Opinion
Biology larger part of gender than feminists admit
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Hannah Shtein:
- Sarah Palin; transparent ploy and second-class public servant (September 17, 2008)
- U.S. falls behind on net neutrality (April 24, 2008)
- Biology larger part of gender than feminists admit (April 10, 2008)
- It's my life: Assisted suicide a bonafide American right (March 27, 2008)
- School separation could solve educational battle of sexes (March 6, 2008)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Not that this topic was ever off the table, but the 2008 presidential race has ensured that the subject of gender dynamics is going to stay in the forefront of Americans’ minds. At least until we unveil the new face of the Oval Office. The influx of speculation on this matter calls for a reevaluation of the prevailing progressive feminist perspective on the role of gender in society. This should sound familiar: Gender is entirely socially constructed. That is to say, biological differences between males and females are limited to sexual organs and chromosomal makeup. Any other differences we perceive with regard to the way males and females think and act are a result of social conditioning.
This is obviously not an implausible argument. Clearly, ideas of women being unfit for education or the workplace or voting have been rightfully recognized as archaic and misguided, and have been rejected — I’d like to think — by most progressive societies. What is not plausible is the notion that there are no inherent biological divergences between men and women, especially when it comes to how we think.
Take, for example, the famous “John/Joan” case outlined in the Harvard Journal of Law and Gender. In the late 1960s, a genetic male was surgically transformed into a woman, due to a loss of male sex organs. Despite growing up as what is socially thought of as a young woman, gender researcher Milton Diamond later concluded, contrary to consensus opinion up to that point, the gender reassignment had failed, as the individual later returned to viewing himself as a man. This was despite the fact that he had been raised as a female with thoroughly feminine social conditioning.
While some may write off this incident as a mere medical anomaly, it stands as an important testament to the fact that there may be more biological factors involved in gender roles than admitted. Additionally, the dynamic between gender and power can be understood by acknowledging repression may result from failure to recognize the possibility of a greater array of biological gender differences. Though many may dismiss the John/Joan case off as an extreme example, the emergence of a “gender role” — as we now refer to it — later in life reflects the difficulty that stems from preventing expression of a natural tendency. It is inevitable that these tendencies must be accepted rather than stifled.
A more recognizable example is our favorite debate about women in math and science. If we view gender as solely socially constructed, then we accept that male and female brains process information in identical ways. Thus, women are encouraged to pursue math and science on the grounds that their minds work the same way as men’s. The push for women to involve themselves in these subjects is certainly on the right track to reshaping societal standards and perceptions regarding female ability.
The problem with it lies in the contradictory message sent by promoting female participation in math and science without allowing young women to explore and address potential differences in the way they view this material. Far from empowering women and increasing their desire to pursue these fields, such an attitude may breed even more discrimination in related careers and academia. The aforementioned contradiction lies in the hindered progress that results from not giving differences a voice. If, for example, a group of women feels the way math or science is taught is not conducive to their way of thinking, the “identical minds” environment will not provide an outlet to explore these differences via a curriculum that may be more suited to their needs.
Consequently, any discrepancies between male and female test scores will seem to point even more to female inferiority, as it will appear as if women are underperforming in an environment supposedly suited to them. This suppression of differences not only presupposes that any female dissimilarities are flaws or inferiorities, but it also forces women to conform to male norms by demonstrating they can “measure up,” rather than self-actualizing and thus creating new standards.
This self-actualization is at the very core of what the American search for identity is all about. Which is why it is understandably difficult to let go of an ideology that allows us to be whatever we want to be, unrestrained by something potentially unchanging. However, the most liberating assertion of self is self-knowledge — thank you, Plato. In understanding what cannot be changed and taking it at face value, we will be better equipped to accept the true identity of others and ourselves.
Hannah Shtein (shtein@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in philosophy.
15 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
LOL, a philosophy major speculating about science.
Leave science to the scientists.
It is mathematically unlikely that Hillary Clinton can win the Democratic nomination, so why is she still in the race? Hannah Shtein argues that it is because Clinton is a female and genetically bad at math.
Get a philosophy degree, know everything.
Philosophy is the oldest science, from which all other sciences decended.
"Philosophy is the oldest science, from which all other sciences decended."
OK, so that means, like, prostitution is the oldest profession from which all other professions descended. Right?
Talk to Larry Summers. Some woman biologist almost got the vapors and fainted when he suggested there might be differences. Then they rode him out of Harvard on a rail.
I suppose he's lucky they didn't give him a double orchiectomy.
I'm not sure if you realize that the John/Joan example refutes the point of your article.
"...[The John/Joan case]stands as an important testament to the fact that there may be more biological factors involved in gender roles than admitted."
Well, no.
This individual was born a biological male, although he was born missing the external evidence. Despite extensive social gendering, he returned to his BIOLOGY and identified as a male. Unless I'm insane and am reading it completely wrong, or there's a "not" that was accidentally edited out.
While I don't argue that gender is a social construct, this example is either poorly explained or it's the wrong example to use here.
If, for example, a group of women feels the way math or science is taught is not conducive to their way of thinking, the “identical minds” environment will not provide an outlet to explore these differences via a curriculum that may be more suited to their needs.
Then these women need to go over to the 'women's studies' curriculum and argue their case over there in that non-scientific environment. "Logic" has rules. If you don't like them, take a class in something else.
Wait until the new Caliphate is established with full-on Sahria, this kind of debate will be completely moot.
Mashad, 10 April (AKI) - A top Shia cleric in Iran has said that unveiled women are a serious danger to Iranian society as they cause men to be "transformed into beasts".
"Women without the veil are a danger that the authorities underestimate," said Hojatolislam Seyyed Ahmad Elmalhoda, a powerful cleric who leads the Friday prayers in Mashad, a site considered sacred for Shia Muslims as it houses the shrine of Imam Reza.
"This situation is very serious in that if men see these bad women, they will turn into beasts, and then the whole of society will have to pay the consequences."
According to the Shia cleric, women who do not respect conservative Islamic dress rules are "sources of all that is bad in society."
"Respecting the chador (a long, black cloak that covers the arms and legs and is usually worn with a hijab) is the law of the state and the authorities must severely punish anyone who does not respect this law, in the same way that they punish thieves and murderers," said Elmadhoda.
4:34 Allah has made men superior to women because men spend their wealth to support them. Therefore, virtuous women are obedient, and they are to guard their unseen parts as Allah as guarded them. As for women whom you fear will rebel, admonish them first, and then send them to a separate bed, and then beat them. But if they are obedient after that, then do nothing further; surely Allah is exalted and great!
Philosophers reason with a very strict set of rules (known as logic). Scientists use the "scientific method" which is an inductive process. Science is fallible, it relies on statistics, it makes relatively large jumps in reasoning that are only "most likely."
Remember from your elementary 101 courses that to dispute an argument, you can only dispute either the logical structure or the premises on which the argument was built.
So, to attack Hannah's argument on the grounds that she's a philosophy major is totally meaningless. I received a degree in a science field, but the scientific method has major drawbacks. The only justification we have to even use the scientific method is a philosophical, logical argument.
12:01pm: If you read carefully, you'll realize she was talking about "the way math or science is *taught*" as potentially not being conducive to women's way of learning. She was not, as you inexplicably perceive, suggesting that the entire basis of science be changed so they can learn it. She was talking about process not substance. But, your misogyny and suggestion that "these women need to go over to the 'womens studies' curriculum" is duly noted.
The math results might have something to do with them being told are assuming they're worse. Studies have been done which show that girls math scores decrease significantly when reminded of the supposed stereotype of women being worse or in some cases of just being reminded of their gender.
Also, just because you know big words doesn't mean they are what fit the article or your audience best, honestly this editorial was very awkwardly written; your diction doesn't make you seem more intelligent in this case, just pretentious.
2:42:
Bugger you, and bugger your misogynist god.
Nobody's superior to anybody; men are, in fact, a lot more similar to women than people think, and if either one is superior to the other in any area, you can't generalize from a group to an individual.
Feminists as a whole (at least in academia) do NOT maintain that people are entirely a product of society. Rather, it's more that society is responsible for *much/most* of a person's development and *most (or an overwhelming majority)* of the trends associated with groups of people, and it would be to women's (and men's) benefit if we were to remove the limitations that force those arbitrary trends and instead allow people to migrate to their true strengths and interests. Gender identity happens to be one of those things that society *cannot* manipulate, but there are things society can affect greatly (socioeconomic status, education and test scores, the way one expresses their particular gender, sex/gender-related behavior).
Regarding math test scores, these start out relatively similar and diverge significantly during high school and college, so there seems to be a social cause for (most of) the sex/gender difference. Whether it's due to teaching style or due to other social factors, sort of the thing that has to be acknowledged is that the differences we see (and certainly the larger differences of 50+ years ago) *are* largely attributable to society rather than biology.
Regarding some of the comments, if you are looking for a field of absolute truths, the answer is... math.
-Kaelin