>Women being kinder is a sex trope not a neurological reality.
But what did I freaking say? -.- I did specifically say it was a stereotype, to counter your point that differences between sex necessarily imply an idea of inferiority of women, and here you go lecturing me on how what I said is a false stereotype D:, well no shit. It's an absurd notion. Negative stereotypes go both ways. But that's not the point.
The point is that you clearly have preconceived notions about how the world should be. And damn the facts. I find that an intellectually dishonest way of looking at things. The point is, for instance: in all likelihood there is no difference of, say, intelligence between the male and female population, but you _cannot_ discard that possibility a priori. You can't just say that, because men being inferior to women in that regard, or the reverse, would be undesirable, that you can close your eyes and go la-la-la. You can't. There are physiological differences, hormonal differences, would it be such a stretch that there would be neurological differences too? Or that the hormones would generate different patterns of behaviour in males and females?
I mean, just look at your last sentence. You don't actually care to know if men are naturally more predisposed to aggression, or if boys are more hyperactive and thus have more difficulty at school (if that were the case maybe methods of teaching could be more tailored to that reality, but that is beside the point). You just say that "Boys being hyperactive" would mean we have low standards for their behavior, and as that is a conclusion you do not desire, you reject the premise, without caring to know if it is true or not!
When you close it with we have to be aware of the realities of behavioral difference between the sexes, your beliefs become ambiguous. A thorough restating of positions doesn't make the arguments less clear.
I have the preconceived notion that we cannot assume that there is a biological difference in cognition. You're right. I'm wary of it because people have been doing it for hundreds of years for equally inane reasons. My wife isn't missing 5 ounces of her brain, her brain isn't held together by more delicate strands, the shape of her brain relative to the skull doesn't make her more subservient. What you seem to miss is that this assumption is not rooted in any scientific reasoning -- in fact more and more neuroscience is coming to the conclusion that there are very few differences in brain structure. Catherine Dulac's research from Harvard has been getting close to this, and although I think her conclusions overstep the data that she has, it's very interesting to me. And you've missed my point. I do think that there is a difference in cognition between the sexes, but I do not think that there is a biological basis for this. Just like I don't think that there is a biological basis for the reason that black children score lower on standardized tests (and there is an easier study setup for this, which is excellent!). The thing is, the studies that they've done show pretty similar results between increasing either sexes primary sex hormone and the effects on cognition. There are very similar results when either sex has a hormone imbalance.
I do actually care to know if men are naturally predisposed to aggression. Here are the links to the studies refuting that testosterone causes increased aggression [0][1][2]. And again, I do care that boys are more hyperactive. I don't deny that it's happening, I think it's a problem, and I think that what we can do to fix it is increase discipline and develop healthy coping strategies.
I'm not rejecting the premise, I'm rejecting that there is an inherent flaw in boys that makes them violent, hyperactive rapists. I'm rejecting that there is an inherent flaw in women that makes them docile, logically incapable therapists.
The fact that this is controversial just blows my mind.
How do you feel about the cross cultural differences in expected behavior between the sexes?
But what did I freaking say? -.- I did specifically say it was a stereotype, to counter your point that differences between sex necessarily imply an idea of inferiority of women, and here you go lecturing me on how what I said is a false stereotype D:, well no shit. It's an absurd notion. Negative stereotypes go both ways. But that's not the point.
The point is that you clearly have preconceived notions about how the world should be. And damn the facts. I find that an intellectually dishonest way of looking at things. The point is, for instance: in all likelihood there is no difference of, say, intelligence between the male and female population, but you _cannot_ discard that possibility a priori. You can't just say that, because men being inferior to women in that regard, or the reverse, would be undesirable, that you can close your eyes and go la-la-la. You can't. There are physiological differences, hormonal differences, would it be such a stretch that there would be neurological differences too? Or that the hormones would generate different patterns of behaviour in males and females?
I mean, just look at your last sentence. You don't actually care to know if men are naturally more predisposed to aggression, or if boys are more hyperactive and thus have more difficulty at school (if that were the case maybe methods of teaching could be more tailored to that reality, but that is beside the point). You just say that "Boys being hyperactive" would mean we have low standards for their behavior, and as that is a conclusion you do not desire, you reject the premise, without caring to know if it is true or not!