Gender differences
This post has been floating around in my head for months, so maybe it's time I wrote it.Once in a while - fairly frequently, actually - I seem to end up in a conversation about the differences between men and women. Almost inevitably, someone in the conversation will suggest the possibility that the difference in question is or might be innate, usually with some armchair evolutionary theory to explain it, like "men are better designed to do x" or "women are better at y because they have to bear children."
This annoys the heck out of me, and I don't always do a good job of explaining why. Of course there are a few sex-related differences that are obviously innate. Women are better at breast-feeding babies. No denying that. But usually the differences that people are talking about are not obvious biological ones. Usually the conversation is about men being "naturally" better at science, or women being "naturally" more in tune to people's emotions. With the polite understanding that "hey, we aren't being sexist, women and men both have their innate, natural strengths and weaknesses, we should learn to value the contributions that both genders can make" et cetera.
This is infuriating, and the polite, warm-fuzzy veneer doesn't make it less infuriating. Let me make an analogy.
Imagine that you and I decide to see who is the faster runner. Before we start, I shackle some iron weights to your ankles. Unsurprisingly, I win the race. Then I say, "Maybe I'm naturally a better runner than you."
I hope your reaction at this point is total outrage. Why in hell do I think I'm "innately" or "naturally" faster, just because I'm faster when you are handicapped by iron weights?
Then I say, "Good grief, calm down. I'm just suggesting that I MIGHT be innately faster. I think it's a matter for empirical study. Wouldn't it be interesting to fund some scientific research, to find out about the possible innate differences in our running ability?"
I hope your reaction at this point is something like, "IRON WEIGHTS, YOU MORON!!" perhaps accompanied by smacking me on the head.
From birth, both boys and girls in our culture are trained like bonsai trees into their socially-acceptable gender roles. Those roles are like the iron weights in the imaginary race. Of course girls are less likely to become scientifically literate, and of course boys are less likely to become emotionally literate. They are overwhelmingly taught which skills are gender appropriate, and actively discouraged from acquiring skills that are not considered appropriate.
Then you get to adulthood, and some genius notices gender differences. "Hey, look, men are more likely to be scientists, while women are more likely to go into care-giving professions. Why would that be? Maybe there is an innate gender difference!"
This is the point where I want to smack said genius in the head. I'm not saying that there ISN'T any innate gender difference in learning different kinds of skills. I'm just saying that there IS an obvious, huge, iron-weights-type explanation for gender difference staring us right in the face. When people wonder about the innate differences, they tend to erase that explanation. They ignore the incredibly strong, oppressive gender socialization that both boys and girls go through, and the hundreds (if not thousands) of years of sexism that is backing it up.
There have been and are plenty of men and women who fight that socialization, and things are getting gradually better, so that these days there is more support for women who want to be logicians or men who want to be good fathers and good husbands. But those social forces are still telling all of us, every day, what a girl is supposed to be like and what a boy is supposed to be like. If we think of the differences between girls and boys as innate, that means that no change is necessary, because no change is possible. We are enabling those oppressive forces that tell us all which of our talents it is okay to develop.
It's not really the empirical studies about innate differences themselves that are annoying me. In those studies, I want a full acknowledgment up front about the massive social forces that create the non-innate (learned) differences. And I want to know how the study plans to distinguish an innate from a learned difference. And I want to know that the people running the study don't believe themselves to be immune from sexism. If they think that they are purely objective on the subject, then their conclusions ought to be suspect. Some people who want these studies done may have suspect motives as well. But it is perfectly possible to run those studies in a responsible way.
What I really want is for lay people - non-scientists - to shut up and stop telling Just So stories about why men have supposedly evolved to be better at X or worse at Y than women, because the effect is to reinforce sexism and give everyone an excuse to be complacent about it.
Labels: ideas
posted by Jaime_sama @ 10:57 AM
3 comments
links to this post
