An Don Monkerud (2007), blogging for Alternet trots out the oft-repeated complaint that Americans don't get as much vacation time as people in other countries -- and that they don't take what they do get. His September column makes the uncited claim that one third of Americans "don't take their allotted vacation and 37 percent never take more than a week at a time."
David Maume (2006) suspects there's a gender difference vacation use. He argues that "use of vacation time reveals one's relative weighting of work and family obligations." His analysis of the National Study of the Changing Workforce (1992) found that 30% of all respondents had unused vacation time (confirming Monkerud's claim). However, his anaysis showed that men and women both averaged 12 vacation days taken per year. Men tended to have more unused vacation time, but this was because they had more vacation time. Also, as Gornick and Meyers (2003) point out, women are likely to take vacation time to tend for sick family members. Maume also reports that unused vacation time (indicating more time at work) was correlated with more insecurity about family life in women, but not in men.
Today's research, much like "Frequent Flyers" did, makes me ashamed of my assumptions. I had heard that women were more likely to use up all their vacation time, but I didn't think about the difference in men's and women's job benefits: it's not just income that sees a difference when job importance is weighted differently.
Monkerud (above) claimed that 88% of Americans brought mobile devices to stay in touch with work when they went on vacation, and 40% check their work e-mail. As I mentioned yesterday, I'm going on vacation for the next two weeks. This is the first vacation where I'm bringing my laptop, but I don't plan to post. Happy holidays as appropriate, and see you in 2008.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Participation in research
As we started to discuss in comments to last Thursday's post ("Baby and Back"), women are not proportionately represented in most research. While more than half of all living humans are women, far less than half of research participants are. Most of the disparity is attributed to "willingness to participate" (WTP) in research. While much research on WTP has focused on racial and ethnic differences (see Tuskegee project for a damn good reason), the continuing differences by gender led in 1990 to the founding of the Society for Women's Health Research, a major player in the passing of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act (amended 2001) which mandated the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical research.
Despite these efforts, differences persist. Ramasubbu et al's 2001 analysis concluded that the Revitalization Act was ineffective in the years 1993-1999. More recently, examination of the causes of women's lower enrollment has implicated age differences in the patient groups and greater perception of risk involved in participation (see Murthy et al, 2004; Ding et al, 2007).
Oh, my brilliant and incisive readers, I bet I know what you're thinking. You're thinking: "what about psychological research, Dan4th?" Okay, maybe you're not thinking that: I was. I didn't find anything worth mentioning. One of my classmates last month mentioned something she'd read suggesting that women had traditionally been overrepresented in psychological research, possibly because they were more emotionally responsive to experimental manipulation. That didn't ring true to me, because I was aware of the underrepresentation of women in clinical trials, but it's a good point that they're entirely different phenomena.
At any rate: I haven't participated in any clinical trials. Shame on me! I signed up for a local "match-subjects-to-studies" service a couple of years ago, but my various medical conditions exclude me from most research. I kept meaning to get in on HIV vaccine trials a couple of years ago, but I just never got around to it. "I probably would have been excluded anyway" is not a very good excuse.
Despite these efforts, differences persist. Ramasubbu et al's 2001 analysis concluded that the Revitalization Act was ineffective in the years 1993-1999. More recently, examination of the causes of women's lower enrollment has implicated age differences in the patient groups and greater perception of risk involved in participation (see Murthy et al, 2004; Ding et al, 2007).
Oh, my brilliant and incisive readers, I bet I know what you're thinking. You're thinking: "what about psychological research, Dan4th?" Okay, maybe you're not thinking that: I was. I didn't find anything worth mentioning. One of my classmates last month mentioned something she'd read suggesting that women had traditionally been overrepresented in psychological research, possibly because they were more emotionally responsive to experimental manipulation. That didn't ring true to me, because I was aware of the underrepresentation of women in clinical trials, but it's a good point that they're entirely different phenomena.
At any rate: I haven't participated in any clinical trials. Shame on me! I signed up for a local "match-subjects-to-studies" service a couple of years ago, but my various medical conditions exclude me from most research. I kept meaning to get in on HIV vaccine trials a couple of years ago, but I just never got around to it. "I probably would have been excluded anyway" is not a very good excuse.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Trying to Exhale
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is an umbrella term covering a range of respiratory conditions including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Recent research indicates that COPD affects men and women differently. In 2000, women's deaths from COPD passed men's (Science Daily, 2007). One contributing factor may be the higher rates of smoking among women in the past century, since smoking is one of the major risk factors for COPD. As discussed last January ("The long way, baby"), women's smoking rates are not declining as quickly as men's -- and individual women seem to have a harder time quitting smoking. In the developing world, the biomass fuels commonly used for cooking may also contribute to women's risk.
One major danger for women with COPD is misdiagnosis. Han et al's "clinical commentary" (2007) describes how men are more likely to get a correct COPD diagnosis than women, and describes some of the theories about why and how women seem to be differentially affected.
Geez. It occurs to me now that I had my first cigarette just over 15 years ago. In February, it will be 15 years since I started smoking regularly. I've quit a couple of times (the longest period was nine months) but I have always ended up going back to it. One of the reasons I've always had trouble staying off smoking was because I don't feel any better. I don't have much of a "smoker's cough", and I don't notice any difficulty breathing in my other activities, so when I stop smoking, I don't notice an improvement. I just notice that everything smells bad.
I have to quit again, though. I've finally scheduled the hysterectomy that I was putting off for the past couple of years, and I'm not going under the knife with a weakened immune system. I quit for about four months around my chest surgery, but I hope I'll be able to stay off a bit longer this time. I'm getting too old for this nonsense, and I should know better.
One major danger for women with COPD is misdiagnosis. Han et al's "clinical commentary" (2007) describes how men are more likely to get a correct COPD diagnosis than women, and describes some of the theories about why and how women seem to be differentially affected.
Geez. It occurs to me now that I had my first cigarette just over 15 years ago. In February, it will be 15 years since I started smoking regularly. I've quit a couple of times (the longest period was nine months) but I have always ended up going back to it. One of the reasons I've always had trouble staying off smoking was because I don't feel any better. I don't have much of a "smoker's cough", and I don't notice any difficulty breathing in my other activities, so when I stop smoking, I don't notice an improvement. I just notice that everything smells bad.
I have to quit again, though. I've finally scheduled the hysterectomy that I was putting off for the past couple of years, and I'm not going under the knife with a weakened immune system. I quit for about four months around my chest surgery, but I hope I'll be able to stay off a bit longer this time. I'm getting too old for this nonsense, and I should know better.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Go Google Yourself
A Pew Internet survey (2007) released today found that there was no difference between men and women on how often they used the internet to search for themselves: about 47% of internet users "self-Google". The difference between men and women in the likelihood of having an online profile was also minimal: 22% of men to 19% of women for adults, 51% of boys to 58% of girls for teens. The report on "online identity management" surveyed 2,373 adults by phone (results for teens come from a different, unspecified "Parents and Teens" survey). Of this sample, 1,623 (63.4%) were identified as internet users. 53% of internet users had searched for information about someone else (excluding celebrities).
Gender differences were found on some aspects of the survey. Women were more likely than men to look for information about someone they were dating (11% to 7%), while men are more likely to search for coworkers or business competition (23% to 16%). Working men were more likely than working women to say that their job required some sort of internet self-promotion (12% to 8%). Men were more likely than women to say it would be "pretty easy" to contact them from information found online (50% to 43%).
This weekend, my partner said to me "you're a little content-generating dynamo!" I couldn't decide whether I was flattered, but it's probably true. We have different ways of checking out new websites. My partner reads them and searches through them to see how they work. I try out the various means of posting content to them to see how user-friendly their interfaces are. I always use the same username, because I'm obsessed with my digital footprint. I rarely search for myself anymore -- because I've set up Google Alerts to keep me informed about where "Dan4th" is popping up.
Gender differences were found on some aspects of the survey. Women were more likely than men to look for information about someone they were dating (11% to 7%), while men are more likely to search for coworkers or business competition (23% to 16%). Working men were more likely than working women to say that their job required some sort of internet self-promotion (12% to 8%). Men were more likely than women to say it would be "pretty easy" to contact them from information found online (50% to 43%).
This weekend, my partner said to me "you're a little content-generating dynamo!" I couldn't decide whether I was flattered, but it's probably true. We have different ways of checking out new websites. My partner reads them and searches through them to see how they work. I try out the various means of posting content to them to see how user-friendly their interfaces are. I always use the same username, because I'm obsessed with my digital footprint. I rarely search for myself anymore -- because I've set up Google Alerts to keep me informed about where "Dan4th" is popping up.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Pocket Porn
USA Today reports on Jason Carroll's (2008) findings on pornography, due to be published in the January issue of the Journal of Adolescent Research. Carroll reports that younger people are more likely to find viewing pornography "an acceptable way of expressing sexuality". The wide accessibility of pornography on the internet is probably a factor, according to the study. The USA today story quotes the author: "we're in an age of pocket porn"; referring to the fact that explicit images can, for the first time, be downloaded and viewed on wireless devices.
In the older adults surveyed, 37% of men and 20% of women thought viewing porn was acceptable. In the younger group, 66% of men and 49% of women felt this way. 48% of the male college students reported viewing pornography at least once weekly, versus only 3% of the women. (figures from BYU press release, 2007). Jeffrey Arnett, editor of the Journal of Adolescent Research and author of Emerging Adulthood (not involved in this study) was especially struck by the result that about a third of young men felt viewing porn was unacceptable, but 86% had viewed porn in the last year. Arnett feels this implies that young men are participating in something they don't approve of.
You know what I think is a factor? The study surveyed college students and their parents. I've taken surveys where I was asked to recruit a family member, and I think I answered differently than I would have if I was not thinking about a family member while filling it out. As for Arnett's shock? Of course men 18 - 26 are participating in something they don't approve of! Hell, I participate in things I disapprove of probably twice a week (and that's not counting time spent at work). I've seen a lot of people talk about the guilt associated with masturbation and pornography. I haven't seen anyone (outside of an erotica context) talk about the fetishization of that guilt. That is, I think that the "feeling that it's wrong" is probably fairly important to a lot of people.
In the older adults surveyed, 37% of men and 20% of women thought viewing porn was acceptable. In the younger group, 66% of men and 49% of women felt this way. 48% of the male college students reported viewing pornography at least once weekly, versus only 3% of the women. (figures from BYU press release, 2007). Jeffrey Arnett, editor of the Journal of Adolescent Research and author of Emerging Adulthood (not involved in this study) was especially struck by the result that about a third of young men felt viewing porn was unacceptable, but 86% had viewed porn in the last year. Arnett feels this implies that young men are participating in something they don't approve of.
You know what I think is a factor? The study surveyed college students and their parents. I've taken surveys where I was asked to recruit a family member, and I think I answered differently than I would have if I was not thinking about a family member while filling it out. As for Arnett's shock? Of course men 18 - 26 are participating in something they don't approve of! Hell, I participate in things I disapprove of probably twice a week (and that's not counting time spent at work). I've seen a lot of people talk about the guilt associated with masturbation and pornography. I haven't seen anyone (outside of an erotica context) talk about the fetishization of that guilt. That is, I think that the "feeling that it's wrong" is probably fairly important to a lot of people.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Baby and Back
From Nature (Whitcome et al, 2007):
For bipeds, pregnancy poses a serious challenge
to already precarious balance.
I'm reminded of the male pregnancy hoax/art project that circulated a couple of years ago. Whitcome and her colleagues open their report with this sentence: "until recently, hominin females spent most of their adult lives either pregnant or lactating." They're right, and I probably spend too much energy pretending that it doesn't matter. I have, over the past couple of years, ended up conceptualizing the capacity to bear children as extremely costly, in an evolutionary sense, but I think that's the wrong way to look at it. It's more amazing that male and female humans were able to remain as similar as they are while maintaining this ability.
livejournal version
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Holiday shopping News
The holiday season in the United States brings a renewed interest in stories impacting the retail industry to mainstream media outlets. Reflecting this, two stories about gender differences in the ways men and women shop made the news this week.
CNN Money (2007) reported on the "Online Holiday Shopping Survey" by GSI Commerce (n = 2,818, online). More women reported that they would be swayed by "limited time offers" and "convenient returns" than men. Men and women were equally concerned about shopping with a well-known brand.
Meanwhile, Forbes (2007) reports on a study entitled "Men Buy, Women Shop" by Wharton research (n = 1250, telephone), which reports that women are more concerned with personal service while men are concerned with utilitarian aspects of the shopping experience. Women in the Wharton survey reported slightly more "problems while shopping" than men did (53% to 48%). The Forbes story quotes Wharton marketing professor Stephen J. Hoch on the ideal male retail experience: "[men] want to deal with an ATM machine. They really don't want to deal with a person."
If I am stereotypically male in any area of my life, it's my ideal shopping experience. For the love of god, please don't approach me, please don't tell me about new items or special offers, just mark the goods clearly and leave me alone. I love the self-checkout lines at the grocery store. I love shopping online. I even order my dinner online about 5 days per week. However, one thing that I don't feel is reflected in these surveys is the male tendency to research purchases. I'm sure I'm suffering from observer bias here, but the weeks of extensive reading that all my male partners have done before buying a new toy, computer, or tool has always amazed me. I don't have the patience for it, myself.
livejournal version
CNN Money (2007) reported on the "Online Holiday Shopping Survey" by GSI Commerce (n = 2,818, online). More women reported that they would be swayed by "limited time offers" and "convenient returns" than men. Men and women were equally concerned about shopping with a well-known brand.
Meanwhile, Forbes (2007) reports on a study entitled "Men Buy, Women Shop" by Wharton research (n = 1250, telephone), which reports that women are more concerned with personal service while men are concerned with utilitarian aspects of the shopping experience. Women in the Wharton survey reported slightly more "problems while shopping" than men did (53% to 48%). The Forbes story quotes Wharton marketing professor Stephen J. Hoch on the ideal male retail experience: "[men] want to deal with an ATM machine. They really don't want to deal with a person."
If I am stereotypically male in any area of my life, it's my ideal shopping experience. For the love of god, please don't approach me, please don't tell me about new items or special offers, just mark the goods clearly and leave me alone. I love the self-checkout lines at the grocery store. I love shopping online. I even order my dinner online about 5 days per week. However, one thing that I don't feel is reflected in these surveys is the male tendency to research purchases. I'm sure I'm suffering from observer bias here, but the weeks of extensive reading that all my male partners have done before buying a new toy, computer, or tool has always amazed me. I don't have the patience for it, myself.
livejournal version
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Genderblind
A reader emailed me about Grosjean et al (2007), an article released Sunday in Nature Neuroscience about the mating choices of fruit flies. They found that homosexual activity could be "turned on and off" in experimentally mutated drosophila melanogaster males. The mutation is in a gene that the team has named GB, or "genderblind." The GB gene can transport glutamate out of glial cells, increasing the strength of glutamatergic synapses. Flies with this mutation were equally likely to court male or female flies. The GB mutant flies also overreacted to olfactory cues for food, being far more likely to get caught in food-baited traps.
A EurekaAlert (2007) release quotes lead researcher David Featherstone about this research: "Homosexual courtship might be sort of an 'overreaction' to sexual stimuli. . . . the GB mutant males were no longer recognizing male pheromones as a repulsive stimulus." Through the use of drugs that alter synapse strength, Grosjean et al were able to change the sexual choices of the flies in a matter of hours. Even wild-type (unmutated) flies showed increased homosexual behavior when drugs altered the glutamatergic synapse strength.
This is fascinating, but I don't know if it's a gender difference. Despite my many misgivings about labeling homosexual behavior as gendered in humans, this case doesn't seem to apply at all. The behavior change in this instance is not related to gendered behavior, but to ability to identify the gender of conspecifics. The flies did not act like female flies; they incorrectly identified other flies (presumably). Interestingly, male-male courtship also increased when the flies were put under dim red light (where they are effectively blind). There was no evidence of receptivity to male-male courtship presented in the paper. Female drosophila melanogaster will run away or strike unacceptable males. The reaction of the flies approached by the over-stimulated males in this paper was not presented.
livejournal version
A EurekaAlert (2007) release quotes lead researcher David Featherstone about this research: "Homosexual courtship might be sort of an 'overreaction' to sexual stimuli. . . . the GB mutant males were no longer recognizing male pheromones as a repulsive stimulus." Through the use of drugs that alter synapse strength, Grosjean et al were able to change the sexual choices of the flies in a matter of hours. Even wild-type (unmutated) flies showed increased homosexual behavior when drugs altered the glutamatergic synapse strength.
This is fascinating, but I don't know if it's a gender difference. Despite my many misgivings about labeling homosexual behavior as gendered in humans, this case doesn't seem to apply at all. The behavior change in this instance is not related to gendered behavior, but to ability to identify the gender of conspecifics. The flies did not act like female flies; they incorrectly identified other flies (presumably). Interestingly, male-male courtship also increased when the flies were put under dim red light (where they are effectively blind). There was no evidence of receptivity to male-male courtship presented in the paper. Female drosophila melanogaster will run away or strike unacceptable males. The reaction of the flies approached by the over-stimulated males in this paper was not presented.
livejournal version
Monday, December 10, 2007
Women Entrepreneurs
The website "Make Mine a Million $ Business" (M3) is part of the "Count Me In [for Women's Economic Independence]" program founded by American Express. The "Count Me In" program is a not-for-profit microloan provider; M3 "provides access to money, mentoring, marketing and technology tools that women entrepreneurs need to help grow their businesses." Promotional materials for the M3 program note that less than 3% of American women-owned businesses reach the $1 million mark in annual revenues. No comparison figures for male-owned businesses are given. M3 recently published results from a survey that was on the website in August and September. The most common reason site members gave for starting (or wanting to start) their own business was work/life balance (29%), followed by the desire to be their own boss (22%), or to build a legacy (11%).
Blogger and author John Jantsch reported on the M3 launch in fall of 2006 (see the link for a list of gender difference claims from the event). The claims made at the event, at least, compare men and women's differences in business, as opposed to the survey, which presents only results for women.
I do not have the entrepreneurial spirit. I'm perfectly happy working for someone else. After reading the results of the M3 survey, I wonder how much of that is related to my child-free outlook. A lot (62%) of the M3 program members are mothers, and I wonder how that relates to the question of leaving a legacy. Honestly, when I think about leaving something behind, I'm more likely to consider charities than people. I suppose a scholarship fund is a legacy, but "the future" is staunchly "somebody else's problem" in my world.
I'm really bothered by the tendency to report only women's figures when talking about problems facing women. It doesn't tell me much to say that only 3% of women's businesses make $1 million per year if I don't know how many men's businesses reach that benchmark.
livejournal version
Blogger and author John Jantsch reported on the M3 launch in fall of 2006 (see the link for a list of gender difference claims from the event). The claims made at the event, at least, compare men and women's differences in business, as opposed to the survey, which presents only results for women.
I do not have the entrepreneurial spirit. I'm perfectly happy working for someone else. After reading the results of the M3 survey, I wonder how much of that is related to my child-free outlook. A lot (62%) of the M3 program members are mothers, and I wonder how that relates to the question of leaving a legacy. Honestly, when I think about leaving something behind, I'm more likely to consider charities than people. I suppose a scholarship fund is a legacy, but "the future" is staunchly "somebody else's problem" in my world.
I'm really bothered by the tendency to report only women's figures when talking about problems facing women. It doesn't tell me much to say that only 3% of women's businesses make $1 million per year if I don't know how many men's businesses reach that benchmark.
livejournal version
Friday, December 7, 2007
Holly Jolly ulcer
Although many surveys, such as the Lexmark survey published at CNN Money this week say that most people (75%) have "too much to do" at the holidays, these surveys may not be taking gender differences into account. The Lexmark survey had only 29% men in their online sample. An article in The Guardian (2007, UK) cites the Mental Health Foundation on a holiday stress figures: 46% of women find the holidays highly stressful compared to 37% of men. The article also says that 41% of women are "exhausted" by the end of the holidays, compared to 31% of men. Doctor Claire Wheeler, quoted in an article in the Bend Bulletin (Oregon, 2007) says women worry more at the holidays because they "take more responsibility for everybody’s emotional well-being." Men, Wheeler suggests, tend to just worry about money.
Argh. I took longer writing this than I meant to. I freely admit: I meant to half-ass this today, because I'm running a little late. I have a habit that probably preserves my health, but really annoys me. The more stressed out I get, the more likely I am to oversleep. If things get really bad, I'll pass out in the middle of the day, in my chair or on the couch. Stress makes me, if not sleepy, exhausted, and I lose control of whether I go to sleep. It's inconvenient.
Hm. I wonder if Claire Wheeler thought worrying about money was less stressful because she's a woman, or if I read it that way because I used to be.
livejournal version
Argh. I took longer writing this than I meant to. I freely admit: I meant to half-ass this today, because I'm running a little late. I have a habit that probably preserves my health, but really annoys me. The more stressed out I get, the more likely I am to oversleep. If things get really bad, I'll pass out in the middle of the day, in my chair or on the couch. Stress makes me, if not sleepy, exhausted, and I lose control of whether I go to sleep. It's inconvenient.
Hm. I wonder if Claire Wheeler thought worrying about money was less stressful because she's a woman, or if I read it that way because I used to be.
livejournal version
Thursday, December 6, 2007
The Debate on Evolutionary Psychology
Nigel Nicholson (2005) addresses a list of concerns that various authors have raised about Evolutionary Psychology (EP). Nicholson's article was written in response to a "vituperous debate" in Human Relations (see Sewell, 2004; Markoczy & Goldberg, 2004) . EP tends to raise hackles (my own included) with opponents referring to the framework as "Flintstones psychology" and proponents accusing these opponents of creationism. Nicholson lays out seven points that he calls the "road of the EP argument", wondering where opponents of EP would like to "get off."
The first three points are necessary givens of EP. The latter four points (paraphrased) do seem to be negative arguments, but are reasonably well-supported by Nicholson.
Ouch. Yeah, I'm guilty. I have trouble with #2 and #3. I also think that #6 is a valid concern for at least some of the proponents of EP. A fair amount of EP seems to be published as justification for sexist and racist propaganda, and that understandably pisses me off. The final point, though, is the one that concerns me most. Even in attempting to write this paragraph, I'm having a hard time not slipping into the dichotomist framework. Yes, clearly there are environmental influences on human behavior, and I don't think that EP is arguing that there aren't.
Damn it, the whole nature vs. nurture argument is too deterministic for me in general. I was spending a bit too much energy fretting over this over last weekend. I did come to the conclusion that humans are pretty damn neat for being able to self-nurture; we can decide what traits and skills in ourselves we want to develop. Although that's internally motivated, I think it's still arguably an environmental effect.
livejournal version
- "Homo Sapiens is an animal species"
- "Whatever DNA is favourable to survival and reproduction will be replicated - being extended to human behaviour as well as physical morphology"
- "Psychological predispositions are neurologically constituted."
- Rejecting the notion that EP depends on "panadaptationism" (finding an adaptive logic for every aspect of a phenotype)
- Rejecting the notion that "cultural evolution has superseded natural selection and sexual selection as explanations of human relations and institutions"
- Rejecting the notion that EP "attempts to reconstruct Stone Age conditions"
- Rejecting the dichotomy of nature vs. nurture - "either we are biologically determined or we are social constructed."
The first three points are necessary givens of EP. The latter four points (paraphrased) do seem to be negative arguments, but are reasonably well-supported by Nicholson.
Ouch. Yeah, I'm guilty. I have trouble with #2 and #3. I also think that #6 is a valid concern for at least some of the proponents of EP. A fair amount of EP seems to be published as justification for sexist and racist propaganda, and that understandably pisses me off. The final point, though, is the one that concerns me most. Even in attempting to write this paragraph, I'm having a hard time not slipping into the dichotomist framework. Yes, clearly there are environmental influences on human behavior, and I don't think that EP is arguing that there aren't.
Damn it, the whole nature vs. nurture argument is too deterministic for me in general. I was spending a bit too much energy fretting over this over last weekend. I did come to the conclusion that humans are pretty damn neat for being able to self-nurture; we can decide what traits and skills in ourselves we want to develop. Although that's internally motivated, I think it's still arguably an environmental effect.
livejournal version
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Measure of success
Evolutionary fitness can be defined as the number of offspring produced by an individual (or average offspring per individual in a group). Apropos of yesterday's topic, Lummaa et al (2007) found that women with male co-twins tended to have fewer offspring than women with female co-twins, even if their twin died shortly after birth (suggesting a gestational hormone effect). Two factors seemed to contribute to their reduced offspring: they were less likely to marry and had fewer children when they did marry.
Many other factors seem to contribute to the number of offspring produced. Helle et al (2007) (with Lummaa) found that men produced the most offspring when they married women 14.6 years younger than themselves. However, this benefit might not last through several generations. Foerster et al (2007) found that the most successful red deer males produced daughters who were less fertile -- because genes advantageous to the fathers were not advantageous to their daughters.
Did anyone watch the show Coupling (2000-2004)? (The British version, not the short-lived American remake, which sucked out loud.) There was a line in episode 3x06 which keeps coming back to me: "Your DNA must cry itself to sleep at night". Yep, that pretty much sums it up. I recognize that "evolutionary fitness" is hardly equivalent to "worth as a person," but I have a hard time reading evolutionary papers because I always feel like they're calling me a failure. Yes, I'm really that neurotic.
livejournal version
Many other factors seem to contribute to the number of offspring produced. Helle et al (2007) (with Lummaa) found that men produced the most offspring when they married women 14.6 years younger than themselves. However, this benefit might not last through several generations. Foerster et al (2007) found that the most successful red deer males produced daughters who were less fertile -- because genes advantageous to the fathers were not advantageous to their daughters.
Did anyone watch the show Coupling (2000-2004)? (The British version, not the short-lived American remake, which sucked out loud.) There was a line in episode 3x06 which keeps coming back to me: "Your DNA must cry itself to sleep at night". Yep, that pretty much sums it up. I recognize that "evolutionary fitness" is hardly equivalent to "worth as a person," but I have a hard time reading evolutionary papers because I always feel like they're calling me a failure. Yes, I'm really that neurotic.
livejournal version
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Gender Differences in Twins
Twin studies are a scientist and media favorite. Because twins share the womb, their pre-natal environment is identical. Their upbringing, in most cases, can also be assumed to be similar -- even more so than for non-twin siblings. However, most twin studies focus on identical twins, in order to control for genetic differences as well. But in the study of gender differences, opposite-sex twins (necessarily fraternal) may be even more enlightening.
Procopio and Marriott (2007) found that males with a female twin did not have a different risk of developing anorexia nervosa than their twin sisters. Resnick et al (1993) (in a re-analysis of data collected in the 1970's) demonstrated increased sensation-seeking behavior in women with a male twin. Van Anders et al (2005) may have an explanation: their study of finger-length ratios suggests that hormones (probably androgens) transfer between twins prenatally. In contrast, Elkadi et al (1999) found no increased incidence of left-handedness (which they claim would indicate androgen transfer) in women with male twins.
I always wanted to be a twin, growing up. I don't have a good reason. It just seemed neat. I wasn't particularly sold on a twin of either gender, although I did think an identical twin would be kind of cool. Then again, I also thought having an identical twin would give me psychic powers.
The thing I find especially encouraging about Procopio and Marriott is that they are looking at a way in which men are more like women, rather than the ways women are more like men. It gets really exhausting reading study after study where men are the baseline condition. The male baseline is evident in all the other studies cited today.
livejournal version
Procopio and Marriott (2007) found that males with a female twin did not have a different risk of developing anorexia nervosa than their twin sisters. Resnick et al (1993) (in a re-analysis of data collected in the 1970's) demonstrated increased sensation-seeking behavior in women with a male twin. Van Anders et al (2005) may have an explanation: their study of finger-length ratios suggests that hormones (probably androgens) transfer between twins prenatally. In contrast, Elkadi et al (1999) found no increased incidence of left-handedness (which they claim would indicate androgen transfer) in women with male twins.
I always wanted to be a twin, growing up. I don't have a good reason. It just seemed neat. I wasn't particularly sold on a twin of either gender, although I did think an identical twin would be kind of cool. Then again, I also thought having an identical twin would give me psychic powers.
The thing I find especially encouraging about Procopio and Marriott is that they are looking at a way in which men are more like women, rather than the ways women are more like men. It gets really exhausting reading study after study where men are the baseline condition. The male baseline is evident in all the other studies cited today.
livejournal version
Monday, December 3, 2007
Gender, Sexuality, and Methodology
Louis Gooren's two reviews on the subject (see Gooren, 1990 and Gooren, 2006) question the methods and interpretation of studies finding hormonal differences between transsexuals and control males and females. Gooren points out that many studies do not differentiate between transsexuals and homosexuals (Futterweit and Bosinski do), and that there is no evidence that these groups are interchangeable, or even similar.
This is relevant to the study of gender differences in that many studies attempt to draw connections between homosexual/transsexual populations and cisgendered men and women. Comparisons in areas such as handedness, evoked otoacoustic emissions, and brain structure have found some support for these connections, but the relationship between sexual orientation and gender identity remains basically unknown.
Some of the studies studies demonstrating similarity between gay men and straight women are likely to be sound, but I'm in a lousy position to evaluate them. This is an area where I feel that my personal bias is overwhelming my better instincts. I can't (and possibly won't) believe that there's anything inherently feminine about thinking men are sexy. I do spend a fair amount of energy trying to give these studies a fair shake, but I really think I should recuse myself from the argument. This is not the approach taken by all transsexual scholars and commenters. Some trans* scholars seem to feel that no one is qualified to tell the trans story who is not living it. The relationship between passion for a subject and the objectivity to study it is one of the demons that keeps me up at night.
livejournal version
This is relevant to the study of gender differences in that many studies attempt to draw connections between homosexual/transsexual populations and cisgendered men and women. Comparisons in areas such as handedness, evoked otoacoustic emissions, and brain structure have found some support for these connections, but the relationship between sexual orientation and gender identity remains basically unknown.
Some of the studies studies demonstrating similarity between gay men and straight women are likely to be sound, but I'm in a lousy position to evaluate them. This is an area where I feel that my personal bias is overwhelming my better instincts. I can't (and possibly won't) believe that there's anything inherently feminine about thinking men are sexy. I do spend a fair amount of energy trying to give these studies a fair shake, but I really think I should recuse myself from the argument. This is not the approach taken by all transsexual scholars and commenters. Some trans* scholars seem to feel that no one is qualified to tell the trans story who is not living it. The relationship between passion for a subject and the objectivity to study it is one of the demons that keeps me up at night.
livejournal version
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
