Well, It’s about time. After 40 years of junk science with feminists claiming equality but better, and flipping any positive quality to being a positive quality only if women do it, and inconsequential if men do.

This type of feminist logic really had its biggest push in things that they could paint sounded better. They would say, we have a larger cable between the two hemispheres, so we think we are superior. Or that women are multitaskers, and that is better (this after studies now show that multitaskers are not as good). The list of this kind of thing literally being endless as long as the inventiveness to spin something was healthier than the truth.

Now women say this even though there is millinea of evidence showing that women select their men on the basis of the men and their families competency in the world. Unsuccessful need not apply.  One would expect from darwin that men were being selectively bred for competency in world actions. Men on the other hand, select women for fertility, of which beauty and companionship are a part of it, there is little selection for women to be competent in the world, and definitely less selection, even today, that they be so. In truth the mythical patriarchy is the result of women selectively breeding men to be good in the world for their mutual benifit in fecundity and familial success.  In general, their exhaltations about reality rarely make sense in light of prior scientific knowlege and concordance.

So its really interesting to go over my usual science fare. From the journals i read to their representation in the press I came along this interesting piece ni the UK Telegraph.

Men’s brains are ‘better connected’

Previous studies have revealed differences in the density of nerve cells and other brain features but none of these gender differences have been linked to behaviour or function in a very convincing way.

Now, Dr Lidia Alonso-Nanclares and Prof Javier De Filipe of the Instituto Cajal, Madrid, Spain; and colleagues there and at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid, used fresh brain tissue removed from epileptic patients during brain surgery to explore microscopic differences in the brain structure of men and women, revealing a consistent difference.

The authors of a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences used an electron microscope to study the brain tissue and discovered that in the temporal neocortex, a key part which is involved in both social and emotional processes, located near the ears, among other skills, that men had a one third higher density than women of synapses - the junction between two brain cells that enables precisely tuned cell-to-cell communication.

However, men had more brain cells, though the excess was slight compared with the excess in the number of synapses.

Prof De Filipe said that the difference in synapses was “very consistent” and surprising, though he stressed that in other regions of the brain women may have more connections.

Other work said that the anterior commissure, which connects several regions of the frontal and temporal lobes, is 12 per cent larger in women than in men, for example.

There has been little attention to the anatomical differences between men and women at the level of the synapse, adds Prof De Felipe.

Although these differences contribute to the way men and women differ, he could not say exactly how, though he said there had been much speculation and hilarity in the lab about how this higher connectivity could contribute to male interest in sex and football, not least because the study was led by “two very clever women.”

Because they team only studied four men and four women, since the main object of the study was to compare human brains to those of rats, mice and monkeys, the authors emphasise that more research is needed to understand how these differences influence brain function.

Brain function has been shown to differ between men and women in various respects.

Intelligence is not one of them. Much more convincing, says the team are studies that show differences that relate to spatial and language abilities, and whereas men excel in mental rotation and spatial perception, women perform better in verbal memory tasks, in verbal fluency tasks, and in the speed of articulation.

These differences are not thought to be a only consequence of the influence of sex hormones - oestrogen and testosterone - on brain organization during development but also of genetic factors.

Brain scans have found structural differences in the cortical volume of the Wernicke and Broca areas, involved in language, as well as in the frontal and medial paralimbic cortices, and in the thickness and density of the gray matter in the parietal lobes.

Women are smaller than men, on average, and tend to have smaller brains.

But Prof De Felipe points out that the intelligence of humans with brains weighing as little as half the average, may be normal or even above average. “There is not a clear correlation with the size of the brain,” he says.

The differences were in a social area of the brain. I would guess that the men have more complex areas since they have to deal with not only positive social interaction, but also negative and conflicted social interaction where backing down is losing, not a means of finese. In other words, the social landscape of men encompasses the social landscape of women AND the social landscape of complex conflict. Rather than men not being as socially developed, they are more socially developed to handle social interactions where social rules are less able to be enforced, applied, or imposed. Such a development would naturally lead men to see a wider landscape of social possibility which encompases choices that women dont use or are mitigated from (by size as one example), and to lead women to not be capable of even seeing the potentials of conflicts and outcomes as their machinery isnt gearted to think of them as options. 

There is great pressure for this kind of Darwinian development as it relies on women not seeing options that exist but are always negative to them (like fighting over a male mate), which proscribes their solutions. Just as living in a world where there are more options to social conflict that work to a end result, would make men have a larger richer panoply of potential social actions that would include behaviors and outcomes that are not open to the women due to their size and higher fertility value.

The truth is that men have to work in both worlds, the worlds of potential conflict without limits, and the world of women where conflicts have hard limits. This naturally would set them up to have more in this area than those that dont have this need, and have other needs in relation to young children.

As science goes forward, we are finding out that the customs of our culture were important ways to act in light of our biology, and that the pronouncments of feminism and other 5th column groups that they know biology would be a certain way before investigation has been nothing but politically motivated malarky that has wasted our lives and time.