AIBU to think that the emphasis on "gender neutral" smacks of desperation

[Sakura]

I'm halfway through Delusions of Gender and lots of things have begun to niggle me.

I get the feeling that the need for women to prove their brains are the same as mens is just as absurd as the mad patriarchal obsession with finding differences is male and female brains.

Neuroscience, evolutionary psychology are the most recent "proofs" that the system has conjured up in order to justify oppression and subordination of women

But the idea that we now have to prove male and female brains are the same, and that if girls and boys were just raised in a neutral environment then sexism would just dissappear, doesn't make sense to me. It would rather be like a black man writing a book proving that he is not, in fact, black. And that him not being actually black means that he should't be discriminated against.

But, well... racism was only invented in order to justify slavery. The trade along the Silk Road (Europe to China) proves that for centuries many races and religions lived side by side and traded equally. There was no inherent racism until it became necessary to justify slavery. That, you could say, was the root of the concept of race.

And it's the same with female oppression. The oppression and subordination comes first, the justifications come afterwards. Dispel the brain myths and they'll only think up another reason why women should be disenfranchised in economics and politics.
MEanwhile women have to expend lots of energy proving they are "just as good as men" or "can be just like men"

The truth is, from what i have seen, there is no evidence, one way or another, about how brains work, but even if there were dramatic differences between male and female brains, on what basis would that be a justification for patriarchy? The truth is, there is no justification, and feminists should bear that in mind.

I think women giving up make-up and beauty practices en masse would do a lot for equality, and in the way women are perceived by society (but it'd have to be a mass movement, because it'd be very difficult to do alone- I am not brave enough, that's for sure)

I also think another 'solution for the revolution' would be for women to simply stop working, like the women in FInland did 50 years ago. The country ground to a halt for a day and men were forced to sit up and listen to their demands. NO cleaners, no carers, no bum-wipers, no supermarket check-outs, no Macdonalds cashiers...

Also, one of her chapters is incorrect AFAICS. SHe talks of female children who were of ambiguous sex at birth who are then raised as girls, but continue to show an interest in boys' toys. She doesn't mention the chromozomes. If the children are chromozomally male, then that could be why they are interested in boys' toys, which disproves her own hypothesis.

Either way, I personally don't think any of this matters. men are always going to find reasons to keep women down and 'brain differences' is just the latest in a long line of justifications.

It has always seems obvious to me that the resentment of women and their capacity to create life is at the heart of huge amounts of mysogyny. Such a huge power.

If we are to accept that there are differences between men and women, what differences are people talking about?

I find all of this very troublesome as at the moment unproven "differences" on average are being jumped on as absolute differences across the board and we all know where that leads...

I have always assumed that most of the superficial differences between the sexes are all part of the patriarchy. Convenient for the machine. Women should be quiet, amenable, passive recipients (of opinions, violence and seed), slim, and pretty, gentle and tender. Men also have their place to fill which may or may not be irksome depending on the man.

Sadly IMO being the child-bearers is one of the roles that women are allowed, in fact encouraged to fill.

You see I agree with you stewie and proflayton always posts what I think on these threads but is much more eloquent .

With the society we have at the moment, I feel that agreeing that women are intrinsically different in things that they can do etc is extremely dangerous, and will only be used as ammunition against us.

I also fear for the huge number of people who do not conform to type ie me.

As someone who does not conform to type, I think this is why the idea of differences makes me feel physically queasy. It feels like a very vigorous and personal attack on me.

And I'm not the only one - so even if there are differences on average (which I'm not convinced there are past the obvious ones reproduction and strength) - how is that actually going to help anyone? If we lived in an equal society - great - but we don't and it all makes me very nervous.

I agree with Sakura's point though that in the current set-up, whatever we do, there will be a way found to keep us down IYSWIM.

Also orm

I just don't believe in these great fundamental differences. But then recently I did that "what sex is your brain" things on the BBC and I was a bloke. Meanwhile DH who is a hulking great rugby player with a taste for real ale was in the middle ie more female than me! But clearly I am a normal woman and he is a normal man. So it's all meaningless. I refuse to believe that I am a total aberration, I'm not. That's why I get so exercised about it. But then maybe my personality was chock-full of "female" traits, I would think there was something in it.

Whether we believe this or not might be down to who we are, what we do, and who we know, surely?

I mean I also agree with orm whi I xposted with

I can read maps which obviously means I am a man.

DH is kind, thoughtful, patient, and excellent with the children, extremely caring, nurturing and demonstratively loving. He also remembers birthdays (something I have to refer to the calendar for).

Is he a woman?

But you see..... When he takes his underpants off, there is something lurking that is distinctly male. He also spends about 2 hours in the toilet and takes a book And he has hundreds of pointless expensive hobbies.

So he is a bloke?

Why can't we all just beeeeeeeeeee how we want to beeeeeeeeeeeeee

I don't believe in that blue/pink brain that I personally think is nonsense and more attributed to culture than gender. However there are core differences I just think those differences are blown out of proportion and exaggerated.

Orm has a point and I think I have stated on another thread before but women's ability of pregnancy is most likely the major reason why they have been rigidly controlled throughout known history. True it takes 2 to create life but women are the ones who get pregnant therefore they will always know it is their child whereas there can always be an element of doubt for males (until now ofc).

This has lead to a kind of paranoia on men's part to make sure that the child they provide for is theirs.

Have skipped right to the end of the thread without reading it,but agree totally,ISNT.
I don't conform to type either,and you comments on how the idea of differences makes you feel rings very true.
On the "what sex is your brain" DH is moderately male,and so am I.
I think it is important to keep arguing about gender and the differences or not between the sexes,because I think that it is important to show people discriminating against women that they are doing it because we are women.Not because we are less capable or intelligent,or because we want different things,or are less fitted for certain roles but because we are female not male.And that doesn't make any more sense and is no fairer than discriminating against someone because of their skin colour.
Must read the thread now.....

Working with kids I know that nokids play with just girls or boys toys. They all play with all of them. All of the kids I work with have fights over who gets pink cups, the pink one etc.

Also I think some people are just good at some things and not others. I could easily leave my husband with our daughter for a couple of weeks and he would cope easily. HE is looked after 3 and 4 kids on weekends before when my family has been away (my brothers kids and our daughter). However he is actually awful at DIY. Same for me I am awful at a lot of so called 'womens' jobs so dont do them. I think a lot is cultural.

'Obviously men have got more testosterone than women, and they don't have any oestrogen AFAIK, but I wonder how much the testosterone they do have is down to environment and masculinity. IN other words, I think men can be raised to be calmer than they are. What do you think?'

Again I think this is culture. My husband is a very calm person whereas I am a bit of a loud mouth maniac. That is just partial personality and where you grew up/who you were surrounded by.

Again I also think if women are brought up to be timid, quiet and gentle then that is there upbringing not something natural in all women (definitely not if you ask most husbands lol)

Women's biology has often been used by the patriarchy as a convenient way of keeping women in their place. Being able to bear children was a good way of marking yourself as being a valuable possession. I think that being a spinster without independent means must have been an uncomfortable position to be in - in rural communities you'd be treated with mistrust and contempt and on a bad day burned as a witch .

I'm really not sure that I see women's biology as such a badge of pride for feminism. To the extent that was use it as a way of showing how much better we are than men.

My babies were one brief part of my life. It's over now. I am now their parent and there is a lot more parenting left to do, and not so much mothering iyswim. To place such a big emphasis on my ability to reproduce negates all the other things i did before I had children, and all the things I will do and acheive afterwards.

Hi, I think the people on this page missed the earlier part of discussion. I'm not saying there are brain differences, I'm saying that gender differences is not the basis of patriarchy and female subordination; misogyny is.

ISNT, the differences I am talking about are physical differences: our chromozomes, life bearing capabilities. It is precisely this that patriarchy use to keep women subordinate.
The idea that there are brain differences is just the icing on the cake.

THat's why I like the slavery analogy: Slavery came first, racism came much later, as a justification (as it began to be more and more difficult over time to justify slavery, I suppose)

Having wOmen as the slave, subordinate class is extremely convenient for men (when you think of how many women have to be in a relationship with men for their very subsistence, then women are definitely a slave class) - and of course men don't want to give up the disproportionate amount of power they hold.
So the subordination of women comes first , and the justifications come later.

The justifications for keeping women subordinate has changed over time. Right now, it's in vogue for the patriarchy to claim it's because women's brains are different. I don't personally believe there are many differences, but I have to return to my point: it doesn't matter. The men behind this nonsense are just toying with women.
As Cordelia Fine as shown, the brain differences don't exist (or nobody really knows one way or another). Do you think this will alter the fact that men hold all the cards? NO, not a jot. NOthing will change.

ISNT, the things I am writing make me very uncomfortable as well, hence the thread title. I think some feminists believe equality (economic and political parity with men) can be reached by teaching our children that there are minimal differences between the genders. NOt a chance. It can't hurt to teach this,but I don't think women should be distracted by it. NOthing short of a revolution (similar to what the Icelandic women did) is going to shift the power base at all.

From what I understood of Fine's book, her criticism is more about the scientific community and not about evidence for gender differences. Indeed, in a Guardian interview she said:

Fine is unabashed. "There are sex differences in the brain. There are also large sex differences in who does what and who achieves what," she says. "It would make sense if these facts were connected in some way, and perhaps they are. But when we follow the trail of contemporary science we discover a surprising number of gaps, assumptions, inconsistencies, poor methodologies and leaps of faith."

Fine agrees that there are differences between men and women's brains. The male brain is, on average, about 8% larger. A small group of cells in the hypothalamus is bigger in men. However, "it's not known what this little group of cells does," she says. "It may have a physiological rather than psychological function."

So, for me she is acknowledging there are differences. But the rhetoric at the moment is that these differences make women inferior when really we don't know what these differences precisely mean. That is what I said above - we need to recognise and understand as much as we can about the differences that exist (and not deny them) and make sure they are presented and framed in a feminist context, and not in a misogynistic framework as they are currently.

I totally agree about a revolution and really like the Icelandic method of protest. It has worked on an individual level around here

thanks ladyBlablah,
yes, attacking science is crucial. I don't want to criticize the book (it really is bloody good)

I just wanted to say that women will be regarded as inferior whatever the scientists find out. (and it is so bizarre that so much money and resources -that could be spent on poverty- is going into "proving" female brains are different. WTF is that all about anyway)

Iceland is like feminist Utopia. They've got a lesbian prime minister, and the only bank that survived the Icelandic economic crash was run by feminists . The women don't even change their names when they marry

Science has long been responsible for creating political arguments with evidence. Darwin, who was universally celebrated last year (or whenever it was his 200 year thing) has a lot to answer for in starting the narrative about 'survival of the fittest' and that sexual selection lead to the evolution of men but not women.

I like the Fine's book, but ultimately it is a critique of science - for not being objective and instead being bound up in culture (patriarchy).

I think it follows on from her critique that we need to reclaim the rhetoric on the differences. Not let patriarchy set the stall out on our differences.

But I don'T think Darwin ever meant that men were evolved not women. I've only heard that line of though recently- to justify white male supremacy. Even people saying that rich people are rich because of survival of the fittest.;

Darwin was just someone who travelled a lot and noticed that nature was slightly different depending on the environment, and it looked like it changed on a continuum to adapt to the climate. That was groundbreaking in an age where everyone belived one male deity created everything.
He also used the wrong word when he said 'fittest', he should have used a better adjective.

SO, we the patriarchy today, using perfectly acceptable science and twisting it to suit their own terms. I mean, men and women are exactly the same bloody species, so men can't be more evolved than women, can they Oh, the patriarchy can be so thick sometimes.

The trouble is, whenever anyone, on any side of any issue, starts arguing that the facts don't matter and what's important is the ideology then I get very very twitchy. And I know that's not quite what you are saying, but it's heading in that direction in places.

If female brains are, by and large, the same as male brains, then is absolutely matters if the widely-circulated version of events is that female brains are very different. It doesn't affect whether subordination of women is right or wrong in the slightest, but it matters. Just as it matters when someone says "Oh, women don't enjoy sex" or "Oh, women don't understand finance". Even if those things were true subordination of women would still be just as wrong. But they aren't true and that matters in and of itself.

I thought evolution was about gene survival rather than people. The genes that ensure better survival will be selected through sexual selection. I never read that women didn't evolve.

I am getting Cordelia fine's book fir Christmas and am looking forward to it. I'm still with Simon Baron Cohen though - there are sex differences in the brain. I think those differences are often interpreted through a gendered prism though so it turns into 'women can't read maps,' rather than some function in the brain which is slightly different.

I find a this fascinating although am not a scientist and find it a bit mind blowing at times.