Murphy et al. (1996) used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission topography (PET) to investigate gender differences in how brains age. They found that both metabolism and brain volume are affected differently by age in men and women. Murphy et al concluded that this aging difference may be linked to how men and women recover from brain injury and disease. This confirmed MRI findings by Gur et al. (1991), showing that men demonstrated more age-related atrophy than women in the left hemisphere: women's brain atrophy was more symmetrical. Both Gur et al and Murphy et al suggest that estrogen may play a key role in protecting brain function. Estrogen is also linked to protecting the brain in case of stroke, according to Alkayed et al (1998).
Despite this protective effect, Wimo et al (2003) found (through meta-analysis) that 59% of the victims of senile dementia were female. It is tempting to ascribe this difference to the mortality gap; in the United States, by age 85, there are twice as many women as men (2003 census), but Ruitenburg et al. (2001) suggest that Alzheimer's risk is still greater in women even when controlling for death rates. However, Ruitenburg did find that vascular dementia rates were higher in men for all age groups.
This, then, is the key to understanding why dementia rates are so close to even. Vascular dementia (or dementia following a stroke) is the most common form of dementia in Asia, and the second most common form (after Alzheimer's) in the U.S. and Europe. While the estrogen effects seem to protect against vascular dementia, there does not appear to be an effect on Alzheimer's risk.
Is there anything more terrifying than the thought of losing your cognitive function? People in my family don't seem to live to a ripe old age, in general, so I have not had much personal experience with dementia. It remains a largely formless bogeyman in my mind. I seem to have noticed a difference in the way people deal with their fear of memory loss, but my sample seems even more skewed than normally in this regard. I've never seen a man joke about having a "senior moment," whereas it seems to be something that the women I know in their 50's and 60's mention with a smile at least three times per week. It seems odd to me that women, who don't seem to use humor as a coping strategy as often as men, would choose this one item to embrace with laughter. I can't get my mind around the shape of it, but it's always seemed to me that there's something important there, "unknown and partially hidden".
livejournal version
Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Living with grief
Williams et al. (2006) describes bereavement as "a women's issue", based on their findings that older women "disproportionately bear the burden of loss." Considering that women in the U.S. live an average of 7 years longer than men, this is not a completely unfounded claim. Stroebe (1998) found that, in people who had lost their spouses, men were more likely than women to develop "excessive detrimental consequences": to put it poetically, to die of a broken heart. William J. Cromie (1998), reporting for the Harvard Gazette suggests that menopause may be the reason that women live longer. Another factor may be that the diseases that women are more prone to tend to be non-fatal; Cromie quotes geriatrician Thomas Perls as saying "while men die from their diseases, women live with them." The mortality gap makes Williams et al's portrayal of bereavement as a women's issue plausible, at least.
But on an individual basis, both men and women must deal with the reality of losing loved ones. Martin and Doka's 1999 book, Men Don't Cry, Women Do: Transcending Gender Stereotypes of Grief examines the ways in which men and women cope with loss differently. Although the writers are careful to point out that personality and culture affect the way an individual copes with grief, there do seem to be patterns that tend to be more male or more female (although they can be found in members of either sex, as well as a third "blended" strategy), and these each have their strengths and weaknesses. The female pattern tends to be affective (emotional) whereas men are more likely to deal with grief cognitively or physically (such as by working on a project). The authors prefer the terms "instrumental" and "intuitive" to "masculine" and "feminine" (respectively), because of concerns that people who do not fit their stereotyped roles finding gendered labels threatening. The important thing, according to the author's, is to find the strategies that works best for the individual.
My own experiences with grief have been mercifully few. I've noticed two patterns in my experiences with grief: the fear that one is not grieving "correctly" and increased sex drive. In nearly every bereaved person I've ever met is the concern that they are not experiencing grief "correctly." There seems to be a social model of the way one is supposed to grieve, and even during the grieving process, people seem to worry that they are not appropriately expressing their loss. This is also true of the people around the bereaved. It seems like there is nearly always a sympathy card being passed around my office, followed by hushed, ashamed whispers of "I never know what to write." The increased sex drive is less discussed. Although the people I know who admit to it usually seem to feel slightly ashamed, the need for comfort and affirmation in a time of loss seems very common, although I have not had an opportunity to ask anyone who has lost a partner about this. It also makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint to have a drive to breed in the face of death. Unfortunately, so far I have found no literature to either confirm or deny this theory, apart from some speculative evolutionary psychology.
livejournal version
But on an individual basis, both men and women must deal with the reality of losing loved ones. Martin and Doka's 1999 book, Men Don't Cry, Women Do: Transcending Gender Stereotypes of Grief examines the ways in which men and women cope with loss differently. Although the writers are careful to point out that personality and culture affect the way an individual copes with grief, there do seem to be patterns that tend to be more male or more female (although they can be found in members of either sex, as well as a third "blended" strategy), and these each have their strengths and weaknesses. The female pattern tends to be affective (emotional) whereas men are more likely to deal with grief cognitively or physically (such as by working on a project). The authors prefer the terms "instrumental" and "intuitive" to "masculine" and "feminine" (respectively), because of concerns that people who do not fit their stereotyped roles finding gendered labels threatening. The important thing, according to the author's, is to find the strategies that works best for the individual.
My own experiences with grief have been mercifully few. I've noticed two patterns in my experiences with grief: the fear that one is not grieving "correctly" and increased sex drive. In nearly every bereaved person I've ever met is the concern that they are not experiencing grief "correctly." There seems to be a social model of the way one is supposed to grieve, and even during the grieving process, people seem to worry that they are not appropriately expressing their loss. This is also true of the people around the bereaved. It seems like there is nearly always a sympathy card being passed around my office, followed by hushed, ashamed whispers of "I never know what to write." The increased sex drive is less discussed. Although the people I know who admit to it usually seem to feel slightly ashamed, the need for comfort and affirmation in a time of loss seems very common, although I have not had an opportunity to ask anyone who has lost a partner about this. It also makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint to have a drive to breed in the face of death. Unfortunately, so far I have found no literature to either confirm or deny this theory, apart from some speculative evolutionary psychology.
livejournal version
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
The switch
Steve Chenoweth, at the University of Queensland, is studying how genes shared by males and females may have such different effects in the sexes: "the catch from a genetic standpoint is that males and females share almost all of their genes. Because of this, many genes that benefit one sex may actually be harmful to the other." Chenoweth suggests that the development of the genes may be controlled by triggers on the sex chromosomes. He hopes that by identifying the triggers, it may be possible to find ways to combat diseases that target men or women more frequently.
Earlier studies have focused largely on hormonal differences, as discussed in Ingrid Waldron's 1983 review for Social science & Medicine. It was widely believed that behavioral differences (such as those that cause higher rates of death by violence or accident) were linked to hormonal levels, thought to be genetically determined. However, genetic factors may outweigh hormonal environments in some cases, such as that reported by Agate et al. (2006) in Neuroscience. A gynandromorphic finch demonstrated a brain that was more male on the right hemisphere and more female on the left, despite having both sides in the same hormonal environment. We may be only begining to scratch the surface of the complex relationship between genes, hormones, and brain development.
When I first started telling people that I was transitioning to male, I was asked several times whether I'd had, or planned to have, any genetic testing done. It hadn't occurred to me to wonder if I was a genetically normal female, or whether I had some genetic difference that made my womanhood intolerable. Later, watching "You Don't Know Dick" (a documentary about transgendered men), I saw a woman attributing her partner's transgender status to a hormone bath in utero. Theories about how sexual characteristics are activated are plentiful; answers are sparse. For a while, I was dead set against more research into my condition. I felt that if the cause was determined, the "birth defect" of transgenderism might be eliminated. I don't feel that way anymore, if only because as the gender puzzle unfolds in front of me, the more impossible "solving" it appears.
livejournal version
Earlier studies have focused largely on hormonal differences, as discussed in Ingrid Waldron's 1983 review for Social science & Medicine. It was widely believed that behavioral differences (such as those that cause higher rates of death by violence or accident) were linked to hormonal levels, thought to be genetically determined. However, genetic factors may outweigh hormonal environments in some cases, such as that reported by Agate et al. (2006) in Neuroscience. A gynandromorphic finch demonstrated a brain that was more male on the right hemisphere and more female on the left, despite having both sides in the same hormonal environment. We may be only begining to scratch the surface of the complex relationship between genes, hormones, and brain development.
When I first started telling people that I was transitioning to male, I was asked several times whether I'd had, or planned to have, any genetic testing done. It hadn't occurred to me to wonder if I was a genetically normal female, or whether I had some genetic difference that made my womanhood intolerable. Later, watching "You Don't Know Dick" (a documentary about transgendered men), I saw a woman attributing her partner's transgender status to a hormone bath in utero. Theories about how sexual characteristics are activated are plentiful; answers are sparse. For a while, I was dead set against more research into my condition. I felt that if the cause was determined, the "birth defect" of transgenderism might be eliminated. I don't feel that way anymore, if only because as the gender puzzle unfolds in front of me, the more impossible "solving" it appears.
livejournal version
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Strong enough for a man, but made for a woman
Differences in body shape and gait mean that use-related injuries for men and women also differ. However, until recently, this difference was not reflected in the design of replacement joints. Jennifer Wider, reporting for HealthNewsDigest.com, discusses some of the advances that have been made in redesigning replacement joints for women: "the implants of the past were designed based on men’s knees."
However, while these differences do affect the kinds of injuries suffered, it is questionable whether the redesign will actually change outcomes. Ftizgerald et al. (2004) failed to find any sex differences in quality of life after joint replacement. Interestingly, Katz (2001) reported that "women with osteoarthritis] were inclined to forgo surgery until they were much more incapacitated [that their male counterparts], typically limited to walking from room to room." (citing Karlson et al, 1997) This is notable in that women are otherwise far more likely to seek medical intervention than men, as previously discussed. Perhaps the question is not who seeks care, but their reasons for seeking it.
In one of my first group interactions as a man, I ended up on a class in "Emotional Control" (part of my penance for the incident snapping at a female student). In the class, the presenter asked us to compare physical vs. emotional pain. In small groups, this question quickly divided along gender lines. The men in each group argued that men would generally prefer to suffer physical pain to emotional pain, whereas the women argued that men had a far lower pain threshold than women. Feeling like a bit of an outsider to both groups, I tried to point out that the two points of view weren't contradictory, at which point I had it explained at length to me that (as a man) I knew nothing about pain, since I would never experience childbirth. Further questioning revealed that the speaker was childless. This was my first experience with attempting to discuss sex differences in a group of strangers. It put me off of the experiment for some time.
livejournal version
However, while these differences do affect the kinds of injuries suffered, it is questionable whether the redesign will actually change outcomes. Ftizgerald et al. (2004) failed to find any sex differences in quality of life after joint replacement. Interestingly, Katz (2001) reported that "women with osteoarthritis] were inclined to forgo surgery until they were much more incapacitated [that their male counterparts], typically limited to walking from room to room." (citing Karlson et al, 1997) This is notable in that women are otherwise far more likely to seek medical intervention than men, as previously discussed. Perhaps the question is not who seeks care, but their reasons for seeking it.
In one of my first group interactions as a man, I ended up on a class in "Emotional Control" (part of my penance for the incident snapping at a female student). In the class, the presenter asked us to compare physical vs. emotional pain. In small groups, this question quickly divided along gender lines. The men in each group argued that men would generally prefer to suffer physical pain to emotional pain, whereas the women argued that men had a far lower pain threshold than women. Feeling like a bit of an outsider to both groups, I tried to point out that the two points of view weren't contradictory, at which point I had it explained at length to me that (as a man) I knew nothing about pain, since I would never experience childbirth. Further questioning revealed that the speaker was childless. This was my first experience with attempting to discuss sex differences in a group of strangers. It put me off of the experiment for some time.
livejournal version
Monday, September 25, 2006
Exceptional
Last month, Pediatrics issued a Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders, reversing the recommendation to follow psychologist John Money's protocols which recommended early corrective surgery. Cheryl Chase, founder of the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA), was pivotal in getting the recommendations changed, according to a New York Times Magazine article sent to Difference Blog by an anonymous reader.
The arguments in favor of early surgery are, as Elizabeth Weil puts it in the NYT article, "tend not to be very rational." Recent research has begun to examine the outcomes of such surgery. Minto et al (2003) found high rates of sexual non-sensuality and inability to achieve orgasm in a group who had received clitoral surgery vs. intersex women who had not had surgery. Thyen et al (2005) in a review for Treatments in Endocrinology, point out that the empirical data on intersex treatment is "sparse." More research is obviously warranted, but the question remains: is it more of an "experiment" to intervene or not to intervene?
The first time I saw an intersex speaker, at the plenary address for the first Transcending Boundaries Conference, I found myself hoping and wishing I would have the opportunity to adopt an intersex child. I fantasized about raising a child without gender, and fighting for the child's right to be gender-free in the school system (which is not what ISNA recommends, by the way). This was mostly because I was already considering transition myself and heady on the ideals of radical gender theory. I also recognize, now, that part of this was a desire to raise a child who had genitals similar to the ones that transition would create in me. How then, can I blame parents who want their children's genitals to resemble their own? The only difference I can see, although it's an important distinction, is that I never wanted to create or modify another human being in my own image, which strikes me as a particularly evil sort of hubris.
livejournal version
The arguments in favor of early surgery are, as Elizabeth Weil puts it in the NYT article, "tend not to be very rational." Recent research has begun to examine the outcomes of such surgery. Minto et al (2003) found high rates of sexual non-sensuality and inability to achieve orgasm in a group who had received clitoral surgery vs. intersex women who had not had surgery. Thyen et al (2005) in a review for Treatments in Endocrinology, point out that the empirical data on intersex treatment is "sparse." More research is obviously warranted, but the question remains: is it more of an "experiment" to intervene or not to intervene?
The first time I saw an intersex speaker, at the plenary address for the first Transcending Boundaries Conference, I found myself hoping and wishing I would have the opportunity to adopt an intersex child. I fantasized about raising a child without gender, and fighting for the child's right to be gender-free in the school system (which is not what ISNA recommends, by the way). This was mostly because I was already considering transition myself and heady on the ideals of radical gender theory. I also recognize, now, that part of this was a desire to raise a child who had genitals similar to the ones that transition would create in me. How then, can I blame parents who want their children's genitals to resemble their own? The only difference I can see, although it's an important distinction, is that I never wanted to create or modify another human being in my own image, which strikes me as a particularly evil sort of hubris.
livejournal version
Friday, September 22, 2006
Won't somebody think of the children?
Pauline Vu, reporting for Stateline.org, says that the number of public single-sex schools has risen from 5 to 241 in the past decade. Leonard Sax, director of the National Association for Single Sex Public Education and author of Why Gender Matters claims that girls and boys have different learning styles and that these differences can be used to enhance education in single-sex environments. Groups like the ACLU and National Organization for Women plan to continue to oppose the gender segregation in schools. "Girls Just Want to Have Sums", a 2006 episode of the Simpsons, portrays how these groups seem to envision single-sex classrooms. Joe Cook, Lousiana director of the ACLU describes them as having girls "count[ing] flower petals" instead of being taught real mathematics.
Interestingly, although this is presented as a feminist issue, research has typically focused on the benefits to women of single-sex education. A review by Mael (1998) found little evidence of benefit for boys. Spielhofer et al (2004) found that single-sex classes in Britain seemed to benefit either girls or boys, depending on the type of school. Girls in comprehensive same-sex programs did better than girls in coed schools with similar curriculum, and boys seemed to benefit from the single-sex environment when in a selective program. The single-sex education also seemed to help girls move outside gender-stereotyped subjects. However, Vu's article described many American schools as using single-sex education as a way to help close the gap between girls and boys, because boys were faliing behind in academic scores.
Personally, I've had no luck finding a pattern to the ways I learn. It seems like some things I learn better by failing and repeating, and other things I learn better by watching, while sometimes I need to understand the mechanisms that make them function before I can really begin. In my experience in classrooms, information is usually presented multiple times, and in a few different ways, as the teacher tries to get understanding in the broadest section of the class. Sometimes I get it on the first run through, sometimes it's another method that "clicks" for me. I'm glad I have had the opportunity to get the different ways of looking at the same information. It helps me think about it, and also helps me pass that information on to other people. It doesn't seem important for people to understand how they know what they know until you try and get them to explain it to you. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to learn a skill from someone who does it naturally.
livejournal version
Interestingly, although this is presented as a feminist issue, research has typically focused on the benefits to women of single-sex education. A review by Mael (1998) found little evidence of benefit for boys. Spielhofer et al (2004) found that single-sex classes in Britain seemed to benefit either girls or boys, depending on the type of school. Girls in comprehensive same-sex programs did better than girls in coed schools with similar curriculum, and boys seemed to benefit from the single-sex environment when in a selective program. The single-sex education also seemed to help girls move outside gender-stereotyped subjects. However, Vu's article described many American schools as using single-sex education as a way to help close the gap between girls and boys, because boys were faliing behind in academic scores.
Personally, I've had no luck finding a pattern to the ways I learn. It seems like some things I learn better by failing and repeating, and other things I learn better by watching, while sometimes I need to understand the mechanisms that make them function before I can really begin. In my experience in classrooms, information is usually presented multiple times, and in a few different ways, as the teacher tries to get understanding in the broadest section of the class. Sometimes I get it on the first run through, sometimes it's another method that "clicks" for me. I'm glad I have had the opportunity to get the different ways of looking at the same information. It helps me think about it, and also helps me pass that information on to other people. It doesn't seem important for people to understand how they know what they know until you try and get them to explain it to you. There's nothing more frustrating than trying to learn a skill from someone who does it naturally.
livejournal version
Thursday, September 21, 2006
The erogenous zones: eyes and ears.
Canli and Gabrieli (2004) (pdf) , in a review of Hamann et al (2004) (pdf) for Nature Neuroscience, quote Woodrow Wyatt as saying that "a man falls in love through his eyes, a woman through her ears." As previously discussed, it is believed that there may be physical truth to this statement, in that men may be more attuned to visual stimuli than women, especially as pertains to sexual arousal. Furnam and Bitar (1993) found that British advertisers more often used males as voice-overs and women as images, in what may be a nod to this phenomenon.
If true, this presents a problem for researchers studying sexual arousal. In order to study arousal in women, it may be more appropriate to use auditory stimuli rather than visual ones. However, the attempt to do this by Polan et al. (2003) did not show any correlation between presence of auditory stimulus and rate of arousal, using physiological measurements or self-reported levels of arousal. Youn (2006) points out that while many studies use visual or audiovisual stimuli, there has been very little research done with purely auditory stimuli (Youn's experiment used audiovisual stimuli).
While problems such as reactions to vocal types or language barriers may make studying auditory stimuli more difficult, it may be key to understanding differences between men's and women's arousal patterns. Wired's sex columnist Regina Lynn points out that recorded auditory erotica targeted to men has until recently been almost non-existent (although I wonder if recorded phone-sex lines count in her estimation). Whatever the difficulties, it seems clear that auditory stimulus research is not only needed, but long overdue.
I'll admit it: my arousal patterns are more auditory than visual, and more verbal than non-verbal. My erotica of choice is generally first-person stories. I have not noticed any particular difference in these patterns since starting testosterone, but it's hard to tell. My consumption of porn was fairly low prior to testosterone. When my libido increased, I acquired a lot more, because I started to resent the amount of time I was spending masturbating, and wanted to speed the process up. In terms of auditory cues, I have found that it is nearly impossible for me to become aroused by audiovisual porn in which the soundtrack does not include the actor's voice or breath, but non-porn music tracks that include moaning or heavy breathing often get me embarrassingly worked up (in inappropriate situations).
livejournal version
If true, this presents a problem for researchers studying sexual arousal. In order to study arousal in women, it may be more appropriate to use auditory stimuli rather than visual ones. However, the attempt to do this by Polan et al. (2003) did not show any correlation between presence of auditory stimulus and rate of arousal, using physiological measurements or self-reported levels of arousal. Youn (2006) points out that while many studies use visual or audiovisual stimuli, there has been very little research done with purely auditory stimuli (Youn's experiment used audiovisual stimuli).
While problems such as reactions to vocal types or language barriers may make studying auditory stimuli more difficult, it may be key to understanding differences between men's and women's arousal patterns. Wired's sex columnist Regina Lynn points out that recorded auditory erotica targeted to men has until recently been almost non-existent (although I wonder if recorded phone-sex lines count in her estimation). Whatever the difficulties, it seems clear that auditory stimulus research is not only needed, but long overdue.
I'll admit it: my arousal patterns are more auditory than visual, and more verbal than non-verbal. My erotica of choice is generally first-person stories. I have not noticed any particular difference in these patterns since starting testosterone, but it's hard to tell. My consumption of porn was fairly low prior to testosterone. When my libido increased, I acquired a lot more, because I started to resent the amount of time I was spending masturbating, and wanted to speed the process up. In terms of auditory cues, I have found that it is nearly impossible for me to become aroused by audiovisual porn in which the soundtrack does not include the actor's voice or breath, but non-porn music tracks that include moaning or heavy breathing often get me embarrassingly worked up (in inappropriate situations).
livejournal version
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Mnemonics: Do Men and Women use different strategies for recalling autobiographical memory?
Piefke et al. (2005) compared the brain activity of men and women involved in autobiographical memory. They found that while both groups showed bilateral activation in the medial and lateral temporal areas, there were some differential activations. The authors suggest that this may represent a difference in the cognitive methods used to call up the memories. It has been suggested that men and women's socialization in gender may specifically play a role in their experience of memory. Agnieszka Niedzwienska (2003) believes that men and women remember different aspects of an event because they have been socialized to place priority on different aspects. Men, Niedzwienska claims, tend to remember aspects regarding "mastery and performance" while women focus on "affiliative themes." However, this may not be the whole puzzle. Frings et al. (2006), in their fMRI study of men and women performing a spatial memory task, suggest that women may be more likely than men to use verbal strategies to maintain memory, although whether this directly relates to autobiographical memory strategies is questionable.
It feels to me like a lot of my memory is verbal (which would be the female model), but the themes I remember seem to be mostly mastery and performance-oriented (the male model). Most of my life is not recalled as autobiographical episodes, but rather, as the stories I've told about the episodes. The stories have largely replaced the events, and artistic license becomes reality. The phrase "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" is thrown around a lot in my family (although it's largely in an accusatory way towards other family members). But I'll readily admit that the words stick in my mind far more than the actual experiences.
livejournal version
It feels to me like a lot of my memory is verbal (which would be the female model), but the themes I remember seem to be mostly mastery and performance-oriented (the male model). Most of my life is not recalled as autobiographical episodes, but rather, as the stories I've told about the episodes. The stories have largely replaced the events, and artistic license becomes reality. The phrase "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" is thrown around a lot in my family (although it's largely in an accusatory way towards other family members). But I'll readily admit that the words stick in my mind far more than the actual experiences.
livejournal version
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Yarr! [Talk like a pirate day]
Today be talk like a pirate day, and so in recognition, I be posting about some differences between pirate lads and pirate lasses. Fer instance, Joiner (1998) found that the lads preferred playing pirates to playing princesses, but the lasses showed no preference. Using the same game, Littleton (1993) found that little lasses performed better on gender neutral games, but the lads showed no difference in performance between different versions of the game.
In an unrelated matter, Gupta, Gould, and Pola (2005) found that lads were more likely than lasses to pirate software.
I be a great fan of a pirate game meself, although I didn't pirate the software. It's available fer free download at PuzzlePirates.com, and it be a load o' fun fer lads and lasses. Me first mate, whose game knowledge be broader than the wide blue sea, has oft mentioned how successful the game is with the lasses in comparison to other MMORPGs. The game be puzzle-based, and there be no real violence to speak of -- the fighting be done by competitive puzzling. Meself, I play both lads and lasses in the game, on account o' my enjoying playing with the little pirate costumes, which be gender-specific. The lasses tend t' have more clothin' options, much as in modern life.
livejournal version
In an unrelated matter, Gupta, Gould, and Pola (2005) found that lads were more likely than lasses to pirate software.
I be a great fan of a pirate game meself, although I didn't pirate the software. It's available fer free download at PuzzlePirates.com, and it be a load o' fun fer lads and lasses. Me first mate, whose game knowledge be broader than the wide blue sea, has oft mentioned how successful the game is with the lasses in comparison to other MMORPGs. The game be puzzle-based, and there be no real violence to speak of -- the fighting be done by competitive puzzling. Meself, I play both lads and lasses in the game, on account o' my enjoying playing with the little pirate costumes, which be gender-specific. The lasses tend t' have more clothin' options, much as in modern life.
livejournal version
Monday, September 18, 2006
Did you hear?
Common wisdom holds that men are more aggressive than women. However, this may be an artifact of how aggression is defined. Björkqvist (1994, review) suggests that women are only less aggressive than men directly, and that in indirect aggression measures, women seem to be more aggressive than men. Examples of indirect aggression given were "excluding from a group", "getting even", or "gossiping." Underwood et al. (2004) found that both boys and girls (aged 10-14) would exclude a difficult play partner from a group, but that the boys would do so directly and verbally, while the girls would exclude the partner non-verbally, and express negative emotions only in the difficult play partner's absence.
Jennifer Bosson (2006) says that gossip can "really bond people together." Her study on gossip at the University of Oklahoma found that bonding was stronger when negative opinions were being shared. In fact, according to Bosson's study, when positive attitudes are shared, they are typically about inanimate objects. Bosson's study did not uncover any gender differences in the bonding effect of negative gossip. Levin and Arluke (1985) also found similarities in men and women's gossiping content, with the main differences being in the time spent gossiping and in the targets of the gossip, with women being more likely to gossip about close friends and family.
Bosson's study differentiated between positive and negative gossip. However, it is unclear if any of these studies differentiated between "secret" and "public" gossip; that is, whether the gossip was something the speaker would say or had said to the target. That would seem to connect with the "direct" vs. "indirect" aggression differences studied by Björkqvist.
My own comfort levels in various social groups have changed a lot over time. Before transition, I had a very hard time forging friendships with women. My relationships with women have improved immensely since transition. Much like the stereotyped racist or homophobe line, "some of my best friends are [women]." Unfortunately, since I largely interacted with men as a woman, and with women as a man, I have little context for normal same-sex group dynamics. I have found, however, that most of the men I know feel that it's inappropriate to say anything behind someone's back that you wouldn't say to their face, while most women feel that saying disparaging things to someone does more harm that good, but feel the need to vent when they're not around the target. I can see both sides of this argument, and often find myself torn between the desire for forthrightness and the desire to protect someone's feelings.
livejournal version
Jennifer Bosson (2006) says that gossip can "really bond people together." Her study on gossip at the University of Oklahoma found that bonding was stronger when negative opinions were being shared. In fact, according to Bosson's study, when positive attitudes are shared, they are typically about inanimate objects. Bosson's study did not uncover any gender differences in the bonding effect of negative gossip. Levin and Arluke (1985) also found similarities in men and women's gossiping content, with the main differences being in the time spent gossiping and in the targets of the gossip, with women being more likely to gossip about close friends and family.
Bosson's study differentiated between positive and negative gossip. However, it is unclear if any of these studies differentiated between "secret" and "public" gossip; that is, whether the gossip was something the speaker would say or had said to the target. That would seem to connect with the "direct" vs. "indirect" aggression differences studied by Björkqvist.
My own comfort levels in various social groups have changed a lot over time. Before transition, I had a very hard time forging friendships with women. My relationships with women have improved immensely since transition. Much like the stereotyped racist or homophobe line, "some of my best friends are [women]." Unfortunately, since I largely interacted with men as a woman, and with women as a man, I have little context for normal same-sex group dynamics. I have found, however, that most of the men I know feel that it's inappropriate to say anything behind someone's back that you wouldn't say to their face, while most women feel that saying disparaging things to someone does more harm that good, but feel the need to vent when they're not around the target. I can see both sides of this argument, and often find myself torn between the desire for forthrightness and the desire to protect someone's feelings.
livejournal version
Friday, September 15, 2006
Where is sad?
Schneider et al. (2000) used functional Magnetic Resonance Images (fMRI) to look for a difference in brain activation during happiness and sadness in males and females. The happy and sad feelings were voluntarily induced by looking at pictures of actors with happy and sad faces. While both groups reported equal levels of subjective happiness and sadness, only the males displayed amygdala activation during sadness. No correlations were reported for happy moods.
Anahad O'Connor (2004) described the amygdala's role in emotion for the New York Times: "Once thought to be involved exclusively with emotions like fear and anger, the amygdala is now believed to be more complicated." O'Connor reported an Emory University study that showed amygdala activation in men while looking at erotic photographs.
It seems that amygdala activation occurs when visual cues excite emotion. Schneider et al. suggest that the women in their study may have used more internal cues, rather than the mood inducing photographs, to experience their reported sadness. In Seed Magazine, Maggie Whitlin (2006) reports on recent findings that suggest that amygdala activation may be tied to lowered cognitive ability; in other words, when a brain is processing emotion, it is harder for it to solve problems. In the face of Schneider et al.'s suggestion that the men in their study may have had to "exert more effort" in experiencing sadness than the women, this raises the question of how voluntary emotional tasks are processed.
I have heard other ftms mention that they do not experience emotion as strongly after testosterone therapy. I can't say I've personally noticed, although I have noticed that I am not sad as often. This hasn't really felt like something to complain about, and I readily admit I'm not eager to look this gift horse in the mouth. I don't cry as often, and I have heard (although I have no sources to back this up) that testosterone tends to dry out the eyes, making it harder to cry. I have noticed that my visual experience of the world is more intense. I find it more necessary to look at things to pay attention to them. I have no idea whether this is typical in any way. I've also experienced differences in the way I experience color, but I mostly think that's a placebo effect, since I was told that it would happen.
livejournal version
Anahad O'Connor (2004) described the amygdala's role in emotion for the New York Times: "Once thought to be involved exclusively with emotions like fear and anger, the amygdala is now believed to be more complicated." O'Connor reported an Emory University study that showed amygdala activation in men while looking at erotic photographs.
It seems that amygdala activation occurs when visual cues excite emotion. Schneider et al. suggest that the women in their study may have used more internal cues, rather than the mood inducing photographs, to experience their reported sadness. In Seed Magazine, Maggie Whitlin (2006) reports on recent findings that suggest that amygdala activation may be tied to lowered cognitive ability; in other words, when a brain is processing emotion, it is harder for it to solve problems. In the face of Schneider et al.'s suggestion that the men in their study may have had to "exert more effort" in experiencing sadness than the women, this raises the question of how voluntary emotional tasks are processed.
I have heard other ftms mention that they do not experience emotion as strongly after testosterone therapy. I can't say I've personally noticed, although I have noticed that I am not sad as often. This hasn't really felt like something to complain about, and I readily admit I'm not eager to look this gift horse in the mouth. I don't cry as often, and I have heard (although I have no sources to back this up) that testosterone tends to dry out the eyes, making it harder to cry. I have noticed that my visual experience of the world is more intense. I find it more necessary to look at things to pay attention to them. I have no idea whether this is typical in any way. I've also experienced differences in the way I experience color, but I mostly think that's a placebo effect, since I was told that it would happen.
livejournal version
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Temper, temper...
Mirowsky and Ross's 1995 meta-analysis found that in addition to expressing distress more openly, women also experience more distressing emotions, including anger, while men and women score roughly equally on happiness. (If adjusting for the total emotion load, women appear to be less happy than men). However, Hess et al. (2005) found that social expectations are for men to express anger and women to express happiness. In other words, women experience more anger and men experience more happiness, but they are expected to display the opposite.
Davis et al (1992) suggest that the perception of confrontation has significant gender differences. Women may be less confrontational because they find confrontation more upsetting. However, another contributing factor may be related to predicted results. Cole (2004) found that in disciplinary interactions with employees, women tended to be fairer than men. If these findings are correct, it may be that people expect interactions with women to have better overall results, leading to less conflict escalation.
[note: Article and commentary will appear in one post from now on.]
One of the first times that I made a serious misstep as a man was in supervising a student worker at my job. She'd come in late, and copped an attitude because I didn't trust her to accomplish something on schedule, so I'd started it for her. She snapped at me; I snapped back. Now, I'm able to see now how I was wrong in more ways than just the male-female interaction, but at the time, the disciplinary action taken against me felt entirely out of proportion. It seems to me now that it was because I had reacted like we were both women. A man yelling (even a short, effeminate one, apparently) is socially different than a woman yelling. Even now, although I'm probably one of the least threatening guys you'll ever meet, I still have to work to take into account that my temper has different connotations than it had before.
livejournal version
Davis et al (1992) suggest that the perception of confrontation has significant gender differences. Women may be less confrontational because they find confrontation more upsetting. However, another contributing factor may be related to predicted results. Cole (2004) found that in disciplinary interactions with employees, women tended to be fairer than men. If these findings are correct, it may be that people expect interactions with women to have better overall results, leading to less conflict escalation.
[note: Article and commentary will appear in one post from now on.]
One of the first times that I made a serious misstep as a man was in supervising a student worker at my job. She'd come in late, and copped an attitude because I didn't trust her to accomplish something on schedule, so I'd started it for her. She snapped at me; I snapped back. Now, I'm able to see now how I was wrong in more ways than just the male-female interaction, but at the time, the disciplinary action taken against me felt entirely out of proportion. It seems to me now that it was because I had reacted like we were both women. A man yelling (even a short, effeminate one, apparently) is socially different than a woman yelling. Even now, although I'm probably one of the least threatening guys you'll ever meet, I still have to work to take into account that my temper has different connotations than it had before.
livejournal version
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Itchy and Scratchy Show
The medical term for itching is pruritus. This word may sound familiar, as it's the root word for prurient: "having, inclined to have, or characterized by lascivious or lustful thoughts, desires, etc." Common wisdom holds that men are inveterate scratchers. They're certain more famous than women for public scratching (especially of the prurient zones). Masturbation, also more widespread and frequent in men, is often likened to scratching an itch. Is there any truth to the idea that men scratch more than women?
Jeffrey Mogil (2006) thinks not. His work at McGill University showed that female mice scratched 23% more often than male mice when treated with a drug known to induce itching. Ikoma et al (2006) in a review for Nature state that fMRI findings suggest that itching and pain activate the same neural correlates in the brain. This may be contrary to Mogil's theory that "pain and itch are wired up in the brain as opposites" -- a possible explanation for why people who tested as sensitive to itch were less sensitive to pain, and vice versa.
A review by Ethel Tur (1997) reports that women suffer from "irritative dermatitis" more often than men, but that tests do not demonstrate a difference in sensitivity to irritants; she posits that occupational exposure to irritants may be the culprit. It's also possible that this may again tie into the fact that women go to the doctor more often than men, especially as itching is the 2nd most common symptom reported at medical visits (see link to Mogil, above).
There's a great line in one of the episodes of the short-lived "Dilbert" animated cartoon, where a computer demonstrates its superiority to humans by saying "Isn't it awfully itchy in here?" and of course, all of the humans begin to scratch. Itchiness is a fascinating sensation, being as contagious as yawning, and no amount of scratching really makes it go away. Even writing this makes me want to scratch.
I've discovered that I am a lot itchier since starting testosterone, but at least I have a good excuse: I have a lot more hair. My thicker body hair makes me feel itchy a lot of the time. It feels almost impossible to get as clean as I used to routinely be. Also, small sensations, such as the wind moving hair on my arms or legs, drive me nuts. But even my scalp feels itchier than it used to. This may also be due to how estrogen makes skin more elastic. My skin may actually be more brittle (I know it doesn't feel as soft to the touch) than it was before, leaving me with more dead cells to remove. Even before starting testosterone, when I was growing out my leg hair for the first time, I ended up using a nail brush on my legs in the shower to clear away the skin that used to be removed by shaving, just to reduce the itching.
livejournal version
Jeffrey Mogil (2006) thinks not. His work at McGill University showed that female mice scratched 23% more often than male mice when treated with a drug known to induce itching. Ikoma et al (2006) in a review for Nature state that fMRI findings suggest that itching and pain activate the same neural correlates in the brain. This may be contrary to Mogil's theory that "pain and itch are wired up in the brain as opposites" -- a possible explanation for why people who tested as sensitive to itch were less sensitive to pain, and vice versa.
A review by Ethel Tur (1997) reports that women suffer from "irritative dermatitis" more often than men, but that tests do not demonstrate a difference in sensitivity to irritants; she posits that occupational exposure to irritants may be the culprit. It's also possible that this may again tie into the fact that women go to the doctor more often than men, especially as itching is the 2nd most common symptom reported at medical visits (see link to Mogil, above).
There's a great line in one of the episodes of the short-lived "Dilbert" animated cartoon, where a computer demonstrates its superiority to humans by saying "Isn't it awfully itchy in here?" and of course, all of the humans begin to scratch. Itchiness is a fascinating sensation, being as contagious as yawning, and no amount of scratching really makes it go away. Even writing this makes me want to scratch.
I've discovered that I am a lot itchier since starting testosterone, but at least I have a good excuse: I have a lot more hair. My thicker body hair makes me feel itchy a lot of the time. It feels almost impossible to get as clean as I used to routinely be. Also, small sensations, such as the wind moving hair on my arms or legs, drive me nuts. But even my scalp feels itchier than it used to. This may also be due to how estrogen makes skin more elastic. My skin may actually be more brittle (I know it doesn't feel as soft to the touch) than it was before, leaving me with more dead cells to remove. Even before starting testosterone, when I was growing out my leg hair for the first time, I ended up using a nail brush on my legs in the shower to clear away the skin that used to be removed by shaving, just to reduce the itching.
livejournal version
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The shape of desire
Baumeister et al (2001) suggest that the sex drive construct is overly generalized to related but separate concepts, such as enjoyment of sex or sexual capacity. While Baumeister et al. found that (true to folk wisdom) men had a higher sex drive, no gender difference on the other measures was reported. Peplau (2003) goes further, suggesting a set of four major gender differences in human sexuality: sexual desire or drive (higher for men), the role of relationships (more important to women), the role of aggression (higher for men), and sexual plasticity or tendency for change (higher for women). Peplau also claims that these differences are constant across cultures and sexualities, appearing for heterosexuals, lesbians, and gay men.
Leiblum (2002) claims that the desire gap is narrowing as women gain in social power, suggesting that the differences are largely socially created. However, neural imaging studies may show it to be more complicated. Fisher et al (2002) (including "love expert" Arthur Aron) break sexual attraction into three separate but related parts which have different neural correlates. The three "motivation systems" they identify are lust, romantic attraction, and male–female attachment. Understanding how these motivation systems are different may be pivotal in understanding not only human sexuality, but human motivation in general.
If I've seen any point of agreement among ftms on the effects of testosterone, it's on the increase in sex drive. Almost every ftm reports that their sex drive becomes much stronger after beginning hormones. In my own experience, the sex drive not only increased, but also changed in a very distinct way. "Sex" after testosterone became much more about orgasm. Masturbation became easier and more satisfying, which I was thankful for, because I found myself driven to distraction unless I orgasmed frequently. This shift in focus made me question what had been the motivation behind my high sex drive prior to hormones. The best explanation I could come up with is that sex had been an affirmation for me before hormones. Testosterone let me see sex as a release, instead of a crutch, and my self-esteem stopped depending so much on it.
livejournal version
Leiblum (2002) claims that the desire gap is narrowing as women gain in social power, suggesting that the differences are largely socially created. However, neural imaging studies may show it to be more complicated. Fisher et al (2002) (including "love expert" Arthur Aron) break sexual attraction into three separate but related parts which have different neural correlates. The three "motivation systems" they identify are lust, romantic attraction, and male–female attachment. Understanding how these motivation systems are different may be pivotal in understanding not only human sexuality, but human motivation in general.
If I've seen any point of agreement among ftms on the effects of testosterone, it's on the increase in sex drive. Almost every ftm reports that their sex drive becomes much stronger after beginning hormones. In my own experience, the sex drive not only increased, but also changed in a very distinct way. "Sex" after testosterone became much more about orgasm. Masturbation became easier and more satisfying, which I was thankful for, because I found myself driven to distraction unless I orgasmed frequently. This shift in focus made me question what had been the motivation behind my high sex drive prior to hormones. The best explanation I could come up with is that sex had been an affirmation for me before hormones. Testosterone let me see sex as a release, instead of a crutch, and my self-esteem stopped depending so much on it.
livejournal version
Monday, September 11, 2006
September 11
In some ways, social science can be very morbid. Large disasters make it possible to build statistical models of how people cope. After the September 11th attacks, multiple psychological studies were carried out in New York. Galea et al. (2003) found no gender effect in the incidence of PTSD related to the attacks, although DeLisi et al. (2003) found that women reported more trauma symptoms than men. Galea's study also found no gender difference in recovery speed from PTSD symptoms. This is surprising in relation to theories that women are more resilient (i.e. have an easier time "bouncing back") than men.
Stuber et al. (2002) found that boys were more likely than girls to receive counseling in regards to the attacks. Unsurprisingly, whether the parent was suffering PTSD symptoms was a greater predictor of whether the child received counseling than the child's own symptoms. Parents who had stronger reactions to the attacks were more likely to make sure their child received counseling, although many children received some sort of counseling through their schools. Interestingly, Stuber suggests that the difference in the children's reported symptoms (i.e. externalizing in boys, internalizing in girls) may be more attributable to parental bias than to difference in symptoms. Boys were less likely, for example, to have their parents report "sadness".
I have never really been able to empathize with large scale disaster. I was more in awe of the reaction that the September 11th attacks caused than I was moved by the deaths, and I felt real lack in myself because of it. I wondered how everyone could be so upset that people they didn't know had died; it happens every day. I keep waiting to see if I will wake up one morning in horror and understand. I haven't yet, but I don't know if I'm disappointed or relieved about that.
livejournal version
Stuber et al. (2002) found that boys were more likely than girls to receive counseling in regards to the attacks. Unsurprisingly, whether the parent was suffering PTSD symptoms was a greater predictor of whether the child received counseling than the child's own symptoms. Parents who had stronger reactions to the attacks were more likely to make sure their child received counseling, although many children received some sort of counseling through their schools. Interestingly, Stuber suggests that the difference in the children's reported symptoms (i.e. externalizing in boys, internalizing in girls) may be more attributable to parental bias than to difference in symptoms. Boys were less likely, for example, to have their parents report "sadness".
I have never really been able to empathize with large scale disaster. I was more in awe of the reaction that the September 11th attacks caused than I was moved by the deaths, and I felt real lack in myself because of it. I wondered how everyone could be so upset that people they didn't know had died; it happens every day. I keep waiting to see if I will wake up one morning in horror and understand. I haven't yet, but I don't know if I'm disappointed or relieved about that.
livejournal version
Friday, September 8, 2006
Pink Pills and Blue Pills
Lidia Wasowicz, in a report on non-drug depression treatments for United Press International, quotes Jill Becker's complaint about many depression drug trials:
Becker's work with rats has uncovered several interesting reactions between drugs and sex hormones. She suggests that this not only affects whether a treatment will be effective on both men and women, but also on whether it will be effective in adolescents, who have different hormonal balances than their adult counterparts.
She's not the only one worried. A 1995 review by Harris, Benet and Schwartz expressed concern over the lack of research into sex-differentiated reactions. In addition to the metabolism differences for various drugs, there are also gender specific health concerns to consider, such as pregnancy, menopause, and birth control hormone treatments. It's well-known that antibiotics can suppress the efficacy of birth control pills, but other effects, such as the reduction of drug absorption due to menopause, are less broadly known. Hormonal levels can have a distinct effect on drug reaction, and vice versa.
Drici and Clément (2001) suggest a couple of alternative explanations to some gender-differentiated reactions. They suggest that perhaps women's tendency to visit the doctor more frequently than men may have an effect, in that women may be on more medications (polypharmacy) than men, leading to more drug interactions. They also suggest that in cases of subjective assessment, women may be interpreting their symptoms differently than equivalent reactions in men.
Do drug testing protocols need a complete overhaul to examine the differences in male and female reactions? Is this comparable to the BiDil case, a drug that tested as only being effective in blacks? As Taylor and Ellis point out in their 2002 review, "racial categorization acts as only a surrogate marker ... any identified differences will not apply to all members of each stratified group." Another concern is the relaxed attitude in health industry toward female health. If different drugs are developed for men and women, will as much emphasis be put on the development of each?
I haven't noticed any difference in my response to drugs since transition, but since I'm in relatively good health, my experience with drugs is very limited. It seems like everyone I know has a "non-standard" reaction to one drug or another. I become giddy, rather than calm or sleepy, on most opiates (e.g. Percoset, Vicodin, codeine). I worry about the divisive effects of splitting people into medical categories, but that's largely a product of the society I function in. A society that didn't see differences as necessarily divisive (or ranked) might be more able to use our legitimate physical differences to aid in research and care, without costing anyone their humanity.
livejournal version
In fact, most drug trials are designed to include both men and women, but do not include a large enough number of subjects to determine if there are differences between males and females in drug effectiveness.
Becker's work with rats has uncovered several interesting reactions between drugs and sex hormones. She suggests that this not only affects whether a treatment will be effective on both men and women, but also on whether it will be effective in adolescents, who have different hormonal balances than their adult counterparts.
She's not the only one worried. A 1995 review by Harris, Benet and Schwartz expressed concern over the lack of research into sex-differentiated reactions. In addition to the metabolism differences for various drugs, there are also gender specific health concerns to consider, such as pregnancy, menopause, and birth control hormone treatments. It's well-known that antibiotics can suppress the efficacy of birth control pills, but other effects, such as the reduction of drug absorption due to menopause, are less broadly known. Hormonal levels can have a distinct effect on drug reaction, and vice versa.
Drici and Clément (2001) suggest a couple of alternative explanations to some gender-differentiated reactions. They suggest that perhaps women's tendency to visit the doctor more frequently than men may have an effect, in that women may be on more medications (polypharmacy) than men, leading to more drug interactions. They also suggest that in cases of subjective assessment, women may be interpreting their symptoms differently than equivalent reactions in men.
Do drug testing protocols need a complete overhaul to examine the differences in male and female reactions? Is this comparable to the BiDil case, a drug that tested as only being effective in blacks? As Taylor and Ellis point out in their 2002 review, "racial categorization acts as only a surrogate marker ... any identified differences will not apply to all members of each stratified group." Another concern is the relaxed attitude in health industry toward female health. If different drugs are developed for men and women, will as much emphasis be put on the development of each?
I haven't noticed any difference in my response to drugs since transition, but since I'm in relatively good health, my experience with drugs is very limited. It seems like everyone I know has a "non-standard" reaction to one drug or another. I become giddy, rather than calm or sleepy, on most opiates (e.g. Percoset, Vicodin, codeine). I worry about the divisive effects of splitting people into medical categories, but that's largely a product of the society I function in. A society that didn't see differences as necessarily divisive (or ranked) might be more able to use our legitimate physical differences to aid in research and care, without costing anyone their humanity.
livejournal version
Thursday, September 7, 2006
Father knows best?
The archetype of the single father is strongly overrepresented in popular media. Disney movies, in particular, have been attacked for their bias towards single fathers by feminists and scholars alike. Single-fatherhood is very uncommon in real life. In 1995, 15% of single-parent families in the U.S. were run by the father (about 4.6% of all families), although only about half of these had the father as the sole adult (the other households had cohabitating partners or other non-parent family members). The 2004 census estimated that 20% of single-parent families were headed by fathers.
It is widely believed that children living in single-parent households will do better if living with the parent of the same sex (e.g. sons living with fathers or daughters living with mothers.) This may explain why Lundberg and Rose (2003, pdf) found that women bearing sons are more likely to marry their child's biological father than women bearing daughters, although it would be a mistake to ignore the argument that a man is more likely to marry his son's mother than his daughter's mother, as in Dahl and Moretti (2004). However, proof of the "same sex benefit" is lacking. Downey and Powell's analysis of 1988 data found only 4 out of 35 measures where one sex benefited from living with a same-sex parent, and no measures that benefited both sexes.
There is also a perception that children will do better in single-mother households rather than in single-father households. Downey (1994) did not find a difference in school performance between these two groups. Flewelling and Bauman (1990) also failed to find an advantage to single mothers over single fathers in predicting substance use or sexual activity.
A popular argument in many of these studies is that the financial benefits of living with the father balance the emotional benefits of living with the mother. However, these same studies attempt to control for the financial factors, so either the controls are insufficient or the argument is flawed. Both mother's advocates and father's advocates claim that the court system is biased against them. Perhaps a gender-blind analysis of a child's "best interests" would yield better outcomes?
I feel like my experience growing up was very atypical. Not only did I have both my biological parents raising me, but I didn't even know (or at least I was unaware) of children who were in divorced, mixed, or single-parent households until I was in my teens. The first family I knew with a single parent was headed by an out lesbian, who affected my view of homosexual parenting (in a very positive way) more than my view of single-parent households. I was struck by her devotion and involvement in her children's lives, and to this day, I've been sheltered and lucky enough not to meet any single parent who wasn't as much or more involved in their child's life than any two other custodial adults.
livejournal version
It is widely believed that children living in single-parent households will do better if living with the parent of the same sex (e.g. sons living with fathers or daughters living with mothers.) This may explain why Lundberg and Rose (2003, pdf) found that women bearing sons are more likely to marry their child's biological father than women bearing daughters, although it would be a mistake to ignore the argument that a man is more likely to marry his son's mother than his daughter's mother, as in Dahl and Moretti (2004). However, proof of the "same sex benefit" is lacking. Downey and Powell's analysis of 1988 data found only 4 out of 35 measures where one sex benefited from living with a same-sex parent, and no measures that benefited both sexes.
There is also a perception that children will do better in single-mother households rather than in single-father households. Downey (1994) did not find a difference in school performance between these two groups. Flewelling and Bauman (1990) also failed to find an advantage to single mothers over single fathers in predicting substance use or sexual activity.
A popular argument in many of these studies is that the financial benefits of living with the father balance the emotional benefits of living with the mother. However, these same studies attempt to control for the financial factors, so either the controls are insufficient or the argument is flawed. Both mother's advocates and father's advocates claim that the court system is biased against them. Perhaps a gender-blind analysis of a child's "best interests" would yield better outcomes?
I feel like my experience growing up was very atypical. Not only did I have both my biological parents raising me, but I didn't even know (or at least I was unaware) of children who were in divorced, mixed, or single-parent households until I was in my teens. The first family I knew with a single parent was headed by an out lesbian, who affected my view of homosexual parenting (in a very positive way) more than my view of single-parent households. I was struck by her devotion and involvement in her children's lives, and to this day, I've been sheltered and lucky enough not to meet any single parent who wasn't as much or more involved in their child's life than any two other custodial adults.
livejournal version
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
Worth a Thousand Words
James Kent, in a 2006 article with the stunning citation "There is plenty of information online and in books," says "women talk for the sake of talking." It's possible that Kent is referring to the oft-quoted (and rarely cited) chestnut that men use 7,000 words per day whereas women use 20,000. Godwin Scerri uses this tidbit in his discussion of The Female Brain by Louann Brizendine, which appears to be a counterpoint and expansion on Simon Baron-Cohen's "extreme male brain" theory of autism (1999, pdf).
Brizendine suggests that men are capable of the same social intuition and connection as women, but that they don't look for it, because the idea of conflict isn't troubling for them. Brizendine also claims that women (and not men) use both halves of their brain for language tasks, but a 2000fMRI study fTCD study* by Knecht et al seems to suggest that this is not the case.
How much truth is there to the claim that women talk more than men? The answer may depend on context. It's possible that in a social environment, women talk more, but in a business environment, men dominate the conversation. Sadly, much of the research seems to be based on analysis of scripted television shows (e.g. Welch and Carlin, 2006) , rather than on natural conversation (Rayson et al, 1997).
*correction 4:00pm: I have had it pointed out to me that the Knecht et al study is NOT fMRI, but fTCD (functional transcranial Doppler sonography).
I'm a talker. Apparently, I haven't really shut up since I was six months old. I even talk in my sleep (or so I'm told.) However, I remember the first time that I went on a date with a girl after I transitioned. I found myself quietly smiling and nodding, and letting her dominate the conversation. It was a very surreal feeling, but I never really found a place to join the conversation. I wasn't needed in it. I've noticed it happening with other women, since, but not with all women, and I can't tell if it's a difference in the way I treat them or the way they treat me, but sometimes I find myself sitting there, contributing nothing but the occasional "and then what happened?"
livejournal version
Brizendine suggests that men are capable of the same social intuition and connection as women, but that they don't look for it, because the idea of conflict isn't troubling for them. Brizendine also claims that women (and not men) use both halves of their brain for language tasks, but a 2000
How much truth is there to the claim that women talk more than men? The answer may depend on context. It's possible that in a social environment, women talk more, but in a business environment, men dominate the conversation. Sadly, much of the research seems to be based on analysis of scripted television shows (e.g. Welch and Carlin, 2006) , rather than on natural conversation (Rayson et al, 1997).
*correction 4:00pm: I have had it pointed out to me that the Knecht et al study is NOT fMRI, but fTCD (functional transcranial Doppler sonography).
I'm a talker. Apparently, I haven't really shut up since I was six months old. I even talk in my sleep (or so I'm told.) However, I remember the first time that I went on a date with a girl after I transitioned. I found myself quietly smiling and nodding, and letting her dominate the conversation. It was a very surreal feeling, but I never really found a place to join the conversation. I wasn't needed in it. I've noticed it happening with other women, since, but not with all women, and I can't tell if it's a difference in the way I treat them or the way they treat me, but sometimes I find myself sitting there, contributing nothing but the occasional "and then what happened?"
livejournal version
Tuesday, September 5, 2006
Sticks and Stones
In 1981, Hemmer and Kleiber set out to examine the labels of "tomboy" and "sissy" in a midwestern school. They found that the children labeled by their peers as tomboys and sissies weren't actually any more androgynous than other children, but that there were specific behaviors that could trigger the labels, such as creativity in boys. The infamous J. Michael Bailey, however, found that tomboys were "substantially and significantly more masculine than their sisters" (Bailey et all, 2002), although not as masculine as their brothers. However, the "tomboys" in Bailey's study were identified by their parents, not by their peers.
It is unclear whether the boundaries of gender-appropriate behavior are substantially different for adults and children. However, the reactions of children to any non-conformity can be very severe. Zucker et al (1995) found that boys had a stronger negative reaction to a feminine boy than girls did to a masculine girl. Moore (2003) also found that boys received a more negative reaction to gender-atypical expression than girls. Interestingly, Hilgencamp and Livingston (2002) found that women who classified themselves as "tomboys" had greater confidence in their career success, suggesting that their self-esteem had not been damaged by their experience.
I was never a tomboy. Sports didn't appeal to me as a child. I did like to climb trees, and make things with my father, but I didn't like getting dirty. My parents tried very hard to allow me access to whatever interested me, and I had toy trucks and "my first toolbox" and chemistry sets, but I spent a lot of time playing with dolls and making flower garlands. The thing that strikes me, when I think back, is how much I made fun of other girls for tomboyish tendencies. I don't know where I picked up the idea that girls were supposed to behave a certain way, but it was deeply ingrained by the time I started first grade.
livejournal version
It is unclear whether the boundaries of gender-appropriate behavior are substantially different for adults and children. However, the reactions of children to any non-conformity can be very severe. Zucker et al (1995) found that boys had a stronger negative reaction to a feminine boy than girls did to a masculine girl. Moore (2003) also found that boys received a more negative reaction to gender-atypical expression than girls. Interestingly, Hilgencamp and Livingston (2002) found that women who classified themselves as "tomboys" had greater confidence in their career success, suggesting that their self-esteem had not been damaged by their experience.
I was never a tomboy. Sports didn't appeal to me as a child. I did like to climb trees, and make things with my father, but I didn't like getting dirty. My parents tried very hard to allow me access to whatever interested me, and I had toy trucks and "my first toolbox" and chemistry sets, but I spent a lot of time playing with dolls and making flower garlands. The thing that strikes me, when I think back, is how much I made fun of other girls for tomboyish tendencies. I don't know where I picked up the idea that girls were supposed to behave a certain way, but it was deeply ingrained by the time I started first grade.
livejournal version
Monday, September 4, 2006
Guilt and Shame
Jes Alexander reports on how home sales "parties" use guilt to pressure women into buying products they would otherwise ignore. Alexander cites Ann Campbell's study in Men, Women, and Aggression (1993), stating that women react to the aggressive sales techniques at these parties with a loss of control. However, the guilt she describes is not a sense of having done something wrong. Instead, she seems to be describing a reaction to peer pressure; the women she quotes say that they attend the parties to prevent the other women from talking behind their back.
This ties into the idea explored by Ferguson and Crowley (1997) that women tend to experience shame while men are more likely to experience guilt. John Bradshaw describes the difference between guilt and shame this way: "guilt says I've done something wrong; shame says there is something wrong with me." Keeping the constructs of guilt and shame distinct may be pivotal to understanding the differing reactions of men and women to criticism.
As I discussed in the commentary to Mother, May I?, the prospect of failure is far less intimidating to me than it once was. It is impossible for me to determine whether this is an effect of testosterone, of growing up, or changes in the social environment that I live in. However, I have begun to notice a difference in the way other people attempt to apply guilt and shame to me. Consider the phrases "What's wrong with you?" and "Why would you do something like that?" The first is an accusation, the second is a question. I find that other people are more likely to question my motives, rather than my character, in my new life. This difference makes it easier for me to do the same. I think this may have something to do with the perceived difference in emotional maturity. Women are expected to reach emotional maturity earlier than men. Men are expected to make stupid mistakes (and therefore, to be able to learn from them) for far longer than is permitted to women. Where I would have been judged as a woman, I find that now I am being taught.
livejournal version
This ties into the idea explored by Ferguson and Crowley (1997) that women tend to experience shame while men are more likely to experience guilt. John Bradshaw describes the difference between guilt and shame this way: "guilt says I've done something wrong; shame says there is something wrong with me." Keeping the constructs of guilt and shame distinct may be pivotal to understanding the differing reactions of men and women to criticism.
As I discussed in the commentary to Mother, May I?, the prospect of failure is far less intimidating to me than it once was. It is impossible for me to determine whether this is an effect of testosterone, of growing up, or changes in the social environment that I live in. However, I have begun to notice a difference in the way other people attempt to apply guilt and shame to me. Consider the phrases "What's wrong with you?" and "Why would you do something like that?" The first is an accusation, the second is a question. I find that other people are more likely to question my motives, rather than my character, in my new life. This difference makes it easier for me to do the same. I think this may have something to do with the perceived difference in emotional maturity. Women are expected to reach emotional maturity earlier than men. Men are expected to make stupid mistakes (and therefore, to be able to learn from them) for far longer than is permitted to women. Where I would have been judged as a woman, I find that now I am being taught.
livejournal version
Friday, September 1, 2006
Why we marry
Ellwood and Jenks (2002, pdf) claim that increases in men's incomes correlates to a rise in marriage rates, but the effects of women's advances were unclear:
Lichter, LeClere, and McLaughlin (1991) suggest that marriage rates may have more to do with availability of desirable males locally than with specific economic factors (although the way in which they separate these seemingly entertwined factors is unclear). Lundberg and Rose (2003, pdf) point out that the presence of a son (as opposed to a daughter) is not only correlated with increased marital stability, but seems to shorten the time before women marry.
These data suggest that the choice to marry remains largely in the hands of women. However, the Lundberg and Rose paper seems to suggest that the welfare of a male child seems to trump the other factors when the woman makes her choice. How much of this pattern can be tied to the desire to provide male role models for sons (as opposed to daughters)? Also, at what point do men become part of the marriage decision?
When I arrived (as a 16 year old girl) at college, I was shocked to see how many of the girls in my dorm were engaged. Even though many of these engagements were broken by Thanksgiving (and I believe I did not know anyone who was still engaged by the end of the first year), I began to feel incredibly invalidated as a woman that no one had ever proposed to me. This feeling of inadequacy built up for years as college relationships began to generate engagements, and then after college, marriages. Even into the beginning of my life as a man, I still held onto this irrational idea that if I had been a successful woman, someone would have proposed to me at least once.
So, I suppose that it is not surprising that when I heard that the Massachusetts Supreme Court was possibly going to allow same-sex marriage, I semi-jokingly proposed to my partner. His look of genuine terror made me apologize at length and explain that I was kidding. But if I had really been entirely kidding, I don't think I would have felt the weight of my long-held neurosis lift the way that it did.
livejournal version
"In cross-sectional studies of areas and individuals, women with more economic opportunities are less likely to be married and in some cases more likely to divorce. But hazard models that follow the same woman over time seldom find this pattern. These divergent findings cast doubt on the hypothesis that improvements in women's economic opportunities discourage marriage, although they may lead women to postpone marriage." (page 18)
Lichter, LeClere, and McLaughlin (1991) suggest that marriage rates may have more to do with availability of desirable males locally than with specific economic factors (although the way in which they separate these seemingly entertwined factors is unclear). Lundberg and Rose (2003, pdf) point out that the presence of a son (as opposed to a daughter) is not only correlated with increased marital stability, but seems to shorten the time before women marry.
These data suggest that the choice to marry remains largely in the hands of women. However, the Lundberg and Rose paper seems to suggest that the welfare of a male child seems to trump the other factors when the woman makes her choice. How much of this pattern can be tied to the desire to provide male role models for sons (as opposed to daughters)? Also, at what point do men become part of the marriage decision?
When I arrived (as a 16 year old girl) at college, I was shocked to see how many of the girls in my dorm were engaged. Even though many of these engagements were broken by Thanksgiving (and I believe I did not know anyone who was still engaged by the end of the first year), I began to feel incredibly invalidated as a woman that no one had ever proposed to me. This feeling of inadequacy built up for years as college relationships began to generate engagements, and then after college, marriages. Even into the beginning of my life as a man, I still held onto this irrational idea that if I had been a successful woman, someone would have proposed to me at least once.
So, I suppose that it is not surprising that when I heard that the Massachusetts Supreme Court was possibly going to allow same-sex marriage, I semi-jokingly proposed to my partner. His look of genuine terror made me apologize at length and explain that I was kidding. But if I had really been entirely kidding, I don't think I would have felt the weight of my long-held neurosis lift the way that it did.
livejournal version
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
