[yor_on]

I think they are different in many aspects. Cultural, interests etc etc. But it is also so that there is a lot of variety to it, so a Bell shape describing it sounds reasonable.

And behavioral research tend to agree, as well as gene research. When a woman is without child she tends to look at one type of male, when having a child another. When ready for fertilizing, ovulating, the more 'dominant' aspects of a male face catch her eye, when not, the more non-dominant aspects, according to research.

Also smell has to do with it, presumably as defining a immune defense system opposite to your partner, promising the offspring's the best defense. But that goes for both.

And that might have to do with some broken hearts
It goes both ways of course, but instincts can be strong.

[cheryl j (OP)]

As far as employment is concerned, I do think equality has been a double edged blade in that rather than women's wages going up to match men's, men's wages have come down (in real terms) toward women's' wages. This has happened over a period of time, so as not to be too noticeable and resulted (more often than not) in both partners in a union having to work for financial reasons.

This, I think, has been a significant contributor to family breakdown and dysfunctional children.

Feminism has often been blamed for things like this, but I feel many of these social changes were really a consequence of the industrial revolution and declining in agrarian style of life. With fewer people living on farms and producing most of what they needed themselves, large families with 12 children simply weren't needed. If anything, children became almost a luxury that one  couldnt afford without a certain level of income.
The shift from industrial to service/technology further propelled women into work that was more similar in nature to men's. All feminism really did was promote a certain equality in rank or pay.
This discussion may seem to be drifting from science to politics - on the other hand, it does make one ask what differences between men and women are "fixed" and what are more variable or plastic, depending on certain environmental pressures.

[Nizzle]

If anything, children became almost a luxury that one  couldnt afford without a certain level of income.

I disagree.
Here in Belgium, where we have a well developed social welfare system, we see that a lot of immigrant families are making lots of babies in order to supplement their monthly welfare check with state funded child support. They see it as a source of income.

[imatfaal]

mod note

Guys - can we keep sweeping generalisations about the motivations of other groups of society to a minimum.

Thanks

[widereader]

Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus.  This book tells about the disparity that men have with women.  They are different physiologically, emotionally, and even physically.  Men tend to think on a short-term basis while women think long-term.

[Gordian Knot]

That is also one of the most bogus books on a subject that is chock full of bogus books! IMHO. It became well known because of a clever title, not because of any useful content.

[CliffordK]

It is interesting that when shopping for Christmas Gifts, the Girls Stuff and the Boys Stuff is very different.

The Girls Stuff is generally pink & purple, with lots of flowers and princesses.
The Boys Stuff is generally blue & red, with trucks, tools, and the like.

Even if one wants to strive for equality and androgyny...  the polarization happens early.

Of course, my Nephew and Niece share toys...  at least they share my Nephew's toys...  My Niece's toys (dolls & etc) are pretty much just hers. 

I wonder if there are potential issues with viewing my Nephew's toys as "common toys" and my Niece's toys as being "only hers".

[Gordian Knot]

Actually you bring up an interesting trend that follows through into adulthood. Boys and girls play with boy's toys, but boys do not (as a rule) play with girl's toys.

As adults, men and women both wear male clothes. Men never wear women's clothes.

Apparently guys' stuff is considered fair game for both sexes. Girls' stuff is still just for girls.

[Karsten]

Actually you bring up an interesting trend that follows through into adulthood. Boys and girls play with boy's toys, but boys do not (as a rule) play with girl's toys.

As adults, men and women both wear male clothes. Men never wear women's clothes.

Apparently guys' stuff is considered fair game for both sexes. Girls' stuff is still just for girls.

Men wear skirts, make-up, high heels, jewelry, etc. What exactly is the "girls'stuff" that no man is interested in?

[Gordian Knot]

A tiny proportion of men wear women's clothing, and are considered outside the mainstream and weird by western society as a whole.

A large proportion of women wear men's clothing and it is considered normal and mainstream by western society.

Outside of western society I do not have the knowledge to comment, though I rather doubt there is a significant number of men in India or China dressed in drag.

I stand by my comment, male attire is considered socially acceptable on either sex, female attire is reserved for women.

[Karsten]

The only piece of clothing that is worn by women that generally (at least in the USA) is not worn by men is a skirt or dress. Everything else is fundamentally so similar that, depending on the current fashion and context, it can be considered unisex clothing. Well, maybe panty hose could be considered an exception as well (or an extension of the skirt). But, so what? This might be temporary. The way noble men in Europe dressed 200 years ago was rather feminine (whatever that is) by today's standards.  And I sure wish I could wear a skirt in the summer when it is really hot. It would be more comfortable than pants or even shorts. But my current social environment makes that rather uncomfortable. Maybe women have managed to become the gender that can wear what makes sense rather than what is expected? Guys can only wear what guys are allowed to wear and women can wear whatever they please? That sounds like men are forced by society to conform rather than an inherent difference.

[Geezer]

The only piece of clothing that is worn by women that generally (at least in the USA) is not worn by men is a skirt or dress.

Oi! Knock it off laddie.

I regularly wear a kilt in the US. I also carry a very large Claymore.

[CliffordK]

There are, however, exceptions to every rule.

Including some  men who wear dresses, makeup, hose, high heals, and all the rest!!!

[Geezer]

There are, however, exceptions to every rule.

Including some  men who wear dresses, makeup, hose, high heals, and all the rest!!!

Right! That's it.

I'll be tapping my claymore on your door in about four hours. You better be wearing tartan jammies, or you'll be toast.

[Gordian Knot]

Men do not wear dresses or skirts. That is two things, not one.
Men do not wear blouses. Just shirts. Women can wear either.
Men do not wear high heals. Women do (although they shouldn't).
Men do not wear decorative scarves as part of an ensemble. Women do.

[Karsten]

Men do not wear dresses or skirts. That is two things, not one.
Men do not wear blouses. Just shirts. Women can wear either.
Men do not wear high heals. Women do (although they shouldn't).
Men do not wear decorative scarves as part of an ensemble. Women do.

At what height are heeled shoes to be considered high heels?
What exactly is the difference between a shirt and a blouse?
Is a scarf that is not one color to be considered decorative?

Just because one piece of clothing is in a store that sells women's clothing right now does not mean that clothes like this never were worn, are not worn, or never will be worn by  men. I think we need precise definitions here. A blouse is a shirt worn by a woman. Put it on a man and it becomes a shirt. Same piece of clothing. Every cowboy boot has about a 2 inch heel.

And I did not bring up that men don't wear skirts! I tried to be agreeable and wrote that they "generally" don't wear skirts in the "USA". Of course men wear skirts. Exactly my point.

[Gordian Knot]

Karsten I agree with you that clothing styles have obviously changed over time. The discussion is not about the changes in historical clothing. It is the question of whether men and women are different today, 21st century earth.

I also agree that getting bogged down in the definitions is one of the most difficult stumbling blocks to having a debate. Hence here are the definitions that I perceive are accepted by "normal" society, i.e. based upon what one would see walking down the street of any major U.S. city today.

By definition, perhaps, a blouse is a shirt worn by a woman. In practice one does not see men shopping in the women's department for blouses to wear. It just isn't done. Women, however shop in men's departments for shirts all the time.

Putting a blouse on a man does not make it a shirt. It is seen as a weirdo wearing a women's piece of clothing. While a woman wearing a man's shirt is considered "normal", i.e. acceptable in modern society. Admittedly there are probably some styles of blouses that are more shirt-like than others.

One definition of high heels I found doing a quick Google search:
"High-heeled shoes are shoes which raise the heel of the wearer's foot significantly higher than the toes. When both the heel and the toes are raised, as in a platform shoe, it is generally not considered to be a "high-heel."

A high heel, then, is one that raises the heel above a natural level. Again, walking down the street of a city of your choice, one is likely to see many women wearing high heels. One is unlikely to find many men doing so.

Unless one is in Texas. Your point about cowboy boots is spot on. Which I find quite ironic, as cowboys are considered manly men, yet they are the only large group of men who wear what would be considered a high heel!

[Geezer]

I can see I'm going to have to post a piccy of the Geezer legs protruding from beneath a Gunn tartan kilt. Anyway, it's really a shame to deprive our readers of such a fine view.

[lightspeed301]

Geezer - Regarding Claymores

I spent a year in Vietnam and have a certain 'intimacy' with said claymores. We only had one size. It was about the size of a large paper back book with a curve to it and several spikes on the bottom to push into the ground. On the outside of the curve it said something like 'This Side Towards The Enemy'.

Do not detonate a claymore you are carrying with you, even if pointed in the proper direction. You think a three inch twelve gage field magnum shotgun has a kick?

[Geezer]

Geezer - Regarding Claymores

Different claymore laddie []
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore