Both male and female brains are malleable. We are not cast in stone by our biology. Nurture plays a part too. We can help develop more rounded children by encouraging kids to play with toys 'designed' for both sexes. This can strengthen neural pathways that are more common in the opposite sex. Girls CAN develop better spatial awareness, and boys CAN develop better empathy.
A driving instructor asked a female friend if she had a brother and had played with his toy cars. He guessed this because she was a natural at parking. I'm the same. I'm good at parking, map reading etc as I developed better spatial awareness via my brothers' toys. I didn't even realise it at the time.
Naudé does a disservice to both men and women by implying that we are limited by our biology. His original would be better phrased as: "Males who have not been given the chance to learn empathy or language, want to solve problems rather than talk about them".
It appears that Naudé may not have been encouraged to pay with girls' toys.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt, being as he said that males want to solve problems, which doesn’t mean they do, nor will they if they are unwilling to talk about them. I see it as a disadvantage. It can also be annoying when you want to share something from your day and he’s now ignoring you, in his enthusiasm to solve an issue that is no longer an issue. Men and women can be exactly the same about it. Like waiting for you to pause for breath, so they can get their word in and not really interested in what you’re actually saying. Seems this guy is particularly guilty of that one.
The way I see it, it's not so much that men have a special, unique need to solve problems. It's that they do not feel they should have to emotionally support or care for the issues of others. I observe that tendency in myself, to want to dismiss people and offer solutions when I'm in a moment of narcissistic navel gazing, the difference is I can see that and see how unempathic I'm being and make an effort to be there for the person, for them. All this work that I've been taught or taught myself to do for others, that men simply think is not for them to do. They feel they should only be served emotionally and never serve others. Which is why they will die alone.
I just learned something amazing about increase in gender affirming surgeries. Jon Uhler in an interview on YouTube, states it is impossible to change biological sex. He would ban gender affirming surgeries. He treats sexual offenders in prisons and also treats survivors of sexual abuse. survivorsupport.net. He states the real boom in treatments occurred in 2013 when the new DSM-5 was published. It contained a new dx for gender dysphoria--allowing drugs and surgeries to be covered by insurance. If these treatments were not affordable, there would be far fewer of them. Uhler states that many of the presenting symptoms for females wishing to transition are the same as symptoms of sexual abuse survivors--and gender surgeries are another form of sexual abuse! He deplores the lack of mental health treatment for this group. NOTE: Uhler is a specialist in diagnosing/treating psychopathy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwgoIx7vPTs&t=6s
My limited understanding of the differences between male/female brains is that these are slight, don't really mean much in life overall, and do not justify either patriarchy or misogeny. So why post a supposedly OLD science piece without correcting it and then when it is pointed out you have done so, and the implications for supporting subjugation of women in a world that does so routinely, not correct your first post, but "double down" into a "poor me, victim of nasty feminist rant" stance?!! On his own scale, doing thIS WILLFULLY KNOWING THE INFO IS OLD, OUT OF DATE, classifies at least as misogynist behaviour. Why not post NEW SCIENCE to correct the old? Just apologize for posting now deemed incorrect, OLD information, if that's what you did...Otherwise your ACTIONS ARE WILLFULLY MISLEADING. To cry "poor me" over reactions to your own post is the sign of cowardice as well. To willfully re-defend a prior erroneous scientific position, proven wrong... and promote it...Well, that's "evil" on his own scale I think!
i'll fix it for him. "i felt put upon, but really i'm not a victim. it's scary to listen to women to learn something new."
Both male and female brains are malleable. We are not cast in stone by our biology. Nurture plays a part too. We can help develop more rounded children by encouraging kids to play with toys 'designed' for both sexes. This can strengthen neural pathways that are more common in the opposite sex. Girls CAN develop better spatial awareness, and boys CAN develop better empathy.
A driving instructor asked a female friend if she had a brother and had played with his toy cars. He guessed this because she was a natural at parking. I'm the same. I'm good at parking, map reading etc as I developed better spatial awareness via my brothers' toys. I didn't even realise it at the time.
Naudé does a disservice to both men and women by implying that we are limited by our biology. His original would be better phrased as: "Males who have not been given the chance to learn empathy or language, want to solve problems rather than talk about them".
It appears that Naudé may not have been encouraged to pay with girls' toys.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt, being as he said that males want to solve problems, which doesn’t mean they do, nor will they if they are unwilling to talk about them. I see it as a disadvantage. It can also be annoying when you want to share something from your day and he’s now ignoring you, in his enthusiasm to solve an issue that is no longer an issue. Men and women can be exactly the same about it. Like waiting for you to pause for breath, so they can get their word in and not really interested in what you’re actually saying. Seems this guy is particularly guilty of that one.
The way I see it, it's not so much that men have a special, unique need to solve problems. It's that they do not feel they should have to emotionally support or care for the issues of others. I observe that tendency in myself, to want to dismiss people and offer solutions when I'm in a moment of narcissistic navel gazing, the difference is I can see that and see how unempathic I'm being and make an effort to be there for the person, for them. All this work that I've been taught or taught myself to do for others, that men simply think is not for them to do. They feel they should only be served emotionally and never serve others. Which is why they will die alone.
Misogynists have two modes: Victim playing and testosterative aggression. Dr. Naudé has chosen his strategy.
I just learned something amazing about increase in gender affirming surgeries. Jon Uhler in an interview on YouTube, states it is impossible to change biological sex. He would ban gender affirming surgeries. He treats sexual offenders in prisons and also treats survivors of sexual abuse. survivorsupport.net. He states the real boom in treatments occurred in 2013 when the new DSM-5 was published. It contained a new dx for gender dysphoria--allowing drugs and surgeries to be covered by insurance. If these treatments were not affordable, there would be far fewer of them. Uhler states that many of the presenting symptoms for females wishing to transition are the same as symptoms of sexual abuse survivors--and gender surgeries are another form of sexual abuse! He deplores the lack of mental health treatment for this group. NOTE: Uhler is a specialist in diagnosing/treating psychopathy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwgoIx7vPTs&t=6s
My limited understanding of the differences between male/female brains is that these are slight, don't really mean much in life overall, and do not justify either patriarchy or misogeny. So why post a supposedly OLD science piece without correcting it and then when it is pointed out you have done so, and the implications for supporting subjugation of women in a world that does so routinely, not correct your first post, but "double down" into a "poor me, victim of nasty feminist rant" stance?!! On his own scale, doing thIS WILLFULLY KNOWING THE INFO IS OLD, OUT OF DATE, classifies at least as misogynist behaviour. Why not post NEW SCIENCE to correct the old? Just apologize for posting now deemed incorrect, OLD information, if that's what you did...Otherwise your ACTIONS ARE WILLFULLY MISLEADING. To cry "poor me" over reactions to your own post is the sign of cowardice as well. To willfully re-defend a prior erroneous scientific position, proven wrong... and promote it...Well, that's "evil" on his own scale I think!
Excellent! Thank you!
When one has no defense for their position, it is much simpler to resort to “comedy”