Physical Vs psychological difference between the sexes

[Bumpitybumper]

So Mumsnet seems a very gender critical place when it comes to physical sex based differences. The majority don't support men competing in the female category in sporting competitions or men being allowed in single sex wards or changing rooms. The reason being men and women are so fundamentally biologically different that an ideology can't just erase these difference.

However I have noticed that the majority do not support the assertion that male and females may be psychologically different and as a class have different inclinations, behaviour and desires. Many reject the idea that girls may be drawn to different toys, subjects or types of play than boys. They reject the idea that women may naturally have predisposition as a class towards certain occupations and hobbies. They simply cannot accept that women have different desires when it comes to having children and also raising them and the role they play in providing care.

I feel like the insistence that men and women want the same things and behave in the same way is because traditional feminine occupations and interests have been so undermined, undervalued and used to repress us in a patriarchal society. Rather than explore the idea of what women have a natural biological propensity towards and seeking equal value for these things, it is easier to suggest our feminine preferences are all a result of socialisation and conditioning and actually our underlying psychology is the same as men's. This seems very dangerous to me and almost playing into the patriarchy's hands.

Am I alone is seeing this distinction in how physical and psychological differences between the sexes are viewed?

There are indeed a number of "psychological differences". But they're very widely exaggerated, reinforced, and exploited by society in a myriad of usually unhelpful ways.

Thanks.

I find most people rely on evidence.

There is no evidence to suggest there are psychological reasons that women choose to be paid 9% less than men, for example.

I'd have a look, if I were you, to see if there's any evidence that we live in a patriarchal society & women are viewed as less than men, which would account for this.

‘Rather than explore the idea of what women have a natural biological propensity towards and seeking equal value for these things...’

Maybe slow down a bit. What are these ‘things’?

Women need consideration for the fact that, due to their biology, they are the ones who bear the physical impact of creating the next generations. That has an impact on their lives, from careers, to health, wellbeing and so on. Women also as a result of being the ones that create and birth offspring are very often likely to want to take care of their very young children themselves, due to other physical/physiological factors such as breastfeeding. Women may be more likely to want to care for others, and caring for others should be valued by society whoever does it. Feminists are not the ones who are dismissive of caring roles.

Why do you think that feminists don't want traditionally feminine activities/occupations to be valued? My experience is that they absolutely do. What they don't want is women to be limited to those, as if all women are interested in the same things, have the same preferences, the same aptitudes or abilities....

Rather than explore the idea of what women have a natural biological propensity towards and seeking equal value for these things, it is easier to suggest our feminine preferences are all a result of socialisation and conditioning and actually our underlying psychology is the same as men's. This seems very dangerous to me and almost playing into the patriarchy's hands.

I think you'd have to give specific examples and how you would measure these, and also how you would untangle the social input of gender (by which i mean 'girls are like THIS and boys are like THAT') - these messages are everywhere even towards babies and toddlers.

I'd be more than happy to accept that a sex is associated with with a psychological characteristic if it could be shown that the association had a strong predictive power - i.e. if (say) ~95% of females displayed it and ~95% of males did not. Otherwise it's so broad as to be essentially meaningless.

By 'feminine' do you mean in a medical way (i.e. pertaining to female people) or a social/cultural way (what we might call 'femininity' or 'girly' stuff - which obviously varies hugely between cultures)?

Whilst I agree that psychological differences have been historically exploited, I'm not sure that I agree that they have been exaggerated as there is still so much debate about the extent of these differences and the influence of biology Vs socialisation.

It's hard in a patriarchal world that values STEM over the arts or banking over caring to suggest that women might be drawn to things that are currently valued less highly. It seems to strike at the heart of equality. The thing is though, all these things have been given a value by men who will naturally value their own occupations, interest and desires more highly. If we as women understand our own value system (that may well differ from a man's) then we can fight for real equality that fits our biology properly.

traditional feminine occupations and interests have been so undermined, undervalued and used to repress us in a patriarchal society.

This is interesting and is a good discussion point actually. Coding used to be a 'feminine' occupation, as it was seen as 'like typing'. Until it was realised how much power and value there was in it, when men decided it was worthwhile after all.

I remember Mary Curnock Cook of UCAS talking about getting men into nursing and teaching as important as getting women into STEM (I paraphrase).

women might be drawn to things that are currently valued less highly

But which women do you mean? All? Any? A majority? You're talking at such a broad level it's hard to get a handle on what you're actually saying.

I don’t know the answer to this but as a woman raising boys, I’m interested in more research. It absolutely is true that female dominant professionals are under valued, care as a whole is wildly undervalued. It is an interesting hypothesis and Id love to see really good quality research on it. But I think Science is by and large quite afraid to find innate differences between people because so often these ideas have been used to oppress people.

I, and many many many women I know, have a natural propensity for STEM-type subjects and would be awful and unhappy doing e.g. nursing or childcare for a living. I don't know how you're proposing we would fit in in your view of being 'psychologically female'?

There may well be traits that cluster together. For example, good architects are often dyslexic. I don't think linking these to either biological sex is particularly useful - what value is there in it?

There is a massive amount of evidence for similarities between males and females in cognitive domains (maths / IQ / language / spatial etc).
This paper is the classic
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American psychologist, 60(6), 581.
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.334.2533&rep=rep1&type=pdf

There are differences in aggression (men are more aggressive) and in some hormone-related things, but otherwise, decades of research has not found major differences.

On the other hand, we know that cultural factors have a big influence on people's choices and opportunities to learn, and we know that those push men and women in different directions. So it is far more plausible to suggest that culture causes the majority of reported 'sex differences' in psychological processes.

How would you evaluate which “psychological differences” are inherent and which are acculturated?

There’s plenty of research from throughout the whole 20th century on this. Whole disciplines in fact. And what was generally considered a “woman’s psychology” in 1900 is radically different to that in 1950 or in 2000.

So if you can point me to any way of determining which “value systems” women and men are born with, as opposed to socialised into, that would be great. Ta!

Well just one example, but isn't it thought that women's brains change after childbirth, in ways that make them more caring? This is clearly one difference. But arguably it's physical! What's the line between physical and psychological?

I think in general though, that it's entirely possible that men and women's brains do work differently as a general rule at population level (everyone is different and individual of course). But the trouble is that until society completely stops encouraging girls to play with dolls and boys with Lego, we will never know what's nature and what's nurture.

I can't see that it's possible to definitively prove it either way, with our current understanding.

I have noticed that the majority do not support the assertion that male and females may be psychologically different and as a class have different inclinations, behaviour and desires. Many reject the idea that girls may be drawn to different toys, subjects or types of play than boys.

I think you are missing the fact the just because there is a difference between the sexes, that doesn't mean it is inherent.

For example, men show (on average) better mathematical skills than women, particularly spatial awareness. For a long time this was thought to be inherent but when you look at other cultures and especially when you control for the amount people are exposed to theses skills the differences disappear.

We don't need to debate or wonder, the research in this area is fairly thorough. There are only two differences which seem to be inherent (it's so hard to control variables that they might still be cultural but very ingrained): women are better at reading non verbal signals and women are more empathetic.

Everything else is cultural.

Many reject the idea that girls may be drawn to different toys, subjects or types of play than boys. They reject the idea that women may naturally have predisposition as a class towards certain occupations and hobbies. They simply cannot accept that women have different desires when it comes to having children and also raising them and the role they play in providing care.

But its not just an idea that boys/men and girls/women are drawn to different toys, occupations or hobbies; it is a lived eperience.

Well just one example, but isn't it thought that women's brains change after childbirth, in ways that make them more caring?

How was this measured?
I guess I'm more caring in that I spend more of my time doing "caring" stuff, but that is because I have caring responsibilities that literally did not exist before my children were born.

I mean women at a population level will show a propensity towards different things than men at a population level.

Does this mean all women? No. Do I think many of these traits would meet the 95% test touted above? No. Still, I think there are significant trends due to biological factors such as hormones etc that will mean that women will naturally behave differently than men at a population level. They will want different things and pursue different interests.

I believe for example that the impact of testosterone and other hormones on boys will mean at a population level that they have the propensity to be more aggressive and potentially violent. I don't believe all boys are like that and I also believe society exacerbates this but STILL I think the biological propensity is there. I therefore think they would be more motivated at a population level to join the armed forces for example than women.

Yip the physical differences exist - evidence exists

Yip to not accepting innate psychological difference - evidence does not exist. Further evidence suggests strongly that women are trained differently , limiting their potential

There may be some effects driven perhaps by hormones but they are dwarfed by the misogynistic training that all girls receive

So you're saying that quite a lot of women would want to do feminine things, even if we didn't live in a heavily gendered society, while acknowledging that quite a lot of women wouldn't.
What do you do with that information, if it was found to be borne out by research?

No, the science is not as definitive as you imply. There are studies that show traits are more prevalent in women than men (and vice versa) and it is not always explained away by socialisation.

It's not so much about innate ability in areas but about what men and women are biologically driven towards at a population level. The fact that we can complete a verbal reasoning test at a similar level doesn't mean that the two sexes want to employ these skills in the same way it be drawn to the same occupations and pursuits. We have different physiology with different levels of hormones coursing through us. Humans aren't completely rational creatures and we are all driven by our biology Surely it's more logical to assume that we would be different to men than exactly the same?

I agree that specific traits, like aggression, are markedly different between men and women. That's demonstrated in all levels of society (just imagine what it would be like if men offended at the rate of women?!)

I think it's important to be clear about what traits you mean though, as they are not all equal. E.g. "Whimsical", I would imagine, wouldn't be as measurable or sex-linked as aggression.

If we as women understand our own value system (that may well differ from a man's) then we can fight for real equality that fits our biology properly.

So you think that all women should have the same value system, and it does sound suspicisoulsy like you think thatvvalue system should be one of wanting to raise children and be caring?

Can you give some examples of the 'real equality that fits our biology' we should be fighting for?

"However I have noticed that the majority do not support the assertion that male and females may be psychologically different and as a class have different inclinations, behaviour and desires. Many reject the idea that girls may be drawn to different toys, subjects or types of play than boys. They reject the idea that women may naturally have predisposition as a class towards certain occupations and hobbies. They simply cannot accept that women have different desires when it comes to having children and also raising them and the role they play in providing care."

Whilst I see differences, I do not see any evidence of innate differences. Socialisation could account for all of it. Girls and boys are raised under different expectations from day one, subtly (and not-so-subtly, via punishment) encouraged to behave differently by society at large.

You're going to have to try a bit better than just proposing your theory and not backing it up with any evidence.

There are studies that show traits are more prevalent in women than men (and vice versa) and it is not always explained away by socialisation.

Could you link to them please, so I can see which traits you mean, and how they accounted for confounding factors?

Given how young sexed training starts saying somethings isn't always explained by socialisation isn't the same as saying it was shown not to be a result of socialisation