Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

"Men and women are just different and have different skills and talents"

186 replies

reddaisy · 14/04/2015 09:50

I have heard so many variations on that comment that I really need to properly articulate my objections.

My belief is that gender differences are often as a result of learnt behaviour and most of us are all complicit even if it just means buying a 'little monster' t-shirt for a boy.

Following on from the boat race thread where it was argued that for true equality, men and women should compete against each other, it is clear that there are biological differences between the sexes which impact on their performances.

I keep reading conflicting scientific reports on the differences between men and women's brain and what, if anything, that actually means about different skills/intelligence etc.

So, can we talk about this and explore the perceived innate differences between men and women?

OP posts:
cadno · 14/04/2015 18:19

Yops - I'm also interested in the effect that hormones have on behaviour. It is a very complex area. I happen to have a condition known as Graves Disease (Hi, btw, to the other poster on this thread that had it too).

It's an autoimmune condition, but its (main) effect is to interfere with the bio control of the production of the hormone thyroxine. My condition is stabilised by now but at its height, I was often irritable, aggressive, anxious etc - it had a very noticeable effect on my metabolism too. It definitely altered my personality. I manage it now with drugs - and I'm a completely different person.

So, hormonal levels - determined by genetic differences do lead to personality changes

Hakluyt · 14/04/2015 18:29

"Buffy what rankles is the sweeping generality of "we" as some sort of superior being are prepared to concede there still might be some humanity in some men. Gee thanks."

"We" as in women, not as in superior being. But men as a class have done so much damage to women as a class that Dworkin saying that she thinks it's possible to coexist respectfully is pretty bloody magnanimous of her.......

QuiteIrregular · 14/04/2015 18:56

(Just de-lurking for a moment to thank people for the tip about Cordelia Fine's book, and the Dworkin quotation!)

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/04/2015 18:59

I always find these conversations very interesting, not least because I am somewhat deficient in "feminine" personality traits - although not deficient in "feminine" appearance - hence realising I was a feminist as a teen the moment I heard what one was. The incongruence of how I was expected to be based on how I looked was always extremely jarring.

Anyway.

There was talk upthread about drink driving and how men are more likely to do it, and consequences, and that set me thinking about risk, and how it is often cited that men are greater "risk takers" than women. It occurs to me that the definition of risk is based in a masculine experience of the world. Given that women can get a massive adreneline / doing something risky response from something as basic as walking alone down a street at night, can we really say that women are more risk averse. Maybe women are in fact seeking and experiencing similar levels of adrenaline etc from simply different activities. As a teen, if I went off with a group of men and took some drugs and had some casual sex, the risk to me, both real and perceived (sexual violence, pregnancy through consensual sex etc) was almost certainly greater than to the men. Maybe for one of those men to get a similar experience of risk they'd have to drive a car very fast.

Does anyone get my drift on that one?

FWIW plenty of women do things like speeding, drink driving and so on. Just not in such numbers as men, or maybe they don't get caught, or maybe they drive better and don't crash, I don't know. It's that bell curve overlap again.

And this is the problem with this conversation. The "men and women are innately different" argument is not a simple "oh that's interesting" observation, it is used to oppress women all over the world and always has been. Even if there is a difference overall, in whatever (and nature/nurture?) that shouldn't limit the options or roles for individuals whose skills and personalities might lie outside the "norm". I am unconvinced though, because as noted, I do not fit the "norm" so naturally feel that "men are like this and women are like that" is rubbish. A woman who fits better, or a man, would probably feel less of an instinctual push-back on the idea.

BuffyEpistemiwhatsit · 14/04/2015 19:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hakluyt · 14/04/2015 19:04

Not sure how relevant this is, but I spent a lot of time in Russia in "the old days" and one thing that fascinated me was that being a doctor was not the high status profession it was in the West- because most doctors were women. The very fact that a woman did something devalued it.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/04/2015 19:05

Din't finish this thought properly:

"Given that women can get a massive adreneline / doing something risky response from something as basic as walking alone down a street at night"

because society, posters from the police, tv progs etc tell us that we are at constant risk of extreme sexual violence from strangers. This isn't of course where our risk really lies, but it is heavily socialised. I have always turned my nose up at it and done whatever I liked (while paying attention to instinct about people) and still I always got twitchy when wandering around in the small hours by myself.

The point though is the way risk is identified is from a male perspective in the first place, as so much is.

ChopperGordino · 14/04/2015 19:10

tbh I'm losing patience with to what degree things are innate or socialised. I am certain the latter has a far greater influence than most people choose to believe, and I think we could change a lot for the better in that way, but I also don't think we can ever know really to what degree they influence because it's impossible to separate out (not suggesting that anyone here thinks we could)

But really, I'm at the point where I give less and less of a shit about the arguments, because look at the huge amount of actual harm to women that stuff like violence that is supposedly innate in men does. Look at the huge amount of restrictions on women's lives and choices, and the devaluing of their activities, that goes on as a result of deeming behaviours and skills innate in one gender and not the other

What about justice, and kindness, and treating women like human beings in technicolour with different skills and needs and desires and giving them as many opportunities as men? And not doing this because it's somehow been proven scientifically that their brains and bodies can cope with it, but because it is the right thing to do

UptoapointLordCopper · 14/04/2015 19:12

YY Whirlpool

I'm also "deficient" in the so-called feminine traits. And am in a male-dominated profession.

This "biological difference" thing winds me up so much because I'm constantly being fucking told I'm one thing or the other that I am not. So now I just tell them to fuck off. V. unladylike.

violetwellies · 14/04/2015 20:06

Risk, I think needs more examination. My (male) partner was talking to my son about a sheep with a twisted uterus, who rather than producing live lambs was carted off in the knacker wagon.
He was telling Ds what a high risk activity being pregnant and giving birth was to the majority of animals. Humans included.

Apart from the moment of wondering how many almost 4 year olds had these conversations with their dads. It made me think that for the majority of women this is a risk they will take, and probably don't need many more.

violetwellies · 14/04/2015 20:09

But on the other hand someone upthread mentioned horse riding, a hugely risky sport, which in the UK at least seems mostly to appeal to girls.

BertieBotts · 14/04/2015 20:20

There was a recent thread about questions you've always wanted to ask the opposite sex. I found it very interesting, mostly lighthearted/tongue in cheek, no expectation that one was talking for all members of a sex but there was a lot of engagement from both sides, no insisting that one way was right and no bollocks about biology. Of course various posters may have had their own beliefs about where certain behaviours/mindsets had come from, fair enough, it wasn't brought onto the thread.

Something that really surprised me and I'd never really thought about before was that several men said that men in general are on constant alert for signs of violence from other men, mentally sizing each other up to judge whether they are a threat, even in an everyday context like work or among strangers the thought is always there and it's a part of how social hierarchies are enforced. It came up in a discussion about why men don't often challenge sexism.

That made me think several things. Firstly that men must learn this from a fairly young age, that this is just how the world works. Smacking children is not common any more, but when it was it wasn't that parents had to do it all the time, the threat would largely be enough. In lieu of smacking, a lot of parenting still involves using the adult's strength to overpower the child - the ultimate message being "it doesn't matter what you do or say, I am stronger than you and that means I will always win". Playground or sibling squabbles happen and often get physical, and yes are dealt with but I think that breaking up the fight, forced apologies, time out etc do nothing for the actual changes which have happened within the hierarchy, which the children involved will be aware of. If you look at all the messages given in children's media and with toys etc, girls are all about friendship, love, caring/nurturing and being likeable (often by being pretty but in other ways too), and boys are given messages about perseverance, loyalty (not friendship), competition (being the fastest, strongest, best) and the clincher, good beating evil, overwhelmingly in a physical fight.

So then secondly having understood that this is the case, as boys and young men they have several opportunities to try this out. School playground as mentioned, football/general pub violence as Buffy said, the competitive nature of the sports boys are encouraged into, play, stories they read/watch, the idea that it's acceptable, even noble, to assault a man who has stolen your girlfriend or hurt a close female friend/relative. Just like men usually don't see the pressure on women to look a certain way despite being exposed to exactly the same stimulus, or seem surprised when it's pointed out that magazines etc encourage this insecurity I think we (women) largely miss this angle as it's not aimed directly at us. But for men, the idea of violence and dominance is so ingrained by adulthood that it is normal and so it always prevails as a back up plan of sorts for dealing with conflict. Hence, men who don't learn other skills of conflict management are more likely to fall back on violence (or non violent physical force, which may be an oxymoron). But it's not an innate thing, the signs are always there.

Lastly the cycle is perpetuated, because it seems so harmless. Just like we say to little girls, without thinking, "Oh your dress is so pretty!" we say to boys "Wow, you are so strong!" and talk merrily about beating the bad guys, as though the bad guys were objectively bad and didn't just stand for somebody that you disagree with.

It's so prevalent, I have a 6yo DS who is obsessed with being the fastest, who loves superheroes, talks often about punching and killing and it's just impossible to counteract these messages when they come so thick and fast.

BertieBotts · 14/04/2015 20:24

Horseriding usually involves taking care of the horse, though. Caring/nurturing = a female activity. There are more male jockeys (I think?) and a jockey doesn't usually take care of the horse they ride directly. (I'm woolly on this though so could be wrong!)

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/04/2015 20:27

YY things that women do that are so very risky are not recognised as such.

So things that men do = "risk" with the associated ideas around bravery, even if reckless
Things that women do = "life"

There is a lot of socialisation around risk taking as well. Girls are strongly discouraged from taking risks, maybe because of a deep rooted thing around preserving the ones that have the babies. So the idea goes that men take more risks as they are "expendable" - how about the other way - that because women are less "expendable" they are restricted, socialised and otherwise prevented and discouraged from taking risks...?

BuffyEpistemiwhatsit · 14/04/2015 20:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BuffyEpistemiwhatsit · 14/04/2015 20:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/04/2015 20:32

Bertie agree with all of that in your longer post, for sure there is pecking order and wariness stuff going on between men a lot.

However I would say that most women and girls are on some level aware of threat towards them a lot of the time as well. It probably doesn't manifest in the same way, but for sure I wouldn't say that women are immune from being aware of potential threats around them IYSWIM. The difference is that women and girls aren't expected to fight back, really, if something happens. So the threat assessment isn't "am I going to have to have a fight" it's more" is someone going to attack me". Of course plenty of women can fight and plenty of men can't but the socialisation around these messages is quite straightforward for the sexes.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/04/2015 20:34

I mean my creepy man radar is on pretty much all the time and has been since puberty really.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/04/2015 20:35

YY I don't like the expendable thing either, that's generally how the people who talk about men being natural risk-takers phrase it though.

almondcakes · 14/04/2015 20:46

I don't agree with the expendable thing either. If societies view women as less expendable, why are all the 'missing' children from sex selective abortions female? Isn't son preference a common global phenomenon? What about all the evidence that females are less likely to receive adequate nutrition and health care globally than males?

This males are expendable thing is just MRA bullshit.

BertieBotts · 14/04/2015 20:48

Yes. Totally agree Whirlpool. Women are constantly aware of men and assessing the threat level, I reckon, but our instinct to then minimise the threat seems to jump first to not antagonising the person, and only second to getting away. If we fear that getting away would appear rude or antagonistic it's much harder for us to do it. And in fact it is often greeted with shock and considered rude. I have never ever forgotten, although I have lost the link, the article describing in minute detail an interaction between a young woman and a pervy man at a bus stop. She was not applauded for getting away.

Buffy :) - but you have to admit that in general society the "good triumphing over evil" trope is usually considered a positive thing. Which I find bizarre because who decides good and who decides evil?

StillLostAtTheStation · 14/04/2015 20:49

Horseriding usually involves taking care of the horse, though. Caring/nurturing = a female activity. There are more male jockeys (I think?) and a jockey doesn't usually take care of the horse they ride directly. (I'm woolly on this though so could be wrong!)

In a competitive racing situation horses will be looked after by the stable boys and girls i.e grooms(the juniors being referred to as boy or girl). The vast majority of people who have horses aren't jockeys. I think you're really struggling to try to make this into some sort of female activity, that's certainly not my experience coming from a horsey background.

People look after their own horses unless rich enough to have their own grooms. My brother probably does more than my sister-in-law for their horses.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/04/2015 20:50

So the expendable line is an excuse to control and limit women and girl's behaviour, while not actually treating them as "valuable" (or whatever the opposite is) at all.

So we get all of the downside of "being protected" while not actually being protected.

Yes that sounds about right.

eg don't go out after dark / alone / home with a man / etc etc etc BUT if you get attacked by someone you know (much more likely) then fuck all will be done about it.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/04/2015 20:54

There is no question that horse / pony related things are aimed primarily at girls in the UK and have been for years.

I have never understood why Confused

But for sure, my little pony et al are not "for boys" that is quite obvious!

And little girls are encouraged to ride (if they have rich families) in a way that they are not encouraged to eg play rugby which is also something that happens among the better off.

Is it a hangover from ideas around poshness and wealth and stuff I wonder.

WhirlpoolGalaxyM51 · 14/04/2015 20:55

Does anyone know what the things about girls and ponies/horses is?

It baffled me as a child and still does! There used to be whole magazines about girls and ponies in the 80s IIRC.

Swipe left for the next trending thread