Women talk more than men: official

[Diebert van Rhijn]

"Like heroin addiction, but louder"

As reported by the Register: Women talk more than men: official

A "self-proclaimed feminist" psychiatrist has finally thrown in the towel and admitted her fellow females do indeed talk more than men, The Daily Mirror reports.

Dr Luan Brizendine of the University of California, who's published her shock findings in The Female Brain, says the average woman works her way through 20,000 words per day, compared with just 7,000 for the average bloke. She says "women devote more brain cells to talking than men", and cites fundamental differences between male and female brains as the cause.

Brizendine - whose findings are based on her own clinical work and the findings of more than 1,000 studies - reluctantly admitted: "I know it is not politically correct to say this but I've been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us. I believe women actually perceive the world differently from men.

"Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values, and their very reality."

Indeed, Brizendine says said differences "can be traced back to the womb, where the sex hormone testosterone moulds the developing male brain". Specifically, "the areas responsible for communication, emotion and memory are all pared back the unborn baby boy". Accordingly, males "chat less than their female counterparts and struggle to express their emotions to the same extent" - which is hardly news to long-suffering females.

Brizendine elaborated: "Women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road."

And when they're not cruising their eight-lane superhighway of emotion, women are getting a quick fix of verbals because "the simple act of talking triggers a flood of brain chemicals which give women a rush similar to that felt by heroin addicts when they get a high".

Men, on the other hand, beat women hands-down in one area: contemplating rumpy-pumpy. Brizendine noted "that while a man will think about sex every 52 seconds, the subject tends to cross women's minds just once a day". To put that in perspective, "men have an international airport for dealing with thoughts about sex, where women have an airfield nearby that lands small and private planes", as the good doctor put it.

But of course:

Some scientists reckon, however, that Brizendine's conclusions have driven her down a promising-looking dual carriageway only to end at a collapsed bridge of scientific proof. Oxford University linguistics professor Deborah Cameron insisted "the amount we talk is influenced by who we are with and what we are doing".

She concluded: "If you aggregate a large number of studies you will find there is little difference between the amount men and women talk."

[sschaula]

Good to see some stupid psychologist finally giving in to what's obvious. I still disagree with a few of her "findings".

Brizendine elaborated: "Women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road."

I disagree with this completely.

Men, on the other hand, beat women hands-down in one area: contemplating rumpy-pumpy. Brizendine noted "that while a man will think about sex every 52 seconds, the subject tends to cross women's minds just once a day". To put that in perspective, "men have an international airport for dealing with thoughts about sex, where women have an airfield nearby that lands small and private planes", as the good doctor put it.

Also this. The women I know tend to think about sex more than men. At least sexuality.

I still don't understand how they can get the amount of time it takes between thoughts of sex. I don't think we have the technology to measure that. It's gotta be way off. I definitely don't think about sex every 52 seconds! Even though, I do think about it a lot.

[sschaula]

Also,

Oxford University linguistics professor Deborah Cameron insisted "the amount we talk is influenced by who we are with and what we are doing".

She concluded: "If you aggregate a large number of studies you will find there is little difference between the amount men and women talk."

This professor is oblivious to everything and is stuck in her own views. She is probably talking too much to realize it.

[Matt Gregory]

Brizendine elaborated: "Women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road."

I disagree with this completely.

What is she even saying? How do you know when an emotion has been fully processed? When it goes away? Does that mean emotions last longer in men? If so, I think I would agree with her. I think men don't succumb to emotions as quickly as women, but when they do, it takes them longer to get over them.

[DHodges]

Brizendine - whose findings are based on her own clinical work and the findings of more than 1,000 studies - reluctantly admitted: "I know it is not politically correct to say this but I've been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us. I believe women actually perceive the world differently from men.

If you have a conflict between scientific findings and believing what is politically correct, you should not be in science.

Oxford University linguistics professor Deborah Cameron insisted "the amount we talk is influenced by who we are with and what we are doing".

She concluded: "If you aggregate a large number of studies you will find there is little difference between the amount men and women talk."

Deborah clearly has no such conflict.

I take it that male scientists had no comment.

[David Quinn]

From the article:

A "self-proclaimed feminist" psychiatrist has finally thrown in the towel and admitted her fellow females do indeed talk more than men, The Daily Mirror reports.

Dr Luan Brizendine of the University of California, who's published her shock findings in The Female Brain, says the average woman works her way through 20,000 words per day, compared with just 7,000 for the average bloke. She says "women devote more brain cells to talking than men", and cites fundamental differences between male and female brains as the cause.

Brizendine - whose findings are based on her own clinical work and the findings of more than 1,000 studies - reluctantly admitted: "I know it is not politically correct to say this but I've been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us. I believe women actually perceive the world differently from men.

"Girls arrive already wired as girls, and boys arrive already wired as boys. Their brains are different by the time they're born, and their brains are what drive their impulses, values, and their very reality."

Indeed, Brizendine says said differences "can be traced back to the womb, where the sex hormone testosterone moulds the developing male brain". Specifically, "the areas responsible for communication, emotion and memory are all pared back the unborn baby boy". Accordingly, males "chat less than their female counterparts and struggle to express their emotions to the same extent" - which is hardly news to long-suffering females.

Why did they need to put that last bit in? I noticed there was no mention of long-suffering males having to put up with the incessant yammering from their female lovers and friends, so why did they mention this?

As always, there is a constant need to stroke the female ego and put the boot into men. It happens everywhere in society these days, even in supposedly serious, objective reports.

Brizendine elaborated: "Women have an eight-lane superhighway for processing emotion, while men have a small country road."

Here again, the wording is tailored to make it seem that women are superior to men. There is no mention, for example, that the "country road" inside men snakes through various centres of cerebral processing, which causes men to check their emotions and consider consequences. Instead, they try to make a virtue out of the fact that there is a mindless, unhindered connection between a woman's emotional centres and her mouth.

Men, on the other hand, beat women hands-down in one area: contemplating rumpy-pumpy. Brizendine noted "that while a man will think about sex every 52 seconds, the subject tends to cross women's minds just once a day". To put that in perspective, "men have an international airport for dealing with thoughts about sex, where women have an airfield nearby that lands small and private planes", as the good doctor put it.

But just to show they are not completely biased, they humbly concede that women are not superior in all areas of life. How good of them!

Of course, it should be no surprise that the concession comes in the form of a back-handed compliment designed, yet again, to stroke the female ego and put the boot into men. "Yes, there is one area that men are superior to women, and that is their overwhelming sexual obsession and perverted deviancies. The brutes!" The female ego is thus stroked by reinforcing her cherished belief that she is pure.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Why did they need to put that last bit in? I noticed there was no mention of long-suffering males having to put up with the incessant yammering from their female lovers and friends, so why did they mention this?

As always, there is a constant need to stroke the female ego and put the boot into men. It happens everywhere in society these days, even in supposedly serious, objective reports.

...

But just to show they are not completely biased, they humbly concede that women are not superior in all areas of life. How good of them!

Of course, it should be no surprise that the concession comes in the form of a back-handed compliment designed, yet again, to stroke the female ego and put the boot into men. "Yes, there is one area that men are superior to women, and that is their overwhelming sexual obsession and perverted deviancies. The brutes!" The female ego is thus stroked by reinforcing her cherished belief that she is pure.

Aww, there, there David. You poor, auditorily abused man. How big and strong of you to put up with those yammering women... and shame on those self-centered female scientists to not think of your feelings - and the feelings of other, big strong men like you, when mentioning that most men do not share their feelings and most women find that frustrating. Obviously you are not like most men. I'm sure she didn't mean to bruise your ego.

[Jamesh]

Even this bit is dicy

Accordingly, males "chat less than their female counterparts and struggle to express their emotions to the same extent

I don't think men really struggle to express their emotions - but choose not to NEEDLESSLY ramp them up in the same repeated fashion as women.

Men needed to do this to avoid voilence with other males that may needlessly endanger their lives, so shallow emotions relating to ego gratification through verbal communication, were kept to oneself. When we wish to express our emotions however, men do not struggle to do so, hence all the great artisitc works are the work of men. One could easily say that women struggle to express deeper emotional thoughts, because they have fewer of them.

PS - Didn't this research come out months or years ago - I'm certain I read the same thing before.

[Leyla Shen]

David wrote:

Why did they need to put that last bit in? I noticed there was no mention of long-suffering males having to put up with the incessant yammering from their female lovers and friends, so why did they mention this?

Slow down, David. I reckon you and he might be on the same team. I believe, with a name like Lester, the author who actually wrote that particular phrase is more than likely male and the comment, therefore, sarcasm. The whole bloody thing’s a half-arsed male feigning sarcasm!

So, this more-than-likely male report then becomes part of the:

"…constant need to stroke the female ego and put the boot into men. It happens everywhere in society these days, even in supposedly serious, objective reports" [by men, if you twist your eyeballs and look hard enough, I suppose.]

?

.

[Cory Duchesne]

Accordingly, males "chat less than their female counterparts and struggle to express their emotions to the same extent" - which is hardly news to long-suffering females.

Men keep their mouths shut for a very good reason. Woman thinks she wants to hear whats on her mans mind. She thinks that by hearing him confess, then it will all make sense and everything will be ok.

The truth is that when you're a man stuck in a relationship with a female, you cant win either way. You're trouble for her if you speak, and you are trouble for her if you don't.

How does that Sheryrl Crow song go?

Lie to me, I promise, i'll believe...

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Men keep their mouths shut for a very good reason. Woman thinks she wants to hear whats on her mans mind. She thinks that by hearing him confess, then it will all make sense and everything will be ok.

The truth is that when you're a man stuck in a relationship with a female, you cant win either way. You're trouble for her if you speak, and you are trouble for her if you don't.

How does that Sheryrl Crow song go?

Lie to me, I promise, i'll believe...

It depends on the woman. QRS definition "woman" maybe - but what a lot of people are not understanding is that the QRS "woman" is not universal.

Give us a specific example Cory - real life, not theoretical and not something based off a sit-com or something.

(as a side note, I'm curious about that Sheryl Crow song you keep referencing - got a link? I took one (wrong) guess, but I'm not sorting through all that Sheryl Crow for it).

[Cory Duchesne]

Elizabeth,

It depends on the woman. QRS definition "woman" maybe - but what a lot of people are not understanding is that the QRS "woman" is not universal.

We've been down this road before. You've been on this forum long enough to know that generalizations are the common currency. Exceptions go without saying.

Eliz: Give us a specific example Cory - real life, not theoretical and not something based off a sit-com or something.

I did give a real life example. The Sheryl Crow song. She wrote the lyrics herself.

Eliz: (as a side note, I'm curious about that Sheryl Crow song you keep referencing - got a link? I took one (wrong) guess, but I'm not sorting through all that Sheryl Crow for it).

Actually, I hadnt heard the song since high school --- those particular lyrics just seem to bubble up from my subconscious sometimes when I write on this forum.

I did a good search on the lyrics, and found the whole song.

Laughed out loud when I read the whole thing.

What I found particularly hillarious, I put in bold text.

Strong Enough - By Sheryl Crow

God, I feel like hell tonight
Tears of rage I cannot fight
I’d be the last to help you understand
Are you strong enough to be my man?

Nothing’s true and nothing’s right
So let me be alone tonight
Cause you can’t change the way I am
Are you strong enough to be my man?

Lie to me
I promise I’ll believe
Lie to me
But please don’t leave

I have a face I cannot show
I make the rules up as I go
It’s try and love me if you can
Are you strong enough to be my man?

When I’ve shown you that I just don’t care
When I’m throwing punches in the air
When I’m broken down and I can’t stand
Will you be strong enough to be my man?

Lie to me
I promise I’ll believe
Lie to me
But please don’t leave

[Dan Rowden]

Some of this research can be found in the book Brainsex.

But I wrote this a while back:

Emotions are non-rational, unconscious responses to simuli. They are symbols of the animal instincts that remain in us. The degree of masculinity in a mind is what determines how emotions are experienced. I think there's a certain instinctual appreciation of that in human beings, which is why one tends to respond differently to a man or a somewhat masculine woman crying, and some vacuous, feminine bimbo. We may seek to console each of them, but we will probably do so differently because we don't grant the crying of the bimbo any real significance because we don't associate consciousness with it. My experience is that when we see a man cry, we really believe that his suffering is deep and significant. A woman crying, is, well, just another woman crying. Our response to it is not all that different from the way we would respond to the tears of a young child.

The masculine mind relates its emotional responses to other elements of its overall nature and also to its relationship to the world. Men don't like to get emotional all that much because it means a loss of control; it means the world is exercising a power over them that they resist. A man functions this way because his mind dwells in that realm of "self" and "other". A woman experiences emotion as just another experience, like walking down the street or combing her hair or breathing. A woman can describe her emotions quite well, but don't ask her to explain them!

They say men are not in touch with their emotions but that is merely code for "men are not as emotional as women." Men are quite in touch with their emotions; they don't like to talk about them all that much because they don't like the idea of being subject to them. Women don't talk about their emotions, they emote about their emotions. The feminine mind experiences no psychical conflict with regard to its emotions because it has an essentially passive relationship to the world. There is no possibility of conflict arising; there is just no basis for it. A woman can be almost hysterically distraught one minute, and the next carry on as if nothing of significance occured. A man would carry the psychical scars of having been so deeply subject to an emotional experience for what might be years. It would change his perspective, at least to some extent, permanently, because he relates this experience back to the world and his individual relationship to it. It says something to him about that relationship, even if he doesn't grasp what that may specifically be. A woman just flows along as before because she lacks that introspective relation to the world. She can literally run the whole gamut of emotions in a single day and never feel as if she is as mad as a hatter. But because the masculine mind has an active rather than passive relation to the world, which is to say he has a foundation to his psyche, he cannot do this. It would ruin him. He wouldn't know whether he was Arthur or Martha (quite literally!) His mind would break and he would go mad.

The more a woman is pushed into a real relationship with the world, one based in a conscious appreciation of her as individual in a causal dynamic with the world, the more she suffers. She is forced to become active rather than passive, and her mind is simply not designed for it.

Every man goes his whole life in a state of some degree of existential crisis. The male psyche, is, itself, a kind of continuous existential crisis. It's only when this consciousness is pushed to fulfillment that that crisis is averted. However, the terms "woman" and "existential crisis" just don't fit together. I find it impossible to conceive of a woman of average femininity of mind experiencing such a thing.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I did give a real life example. The Sheryl Crow song. She wrote the lyrics herself.

A song is not real life. Give me an example of when - say, you - told a female something that she thought she wanted to hear, but in fact she did not. Tell us by example how she reacted that told you that she did not in fact want to know like she thought she did.

Guys are like that (not really wanting to know, but asking anyway) - I remember one room-mate asking me what I was reading, and I told him "the dictionary."

He said "When will I learn not to ask Elizabeth questions that I do not want to know the answer to?" I don't recall any other specific ones at the moment, but I'm sure there were more.

[Kevin Solway]

Men, on the other hand, beat women hands-down in one area: contemplating rumpy-pumpy.

Women talk about men a lot among themselves. Is that not also contemplating sex? Yes it is, indirectly. Similarly when women think about clothes, jewellery, children, marriage, etc.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Men, on the other hand, beat women hands-down in one area: contemplating rumpy-pumpy.

Women talk about men a lot among themselves. Is that not also contemplating sex? Yes it is, indirectly. Similarly when women think about clothes, jewellery, children, marriage, etc.

I agree with that.

[David Quinn]

Similarly, when women don't talk about men or think about clothes, jewelry, children, marriage, etc. Similarly, when women engage in intellectual discourse, and when they don't ....

-

[David Quinn]

Leyla wrote:

DQ: Why did they need to put that last bit in? I noticed there was no mention of long-suffering males having to put up with the incessant yammering from their female lovers and friends, so why did they mention this?

L: Slow down, David. I reckon you and he might be on the same team. I believe, with a name like Lester, the author who actually wrote that particular phrase is more than likely male and the comment, therefore, sarcasm. The whole bloody thing’s a half-arsed male feigning sarcasm!

I don't know about that. I reckon the author is just an average pussy-hungry bloke content to go along with whatever women say. The phenomena of putting the boot into men is too widespread and too entrenched in modern culture to be anything other than a product of the feminized times we live in.

The psychology underlying it all is quite interesting. The constant hoeing into men by society is actually misogynistic in nature because it rests on the assumption that men are strong enough and tough enough to take it (which, of course, they are). By contrast, the howls of protest which invariably erupt the moment anyone lays even a finger on women implies that women are fragile and need constant protection.

This is actually a continuation of the traditional patriarchal dynamic which views women as prized cattle that have to be idealized, molly-coddled and protected. And yet because feminists, and women generally, are so dull-witted, they actually believe they helping the cause of feminism with this constant hoeing into men, and they also fondly believe that now, more than ever, they are living in a culture which deems men and women to be equal.

-

[Carl G]

God, it's fun to slam the feminine. Ninety-nine threads on the subject and counting. Ho-hum. I get it. I saw another dragonfly today, one as beautiful as all the rest.

[BJMcGilly]

FTA:

Men, on the other hand, beat women hands-down in one area: contemplating rumpy-pumpy. Brizendine noted "that while a man will think about sex every 52 seconds, the subject tends to cross women's minds just once a day". To put that in perspective, "men have an international airport for dealing with thoughts about sex, where women have an airfield nearby that lands small and private planes", as the good doctor put it.

To my mind, this is simply indicative of man's ability to be single-minded. Now, having been handicapped by a flesh hypodermic between his legs, he's bound to incessantly itch after a fix. If this addiction isn't broken, he has no chance of noticing the true beauty abounding 'round the country road.

Keep your super-highway. Go after a superhighway and end up nothing more than an exit, or rest-stop at best. But you'll be hard pressed to ever rest again with all that mindless traffic whizzing past you.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Similarly, when women don't talk about men or think about clothes, jewelry, children, marriage, etc. Similarly, when women engage in intellectual discourse, and when they don't ....

-

But that is only one of the eight lanes. Sexuality can stay in its own lane, and not interfere with the flow of traffic in the intellectual discourse lane.

If that really is how it works, and that really is a difference between men and women, then now I understand how it is that men must give up relationships with women to become wise. I didn't really comprehend how handicapped men were in that area.

That does answer my question about how I can think rationally and still have room for love, yet the guys here think it's an either/or situation. It also explains the irrational behavior of some otherwise intelligent off-line guys I've known.

How tragic.

It also explains and how I have had times of my body having an emotional meltdown but inside my mind was merely mildly disgusted with the stupid, uncontollable waterworks and thinking rationally. Any females out there - have you also had experiences where you found yourself crying and wondering who this sniveling mess was that you were stuck inside? That the tears had nothing to do with "you" but it was more like a leak in the plumbing system?

[sue hindmarsh]

Woman/The Feminine = Unconsciousness.

The unconscious celebrates love and coupling.

If a person of either sex values to any degree love and coupling, they become lost souls - as their usefulness to help humanity strive towards Wisdom is completely defunct.

Because of this, they may as well be dead – for they are already ‘mind-less’.

-
Sue

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

CF

If a person of either sex values to any degree love and coupling, they become lost souls - as their usefulness to help humanity strive towards Wisdom is completely defunct.

Polly wanna cracker?

[sue hindmarsh]

Dr Luan Brizendine of the University of California, who's published her shock findings in The Female Brain, says the average woman works her way through 20,000 words per day, compared with just 7,000 for the average bloke. She says "women devote more brain cells to talking than men", and cites fundamental differences between male and female brains as the cause.

Some scientists reckon, however, that Brizendine's conclusions have driven her down a promising-looking dual carriageway only to end at a collapsed bridge of scientific proof. Oxford University linguistics professor Deborah Cameron insisted "the amount we talk is influenced by who we are with and what we are doing".

What Prof Cameron is missing is the fact that women don’t need an audience to be able to ‘talk’. Women have 'talk' constantly going on in their heads which - just spills out - when they come into contact with other people. It is no coincidence that the matters that flow through her mind also flow through society, as both woman and society have the same agenda: coupling. You see this in the psychology of most men as they strive to develop their skills and build status in order to attract a woman; and in woman's complete lack of psychology.

Those 20,000 words per day that women have flowing through them are obviously needed to keep society ticking over to meet this goal. Man only needs a few of his 7000 words to interact with her, the rest go to maintaining and developing his worth and status so as to meet with her approval and fulfill her needs. (A few men who wise-up about their relationship with woman may dedicate those 7000 words to understanding something about existence. But it isn’t an easy task when the whole world is focused only on coupling.)

Also - women’s use of so great a number of words obviously goes to assist her in making connections with others, which then ensures her continuing existence. Men don’t often need to bond with the people they interact with, as these interactions are only to facilitate the development of their worth and status - which all goes towards first attracting and then bonding with a woman. Woman, on the other hand, must keep communicating to ensure her bond with others remains firm and secure – and also to ensure that she remains instep with society. The seamless flow between woman and society enables her to absorb her world view effortlessly. From politics and science, to fashion and finance - the feminine has it in her sights. If the trend is more positive or negative towards an issue, she will follow suit depending on her ‘bonds’ with different groups. For example: her boyfriend may consider stem-cell research a positive move in medicine, but because her girlfriends consider it “killing babies”, she will go along with them rather than be thought a ‘baby killer’. The boyfriend will then be cried at and told that he is “inhuman”, but at days end she will forgive him “because he is only a man” – ‘her’ man.

-
Sue

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

:D Much better Sue; I knew you could do it. :) A thought of your own :)