And by the way, I for many decades held the feminist perspective that most gender roles were entirely socially constructed, other than those based on things like childbirth or upper body strength. Or more specifically, that there were no inherent mental or psychological differences between male and female minds or brains (tho some diffe…
And by the way, I for many decades held the feminist perspective that most gender roles were entirely socially constructed, other than those based on things like childbirth or upper body strength. Or more specifically, that there were no inherent mental or psychological differences between male and female minds or brains (tho some differences in bodies).
Studies of early infant preferences, preferences among other primates, cross cultural correlations, and occupations in countries with fewer gender barriers have convinced me that such a "blank slate" attitude is no longer scientifically supportable. If juvenile monkeys studied in their native habitat show marked gender preferences for rag dolls vs bright colored toy trucks with moving parts, it's hard to chalk that up to patriarchal conditioning. I reluctantly concede that there is good evidence of some non-trivial sex based underlying differences in proclivities and interests.
Of course, culture adds a whole bunch of other arbitrary associations on top of that; wearing lipstick or carrying purses is unlikely to have any biological roots. And individuals can be slightly or strongly atypical of group trends. So I continue to believe that, for example, both males and females should be welcomed into any occupation for which they are qualified and interested. In no way does my new recognition of some underlying propensities suggest that we erect sex-based barriers to individuals who want to pursue interests typical or atypical of their sex.
But it does cause me to question whether observing any deviation from 49%/51% ratios *automatically* implies discrimination or barriers. Sometimes it might, sometimes it may reflect free choices, and statistically differing proclivities.
So accepting that there are partially different male and female (and possible MtF and FtM) brain phenotypes does not imply any return to rigid stereotyping and restrictions. No need to shy away from recognizing the results of the analysis I linked because we are afraid of the implications of accepting the results.
" I for many decades held the feminist perspective that most gender roles were entirely socially constructed."
I think we more or less agree here. I don't think of gender roles as *entirely* socially constructed. As you say, we see differences in male and female behaviour across pretty much all animal species. But again, we’re talking in aggregates. Individuals are different.
Pick any masculine trait you like, and there’s a female out there who exhibits it to a greater degree than you. In fact, there’s an individual female who exhibits *all* of the traditionally masculine traits to a greater degree than you (and me too obviously, I’m not questioning your manhood😁). Strength, aggression, height, agreeableness (or a lack thereof), you name it.
So while it’s true that gendered behaviour is, in part, biological, and that observing these differences isn't necessarily discriminatory, the important point (which you make as well) is that individuals should still be left free to choose their own destiny. Because there is enormous variation in how individuals behave that defies the bell curves.
I'm leery of the idea of male and female brains, not because I don’t understand that males and females are different, but because population level differences are terrible predictors of individual tendencies. And I think a focus at the population level naturally tempts us to overlook this.
Your male brain works differently to my male brain. And each of our brains probably work very similarly to some women's brains. So the sweet spot for me is just to treat everybody as if they're the same unless there are clear physical reasons not to.
And by the way, I for many decades held the feminist perspective that most gender roles were entirely socially constructed, other than those based on things like childbirth or upper body strength. Or more specifically, that there were no inherent mental or psychological differences between male and female minds or brains (tho some differences in bodies).
Studies of early infant preferences, preferences among other primates, cross cultural correlations, and occupations in countries with fewer gender barriers have convinced me that such a "blank slate" attitude is no longer scientifically supportable. If juvenile monkeys studied in their native habitat show marked gender preferences for rag dolls vs bright colored toy trucks with moving parts, it's hard to chalk that up to patriarchal conditioning. I reluctantly concede that there is good evidence of some non-trivial sex based underlying differences in proclivities and interests.
Of course, culture adds a whole bunch of other arbitrary associations on top of that; wearing lipstick or carrying purses is unlikely to have any biological roots. And individuals can be slightly or strongly atypical of group trends. So I continue to believe that, for example, both males and females should be welcomed into any occupation for which they are qualified and interested. In no way does my new recognition of some underlying propensities suggest that we erect sex-based barriers to individuals who want to pursue interests typical or atypical of their sex.
But it does cause me to question whether observing any deviation from 49%/51% ratios *automatically* implies discrimination or barriers. Sometimes it might, sometimes it may reflect free choices, and statistically differing proclivities.
So accepting that there are partially different male and female (and possible MtF and FtM) brain phenotypes does not imply any return to rigid stereotyping and restrictions. No need to shy away from recognizing the results of the analysis I linked because we are afraid of the implications of accepting the results.
" I for many decades held the feminist perspective that most gender roles were entirely socially constructed."
I think we more or less agree here. I don't think of gender roles as *entirely* socially constructed. As you say, we see differences in male and female behaviour across pretty much all animal species. But again, we’re talking in aggregates. Individuals are different.
Pick any masculine trait you like, and there’s a female out there who exhibits it to a greater degree than you. In fact, there’s an individual female who exhibits *all* of the traditionally masculine traits to a greater degree than you (and me too obviously, I’m not questioning your manhood😁). Strength, aggression, height, agreeableness (or a lack thereof), you name it.
So while it’s true that gendered behaviour is, in part, biological, and that observing these differences isn't necessarily discriminatory, the important point (which you make as well) is that individuals should still be left free to choose their own destiny. Because there is enormous variation in how individuals behave that defies the bell curves.
I'm leery of the idea of male and female brains, not because I don’t understand that males and females are different, but because population level differences are terrible predictors of individual tendencies. And I think a focus at the population level naturally tempts us to overlook this.
Your male brain works differently to my male brain. And each of our brains probably work very similarly to some women's brains. So the sweet spot for me is just to treat everybody as if they're the same unless there are clear physical reasons not to.