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?

Has any said not to discuss this? We are demonstrably discussing it. People have been pointing out that the research has traditionally been used by misogynists to further their ability to discriminate against women and push back against progress made. I personally am asking how the dangers of that can be mitigated? And how the benefits to women of this kind of research being increased (if there are any) can be measured against the risks that this kind of research is used to justify misogyny. I'm looking for answers and discussion not "no debate".

No I don't think it's a good topic for discussion

What is the benefit of (struggling to ) identifying possible differences over and above the observed societal differences? What is the point of trying to make out that innate differences are large ?

Would it make society more likely to respect roles predominantly undertaken by women today ? No

Would it give society an excuse not to tackle bias at work ? Yes

I don't believe Anyone trying to find what must be very small effects is doing it out of academic curiosity , or to help womens rights

It can only be used to give people excuses for poor behaviour and attitudes.

When we have eliminated stereotypes then anything remaining will be innate

If you think that we haven't got a long way to go because of innate factors accounting for the majority of differences you are blind to society challenges

There you go @RoseslnTheHospital the next post makes the point which was obviously being suggested anyway.

I get the point it could be used to oppress women but I prefer to work out reality (as far as we can) and oppose oppression rather than avoid topics in case they are misused.

I've come to believe suppression of any topic, for well intentioned reasons, is ultimately not a good route to go.

Women are not a homogenous group - they want different things and have different leanings and abilities. I guess feminists might want to think about policies to help all types of women: encouraging women into male-dominated professions, supporting women if they want to stay at home when kids r young (and give them steps to take before and during this period to mitigate risk of partner leaving/falling I’ll), help women escape abusive partners, help CMS collect money from partners, campaign for better wages for female dominated professions - carers, nurses, doctors, teachers. We can help women even if they have leanings that are more ‘nurture’ based too.

It is hard to work against the market. Eg there is a lack of stem graduates, so they are paid more. More people have qualifications to do do care work, so pay is lower (higher supply). However - we can campaign for carers’ travelling time between jobs to be paid and better sick pay for them (especially as they can be impacted by getting covid).

Who is suppressing?? That previous comment said it wasn't a good topic to discuss, not that you should be banned from discussing it or scientists from researching it.

Questions about the importance and impact of this have been asked, and not much response has been made. There have also been some assumptions about what feminists want that have been inaccurate as well.

How will you work to minimise the misogynistic use of science that shows women are "inferior" to men, according to the patriarchal society that we are in? All the very important differences that are focused on are those that have traditionally been used to justify misogyny. Like the empathy over systemising, the caring over being aggressive/assertive, the people focus rather than the object focus etc. All used to justify systems that disadvantage women. Can you explain how focussing on the scientific proof of this will help women?

@Namenic can I ask which of the things you list you feel feminists don't not do at the moment, or have not done in the past?

Anyone? Beuller? Otherwise we can agree or disagree all we want but we don't really know what about.
(NB I haven't thought through my example particularly well... but we need to put a pin in something so we're not talking in hypothetical circles).

"Differences" is so vague as to be practically meaningless. Although we have covered postpartum women, aggression and touched on systematising and empathy.

But is it not the lack of research that is contributing to our struggle to define ourselves and feeding misogyny as we speak?

Not ban, but there is a desire to suppress the discussion.

I haven't got lots of time now but I think one example is feminism's refusal to consider the possibility of a more nurturing instinct for women (in general, not everyone, not even in me! My DH is more nurturing!) has led to some women only feeling valued in work outside the home away from their children, and I don't think that value system has necessarily led to more happiness for women.

It is hard to discuss and I get the fear but if it might be true it's worth thinking about and what we would do if it were.

People are saying it’s not interesting or useful to discuss because it has been used to harm women in the past. To say that you don’t want to follow something that says some things are off limits is fair enough but most movements don’t like discussions about things that actually harm those they are supposed to be representing. So if someone wanted to discuss phrenology at an anti-racist group, it wouldn’t go down well.

I really wonder what you hope to get out of this. Let’s imagine that women are biologically more inclined to do caregiving work. How do you see this “fact” helping women? It’s already the case that caregiving is devalued and that women do most of it. Do you seriously think its status will be raised in some way if you prove that women are hardwired to do it? The exact opposite is likely to be true. If your main aim is to increase the value of care, you don’t need to prove anything about who is biologically programmed to do it.

What struggle to define ourselves? I'm a woman, it's a sex class. I'm human with gives me human rights and I ought to be treated fairly and not discriminated against because of my sex class (and the physical and reproductive differences that go along with that).

How is the lack (is there a lack?? There always seems to be some new article about "what women are like") of research contributing to misogyny?

Yeah, I didn't understand that sentence either. Happy to answer any questions about how I define myself, as long as it's clear what you're asking.

I haven't got lots of time now but I think one example is feminism's refusal to consider the possibility of a more nurturing instinct for women (in general, not everyone, not even in me! My DH is more nurturing!) has led to some women only feeling valued in work outside the home away from their children, and I don't think that value system has necessarily led to more happiness for women.

When women were expected to be housewives and mothers, they weren’t valued either. What good does it do to “prove” that women are inherently suited to care and nurture? You even say that in the case of your relationship it isn’t true! Who does it help? If there was scientific evidence that women were suited to nursing and primary school teaching, would that help a girl who wanted to be a research scientist? I’m thinking a big fat no.

Let's say more women would be happier doing people focused work, what would you say we should do @GCAndProud ?

Tell them tough they should do something else as it's low value work and they should be better?

Suppress that fact and say the fact they're choosing it is discrimination?

Ignore the fact they're choosing it anyway and being undervalued?

Or change the way we as a society view and value child rearing and care?

But is it not the lack of research that is contributing to our struggle to define ourselves and feeding misogyny as we speak?

Yes, you’re right. What is really lacking in my life is scientific evidence that actually my male colleagues are right to expect me to make tea at meetings and to deal with all the crying students while they get on with important research. Even better would be solid proof that I probably shouldn’t be at work at all but should be raising children and cooking meals for my husband. Only then can I truly call myself a woman.

Or change the way we as a society view and value child rearing and care?

Why do you need to prove that women are hardwired to do this work in order to change how it is valued? In fact you’ll have a hell of a better chance of raising its status if you make men do their fair share of it too.

No one anywhere here has suggested women should take care giving roles just that there maybe a general inclination towards this more than men at a group level.

We're back to the fact that we can't discuss it, because people can't understand stats and draw incorrect conclusions on what's being said.

Let's say more women would be happier doing people focused work, what would you say we should do @GCAndProud ?

More women than WHAT? What is the test, what are we measuring?

@MalagaNights do you think it is feminist debate that has led to the devaluing of caring roles? Do you think that feminists think that women who work as carers should "be better"?

In our current society, if there was a job that they'd enjoy 15% less but paid 50% more and had better employment conditions, what would you advise a young woman about to start work to do?

Your list of options is lacking. I would say that there may be a small effect in women being more keen to work in caring roles, whilst alongside that socialisation plays a role. Not direct discrimination. So my option would be to minimise socialisation targeted at girls - it obviously isn't needed as women are innately going to become more interested in caring roles according to the science. Whilst also working on how society values caring roles, both financially and culturally. And also working on the misogyny and sexism that prevents those young women who don't want to be in caring roles from accessing other careers effectively.

Yes but this relies on men being likely to do this at the same level which in the premise proposed would never be the case.

In which case we continue with women choosing these roles to a greater degree and them remaining undervalued.

Then what? If we've identified (hypothetically) a reason for the differing choices?
How do we help women then?

@RoseslnTheHospital I don't think feminist debate caused a devaluing of caring roles but I think it has bought into that and perpetuated it.

Let's say more women would be happier doing people focused work, what would you say we should do @GCAndProud

what do you mean by “do”. Women ARE working in people focused work and care in huge numbers. Relatively few are breaking into male dominated careers and STEM. What you’re proposing is basically to justify the already huge divide in jobs by saying it is biological and inevitable. I think Jordan Peterson argues the same but I’m afraid I’m out. That’s not feminism or anything close.

Oh and feminists have and do argue for care to be valued higher and have done forever.

How?

Also there is evidence that given more choice in egalitarian societies women choose more caring roles and are more satisfied, so there is some evidence that women are being led towards less fulfilling choices when messages are these are better meaning status and pay.

Depends what you think the point of feminism, or life, is I guess.

I think some posts on this thread would be examples.