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?

Feminism means that even if 99 per cent of women opted for 'traditionally feminine' (stereotypical) jobs, leisure. clothes etc. they should still have the same chances as any man to opt for stereotypically 'male' work, hobbies, clothes etc. And vice versa; it works both ways.

But nobody is suggesting that this shouldn't be the case. I think historically there has been many examples where supposed difference between the sexes have been used to exclude women from male occupations and pursuits but this doesn't mean that this has to be the case. Erasing bioogical differences just to avoid opening this can of worms and leaving ourselves open to further discrimination isn't necessarily the answer

There's just very little evidence for big differences anywhere- i think most of the time its statistically insignificant. I seem to recall significant difference in areas such as males liking round objects more than females did. Its hard to see what impact puberty has . I think you'd need to get rid of all the nurture/social impacts before you can really see what the underlying psychological differences are - and i think pointing out psychological differences of emphasises them just leaves us back into the 1950s or surrendered women area.
The fact that a lot of women want to do the traditional caring type roles doesn't tell you anything about what the true psychological bent is- we've all been brainwashed since birth that this is what women want to do so it would feel unnatural to do anything else

Feminism means that even if 99 per cent of women opted for 'traditionally feminine' (stereotypical) jobs, leisure. clothes etc.

It's not your post that I'm disagreeing with but more the idea that you were responding to that there are 'male' jobs' and 'female' jobs and indeed 'male' and 'female' family roles. It's only just been 120 years or so that the modern nuclear family has been in existence and this is culturally located in certain industrialised nations only. Pre-industrialisation in agrarian times children would have worked on the farm or in the family business as soon as they could and whereas there were distinct male and female roles as a result of physical strength and also male-privilege these are different to the make-up of so-called men's and women's work today (for example, dairying was traditionally women's work as was baking bread but when producing these staples became larger scale and divorced from many households baking became a male occupation).

Staying home with the children is not something quintessentially female and going out to work is not something indelibly male and nor is this about 'value' or 'values'. This is a very modern thing and not the case in all cultures. I'm not 'valuing' men's roles by going to work and by dreaming as a young child to have a career and being financially independent because working outside the home is not something that is 'male'.

The socialisation is definitely there though. The other day, I asked my DP whether he listened when his mother showed him how to put clothes on the line in a way that would allow them to dry quickly. He said he had no idea how his mother pegged up the washing. Compare to me as a young child when I was taught how to dust, iron, peg up washing, cook and wash floors. I was given dolls and told how to dress them all in preparation for my role as wife and mother. I was told to be deferential, polite and kind (that didn't work) because that's how girls behaved. When knocked over by boys in the playground I was told that this was what happened when one played with boys (the inference being that the swings were their spaces).

That sort of shit from a young age for boys and girls creates 'differences' that are then claimed as 'natural'.

I totally agree. It’s been shown that people treat male and female children differently even before they are born. How on Earth do we know what is innate and what is socialisation. Boys and girls are treated very differently, both in the home and at school.
It used to be seen as contrary to nature for women to work in the legal profession for instance. We laugh at that now but the argument was that it was neither suited to nor desired by “normal” women to want to do this work. Yet most people entering that profession now are women (although sadly they don’t reach the top in anywhere near the same number). So it turns out that actually lots of women do want to do something that was seen as inherently male.

Ah but GC by proving that women were actually less suited to be a lawyer would explain why even though they want to be lawyers they rarely reach the top

Ah but GC by proving that women were actually less suited to be a lawyer would explain why even though they want to be lawyers they rarely reach the top

Men also reach the top in 'female' occupations such as nursing and teaching.

It's because of patriarchy and not women's desires not to reach the top or because they are not as good as men.

Ah but of course they reach the top in female professions after all men are just better at being leaders aren't they, it's innate isn't it?

This whole "let's just discuss" make me feel sick.

Staying home with the children is not something quintessentially female and going out to work is not something indelibly male and nor is this about 'value' or 'values'. This is a very modern thing and not the case in all cultures. I'm not 'valuing' men's roles by going to work and by dreaming as a young child to have a career and being financially independent because working outside the home is not something that is 'male'.

Exactly - I posted early on about how it was only incredibly recently that women weren't obliged to have whatever babies were bestowed on them - readily available contraception has only been around for the blink of an eye, historically speaking, and likewise manual labour would've been tough without many of the tools/technologies we have today, which have levelled the playing field somewhat.

People need to analyse WHY some roles are seen as 'for women' and 'for men' and how much of that was established in times where things were pretty different, but the attitudes have been handed down for generations.

Yes, me too. Regressive bullshit.

The link below is to research mentioned above about changes in the brain during pregnancy. I am not a scientist so those qualified might speak to its validity. It certainly seems to speak to my lived experience and to the broader discussion of sex differences.

www.science.org/content/article/pregnancy-resculpts-women-s-brains-least-2-years#:~:text=A%20first%2Dof%2Dits%2D,and%20responding%20to%20social%20signals.

I also wonder if some of the supposed psychological differences might actually result from biological differences?

I noticed my daughter had a far better finger pincer grip than my son, as a baby (apparently this is common for girls). She could pick up tiny objects aged about 5 months whereas he still struggled at 3 years old. So she was naturally better at crafts and beading and so on - all stereotypical female activities - whereas his gross motor skills were better so he preferred and spent more time on climbing frames etc. I guess it’s natural to prefer the activities you are good at. Years later he is still keener on sports and she still loves arts and crafts and fiddly puzzles.

Interesting study - wish I could read the full paper - especially re memory, which does seem to return to normal. The lack of comparison to fathers in the article was a bit frustrating, but I guess would be in the full paper.

I don't think this suggests that females as a class have different inclinations, behaviour and desires than men do, but could help inform provisions for women who have recently given birth.

It genuinely concerns me that discussion about biological differences between the sexes makes people 'sick' or is automatically assumed to be regressive. Can we not have a nuanced discussion on this as feminists invested in equality without accusing each other of actually attempting to diminish women's rights and status?

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this but to acknowledge difference isn't the same as acknowledging inferiority. Yes, historically the patriarchy have manipulated perceived difference to mean this but it absolutely doesn't have to be this way. There is general acceptance on this board that this possible when it comes to women's physical differences e.g. women's sports, but as soon as the potential for biological psychological differences are mentioned the assumption is that any differences identified will be used to pigeon hole women into poorly paid, low status jobs that they don't want to do. For the people in the back, nobody on this thread wants this.

The answer to 'how do we know what is socialisation and what is biological' is that we don't. Lots of studies show biological differences and lots show the impact of socialisation. The presence of one doesn't negate the presence of the other and it is highly likely that both play a role and interact together in ways we don't yet understand. The danger is that so many are absolutely opposed to any discussion on the role that biology could play for ideological reasons, not because science definitively proves their viewpoint. Surely it would be useful to push for more studies and research into this rather than shutdown the discussion point completely?

If you look at the other Great Ape species, the females do do the main care giving. Some male chimps can be particularly aggressive to youngsters but some male gorillas are particularly caring. Orang females bring up their infants by themselves. In all species the males are the most aggressive. Obviously lots of variation between and within but humans don’t seem to be that different from others in our Great Ape family.

stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html

Some interesting stuff in here

It is supposed differences that lead directly to women receiving lower pay , being stopped over for promotion , being ignored in politics

Difference perceived when we know doesn't exist

Yet you want a nuanced discussion about what the difference "really" is ?

Women who have been materially and mentally harmed by the notion that women are just different are expected to be happy you want to find ways to justify it - albeit wrapped in fancy placating language

I said before - do you think it acceptable to have a nuanced discussion about racial differences? Why not ?

The lack of specifics is still bothering me.
Let's pretend there is a really robust study that shows that 70% of women score 15% higher on empathy measures than 70% of men, with scores on bell curves with the appropriate overlap between groups.

1. What do you suggest we do with this information if it turns out this is entirely innate?
2. What do you suggest we do with this information if it turns out it's mostly due to socialisation?

I'm still really unclear on what you are actually suggesting, op, hence ppl drawing their own conclusions. Can you set it out clearly, please?

No, we know that differences between the sexes do exist, we just don't know why this is the case. Studies suggest biological, societal reasons or a mixture of both. You seem unable to contemplate a biological element because you ideologically opposed to it. This is dangerous in much the same way that any unsubstantiated ideology is. Note once again (for the millionth time) difference is not the same nor does it imply inferiority. Your insistence that it does is worrying as I wonder how you view biological difference between other groups. Do you always look for inferiority in the same way?

Difference races aren't subject to different biological processes and hormones in the same way as men and women. The drivers for biological difference are less obvious. Also it is perfectly possible and common to be more than one race, but this isn't so possible with sex. They aren't comparable at all.

I read another article somewhere on this study that suggested that changes in the male brain were also noticed. I think the thesis put forward was that these changes were a survival mechanism that ensured the baby was not thrown out the window after three successive nights of screaming.

I agree that this study does not support the idea that females have different inclinations, behaviours or desires as a class. And in the main I don't think they do. But it does suggest that there are biological drivers that inform our inclinations, behaviours and desires at certain points of our development, and that these might be as important as socialisation in understanding ourselves as a class.

You are asking a group oppressed because of supposed differences - it was assumed girls can't do x, y or z because of their female biology - to come up with the ways in which they are actually different

Ah but women are different you see

No it's not ok

There are obvious genetic differences between races , which result form the different environment that those people were historically exposed to / it's the same mechanism you are proposing for women

I said before - do you think it acceptable to have a nuanced discussion about racial differences? Why not?

This.

It would be seen for the racist shit it is. This stuff IS regressive because you can scream until you’re blue in the face that you’re not saying anything about inferiority but we all know that often the “female” jobs actually ARE inferior in terms of enjoyment, freedom and personal fulfilment. It’s not that all jobs are objectively equal but we’ve decided to randomly devalue some. It’s that often female roles involve lots of mind-numbing repetitive tasks that don’t provide mental stimulation. That’s why men (and rich women) don’t do them. So it seems rather convenient if it’s those that happen to be the ones that women “naturally” want to perform.

@Bumpitybumper You must know that the results from these types of investigations into the differences between women and men, have consistently been picked up by misogynists and used to bolster their justifications for restricting women or pushing back against recent changes that remove sexism for women. If these sorts of studies are really important and helpful for women, I'd like to know exactly why and exactly how this benefit will be realised for women in a way that isn't negated by the usual response to studies.

You for example seem to support the idea that there should be no additional effort to increase participation in STEM careers for women and girls, because really they just don't want to do them and aren't as good as the men anyway and so won't even have a fulfilling career. Whilst also being miserable at being in the workplace when they'd rather be at home looking after their children. How does this benefit women? So, might you argue that instead any money that would have been spent on that should be spent on increasing pay for childcare workers or care workers instead, is that right?

On a personal level I am so fed up of being told that I must be better at empathising and caring etc etc due to my sex, when I know and have evidence that my personal strengths/interests lie in pretty much all areas that are usually coded masculine. I have experienced direct misogyny during my education and work career due to the evidence that women are just different to men in many important ways. Unsurprisingly I am concerned about people who use the same arguments to criticise what they think feminism is about.

Difference races aren't subject to different biological processes and hormones in the same way as men and women. The drivers for biological difference are less obvious. Also it is perfectly possible and common to be more than one race, but this isn't so possible with sex. They aren't comparable at all.

Right but there still might be biological differences but we all recognise that it’s bullshit to say all Asian people are good at maths or black people good at running. Nearly all research suggests that socialisation plays a massive role in what people believe they want and that without eliminating that (which is impossible), we cannot say for sure whether biological differences account for unfair divisions of certain types of labour. So why are you trying to push this? It’s the exact thing that has harmed women for centuries and which we are finally starting to move away from.

Well race is a social construct and not clearly defined biological distinct groups like male and female for a start.
So it would be impossible to do.

Also different races in as far as they exist don't have differing biological roles from other races like males and females do.

But we can still talk about differences with interest such as why black people dominant in sprinting, whilst still understanding that doesn't mean all black people can run fast, or thinking white people shouldn't be allowed to run.

It's interesting how these discussions go from:
There are no differences.
Differences are demonstrated.
To the differences are small (true)
To the difference is only socialisation.
Reasons given for this being unlikely the only reason.
To why do you want to talk about this it's dangerous talk.

It was the Trans issue which made me realise how fundamental free speech and thought is, and in the past couple of days I'm seeing many feminists revert to a #nodebate type stance on issues they find offensive or dangerous.

3 years ago I was a leftist feminist myself and would have argued the same point, now I think any ideology which relies on you not discussing the ideas is dangerous.