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 ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in philosophy.
