Page 8 | Physical Vs psychological difference between the sexes

Bumpitybumper · 2022-06-24T12:27:13+00:00

So Mumsnet seems a very gender critical place when it comes to physical sex based differences. The majority don't support men competing in the female category in sporting competitions or men being allowed in single sex wards or changing rooms. The reason being men and women are so fundamentally biologically different that an ideology can't just erase these difference. However I have noticed that the majority do not support the assertion that male and females may be psychologically different and as a class have different inclinations, behaviour and desires. Many reject the idea that girls may be drawn to different toys, subjects or types of play than boys. They reject the idea that women may naturally have predisposition as a class towards certain occupations and hobbies. They simply cannot accept that women have different desires when it comes to having children and also raising them and the role they play in providing care. I feel like the insistence that men and women want the same things and behave in the same way is because traditional feminine occupations and interests have been so undermined, undervalued and used to repress us in a patriarchal society. Rather than explore the idea of what women have a natural biological propensity towards and seeking equal value for these things, it is easier to suggest our feminine preferences are all a result of socialisation and conditioning and actually our underlying psychology is the same as men's. This seems very dangerous to me and almost playing into the patriarchy's hands. Am I alone is seeing this distinction in how physical and psychological differences between the sexes are viewed?

RoseslnTheHospital · 27/06/2022 21:12

Right so we're just hand waving away a massive meta study. Ok.

What you might need to recognise about your personal experience with your hormones is that it is personal to you. Not representative of women as a whole. Obviously.

Original poster

Bumpitybumper · 27/06/2022 21:11

RoseslnTheHospital · 27/06/2022 20:49

Here's an interesting meta study from 2021

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33621637/

The impact of hormones is not fully understood. The menstrual cycle alone can affect the brain in ways we are only just beginning to understand. I accept not all women feel the same, but my mood, desires and ability to focus can fluctuate massively during any given cycle. Oxytocin and dopamine can bond a mother with a baby so powerfully and quickly that it is almost incomprehensible when compared to any other bonding process humans experience.

As a human I don't just see my biology, but I feel it. It pushes and pulls me in different directions and to sometimes act against my own rational self interest. My biology is unique but also is female and I empathise (ironically!) with others who don't want to be erased or homogenised with men.

OP posts:

Original poster

Bumpitybumper · 27/06/2022 20:54

@RoseslnTheHospital
You for example seem to support the idea that there should be no additional effort to increase participation in STEM careers for women and girls, because really they just don't want to do them and aren't as good as the men anyway and so won't even have a fulfilling career. Whilst also being miserable at being in the workplace when they'd rather be at home looking after their children. How does this benefit women? So, might you argue that instead any money that would have been spent on that should be spent on increasing pay for childcare workers or care workers instead, is that right?
Completely and depressingly wrong.

The socialisation around STEM has been so misogynistic that we absolutely do need to target resources at removing the stereotype threat associated with these subjects. I think this is pretty indisputable and there is plenty of evidence to support this.

Biological difference though may come into play when studying certain aspects of STEM subjects involving for example spatial awareness, but then equally women may have an advantage in other areas. It would be useful to understand this if possible so that provision could be made to equally support learning for both sexes.

Biological difference may also come into it when it comes to this STEM education combining with other personality traits and trends at a population level to determine occupations. So for example, my GP friend tells me that she and some of her female doctor friends have chosen to be GPs or specialised in certain other areas because they offer the flexibility they desire whilst they have young children. These areas are almost always on the lower paid and lower status end of the scale for doctors and considered generally undesirable by male colleagues. What does this mean?

Well if these women are making these choices as a result of socialisation then obviously you would look to tackle this so that women didn't lose out on the more lucrative careers. However, if you believe that a significant proportion women (not all!) have a biological propensity to want to spend more time with their children whilst they are young then there are bigger questions to ask such as why can't the more lucrative careers be made more accessible to women who want a different work:life balance and why are some considered inferior when actually there isn't necessarily justification for this, other than it's an area that would be typically dominated by women working PT.

OP posts:

RoseslnTheHospital · 27/06/2022 20:49

Here's an interesting meta study from 2021

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33621637/

Original poster

Bumpitybumper · 27/06/2022 20:26

@LaughingPriest
Studies have not always shown fuzzy and insignificant differences between the sexes. Some show bigger differences stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

Using your hypothetical study though, what would it mean? Well if it would depend on lots of things including what the study showed at the extremes? Most show more significant and pronounced difference at the far end of the spectrum. If the most empathetic women are significantly more empathetic than the most empathetic men then it would make sense that these women may be drawn to exercise this skill in an associated profession which is usually an occupation that provides a service to others that relies heavily on empathy. Even if this was say 3% of women, this would still be hundreds of thousands of women in the UK alone and could be a very significant element of a particular industry. Then we look at how these industries are valued in terms of pay and status. If they are relatively poorly paid and of lower status than comparably skilled male dominated industries then the discrimination is pretty undeniable.

All humans have a desire to do something that they are good at. By devaluing industries that women may be more biologically predisposed to want to join because of their innate skills and desires, we are effectively socialising them towards joining other sectors. These same women that have exceptional levels of empathy may well not have such exceptional skills in other areas and may be more square pegs in round holes in occupations where they can't properly utilise their skillset but need to pursue in order to ascertain the money and status they desire.

All of the above is assuming the difference in empathy was proven to be biological. If it was proven to be driven by socialisation then I think we need to look at what we can do to make men more empathetic and to close the skills gap. The world would certainly be a better place if such an empathy gap could be closed.

OP posts:

GCandproud · 27/06/2022 20:02

I was referring to the fact that many now believe a woman is anyone who identifies as one, regardless of biology. I was suggesting that a lack of research into biological sex differences has contributed to this existential shift and to the rise in misogyny that has accompanied it.

No, I think it’s the opposite. TRAs use the lady brain argument to argue that some men who don’t conform to male stereotypes are in fact women. If you argue that women are wired to prefer certain jobs and activities you will get males popping up saying that they must be women because they also prefer those jobs and activities.

RoseslnTheHospital · 27/06/2022 19:41

It's an interesting idea but one that I totally disagree with, and can see no evidence for.

Link3 · 27/06/2022 19:35

RoseslnTheHospital · 27/06/2022 15:51

What struggle to define ourselves? I'm a woman, it's a sex class. I'm human with gives me human rights and I ought to be treated fairly and not discriminated against because of my sex class (and the physical and reproductive differences that go along with that).

How is the lack (is there a lack?? There always seems to be some new article about "what women are like") of research contributing to misogyny?

I was referring to the fact that many now believe a woman is anyone who identifies as one, regardless of biology. I was suggesting that a lack of research into biological sex differences has contributed to this existential shift and to the rise in misogyny that has accompanied it.

LaughingPriest · 27/06/2022 18:15

(Also @Bumpitybumper - You are asking for a level of proof that doesn't exist because sufficiently robust studies haven't been undertaken yet.

The post you quoted by me wasn't to do with me asking for any level of proof - I was asking a poster to clarify what they actually meant when they claimed something, as it was unclear. Not to 'prove it' - just 'what is the thing that is being claimed'?).

GCandproud · 27/06/2022 18:14

How would you do your robust studies to remove the factor of socialisation? There is nobody alive today who hasn’t been socialised into their gendered role. Boys and girls get told from birth that they should play with certain toys and wear certain clothes. So I can’t see how you could ever do a study where you eliminated that and therefore your results would be unreliable.

LaughingPriest · 27/06/2022 18:14

@Bumpitybumper I gave a made-up example upthread, as I'm also interested in what you do with the information once you have it. I'm not saying 'you need a high burden of proof' per se unless you're doing something drastic with it - because I realise you probably won't get it, so I'm saying if you found something, what does that inform? That's sort of my point - it's likely to be fuzzy, and not apply to hundreds of thousands of women, so what were you thinking you would use it for?

Here's what I posted if you missed it:

Let's pretend there is a really robust study that shows that 70% of women score 15% higher on empathy measures than 70% of men, with scores on bell curves with the appropriate overlap between groups.

What do you suggest we do with this information if it turns out this is entirely innate?

What do you suggest we do with this information if it turns out it's mostly due to socialisation?

I'm still really unclear on what you are actually suggesting, op, hence ppl drawing their own conclusions. Can you set it out clearly, please?

What we can't do is prove why they make choices and behave the way they do

This is going to be completely different for every individual. It's down to past experience, how much weighting is given to various factors (e.g. the commute to a job, the mat pay at that job, whether their old school bully works there etc etc ad infinitum)

Original poster

Bumpitybumper · 27/06/2022 17:54

LaughingPriest · 27/06/2022 16:54

Sorry you'll have to look at the studies.

I'm honestly not trying to have a go, but did you therefore not know which of those you meant when you posted it?

Does anyone in this thread actually acknowledge that saying 'women like X more' is essentially meaningless unless we can say what X is, how it was measured, what it is more THAN, how many women, under what conditions?

It needs articulating if we are even going to start discussing it, let alone proposing what we could do about it that would be valuable?!

It's all so painfully vague!

You are asking for a level of proof that doesn't exist because sufficiently robust studies haven't been undertaken yet. It is pretty much like this:

There are observable differences in the way the sexes behave.
Studies are undertaken to try and definitively prove that this is due to biology or socialisation, but this is impossible as nobody is raised in a vacuum so socialisation will always be involved in someway.
People use studies that show socialisation has an influence as proof that biology is irrelevant.

So we have loads of stats and data on what women currently do that is different to men and behave differently. What we can't do is prove why they make choices and behave the way they do. Insisting on a ridiculously high burden of proof for biological drivers while subjecting the socialisation hypothesis to no such scrutiny is hardly objective. It is ideologically driven, people don't want it to be true as it makes equality more complicated and difficult to achieve.

OP posts:

nepeta · 27/06/2022 17:31

ZandathePanda · 27/06/2022 11:50

If you look at the other Great Ape species, the females do do the main care giving. Some male chimps can be particularly aggressive to youngsters but some male gorillas are particularly caring. Orang females bring up their infants by themselves. In all species the males are the most aggressive. Obviously lots of variation between and within but humans don’t seem to be that different from others in our Great Ape family.

In chimpanzees it's true that the mothers of infants do much of the childcare (though older siblings of both sexes do seem to give a hand). But it's also true that in chimpanzees all the mothers are single-parents who also work (feed themselves and their infants), and it's also true that chimpanzee females are what we would call extremely promiscuous, but of course only during the mating season.

I have always been interested in which types of generalisations from other animals we humans are willing to assume that might also apply to us (usually when they do something in the same manner as we do) and which kinds we are less willing to accept as generalisations. So a study about young female chimpanzees modifying sticks and then treating them as if they were dolls (from the human point of view) was widely reported in popular press because it strengthens our prior beliefs, but another study reporting that in one community certain chimpanzees turned sticks into spears to hunt insects etc. with (from crevices in rotten trees) was not much reported as this was led by young female chimpanzees.

nepeta · 27/06/2022 17:15

Simon Baron-Cohen created the ideas of empathising and systematising, so I'd be wary of just assuming that these are generally accepted concepts which differ between men and women. The concepts are fairly close to the old arguments that women are emotional and men are rational.

In the paper which first reported these concepts, you can figure out that roughly around half the women tested (46% in one model specification, 51.5% in the other) did not actually seem to have what Baron-Cohen calls a female brain, but a balanced or a male brain.

The percentages of men who did not have a male brain were far lower (17% in one model specification, 40.4% in the other).

This could be because the questions he used might have been biased. The kinds of statements he lists in later sources as statements to agree or disagree with in the test look to me as if he puts systematising into the terms of male-coded professions, tasks, and hobbies, but doesn't really do the same for the assertions about empathising behaviour. There are many opportunities for exhibiting systematising behaviour within tasks, hobbies, and processions coded female, but those are not used in his tests. I believe that this biases the results.

Some examples for statements about systematising (I think these are from his book The Essential Difference or possibly from the test he offered to the general public around that time. My apologies for not writing down the source when I copied them):

If I were buying a car, I would want to obtain specific information about its engine capacity.
If there was a problem with the electrical wiring in my home, I'd be able to fix it myself.

11. I rarely read articles or Web pages about new technology. 13. I am fascinated by how machines work. 18. I find it difficult to understand instruction manuals for putting appliances together. 25. If I had a collection (e.g. CDs, coins, stamps), it would be highly organized. 29. When I read the newspaper, I am drawn to tables of information, such as football scores or stock market indices.

Anxiernie · 27/06/2022 17:10

"Men in general are stronger than women" doesn't imply that there aren't some women who are stronger than some men, for example. Of course there are women that are stronger than various men.

Anxiernie · 27/06/2022 17:05

Right but there still might be biological differences but we all recognise that it’s bullshit to say all Asian people are good at maths or black people good at running

But acknowledging differences in a group level generally, does not mean that all of the group conform to those differences, does it? If you said "women in general are more empathetic" it doesn't follow at all that "all women are empathetic". Nobody is saying "all".

GCandproud · 27/06/2022 16:58

MalagaNights · 27/06/2022 16:44

If there was evidence more women (not all or even a majority) would be happier being able to be with their children more, a basic income to stay at home with children (available to men and women) would be a good way to support and value this.

Also a great experiment to see the results.

Also maybe great for kids?

I wonder why immigrant communities take this up more? Do they value this role more or are women not encouraged into other roles so they are limited in choice?

Surely all interesting questions?

I think it shows that women in those countries that run schemes aren’t willing to stay at home and give up on work for a lengthy period of time. I guess some of the immigrant communities are more patriarchal in their structure and maybe expect women to stay at home so that explains the higher uptake.
Given complete choice of money were no object, there are probably many people who wouldn’t work at all if they didn’t have to, whether or not they had children to care for. However, financial independence is a key factor to well-being and being economically dependent on a man isn’t really that great for women or something to encourage, given the unreliable nature of such support. The ideal is probably something in between: economic independence, flexible working, affordable care and a good work-life balance.
Also, the pro-tradwife journalists who try to promote dependence on men (Mary Harrington, Laura Perrins, Louise Perry) all work! They talk about women being hardwired to be carers and housewives but they all have jobs so maybe they should lead the way and give them up.

MalagaNights · 27/06/2022 16:56

LaughingPriest · 27/06/2022 16:54

Sorry you'll have to look at the studies.

I'm honestly not trying to have a go, but did you therefore not know which of those you meant when you posted it?

Does anyone in this thread actually acknowledge that saying 'women like X more' is essentially meaningless unless we can say what X is, how it was measured, what it is more THAN, how many women, under what conditions?

It needs articulating if we are even going to start discussing it, let alone proposing what we could do about it that would be valuable?!

It's all so painfully vague!

I meant I'm referring to studies from memory. yes in a vague way as I'm on social media on the hoof.

MalagaNights · 27/06/2022 16:55

Namenic · 27/06/2022 16:50

@MalagaNights - I would absolutely counsel a woman to consider the full implications of the choice in work preference - as it is not always straightforward. I career switched from female dominated healthcare to male dominated tech. I happen to enjoy tech, but even if I was lukewarm, it would still have been a sensible move (though not if I hated it). I get more wfh and flexibility so can spend more time with my kids (which would be classed a ‘feminine’ desire I guess).

I’m not saying that women should do jobs they hate to earn more money. But if there are 2 feasible jobs where 1 pays a lot more - consider doing the higher paid one as it CAN give you more options (eg save up to fund a career break to travel or have a longer mat leave or whatever). I do value care work personally - but I can’t make all of society value it. I am not in a position to hire anyone at work, but if I was, I would want to hire a collaborative, kind person rather than someone technically brilliant but competitive and aggressive.

I agree.

But they still may at group levels make more choices towards caring roles.

I earn more than my husband and run a department.
I'm not all women.

LaughingPriest · 27/06/2022 16:54

Sorry you'll have to look at the studies.

I'm honestly not trying to have a go, but did you therefore not know which of those you meant when you posted it?

Does anyone in this thread actually acknowledge that saying 'women like X more' is essentially meaningless unless we can say what X is, how it was measured, what it is more THAN, how many women, under what conditions?

It needs articulating if we are even going to start discussing it, let alone proposing what we could do about it that would be valuable?!

It's all so painfully vague!

Namenic · 27/06/2022 16:50

@MalagaNights - I would absolutely counsel a woman to consider the full implications of the choice in work preference - as it is not always straightforward. I career switched from female dominated healthcare to male dominated tech. I happen to enjoy tech, but even if I was lukewarm, it would still have been a sensible move (though not if I hated it). I get more wfh and flexibility so can spend more time with my kids (which would be classed a ‘feminine’ desire I guess).

I’m not saying that women should do jobs they hate to earn more money. But if there are 2 feasible jobs where 1 pays a lot more - consider doing the higher paid one as it CAN give you more options (eg save up to fund a career break to travel or have a longer mat leave or whatever). I do value care work personally - but I can’t make all of society value it. I am not in a position to hire anyone at work, but if I was, I would want to hire a collaborative, kind person rather than someone technically brilliant but competitive and aggressive.

MalagaNights · 27/06/2022 16:49

LaughingPriest · 27/06/2022 16:39

@MalagaNights "Also there is evidence that given more choice in egalitarian societies women choose more caring roles and are more satisfied"

When you say this, what do you mean by 'more' caring roles? More than whom, and measured how? (I.e. do you mean a greater proportion of women than in the UK choose roles that are designated as 'caring'?) or do you mean women in those societies choose more roles designated as 'caring' than men do?

Sorry you'll have to look at the studies.

I'm not supposed to be here. I'm sure you all imagine I'm some trad wife (which I've been accused of promoting!) When the reality is so different 😁)

I have a meeting I'm going in to.
At least we seem to have found there is something here that can be discussed anyway!

nepeta · 27/06/2022 16:47

MalagaNights · 27/06/2022 16:24

Google it.

Yes there are critiques, it's far from conclusive, but they are the societies generally considered the most egalitarian, so interesting to consider at least.

Show quote history

A few sources for the criticisms:
d-miller.github.io/assets/MillerEaglyLinn2015.pdf

blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/countries-with-less-gender-equity-have-more-women-in-stem-huh/

This non-academic article is interesting in demonstrating differences between countries in the percentage of women in science and engineering, and different trends as well. The variety suggests cultural influences, local labour market conditions etc. are also functioning.

MalagaNights · 27/06/2022 16:44

If there was evidence more women (not all or even a majority) would be happier being able to be with their children more, a basic income to stay at home with children (available to men and women) would be a good way to support and value this.

Also a great experiment to see the results.

Also maybe great for kids?

I wonder why immigrant communities take this up more? Do they value this role more or are women not encouraged into other roles so they are limited in choice?

Surely all interesting questions?

LaughingPriest · 27/06/2022 16:39

@MalagaNights "Also there is evidence that given more choice in egalitarian societies women choose more caring roles and are more satisfied"

When you say this, what do you mean by 'more' caring roles? More than whom, and measured how? (I.e. do you mean a greater proportion of women than in the UK choose roles that are designated as 'caring'?) or do you mean women in those societies choose more roles designated as 'caring' than men do?