or women. More importantly, even if it is generally true, science hasn't demonstrated it. Show me a neuroscientific study that demonstrates that. "Women bond after sex and men don't." I know that there is some research on hormones released after sex that supports this, but again, the research is very slim. It comes nowhere close to "proving" the "fact," nor does it present a theory for how hormones could cause it. That is partly because we still know so little about how hormones act on the brain. More to the point, can't you see why a man might be offended by that bald assertion? I do bond after sex, thank you very much. Maybe I don't bond in the same way that a woman does, and maybe something different is happening in my brain, but the reason why Tom and I are so uncomfortable with your argument is that you are so eager to take the science we have and apply it to sex differences way, way, WAY beyond what science has demonstrated. You pretend that you're not asserting anything "social" when you say that women have more developed emotional centers in the brain, but then you go ahead and use it to make broad assertions about relationships, etc. The fact, and yes it is a fact, that women have these brain differences (and we always have to remember that we are talking about very small differences in average brain volume, such that many men will have more developed "emotional regions" than women; we also have to remember that we hardly understand anything about how emotion arises from physiology) does not mean that women are naturally more empathetic than men. I know you didn't make that argument; I'm using it as an example. Psychology has demonstrated that American women tend to be more empathetic than American men, and of course, we all know that it's generally true. But is it natural? I suspect that it is, but we have to unpack the statement. For instance, if you've ever hung out with an Indian Hindu man, you know that they are, generally speaking, much more empathetic than American men. Why? There are no differences in brain structure between the two, so what gives? This is not an "exception" I'm presenting to ignore the rule, since there are several hundred million more Indian men than American men. Chinese men are fives times as likely as Chinese women to be bothered by emotional infidelity rather than sexual infidelity. (Despite the claims of some sociobiologists, American men and women are both bothered most by sexual infidelity.) If our attitudes toward sex arise from genetics, as sociobiologists claim, how can Chinese men be so different from American men? You have totally proven your point about there being physical differences in brains, and I love that you cited research. Moreover, the things "we all know to be true" about men and women (in America, at least) generally are true. But why? Some of those differences may derive from hormonal differences, but there is no question in my mind that most of them are a matter of socialization. Or why it that Tibetan brothers marry a single woman, who they all share, while Arab shieks hold harems? Finally, even if all you say about men and women is true and based in brain structure (I'm including even the wilder assertions), isn't it obvious that these differences in brain structure may themselves arise from socialization? You started this off by talking about the effect that trauma has on adolescent brains. Experience literally shapes the brain, at least to an extent. So if socialization shapes the brain, and men and women are socialized differently, can't the differences in brains derive from socialization? I have a feeling you'll be totally down with the possibility, but then why is it so important to you that there are these differences in brain structure? Both Tom and I have acknowledged that differences in brain structure are real, so don't pretend that we haven't. Tom's protest, which I share, is that the differences are small and very hard to interpret. It is very hard to say how important they are, how they manifest themselves in behavior, etc. I think you need to 'fess up and say that men and women act the way they do--whether obsessing over details or bonding after sex--because it is in their natures. That may be true, but it has not been proven by science.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-01T23:05:35-06:00

ID

72526

Comment

You want to know something scary? That wasn't even the longest argument I had today. I'm basically going to leave you with the last word (hey, did somebody hear a thud?), but I want to make it clear that I don't think men get menstrual periods or react to sex in exactly the same way. My point is that there aren't fundamental, substantive, irreversible differences between men's and women's brains that put them on completely different shores of the human experience, not that hormones don't affect the brain at all. That WOULD be a stupid point of view. Oh, shit, I actually said "shores of the human experience." I'm going to eat a nice big bowl of Vanilla Yogurt All-Bran with skim milk, which is probably more fattening than the Fritos and Twix would have been--but after spending the better part of the past 24 hours deconstructing arguments about FBI searches and the Federal Marriage Amendment, I'm using phrases like "shores of the human experience" which means that I need my fiber, dammit. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T23:10:29-06:00

ID

72527

Comment

...and I see Brian has come in. I'll leave it to you from here, dude. (Is it just me, or is Brian more Tom Headish than Tom Head is? And I mean that as a compliment, BTW, because I have a very high opinion of myself... :P) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T23:12:08-06:00

ID

72528

Comment

For instance, if you've ever hung out with an Indian Hindu man, you know that they are, generally speaking, much more empathetic than American men. Why? There are no differences in brain structure between the two, so what gives? ---You just proved my earlier point about environment leading to different brain functions with this. isn't it obvious that these differences in brain structure may themselves arise from socialization? ---Yes, dumba$$, I said this statement earlier. God, Brian...thanks for finally proving my point.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T23:13:12-06:00

ID

72529

Comment

Well, I'll throw in an extra comment to say that I actually agree with every word that Brian just posted. Though I'm not convinced it got borderline ugly, really, since Ali and I were sending friendly emails back and forth about the writing biz while all this was going on. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T23:13:50-06:00

ID

72530

Comment

I knew we were sharing a lunar cycle. It all makes sense now. It really does. But I do have an honest question from all involved. My son is going to be in a boys only class next year due to studies that it's good for the boys and girls. For example, boys tend to hear deeper voices, so they don't often hear the teachers (who are usually women). They are also more active. I read the book that the school is basing the idea upon; however, I'm still unsure. What do y'all think about THAT? Is there such a difference in nine and ten year old boys and girls that they need this? I don't give two rat's butts about test scores (don't tell that school district though) and what it does to those. I want to know if reinforcing the men/women differences is more helpful than hurtful or more hurtful than helpful.

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-01T23:16:00-06:00

ID

72531

Comment

By the way, Tom, you said the magic word when you wrote "Pinker." Pinker is exactly the type of scientist I despise on this issue. Like that ant-man E.O. Wilson, (who invented sociobiology) he takes the fact that genes obviously play a role in human social structure and then inflates it into the claim that genes govern almost everything about people as social creatures. Wilson's book "Consilience," acts as if the genetic basis for most human behavior has been firmly established, but he is able to site only two examples in the whole damned book. (One is incest avoidance, the other--and I'm not making this up--is that all people instinctively go loose when unexpectedly struck by an object.) Yet he is more than willing to jump from these paltry examples to the idea that art criticism will one day be a specialized branch of biology. It's embarrassing. Still, it is not as embarrassing as Pinker's book "The Blank Slate," which constitutes the longest straw-man argument ever put in print. He actually has the nerve to claim that Stephen Jay Gould said that genes have no effect whatsoever on human social development, which is nothing but a damned lie. All Gould really did say was that we don't know what the effect is. And let us not forget that all of these guys just love Lionel Tiger, who fills books with speculation about how men hunting mastadons together made patriarchy natural. Blech.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-01T23:19:43-06:00

ID

72532

Comment

Well, I would wait it out and see if you think its going to have any effect on HIM, as a kid. You know your kid. If you think he's not dealing with it well, or taking something bad from it...you'll know. Monkey doesn't have a hard time telling you/showing you stuff like that. :) Your kid's communicative. I'd see how he does. If he seems to do better in school, wait it out for a year. If he stays the same, shows different behavior towards women, or seems to have other issues with it...take him out. I don't think you can say right out whether its going to be good or bad...for HIM. You know?

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T23:19:57-06:00

ID

72533

Comment

Oh, Brian...could you mentally whack off onto the computer screen again?...all us girls are just quivering with scientific excitement.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T23:21:50-06:00

ID

72534

Comment

Ali, I said you said it.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-01T23:22:28-06:00

ID

72535

Comment

I know you said that I said it, ass. I just could not understand why you were taking a "tone" with me like you were refuting something I was saying...when you were totally agreeing with it. I got scared. Then I cried. I'm such a woman.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T23:24:39-06:00

ID

72536

Comment

You anal, anal man. You totally just went in and edited the tags in that last comment. ANAL.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T23:26:48-06:00

ID

72537

Comment

Takes a wacker to know a wacker.

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-01T23:27:33-06:00

ID

72538

Comment

Well I screwed up the italics, so what you gonna do?

Author

Brian C Johnson

Date

2006-06-01T23:28:08-06:00

ID

72539

Comment

You are gonna let them sit as a testament to your absolute inability to be perfect and, hence, your total failure as a human being. Then you will skulk home and hate yourself more while drinking dark beer, looking at internet porn and smoking lots of cigarettes. *Brian looks around for the camera*

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T23:29:55-06:00

ID

72540

Comment

Brian, mostly agreed on Pinker, but I cut the guy some slack because he's a reductionist in the same way I cut my Baptist preacher relatives some slack because I know they're Baptist preachers. When what you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. But yeah. Pinker, Wilson, Dennett, Blackmore, and to some extent Dawkins--all reductionists to the point of ludicrousness. When you're calling Gould (PBUH) pseudoscientific, that's a little bit too far out there for my tastes. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T23:31:42-06:00

ID

72541

Comment

(Which is essentially what Pinker did in large chunks of The Blank Slate, as you probably already know.) My favorite mind-body philosopher/cognitive theorist--my real hero in this field--is David Chalmers, of The Conscious Mind fame. He admits that he doesn't know how consciousness comes to be and doesn't see how anyone else could either, so he takes all these reductionist models and smashes them into little bitty pieces. Well worth reading. His bibliography is also amazing. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T23:34:48-06:00

ID

72542

Comment

One Whacker, Two Whacker, Three Whacker, Four! Ali's a Whacker, Tom's a Whacker, Brian's a Whacker MORE! The scary part...I'm not even drunk.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T23:35:31-06:00

ID

72543

Comment

you should have used whore. it rhymes way mo better.

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-01T23:46:57-06:00

ID

72544

Comment

Godamnit.

Author

Lori G

Date

2006-06-01T23:50:30-06:00

ID

72545

Comment

LOL!!! (And you know what? "She-Bop" has been stuck in my head all friggin' day. Oy, vey...) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-01T23:52:35-06:00

ID

72546

Comment

I'm speechless.

Author

Ray Carter

Date

2006-06-02T08:44:42-06:00

ID

72547

Comment

That was a pretty awesome discussion... And made the Busy Blogs list, to boot. Nicely done, Ali! Emily, as for your question... I wouldn't say it's wrong to send your son to a boys-only school. That's your decision as a parent. I think they're a bad idea in principle because I think, as a whole, established gender roles are garbage, and that the only way to break gender roles is to socialize boys and girls and women and men together. I look forward to the day, probably centuries from now, when adults are persons first and gender becomes less central to who we are. That's one of the reasons I have a very strong visceral connection to the gay rights movement, and to academic queer theory. But looking back at my time growing up on long afternoons at the State Street YWCA, I don't remember having very many female friends. Most of my close friends were other boys. That's the way our culture operates. So the truth is that even if you send your son to a coed school, he might find himself socializing exclusively with other boys. I don't really know what to tell you. If the school looks like a better choice to you--hell, you're his mother. Who else is qualified to say? :o) Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-04T03:06:39-06:00

ID

72548

Comment

Well the thing is, it's a public school. The fourth and fifth graders are gender separated as part of some study at his public school. So I'd have to choose PRIVATE to get him out of it. They'll be co-ed on the playground and during other times, but in the classroom, it will be all boys. I started another thread on it in the forums. I really just want others knowledge on this one. It's coming in August for us...not really a choice I made.

Author

emilyb

Date

2006-06-04T18:43:07-06:00

ID

72549

Comment

Wow. That's a little creepy--and eerily close to establishing "separate but equal" public education for boys and girls. Jeez. I didn't realize any local public schools did that... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2006-06-04T18:50:30-06:00