Psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, discovered that males and females from childhood to adulthood are more alike than different on most psychological variables, resulting in what she calls a gender similarities hypothesis. A 2005 analysis of 46 meta-analyses that were conducted during the last two decades of the 20th century underscores that men and women are basically alike in terms of personality, cognitive ability and leadership. Doctor Hyde observed that across the dozens of studies, consistent with the gender similarities hypothesis, gender differences had either no or a very small effect on most of the psychological variables examined. Only a few main differences appeared: Compared with women, men could throw farther, were more physically aggressive, masturbated more, and held more positive attitudes about sex in uncommitted relationships. Furthermore, Hyde found that gender differences seem to depend on the context in which they were measured. As M C states in her DB, there has been lots of debate over gender differences and depending on the subject group and other variables, myth and fact can both be plausible. By putting genders into perspective in relation to empirical testing, the comparison is between the average woman and the average man and does not deal with individuals. Ultimately the similarities outweigh the differences, but do not tell us anything about individuals. Therefore there are always going to be gender generalisations. One questions begs the asking, if we didn’t have sex organs would that mean we would all be seen in the same light? No more male female just big, small, black and white? Are we the sum total of our sex organs? I think not, not only do they separate us they provide us with physical characteristics that clearly separate us into our genders, such as breasts and other physical identifiers, psychologically there are many differences between the thought...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document