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.

I didn't say there are no jobs in engineering. I said they pay less than lawyers like Cherie Blair and the finance jockeys with their fatcat bonuses. People are often told and encouraged to enter engineering, and then are extremely poorly paid for it, even after getting PhDs and slogging their guts out on subjects that are far more difficult than law and finance.

claig

The problem is ultimately that you believe the differences are natural. There is little evidence for this, and a great deal of evidence for discrimination, perceived differing roles in childcare affecting career choice, and for sociation. But since you just accept that choice is essentially 'free', there is little point having the discussion.

Ultimately I return to what I said earlier-the model you offer supports a static status quo with the assumption it is natural. But different societies have different differences between men and women, different 'natural factors', yet each could be treated individually as you do 'ours'. So we're left with a huge problem-either women's bodies change rapidly and hugely over very small time periods and geographies (at leats in terms of evolution) or sociation is the key factor in patterning choices.

These are the questions that relate to the OP-not is there a difference-there is-but what evidence is there that it is 'natural', and why does that matter anyway in terms of how we structure society. I don't really see what relative pay rates for engineering and law have to do with it.

Ullainga I think you're referring to Susan Pinker's book which I mentioned in an earlier post. For the most part the women she studied either didn't have children or had the means to employ a nanny. I know the nanny situation might still lead to feelings of inadequacy as a mother but her research showed that actually a lot of these women moved onto equally demanding and time consuming careers such as medicine or PR work in charity settings. While some did step down from their careers to be with children, most didn't and most cited their reason for leaving as being boredom and lack of fulfillment. They had been told all their lives that they could and should compete with men in traditionally "male" jobs. What they realised as they got older was, yes they could, but they didn't want to in spite of being hugely successful and very heavily encouraged.

I see you addressed the issue of where the unbalanced society came from in the first place Claig, and that you share much the same view as me. I'd like to know what others think - how did the male-dominated society arise in the first place? If women are naturally able to compete on exactly the same level as men why have they been so universally discriminated against for so long? What went wrong?

yes Writer and I of course should read the book first before critizising. Just that I see it so often - it is claimed that "But women want it this or the other way themselves..", even though in reality it's not much of a choice.

But there is no way a study can identify all the reasons why the women behaved the way they did. It engages with the story they tell about why. They may or may not believe the story, they may or may not think it is the whole picture. But the crux is research cannot find out the ultimate 'why'. It doesn't operate in a vacuum, the researcher doesn't operate in a vacuum, neither do the respondents. That isn't to say the research doesn't have value, but its value lies understanding how we make sense of the world not in finding the ultimate 'true' why - that's intellectually impossible.

I totally agree AliceWorld, but I would say that research like this has value in informing the ways we can achieve true equality for women that actually fits with what will fulfill them and make them happy. There's no point in telling women again and again that they should compete with men in order to be equal if they just don't want to do that. Making women believe that that's the only way they can be taken seriously could ultimately be harmful because it could make them reject what they really want in favour of what they feel they should want.

My concern is that there may be too much focus on getting women to behave more like men in order to achieve equality. What Pinker argues, and I agree, is that in a capitalist society the archetypal successful person is very much the archetypal male - driven, ambitious, motivated by power and money. Women may also fit this archetype but it may be more useful for feminists to realise that perhaps in fact many many women don't and encouraging women to compete directly with men in their spheres is ultimately fruitless and just as damaging to women as the discrimination that has held them back for so long. Pinker's concern, which I share, is that women are subtly sent the message that they can't possibly want to "just" be a mother or "just" be a nurse and that because they're smart and capable they should want to be an engineer or a computer scientist. Forcing yourself to fulfill some ideal that others hold for you (whether that's the pretty little housewife or the aeronautical engineer) will not make you happy in the long run.

But again I pose the question - where did the discrimination come from? At what point did totally equal men and women diverge so that societies around the world have a two-tiered system with women at the bottom? Why did it happen?

I agree to an extent. But why does any of it have to be divided by penis/vagina? Different people enjoy different things. People should be able to do what they find fulfilling. Why introduce gender into it?

I've never come across a feminist that says 'you woman should work like a man and if you don't you are letting yourself down'. I've heard a society tell women they should work else they are wasting their skills and I've heard a society tell women they should stay at home else they are letting their children down. The feminists I've met say women (and men) should have choice and that these are constrained by society.

I would like to hear your opinion on how discrimination came about AliceWorld

Thanks sprogger, will have a look

No idea WoD. It's not my area really. I'm very sceptical of histories. Just like the other research isn't done in a vacuum, neither is history. It reflects how we understand the world now. So any reason that people gave would just fill me with .