Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA17449 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:35:18 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174592F@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: memes and sexuality Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:33:27 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Yesterday's Sunday Times had a brief article entitled 'Girl Talk: It's
Really All In The Genes', available at-
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/07/16/sticoncon01001.html
A relatively large scale study (3000 kids) suggests that girls exceed boys
at language skills, at least in early childhood. Is this perhaps a genetic
legacy of our hunter gatherer origins, in which the men went out and hunted
using little verbal communication (no point talking if it's going to scare
off the animals you're hunting), whilst the women stayed together in groups,
passing the time by talking to each other?
The newspaper article itself is the usual example of silly journalism, by
asking a TV presenter and a famous hairdresser's mother (I kid you not)
whether they think this basic finding is true or not. Nonetheless, does it
raise the question of whether or not memes have a gender bias?
Vincent
> ----------
> From: Kenneth Van Oost
> Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 9:00 pm
> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: memes and sexuality
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chris Lofting <ddiamond@ozemail.com.au>
> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 4:12 PM
> Subject: RE: memes and sexuality
>
>
> > Kenneth wrote:
> > >
> > >Chris, you wrote,
> > >
> > >>From these very general descriptions have emerged 'us ', where we are
> > >>an entanglement of those properties. Thus most DIFFErence oriented end
> up
> > as
> > >>teachers, both male and female, but more female than male in primary/
> > >>secondary levels.
> > >
> > >IMHO, I do think we are more DIFFERENCE oriented in general than you
> > >realise. I think that males, and biological examples support the idea,
> are
> > be-
> > >coming more femanized, that is we take over more behaviourpatterns of
> the
> > >' pure ' female. Dragqueens, the katoi, ' beaucoup de beau garçons ',
> the
> > >more femanized way males dress themselves up, the way we move etc.
> > >are pointing in that direction.
> >
> > Sure, my emphasis is on 'pure' forms that over time become rare :-) If
> you
> > apply the dichotomy of male/female recursively then you get more and
> more
> > entanglement of both 'sides' and so closer to what we see but to get to
> that
> > you start with fundamental distinctions. Get those fundamentals correct
> and
> > the entanglement patterns will 'fit' what we see. Get the fundamentals
> > incorrect and you start to get confusion.
>
>
> << So, the idea of the androgyne concept seems not to be a bad one !!
> Thanks, I can continue now. >>
>
> Regards,
>
> Kenneth
>
> (I am, because we are)
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 17 2000 - 14:36:07 BST