Do you think men and women are 'of equal value but different' or actually 'the same'?

[TrillianAstra]

Just curious.

I'd go for option a.

Not very different, and on any one axis of difference the differences are small and the range is large, but I think there are average differences.

e.g. men are taller than women but if I took the next 10 men and then next 10 women who walked down the street the odds are that some of the women would be taller than some of the men

I think the average woman is different from the average man, but I think men seem to enjoy a position or a status which is based on the better than the average and perhaps it's the opposite for women.

They are not physically the same - a man can never have a baby and I can never grow a beard (oh: I need a better example than that!)
But mentally, I would like to think that we are the same blank canvas so that either sex could fulfil what are traditionally gendered roles eg doctor/nurse, breadwinner/carer etc.

Well of coirse it's a. Of course they are not actually the same.... one's a man one's a woman!

We are different physically but of the same value. I think that the problem arises when people use our average physical differences and confer a value difference from them.

For example:

It is 'better' to be stronger.
The average man is stronger than the average woman.
Therefore men are 'better' than women.

We, as feminists, take exception to the (erroneous) conclusion but I think we often struggle to engage with people in a way that highlight how illogical these type of conclusions are.

Physically - I'm talking bits here - there are obvious differences, although of course there is a huge area of intersex that is not talked about much. In terms of strength & height and face shape etc, I agree with the OP - average small differences, but not really worth getting het up over, unless you really need someone who's 7 foot tall, in which case a man is your best bet.

But mentally/psychologically I am inclined to think we are basically the same. Or rather, we are all different and grouping by sex is probably a bit of a red herring. However the things we are taught to be good at, and ways we are taught to behave by society are often very different. I was trying to explain this recently by saying that if you are trained to be a truck driver from birth, presented with pictures of trucks, toy trucks, games to improve co-ordination etc, it's no surprise that your brain develops in a way favourable to truck driving. If a boy is allowed/encouraged to play computer games that promote quick reactions and concentration, while a girl would be prevented from doing the same (possibly by worries about being "anti-social"), it's not surprise if the boy becomes better at mechanical stuff and not so good at communication.

I think there are average physical differences but there is such a large range that it is not safe or reasonable to make any judgements based on them. It needs to be individual.

I think with anything non-physical you get into difficulties with measurement.

Neurosexism is responsible for a lot in my opinion. <a class="break-all" href="http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&story=www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this article is a useful antidote to those who like to point out that men are naturally better at x, y or z.

I am of the opinion that men and women are basically the same. There is far more variance within the sexes, than between.

I am short, and if I can't reach something, I much prefer to ask a woman who is taller to help, than a man. Asking a man makes me feel inferior - asking a woman doesn't.

Anyway, that digression aside, I think a). Not different in that we are differently able, but clearly we have different physical attributes. I think maybe it's a case of 'more men than women will be good at XXX' but that doesn't mean that only men will be good at it and that only men should have a chance of doing it.

That's why Michael Moore put a page of contact details for sperm banks and stepladder sellers in one of his books, LI

Which book elephants?

interesting thread!

Does anyone know the work of Simon Baron-Cohen on the autistic spectrum? (yes he is the brother of Sasha but also a respected scientist!). I went to a really interesting lecture he gave about male / female brains. I am going to get it wrong now, but basically he said that people fall all along the spectrum from 'normal' to 'highly autistic' and also from 'normal' to 'highly empathetic'. More men are on the autistic side than women and autistic traits are typically more 'masculine' traits. But we don't have a word or a diagnosis for people who stray into the highly empathetic end of the spectrum because they operate well in society where autistic people don't.

I think in the end he was saying that there are differences but that they are really not so huge - you can get women on the highly autistic side and vice versa, and basically we are all humans. I agree with Elephants that defining people by their gender is a red herring - there are so many other factors that make us all different and none is better than another. Just different.

I think that men and women are different, but their differences should not be used to justify different treatment or rights.

Eg the fact that women have babies and go on maternity leave is a fact, but not a valid justification for the pay gap.

I also agree that there are far more differences within sexes than between. The fact that someone is male or female is of no more relevance in most cases than the fact that they have red hair, or a dodgy back, or never met a choc ice they didn't like.

It wouldn't bother me to ask for help from anyone if I couldn't reach something. So I probably take the view that we are the same.

If someone else can reach it great, as long as I get it!

Carole Malone (in I think the MoS) slated Angelina Jolie for letting her dd dress like a boy!!
We're our own worst enemies sometimes...

I'd quite like my 3yo to stay dressed!!

It wasthis one I think.

Strangers get v het up when you haven't dressed your babies/small children in gender stereotypical clothes and they accidentally call them a boy when they are in fact a girl (or vice versa). I'm not too bothered by what my children wear, have one of each, but identifying gender does seem to be important to people.

novicemama - there was some discussion of SBC over here

Thanks, another for the "To read" list, one day I hope to have time to read all of the books on it!

It doesn't bother me, Sorky, I just notice the different feeling I get when I ask a woman to when I ask a man. When I ask a woman it's like I can't reach it because I'm short, when I ask a man I feel like I can't reach it because I'm a woman...and I feel the person I've asked feels those things too.

there are slight average differences between male and female groups. plenty of evidence on that one.

but you never deal with people as averages - only as the individual standing in front of you.

and there is so much variance between individuals.

although studies into gender differences/ sex differnces are interesting, i don't think they'll ever tell you anything about how to treat the people you come into contact with.

the extent to which socialisation creates gender difference is also interesting, but i think the physical differences are going to lead to it not all being about socialisation. In a way, unless you believe in a non-physical soul, that's probably the only valid conclusion - those body/ chemical differences are going to produce mind/ behaviour differences.

I think all people are of equal value but different (well,maybe not Hitler etc...).I think that it is a meaningless statement when applied to men and women in real life.

It leads to having to define exactly how men and women are different,and then,usually, to women having to explain exactly how they are equal,because the default in society is to male = better.
I suppose I don't think gender should be seen as being any more significant than any other variation in the human race.(this is in my ideal world!)

i'll go with A - defintely different, but equally valid, useful and important.

i lie more on the 'same' side of the argument than the 'equal but different' side.

as a map-reading, mathematician, female i believe we are not different intellectually mentally or psychologically.

there are some obvious differences physically but actually having practised martial arts i can say that not all men are stronger or more physical than most women... pysicality and the ability to use your strength comes with practise.

i haven't yet carried a pregnancy to term but i assume that's where the real differences kick in.. i often joke that i'd rather be a father than a mother.. but then i've had all the stress and none of the reward of motherhood yet.

It really irritates me when my FIL tries to argue that 'men are stronger than women' is a valid statement. I think that logically, it's too vague: which men and which women? All of them? To me it seems to carry the implication that 'all men are stronger than all women'. Which is clearly stupid. Even 'most men are stronger than most women', which he sometimes adjusts it to, is plausible but unproven, and also still fairly useless as a thing to say. Also he seems to think it's inherent or entirely biological, rather than at all culturally affected by attitudes to exercise etc.

I agree that there are more differences within than between, and that trans and intersex should be factored in, all of which renders most (all?) debates about gender both difficult and often pointless.

at the risk of sounding like monty python, we're all individuals different.

i've never been much of a 'this world has to be defined in terms of the binary' fan. and have fought long and hard against people defining me in those terms. (i wanted to join the marines because they said i couldn't...)

i don't believe that any person should have their life/ activities defined by their identification as male/ female or anything else, legally or culturally.