Feminism and natural sex differences

[WriterofDreams]

I am a woman, but I know very little about feminism, so this question is posed out of curiosity more than anything. Where do feminists generally stand on genetic/biological differences between men and women? By that I mean would a lot of feminists believe that they don't exist, or would they believe that they do exist but are irrelevant?

Just to give my current thinking on it (am open to having my mind changed) I do believe there are certain stable sex differences between females and males. This has been borne out by research into the way that girls and boys develop. I realise culture has a large role to play in these differences but I also believe it is not entirely the source of them.

Would like to hear other views.

That's the point I was trying to make - that some people were using fMRI scans to 'prove' that spatial awareness separated men and women but in fact, it is socially constructed and has in fact created the neurological picture.

yes yes yes ISNT & Sprogger

Writerofdreams - I really recommend you read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, a neuropsychologist (or similar can't remember the last part of her job title!). If you're interested in sex or gender differences, it really gives you something to think about!

WriterofDreams - is this thread inspired by the articles in The Psychologist this month with the review of the book about how gender is culturally created and biology is irrelevant and then the review by Simon Baron Cohen? Sorry, can't find my copy at the moment so I can't remember the name of the book or the author. I have read it and thought it interesting and having read your OP I was reminded of it and then again to see you are a psychologist I though you might have read it too.

I thought Baron Cohen was more convincing, mainly because to say biology has nothing to do with sex differences has to be total nonsense. I would say the same if anybody tried to say it was entirely due to sex differences by the way.

I wish I knew where I put it!

depends what sex differences you/they were talking about niecie. What differences were they talking about?

If it's saying that boys have penises and girls have vaginas then clearly it is ludicrous to put it down to socialisation.

If it's that boys are naturally analytical, competitive and assertive while girls are naturally passive, nurturing, and into talking rather than doing, then I might have a few things to say.

I've just looked online Niecie, and there is an interview with the Cordelia Fine www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm?volumeID=23&editionID=194&ArticleID=1749

The review of her book by Baron Cohen isn't available, which I'm not particularly bothered by because he is an utter arse imo.

The other thing I don't understand is the purpose of all of this.

Sat it is proven beyond doubt that on average boys are better at than girls. Still some girls will still be excellent at and some boys rubbish at it. The current interpretation of these (non-conclusive) findings seems to be a stringent attempt to pigeon-hole people into gender stereotypes. The best question of all, is, why are people so keen to do this?

ISNT, I understand all that you are saying and agree.

'The best question of all, is, why are people so keen to do this?'

To justify differential treatment of men and women?

I didn't see that article Niecie - bit out of touch with psychology since I moved on to become a primary teacher, but it sounds really interesting. Simon Baron Cohen has very strong views on sex differences so it would be interesting to hear what he had to say.

A very interesting book I re-read recently is "The Sexual Paradox" by psychologist Susan Pinker. What she argues is that women are just as capable of being CEOs of big businesses, physicists and engineers, but they don't choose to be. In her research she found there wasn't a difference in ability but in desire Women who grew up being constantly encouraged and socially conditioned to be successful in the business world found when they got to their mid thirties/early forties that it wasn't what they actually wanted She found that for the most part women didn't move up the ladder because they chose not to and in her book she included case studies of highly successful businesswomen who gave it all up in later life to follow more traditionally "female" careers or to stay at home with their children.

Would you agree that women and men tend to be drawn to different careers, in spite of huge investment to include women in more traditionally male arenas?

What's the point in knowing anything about anything ISNT? Purely for interest really.

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

No the women she studied were women who had huge amounts of encouragement as children and all through college. They stated themselves that they were respected in their work and never encountered sexism from colleagues. Part of her remit was to study why the millions that the US government pumped into programmes promoting sexual equality just hadn't worked. What she found was that women were offered the opportunities but just didn't take them, or took them then later gave them up. She found that there was a huge level of dissatisfaction among professional women who had been told by society that to be successful they should chose traditionally male jobs that they wouldn't normally be drawn to. They followed the advice, but later found it wasn't what they wanted and left to pursue less "successful" careers.

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

Just "No"?

The women she studied were ones who had the financial ability to continue working full time if they so wished.

Sorry ISNT I cross-posted with you, the No was in response to earwigca.

oops earwicga

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.

'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?