Widespread sex differences in gene expression in the human brain (2013)

You have to distinguish between sex and gender. Gender is socially constructed, but it is a necessary social reaction to biological differences between the sexes (for example, everywhere maternity is generally biologically constructed, but everywhere paternity is socially constructed --- it is a matter of record who one's mother is biologically, but this is usually not a matter of direct record for paternity). The thing is there is a really complex relationship between biology and culture and gender itself highlights a lot of that complexity.

Add to that the fact that identity carries with it social constructs offered by society, cognitive and psychological individual factors, etc, and that this does not rule out some biological factors regarding how the individual relates to the rest of these.

So "merely" meaning to the exclusion of other factors, sure. But that doesn't mean that the social constructs might not even be at the forefront.

@jessedhillon - wow, that was an incredibly long way to say "u r wrong" without any sort of backup.

What's the difference then between "social conditioning" and "culture?" Doesn't all social conditioning restrict? If so, isn't this just a way of rehashing the same idea that culture is the source of all evil human-rights-wise?

It seems to me that any reasonable length comment is incapable of capturing the complexity of any viewpoint.

> why are you limiting your analysis to intra-household dynamics only?

Because before industrialization:

1. Most households were businesses, and

2. Society largely functioned as a union of households, not a union of individuals (Indonesia is still this way, btw). Interestingly this was the basis of Aristotle's social theory and is generally considered to be representative of the Indo-European world before industrialization. From this perspective democracy would mean "one household, one vote" which is a fair summary of the pre-19th Amendment status quo, actually. Obviously this doesn't work if votes are private (and secret) or if women don't have the keys to power by collaborating to get agendas passed.

So intra-household dynamics is the question of power where those are the case.

Edit: the other problem is that extra-household dynamics and gender before industrialization leads to all kinds of apple/orange comparisons. How do you compare political assembly membership with collective plotting on political issues while washing laundry down by the river? Does it matter if the man's wife will likely know how he voted?

>young boys are medicated with psychiatric drugs for beings boys

I grew up with ADD, and did not obtain medication, by choice, until I reached adulthood. I perceive the medication to be supporting what I'd generally call "masculine values" - it's good for deadening the emotions and producing things. I'll skip it if I know the day is going to be mostly social, or even if I know that I will have a meeting where my ability to schmooze is more important than my ability to focus and complete a task. I describe being medicated as being "two drinks more sober" - Focus is easier, yes. It's easier to get things done, sure. But social stuff, unless there is a clear and directed goal, becomes rather less interesting and rather more awkward in a way that could be described imprecisely and offensively as "a little bit autistic."

>Boys are failing at every step in public institutions, with higher drop out rates at all levels of schooling.

I have a different theory on why that is.

I think that the causation of the correlation between formal education and money sometimes runs opposite the traditionally assumed direction; if you have the prerequisites to make a lot of money (either your parents are upper middle-class or are obviously really smart and very hardworking and know when to conform and when to rebel) you are far more likely to go to school. I mean, it works the regular way, too; some people do come out of school with skills that have a high market value, I'm just saying, a lot of those people would be valuable either way.

That fits into my theory on why boys are dropping out more than girls. I would suggest that boys are raised to be results oriented. If you can get the ball through the hoop, or the oblong object between the poles, people will like you. As you get older, that's the nice car and house. We are taught that people value us for what we can produce, what we can accomplish, not who we are. Sure, confidence is important, but that's mostly because you need [to at least be able to fake] confidence to accomplish anything that involves other people.

[as an aside, my experience as a man is that the reality is that people value you for your money, yes, but it's dramatically less important than I was led to believe as a boy. Now, I still believe that I'm largely judged by my accomplishments, my prestige, but it's way more complex than just money; in fact, a degree would have been a useful minimum social proof of accomplishment, and would have helped me in that arena far more than I thought it would have when I made the decision.

Still, that perception that how much money I made was the primary thing others would value me on was very strong when I was younger, as I think it is in most young men, and it had a large effect on my life decisions when I was making the work/college decision, as I think it does for most young men.]

My perception is that girls and women are primarily valued for their characteristics; who they are (or, at least, how they look and how they act towards others.) over what they can produce. This... is a very different set of incentives. Of course, I didn't grow up as a girl, and haven't experienced life as a woman. I have no idea how much my perception is shared by people who have.

College is... well, my perception is that it's not about increasing what you produce, primarily, It's about changing who you are. Making you a better (or some would say, more culturally middle-class) person. From a raw "what can I produce?" standpoint, if your parents aren't rich enough to pay for it, you are quite likely better off getting that construction job, or that front-line tech support or computer repair position than you would be working on an art history degree. But if you are trying to learn how to deal with other people, how to be charming and interesting? art history, or maybe literature isn't a bad bet.

Of course, I'm not advancing this viewpoint as an absolute "this is the way it is" - I don't know that it is. These are just my perceptions as a person who perhaps put more thought into gender roles than most people did while growing up.