I’m stealing this post from Ms Musings, who links to a Purdue University Press Release.
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – It turns out men and women aren’t from different planets after all, according to research from a Purdue University interpersonal communication expert.
For more than a decade, Americans have bought books and games based on the multimillion dollar industry built around the “Men are From Mars and Women are From Venus” theory, which explains communication differences between men and women as resulting from different gender cultures.
Now, research by Erina MacGeorge, an assistant professor of communication, shows there are small differences [about 2 to 3% – Amp] between men’s and women’s comforting skills, but not enough to claim the sexes are their own cultures or come from different planets. […]
So, where do gender differences come from? MacGeorge attributes women’s stronger comforting skills to their upbringing and social roles. For example, research focusing on children as young as toddlers, shows that girls are more likely to be encouraged to recognize and think about other people’s feelings. However, boys are taught to be tough and strong, which often reinforces that they should not care about a person’s feelings, she says.
Still, MacGeorge emphasizes that men and women are more alike than different.
“From the day a person is born, gender is an easy way to categorize people,” she says. “And when you are the member of one group, it’s easy to notice differences rather than similarities in people from the other group.
“Yet, saying ‘He’s a man’ or ‘She’s a woman’ may not be the best explanation for someone’s actions. And hiding behind your gender to excuse poor communication is no help to anyone.”
There’s also some interesting information about the studies she conducted – read, as they say, the whole thing..
That’s my school! Good to see that there’s more than engineering research pouring out of my university.
Well, given the amount of Mars/Venus drivel pervading our society, I guess this is a good tonic. But it does strike me as the sort of research that belongs in the Maximegalon Institute of Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Surprisingly Obvious.
Somehow, as a feminist, I’m not shocked by this. :)
But it’s always good to see research bearing this stuff out.
This is something to keep in mind whenever you see reports of “gender gaps” in polls, where “women reponded differently than men”. These gaps are real, and worthy of study, but are overemphasized. Even a huge gender gap in a poll, say 12%, means that 88% of repondants gave answers unaffected by their gender.
Even if it gets more press, it’ll still be a sad, lonely study in the sea of “look! our research proves that men and women probably aren’t even from the same solar system! and everyone knew it except for those ridiculous feminazis!” articles. Ah, well.
Most of the so-called Mars-Venus studies also show quite small differences; they just focus on those differences and ignore all similarities. There is some urgent need in people to know how the sexes differ and no similar urgency to find what it means to be human. Or being human is assumed to be known already, and to be equal to being a man.
I’ve actually become very curious of raw data, rather than the results that are printed out. I want to get my greedy paws on some of those data and spend a few weeks with some statistics programs on them. That’s how cynical I’ve become. So sad. But this study is good news anyway, though I’d like to get the raw data here, too :).
Echidne: I don’t think it’s cynicism you’ve got, just sophistication. People, including reseachers, are so flawed!
I forget which book it’s in, but Stephen jay Gould has a wonderful article that discusses the way that the press covers scientific studies, and how ‘unsexy’ studies that prove a negative are. In other words, “Men and women have different brain chemistry!” gets the front page and a mention on CNN, whereas, “Actually, they really don’t” gets a small mention on P 45, if at all.
He specifically mentions a study in which one researcher went through the whole existing body of work on “biological differences” in male/female brains, and found that just as many studies found *no difference at all* between genders as those that did. I’m sure you’ll be amazed to hear that that study got no publicity.
Good – So can we please have an end to “Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus” (meme originated by neocon R. Kagan, Of Paradise and Power) How about “People are from Earth”?
And, though this is much pettier. . . an end to gendered book publishing marketing and gendered snack food marketing, When I walk into the bookstore (and Borders is a good bookstore), I get that sinking Toys’R’Us feeling when I see the military history and the chick-lit.
I also feel that marketers think that only men eat pepperoni stix and only women eat chocolate.
I’ve noticed the Mars / Venus thing chiefly in the older generation and right-wingers. I myself read military history (as gender studies) and I used to eat salami sticks as a kid, before I became scared of the additives.
On second thoughts, the whole Mars / Venus meme was probably popularized not just to serve the self-help market, but for marketing in general. Does anyone here know more about marketing than I do (merely 30-some years of observation as a consumer)?
“Mars”-men are presumed to be the shoppers for household tools, outdoors equipment of all sorts, car tools, computers and other electronics, and of course cars and guns.
“Venus”-women are presumed to be the consumers of women’s clothes, jewelry, cosmetics, perfume, house linens, scented candles (yechh), etc.
The upscale home catalogs such as Crate & Barrel and (discount) Ikea actually achieve the state of not prescribing the gender of the ideal consumers.
If gender roles were unisex, there would be no reason to fashion double categories of products. I’ve heard that now there are even power tools marketed for women — with smaller grips, which makes sense, but also in “feminine” colors, which is ridiculous.
Thank you for posting this important study. I posted some comments on the Ms.Musing page about John Gray’s phony “ph.D” from Columbia Pacific University,a mail order diploma mill that was closed down for good by the California Attorney General’s Office in March 2001. He closed it down because he said it was a diploma mill and a phony operation offering totally worthless degrees!
There are several recent articles about this on the internet and one web site called,Cult News by Rick Ross and another called,Men’s News Daily Outed Gray in the Fall as being a quack. The New York Post also ran an article in November called,Author’s Education From Mars. In this article Dr.Stephen Barett,who used to be a psychiatrist was quoted and he has a web site called,Quackwatch.com. He lists Gray as one of the quacks from Columbia Pacific University on his site.
There are also two excellent web rebuttals of Gray by Susan Hamson called,The Rebuttal From Uranus,and out of The Cave:Exploring Gray’s Anatomy by Kathleen Trigiani. they reveal what a sexist woman-hater Gray is too including a terrible interview he gave in 1996 to Yahoo! Internet Life. I recently found this also quoted on the Ms.Magazine boards going back to 2002 but I knew about it already. They posted on the Ms.boards also about what a woman-hater he is and they quoted from the the rebuttals that included that terrible interview he gave.
They also have information about his phony degrees.
It makes me so upset that this sexist,gender sterotyping,woman-hating fraud is put all over the place and is still being promoted and read,and the legitimate researchers like from Purdue and elswhere that have legitimate credentials and research that debunks thrse Mars/Venus myths are not. More proof of what a biased media it really is!
I wish I could hook up with someone who would really want to do something about this,I just swa the web site for Smart Marriages by the Coalitition for Marriage,Family and Couples Education that is having Gray speak as a “expert” in July at their 8th conference on marriage and family. I wrote the dirictor Diane Solleee two years ago out of my concerns about Gray because three years ago,I found a post from 1998 from her Smart Marriages site from people criticizing Gray and there was a few therapists and one mentioned a workshop called,Men and Women are From Earth. She explained that the research shows that stereotypes of male/female differences are grossly exaggerated,and that pop psych descriptions are mostly not supported by the data.
She also mentioned a book called,Sex Differences and Similarities in Communication by gender communications professors Daniel Canary and Katherine Dindia that show that the data reveal similarities between men and women to far greater than the differences,and that knowledge about a person’s sex will give us little ability to accurately predict how a person will behave in many situations.
So it’s really disturbing that Diane Sollee now endorses Gray. I sent her the Purdue study but of course she just ignored me like she did when I wrote two years ago,and now I know why.
I’m sorry this post is so long,I actually have so much more information on this and I have gotton back so many supportive letters from psychology professors,gender communications professors,and sociology professors. One of the socilogy profesors is Dr.Michael Kimmel who wrote an excellent book with a lot of thorough research from the fields of biology,anthropology,sociolgy,and psychology that debunks and criticizes this Mars/Venus garbage.
P.S. I forgot to mention Dr.Michael Kimmel’s great important boo,it’s called,The Gendered Society
Sara, I think the best example to be found in a single ad is probably that godawful Dodge commercial. You know, Mommy shows little Jimmy the nice soft seats and shiny DVD player, and Dad exclaims, “What are you doing to him!” The only thing little Jimmy needs to know, apparently, is that Dad bought a Durango with a Hemi. What utter bullocks.
Apparently, marketers also believe that both men and women like to think of men as loveable dufuses. I’ve seen so many commercials geared toward *both* men and women where the guy can’t do anything right (whether installing light switches or taking care of a toddler).
I can only hope that Gray begins to get discredited in the mainstream media, and gets the public humiliation he so richly deserves.
I wish so badly what pseu said would happen,but unfortunately it won’t because it’s such a biased media that only reinforces popular gender myths.
I forgot to add some important things.One is that Susan Hamson and Kathleen Trigiani quote John Gray from his second terrible best seller,Mars and Venus in The Bedroom and from that terrible Yahoo! Internet Life interview as giving advice to women ho are too tired for sex,to give men two minute hanjobs,blowjobs are what he calls a quickie intercourse anyway.
He says that it’s all excuses and that this attitude ruins marriages. He tells women that if they refuse this,they are hurting a man’a ego and making him feel rejected! He also said,that sex was always for the man,and what is this sex for the woman thing,and that women should have great sex,it will make better marriages for men.He also warns single women that more succesful they are the less inviting to a man she may become.
I also wanted to mention that psychology profesor Dr.Jeanne Marecek of Swathmore College was quoted in an online article by Karen Heller who writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer as saying,that it’s her worst nightmare that John Gray is the leading gender expert in America,and that nothing he says is supported in the literature. Karen Heller mentions Gray’s phony “ph.D” from the diploma mill.Also,psychologist Dr.Janet Hyde from the University of Wisconsin, has been giving presentations at Universities and organizations called,Men are From Earth,Women Are From Earth:Science vs The Media on Psychological Gender Differences.
I read about these presentations on the internet and she gave them again November. She explains that using meta-anaylis an extenisive compilation of all of the research studies past and present,reveals that the many of these claimed differences are small or don’t even exist.She mentions that the media make it seem like there are huge psychological gender differences and that they are biologcally driven,but that the scientific research data leads to a very different conclusion. Dr.Hyde wrote me back two years ago and said that she agrees that John Gray’s work is awful.
Psychologist Dr.John Gottman of The University of Washington who has done decades of actual scientific research with couples is also quoted in several online articles explaining that men aren’t from Mars,and women aren’t from Venus and he said that once we come to recognize that men and women are quite alike we can reduce some of the strange advice we get about relationships. One of the online articles is called,Men,Women Aren’t That Different says Leading Marital Researcher.
Dr.Gottman also wrote supportive e-mails about Gray and said that I’m absolutely right and that he has been saying these things from podiums to the general public and to clinicians for the the last seven years.
I also ned to mention that I have an excellent book that is unfortunately out of print now from 1979 called,He and She:How Children Develop Their Sex-Role Idenity by Dr.Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Wendy Schempp Matthews who are both parent child development psychologists.They go from birth right up to the teen years.Dr.Jeanne Brooks-Gunn is at Columbia University and just got an award in outstanding work in social sciences.
This book has a large amount of excellent psychological studies and experiments about how male and female babies are actually born biologically more alike than different with very few differences,and yet they are perceived and treated systematically very differently from parents and other care givers right from the moment of birth on.I spoke to Dr.Brooks-Gunn ten years ago and I asked her how can she explain all of those that document this,and she said that,that’s due to socialization and that there is no question that socialization plays a very big part.
This is what the media,quacks like Gray and other similar authors conviently leave out.Now all of these books that exaggerate small differences,ignore more similarities,and the enormous sociaization,and promote biological determinism are best selling books. It’s so hopeless.
I wanted to bring up concerns over a popular play called,defending The Caveman by Rob Becker. It’s an extremely sexist play that reinforces all of the Mars&Venus myths,gender stereotypes,and limiting gender roles. It has disturbingly been given rave reviews by many critics and writers including recently.Rob Becker is not any type of psychologist or academic infact he’s a colege drop outwho became a stand up comic.
He makes extremely sexist ridiculous claims such as men love TV and remote contols and women love to shop and gossip and aren’t logical enought to argue because the sexes evolved from the caveman days etc.I found an article by Kevin Conolly for a web site called,the Eye where he gave this play the very bad review it deserves.
He said that Becker’s study in anthroplogy,history,mythology,sociology,and psychology,is used to butres long-discredited misconceptions,prejudices,and gender stereotypes.He also called the play misogynist and homophobic.Yet I read an article from a website called,Canoe that quotes the former president of the American association of Marriage,Family Therapy recommending this play to other marriage and family therapists and to the couples she treats! She said that she had Becker speak at the 1996 convention with 2000 marriage and family therapists.
In this article,it says tracing male-female behavior back to it’s roots and says if you want to improve your relationship listen to the caveman.It then says that the play has been recommended as marriage therapy and has been endorsed by the American association of Marriage and Family Therapists! In this article a psychology professor Dr.Tony Jurich who teaches marriage and family therapy at Kansas State University also recommends this play and says that it’s comforting to men and women to understand the origin of their gender roles.This is all very disturbing and his play reinforces all of the same sexist,gender myths and stereotypes that Gray does and his play is obviously popular for the same reasons.One of the actors who now plays Becker’s part in the play just recently said that Rob was ahead of his time because he wrote the play in 1988 years before Men are from Mars,Women are from Venus became so popular.One of the critics who gave the play a good review refered to Mars and Venus also.
I read another article written by another guy from 2002 who said that Rob Becker’s Defending The Caveman is a sexist piece of crap and said unfortunately it’s back on broadway and he said why do people laugh at stuff like this.So this is really something to be concerned about too.
Carolyn,
“He makes extremely sexist ridiculous claims such as men love TV and remote contols and women love to shop and gossip and aren’t logical enought to argue because the sexes evolved from the caveman days etc”
What planet are you living on sweetie? Men DO love TV’s, remote controls, gadgets of all kinds…mostly. Women DO love shopping, socializing, beautifying…mostly. Yes, Yes, there are exceptions to every rule, my wife for instance, but these are generally true statements.
Just because you are offended does not make the writer’s point invalid, or change reality.
God, some guy writes a play people happen to like because they can relate, and it takes their minds of their miserable freaking lives for a few hours, and you say “this is really something to be concerned about”. Please.
And I won’t even draw attention to the hilarity of your sentence attempting to trash the playwright by saying he’s a “colege drop outwho”
…oops
Quadratic,
I guess you you didn’t read the recent major important Purdue Study debubnking the myth that men and women are from different planets that was posted on this very message board which you posted on. You also obvioulsly didn’t read what I said about how I found an article on the internet written by Kevin Connolly for the Eye web site in which he pointed out that Rob Becker’s play is based on long discredited misconceptions,prejudices,and gender stereotypes.
He also rightly called it misogynist and homophobic and I as I said,I found another article written by a guy who said Rob Becker’s Defending The Caveman is a sexist piece of trash and he said unfortunately it’s back on broadway and he said why people laugh at this stuff.
You obviously don’t get this issue at all about the harm of reinforcing commonly held gender myths,gender stereotypes and limiting gender roles and the seriousness of sexism and woman-hating. And making it legitimized by making it into humor which is how prejudices are reinforced. If many people can relate to sexist gender myths,prejudices,and stereotypes well then says a lot about our sexist male dominated gender dived stereotyped culture that most people are already conditioned by.
There is plenty of legitimate research besides the recent Purdue study, by psychologists,sociologists and even anthroplogists(who have studied and documented androgynous cultures) that debunks these myths and gender stereotypes thatplay’s like Defending The Caveman reinforce. There is no hope for any social change when there are poplular people out there reinforcing these myths and stereotypes.
There is nothing “funny” at all in what I said about Becker being a college drop out who became a sexist comic,the point is he is *not* any type of psychologist or scientist to make these kinds of claims.There is also plenty of legitimate psychological research studies that shows that male and female babies are born biologically more alike than different with very few differences and yet they are perceived and treated systematically very differently right from the moment of birth on by parents and other care givers.Rob Becker’s play doesn’t recognize this at all and instead exaggerates small differences,and ignores the enormous socialization,and the fact that in most areas research finds small average differences between the sexes and much greater individual differences between people and also that men and women are more similar than different.
This is exactly what the Mars & Venus crap reinforces and Becker’s play just like John Gray is a woman-hating sexist gender stereotyper,and Gray is not a psychologist either with the phony “ph.D” he has from the diploma mill that was closed down. I don’t know why you are on this section of the board when is about responses to the recent Purdue Studies that that shows that men and women are from the same planet and are more alike than different.Go read some Mars&Venus since you obviously don’t get it at all!You also make light of sexism and misogyny.How feminist is that!?
P.S. I read in another online article about the recent study debunking the Mars/Venus myth from The Purdue University Exponent called,Research shows Sexes Act In Similar Ways.In this article Dr.Erina MacGeorge who was one of the many gender communication professors who conducted the studieswas quoted as saying,that John Gray’s books are popular because they tell simple stories,they are not based on research and they tend to contribute to stereotypical thinking that most people have been taught from a young age.
This is exactly why play’s like Defending The Caveman are popular too.One of the researchers of this Purdue study is Seth J.Gillihan who is a clinical psychology graduate student from The University of Pennsylvania.
I just found a very good interesting important article on the internet by Gerorge Mason University anthropology professor Roger Lancaster called,The Place of Anthropology in a Public Culture Reshaped By Bioreductivism. In this article just from February, he talks about the danderous present trend of biomythology and evolutionary psychology.
He explains how everything is “naturalized” and presented as genetically caused. He talks about how the fables and folklore about men and women and the heterosexual relationship aapeals to people because he said everybody loves a good story.He said that the trend of the unproven evolutionary psychology mostly aapeals to conservatives but not only conservatives.He said that this trend is what led to shows like Home Improvement and Defending The Caveman by Rob Becker.He shows a picture of Rob Becker on stage with stoneage furniture and holding a spear and he mentions that the play is currently a broadway hit.
He then says,what is anthropologist to do,he said that the evidence that gender roles are “hard-wired” gender roles and sexual orientation is scant to say the least.He said that cross cultural studies suggest the great adaptability and variety are the better plot lines of our evolutionary heritage.
So in other words you are angry, and believe everything you read (as long as you agree).
Are you a member of the Flat Earth society? I bet they have people with collegiate credentials after their names pumping out studies too.
Quadratic,
What’s with the meaningless insult post? This person just cited a bunch of studies in support of her position. And you, without criticizing said documentation or providing any of your own, compare her to a Flat Earther?
Maybe if you took the time to support any of your positions with documentation, you’d get a more civil reception here.
Glad I gave you a chance to practice your blog police skills squid. Nice job! Thanks for keeping us all safe.
It’s very obvious that Quadratic is a member of the sexist,womam-hating ignorant don’t get that men and women are from earth threatened society and shouldn’t even be on this board! Look at the one who realy sounds angry and threatened,YOU! I said it before I’ll say it again,I don’t know why you are posting on a feminist board and on the section about discussing the Purdue Studies that *SHOWED MEN AND WOMEN ARE *NOT* From Different Planets!
I guess you don’t know how to read studies on posts. I find it really interesting that you didn’t post anything about the Purdue study,you just attacked me unjustly when I was pointing out other examples and research that also supports what the Purdue studies show.As I said why don’t you go read some Mars&Venus since you don’t get this issue at all and you are obviously threatened by the information I posted here and you obviously still believe in these gender myths so it just doesn’t make any sense why you are on this board with this topic!
I just bought the great book by Anthropology professor Roger Lancaster called,The Trouble With Nature Sex in Science and Popular Culture that has gotten many great reviews including from Science For The People. He provides a huge amount of counter evidence for these popular gender myths and shows how most of these claims are based on pseudoscience with little or no evidence to back them up. And yes he debunks and criticizes the Mars/Venus garbage and Defending The Caveman as well.
I don’t believe everything I read or hear, I don’t belive sexist pseudoscience and popular gender myths but it’s very clear you do!
Thank you for sticking up for me Jake at least you are not threatened and ignorant!
“Glad I gave you a chance to practice your blog police skills squid. Nice job! Thanks for keeping us all safe.”
People are going to call you on what you write. Deal. This ain’t Pinochet’s Chile.
Sheesh.
Oh, and Quad? In future, please capitalize “Squid” when addressing me. And if you want to be taken seriously you might want to take a look at how Amp refutes arguments that have multiple sources and studies cited. (Hint: One way is by citing his own opposing sources & studies.)
Carolyn,
In a civil discourse it is expected to respond to argument, if possible. Insults w/o substance are the sign of a bitter person w/o the ability to refute. I thought that you had put a lot of time and research into that post & thought that you deserved a better response. I would have thought the same if you had been posting from the opposite point of view.
Quad makes me pine for Moebius who, although clearly wrong in my view, was able to clearly write about his position and disagree w/o resorting to vitriol and from whom I was able to get a better understanding of the “other side”. I used to find Quad interesting, but he’s turned into just another blowhard insult machine lately. And that is dull, dull, dull.
I would really like to hear what Quadratic has to say about how he feels about this topic here,the Purdue University studies showing that men and women are from the same planet after all. This is the title of this specific section of this blog so since you didn’t post any comments at all on here about it I would really like hear your response.Because if you don’t recognize everything I wrote about as true,I’m really curious what you have to say about these recent Purdue studies.
As I said many people have compaired Defending The Caveman to Mars&Venus. So if you don’t think that the play is wrong and based on very sexist gender myths and stereotypes,then you must feel this Purdue study is wrong too.
Jake I just posted my other response before I saw that you had responded to my other one. But now I have to say that when you called what I wrote just a “point of View” that it’s not a point of view I know a lot about this issue and I wrote about many scholar psychologists and their research and I had mentioned in an earlier post that I got back many supportive e-mails from psychology,sociology and some gender communication professors who told me that John Gray’s writing is not at all supported in the present research on gender which is what this recent Purdue University study also just showed.
I also read quotes from psychologists and other academics saying the same thing that Gray’s writing is not supported by any research.How do you feel about the topic discussed in this blog,Women and Men From Same Planet After All that is the title on the top of this page.
Do you feel that there isn’t such a thing as good consistent legitimate research studies that are not just a pont of view? The whole point of this topic here was that the study debunks the Mars/Venus gender myths and stereotypes that most people have been very conditioned to believe all of their lives in the sexist gender dived gender stereotyped patriarchy we all live in.Dr.Toni Zimmerman who is an award winning marriage and family therapist at the Department of Human Development at Colorado State University had co-written several great articles with other marrriage and family therapists for the Journal of Marital Therapy for The American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists.
One was called,Mars and Venus:?Unequal Planets. I had written to Dr.Zimmerman about this in the Fall of 2002 and she e-mailed me back and said she agrees with my rage about this and that she has written several articles about it and she asked me for my snail mail address and she sent them to me. In these articles they explain how John Gray’s claims that men and women differ in all aspects of their lives,in how they love,think,feel appreciate react,perceive,is inconsitent with decades of psychological research that has consistently found mimimal differences between men and women.They then go on to list all of the psychologists work in this area one of the psychologists work is Dr.Janet Hyde’s of The University of Wisconsin who I posted about in one of my very first posts.
She gives presentation at universities and organizations around the country called,Men and Women are from Earth:The Media vs Science on Psychological Gender Dfferences.In this talk she explains that the media make it seem as if there are huge psychological gender differences and that using meta analysis the most advanced extensive research method of reviewing all of the research studies past and present,the scientific data lead to a very different conclusion.She explains that many gender differences that are thought to be large are actually small or non-existent.Dr.Hyde wrote me back two years ago and said she agrees that John Gray’s work is awful.
Dr.Zimmerman and her co-authors also explain how throughout his materials he presents men and women in a highly stereotypical manner and that these descriptions innaccurately limit women and men rather than supporting their potential competencies in all areas of life,including work,parenting,home maintenance,and intimate partnerships.They also say considering the inaccurate and potentially detrimental material in the Mars and Venus books,how can it’s popularity be explained.
They explain that first given the ubuquitiousness of gender socialization,Gray’s descriptions may “ring true” for many people..They said relayed with humor and dressed up in a metaphorical package,the “kernels of truth” within these descriptions may give credibility to Gray’s recommendations. They also said that because Gray’s messages are consistent with gender-based stereotypes that are portrayed in other popular press materials,such as certain magazines and TV programs,readers may lack the neccessary information to analyze his overall message and recommendations critically.So this is my points.
Jake,if you are interested I could e-mail you many of these studies and information so you hopfully would see that it’s not just a “point of View” but I actually know what I’m talking about.
You know it’s really something how as I said before,quadratic never commented on this topic and he didn’t pick on other people who pointed out a shorter version of what I have posted on here like the post from Echidine who pointed out in one of the very first posts here that all of the research shows that most of the so-called Mars-Venus studies show quite small differences and she said that they just focus on the differences and ignore all of the similarities.
Carolyn,
I agree with your position. However, no matter how factually supported it is still a point of view. It may be 100% correct but it is still a point of view within a debate. Quad holds the point of view that Gray is correct. His point of view is factually incorrect, but it is still a point of view – or, as I usually write, an opinion – within this debate. There can be valid opinions (as supported by fact), invalid opinions (as disproved by fact) and opinions that can neither be proven nor disproven by facts at hand.
I in no way meant to dismiss your expertise or research by referring to what you wrote as supporting your opinion. After all, what is a debate or argument but two opposing points of view trying to prove themselves more valid than their opposition?
I think Gray is a snake-oil salesmen. But that’s my opinion (supported by numerous studies that you have cited).
To go back to Quad’s reference: I can believe that the Earth is flat and have that be my opinion even if all the facts presented disprove my point of view.
After all that garble I hope that you can understand what I’m trying to say.
I made 2 mistakes my keyboard doesn’t always work right there shouldn’t have been a ? after the Dr.Zimmerman’s article,It’s called,Mars and Venus:Unequal Planets. I also forgot to mention that they also point out that Gray’s materials reinforce power differentials between men and women and that all of the scolarly psychological research such as by University of Washington psychologist Dr.John Gottman(who by the way also is quoted in several articles online debunking the Mars/Venus myths and one article is called,Men Women Aren’t That Different Says Leading Marital Researcher he says that we are more alike than different and that we ae not from Mars and Venus)who has done decades of actual scientific research with couples,has found that the best most healthy relationships are based on shared power and equality.Dr.Gottman wrote me back many supportive e-mails 2 years ago and he said that I’m apsolutely right about Gray and that he agrees with me completely and that he has been saying these things from podiums to clinicians and the public for over 7 years now.
Also I left out that Dr.Toni Zimmerman is from the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at Colorado State University and she and the other therapists are feminist marriage family therapists.
Jake,
Garble what is that exactly? I thought you respected my knowlege here was that a reference to your “garble” or my “garble”?Also you criticized quadratic for calling me a member of an earth flat society so why would you have used that of all things,I know to make your point. But I’m talking about legitimate excellent consisten research by legitimate scholars and academics,there is real good evidence here which is not at all even close to believing the earth is flat!Yes,that was something people once believed a long time ago when they *didn’t* have any evidence to show it was really wrong.But we *have* plenty of good evidence here!
John Gray got his “ph.D” from Columbia Pacific University a mail order diploma mill that was closed down for good by the California Attorney General Asher Rubin and in March 2001 The San Fransisco Chronicle wrote an article about it called,Novato Diploma Mill Shut Down. In the pulitzer prixe winning newspaper Point Ryes Light which by the way Dr.Bob in 2000 on his single by choice.com site also quotes from this article and Asher Rubin was quoted as saying that it was nothing but a diploma mill that had been praying on California consumers for two many years and a phony operation offfereing totally worthles degres. If you would please go up to the very beginning of this blog and read what I wrote about Susan Hamson’s excellent web rebuttal of Gray called,The Rebutal From Uranus and Out of The Cave:by Kathleen Trigiani you would see what else I explain about this as well as the terrible online interview Gray gave in 1996 to Yahoo! Internet Life which is included in both Susan and Kathleen’s rebuttals.They quote him and say what a misogynist he is and on Ms.magazine’s message board in 2002 they also wrote about him as a misogynist and they quoted from both web rebuttals.
And if quadratic feels this Mars&Venus bullshit is right then I ask for a third time,what is he doing on this part of the blog called,Women and Men From Same Planet After All about the Purdue studies that debunked this?
This’ll be my last post here because I don’t like arguing with someone with whom I agree.
1) “garble” was a reference to my convoluted post.
2) I used Quad’s “flat earth” example as a tie to something that had already been said.
3) I will repeat until my dying breath that each side in a debate is an opinion or point of view. One may be correct and one may be wrong, but they are both opinions in the context of a debate.
4) I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion (term used in the context of the debate here) in the matter of “Gray, prophet or charlatan.”
5) It is clear that I am having a hard time making myself clear to you. Whether that’s because English is not your native language (a guess) or because I’m not a lucid writer is up in the air.
6) I respect your input and your research and your experience.
7) Good night.
I am not suprised to learn that men are not from mars, and women are not from venus.
I would not be surprised to learn that 99.9% of advice in self help books is poorly supported, and much of it is made up, out and out bunk.
That said: There is often something useful hidden in the bunk.
Despite the clap trap, the advise in the “men are from…” book may have permitted some partners to realize that their spouse might think differently, and that the other point of view might be valid.
It may even have helped the most sexist partners learn to treat their spouses more fairly– by not forcing them to give up their sexism.
Is this the ideal?
No. But… some couples might have reached a better more comfortable life by reading the book, despite the fact that it contained 90% clap trap.
It would be better if all people simply realized, we don’t all have *exactly* the same motives/ feelings/ perceptions/ wants/ desires without including a bunch of misguided (and offensive) clap trap. It would also be better if people realized that despite the fact that we have differences, we all want many of the same things!
Hopefully, someone will be able to write a popular book that helps people with troubled lives get along without disseminating clap trap!
I hope Carolyn writes it! (And makes lots of money, appears on talk shows… gets her own show, just like Dr. Phil! Since this is a blog, and there is no intonatin, I want to say right out: I mean this sincerely, not as any sort of snide slam.)
(BTW.. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the remote, Picture-in-Picture on my tv. and I’m not a particularly fond of shopping. )
I think it’s also worth mentioning that the “men shop for power tools and women shop for curtains” phenomenon is something that is, if not outright created, heavily, *heavily* influenced by our society.
Ask me about my experiences, and my female friends’ experiences, trying to get information or assistance out of male Hope Depot employees.
Ask my boyfriend, or any of the male goths in this town, about why they’re afraid to wear nail polish and eyeliner in public.
Humiliation, ridicule, and (in the goths’ case) the threat of physical violence goes a LONG way in deterring people from learning new things, and advertising goes an equally long way in keeping people’s interest in the things they’re already familiar with.
I don’t have trouble getting assistance from male home depot employees or in hardware stores in general.
I did have a lot of trouble back in the ’80s, but not recently.
Is this a regional problem? (I’m in Illinois, but also has no problems in Iowa.) Am I just lucky?
Lucia, I can appreciate your point that if the books teach people to actually understand that a spouse is a different person and accept that, then it would have a positive side. But in my experience, it has only reinforced men who already are inclined to use their male “superiority” to put down their wives’ thoughts and feelings. If women are more “emotional” than men, it follows that “rational” men need to be making all the relationship decisions. This is seen as fair, because men are instructed to occassionally give a little condscending “understanding” in exchange.
Yo, Quad. I can’t think of a single woman I know who actually enjoys “beautifying” or what-the-fuck. Though many women, myself included, do use the excuse that we are “beautifying” to get some time to ourselves. It’s pretty much the only thing that most women do that gets respect.
Amanda,
I know some people believe that the “rational” partner should dictate relationship decisions. However, a person who held such a view is probably the “less rational” one in the relationship.
Any rational person knows that both partners need find a relationship rewarding, otherwise it will crumble.
Rational analysis would for the rational partner conclude that the emotions of the “emotional” partner must be considered and given weight!
Am am not, btw, a big fan of self help books in general.
I also do not believe men are more rational than women. ;)
I’m wading in here having only read critiques of the book and not the book itself. A very strong impression I picked up was that it gave instructions for women on how to deal with their alien men. If that’s not the case, everything else I say will be irrelevant, but anyway.
If it gave men instructions on how to deal with their alien women as well, it might be a helpful communication guide. But from everything I’ve read, it just says “Women, your man acts like a jerk because of the way he is. Put up with him. Let him have his little sulks. Give him sex whenever he wants.” And this is hardly going to improve a relationship, especially since the person buying the self-help book is probably already the one getting her needs met less.
Nick,
I also have not read that book cover to cover– I dislike self help books.
Having skimmed a few, your observations are probably generally correct. If an author wants to make money, they write these with female readers in mind. Many pages are devoted to “how to deal with your man”
However, these books often tend to include brief explanatons of how men should treat women… or how to get him to understand “the venus”, in you.
Often the books want to appear to be something both men and women are likely to read. (Or, the author hopes some man might actually read the book.) In this case, rhetorical the author might chose is: “What men don’t understand about women….” and vice versa.
So, plain reading of the book would make it seem that men and women are likely to read it equally. Publishers know this is not likely.
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Pacific Views
Based on sloppy research, or maliciously slanderous media reports, commentators have defamed Columbia Pacific University (CPU) and its 7,500 alumni most unfairly. A federally recognized non profit educational institution at present, CPU was a pioneer of distance education whose programs nowadays are emulated by many well-known universities. CPU was accredited (approved) by the California State Department of Education and its approval was equivalent to regional accreditation. CPU degrees of 1978-1997 are legally valid in California. For accurate information on CPU, please see http://www.cpuniv.us , http://www.columbia-pacific-university.net , or the Discussion on CPU in Wikipedia, including the Archives.