What do you say to someone who doesn't believe in feminism because "men and womens brains are wired differently"?

[LittleWhiteWolf]

I can't get my head around it. The friend in question is intelligent and educated and not stupid at all, yet spouts this as the reason why feminism, why equality doesn't work. Where she sees scientific and historical evidence to support this, I just see opinions. Apparently because men are the typical hunter gatherers and women the nuturers, we should just accept that. I'm just getting so sad listening to this.

Anyone got any tips one what one says to someone so mired in this belief???

I am on the look out for men who might be good hunters. So far the best I have found are some teenagers who I reckon could kick a pet rabbit to death, if they put their big manly brains to it. Should I be swooning because tbh I am just annoyed they have their feet on the seat of the train?

Believing that women and men have differently wired brains is not a reason for denying women equality. Unless you believe that women's brains are essentially incapable of making adult decisions. That would make even situations like nurturing quite difficult. Women, after all, couldn't be held responsible for adequately nurturing a child so a man would have to supervise that.

People have argued such things about women; they've also argued such things about the majority of men who are not part of a financial, cultural and intellectual elite. I can't believe many people find such ideas ethical.

um, 'well, clearly, your brain wasn't wired up at all' - FGS. Even if you accept the (pretty dubious) premise then it does not follow that there are no inequalities attendant on whatever differences exist (whether perceived or actual - proven or unproven) and that these might need to be addressed. Or that 'female' brains might in fact be superior to 'male' ones, rather than that society places higher value on allegedly male qualities (at least in terms of status and economic position)?

I don't think there's alot of evidence to support the "different wiring" from birth, but plenty to support the effect of conditioning (i.e. imprinting gender stereotypes) on children up to say age 4 when the brain is still growing and forming. Different conditioning - for example not to observe dos and don'ts based on sex, can (from my understanding) contribute to different kinds of brain development.

In any case, there is even more solid evidence to show variations in brain structure, other organs, biochemical makeup, etc. between for example, people of different ethnic backgrounds, people at different age stages in their life, people with illnesses or disabilities and those without. To be consistent, if one argues that men and women should be regarded differently and have different aptitudes because their brains are "wired differently," they'd have to insist in the same for people of different ethnic origins, ages and those with disabilities.

Different doesn't have to mean inferior or superior but our society tends to assign those attributes along lines of difference, like gender but also ethnicity and ability/disability. Imho, there's nothing innate about it.

But, the social conditioning can be very powerful. Gender roles are perpetuated and reinforced through the social, economic and political traditions and messages all around us. They are so pervasive that most of us see these as "normal" or "just how things are." Thinking outside that box can be scary, risky, so a bit like flat-earthers, scientific evidence will do little to shake their belief. To be honest, there's little point in trying to argue with someone who feels such a strong need to cling to beliefs "just because they are" without even being open to questioning. No amount of evidence will make a difference.

Dragging them out of their comfort zones probably won't work, but nudging them might. Little, every day examples that disprove the "rule," and relevant examples of the impact of injustice dropped into conversations can sometimes chip away, oh and seeing that you didn't fall off the edge of the earth (so to speak) when you departed from and started to question the "norm" can also be a nudge.

I really do think sometimes folks need to believe that there is a plausible explanation, some grand reason why there is injustice, either to justify their own privilege OR avoid facing the thought that they are treated crappily for no good reason other than it benefits those who are more privileged for them to be so.

'To be consistent, if one argues that men and women should be regarded differently and have different aptitudes because their brains are "wired differently," they'd have to insist in the same for people of different ethnic origins, ages and those with disabilities.'

My son has Asperger's Syndrome, one of the ways that we explained it to him was that his brain is wired differently to NTs. Not inadequate or broken, just different. The recognition that this is the case is the basis of reasonable adaptations made in school and elsewhere for him to function within society and to have equal access to learning opportunities.
So he does have different aptitudes and abilities to some others, many of which are linked to his AS.

I think it depends what conclusions that belief is leading to her to.

I personally agree with her - of course men and women are different and are wired differently. It's obvious.

However, I don't see how that has any bearing on one being "more equal" than the other, unless you take those different ways of being wired and infer a superiority on one of them.

'Imho, there's nothing innate about it. '

So no disability is innate?

Disability isn't innate. Impairments are innate. Disability is socially constructed.

That's an interesting idea MillyR, you mean something along the lines of

'Disabilities is an umbrella term, covering impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions.
An impairment is a problem in body function or structure; an activity limitation is a difficulty encountered by an individual in executing a task or action; while a participation restriction is a problem experienced by an individual in involvement in life situations.
Thus disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction between features of a person?s body and features of the society in which he or she lives.'
World Health Organization

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability

I suppose the obvious example would be that I have impaired eyesight, but I'm not disabled. If society said I wasn't allowed to wear glasses, I would be disabled. If society did allow me to wear glasses, but made out that people who wear glasses have a brain function that makes them no good at maths, and so I was barred from employment, I would be disabled.

I think you are confusing equality and identity. It is perfectly possible that women and men are different but that doesn't mean that they all conform to stereotypes, and it also does not effect whether or not she believes they should be treated equally and have the same access to opportunities.

In general more women will be interested in x than men and more men interested in y than women but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not they should be treated equally as each other and their individuality celebrated.

Sorry if that didn't make much sense, its late :o

"However, I don't see how that has any bearing on one being "more equal" than the other, unless you take those different ways of being wired and infer a superiority on one of them."

There. What she said. :o

If you live in a world where your own views are formed by those that nuture you and, as an adult, your peers, some people feel more comfortable identifying with the views that they already hold. I think this happens more if you stay within the family/social circle where you grew up. If you move away and experience different cultures/life experiences your views are challenged. Sometimes you'll adapt your POV sometimes you won't - a change of circumstances can be your justification for your opinions.

Sometimes you are forced to have to change your perceptions because life dictates and can't be controlled. You adapt.

It's invalid to say we are wired differently, we are sophisticated animals that can change and adapt but some people feel more comfortable falling on cliches to explain their behaviour. They don't want to be challenged. But that doesn't mean they can't change.

What Kritiqe said.

Not all societies are organised along male /hunter, female/gatherer lines.

We are all on a spectrum of attributes you may think of as 'male' and 'female. We will all possess a certain collection of these attributes -some more 'male' some more 'female' regardless of gender. Society makes you notice them and explain begaviour in a certain way. One of the discourses of explanation of behaviour is that of gender.

( am tipsy tired so may not make sense)

To OP's friend, I'd say, I think you need to do a bit more research as you don't seem to have quite grasped what we know about brains. You can't tell from a scan or from looking at a brain whether someone is male or female.

To OP's friend, I'd say, I think you need to do a bit more research as you don't seem to have quite grasped what we know about brains. You can't tell from a scan or from looking at a brain whether someone is male or female.

Damn phone!

Milly R, thanks for that concise explanation of the difference between an impairment and a disability. The former is something that is a fact (i.e. a body part not functioning as it's meant to,) but the level of ability or disability and furthermore, the degree to which the impairment "devalues" the person who has it is a social construct.

I think this might be a question of your friend having a perception of what equality of the sexes means. I take it to mean that women will have the same opportunities to fulfil their potential as men in life. Some, I think mistakenly, take it as to mean a world where 50% of soldiers are women and 50% of nurses are men.

I think that latter state of affairs is never going to happen because of differences in the sexes that are to an extent, natural, but that doesn't stop me being a feminist, and believing that if a woman wants to be an engineer, she should be able to.

What really annoys me about this hunter-gatherer v. nurturer bollocks is that it reinforces a worldview in which men are talented at big projects, running the world, risky but glamorous activities etc, whereas women are talented at wiping arses and kitchen surfaces. The reductio ad absurdum is the assumption that men are perfectly adapted to run a multimillion pound restaurant empire but unable (cf ElephantsandMiasmas) to put together a nice meal for their family.

Could you point out to your friend that this set of beliefs is strangely convenient for men...?

Give her this for Christmas

Can we please knock this men = hunter gatherers vs. Women = nurturers on the head? Women were primarily responsible for gathering and this provided most of the food intake. Also there is a credible theory that women were also hunters of fish and shellfish along the coastline which contained the necessary omega 3 to increase brain development. Scars of evolution is a documentary by David attenborough which looks at this theory. It's really interesting and makes a lot of sense.

I think on balance there are differences between the sexes, and that these are largely hormone led. This is only a hunch from a non scientific person.
So no neurological differences, none between children of different sexes, but possibly between behavioural patterns in adults, which of course is exacerbated by societies' encouragements and condemnations etc.

but that in no way justifies unequal treatment.

plenty good books on gender myths, fMRI,and brain plasticity cordelia fine does great job in debunking hardwired brain myth. google cordelia fine

MillyR but if someone in a previous society hadn't invented glasses you would have a disability. (Unless you wore contact lenses ). I think disability exists without society e.g. in animals too.

Ditto messy re hunter gatherers.