Can someone enlighten me about how the belief in gender social conditioning relates to feminism?

[Ilovedaintynuts]

Would any of you clever women be able to explain to me why feminists (or at least what appear to be the majority on this board) believe that gender is because of social-conditioning and not innate differences between men and women?

I ask because I feel like a feminist. I love women and am interested in women's issues, have travelled the world (before kids) focusing on places like the Middle East and Africa where women are hugely disadvantaged. I have volunteered at Refuges and worked for female charities.

But! I believe that men and women are different. Wired differently, I mean. That gender is more than genitals. I have read lots of books on the subject and realise social-conditioning places a significant part but still...I can't quite accept that newborn boys and girls are the same.

Is feminism compatible with my belief that there are innate differences between men and women?

I agree there are biological differences between boys and girls, just as there are between children of different sizes, different ethnic heritages, those with disabilities or chronic illnesses and those who aren't, etc.

My concern is that so much emphasis is placed on the biological, "innate" differences between the sexes that isn't based on fact. It's what people "feel," but even how people feel is bound to be based on their own conditioning.

Although it might sound outlandish now, it was quite common a century ago for people to firmly believe that biological differences between black and white people meant each possessed differing innate characteristics (e.g. White people more intelligent, less violent, better leaders and organisers and Black people less intelligent, more musical/rhythmic, achieve more by being directed, etc.) People genuinely believed these things, but their believe did not make these things true.

Similarly, biological difference was often used as a means of marginalising and excluding women again, without any hard science to prove it. Too much education would damage their smaller, more fragile brains. Too much self-determination would damage their reproductive functions. Even now you still get some people who genuinely believe that because women have monthly hormonal fluctuations that their mental capabilities are inferior to men.

I think it is important to base scientific arguments on scientific fact and point out where there is evidence that something is socially conditioned, not innate. Otherwise, biology will always be used as a tool to oppress and exclude women, just as it has been used in a similar way against people of colour, Jewish people, disabled people, etc.

some things to think about

1. there is no agreed definition of what makes a woman; is it the absense of a Y chomosone but what about those with andogen insensitivity (who look like "women" but have a Y chromosone, what about those with both male and female organs
2. Yes there do appear to be some differences across the sexes but there are also other differences due to height, left handedness etc. Why should the sex one be significant
3. lots of the evidence surrounding the view of innate differences is deeply suspect (Cordelia Vine is excellent on this) 3a) Lots of it involves telling a story that fits (i.e. men are promiscuous because this is a good strategy of maximising gene reproduction) without testing this theory against others. Just because something is plausible does not make it true 3b) Some of the evidence involves compares hormones and connections in the brain of men and women. So male nurses are seen to be more like women than male security guards, female traders are more like men etc etc. BUT such connections are as much a result of experience as a cause of it

Nobody thinks that men and women are exactly the same.

I think the problem you're having here is viewing gender as some kind of set of differences between the sexes, when it is actually a hierarchy of sex which puts men above women, and allows men to dominate women.

The so-called differences between the sexes which are what follow on from the hierarchy e.g. girls like pink, boys like blue, are in fact justifications as to why men can treat women poorly and dominate and exploit us. This happens with every oppressed group - undesirable traits are ascribed to them which are then used to continue to justify the oppression.

Once you understand gender as a political system, it's easier to see what we're fighting against - and it's not people trying to demonstrate for example miniscule cognitive differences between the sexes.

I don't think that the definition of woman is anymore contested or fuzzy than the definition of anything else. There is an agreed definition held by the vast majority of people that a woman is an adult human female. Some people have other definitions which are clear to them, but I don't think many people are wandering around in a state of confusion as to what the definition of a woman is.

The gender issue - I think it would be hard to know if there are differences when socialisation into one role or another is so heavy. What do you think the differences are OP; are they differences that you have noticed because you have seen women and men in a range of very different cultures when you have been travelling?

Also worth saying that the level of variation within each sex is demonstrably much greater than the level of variation between the sexes.

(Should be Cordelia Fine, not Vine, by the way, in case you're tempted to google her! Her book is v. interesting.)

seahorses, but there are a group of people (not transexuals btw) who could be either men or women. The presence of such a group does I think belie the idea that there are two instrinsic genders.

Oh, I took your first post to mean that there is no agreed definition of what a woman is in general, when in fact you were talking about your personal beliefs.

But I think what you are actually saying here is not that you don't believe there is an agreed definition of what a woman is, but that you don't think the word is deserving of a definition because you don't believe that there are separate biological sexes.

The OP is talking about separate biological sexes though, as far as I can see.

Another point to bear in mind is that brains are not "hard-wired" in any way. That's not how brains work, according to the latest research. Neural connections are made, pathways are created and those that prove useful are retained, those that do not are discarded.

To use the excuse that male and female brains are "hard-wired" differently also allows people to shrug their shoulders when faced with gender inequalities because it's supposedly down to "biological differences" that women/men are better/worse when it comes to certain abilities. That keeps both sexes trapped in their stereotyped boxes. No wonder feminists don't like it.

For me the big problem with the argument that men and women are wired differently is that that argument is then used to box people in.The biological arguments which were made against higher education for women are an example.
On a completely personal note I also find it a problem because I don't feel wired up to be feminine,on those brain sex tests you sometimes come across my results put me on the male side of the scale,in pretty much exactly the same place as DH.There may be innate differences between men and women but they are so overlaid with social conditioning that they are not helpful IMO - If you assume men and women are different and treat them differently you will be treating some individuals in a way that is wrong for them,because of the wide range of differences in each gender.If you treat people as individuals without considering gender that is less likely to happen,so why not treat everyone as an individual? That will allow the expression of any "hard wired differences" (if they exist...)to be expressed without limiting people for no good reason.

OP -

I agree with you. I don't think being a feminist means you have to deny the basic (and interesting) biology that there are (at a population level, on average) differences between men and women.

I had a big barney about this on here the very first time I ventured to post. I think this place has mellowed

I think it is a logical mistake to say because X was used to support oppression and marginalosation of women therefore X must be factually wrong, and if you want to fight oppression etc you should deny that X is true.

It's like saying the Nazis believed that the Jews were responsible for Jesus's death and used this to support antisemitism, I stand against everything the Nazis stood for therefore the Jews can't possibly have killed Jesus. It's a logical fallacy and a bad idea. If someone finds uncontrovertibly evidence on the Jesus point you're not going to say, oh I guess the Nazis were alright then!

Anyway back to feminism, I think it is a shame for people to back their arguments and beliefs into this silly corner. It leads others to conclude feminism can't be for them if it depends on such a basic denial of human nature.

I think there are small average differences between men and women and that these are accentuated through nurture and then again through the way our society is set up.

Have you read Stephen Pinker's Blank Slate? I think it is very good on this and has a chapter on feminism. I remember reading it and thinking "this sounds like something that only goes on in the US". It was only when I joined MN that I found out how widespread the belief that gender difference is all social conditioning is.

I think there are small average differences between men and women and that these are accentuated through nurture and then again through the way our society is set up.

Quite, Himalaya.

Shame that over the centuries (there is plenty of evidence) the exact wrong application of logic that you mention above has been used to say that women (in general) are less important than men.

Is feminism compatible with my belief that there are innate differences between men and women?

I think it is compatible, as long as you recognise that:

1. these "innate differences" will not apply to every man and every woman - there will be plenty who break the stereotype in greater or smaller ways

2. it is therefore wrong to treat men/women or boys/girls differently on the basis of these "innate differences"

Oh yes and

3. it is very hard to tell what is an "innate difference" and what is the result of being treated differently throughout life.

Yes, so basically coming full circle . . . even if there is some evidence for biological differences between the sexes, this may not apply to all individuals and because of gender "conditioning" from the moment a child's sex is known, it's probably impossible to distinguish between biologically determined and socially conditioned traits anyhow.

But the main issue here is surely this:

Is it acceptable to press people into certain behaviours, away form others and assign relative value upon people based on their sex? I think not, no more than it is to do so based on their ethnicity, height, hair colour or any other factor, whether biological, social or somewhere in between.

Are there difference between men and women apart from the obvious physical ones? Yes. lots. DH likes SKA, I prefer classical. DH can't drink coffee, I love it. I drink red wine, he prefers beer. DD rides horses, DS1 plays guitar. DS is good at maths, DS is better at science. My mum reads historical romances, Dad likes crime thrillers. I could go on...... I could find a million men with similar tastes to mine, DH could probably find a million women that liked the same things as him. So what? it proves nothing either way.

Say that there are certain things that women do and certain ways they behave and it's a short step to saying that there are certain ways they 'should' behave. And conditioning little girlts to be one way and little boys to be the other. And eventually to saying that women and men who don't conform aren't real men and women. And that's a crock of shit.

When people talk about hard wiring and innate differences I can't helping thinking about London taxi drivers and The Knowledge i.e. how adult brains physically adapt to deal with the specifics imposed on them.

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=london-taxi-memory

Given that we exist in a society that tends to make presumptions about the sexes and therefore imposes values, attitudes and expectations on them from birth I find it difficult to see how there is sufficient evidence to support hard-wiring - and that's without even starting on how humans operate along a spectrum of personalities and aptitudes with overlaps.

I'm another who believes there are more differences between individuals of either sex than between the sexes.

Assuming for the moment the the moves towards equality of the sexes continues, it would be interesting if we could come back in 50 or 100 years and see what has happened to the stereotypes and beliefs about innate abilities.

I do think there is a confusion that if you say you think there are innate differences (on average, as a population etc...) you are saying that all the stereotypes are true, that it's ok to treat girls and boys differently (rather than individually).

And I'm sure there are lots of people who do think that.

But their logic is wrong.

Say it was true that 8/10 boys prefer playing outside and 8/10 girls prefer playing inside. It would still be wrong to expect all the boys outside and all the girls inside - you would be making 4/20 kids unhappy. So even if that is the trend it still makes sense to treat each child as an individual and not stereotype and generalise.

As a feminist why can't we just say don't stereotype people because they are individuals, rather than don't stereotype people because their are no differences between males and females (on average as a group...)

Overlapping bell curves and all that...

SGM - on Stephen Pinker - why do you say he is sexist? - is it because of his views on biology, or something else ?