Talk:Gender difference

Use of Communication Devices
Currently, we have a note on "Internet Use" with no discussion of other communication devices. It would appear that gender difference data, particularly on non-business mobile phone usage time (as identified by obvious female/male first names of service customers) could be found and provided here. Text message time use data could also be a valid measure of possible gender-based difference in "communication." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.36.211 (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusing
Can someone please reword this part:

A Cambridge University lab show's that at birth, girls will gaze longer at a face, while suspended mechanical mobiles will interest a boy’s attention for longer. The Cambridge team also found that the amount of eye contact children make is partially determined by prenatal testosterone, a biological factor.

The beginning is very confusing.Fix plz!--208.100.226.61 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy disputed
The article is a complete mess:
 * it says that "sex differences are not to be confused with sexist stereotypes", but is littered with precisely that kind of confusion (not just in the section entitled 'stereotypes' -- although it's not clear what that section is doing in the article).
 * it takes no consideration of which differences might be artifacts of social prejudice, and hardly mentions sexual discrimination (except for claiming not to be confused by it).
 * it treats each of "Western society", "Islam", etc. as completely monolithic. Does anyone really think that typical attitudes toward gender are the same in, say, San Francisco, as in some rural backwater town?
 * it has no discussion of how cultural attitudes to gender have varied historically.
 * almost none of the statements reporting a difference between average male and female behaviour, report the extent of that difference. It might be completely trivial and insignificant.
 * the statements about Asperger syndrome are particularly dubious.

David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In section 4.2 (Aggression) the article presents the idea that testosterone is the cause of aggressive behavior, but the data which has been reported by sociological studies shows the opposite link- that it is the aggressive behavior which results in higher testosterone. Furthermore, this section is not even cited, which is problematic.

kyleleitch (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This article
Is nothing but lies. You gender does not determine how you act. I agree, but still they have to have this page for any reason Breawycker (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Occupational death
Does the paragraph on occupational death also take regard to the military? It is a U.S. study and the U.S. is generally involved in a war or two. "The industries with the highest death rates are mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and construction", I understand that the military is not an industry, but still? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah (talk • contribs) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I believe that more people die on the job, than people in the military. I don't have any ready info on that, but that's what I vaguely recall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.8.223 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

split article
this article is created from splitting from article Sex_differences_in_humans, from this version. Lara_bran 06:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Twisted?
Underr Psychology: Happiness, "Some women also have higher suicide rates because of depression or twisted ways of looking at themselves."

I don't think "twisted" is the appropriate word to use here. I've changed the phrase to "negative self-perception." That sounds far more professional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.59.104 (talk • contribs) 00:01, October 18, 2007 (UTC)

Comments
"Some feminists see gender differences as caused by patriarchy or discrimination, although difference feminism argues for an acceptance of natural differences between men and women." - The fact that the "naturalness" of these differences is debatable is ignored in the second part of this statement.

The quote "He made them in his image: man and woman He made them" is inappropriate in the sense that it does not prove the claim that these religions believe gender differences to be made by God.

The part on "Intelligence" has two false links: link 1 and 2 are about other topics. In general, this section needs to be expanded to include other views as well.

I'm not sure about the structure of the whole article. Some subjects, such as the economy part, would fit better into an article about gender inequality than into that of gender differences, while some other parts seem to border on biologisms.

In general I would be more interested to see an enlarged debate on innate vs. culturally constructed gender differences!--MGrubic (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just found out that I was wrong on the point about the false links. It's just that the links start at number 1 again at some point, that confused me. The point about expanding the part is still true though. --MGrubic (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Notice how almost every female trait presented is a positive expression, while every male trait is spectacularly negative. This is an example of the recently emerged bias in western society towards female superiority and gender stereotypes as a whole."

Hmm. Sounds like someone is injecting their own paranoia into this article. That study itself may have been biased toward preference toward female traits, but a "recently emerged bias in western society toward female superiority?" Yeah, don't think so. Needs to be reworded to explain that this is a problem with this study, or at least back up your paranoia with evidence. Thanks.

Griffey (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry I have to agree with the so called "paranoid" statement... It's VERY common these days to see women running about claiming female superiority, and there's nothing emn can do about it... Because if they were to try they'd be dubbed sexist pigs. It's a new trend in society and it's very concerning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.227.98 (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you agree with that assertion, it's a pretty big claim to be putting out there with no cited source. If there is no source that supports the statement, then it's technically an opinion. If it's an opinion, it has no place in this article. It needs to be changed. Nietzsche is dead (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There is ALWAYS a source: comments don't originate on their own.-Allerious


 * Removed the sentence "Although the previous statement is not proven, the total lack of positive male characters in popular soap operas and sit-coms does provide this with some support." It is neither encyclopedic nor correct - there is no "total lack", The West Wing being an example. --90.197.165.186 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I want to point out some questionable data. I am not sexist, let me make that clear. However, source number 5 does not work. Its attributing factor is how women have a more "compact" brain than men, although smaller, it contains the same number of neurons. I did read somewhere that the female brain on average weighs around maybe 50grams less than the male brain. IQ tests have shown an IQ difference of about 3 or 4 between males and females, the male being the higher. Not to mention, it should be fixed in the "neurobiology" section, that we add how the male is more likely to be retarded than the female, because of the Y chromosome. It is also for that reason that most geniuses are male, for instance einstien, mozart, etc., because of the Y chromosome. I will add a bit to the neurobiology section. Spelaringenroll (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware how one puts "citations needed" on a particular source. HOWEVER!, before one edits my information on the Y chromosome being responsible for mental illness and genius, scroll down a little. It speaks of how women are less to the extremes and more in the median, unlike the male. This is due to the Y chromosome. I cant find the source now...but Ill go to the library and check some things out. Delete it if you feel necessary. Thanks. Spelaringenroll (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just not true. The difference in IQ between men and women is insignificant at best and your claim that men are more likely to be geniuses is just wrong. "Genius" is a philosophical term. It has no meaning. Someone is a genius in YOUR opinion. There are many intelligent women that I consider genius, but that are not well known in history. This could be because of bias. Also, considering that many women in the dark ages and throughout the restoration were not allowed to learn things men were allowed to learn, I would say men had the upper hand when it came to invention (And having their inventions recognized). Women weren't allowed to go to the library by themselves, or to view cadavars (like Davinci did, for example) for painting. Read "A Room of One's Own" (Virgina Woolf) for an example of the difficulties women faced when it came to access to equal and fair education and opportunities. - Pharmakon_Cure

I agree, most women haven't had the same rights yet, women and men aren't that equal when it comes to rights, I completely disagree with "most geniuses and retardeds are male", I don't think sex differences influence in IQ, this section should be entirely removed. --79.168.118.156 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It actually is true that in many studies men are represented more at the highest and lowest scores. However, whether this is true cross-culturally is a matter of debate. This discussion should really be at Talk:Sex and intelligence. --Aronoel (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nature versus nurture
This debate should be more prominent in the article. For example, there is a big difference between studies showing gender differences among infants and among adults, since the former hardly can be claimed to be a social construction. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Puberty is a social construct? --84.75.133.164 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of the article, there is a difference in how we should look at the studies. Studies of gender differences in small children can hardly be claimed to be a social construction. Therefore they are more interesting. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? What makes you think gender differences in small children cannot be a social construction? And why should we, in the article, look at the primary source studies differently? We need secondary sources that say they should be viewed in this way. That's why secondary sources are preferred. 79.66.127.79 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, folks. The study of behaviors and preferences of newborns can hardly be a social contruct or an artifact of socialization.  Simon Baron Cohen, cited elsewhere in this article notes that baby girls track a human face more than boys do.  Boys follow the movements of a mobile, hanging over their crib more than girls do.  Some people might find this meaningful, in that he has noted this across a number of cultures.  But then, some have an interest in showing and believing that males and females are exactly the same in all behaviors, skills, abilities and interests.  This does break down a bit, when EACH AND EVERY non-human species are examined.  Homebuilding  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebuilding (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Overuse of "dubious" and POV
I got the sense someone didn't like what the article said and slapped it with "dubious" and POV statements, in many cases for factual information pretty well supported by research and even cited in the article. This article does need to improve citations in some sections, so the citation tags are appropriate, but please don't overuse the dubious and POV. If there is conflicting data, feel free to add that in with citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.93.133 (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Serious Flaw in Calculation of Suicide Data
The section on suicide contains the following statement:  " In 2003, a study showed that 202,500 males and 34,000 females between the ages of 20 and 24 committed suicide.[22]"

It is clear from the context of the sentence that this number is based on suicides in America and not on a global scale. This assertion puts the suicide rate for American males between the ages of 20 and 24 at 2.1% (according to 2000 Census data, the pop. in question was 9,687,814). Reporting such spurious data is shamefully inaccurate; for this reason, I am deleting this sentence, although not the footnote, as it is relevant to the previous sentence which compares male to female suicide rates.

One might surmise that the problem lies with the fact that the calculations were derived from the footnoted source (http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/suicide/youthsuicide.htm) without accounting for the clearly state parameter: "The data are presented in rates that measure "deaths due to suicide per 100,000 people in a particular category" (as cf. to a calculation based on deaths per 100,000 Americans).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniika (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Gender differences and theology
I found this interesting report which asserts that gender differences also extend to moral theology. Women are prouder than men, but men are more lustful, according to a Vatican report which states that the two sexes sin differently. ADM (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC) According to the "Sex differences in humans" article, men are prouder than women.Aelius28 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Differences in parenting
We should add a section in differences in parenting style. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally biased
This whole artical is totally biased towards the femal gender. Every single thing that is said as far as the first 4 or 5 sub topics are completely leaned towards making women looke better than men. Men are more prone to autism and down syndrome. this may be true but put some desieases that women are more prone to as well. The part about the nuerological differences of the male and female brain all it said was about how the female brain is smaller but it is more tightly packed with nurons and went on and on about how this was good. Ok we get it you have a smaller brain but your equally as smart as any man. This artical was written by a women for sure and a femenist women without a doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.74.121.66 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This """Men are much less likely to ask for directions when they are lost than women""" is over-repeated nearly as often as it is necessary to point out that it is both false as well as meaningless. Just how many lost trucks and airplanes are there, really? (Truckdrivers and airline pilots are both well over 90% male dominated according the US Department of Labor Occupational Outlook Handbook) If I were a man, I wouldn't be the first to stop and ask an underachieving, disoriented convenience store clerk, either. If I were a good driver, I might look at a map before the trip, as pilots and truckdrivers do. Homebuilding —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebuilding (talk • contribs) 22:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Biology sections, headings
Koyos (talk) 05:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This article is said to be about gender differences rather than differences in biological sex. But there are several sections that discuss biology, such as the sections on "Physical health" and "Neurology". At the same time, some of that text is missing in the article on biology. I suggest that those sections are moved. The same goes for the section "Psychology" and largely the section on orgasm.
 * 2) Separating gender- and biological sex differences into two articles may in itself be a point of view. Form the perspective of evolutionary psychology, most of the differences in this article that are claimed to result from "social construction" are rather caused by biology/evolution in the end.
 * 3) Many sections have inaccurate or missing headings.

Intelligence
This section needs expanding and is in fact just plain wrong: studies show there is an average 100g (or ~ 100cc over total of ~1250cc: (women around 100cc less)) difference in brain size that amounts to around 4 percent points on the usual intelligence scales between men and women (in that order)... I am getting tired of political correctness that undermines science -: it is just plain dishonesty! 122.148.41.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC).


 * The numbers you quote are the same as those I have seen in studies on the subject. If you want to expand the section you are very welcome to do so. Just make sure to cite your sources! Koyos (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
I see the article mentions IQ test scores. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good Stuff! Please add a section on gender differences per my section on Intelligence above as this topic get short shrift both in this article and elsewhere in general...Mattjs (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding the point of this article
Despite the title, this article tries to discuss the possibility of biological differences between men and women. For example, the entire section Systematizing and empathizing is about possible innate biological differences. Research about possible biological differences between the sexes and debate about their being innate should be at Sex differences in humans. Information about the different attributes assigned to each gender culturally should be at Gender role. Between those two articles, I don't see much left for this article to cover. I think it is also probably confusing a lot of people because many people don't understand the difference between "sex" and "gender" and it is not clear throughout the article if a difference is a part of the social construction of gender or a true innate sex difference. Hopefully someone can help me understand what the true purpose is of this article. --Aronoel (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerned about possible POV fork
I'm posting a RfC since no one yet has responded to my question above. I'm concerned that there are two articles which seem to cover the same topic: Sex differences in humans and gender differences. I know that there is an important difference between sex and gender, but I don't think the article gender differences really reflects that, since it does discuss possible biological differences between the sexes. Throughout the article, it is not very clear when it is discussing cultural gender differences or biological sex differences. Because of this, I think this article may be a POV fork. Since many people don't really understand the difference between sex and gender, I think this article is just setting people up for a lot of confusion. The discussion of cultural sex differences should be at Gender role and research on biological sex differences should be at Sex differences in humans, and between these two articles, I don't see a reason for this article. Thanks for any help or insight anyone can give me about this issue. --Aronoel (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I tend to agree but there is a lot of content that will need to be split between. Sex differences in humans and Gender role. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. It is a lot to go through, but I'm sure I can integrate it appropriately into Sex differences in humans and Gender role if people agree that that's the best solution. --Aronoel (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree, the useful information in this article should be returned to the two respective articles that deal with biological and social differences. This article says early on that 'other articles' deal with the subject differently, but that's not really a reason to split this to a new one - if the other articles are somehow lacking about the subject of their topic then they should be improved, not forked. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for commenting. I've copied sections of this article into a number of other articles that I believed were more appropriate. Note that I didn't move a small number of sections that were completely unsourced/original research. If anyone disagrees with how I've redistributed the sections in this article, please let me know and I can try to fix it. Most of the content was moved to Gender role, but I also moved sections to Sex differences in humans, Sex and emotion, Sex and intelligence, Internet, Gender and crime, Gender and suicide, Gender and education, Shopping, Occupational fatality, Empathizing–systemizing theory, Economic inequality and Sexual selection in human evolution. Next, I will replace the content here with a redirect to Sex differences in humans, which is the most general article on sex differences. --Aronoel (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)