You're probably reading too much into it.

There's nothing biological about men's disinclination to wash dishes or write a birthday card.

That reads like one of those commonly held tropes that are not true. Like "back in my day it was possible to raise a family, buy a house, two cars and a boat on one salary." When the reality for the majority was both parents worked.

In the metro I live in of >2 million I have come across numerous men and women with their shit together at home and numerous men and women who live like feral dogs despite appearing at work with their shit together.

There was actually a "recent" series on the radio about this:

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/04/07/falling-behind-mised...

What does statistical analysis of society have to do with empirical neurological evidence of brain activity?

Replication crisis details ad nauseam how social psychology studies are only reproducible in 26-30% of cases. Almost all social sciences are worse than a coin toss. Including education.

What that says to me is social tropes as a basis for how we raise kids are massively out of alignment with how human biology relates to reality.

Women like Steinem argued against women being treated like concepts and objects by men (which I agree with).

But there is an irony in women using their biology's unique (relative to a mans) emotional and logical faculties to suggest they know best how men should behave.

If her actual point was we need to find the best means to support boys as we have with girls, sure. But "raise them like" does not readily communicate that nuance.

> how we raise kids are massively out of alignment with how human biology relates to reality.

The series I cited argues for this, not against it. I think her point was probably actually grounded in a reality of male behavior that was specific for her time. So I read it more as a "they need to have empathy by growing up how I grew up". She was also not a biologist or a researcher in education, although many may have taken what she said as gospel. But that's celebrity. I'm more curious about her ties to the CIA...

There is nothing in that study that says this is due to nurture instead of nature.

They trained a model to distinguish male study participants from female study participants based on resting fMRI data, which does not support your claim that they process information differently. Surprise, surprise, with an expressive enough model, this was possible with 90% accuracy. If they trained a model to distinguish employed people vs. unemployed people, I suspect they would have gotten a similar result because those two groups would be thinking about different things and thus consuming oxygen in different parts of their brains. Heck, the interaction between the gender of the MRI operator and the sexual preferences of the "healthy young" study participants would be enough to produce measurably different brain activity.

Nature versus nurture is a pointless differentiation.

Epigenetic changes from exposure are a natural process. There is only nature and our natural ability to delude ourselves with arbitrary language constructs.

There will be a margin of error to every cause we decide fosters an epigenetic or other biological mutation; good luck mapping out a person's entire sensory experience since everyone lies and more charitably just forgets. Entropy is a bitch like that.

With respect; show numbers. Over the years I have found this forum to be over confident in its hunches to take the word of a pseudo-anonymous rando seriously.

In other words; pics or gtfo

Anyway, different math means something else entirely and does make this wrong.

1+1=2 does not invalidate 3-1=2

The actual quote seems to be “We've begun to raise daughters more like sons... but few have the courage to raise our sons more like our daughters.” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72290-we-ve-begun-to-raise-... among many other sources.