Feminism and natural sex differences

I'm pretty sure that WriterofDreams doesn't think that claig.

Checked out Susan Pinker references in Delusions of Gender (I do love a good index!) and it seems she has fallen for the bad science in the same way that many others have. A crying shame.

I agree with WriterofDreams. I think there are big differences between women and men, and I think they are biological.

I think we;re getting away from the point, which is that the idea that there are gender differences on average = not really a huge problem, I don't think they've proved much one way or the other though.

When inconclusive findings about average differences are held up as triumphant proof that men and women are different and therefore the world is exactly as it should be = bad.

Like the book that WoD mentions. It seems to suggest that women aren't up to the type of work that brings them success and money. That women are not interested in these things, and are much happier when engaged in low prestige low pay work. I mean, seriously???

Then of course people can use it to explain why women earn less "oh well women aren't really interested in money, they're above all that you know".

How that fits in with the other beloved stereotype of the gold-digger / women being turned on by rich successful men even if they're ugly as sin etc is beyond me.

Niecie, can't access Cohen's review of the Cordelia Fine book. It is a shame, because it would be interesting to hear his views.

From a very interesting review in the NYT of Pinker's book:

'In her zeal, Pinker veers to the onesided. She doesn?t acknowledge that some of the research cited in her footnotes is either highly questionable as social science (Louise Story?s 2005 article in The New York Times, for instance, about her survey of Ivy League women?s aspirations) or has never been replicated ? like the findings from Simon Baron-Cohen?s laboratory that newborn girls showed more interest in looking at human faces, while newborn boys preferred mechanical mobiles. Pinker omits the work of scientists who have shown that sex-based brain differences pale in comparison to similarities. We shouldn?t wish the role of sex differences away because they?re at odds with feminist dogma. But that doesn?t mean we should settle for the reductionist version of the relevant science, even if the complexity doesn?t make for as neat a package between hard covers.'
www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/books/review/Bazelon-t.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Well worth reading the review in full.

damn ISNT you post too much

I meat I agreed with the post before your last post.

I bet that is true about ancient societies though, that the strongest people did the hardest work, regardless of gender. My point was just that the only natural differences between the sexes are the physical and biological ones.

Agree with ISNT's last post.

I tihnk differences between the sexes are physical ones mainly. We cannot argue with the fact that men have more muscle mass, for example.

claig as far as i can see studies which set out to find differences often find none. So that's fine by me

OMDB someone on here knows an awful lot about how ancient societies lived (hopefully they will come on this thread) and apparently the male hunter while women huddled indoors idea is just an idea, and there are many different ideas as to how early societies operated in terms of division of labour. Certainly it would make sense for the strong people to do the physical work - but the strongest people wouldn't always be male IYSWIM.

Also if it's US women remember that their set-up is different to ours. I think that they get very little mat leave - or at least it's not paid or something - so women in high-powered careers are back at work sharpish after having children, which many of them must find stressful.

Also if they were looking at traditional high powered male jobs, something you will find there is a long-hours culture as standard. Fine when you don't have children or have a wife at home dealing with all of that, so that you can just work, but not fine when the bulk of the physical and emotional childrearing work is falling to you. And don't underestimate the guilt that many full-time working women feel, which men in teh same position are completely free of.

it all adds up, doesn't it.

It's just not an even playing field.

I may be off the mark here but there is/was a biological reason why caveman went out hunting while cavewoman looked after the baboies and picked berries. That wasn't a cultural choice or conditioning.

'in the same way I question studies which set out to find differences between boys and girls.'

but do you also question studies that say that there are no differences? Aren't there possible agendas on both sides?

Oh sorry.

I haven't read the book but if it's case studies, they obviously didn't interview xenia

if you looked you could find thousands of men who were doing well / successful and then suddenly shifted down / dropped out / did something less lucrative. Only when they do it, it's seen as a valid choice by that actual man. Whereas when women do it, it's seen as confirmation that women as a group are not suited for this type of work. And they never take into account all the additional pressures that women have on them compared to men in the same position (on average), and that many men would give their eye-teeth to do what these women do.

writerofdreams is that the response to all the reasons I put forward for women "dropping out"?

Just "No"?

writerofdreams I mean I am suspicious of the motivations of some of those conducting these studies.

Of course it is always interesting to find out stuff, but if someone was doing a study with an abstract "black people have brains that cannot handle abstract thinking" or something I would question the purpose, in the same way I question studies which set out to find differences between boys and girls.

writerofdreams I think that the way our society is structured means that women still bear the brunt of the work. There is also still sexual discrimination in the workplace.

So while many women "step down" when they start their families, and describe it as a "choice", when you look closely it wasn't actually much of a choice at all.

Reasons such as families wanting one person to be at home with the child/ren, at least part-time, and the man earns more (usually simply because he is older and has had more years in the workplace).
Reasons like women still doing the majority of the housework and childcare and working full-time on top wears them out, whereas men are more often in a situation where they are able to work and then rest (the OH does what SGB calls the "shitwork").
Women being socialised to really believe that what they want is to stay at home with the kids.
The fact it is always overlooked that many many men would give their right arms to stay at home with the children/go part time and have the children but for various reasons included those above it doesn't happen.
Even where couples both work full-time it is usually the woman who is "on call" if the school calls, or has to arrange to leave early/late for appointments for the children.

It's just not an even playing field. I really believe that if men and women were facilitated in society to do what they really wanted, there would be a very different picture.

I've heard of that Pinker book Writer but haven't read it.

Does Pinker talk about the sexism the women who 'gave it all up'? I'm thinking of all the sex discrimination cases I read about in the City particularly.

No I wouldn't agree that women and men are drawn to different careers because of natural inclination.

- Book review by SBC

Not sure that you can see this - had to log in as a member to see it so it might be restricted.

Earwicga - thanks for the link. I just found it myself but you saved me a job..

I thought SBC was actually very measured. Shame it isn't on the website.