Stanford Medicine: Two minds – the cognitive differences between men and women

Our thanks to John Barry, a psychologist, for tweeting a link to this.

If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Groan

    Thank you for a very good summation piece on current knowledge. Perhaps from our ideas of the soul we have determinedly separated ourselves from the material world. Ignoring the pretty obvious that our “social constructs” were built out of our natural selves interacting with our real environments, to produce remarkably similar societies in the ages before widespread travel. I recall many years ago a weighty tome bringing together all sorts of Anthropological studies to demonstrate that the activities reserved for one sex in one society may not be so for another (weaving, gardening pottery etc.). Long before my “red pill ” What the editor had in fact shown was that although there is indeed considerable variation, in fact the differentiation into “mens” and “womens” itself was universal. Also that basic social structures are universal and even the patterns of activities conformed to the general rule that women stayed closer to home and the village and males the distant stuff. So if pottery was a female activity it was in the context of materials and equipment being available in the village, if a male activity this was if it was something that was done in a place away from the village, the raw materials or technology were difficult to move or distant or were shared by other villages.
    So young and open minded I could see that beyond some relatively superficial differences in fact the tome demonstrated a remarkable amount of universality.
    As I’ve grown older its become clearer that the ‘isms are in fact anti science while professing to be scientific. Because they’d prefer a religious approach that separates humans from the “material” world. So of course feminism has to profess belief in a time of a bunch of males getting together and creating a whole “Patriarchal” society off the top of their heads and then continuing, in some Dan Brown type secret society, to perpetuate this evil plot over millennia. But then a Dan Brown novel is a darn sight more exiting and full of drama than painstaking scientific work.

    • William Gruff

      Ignoring the pretty obvious that our “social constructs” were built out of our natural selves interacting with our real environments … ‘

      You can stop that for a start. Just sit down and shut up. All right? Natural selves indeed. You’ll be arguing that humans are not perfectible by state diktat next.

  • Craig Martin

    Cor, when he’s not writing theme tunes, he’s tweeting blinders like this.
    Even from beyond the grave!

    What a guy.

    Good catch though.

  • William Gruff

    It’s frightening, for some, to consider the implications of a round Earth and much safer to condemn as heretics those who assert, on solid evidence, that it is not flat.

  • vfr100

    Seems like an inconvenient truth for feminists to get their heads around I think!