Last Thursday, Justin Wolfers on the Freakonomics blog asked "Why Does So Much Hate Mail Come from Men?"* Susan Herring (1996) suggested that men were more likely than women to use "flaming" styles in computer mediated communication. However, Krista Scott, in an undated essay on Stumptuous, questions Herring's conclusions based on two main factors: differences between women and the difficulty of distinguishing men and women online. More recently, Guiller and Durndell (2007) suggest that men are more likely to express disagreement and make "challenging" or "controversial contributions".
Two XKCD comics are appropriate to this post: Duty Calls and Internet Argument.
I've been keeping Difference Blog for almost two years now, and I can't recall an instance of receiving a hate mail over it, and only one instance of being outright flamed in a post. This was in a community where someone felt that my link was too much of a plug for D-Blog and not enough of a contribution to the community, and I can see their point. Don't take my lack of hate-mail as a challenge. ;) My readership isn't big enough to warrant it, I think. I can't recall an instance of hate-mail that wasn't personally motivated (and partially justified) in my non-DBlog-related online life either. I feel like there's an important distinction to be drawn between an insulting email and an insulting forum reply, but I can't find much research about that difference, which is disappointing.
* thanks to laurenhat for the link. Note, the direct link makes my computer crash, for some reason, so I haven't finished reading it yet.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Creative Content Sharing
The second article ever posted on Difference Blog was about Hargittai and Shafer's (2006) study of men and women's self-reported computer skills compared to their tested skills (men overestimate their skill, women demur). Eszter Hargittai is making the news again with a Northwestern University study about sharing creative content online (press release, 2008). Hargittai and Walejko (2008), published in March, found that women and men (mean age=18.4) are equally likely (f=60%, m=62.3%) to produce creative content , but that men are more likely to post such content to the internet (f=50.6%, m=63.3%).
The differences really stand out in the fields of creating music and video. The differences in posting creative writing or artistic photography do not reach the threshold of significance (note: photography posting was limited to social networking sites). Controlling for self-reported internet skills, a man and woman creating a particular type of content were equally likely to post it. Interestingly, age was an even bigger influence than gender on likelihood of posting creative content, with older students being far less likely to post. This is notable because only 3% of the sample was 20 or older.
Mostly, I'm reminded of the XKCD where the protagonist says: "This will make for a great LiveJournal entry." I think that the purpose of creating the content was not adequately explored in this study, but treated as independent of an imagined audience. I create a lot of content. My boyfriend calls me a "little content-creating Dynamo". But I only do it because I have a certain level of confidence in getting it seen. I create content specifically for the internet, and that influences what I'm creating, and how often I post it.
I love this study, and this post has run longer than I like already. I spend so much time talking about women in the sciences that I have really been looking for something about men in the arts. Many thanks are due to Ukelele on LJ for pointing this out.
edit: Also, check out Eszter Hargittai's blog post about the study, which has lots of comments and responses to questions from the author.
The differences really stand out in the fields of creating music and video. The differences in posting creative writing or artistic photography do not reach the threshold of significance (note: photography posting was limited to social networking sites). Controlling for self-reported internet skills, a man and woman creating a particular type of content were equally likely to post it. Interestingly, age was an even bigger influence than gender on likelihood of posting creative content, with older students being far less likely to post. This is notable because only 3% of the sample was 20 or older.
Mostly, I'm reminded of the XKCD where the protagonist says: "This will make for a great LiveJournal entry." I think that the purpose of creating the content was not adequately explored in this study, but treated as independent of an imagined audience. I create a lot of content. My boyfriend calls me a "little content-creating Dynamo". But I only do it because I have a certain level of confidence in getting it seen. I create content specifically for the internet, and that influences what I'm creating, and how often I post it.
I love this study, and this post has run longer than I like already. I spend so much time talking about women in the sciences that I have really been looking for something about men in the arts. Many thanks are due to Ukelele on LJ for pointing this out.
edit: Also, check out Eszter Hargittai's blog post about the study, which has lots of comments and responses to questions from the author.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Size Matters
Leonard et al (2008) propose an alternative theory to sex differences in brain structure: it's not the sex, it's the size. In a sample of 200 men and women (mean ages: 21.7 & 21.5), Leonard et al's study found that differences in the corpus callosum, grey/white matter ratios, and cerebrospinal fluid could be better modeled by overal cerebral volume rather than sex (see figure, left).
Specifically, the authors studied differences in the "language areas" of the brain, in an attempt to understand the female advantage in language tasks. The sample did not differ significantly on tests of language ability, parental education, or handedness. The authors note that sex differences in body and brain size are robust, but the relationship between them is not linear: boys show greater cerebral volume before they overtake girls in body size. They conclude that "men and women confront similar cognitive challenges using differently sized neural machinery".
So, in order to meet the same challenges, smaller-brained people tend to develop more white matter and larger corpus callosi, while larger-brained people develop more grey matter? The idea makes sense (in terms of explaining the available data), but I'm concerned about the graph, which looks more like a splat than a line to me. Still, the main idea about compensatory morphology is consistent with what Cahill's 2006 review said: "neural sex differences can, in some cases, create behavioural sex differences, but might, in other cases, prevent them."
However, this begs the question: do women in the sciences (who one would imagine to have more male-typical brains) tend to be be bigger (or have bigger cerebral volume) than women in female-typical fields? Do men in the arts tend to be smaller? In short, does brain morphology predict field choice?
Specifically, the authors studied differences in the "language areas" of the brain, in an attempt to understand the female advantage in language tasks. The sample did not differ significantly on tests of language ability, parental education, or handedness. The authors note that sex differences in body and brain size are robust, but the relationship between them is not linear: boys show greater cerebral volume before they overtake girls in body size. They conclude that "men and women confront similar cognitive challenges using differently sized neural machinery".
So, in order to meet the same challenges, smaller-brained people tend to develop more white matter and larger corpus callosi, while larger-brained people develop more grey matter? The idea makes sense (in terms of explaining the available data), but I'm concerned about the graph, which looks more like a splat than a line to me. Still, the main idea about compensatory morphology is consistent with what Cahill's 2006 review said: "neural sex differences can, in some cases, create behavioural sex differences, but might, in other cases, prevent them."
However, this begs the question: do women in the sciences (who one would imagine to have more male-typical brains) tend to be be bigger (or have bigger cerebral volume) than women in female-typical fields? Do men in the arts tend to be smaller? In short, does brain morphology predict field choice?
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Mouse songs
Gourbal et al (2004) discovered that mice "sing", or produce ultrasonic vocalizations (USV), that are not audible to humans. Specifically, male mice sing during mating, and female mice sing during same-sex social interaction. Holy and Guo (2005) demonstrated that the presence of female pheromones alone was enough to induce singing in males. Further investigations (e.g. Wang et al, 2008) demonstrated that female mice did not respond similarly to the presence of males or their pheromones.
Panksepp et al (2007) tied differences in USV to both genetic and behavioral differences: juvenile mice who sang more were likely to engage in more "social investigation" with cage-mates. Panksepp's experimental mice (which sang less) were bred missing a gene that forms part of the dopamine circuit, and so it is believed that mice produce USVs when they are happy or experiencing pleasure. The sounds produced by females during mating are human-audible squeaks with a very different profile than USVs.
The general idea of these studies is that social pleasure - such as greeting friends - uses the same neural reward system as sex or drugs. Male and female mice seem to get these rewards from different circumstances. I find myself thinking about the rhetoric of the so-called "War on Drugs". In junior high, we were told that drugs replace everything else that makes you happy. Spending time with your friends, playing sports, etc, wouldn't make you happy anymore if you were an addict, because only the drug would make you happy. Now, I don't know about that for drugs, but I wonder if something like that applies for sex where males are concerned. It looks, from these studies, as if juvenile male mice sing when playing with other mice, but adult male mice don't. It's tempting to make similar generalizations about humans.
Panksepp et al (2007) tied differences in USV to both genetic and behavioral differences: juvenile mice who sang more were likely to engage in more "social investigation" with cage-mates. Panksepp's experimental mice (which sang less) were bred missing a gene that forms part of the dopamine circuit, and so it is believed that mice produce USVs when they are happy or experiencing pleasure. The sounds produced by females during mating are human-audible squeaks with a very different profile than USVs.
The general idea of these studies is that social pleasure - such as greeting friends - uses the same neural reward system as sex or drugs. Male and female mice seem to get these rewards from different circumstances. I find myself thinking about the rhetoric of the so-called "War on Drugs". In junior high, we were told that drugs replace everything else that makes you happy. Spending time with your friends, playing sports, etc, wouldn't make you happy anymore if you were an addict, because only the drug would make you happy. Now, I don't know about that for drugs, but I wonder if something like that applies for sex where males are concerned. It looks, from these studies, as if juvenile male mice sing when playing with other mice, but adult male mice don't. It's tempting to make similar generalizations about humans.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Women's arousal
Andy Newman, in the New York Times (2008) discussed female sexuality with Dr. Meredith Chivers. Chivers, a student of J. Michael Bailey, was interviewed (as was Bailey) for the 2008 documentary Bi The Way. Chivers discussed with the Times results from Chivers et al (2004, with Bailey) and Chivers et al (2007, with Blanchard):
The website TSRoadmap has a lot to say about Chivers, Bailey, and Blanchard. To summarize as briefly and ungenerously as possible: women don't have a sexual orientation, bisexual men are lying, and transsexualism is a sexual fetish. Needless to say, neither Andrea James of TSRoadmap or Dan4th of Difference Blog are particularly sold on their results.
The fact that the NYT consistently goes to the Blanchard/Bailey camp for sexuality stories bothers me deeply, but there is a caveat: I haven't found anyone doing research on female sexuality or transsexualism that doesn't creep me out. Bailey, Blanchard, Chivers, Brody, Lippa, Diamond, Baumeister -- they all seem to agree on the difference between the construction of women's sexual orientation versus that of men's. That's an awful lot of people to be wrong, and no one coming up with an answer I like. Of course, I can't think of any of them who have looked at the social pressure that men face in regards to "not being gay."
“Heterosexual women are responding to women, which is counterintuitive,” Dr. Chivers said. “Why are women so turned on by watching other women?” Straight and gay men, as well as lesbians, were more predictably aroused by images of their preferred sex, Dr. Chivers found."In this quote, Chivers is referring to the genital response determined by photoplethysmograph while watching erotic films of various combinations. Women who identified as 2 or lower on the Kinsey scale (primarily interested in men) showed greater genital response to the activity pictured (exercise, masturbation, or intercourse) rather than the subject of the film (male, female, or non-human).
The website TSRoadmap has a lot to say about Chivers, Bailey, and Blanchard. To summarize as briefly and ungenerously as possible: women don't have a sexual orientation, bisexual men are lying, and transsexualism is a sexual fetish. Needless to say, neither Andrea James of TSRoadmap or Dan4th of Difference Blog are particularly sold on their results.
The fact that the NYT consistently goes to the Blanchard/Bailey camp for sexuality stories bothers me deeply, but there is a caveat: I haven't found anyone doing research on female sexuality or transsexualism that doesn't creep me out. Bailey, Blanchard, Chivers, Brody, Lippa, Diamond, Baumeister -- they all seem to agree on the difference between the construction of women's sexual orientation versus that of men's. That's an awful lot of people to be wrong, and no one coming up with an answer I like. Of course, I can't think of any of them who have looked at the social pressure that men face in regards to "not being gay."
Monday, June 23, 2008
Withholding sex
Studies of female domestic abusers, as noted two weeks ago (6/9/08), tend to include emotional abuse and stalking. Glass et al (2008) recently revised the Danger Assessment (Campbell, 1988) instrument, a tool for identifying victims of domestic abuse, in order to make it more relevant for use in female-female relationships. Glass et al's panel of lesbian, bisexual, and transgender "victims and perpetrators" suggested revising the item "Has he/she ever forced you to have sex when you did not wish to do so?" to "Does she try to control your sex-life, for example withholding sex or using coercion or manipulation?". In Phase 2 of Glass' study, 80.7% of women surveyed said yes to the revised item. No results are given for response to the original item by this sample.
I just had a big "WTF" moment while re-reading Yourell's Brain Blogger post. Yourell cites Stacey et al's The Violent Couple (1994) on men's high reportage of partner's "withhold[ing] sex to punish" on the "CSR Abuse Index". A quick search online found no mention of this instrument, or other citations of its results.
Who defines "withholding sex to punish"? Who defines the amount of sex to which someone is entitled? I've seen many women threaten to withhold sex as a punishment (there's very few quicker ways to get written off as a waste of skin, in my book, than publically threatening your partner) but I'm highly skeptical of withholding sex as a concept. So: convince me.
I just had a big "WTF" moment while re-reading Yourell's Brain Blogger post. Yourell cites Stacey et al's The Violent Couple (1994) on men's high reportage of partner's "withhold[ing] sex to punish" on the "CSR Abuse Index". A quick search online found no mention of this instrument, or other citations of its results.
Who defines "withholding sex to punish"? Who defines the amount of sex to which someone is entitled? I've seen many women threaten to withhold sex as a punishment (there's very few quicker ways to get written off as a waste of skin, in my book, than publically threatening your partner) but I'm highly skeptical of withholding sex as a concept. So: convince me.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Teen pregnancy by choice
At least eight girls (16 and younger) in Gloucester High School have become pregnant as part of a pact to have and raise children together, according to the AP (2008). The story, which got national and international attention yesterday, has been under investigation since March. Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe (2008), discussed the possibility that these pregnancies could be intentional and discussed the climate of Gloucester's heavily-Catholic, struggling fishing economy. Even two days ago, the Globe was still talking about contraception in schools, and the inaccessibility of women's clinics. But with the news that the fathers may be local men in their 20's, the discussion seems to be turning to criminal charges.
In contrast, note an article from May in The Guardian (2008) about single motherhood in Iceland, which bears so little stigma that Icelanders elected a single mother to the presidency 28 years ago. The Guardian article draws the distinction that women are choosing to bear children at 21 or 22 - not as teenagers.
I'm probably a bad person, but I feel really sorry for the "24-year-old homeless guy" who supposedly fathered at least one of the Gloucester pregnancies. I probably shouldn't, but considering the press, it seems like people are really looking for somewhere to lay the blame, and he looks like a likely scapegoat.
I feel like I should be at least partially in favor of the girls' choice. They chose when and how to get pregnant. They chose to bear the children. They built a support network to help them through it. These seem like good things. On the other hand, there are few choices made by anyone (but teens especially) where I don't question the motives:
EDIT, 6/23/08: Mayor: No evidence pregnancy pact is real
In contrast, note an article from May in The Guardian (2008) about single motherhood in Iceland, which bears so little stigma that Icelanders elected a single mother to the presidency 28 years ago. The Guardian article draws the distinction that women are choosing to bear children at 21 or 22 - not as teenagers.
I'm probably a bad person, but I feel really sorry for the "24-year-old homeless guy" who supposedly fathered at least one of the Gloucester pregnancies. I probably shouldn't, but considering the press, it seems like people are really looking for somewhere to lay the blame, and he looks like a likely scapegoat.
I feel like I should be at least partially in favor of the girls' choice. They chose when and how to get pregnant. They chose to bear the children. They built a support network to help them through it. These seem like good things. On the other hand, there are few choices made by anyone (but teens especially) where I don't question the motives:
TIME Magazine, 6/18/08: "Amanda Ireland, who graduated from Gloucester High on June 8, thinks she knows why these girls wanted to get pregnant. Ireland, 18, gave birth her freshman year and says some of her now pregnant schoolmates regularly approached her in the hall, remarking how lucky she was to have a baby. "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally," Ireland says. "I try to explain it's hard to feel loved when an infant is screaming to be fed at 3 a.m."Thanks to Patrissimo for pointing out the Guardian/Iceland article, and to Scixual for pointing out TIME's take on the Gloucester story.
EDIT, 6/23/08: Mayor: No evidence pregnancy pact is real
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Stereotype threat: the statistical debate
Stricker and Ward (2004) suggested that the effect of stereotype threat was overstated; their experiment showed no significant difference in performance for blacks or women who were asked demographic questions before or after standardized testing. In June's edition of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Danaher and Crandall (2008) propose that a different statistical analysis of Stricker and Ward's data does support the effect of stereotype threat. Specifically, Danaher and Crandall say that Stricker and Ward's criteria were too conservative: "favoring the acceptance of Type II error over Type I error ... decreases the probability of mistakenly 'finding' a null effect, and it increases the probability of missing a real effect".
In the same issue of the journal, Stricker and Ward (2008) reply that their analysis was appropriate. Danaher and Crandall, the authors claim, are using flawed extrapolations in their estimates, because AP test scores do not have a normal distribution. Stricker and Ward stand by their 2004 assertion that "inquiring about gender and ethnicity did not affect test performance of women or Black students."
There are two things I wanted to point out with today's post. First is that the vast majority of journalists, and a frightening portion of scientists, don't know jack about statistical analysis and reporting. Other people have covered this topic a lot better than I can. My statistics background is pretty damn weak as well.
The second thing was something I noticed with yesterday's post. I make an effort to report new findings in Difference Blog, and I wonder if that's a mistake. We don't get a chance to see the responses to the study when it's brand new. Part of assessing the validity of a particular study (at least for me) often involves seeing who references it, and whether the conclusions are supported by subsequent experiments, or whether the community tears apart the methods in some way I didn't think of.
In the same issue of the journal, Stricker and Ward (2008) reply that their analysis was appropriate. Danaher and Crandall, the authors claim, are using flawed extrapolations in their estimates, because AP test scores do not have a normal distribution. Stricker and Ward stand by their 2004 assertion that "inquiring about gender and ethnicity did not affect test performance of women or Black students."
There are two things I wanted to point out with today's post. First is that the vast majority of journalists, and a frightening portion of scientists, don't know jack about statistical analysis and reporting. Other people have covered this topic a lot better than I can. My statistics background is pretty damn weak as well.
The second thing was something I noticed with yesterday's post. I make an effort to report new findings in Difference Blog, and I wonder if that's a mistake. We don't get a chance to see the responses to the study when it's brand new. Part of assessing the validity of a particular study (at least for me) often involves seeing who references it, and whether the conclusions are supported by subsequent experiments, or whether the community tears apart the methods in some way I didn't think of.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Hemispheric asymmetry
Savic and Lindstrom (2008) measured (using MRI) the brains of gay and straight men and women to see if a known difference in hemispheric symmetry was related to sexual orientation. The study also used PET to study connections to the right and left amygdalae.
In both experiments, homosexual subjects showed a "sex-atypical" pattern. Straight men and gay women's right hemisphere's were slightly larger than their left, whereas gay men and straight women's cerebral hemispheres were the same size. Straight women and gay men showed more connections from the left amygdala, and straight men/gay women showed more connections from the right.
However, it's unclear whether the patterns of asymmetry reported as sex-typical are fully supported. Good et al (2001) do not report any difference in asymmetry between men and women in their volumetric analysis of healthy brains. Savic and Lindstrom refer to Cahill's 2006 review. Cahill, in turn, notes that Lansdell (1964) had proposed hemispheric differences, but that this work hadn't been followed up on. Lansdell comments that the differences observed are based on sample sizes too small to be statistically significant.
Speaking of sample sizes, Savic and Lindstrom studied 25 straight men, 25 straight women, 20 gay men, and 20 gay women. I think their results are interesting, but as noted above, I can't find support for their "sex-typical" assumption about hemispheric volume. I think the biggest problem in determining neurological differences by sexual orientation is that orientation is undetermined until behavioral patterns have been established. Savic and Lindstrom say that "the observations cannot be easily attributed to perception or behavior." I'm not sure they can be easily disassociated from behavior either.
I don't really comment on the difference in amygdala connectivity described in Savic and Lindstrom. I don't really have any opinions about it, except to note that while Savic and Lindstrom describe this as "not related to sexual attraction," the amygdala is implicated in so many studies about sexual attraction that I feel like this conclusion is unwarranted as well (see 10/26/06).
edit: Seems like Language Log took this study on today as well. Liberman makes the point that even the findings of Savic and Lindstrom's experiment don't really support the idea of bimodal dimorphism for hemispheric volumes.
edit2: Off-topic, it's my birthday. If you want to do something nice for me, tell a friend about Difference Blog. :)
In both experiments, homosexual subjects showed a "sex-atypical" pattern. Straight men and gay women's right hemisphere's were slightly larger than their left, whereas gay men and straight women's cerebral hemispheres were the same size. Straight women and gay men showed more connections from the left amygdala, and straight men/gay women showed more connections from the right.
However, it's unclear whether the patterns of asymmetry reported as sex-typical are fully supported. Good et al (2001) do not report any difference in asymmetry between men and women in their volumetric analysis of healthy brains. Savic and Lindstrom refer to Cahill's 2006 review. Cahill, in turn, notes that Lansdell (1964) had proposed hemispheric differences, but that this work hadn't been followed up on. Lansdell comments that the differences observed are based on sample sizes too small to be statistically significant.
Speaking of sample sizes, Savic and Lindstrom studied 25 straight men, 25 straight women, 20 gay men, and 20 gay women. I think their results are interesting, but as noted above, I can't find support for their "sex-typical" assumption about hemispheric volume. I think the biggest problem in determining neurological differences by sexual orientation is that orientation is undetermined until behavioral patterns have been established. Savic and Lindstrom say that "the observations cannot be easily attributed to perception or behavior." I'm not sure they can be easily disassociated from behavior either.
I don't really comment on the difference in amygdala connectivity described in Savic and Lindstrom. I don't really have any opinions about it, except to note that while Savic and Lindstrom describe this as "not related to sexual attraction," the amygdala is implicated in so many studies about sexual attraction that I feel like this conclusion is unwarranted as well (see 10/26/06).
edit: Seems like Language Log took this study on today as well. Liberman makes the point that even the findings of Savic and Lindstrom's experiment don't really support the idea of bimodal dimorphism for hemispheric volumes.
edit2: Off-topic, it's my birthday. If you want to do something nice for me, tell a friend about Difference Blog. :)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Coffee safe for men and women
Coffee consumption does not increase mortality rates for men or women, according to Lopez-Garcia et al (2008). The study followed cohorts of health professionals for 18 years for men and 24 years for women. Coffee drinkers (especially women) showed slightly lower rates of mortality from heart disease. No connection was found in either direction between coffee consumption and cancer mortality. Surprisingly, decaf drinkers seemed to show the same patterns as regular coffee drinkers.
Women: drink more coffee! It's not going to kill you, it may improve your heart health, and could have neuroprotective benefits (8/10/07).
Seriously, though, I have a theory about why the coffee drinkers and the decaf drinkers have the same health benefits. I suspect that that people who aren't drinking coffee aren't slowing down. They're not taking a minute every hour or so to get a cup, clear their head, and get back into a good headspace. It's one of the reasons I keep going back to smoking when I quit. Without my "break excuse", I just don't take breaks, and I burn out much more quickly.
Women: drink more coffee! It's not going to kill you, it may improve your heart health, and could have neuroprotective benefits (8/10/07).
Seriously, though, I have a theory about why the coffee drinkers and the decaf drinkers have the same health benefits. I suspect that that people who aren't drinking coffee aren't slowing down. They're not taking a minute every hour or so to get a cup, clear their head, and get back into a good headspace. It's one of the reasons I keep going back to smoking when I quit. Without my "break excuse", I just don't take breaks, and I burn out much more quickly.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Sex differences in VA Care
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care to current and former members of the U.S. military. Of the 2,900,000 veterans receiving benefits (VA, 2008), five percent are women, although this "number is expected to nearly double in the next two years as more women return home from Iraq and Afghanistan and seek care" (AP, 2008). Women make up 12-14% of the U.S. armed services (12% according to the VA; 14% according to AP), and 7.5% of living veterans (VA) suggesting that a greater number of women than men receive health care outside the VA system.
This may be a good idea, according to a recent review of VA services ordered by Congress. The VHA Hospital report card (2008, pdf) found that the quality of outpatient care for women was lower than that for men in 86% of VA hospitals. The report points out that when controlling for age and health status, "appropriate care" is provided at similar rates for men and women, according to other, uncited, studies.
As a small child, I only knew one person dependant on VA care, who was a woman. By adolescence, I knew a second, who was a man. They were both veterans from the Viet Nam era, and both had left service with significant disability. I developed a very hostile attitude towards the VA based on their experiences, but in retrospect, the amount of fighting they had to do to get care doesn't seem much different than what seems common now with HMOs. I do worry that veterans who do depend on VA care are those most vulnerable: the veterans who don't receive other health benefits from their post-military careers. Anyone I knew who had an option went with other health care.
This may be a good idea, according to a recent review of VA services ordered by Congress. The VHA Hospital report card (2008, pdf) found that the quality of outpatient care for women was lower than that for men in 86% of VA hospitals. The report points out that when controlling for age and health status, "appropriate care" is provided at similar rates for men and women, according to other, uncited, studies.
As a small child, I only knew one person dependant on VA care, who was a woman. By adolescence, I knew a second, who was a man. They were both veterans from the Viet Nam era, and both had left service with significant disability. I developed a very hostile attitude towards the VA based on their experiences, but in retrospect, the amount of fighting they had to do to get care doesn't seem much different than what seems common now with HMOs. I do worry that veterans who do depend on VA care are those most vulnerable: the veterans who don't receive other health benefits from their post-military careers. Anyone I knew who had an option went with other health care.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Politician's Children
Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick will be marching in tomorrow's Gay Pride event with his newly-out daughter, Katherine, according to the Boston Globe (2008). The Globe notes other political daughters whose sexuality has become a talking point in recent years: Mary Cheney, Chrissy Gephardt, Maya Keyes, and Lisa Sanders.
Notably missing from this list are any men. Gay sons of politicians are in short supply, and rarely receive similar support. Some openly oppose their father's rhetoric, like David Knight, whose father Pete spearheaded California's anti-gay marriage "Knight Initiative". Jesse Kern, son of Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern (of "gay agenda more dangerous than terrorism" fame), was rumored to be gay, but insists he is celibate for religious reasons.
It seems like I've only addressed the double-standard towards gays and lesbians once before, (Queer@Work: 6/7/07), which surprises me. It's been a hot-button issue for me for a long time, and reading the paper this morning, all I could think was "what if Katherine had been your son, Deval?" Unlike many transmen, I didn't have to deal with a change in my identified orientation when I transitioned. I was bisexual before and after I transitioned. However, being a bisexual man is socially very different from being a bisexual woman. While I have no direct experience of it, my suspicion is that being an out bisexual transman is easier than being an out bisexual cisgender man, and I attribute it entirely to the double standard towards male and female queerness.
Notably missing from this list are any men. Gay sons of politicians are in short supply, and rarely receive similar support. Some openly oppose their father's rhetoric, like David Knight, whose father Pete spearheaded California's anti-gay marriage "Knight Initiative". Jesse Kern, son of Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern (of "gay agenda more dangerous than terrorism" fame), was rumored to be gay, but insists he is celibate for religious reasons.
It seems like I've only addressed the double-standard towards gays and lesbians once before, (Queer@Work: 6/7/07), which surprises me. It's been a hot-button issue for me for a long time, and reading the paper this morning, all I could think was "what if Katherine had been your son, Deval?" Unlike many transmen, I didn't have to deal with a change in my identified orientation when I transitioned. I was bisexual before and after I transitioned. However, being a bisexual man is socially very different from being a bisexual woman. While I have no direct experience of it, my suspicion is that being an out bisexual transman is easier than being an out bisexual cisgender man, and I attribute it entirely to the double standard towards male and female queerness.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Frequency of thinking about sex
A survey by Cosmopolitan-UK found that 74% of women think about shopping every minute, "almost as often as young men think about sex", according to the London Telegraph (2008). The paper states that young men think about sex "every 52 seconds", a commonly quoted statistic with foggy origins (much like women's 20,000 words: see 7/6/07, 9/6/06).
I can find no support for the 52-second chestnut. Baumeister et al's 2001 meta-analysis reviews several studies that found men reporting sexual thoughts more often than women. For example, Eysenck (1971) reported that 32% more college men answered yes to "I think about sex almost every day." More recently, Regan and Atkins (2006) found that men reported thinking about sex about 60 times per week, women about 15 times.
As usual, Mark Liberman of Language Log (2006) has done this research already, and more rigorously. Liberman notes that the sources cited by Louann Brizendine for this statistic in The Female Brain do not support it. Liberman concludes that the 52-second statement is "wrong by 23,736%".
If I had to estimate how often I have to suppress a thought or urge based on it's sexual inappropriateness, it would probably be multiple times per hour, but I certainly wouldn't call that "thinking about sex." When I struggle to make eye contact, it's not because I'm picturing myself motorboating the hapless victim of my eye-groping -- well, sh*t. For the rest of today, that will be what happens, but only because I put it into my brain. Generally speaking, however, I wouldn't call my self-censorhip "thinking about sex", but rather "manners."
I can find no support for the 52-second chestnut. Baumeister et al's 2001 meta-analysis reviews several studies that found men reporting sexual thoughts more often than women. For example, Eysenck (1971) reported that 32% more college men answered yes to "I think about sex almost every day." More recently, Regan and Atkins (2006) found that men reported thinking about sex about 60 times per week, women about 15 times.
As usual, Mark Liberman of Language Log (2006) has done this research already, and more rigorously. Liberman notes that the sources cited by Louann Brizendine for this statistic in The Female Brain do not support it. Liberman concludes that the 52-second statement is "wrong by 23,736%".
If I had to estimate how often I have to suppress a thought or urge based on it's sexual inappropriateness, it would probably be multiple times per hour, but I certainly wouldn't call that "thinking about sex." When I struggle to make eye contact, it's not because I'm picturing myself motorboating the hapless victim of my eye-groping -- well, sh*t. For the rest of today, that will be what happens, but only because I put it into my brain. Generally speaking, however, I wouldn't call my self-censorhip "thinking about sex", but rather "manners."
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
XKCD break: Scientific Purity and Women's participation
According to the National Science Foundation's "Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities" webpage, degrees in the fields shown above were awarded in the following proportions in 2004:
Normally I try to do a genetics or fMRI study on Wednesdays, but today's XKCD got me thinking. I was surprised and pleased to see that Munroe's Purity Scale wasn't just a "likelihood of women's participation" scale. It's worth noting that in all fields (not just science and engineering), women earned 57.6% of the bachelor's degrees and 50.9% of all doctoral degrees. Pardon the messiness of my graphs - click to view bigger. I realize that the text is very difficult to read. Blue is "all degrees" and pink is "degrees awarded to women". I wonder if it would have been more useful to graph men vs. women instead of women vs. all?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Relationships: same-sex vs. opposite-sex
Lats month, California judges legalized same-sex marriages, pushing "gay marriage" into the public spotlight again (AP, 2008). Tara Parker-Pope, writing for the New York Times (2008), discusses the differences between homosexual and heterosexual couples: "Most studies show surprisingly few differences ... but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships."
Specifically, the NYT article notes what gender-stereotyped patterns same-sex couples tend to fall into and which they do not. Chores are more equally divided, sex more equally initiated, and financial responsibility more equally shared in same-sex couples than in heterosexual ones. However, Holley and Levenson (2006) found that gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples were equally likely to demonstrate "demand-and-withdraw" interactions: one couple would demand, and the other withdraw. Levenson tells the NYT: "Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not... That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”
One of the most painful dates I ever had was with a gay man who insisted on asking "which one's the wife?" for every same-sex couple we encountered. Finally, after about the fourth repetition, I said "Neither of them! That's sort of the point!" Five years later, I can sort of see his point. A lot of the same-sex couples I know do fall into the husband and wife stereotypes, most of the time. It's always uncomfortable and gratifying when you find the way in which they don't fit the predefined roles. At a friend of mine's wedding, I was shocked and touched when the bride in the dress waited at the altar - while the bride in a pantsuit walked up the aisle.
Specifically, the NYT article notes what gender-stereotyped patterns same-sex couples tend to fall into and which they do not. Chores are more equally divided, sex more equally initiated, and financial responsibility more equally shared in same-sex couples than in heterosexual ones. However, Holley and Levenson (2006) found that gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples were equally likely to demonstrate "demand-and-withdraw" interactions: one couple would demand, and the other withdraw. Levenson tells the NYT: "Like everybody else, I thought this was male behavior and female behavior, but it’s not... That means there is a lot more hope that you can do something about it.”
One of the most painful dates I ever had was with a gay man who insisted on asking "which one's the wife?" for every same-sex couple we encountered. Finally, after about the fourth repetition, I said "Neither of them! That's sort of the point!" Five years later, I can sort of see his point. A lot of the same-sex couples I know do fall into the husband and wife stereotypes, most of the time. It's always uncomfortable and gratifying when you find the way in which they don't fit the predefined roles. At a friend of mine's wedding, I was shocked and touched when the bride in the dress waited at the altar - while the bride in a pantsuit walked up the aisle.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Domestic Abuse
The general consensus is that women are more often victims of domestic abuse than men: Tjaden and Thoennes (2000), for example, found that 7% of men vs. over 20% of women reported ever having been violently attacked by a cohabitating partner.
As far back as 30 years ago, however, M. A. Straus (1977-1978) was suggesting that men were as likely as women to be victims. Robert Yourell, at Brain Blogger (2008) provides a list of 23 studies reviewed by gender-inclusive counseling activist John Hamel for a book chapter on violence against men. Yourell's summarizes Hamel's position this way: "experts that do not cherry pick their data find a fairly even [gender] split [on domestic violence] when the general public is polled in various ways".
In February (2/4/08), we looked at two points of view: either that men are more likely than women to report abuse (leading to overestimation of the number of men abused), or that men are less likely to report it. Tjaden and Thoennes tend toward the "more likely" camp. They point out that most studies showing equal rates of abuse are self-report; while most studies of police and hospital records show a much higher prevalence of violence towards women.
Here's my issue: I don't understand how making violence a human issue belittles women. I don't believe for a second that men are as likely as women to be abused physically*, or to be as badly injured when they are. But I don't understand why this continues to be an issue. How does admitting that some men are abused detract from seeing that some women are abused. Why does this issue continue to derail the discussion?
*almost all of the studies showing abuse parity include emotional abuse, property damage, or stalking
As far back as 30 years ago, however, M. A. Straus (1977-1978) was suggesting that men were as likely as women to be victims. Robert Yourell, at Brain Blogger (2008) provides a list of 23 studies reviewed by gender-inclusive counseling activist John Hamel for a book chapter on violence against men. Yourell's summarizes Hamel's position this way: "experts that do not cherry pick their data find a fairly even [gender] split [on domestic violence] when the general public is polled in various ways".
In February (2/4/08), we looked at two points of view: either that men are more likely than women to report abuse (leading to overestimation of the number of men abused), or that men are less likely to report it. Tjaden and Thoennes tend toward the "more likely" camp. They point out that most studies showing equal rates of abuse are self-report; while most studies of police and hospital records show a much higher prevalence of violence towards women.
Here's my issue: I don't understand how making violence a human issue belittles women. I don't believe for a second that men are as likely as women to be abused physically*, or to be as badly injured when they are. But I don't understand why this continues to be an issue. How does admitting that some men are abused detract from seeing that some women are abused. Why does this issue continue to derail the discussion?
*almost all of the studies showing abuse parity include emotional abuse, property damage, or stalking
Friday, June 6, 2008
Defining masculinity
Journalism professor Robert Jensen (2008), writing on Media With Conscience, talks about a lecture he gives to undergraduates on the cultural definitions of masculinity. He notes the difference between the answers they would give a twelve-year-old (strength, responsibility, love) and the answers used "in practice ... not through affirmative statements but through negative ones -- it's about what a man isn't." Jensen points out that the positive masculine virtues are not unique to men, but are human virtues that are also admirable in women. "If masculinity is a suspect category, it would seem so is femininity", Jensen notes.
At the blog The Art of Manliness (2008), bloggers Brett and Kate McKay also note that "honor, strength, virtue, sacrifice, responsibility, leadership, and integrity" occur and should be nurtured in both men and women. The McKays suggest, however, that "these values and characteristics might manifest themselves differently in each sex".
I think activist and shaman Raven Kaldera once asked a group of men at a Pagan festival to define male mysteries without talking about fatherhood (I remember reading it, but I can't find the passage now). I'm not remembering the men coming up with a good answer. Outside of reproduction, I can't define masculine or feminine qualities by absolutes. The concepts are only meaningful as tendencies, much like any other gender or sex difference.
At the blog The Art of Manliness (2008), bloggers Brett and Kate McKay also note that "honor, strength, virtue, sacrifice, responsibility, leadership, and integrity" occur and should be nurtured in both men and women. The McKays suggest, however, that "these values and characteristics might manifest themselves differently in each sex".
I think activist and shaman Raven Kaldera once asked a group of men at a Pagan festival to define male mysteries without talking about fatherhood (I remember reading it, but I can't find the passage now). I'm not remembering the men coming up with a good answer. Outside of reproduction, I can't define masculine or feminine qualities by absolutes. The concepts are only meaningful as tendencies, much like any other gender or sex difference.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Interest in Genealogy
In the Australian paper The Age (2003), columnist Julie Szego says "when we search our family histories we are really searching for ourselves." O'Hare (2002) suggests that interest in genealogy first surged in the 1890's with the creation of the "Daughters of the American Revolution" and "Society of Mayflower descendants." The staying power of DAR begs the question: are men or women more likely to take an interest in genealogy?
The answer appears to be no. Salmon and Daly (1999) reported that birth order, not sex, predicted an interest in genealogy. Lambert (2002) found that people who did not believe in the afterlife were more likely to take an interest in genealogy, as part of "symbolic and largely secular strategies designed to extend the time frame of their lives beyond their personal biographies." Again, no gender differences were reported. However, neither of these studies directly addressed sex X interest interactions. It appears possible that this question has not been adequately examined.
I had sort of a blind rage earlier this week about a web ad. A genealogy site was advertising with an antique photo of a tightrope walker and the caption "Find out where you got your fear of heights." This strikes me as a huge part of what is wrong with ancestor worship. I did expect to find a difference between men and women on genealogical interest, favoring women, but I didn't find any research supporting that. My boss and I were talking about our legacy once, the imprint we would leave behind on the world. I talked about the research and writing I wanted to do. She talked about her granddaughter. I thought this pattern would be more widespread, but it appears I'm projecting my neuroses on the world again.
The answer appears to be no. Salmon and Daly (1999) reported that birth order, not sex, predicted an interest in genealogy. Lambert (2002) found that people who did not believe in the afterlife were more likely to take an interest in genealogy, as part of "symbolic and largely secular strategies designed to extend the time frame of their lives beyond their personal biographies." Again, no gender differences were reported. However, neither of these studies directly addressed sex X interest interactions. It appears possible that this question has not been adequately examined.
I had sort of a blind rage earlier this week about a web ad. A genealogy site was advertising with an antique photo of a tightrope walker and the caption "Find out where you got your fear of heights." This strikes me as a huge part of what is wrong with ancestor worship. I did expect to find a difference between men and women on genealogical interest, favoring women, but I didn't find any research supporting that. My boss and I were talking about our legacy once, the imprint we would leave behind on the world. I talked about the research and writing I wanted to do. She talked about her granddaughter. I thought this pattern would be more widespread, but it appears I'm projecting my neuroses on the world again.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Genetic risk of schizophrenia
Schizophrenia appears to have a strong inherited component (estimated at 80%: Cardno & Gottesman, 2000), but the role of genetic factors in the differential presentation in men and women has received very little examination. Although equal numbers of men and women are affected by schizophrenia, women tend to have later onset and better prognoses (DB, 2/27/08). Shifman et al (2008) found that a common variation of the Reelin gene (a gene that controls production of the neural protein reelin) increased risk for women but not for men. Both sexes carried this variation, and more than half of all sampled populations carried it, with the highest prevalence in a Chinese sample (82.8%) and the lowest in Ashkenazi Jews (61.6%). The association between sex/genotype/schizophrenia was non-significant in all male populations, but was only significant for women in the UK and Ashkenazi Jewish samples (but not in Irish, US, or Chinese women). The effect was significant for women in the aggregate of all samples. The authors note that expression of the protein reelin may be mediated by testosterone, as suggested in starlings studied by Absil et al (2003).
I always feel like I'm stretching beyond the realm of reason when I try to add "personal commentary" to genetic studies. I can't see genes; I don't even know if I have any genetic abnormalities. I never got screened for them, and since I respond "normally" to almost all treatments, I've never seen a reason to get screened.
At any rate, while I agree with the authors that their result looks like a "genuine association," a risk factor held by 60-80% of the population seems even less useful than using sex as a risk factor for depression. Still, a place to begin exploring the mechanism of schizophrenic development can only be a good thing.
Hm. I've just noticed that I'm totally prepared to accept genetic components to schizophrenia in a way that I'm not at all prepared to accept them for personality traits like stubbornness, "intelligence", or altruism.
I always feel like I'm stretching beyond the realm of reason when I try to add "personal commentary" to genetic studies. I can't see genes; I don't even know if I have any genetic abnormalities. I never got screened for them, and since I respond "normally" to almost all treatments, I've never seen a reason to get screened.
At any rate, while I agree with the authors that their result looks like a "genuine association," a risk factor held by 60-80% of the population seems even less useful than using sex as a risk factor for depression. Still, a place to begin exploring the mechanism of schizophrenic development can only be a good thing.
Hm. I've just noticed that I'm totally prepared to accept genetic components to schizophrenia in a way that I'm not at all prepared to accept them for personality traits like stubbornness, "intelligence", or altruism.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Work-Life Balance
Do men and women differ in their response to the "work-life balance"? Attitude toward gender roles, and not participant gender, predicted how both men and women responded to work/life conflict issues in Livingston and Judge (2008): traditional men and women tended to blame the family, while egalitarian men and women tended to blame the work. Eurofound (2006) compared several European job satisfaction surveys, and found that the highest levels of job satisfaction (for both men and women) were linked to working over 37 hours per week. Men especially were happy when they were "always asked" to work overtime; "relatively few female respondents can be found among those ‘always’ having to work overtime".
So, one of the women I work with came from a department where (1) her work constantly interfered with her life and (2) she was asked to work overtime every week. I only have her report on it, but she seems a lot happier now. In our department, overtime is not allowed. My boss will kick you out and say "finish it tomorrow!" I was only allowed to work overtime in my first year in the job, and in the most recent year in my job, when I've been on salary instead of hourly. As Eurofound responsibly points out: working more hours is correlated with higher income. This may have something to do with the job satisfaction of the workaholics.
So, one of the women I work with came from a department where (1) her work constantly interfered with her life and (2) she was asked to work overtime every week. I only have her report on it, but she seems a lot happier now. In our department, overtime is not allowed. My boss will kick you out and say "finish it tomorrow!" I was only allowed to work overtime in my first year in the job, and in the most recent year in my job, when I've been on salary instead of hourly. As Eurofound responsibly points out: working more hours is correlated with higher income. This may have something to do with the job satisfaction of the workaholics.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Equality breeds equality
In a Science story that is setting blogs buzzing (partially due to coverage in The Economist - which has more free content) Guiso et al (2008) reports that in although men still outscore women in mathematics in 40 countries, this difference is smallest in countries where economic status is closest between women and men. Women's advantage in reading, however, did not decrease with greater equality: it actually increased. The improvement in women's math scores could not be tied to other measures of a country's development, such as GDP. Of the math subjects examined, only the gap in geometry* achievement failed to show a connection to economic equality.
So, I'm trying to remember what math subjects I'd actually studied by age 15: the age of the boys and girls in Guiso's study. I was well ahead of my age-mates in my school, due to being on an accelerated graduation schedule, but I hadn't had any calculus yet. Most high school math, in my recollection, is arithmetic and some light algebra. I think we'd done a little trigonometry, but geometry was my least favorite, and it's entirely attributable to my hatred of proofs. Of course, proofs entered heavily into any math discipline higher than high school level, and I dropped out of my math major and into the theatre program within 4 months of enrolling in college. For the record, I did well in Calculus I. My decision was mostly based on crushes I had on actors.
* "Questions in the mathematics test cover the subareas of "space and shape" (roughly geometry), "change and relationship" (algebra), "quantity" (arithmetic), and "uncertainty" (probability), in a range of difficulty from those that require simple mathematical operations to those that require complex thinking." -- Guiso et al 2008, supplemental material, p. 3
So, I'm trying to remember what math subjects I'd actually studied by age 15: the age of the boys and girls in Guiso's study. I was well ahead of my age-mates in my school, due to being on an accelerated graduation schedule, but I hadn't had any calculus yet. Most high school math, in my recollection, is arithmetic and some light algebra. I think we'd done a little trigonometry, but geometry was my least favorite, and it's entirely attributable to my hatred of proofs. Of course, proofs entered heavily into any math discipline higher than high school level, and I dropped out of my math major and into the theatre program within 4 months of enrolling in college. For the record, I did well in Calculus I. My decision was mostly based on crushes I had on actors.
* "Questions in the mathematics test cover the subareas of "space and shape" (roughly geometry), "change and relationship" (algebra), "quantity" (arithmetic), and "uncertainty" (probability), in a range of difficulty from those that require simple mathematical operations to those that require complex thinking." -- Guiso et al 2008, supplemental material, p. 3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
