GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Word:
<STRONG>The only thing I have a problem with women is that known (that I know about) like me, but I can excuse that, hell I wouldn't like me either. </STRONG>

Is it me or is this nonsensical?

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>Is it me or is this nonsensical? </STRONG>

It's nonsensical, but just over the edge of madness. Kinda like Craig's stuff. I think Word's really coming along.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>Since SYM is of a fairly well distributed gender, it occured to me that it would be interesting to see the opinions of members on the natural gender preconceptions that circulate in society.

For instance it is assumed that most gamers are male. Is this correct or should this be more of an equal playing field?</STRONG>

Recent market studies done by game companies, show that there are as many girls and boys who play computer games. However, I don't think the gaming industry has caught up with this yet.

I don't have a lot of gender preconceptions except the obvious physiological stuff like men are stronger, larger, have darker voices, etc than women, at group level. Women can bear and give birth to children, men can't. Also, I'm sexually attracted to men only, so far I haven't encountered any women I'm physically attracted to.

Apart from this, I'm rather allergic against gender stereotyping. It's a limiting and unfulfilling way of forcing yourself into pre-fabricated patterns rather than developing your own individuality. At it worst, it also serves as limiting other people, and can result in discrimination.

posted by Maharlika:
<STRONG>
The understanding that I got from this so-called "template" was that during primordial times there was a pattern of some sort on what each of the gender's role were --- based on the skeletons and the stuff "regularly" discovered with each gender.

This "template" of behavior coincides with the "natural(?)" differences between males and females.

The human male and female have distinct physiological differences that would dictate the gender-role they were supposed to play, hence a corresponding sets of behavior. Naturally, the (human) males are better equipped to take the role of protector/provider. The females take care of the children so they tend to stay "at home."

</STRONG>

Hm, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. What is the template you are referring to? Do you mean body size and hormonal differences? What behaviour patterns do you mean are "naturally" connected to these physical differences? According to etology and comparative biology, the equality in size between human males and female, support that both genders are meant to be involved in child rearing, for instance. In species where the females take care of the kids and the males provide food, the male is much larger, often double the size of the female.

Lions is not a good comparison, since lions are usually living in groups with one dominant male and several females who do the hunting and rearing of offspring. The male is mostly a defender of the area, and he is replaced if he is defeated by a stronger male. Humans on the other hand, were originally group living creatures with a mix of males and females in the group, not only one male, or like wolves, an alpha couple.

Sure the human male is more suited for running after mammoths than females because of his greater strenght, but few societies have been largely depending on hunting for survival - in the hunter/gatherer societies, it is believed that gathering was the main source of food rather than hunting.

If Gwally was here, he could provide us all with much more detailed and reliable information than I can - let's hope he shows up.

I think the whole discussion about biological diferences between males and females are beside the point. We humans have a rare oportunity to shape our own world and therefore the question should be: "Do we want diferences between sexes?" rather then "Is there diferences between sexes?" A question wich I atleast think the answer is rather obvious.

I know its somewhat beside topic, but since the use of such arguments are rather common...

@Dottie: In principle, I agree totally with you. The question of what is "natural" or "not natural" can be compared to the fact that it's perfectly "natural" for us all to die in pneumonia or cancer, while it's totally "unnatural" to drive a car.

We humans, especially we in the Western world, creates the world we live in to a large extent.

However, I do feel it's important to debunk "naturalistic" arguments, since they are often used both by male chauvinists and extreme feminists.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>


Hm, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. What is the template you are referring to? Do you mean body size and hormonal differences? What behaviour patterns do you mean are "naturally" connected to these physical differences? According to etology and comparative biology, the equality in size between human males and female, support that both genders are meant to be involved in child rearing, for instance. In species where the females take care of the kids and the males provide food, the male is much larger, often double the size of the female.

If Gwally was here, he could provide us all with much more detailed and reliable information than I can - let's hope he shows up.</STRONG>

If you will note I used the word template under quotations for lack of an appropriate term.

"Template" would be the 'tendency' of the target gender to behave. Such behavior being linked to the physical difference between gender.

Morphologically speaking, how would you explain the differences between males and females? Like, why has Nature dictated that human males would be much stronger (physically) than women? Why would women have more adipose tissues than males (the answer for this query is obvious --- pregnancy)? Why the facial(or absence) hair? Why the broad shoulders? Why the gruff voice? Why the sweet voice?

There has to be a reason for this difference. And with these differences come a corresponding pattern of behaviour.

I agree that both male and female are meant to be both involved in child rearing, however I think the manner would be different.

Wished I had my notes with me here in Thailand, unfortunately they're back home. If I get to find it when I get back for the holidays I would show the table of examples of differences.

I hate to think that this topic is something like a battle of the sexes, which is definitely not. I think that this is more of an awareness that THERE ARE significant differences between males and females though these differences does not make one gender better/worse than the other.

As I recall, these differences were meant to COMPLEMENT each other not the other way around.

For me, if girls don't play games, its hard to think of what other things they would spend their spare time on.
Also, I used to have the impression that old people didn't play games.

Morphologically speaking, how would you explain the differences between males and females? Like, why has Nature dictated that human males would be much stronger (physically) than women?

Who says that the average man today in urban society, where leisure allows the regular pursuit of sport for both sexes, is "much stronger" than the average woman? That's not what I've seen. Men have the edge in strength, and women have the edge in dexterity, but that's about it. All you've done is point to the social conditioning that says woman should stick to the home, while men go out and beat each other up in pursuit of a ball when they're not teaching similar "manly behavior" to their male offspring.

Why would women have more adipose tissues than males (the answer for this query is obvious --- pregnancy)? Why the facial(or absence) hair?

If nature had "planned" things, how do you explain the lack of any difference in adipose tissue among males and females in most animal species? And what do you think greater facial hair (or hair in general) on men means? To me, it means--greater facial hair.

Why the broad shoulders? Why the gruff voice? Why the sweet voice?

Not so; merely lower and higher. The "gruff" and "sweet" part is simply your interpretation, as these are adjectives that describe subjective qualities. I also think it gives away the bias of your viewpoint.

There has to be a reason for this difference. And with these differences come a corresponding pattern of behaviour.

So what you're saying is that biological gender determinants automatically control the behavior of individual members of the species, as though they were mindless, wind-up dolls--interesting, but I can't agree. I would suggest instead that cultural conditioning of you (the "gruff" and "sweet" voices, from above) has led to observing patterns of behavior that either aren't there, or are present only in selected cultures. They represent learned behavior, not Skinneresque biological conditioning. If you want to prove otherwise, please show us examples of that behavior in general operation.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

<STRONG>Morphologically speaking, how would you explain the differences between males and females? Like, why has Nature dictated that human males would be much stronger (physically) than women?

Who says that the average man today in urban society, where leisure allows the regular pursuit of sport for both sexes, is "much stronger" than the average woman? That's not what I've seen. Men have the edge in strength, and women have the edge in dexterity, but that's about it. All you've done is point to the social conditioning that says woman should stick to the home ( --- not at all Fable) , while men go out and beat each other up in pursuit of a ball when they're not teaching similar "manly behavior" to their male offspring.</STRONG>

First of all, I did not imply that things SHOULD BE the way things are by virtue of their physical difference. What I mean is, members of the respective genders would HAVE a TENDENCY to BEHAVE in a certain manner, CULTURE would have a GREAT IMPACT in altering/modifying these tendencies. You keep on talking about the average man of TODAY. That's not him I have in mind.

Have you ever tried observing the behavior of pre-school kids when they interact together? What do they do? How do they behave? Surely at that particular age, I would like to think that they haven't yet fully grasped that they are a boy/girl. Yet somehow there would be some distinct differences between the boys and the girls. The boys GENERALLY TEND to be aggressive. I don't think that at that age their respective fathers have taught them these so-called "manly behavior." Such a behavior TEND to be exhibited NATURALLY in general.

<STRONG>Why would women have more adipose tissues than males (the answer for this query is obvious --- pregnancy)? Why the facial(or absence) hair?

If nature had "planned" things, how do you explain the lack of any difference in adipose tissue among males and females in most animal species? And what do you think greater facial hair (or hair in general) on men means? To me, it means--greater facial hair.</STRONG>

In this area I would like to limit the parameters of comparison between male and female humans and not between humans and other animals.

Laugh if you might, but the hairy characteristic would seem to be something to attract the females. I know, I know, in THIS CULTURED society of TODAY that we know of, a number of females would think otherwise.

<STRONG>Why the broad shoulders? Why the gruff voice? Why the sweet voice?

Not so; merely lower and higher. The "gruff" and "sweet" part is simply your interpretation, as these are adjectives that describe subjective qualities. I also think it gives away the bias of your viewpoint.</STRONG>

I stand corrected there as regard to the use of adjectives. To be safe, the presence/absence/amount of sex hormones have something to do with that.

Biased? In what particular side? I'm not being sexist if that is what you are trying to imply. I'm not even justifying that certain behavior IS OK because it is natural for them to behave as such. I'M talking TENDENCIES, which I repeat, CULTURE could alter/modify.

<STRONG>There has to be a reason for this difference. And with these differences come a corresponding pattern of behaviour.

So what you're saying is that biological gender determinants AUTOMATICALLY CONTROL the behavior of individual members of the species, as though they were MINDLESS, WIND-UP DOLLS--interesting, but I question their visibility in the evidence. I would suggest instead that cultural conditioning on your part (the "gruff" and "sweet" voices, from above) has led to observing patterns of behavior that either aren't there, or are present only in selected cultures. They represent learned behavior, not Skinneresque biological conditioning. If you want to prove otherwise, please show us examples of that behavior in wide operation.</STRONG>

*sigh!* You totally misunderstood me. These determinants are not there to control our behavior like some male dog gone crazy in the presence of a female in heat. Man being in a high social order, CULTURE playing a HUMONGOUS PART in it, would determine how he would EVENTUALLY behave. Due to this present state of mental fatigue from work, the closest example I can think of is when a man spots a woman sitting with her legs apart enough to be able to get a glimpse of what is under her skirt. There is the tendency (THE INITIAL REACTION) to look what is between her legs BUT HIS CULTURE would probably make him look the other way instead.

Wish I could present scientific data to prove my PERCEPTION of the argument. Though I remember reading on some stuff back home regarding this. Sadly I cannot remember the name of my source.

Oh well, just a few centavos worth on Sleep's topic on Gender Preconceptions.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: Maharlika ]

Maharlika wrote:

Why would women have more adipose tissues than males (the answer for this query is obvious --- pregnancy)? Why the facial(or absence) hair?

I replied:

If nature had "planned" things, how do you explain the lack of any difference in adipose tissue among males and females in most animal species? And what do you think greater facial hair (or hair in general) on men means? To me, it means--greater facial hair.

Maharlika replied in turn:

In this area I would like to limit the parameters of comparison between male and female humans and not between humans and other animals.

If your initial pair of questions were prompted by belief in the argument that the extra tissue and hair are anthropologically conditioning factors upon human behavior, then no can do. Typically, sexual characteristics are common to most mammalian species, and I view other, non-shared characteristics with skepticism. I'm inclined to think they tell us more subjectively about the cultural background of the individual or group that proposes them, than they do about human sexual behavior.

Laugh if you might, but the hairy characteristic would seem to be something to attract the females. I know, I know, in THIS CULTURED society of TODAY that we know of, a number of females would think otherwise.

The reverse is true, too: some women really get it on for bald men. This, like its opposite, proves nothing.

I wrote:

Not so; merely lower and higher. The "gruff" and "sweet" part is simply your interpretation, as these are adjectives that describe subjective qualities. I also think it gives away the bias of your viewpoint.

Maharlika replied:

I stand corrected there as regard to the use of adjectives. To be safe, the presence/absence/amount of sex hormones have something to do with that.

Only the "breaking" of the voice and the production of the Adam's Apple is, and that's simply a function of the male moving into sexual maturity. Sexual hormones have nothing to do with the type of vocal range, if that's what you're implying.

Biased? In what particular side? I'm not being sexist if that is what you are trying to imply. I'm not even justifying that certain behavior IS OK because it is natural for them to behave as such. I'M talking TENDENCIES, which I repeat, CULTURE could alter/modify.

And I'm suggesting that the biological tendencies you mention aren't biological at all, but the result of cultural factors--like hairiness being attractive to women, and lower voices somehow implying more "maleness." These statements do not reflect scientific evidence.

*sigh!* You totally misunderstood me. These determinants are not there to control our behavior like some male dog gone crazy in the presence of a female in heat. Man being in a high social order, CULTURE playing a HUMONGOUS PART in it, would determine how he would EVENTUALLY behave. Due to this present state of mental fatigue from work, the closest example I can think of is when a man spots a woman sitting with her legs apart enough to be able to get a glimpse of what is under her skirt. There is the tendency (THE INITIAL REACTION) to look what is between her legs BUT HIS CULTURE would probably make him look the other way instead.

Um, I have to disagree with you on this one, too. Again, this is strictly cultural on your part. In some societies, men would be inclined to do this, because they're taught this is appropriate behavior; in others, it wouldn't even occur to them, because they've never been taught that such actions are "manly."

As you can see, I think most behaviors are learned behaviors. And that applies to sexual attitudes.

[ 11-12-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by Maharlika:
<STRONG>"Template" would be the 'tendency' of the target gender to behave. Such behavior being linked to the physical difference between gender.

</STRONG>

Can you give some examples of such behaviours? I'm not sure what you are referring to. Homo Sapiens behaviour is heavliy dictated by social learning, both model learning and different types of conditional learning. No other species rely as heavily on learning as we do.

<STRONG>I agree that both male and female are meant to be both involved in child rearing, however I think the manner would be different.

</STRONG>

Surely the male cannot breast feed a child since he has no milk producing glands. Are there other manners you think should be different?

<STRONG>Have you ever tried observing the behavior of pre-school kids when they interact together? What do they do? How do they behave? Surely at that particular age, I would like to think that they haven't yet fully grasped that they are a boy/girl. Yet somehow there would be some distinct differences between the boys and the girls. The boys GENERALLY TEND to be aggressive. I don't think that at that age their respective fathers have taught them these so-called "manly behavior." Such a behavior TEND to be exhibited NATURALLY in general.

</STRONG>

That small children don't have a clear gender identity and thus behave according to "natural" ie biologically predisposed behavioural patterns, is totally incorrect. Numerous studies of both children and parents show this, and I'll be happy to give you refernces both to books and research articles about this topic.

Pre school kids actually have a tendency to behave more gender sterotypic than adults, because they haven't yet developed an independant identity and they rely heavily upon model learning and encouragement/punishment from adults. Studies of parental behaviour show clearly that adults start to gender sterotype their kids even before they are born. Parents tend to think things like "I wonder if it's going to be a boy or a girl - it would be interesting to know whether one should prepare for playing hockey or buying little pink dresses". Then, as soon as the baby is born, adults around the kid starts to socialise the child into the respective gender pattern in that society. Little boys in the Western world gets encouraged by parents, relatives and preschool teachers to behave "boyish". A girl who shows physical aggression gets punished by the adults to a much larger extent than a boy. A boy who is a "crybaby" and hides behind his mother, is described as "shy, needs support, is week", whereas a girl who shows the same behaviour is described as "sweet, cute and lovable".

Some very interesting studies have been done of children below age 1. In so small children, it's impossible to see gender differences unless you change diapers on them. In the lab, children were divided into two groups, half boys and half girls in each groups. Adult subjects were instructed by the staff that all of the kids in group A were girls, and all of the children in group B were boys. In reality, half of the babies had another gender from what the adults were told. And look and behold! The adults behaved totally differentely towards the babies depending on what sex the thought baby had, regardless of the real sex of the baby. When they though a baby was a girl, they spoke with softer voice, they cuddled a lot more with the baby and they called the baby sweet names. When they thought is was a boy, they used words as "tough" and "brave" and were much more rough and physical in the way they played with the baby (ie lifting, throwing).

Interview studies where preschool kids gender role attitudes have been examined, have also been numerous. They consistently show small kids have a great awareness of what boys should do and what girls should do, what "mummies" should do and what "daddies" should do. Not surprisingly, the children's answers correlate highly with the degree of gender sterotypes in their families. For instance, kids who have mothers who are highly educated and work, think both mummies and daddies could work, whereas kids who have housewife mothers, think only daddies can work.

So, when we speak about what is natural for kids, remember that for kids, it's natural to behave and think like the adults around them. That is how human babies learn and develop. Of course little boys are more aggressive than little girls - in our society, we encourage boys to be aggressive since this is considered "manly" whereas it is considered "unwomanly" to be aggressive, and thus, little girls are not encouraged to behave this way.

<STRONG>
the closest example I can think of is when a man spots a woman sitting with her legs apart enough to be able to get a glimpse of what is under her skirt. There is the tendency (THE INITIAL REACTION) to look what is between her legs BUT HIS CULTURE would probably make him look the other way instead.

</STRONG>

A strange example. Men and women are equally interested in sex, and should be, since it's necessary for the survival of the species and propagation of your own genes. In many cultures, it's however less acceptable for women than for men to have many partners or show explicit interest in sex. Interestingly enough, genetic studies where genetic material is "backtracked" show that it's evolutionary advantageeous for both women and men to have many sexual partners.

Did you know that the studies of sexual behaviour in the Western world show that men and women mastubate equally much? This strongly supports that men and women have equal sexual needs.

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

Did you know that the studies of sexual behaviour in the Western world show that men and women mastubate equally much? This strongly supports that men and women have equal sexual needs.

I've also been given to understand that men go through lunar cycles. @CE, do you know of any scientific studies that have been done to show what sort of affects these cycles have on men, where the "high" and "low" point of each cycle commences, and whether the cycle is conditioned, as it is for women, by the so-called "dominant" female (or in men's cases, possible male) in the group?

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I've also been given to understand that men go through lunar cycles. @CE, do you know of any scientific studies that have been done to show what sort of affects these cycles have on men, where the "high" and "low" point of each cycle commences, and whether the cycle is conditioned, as it is for women, by the so-called "dominant" female (or in men's cases, possible male) in the group?</STRONG>

Do you think there was a connection to a new series of Baywatch being shown? j/k

Anyway, we have discussed the relevance of gaming stereotypes - that CE told us was untrue per a poll - however what about Gender stereotypes in the workplace, are there some jobs that women just can't/shouldn't do, or should it be an entirely open playing field?

Originally posted by fable:
[QB]

Only the "breaking" of the voice and the production of the Adam's Apple is, and that's simply a function of the male moving into sexual maturity. Sexual hormones have nothing to do with the type of vocal range, if that's what you're implying.

Nope, not at all. But if you get castrated young, like the Castratis, I very much doubt if you could reach the lower octave... *pls. don't count this comment as part of our serious talk*

Um, I have to disagree with you on this one, too. Again, this is strictly cultural on your part. In some societies, men would be inclined to do this, because they're taught this is appropriate behavior; in others, it wouldn't even occur to them, because they've never been taught that such actions are "manly."

As you can see, I think most behaviors are learned behaviors. And that applies to sexual attitudes.

Ahhh, yes, The Behaviorist vs The Naturalist. I'm with you there that most behaviors are learned behaviors

I hope that you DO understand that my points are Preconceptions and that I'm not convincing others to think the same way that I do.

Nevertheless your points are taken duly noted of.

Somehow I still think that nature has a good reason for having the males and females different as to their morphological structure outside their reproductive system --- hence a corresponding trait to go with it.

But is there such a thing as a Mother's Instincts? If so, wouldn't that qualify?

Modern Man has acquired a lot of behavior that would make my point look really pale.

What about pre-historic Man? In the beginning when "culture" was not culture for us? Hence, the term "barbaric," "uncultured." What was the basis for them when they assumed certain "gender-specific" role? I'm posing this as a question.

@CE: Thanks for enlightening my feeble mind! *note the absence of sarcasm* Indeed, I look forward to such info. Please do.

Really sorry for not coming up with my source. I surely wished I could so that you would understand where I am coming from. I would love to see your reactions after they are presented.

Sadly, if I could find those notes, I would just come up with the table but no biblio.

I wrote:

Only the "breaking" of the voice and the production of the Adam's Apple is, and that's simply a function of the male moving into sexual maturity. Sexual hormones have nothing to do with the type of vocal range, if that's what you're implying.

Maharlika replied:

Nope, not at all. But if you get castrated young, like the Castratis, I very much doubt if you could reach the lower octave... *pls. don't count this comment as part of our serious talk*

I won't. But sexual hormones aren't a result of having sperm. They're produced by various glands under the majesterial if kinky supervision of the brain. So tenors have no less an interest in the opposite sex than basses--or for that matter, castrati.

There was even a good book on the castrati published about thirty years ago (I've got a copy, but it's in storage ) that went their histories, and some of the racier details. It seems that being a great singer without your family jewels had its compensations in the eyes of noblewomen. Since you couldn't produce sperm, there was no chance of offspring to give away a tryst when some countess' husband who spent nine months out of twelve fighting overseas. And lacking sperm did not mean that the castrato couldn't achieve an erection and give or receive pleasure.

One additional note: there *was* a single castrato who actually survived into the 20th century, and made recordings! Yep, that Baroque practice of producing singers with female vocal ranges and male breath support actually continued in a decreasing fashion for that long. His name was Alessandro Moreschi, and he died in 1922. He made a handful of early recordings. Fortunately, he didn't start a trend.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Maharlika writes:

What about pre-historic Man? In the beginning when "culture" was not culture for us? Hence, the term "barbaric," "uncultured." What was the basis for them when they assumed certain "gender-specific" role? I'm posing this as a question.

That's a fascinating question, but I don't know if we'll ever find an answer. The most "prehistoric" peoples around today are all too modern in the sense of having very elaborate social codes, for us to study sexual stereotyping in its earliest cultural stage. Obviously the mother suckled the child, but beyond that, all bets are off. Modern hunter/gatherer communities are unisex. You might think farming communities would have women at home with men working the fields, but unisex is standard in Japan and China. Crafts like pottery and clothmaking are sometimes considered "sexually sacred" among so-called primitive peoples--but depending upon the culture, for the male or the female; again, there's no single view. Feminist rewrites of history would have you believe in "feminine-centered sacredness" being older, and supplanted by the male, but there's absolutely no historical proof of this.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I wrote:

Only the "breaking" of the voice and the production of the Adam's Apple is, and that's simply a function of the male moving into sexual maturity. Sexual hormones have nothing to do with the type of vocal range, if that's what you're implying.

Maharlika replied:

Nope, not at all. But if you get castrated young, like the Castratis, I very much doubt if you could reach the lower octave... *pls. don't count this comment as part of our serious talk*

I won't. But sexual hormones aren't a result of having sperm. They're produced by various glands under the majesterial if kinky supervision of the brain. So tenors have no less an interest in the opposite sex than basses--or for that matter, castrati.

There was even a good book on the castrati published about thirty years ago (I've got a copy, but it's in storage ) that went their histories, and some of the racier details. It seems that being a great singer without your family jewels had its compensations in the eyes of noblewomen. Since you couldn't produce sperm, there was no chance of offspring to give away a tryst when some countess' husband who spent nine months out of twelve fighting overseas. And lacking sperm did not mean that the castrato couldn't achieve an erection and give or receive pleasure.

One additional note: there *was* a single castrato who actually survived into the 20th century, and made recordings! Yep, that Baroque practice of producing singers with female vocal ranges and male breath support actually continued in a decreasing fashion for that long. His name was Alessandro Moreschi, and he died in 1922. He made a handful of early recordings. Fortunately, he didn't start a trend.

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: fable ]</STRONG>

Pt.1 But sexual hormones aren't a result of having sperm. - right you are. It's the other way around.

Pt.2 They're produced by various glands under the majesterial if kinky supervision of the brain. - true. However, sex hormones are produced in glands called gonads. Gonads are not only found in the brain. The testicles are considered to be gonads. This explains why the castrati came to be. The primary reason for having their jewels removed prior ro puberty is to prevent the sex hormones (testosterone) from "breaking" the voice. So you end up with men with high octave (I was about to write high-octane ) capability. If I'm not mistaken, Michael Jackson is said to have had shots of female hormones just to retain his high octave voice.

Pt.3 So tenors have no less an interest in the opposite sex than basses--or for that matter, castrati. - I agree totally, for I would think that there are high-testosterone gay men out there to prove that (as well as their female counterparts).

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>Anyway, we have discussed the relevance of gaming stereotypes - that CE told us was untrue per a poll - however what about Gender stereotypes in the workplace, are there some jobs that women just can't/shouldn't do, or should it be an entirely open playing field? </STRONG>

To answer Sleeps question in the middle of the general gender role discussion - no, I can't think of any career that should not be open to both sexes, just like I can't think of any career that shouldn't be open to people of all sexual orientations or ethnic origins.

@Maharlika: Here is a really great book, a classic in social psychology and one of the best ever written about human behaviour. It addresses the question of gender roles very well. One of the good things with this book, is that it contains a lot of information and references to studies, but it is consciously written in layman language.
E Aronson: The Social Animal [url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/qid=1005869075/sr=1-2/ref=sr_sp_re/202-0903341-9014201"]http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/qid=1005869075/sr=1-2/ref=sr_sp_re/202-0903341-9014201[/url]

Originally posted by Maharlika:
<STRONG>However, sex hormones are produced in glands called gonads. Gonads are not only found in the brain. The testicles are considered to be gonads. </STRONG>

Just to clear up the terminology: gonads are the organs that produce gametes, ie the cells that contribute the genetic material during sexual reproduction, ie sperm and egg cell in humans. Thus, the gonads are the testes and the ovaries. However, the gonads are not the only sex hormone producing organs even if they produce the larger part.

Another note: If you put a uterus in a male rat, his brain can't send the proper signals to support ovulation. However, if you put a uterus in a male primate, his brain can. So male humans would be capable of supporting ovulation.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Just to clear up the terminology: gonads are the organs that produce gametes, ie the cells that contribute the genetic material during sexual reproduction, ie sperm and egg cell in humans. Thus, the gonads are the testes and the ovaries. However, the gonads are not the only sex hormone producing organs even if they produce the larger part.

Another note: If you put a uterus in a male rat, his brain can't send the proper signals to support ovulation. However, if you put a uterus in a male primate, his brain can. So male humans would be capable of supporting ovulation.</STRONG>

BUT OF COURSE! HOW COULD I EVER FORGET!!! *slaps forehead and puts foot in the mouth*

Thanks for the book, CE.