Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

"Men and women are just different and have different skills and talents"

186 replies

reddaisy · 14/04/2015 09:50

I have heard so many variations on that comment that I really need to properly articulate my objections.

My belief is that gender differences are often as a result of learnt behaviour and most of us are all complicit even if it just means buying a 'little monster' t-shirt for a boy.

Following on from the boat race thread where it was argued that for true equality, men and women should compete against each other, it is clear that there are biological differences between the sexes which impact on their performances.

I keep reading conflicting scientific reports on the differences between men and women's brain and what, if anything, that actually means about different skills/intelligence etc.

So, can we talk about this and explore the perceived innate differences between men and women?

OP posts:
BertieBotts · 14/04/2015 11:39

Delusions of Gender is fantastic although be warned, it will make you even more angry and spluttering whenever somebody brings up supposed gender differences!

It's like those books, Men are from Mars etc. Yes they are excellent at spotting and laying out patterns of behaviour. But then they attribute them to a load of utter bollocks about caveman shit. And surprise surprise, it becomes women's responsibility to put up with, understand and work around men's differences but not for men to do anything more than a token effort to understand their wives or girlfriends. So although I can see why the book is extremely popular, it makes my blood boil.

I mean, just from your last post. Of course men can also multi task. Men generally consider themselves the best drivers on earth FFS! What this usually means is that women are considered adept at combining childcare and housework, which is mainly because we have had more practice as it has always fallen to women. Throw somebody (of any gender) right into the middle of juggling such a thing with no experience and they will struggle.

Noticing new haircuts. Women are taught from very small that appearance is really important and that to be nice to a person you must express approval of their appearance, to ignore or express disapproval is the ultimate insult. Hair is also important - how many little boys do you see with hair clips, alice bands or ponytails, ostensibly used to keep hair out of girls' eyes? How many little girls with short practical styles? Long hair is regarded as feminine and the idea that we can do 1000 different things with our hair is sold to us as fun, which of course it can be, but it's sold far more to little girls as a fun activity - it's assumed that little boys won't care. When a man gets a haircut, it's maintenance - you're not really supposed to notice. When a woman gets a haircut, it's often a fairly dramatic change, so she expects a reaction. But men who are socialised not really to care too much about hair often don't notice.

Similar with birthdays - it's trusted to women to remember. They often don't magically hold them all inside their heads, but use a calendar or diary. Men could do this too, if they wanted to, but they've never really needed to because typically there has been a wife or mother around to remember it for them. Hence they don't understand why it's so important, because it's never been their responsibility.

(I'm getting bored so will just do a general one for men) - science and shelves. These tasks are considered masculine because they have an element of risk and possible injury or messiness, all things that girls are discouraged from from a very early age. Most small children want to avoid things that hurt them but boys are socialised to be brushed off and told "it doesn't matter, man up". It would be considered quite ludicrous for a man to feel worried about scraping his skin or getting chemicals on himself. On the contrary, men should be comfortable with these kinds of risks, because (they are told) they are strong, not delicate. It's true of course that somebody has to do this kind of work in life because it's necessary, but there is no reason except socialisation that the people to do this kind of work ought to be men. It even links back into appearance as well - if a girl is wearing a "pretty" dress (or nice, fashionable clothes when older) she might be told or she might in herself be anxious about spoiling it and hence want to avoid risky or messy behaviours. Boys' clothes are not designed with this kind of thing in mind and boys are not usually told to pay much heed to this except perhaps if they are very dressed up for an occasion. It's not a natural thing for a young child to worry about making a mess except when they don't like the feeling of something being on them.

Pico2 · 14/04/2015 11:37

Buffy - no it doesn't presuppose that. I didn't say that you can separate out the effects, or that the hormonal effects are more significant than the social effects. What it does mean is that we can't form a conclusion that all of the differences are down to socialisation, anymore than concluding that they are down to hormones or genes.

I think that for any skill/attribute you can find both men and women who excel in that area and the same for any deficit. What seems to differ is the number of men/women with those attributes.

ifyourehoppyandyouknowit · 14/04/2015 11:30

Delusions of Gender is £1 on Kindle at the minute. I've added it to my basket!

reddaisy · 14/04/2015 11:17

Delusions on Gender is now reserved at my local library.

What pisses me off the most is the whole women are better at multi-tasking/noticing new haircuts/remembering birthdays thing

V

Men are just better at maths/science/putting up shelves etc

OP posts:
BuffyEpistemiwhatsit · 14/04/2015 11:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tribpot · 14/04/2015 11:07

The generalisation is just too sweeping, isn't it? Would anyone say 'white and black people are just different and have different skills and talents?' (well, obviously some people would not openly and in full expectation that everyone would nod and say 'so true'). Yet we can certainly see from athletic performance that (in general) black athletes perform better than white athletes and that beyond that athletes from certain parts of the world perform best in certain sports - I'm thinking of Kenya and neighbouring high altitude countries and long distance running.

But .. so what? Do I decide to become an Olympic ice skater rather than a marathon runner because as a white person I fancy my chances better? (In reality I don't fancy my chances of either).

In reality people are different. Some people are good at some things and others are good at others. We have no idea what we might be capable of as a species where gender (and other) roles no longer exist - we have no idea if men who become SAHP are or learn to be natural multi-taskers, because there aren't enough of them to base any kind of conclusion on.

In terms of sports, I can see some where men and women should (and in some cases do) compete against each other - horseriding, shooting, golf .. er darts (if you consider darts a sport). But I don't see what relevance a gender divide in sports has to the wider world.

ISaySteadyOn · 14/04/2015 10:53

GoatsDoRoam, I think that's where my problem lies. Even if there were a way to conclusively determine that men and women are different apart from the physical differences (genitalia, ability to give birth, breastfeed), why does it seem that it would automatically follow that one set of characteristics would have to be deemed superior to the other? Why does difference always have to mean hierarchical?

Pico2 · 14/04/2015 10:40

Men and women do have different levels of various hormones, it doesn't feel outlandish to suggest that these have some impact on brain development.

GoatsDoRoam · 14/04/2015 10:34

...and added to that belief, that men and women are "just different", is the fact that the skills considered feminine are the ones that are devalued in society. Seen as "weak", and expected to be provided for very low salaries, or for free (caring professions, raising children, ...).

Convenient, that.

There's all this work that's essential, but really hard. So one half of the population is bullied into doing it for the whole of society, but since they are a very devalued class of people, that essential work somehow also magically becomes "worthless". Because why would you pay a woman much of anything, even for totally essential labour for which they supposedly possess the specialist brain?

reddaisy · 14/04/2015 09:58

No I haven't, I will have a look now.

OP posts:
BuffyEpistemiwhatsit · 14/04/2015 09:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.