Reclaiming (evolutionary) biology! (thinking about what Heather Brunskell Evans said)

[Feministme]

Lots of food for thought from LAWS last night, but one thing that really struck me was Heather B-E's plea to "reclaim biology".

Evolutionary biology and 'biological essentialism' often seem like dirty words in feminism because they are used as lazy justification for inequality and oppression: "men rape because of a natural urge", "there are more men in positions of power because they are natural leaders", "women are natural homemakers" etc...

So feminism has tended to shy away from seeking biological explanations (eg for male violence) and to say its all about conditioning/social constructions of gender.

But we shouldn't mistake "natural" for "good". Cancer is natural. Dementia is natural. Children dying of measles is natural. Everything about the world of biological beings must be explainable by evolution through natural selection (unless we invoke "souls" etc...). The evolutionary pressures on males (capable of fathering many offspring, but never certain which ones are theirs) and females (capable of mothering a limited number of offspring, with certainty but at great personal cost) are quite different. So we would expect males and females to be different (on average) in behavioral traits.

This whole fight against transgenderism has been about protecting the definition of women as a biological reality.... it's brought us back to thinking about biology in relation to feminism.....

Just wondered what others think?

I agree thingybob, goosefoot (& HBE) - it seems like a critical gap in feminist theory. I hope the Gender Wars will catalyse new thinking

I remember reading Stephen Pinkers "Blank Slate" when it came out and thinking that the pomo "gender feminists" he was arguing against didn't seem like anything in the real world. I shrugged and thought this denial of biology was some weird US university thing.

We don't have to be 'blank slates' in order to not be born gendered- every mother knows, especially if they have more than one child, that we all come with predispositions and personalities from the off. As to whether you can tell if a baby has a 'male' or 'female' predisposition I seriously doubt. How could you ever agree?

I have a personality which is neither male or female and I always get on with both women and men who are likewise independent of gendered stereotypes- I feel a bit awkward around people who are really into gender- a bit like a bookworm amongst jocks - I just smile and try to get through it. I'm not alone. There are an awful lot of women who just do not give any fucks about all the gendered shit we are supposed to be interested in, the same with men. The people who believe its worthwhile and necessary to define psychological sex remind me of jocks cornering me and asking what team I support when I don't give a shit about their sport.

I did notice big changes in myself during pregnancy - fretting, fussing, obsessing about cleaning and nest building and having meltdowns if things weren't right - but this was my hormones directing me- prior to that I didn't do much that was particularly female.

It pisses me off, not for ideological reasons, when people say men and women are different psychologically, but because it sharply jars against my actual experience.

Yet I do think women and men are different when it comes to sexuality and the changes of parenthood. But this is not personality.

I don't think the alternative to 'blank slate' is to go to the extreme of pink and blue brains LikeDust -- but i can see that people often present it that way - being a girl means being into 'girly' things etc.....

But at a population level there can be differences (on average and at the extremes). As with height or strength; a tall woman is not 'male' in her height, but a very tall man is taller than nearly all women

I don't think we can rule out that there are similar population level differences between men (on average) and women (on average) for cognitive or behavioural traits which have a genetic as well as an environmental component..... This doesn't mean saying that people's personalities are gendered: "all men are sporty", "all women are caring" or any other such stereotypes!

I don't think we can rule out that there are similar population level differences between men (on average) and women (on average) for cognitive or behavioural traits which have a genetic as well as an environmental component..

And we don't have that vacuum of socialisation to be able to test the hypothesis either...

I'd also not say having male and female biologically based tendencies has much, or really anything, to do with being into "gendered" stuff. Even women or men who are on the more extreme side of the biological element may have little interest in the cultural instantiations of gender.

As for pregnancy hormones, yes, that's when people often see it most clearly, that their thinking and behaviour has this physiologically driven element. I notice it in relation to my menstrual cycle, especially since I've gone into my 40s, there are some pretty clear personality differences as the oestrogen drops. But that isn't other than what we are the rest of the time - or hormonal makeup is us. That weird fussy crazy pregnant and breastfeeding personality is our personality. And those hormones and hormonal effects are there all the time, for women and men, we just tend not to notice them unless they change more quickly than usual or get really ramped up.

Agree with goosefoot. Hormones affect personality, behaviour, priorities. Inject testosterone/oestrogen into animals and there will probably be a behavioural change (eg displays of aggression, risk taking) - don’t think many would argue against this.

The more controversial issue is whether at higher level cognitive tasks the hormonal mix affects brain functioning. So do people with higher testosterone/oestrogen perform better/worse at navigation, localisation, focus, listening tasks? Does the timing of hormone surges matter (eg for physical development effect on height only occurs if this is prior to bone fusion at the end of puberty - is there something similar for brain development)? Differences between sexes cognitive functioning at a population level seem very plausible (in a similar way to height) - though difficult to prove and quantify.

Correct me if I’m wrong but there seems to be different strands within feminism regarding similarities and differences between the sexes.

On the one hand some say there are likely to be negligible biological sex differences in cognitive function and personality. The observed differences are due to ‘nurture’. Therefore we should look to have equal ratios in jobs.

On the other hand there are definite sex differences in behaviour, which cannot be overcome by ‘nurture’/later life changes. Therefore the trans debate.

A gross simplification I know. The 2 are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but interesting as not necessarily compatible views either.

Great thread! placemarking- coming back to learn more from you all when I have a bit more time.

The problem with some of all this is that if you (crudely) argue for the impact of hormones on brain function esp linked to female biology, you run the risk of it being used against us. At the same time, these hormones and life stages can have effects on women specifically that need to be taken into account. Eg menopause.

It's all so extremely complex as there are so many variables.

I do believe in nature first, and then nurture (or lack of) after. I never see the point of the verses debate.

For example, a child I teach has Williams syndrome. He has the characteristics of people with this condition: extremely happy, kind and helpful. To the point where we have to tell him he can feel upset or cross about something. Very poor visual spatial coordination. This is an extreme specific condition but we are all a result of our genes first and then environmental factors.

It pisses me off, not for ideological reasons, when people say men and women are different psychologically, but because it sharply jars against my actual experience. Yet I do think women and men are different when it comes to sexuality and the changes of parenthood. But this is not personality.

I think I see what you're getting at, but from my reading on this issue, simple phrase "different psychologically" can refer to a huge number of things, not just personality. 'Psychology' basically refers to anything going on in the brain, so in my understanding, "sexuality and the changes of parenthood" would be included.

Also, almost any discussion of human differences by people involved in psychology research, whether they're talking about sex or age or any other categorisation, will be talking about average differences over a large population, even if that is not made explicit in every sentence. So they might talk about 'how 17 year olds and 25 year olds differ in executive function' for example, but they'd be talking about an average, not implying that no 17 year olds have good executive function mature and no 25 year olds lack it.

PerkingFaintly I'm so pleased you're interested. Let me know what you think of the article!

Thingybob

I don't consider myself a proper feminist, although I agree with many feminist objectives, as I can't buy into the denial of innate psychological differences between the sexes. If I've raised my concerns previously I get shouted down with waffle about socialisation and patriarchy and told this is a fundamental feminist belief.

I agree that there has previously been quite a lot of hostility on this board to this subject. It's been a silver lining to the trans fiasco that so many new voices have been drawn to the board, that it's now become possible to discuss it. I was so pleased to see this thread.

For me, the most important thing is to keep an open mind. There is no conclusive evidence at the moment, even though we may feel the evidence points in a particularly direction.

I bought the blank slate theories completely when I was young (was at Uni in the 70s, when they were at their height). Not just on feminism, but other social/political issues as well. That changed after my first child was born. I didn't have any particular maternal felings during pregnancy, which meant I was utterly shocked by the huge psychological changes that I experienced in the space of 24 hours after she was born, when my priorities and attitudes were simply turned upside down (in a good way, but still astounding to my rational self). I was stunned by the revelation that biology could be so powerful, which went against all my previous beliefs. It made me wonder: if innate factors can be so psychologically powerful here, what other things might they potentially influence, rather than just socialisation?

That was in 25 years ago, and led me to start reading, and the more I read the angrier I got at having been so misled in my whole worldview by ideologically based wishful thinking, wishful thinking that I was coming to see had no scientific basis. I felt I had been duped. This affected my attitude toward feminism, as well. I still saw myself as a feminist, but felt my ideas generally would no longer be acceptable to most feminists.

I came to Mumsnet a few years ago now, so relatively recently, but these feelings made me react very negatively to reading some of the more dogmatic voices that used to dominate these threads, to the extent that I really didn't want to participate in discussions at all. Reading this thread, it's good to see that I wasn't alone in those feelings.

Reading about the trans issue has made me revisit my feminist principles. My core understanding, gained right at the beginning, that it is differences in biology that have led to women's oppression, has been reaffirmed. But I feel strongly now that any kind of social activism absolutely should not be based on pre-conceived, ideologically based ideas. We saw where that went with the blank slate-ism of Marxism, and the subsequent disillusionment and loss of focus of the left.

I think this will always wind me up if the word 'personality' is used as a catch all.

-disposition
-abilities and talents
-interest and obsession
-weaknesses and flaws
-extroversion/introversion
-conscience/moral compass
-independence or seeking belonging
-and many more

So many different things that will affect someone's behaviour.

Some things don't really change in people, some things are suppressed in order to get by and the mask is in danger of slipping.

The things a child is 'born with' are extremely pronounced but whether that strong personality is a more male group of traits or female group of traits seems to be the least significant question.

The danger is when ideas trickle down like when my friend, who is a teacher, was appalled that her colleague set up a table 'for boys' and a table 'for girls' in her early years lesson planning.

I can personally vouch for a lifetime of regret where I didn't pursue interests because they weren't 'for me' and other girls weren't also pursuing them.

So it is important that the intellectual exploration of this idea is handled carefully, bias stringently guarded against, with multiple safeguards, and not publicised in such a way that is crudely taken on by biased people with authority and decision-making power. It seems impossible really.

I also think looking for sex difference in personality and ability is different from 'height' because you can look at height distribution and you don't say to a woman "you have a more male height" or to a man "you have a more female height" even if they are more in the cluster occupied by the opposite sex.

However setting out to investigate sexed personality or ability is starting from a biased premise. Surely you should start out from a neutral position from a particular investigation - for example - reaction times. You could plot the results and mark whether the participants are male or female. You would need to state that you cannot be sure if a clustering of two separate sexes was nature or nurture. For example, faster reaction times might be because girls need to react quicker to bullying or boys might play more sports.

I think there are good reasons that people are cautious about this area. Because scientists can be sexist as can Joe public interpreting and applying the findings, which can lead to unhappy people.

Yes I agree likedust I think we have fought against people saying "you can't do this because your a woman" . Boys table/ girls table etc... And we are wary of cod 'science' explanations being used to reinforce sexist notions.

Where I think we need to apply biological thinking is to understand the thing we call "patriarchy" (in all its forms). If we believe that human beings are the product of natural selection and that this applies to social and cultural practices as well as bodies, then this includes "the patriarchy" - - - it's not just a case of men deciding to oppress women because they happen to be stronger and more aggressive, but males and female's evolution shaped by the different evolutionary pressures on the big gamete ones, and the small gamete ones.....

Kestrel I also remember that raising evolution on this board used to bring a disapproving reaction! I hope the whole trans debate will bringing feminists debate round to thinking about this stuff - - avoiding the naturalist fallacy that we are looking for goodness in nature.

Feministme

Funnily enough, using the search feature a while back, I found this really good, open-minded discussion by feminists about evolution-related matters, from 2007. It was in "Other topics", though - however, I don't know if this was because the FWR board had not yet been set up (the first post listed in Feminist Chat is from 2010).

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/other_subjects/267947-evolution-and-feminism

A lot of this boils down to where you stand on the concept of ‘free will’.

If you are a hard determinist, you don’t have any. It’s all just the Big Bang playing itself out and you are just along for the ride. Free will is an illusion. You do what your brain tells you to do.

On the other hand if you are a philosophical libertarian (this is distinct from political libertarianism though there is some overlap) then you have absolute free will and make free, rational choices, and your brain has nothing to do with it. It’s just the organ where choice happens to happen.

I don’t think either philosophy is really palatable.

I’m more a ‘compatiblist’ which is the philosophy supported by people like Daniel Dennett. You have free will within the constraints of nature. Yes, you might chose your career, you might choose to have kids, you might choose cornflakes in the morning, but these choices act within the constraints of your preferences.

Let’s take an uncontroversiak example. You chose cornflakes this morning instead of branflakes or a bacon butty. Is that free will? You could have had the others if you chose to but where you free? Well, if you are a vegetarian or a practicing Jew or Muslim the bacon butty was out. If you are concerned about your health you might have gone for the branflakes. But you like the taste of cornflakes so you went for cornflakes.

These factors are social or biological or both. The religious taboos are social. The health concern is social (we place value on health as a society) and biological (branflakes are the healthy option). And taste is really down to biology (everyone’s sense of taste is different).

But would any of us really deny we had a choice?

I think this goes to career choices too. We can choose and we think that choice is free because it feels free but it is influenced by social and biological factors.

But how much choice we actually have and we have the feeling of choice is social and to do with the luck of the draw of where we are born and the body we have.

For example, a poor girl in Afghanistan is going to have a lot fewer choices than a wealthy white male born in America.

In other words some people get what they are given and some people choose what they want to have. This disparity can be drawn along all sorts of lines of inequality: sex, 'race', nationality, social class, etc.

For example, a poor girl in Afghanistan is going to have a lot fewer choices than a wealthy white male born in America.

And the girl may have no choice but to bear children, whereas the male can never choose to do so. The girl's lack of choice on this is social, the man's is biological.

It seems to me that there's an element that some feminists see the existence of innate sex differences in behaviour as a Pandora's box that, for fear of the consequences, should be kept firmly closed, or at least only peered into extremely slowly and cautiously.

But that's some thing I personally find unsatisfactory, as it places feminism in a long line of political philosophies that prioritises ideology over the pursuit of truth.

Separate thread to discuss Heather Brunskell-Evans and the topic of bodily autonomy and when women stopped being able to discuss their bodies (part of her wide-ranging talk at LAWS):

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3440521-Heather-Brunskell-Evans-and-Bodily-Autonomy

Im taking more about the constraints laid down by our preferences. I gave the example of religion to make the point that even when you take it away choice is not ‘free’ in the way we like to think of it. A woman born in Afghanistan has few choices because of society but take away all societal constraints and we still have preferences that weight the choices we take. We experience the feeling of following our preferences as freedom but those preferences themselves might not be a matter of choice. Take homosexuality. I don’t think being gay is down to socialisation. I don’t think people ‘choose’ to be gay either.

We like to think we have choices but we can all look back on bad decisions we made and think I only did that because I was drunk, or someone spiked my drink, or I was coked off my nut, tired, or angry, or afraid, or in love. We see that as exceptions to normal behaviour and we talk about competence or diminished responsibility or crimes of passion. But drugs like alcohol or GHB or coke change the degrees of activity already occurring in the brain and anger and fear and love also increase the activity of hormones like adrenaline or testosterone or oxytocin (a cynic might argue that love is just a hormone imbalance). There’s no neurotransmitter- or hormone-free testing state upon which drugs and emotional states act. We are never entirely free.

But we don’t experience sobriety and calm as if they are as just as constrained by biology as intoxication or extreme emotional states.

I may be getting way off topic. What were we talking about again?

Resting state, not testing state.

But that's some thing I personally find unsatisfactory, as it places feminism in a long line of political philosophies that prioritises ideology over the pursuit of truth.

This is one advantage I have being an Aspie. I’m not afraid to think about biology effects my brain because I’ve spent a great deal of time thinking and reading about how it differs from others. I have to think consciously about my emotional state. If I don’t monitor it it can get out of hand.