Now, there's proof: Men, women different

The Washington Times ^ | December 2, 2005 | Jennifer Harper

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com

---

Now, there's proof: Men, women different

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published December 2, 2005

---

Attention, Dr. Frankenstein, and maybe Gloria Steinem: There are girl brains, then there are boy brains. But there's not one generic human brain, no matter what hand-wringing feminists may insist in their quest for sexual equality.

    Some stark new clinical evidence shows that men and women are just not the same upstairs.

    "The comedians are right. The science proves it. A man's brain and a woman's brain really do work differently," a research team from the University of Alberta in Canada announced yesterday.

    After analyzing magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) of 23 men and 10 women, the team found that the sexes use different areas of the brain even when working on exactly the same task.

    "The larger implications of this work is that we may increasingly find out that there are differences in the 'hard wiring' of male and female brains," said study author Dr. Peter Silverstone, a psychiatrist.

    Though Dr. Silverstone hopes that these revelations will lead to more innovative ways to treat depression and other mental illnesses, these findings might one day explain certain persistent behaviors that make for a more lively existence.

    Why do men, for example, refuse to ask for directions while women are busy peering at maps and landmarks during the same automobile journey? Why do women cry and men sleep through a sappy movie? Could it be that old hard-wiring?

    During the Canadian study, volunteers were given memory, language, spatial and coordination tests while their brains were monitored through the MRIs.

[phantomworker]

Yeah! It's Friday night! (Women have always been shown to be superior to men and this just proves it!! ) ;) LOL!

[nicmarlo]

Friday's are what makes Monday's bearable. : )

[phantomworker]

Fridays are attitude adjustment days. Time to adjust and reframe all the weird stuff happening during the week.

Today, around my house and cul du sac, there was 2 inches of snow (enough to make a person around here stay home. LOL!) Stupid me, I missed an important meeting cross town because I thought they'd be snowed in. I emailed them and asked how much snow they got, they said, what snow? There must be a tiny snow belt around my house! Did I feel stupid! LOL!

[EsmeraldaA]

Of course we are.......superior and all that.

Now; you say I was here? And...I was smart and witty?
Or just fruity and flaky? LMAO!

[nicmarlo]

well, there's snow ALL AROUND town here!

blech!

[phantomworker]

Of course we are.......superior and all that.

Smart and witty, of course! ;) LOL!

You know, if men would just realize that right from the start, they'd be alot better off, don't you think? ;)

[Pharmboy]

[phantomworker]

well, there's snow ALL AROUND town here!

But are you sure? .... I thought the same thing this morning! ... LOL!!

[EsmeraldaA]

Absolutely!

Bye now!

[phantomworker]

Have fun at the Canteen! :)

[nicmarlo]

lol!

oh yes, I've gotten in plenty of sliding time; wind's about 30 mph, making it about 5 degrees here.

But that is very funny about there not being snow close by to where you live!

[megatherium]

The truth of the matter is that no one really knows what causes homosexuality. The American Psychiatric Association gives the official position, no one knows but it appears to be the result of some combination of genetic and environmental factors.

There are all manner of serious theories, ranging from purely psychological (weak father, domineering mother) to completely biological. One strange theory recently advanced (by Cochran and Ewald) is that there is an as yet unidentified virus that causes unborn male fetuses to become gay. An even stranger theory is that of Dr. Ian Stevenson (University of Virginia), who believes that homosexuals are men who were women in a previous life (Stevenson has spent his career amassing intriguing evidence for reincarnation).

Various theories look good from some angles, but always it seems that there is a problem with the theory. One theory popular with some conservatives is that homosexuals recruit, or similarly, that sexual abuse causes homosexuality. While there are plenty of gay men with these unfortunate experiences, which makes the theory look good superficially, it turns out that only a minority of gay men have been sexually abused -- and that lots of men who were sexually abused by men as children grow up to be heterosexual. One clue: most gay men report not being stimulated visually by women (e.g., by erotica), even if they do respond to physical sensation and closeness with a woman. Another clue: most boys identified as "sissies" by other children grow up to be gay. (Perhaps being a sissy causes homosexuality, or being picked on by peers -- or perhaps sissy-ness is actually an early manifestation of homosexuality.)

The important thing to remember is that for most gay men, they do not remember "becoming" gay -- they've always felt they were gay, since their first sexual feelings manifested in early pubescence. Recent research suggests that some highly motivated homosexual men can at least partially change their orientation, but it is still clear that most homosexual men are not able to "change" for long. I strongly suspect that there are actually several different causes of homosexuality, and that in certain kinds of homosexuality, change is possible (perhaps because some gay men are really weakly bisexual).

I for one now believe that acceptance of homosexuals should not depend on some possible biological cause of homosexuality. I believe conservatives should concentrate on encouraging responsible behavior among homosexuals (caring, committed permanent monogamous relationships), but of course I respect those who differ with me on this point.

[PureSolace]

[lizma]

I believe conservatives should concentrate on encouraging responsible behavior among homosexuals (caring, committed permanent monogamous relationships), but of course I respect those who differ with me on this point.

And let's all sing Kumbaya.

Wake up. I use to think that way about twenty years ago until I started to see the gay movement totally intolerant of my beliefs. I started to see gay activist attacking my religion because we thought homosexuality was a sin, even though we felt that they were free to do what they want. I read articles by gay activist demanding that no one should be legally able to teach their kids that homosexuality is a sin. I've seen our tolerance feed their intolerance.

When I was a child I noticed that some people feared that if you give an inch your opposition would take a mile. At the time I thought how silly and now I understand why.

We have reached the point that we have tyranny by the minority, while the founding fathers worried about tyranny by the majority. Guess they never fathomed how fat, lazy and sassy we would become and that our apathy would ever run this deep.

[megatherium]

The First Amendment should protect our freedom of speech. In countries such as Sweden or Canada, they lack this robust protection of freedom of speech, and there have already been cases where Evangelicals have been sanctioned for expressing their belief that homosexuality is a sin. But I very much doubt that gay activists will succeed in doing this in a country with tens of millions of Evangelicals, a country with a strong protection of speech.

And there is no single "gay movement"; there is a great deal of diversity in the gay community. There are such things as gay conservatives, and religious gay people, who believe sexual behavior is wrong outside a monogamous, committed relationship. I expect that at least some gay people welcome your right to condemn their behavior and to teach that Christianity doesn't allow homosexuality -- because they know that their own right to say the opposite was tenuous just three or four decades ago, and because these gays come out of a religious background and therefore respect your point of view (even while they disagree with it). So, yes, I will sing Kumbaya. Now where's that guitar?

[MarkL]

I never would-a guessed this!

Mark

[secret garden]

That only works for me at the beginning and end of the day.
I'll stick with taking a Ricky or a Lucy. ;)

[NCLaw441]

Why don't you just pick up a woman when you get to your destination?

[Lakeshark]

I have taken notes on your premature celebrating of, *cough, cough*, female superiority.

In this regard I call your attention to post 93......

*Shark hiding behind coral reef*

[phantomworker]

I have taken notes on your premature celebrating of, *cough, cough*, female superiority.

Your point being...?