14 11 17 iai plus banner.DH

channels

Philosophy for our times: cutting edge debates and talks from the world's leading thinkers

The Physical and Psychological Differences Between Men and Women:

The science behind the division of the sexes

Enjoying this video? Why not to get exclusive and unlimited access to all our content.
Already have an account? .
To continue watching, to get exclusive and unlimited access to all our content.
Already have an account? .
You have watched your monthly limit of videos. to view an unlimited number of videos and articles.
Already have an account? .
IAI TV videos are for personal use only. For commercial or educational licensing please contact TVF International
  • The Talk

    The Physical and Psychological Differences Between Men and Women

    Are men and women really from different planets?

    Professor Lewis Wolpert, the renowned developmental biologist, examines the scientific evidence underlying a controversial view of psychological and physical differences between men and women.

    Author of Six Impossible Things and Malignant Sadness and Vice President of the British Humanist Association, Wolpert is known for his staunch defence of science and rational thought.

    'Brilliant and persuasive' - Sunday Times

  • Speaker

Want to learn more about our speakers?
Join the conversation

to post comments or join now (only takes a moment). Don't have an account? Sign in with Facebook, Twitter or Google to get started:

Sandon Keable on 18/01/2016 12:14pm

One point made was this -

"Women are crazy and men are stupid. And the main reason that women are crazy is that men are stupid."

I guess this Feminist Pandering Politically motivated "supposed" scientist, is "Stupid" and driving "women crazy" with his crazy notions because he has no idea if they ever were or weren't the ways in which prehistoric man and woman lived at all and to think that both men and women have made it this far, i think there would have been some balance in those societies.

Not only that he is a man calling other men stupid, which means women should see him as stupid also as he is a man. That then means that his writings are probably done by a stupid person, which means, how correct are they? Since he, himself said that men were stupid and he is a man presumably, than his article is nothing more then stupidity aimed at ruining decent men, pandering to women and has no use.

All it did is show that we the people are paying these stupid people to write idiotic things in order to hurt us and for them to gain financially, while we suffer some more. We the people think people like this should be sacked because their jobs are becoming appalling.

All he is doing is playing to women and trying to persuade them for pathetic reasoning so his political agenda outweighs the truth, because the truth does not earn millions in fake monopoly money. In essence he might as well say that women are stupid to believe his crazy ideas because in reality, is doing nothing but portraying women above men so that the sexes remain divided and he can capitalize. So women if you believe this person, not worthy of his title as a scientist, then you are just as stupid as the men he belittles.

Once feminist women actually see this, than i am sure that their lives will be better off without these bottom feeders, these leeches that are decaying our society with this rot. Playing men against women and women against men and destroying children lives, dividing the races the ages, and everything else. Think about it logically - do these people want every separate person to buy into their scam or a family? After all, 2 of everything bought is more money to them. 2 houses, 2 cars, 2 lots of the dearer smaller amounts of food, instead of bulk, the driving back and forth for 1 lot of children shared between 2 lots of parents, the fake court cases over insignificant laws and the tax payer pays, these people never lose.

I can't believe that we still pay people like this. Not paying these political motivated rouges would - i don't know - maybe put more money back in our pockets making the fake wage gap be less also. It might also bring some joys into our lives because we wouldn't be so ruthlessly coerced into argument by these pathetic psychopaths.

Anyone who claims nonsense without any proof no matter what letters are placed before their name is doing so to gain free money. In this day and age, it seems that anyone who gets behind the feminist bandwagon is bound to make huge money at the expense of the rest of us by demonizing men wherever they can, without any sort discrimination policies being punished for the discrimination the regurgitate and do. After all Feminism is supposed to be about equality - not shaming one gender.

Even some of the feminist women who truly believe that feminism is about equality can not see that they too are being used and suffer everyday for it as do men. With these leeches destroying anything we had of value for their own self serving purposes, there is not much hope left for people. Crimes is just escalating despite all the garbage they tell us about safety and the rest of the rot to gain (thieve) from us.

You keep taking from one group and giving what you have taken to another, especially birthrights and there will never be peace ever and the sad fact is we all die in the end so why make it a living hell now?

They call feminism a minority but they are blatantly lying.

Black people = Minority

Aboriginal = Minority

Gay = Minority

White women = minority

White men = Minority

Lesbian = minority

Russian = Minority

and New Zealander even more of a minority

The list goes on but Feminism is for all women on the planet which equals majority.

All men is majority

Which then makes them 2 separate minorities if you want but one can not be a minority and the other a majority when they both have almost equal populations.

All the fake statistics that get regurgitated are just another way of extracting your money for things that they desire. In other words if your main goal was to make sure nobody fished out all the fish in the sea, you would make sure you use statistics in favor of your cause or why would you bother doing it. You would remove anything that did not favor your desires and you would ask leading questions to get the answer you are looking for and not the actual answer. Essentially you would be creating a fake organization to extort money, which so many government agencies are renowned for and you would still call anybody doing what you do a criminal and get away with this criminality.

SCAM

lewmay on 19/12/2014 2:53pm

Women are the better managers. Men let their ego shape their diecisions. Let women manage everything, let men only mow the lawn. Given that scenario, the human race would be in far better shape than it is in the year 2014.

Jessica Ng on 09/11/2013 10:40pm

I was gravely disappointed by the halfway point, and 'm astonished at how many people have completely missed the point of the talk.

Of course he's pandering to the female audience. He's trying to convince us that inferior psychological traits are "obviously" innate to us (ha) while providing little to no proof that these psychological differences are the product of biology rather than the nurturing of patriarchal societies. [Please tell me how you would present this opinion to what I can audibly hear to be a predominantly female audience without prefacing it with a sizable amount of flattering.]

This is, as josietj has said, a rehash of Mars/Venus with very poor scientific evidence.

Charlie on 13/08/2013 9:45pm

It's extraordinary how one or two comments dismiss the main ideas of this lecture as a 'pandering' to women or 'complimenting' women when in fact (as he alludes to vaguely and briefly himself) this type of biological determinism goes AGAINST a lot of influential feminist thought.

The tone of his presentation is very kindly-old-man-respecting-women but we should be paying attention to the CONTENT, which details the supposed genetic basis for women's weak health, weak bodies, disinterest in sex, emotional-ness, etc. These are the STAPLES of misogynist ideas that justify excluding women from the workplace, and in fact that excuse rape and abuse.

Many feminists, rightly or wrongly, have been interested in proving that there are more biological similarities than differences. This speech is hardly "part of the widespread feminist campaign of misinformation and hatred against boys and men."

I'm sorry but it's ludicrous and misinformed to suggest as much, and betrays a total lack of understanding both in what Wolpert argues, and what feminism is.

FURTHER, it seems to me he rather picks and chooses as to when social conditioning can be a factor.

Differences in behavior prior to 12 months are compelling, but to cite DEPRESSION as a marker of women's GENETICALLY weaker health is astonishing. Especially given medicine's history of creating a hypochondria in women resulting in an unnecessary but very lucrative market for remedial products and services aimed at women. 'The Beauty Myth' has a very informative chapter on this, but for a briefer version see this Mitchell and Webb video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9fFOelpE_8

Oshea on 12/07/2013 12:31am

Wolpert switched the patriarch from the father to the cell. His: "All you ladies have" speech while addressing to the female audience reveals his apparent necessity to conserve the separation of persons around you because of gender. This speech echoes the arguments to justify homosexual behavior from biological grounds. People try to deny the possibility of a 'cure' reasoning that homosexual behavior implies the existence of a particular cause dwelling within our genetic material. As a careful and open vision of modern society, specially within urban areas, sexual diversity is revolutionizing the immediate way people think about relation with contingent sex interaction. Wolpert's program seeks to maintain the character of the novel masculine, the caring male who provided security and nurture hunting very frightening feral mammoth.

CPS Bhasker on 10/06/2013 10:15pm

Wolpert is a famous biologist. You would expect a decent technical and well-informed presentation from him, well, here are some nuggets from his lecture -

"Men have discriminated against women for as far back as you want to go. There has been no time when men have not discriminated against women."

"Women were subordinate."

"In general, it is men more than women who have a greater desire for more casual sex. ... Men will do almost anything for sex."

"Women are crazy and men are stupid. And the main reason that women are crazy is that men are stupid."

"So all you Ladies have XX chromosomes [whereas] we poor (i.e. inferior) males have X and Y."

"Why do men have breasts and nipples? ... they are not very sensitive or attractive."

"Women are much more emotional than men. There is absolutely no question [about this] ... and a major difference, genetically determined, is aggression. ... Men are unquestionably more aggressive than women."

And, this one tops it all -

"all the physical crimes are carried out by men."

During the entire talk whilst spouting these hateful and plainly disingenuous sound-bites Wolpert didn't bother to come up with a single reference. The danger of not challenging such sexist misinformation is that it subtly changes the social discourse via the power of authority wielded by Wolpert, Wolpert is an established "scientist", most of the people who hear his talk will think that he might be off on some points but he possibly could not be so wrong as to be espousing bigoted and plainly sexist ideas, and thus with some internal struggle they will absorb some of his ideas.

During the entire talk whilst spouting these hateful and plainly disingenuous sound-bites Wolpert didn't bother to come up with a single reference. The danger of not challenging such sexist misinformation is that it subtly changes the social discourse via the power of authority wielded by Wolpert, Wolpert is an established "scientist", most of the people who hear his talk will think that he might be off on some points but he possibly could not be so wrong as to be espousing bigoted and plainly sexist ideas, and thus with some internal struggle they will absorb some of his ideas.

This lecture has nothing to do with facts and part of the widespread feminist campaign of misinformation and hatred against boys and men.

FactCheck on 07/06/2013 1:50am

I'm sorry but he is factually incorrect on so many things. He is simply just pandering to women.

Forget facts, let's make women feel better!

I am sick of this political correctness in the form of lies to build women's forever confused self-esteems.

NoScientist on 27/03/2013 2:00pm

I agree with Rosielee below that the differences between men and women should be celebrated and not ignored. To follow this through to language and thinking I am reminded of Luce Irigaray and her essentialist position whereby one should use the means available to them in their own gender to fully express themselves and not rely on the characteristics or attributes of the opposite. A somewhat contraversial position to take but where you end up if you don't allow for compromises.

Rosielee on 20/02/2013 5:37pm

Although Wolpert doesn't satisfactorily explore the exploitation and oppression of women through the psychological and physical differences he identifies, this debate does raise intereresting questions about the scope of society's influence in gender differences. Though modern society has been successful in pushing for equality between the sexes, Wolpert's argument that many of the differences that underly the historical oppression of women are genetically determined may indicate that equality is a false aim. if equality is understood as sameness, then it's an impossible thing to achieve with regards to gender. However even if the differences between men and women is less socially determined that we think it to be, this does not and should not justify a lesser value being placed on the abilities of women. Men and women are psychologically and physically different. that's undeniable. The potentiallly interesting consequence of Wolpert's talk is that these differences might not be changed through social attitudes, and why should they? the differences should be celebrated, not ignored or denied.

jorge raul on 01/01/2013 5:47am

interesting topic but I have to say that after 10 minutes I was aware that most of his points are conventional and not too stimulating. Mostly complementing women and apologicing about men in the ussual culturally reverted sexism so common now a days. Sorry I could not finish it.

josietj on 20/09/2012 5:52pm

Very disappointing. To disregard Cordelia Fine's chapter-length arguments about why these differences are not necessarily biological with "I don't think that it can be social" in the question at the end, is ridiculous for someone who claims to "staunchly defend science and rational thought".

Assumptions abound in this talk: why should a human that is bigger be more aggressive? Why should girls preferring pink be anything to do with genes (the Victorians thought that pink was a more masculine colour, making it sound like an entirely social preference)? Why should any of the lists of differences claimed here as "obvious" be anything to do with biology, aside from the fact that Wolpert thinks that they are?

Just because a difference is observed in all/many societies does not make it inherent in all/many societies.

A boring rehashing of Mars/Venus all over again.

WhereWithAll on 26/06/2012 12:49pm

One of Foucault’s most fertile insights into the workings of power was his identification of the body and sexuality as the direct locus of social control. It is this emphasis on the body as directly targeted and formed by historically variable regimes of bio-power that has made Foucault’s version of poststructuralist theory the most attractive to feminist social and political theorists. At a fundamental level, a notion of the body is central to the feminist analysis of the oppression of women because biological differences between the sexes are the foundation that has served to ground and legitimize gender inequality. Wolpert succeeds here, I think, in embracing the clear biological differences, but doesn't return to the essentialist gender focus that has caused the oppression that he speaks of.

Copy and paste the code below to embed or link to this video.

Embed:
Embed options
Link:
  • Video Seek
    Converted to a link which jumps to that point in the video
    Example: 00:34
  • Bold Text
    Example: [b]Bold[/b]
  • Italic Text
    Example: [i]Italics[/i]
  • Underlined Text
    Example: [u]Underlined[/u]
  • Website link
    Link to another website or URL
    Example: [url]http://www.website.com/[/url]

Rate this talk with three clicks. You can choose 3 words, or vote for the same word 3 times.

Why sign up for the iai?
  • All you can watch
    Unlimited access to hundreds of hours of debates and talks from the world's leading minds, all for free.
  • Have your say
    Join the iai community and engage in conversation and debate around the issues that matter.
  • Hear it first
    Be the first to hear about our video releases, articles and tickets to our festival HowTheLightGetsIn.