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???

They are cousins. Not father and son.
I've read a lot by one, and have had adult friends involved with his research centre. The other I have no time or patience with and have never seen intentionally. I dislike the snippets I have seen.
Very different people.

Ah, I'm sorry. I bow to wiki and to dust.

Simon Baron Cohen is an eminent psychologist specialising in autism and Theory of Mind.

The psychologist magazine carried and interview with Fine in which she outlined her criticisms of his work. He replied the following month. It was fascinating reading and I have so much respect for them both.

The sex/genderis so complex but just so fascinating.

(I loved AliG too. BOYOKASHA!)

SQ - the eyebrow was because I don't understand what "unnatural" means in the context of human beings. Our characteristics (like all living things) is a product of genes and environment (including culture/upbringing etc...) both are natural processes - one is not more natural than the other.

Scientists are not in the business of clarifying things into natural and unnatural - everything is natural (part of nature) - what elae is there? If there is a trend that men on average tend to exhibit some characteristics more than women and vice versa, it doesn't mean that anyone who isn't bang on average is somehow 'deviant' or that
women should aspire to the average 'ideal' - it's just an interesting observation that may help us to understand the world better (and therefore be more effective at changing it)

Hey,I'm not trollying.I made a mistake that's all.

You're not the only one lollygag. I just think it's careless.

'Cordelia Fine's brilliant book Delusions of Gender debunks the likes of Simon Baron-Cohen, dressed up in one of his brother's outfits as a mad scientist, waving mobiles at newborn babies to see if the boys are more "interested" than the girls.' Jeanette Winterson, Books of the Year, Guardian'

Another erudite viewpoint unpicking his theories from a sound academic base. Almost as bad as dismissing women as strident harridans when an alternative view is unpalatable.. Arguments should involve the brain at all times.

I do think Delusions of Gender is a fantastic book, interesting and laying out some very powerful challenges to people's set ways of thinking. I think she shows a lot more intelligence in the way that she responds to critics, and that makes her arguments more respected in turn.

I think Cordelia Fine is often wheeled out as the last word in sex and gender but although her work is in the fine tradition of scientific critical theory and valuable and important it doesn't mean that Baron Cohen's work should be easily dismissed.

He is producing knowledge which should be challenged and reworked but not dismissed as absurd or belittled. I think Fine and Baron Cohen at least have respect for each other.

And yes Fine responds to critics in a way that is, I think, very spophidticated and passionate. Jeanette winterson is doing Fine a disservice with that review.

Sophisticated (unlike my typing)

Fine does also research, though, I believe?

Her book gets wheeled out a lot because it's intended for laypeople to read. It's not intended to be 'scientific critical theory', as far as I know - more of an attempt to help non-specialists understand what's often misrepresented in the media.

I've not read Simon Baron Cohen, but I understand that his work is often wildly represented by the media.

e.g. there is a good blog on Baron Cohen's work on the autism angle here, which is critical of the guardian and observer's coverage, concluding that there is not yet enough data to pass judgement on his "extreme male brain" or testosterone ideas.

I am always amused by those who say they are "not convinced by Cordelia Fine"

Fine backs up pretty much everything she writes, so it should be easy to explain on what grounds you disagree. If you can't, then it is just prejudice which is driving your opinions.

Well I'm not convinced by Baron Cohen nor Fine! That's what's so interesting and exciting about about it. It's work in progress.

here is an interview with Professor Fine in The Psychologist magazine

and here is Simon Baron Cohen's review of Delusions of gender

Wake up at the back!!!

Himalaya what does this mean "women should aspire to the average 'ideal'"?

The unnatural point was that in this conversation about whether the sexes are "wired differently" the word natural comes up a lot. So if women liking chocolate and high heels is natural, where does that leave the ones who do not like those things? They are unnatural. Where does it leave the men who like those things? They are also unnatural.

Anyway.

I am interested to know what you think the fundamental differences are, and how they manifest themselves?

I suppose it would help to clarify where we are coming from?

My view is that there may be differences on average, but it is nigh on impossible to say whether any average differences are down to nature or nurture.

I also think that any differences on average are much smaller than the differences between individuals.

I am also rather suspicious of the people who propagate ideas of difference in psychobabble language, I wonder what their motivations are. While women around the world are second-class citizens, and in some places are still chattel, is researching whether they are (on average) more "empathetic" (read better at care work and less interested in renumeration) than men going to get us very far? The research will be interpreted in line with the society that we live in, and can then be used in order to support various unhelpful practices. People used to spend a lot of time trying to prove that people of different ethnic origins had different levels of intelligence. Now while that research is interesting, it was the case that the hypotheses and results were affected by the preconcepions of the researchers (in teh past) and this area of study is now trodden extremely carefully and with huge disclaimers all over it. Research about the innate differences between men and women's brains - and how the results conincidentally support the status-quo - it's not really any different - and yet people feel they can make these statements quite freely . "All women are interested in babies and chocolate" and say it with a straight face.

That is why I am very uncomfortable with it, to say the least.

Himalaya, I really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of disability. I don't know what analogy you are attempting to make by talking about female genital mutilation.

The social model of disability is very well known; it has been very influential, certainly in equality law and disability rights. You referring to as just word games is very odd.

It is a very straightforward distinction; disability is created by society and impairment is not. Some impairments are unpleasant; if you have an impairment that leaves you in constant, untreatable pain, that is an awful thing to put up with. But there is no reason for society to make this worse by treating you negatively and putting barriers in your way, thus making your impairment into a disability.

Despite the fact that I don't understand your post, I'll answer your question. No, I don't think that people are better off without a clitoris just because I believe disability is socially constructed.

Not having a clitoris (if you are female) is a material reality, not a social construction. It is a serious impairment, and most serious impairments (asperger's would be an obvious exception) have a negative impact on the individual.

I'm sure Cordelia Fine is correct in her criticisms of some of the studies of sex difference. But what I am unconvinced about is when people cite the book as support for the position that there are no differences between male and female behavior and characteristics (...on average, across the population etc ...) which is not what CF claims.

I read the book with interest on MN recommendation, but was disappointed that it focuses so much on studies investigating cognitive differences (empathetic vs systematising etc...) and much less on the studies on the differences between what men and women are attracted to in seeking sexual partners, and what they will do to prove themselves attractive and to promote the survival of their offspring. I think this stuff is much more interesting and has more explanatory power for relations between the sexes than the marginal differences that Simon BC looks at.

But mainly I disagree with the underlying reasoning of Fine which is the same as the OP's friend - that if you believe there is a biological basis to the behavioural differences between men and women then you have to give up on feminism.

As CF says (in reply to S B-C) "The thesis of my book is that while social effects on sex differences are well-established, spurious results, poor methodologies and untested assumptions mean we don't yet
know whether, on average, males and females are born differently predisposed to systemizing versus
empathising. I therefore argue that to slam the door in the face of those who aspire to sex equality is premature."

I think it is a mistake, both in reasoning and tactics to think that if robust studies did show differences in the genetic disposition of men and women towards ambition, risk taking, systematising or whatever, then it would be "the right time" to slam the door in the face of efforts towards equality and non-discrimination.

Why on earth should that be?

"when people cite the book as support for the position that there are no differences between male and female behavior and characteristics (...on average, across the population etc ...) which is not what CF claims."

When has anyone done that?

as disappointed that it focuses... much less on the studies on the differences between what men and women are attracted to in seeking sexual partners, and what they will do to prove themselves attractive and to promote the survival of their offspring.

what made you think that Cordelia Fine had written a book about that? If you are genuinely interested, and convinced that has more explanatory power, why not put together a lit review and write it up as a blog piece?

I disagree with the underlying reasoning of Fine which is the same as the OP's friend - that if you believe there is a biological basis to the behavioural differences between men and women then you have to give up on feminism.

That is rather a straw man. She addresses the pseudoscience which claims that males and females are born differently predisposed to systemizing versus empathising and is used as justification for opression. I would be astonished if Fine had ever argued that "if you believe there is a biological basis to the behavioural differences between men and women then you have to give up on feminism."

Whollyghost - that is exactly what she argues in the quote I give above "As CF says (in reply to S B-C) " spurious results, poor methodologies and untested assumptions mean we don't yet
know whether, on average, males and females are born differently predisposed to systemizing versus empathising. I therefore argue that to slam the door in the face of those who aspire to sex equality is premature."

I.e. if the methodologies were robust and the results showed a difference on average between men and women then according to this argument it might then be justified to 'slam the door on equality'???

I disagree with this, equality is not negotiable. Oppression is never justified.

Sure, I am all for studies bring robust, and shonky methodologies being called out. But there are no scientific results that can justify oppression'and discrimination.

it depends on the interpretation of equality i.e. 50%/50% or equality of opportunity.

i understand CF to mean 50%/50% should be the goal unless robust scientific analysis says there are inherent gender brain differences. even if differences are proved, the argument for equality of opportunity would still remain after all the SBC argument is some men/women have a female/male brain.

personally i am a 50%/50% believer.

himalaya - I think she just means that people who question research that finds big biological/neurological differences between men and women don't currently have much of a place to stand, and she wants that back.

My reading of her argument (which could be mistaken) was that she objected to the way articles in the media often present the research as if it's conclusive, and now well known that men are from mars, women like pink berries, etc. etc.

I think she was trying to explain that it wasn't quite so concrete as that.

That 'research' study that claimed a preference for pink was innate because of gathering berries makes me so cross! A. most berries aren't pink and B. pink used to be for boys, FFS. If they had bothered to do some basic desk research before setting out to confirm their own prejudices, they might have realised they were talking utter nonsense.