Biological determinism

[spookehtooth]

So many threads here seem to be GC/GI related, I thought I'd try something different. No idea where this is going, I'm intending to mostly just read rather than join in if people respond

To what extent do you feel biological determinism accounts for differences in behaviour and treatment of women compared to men?

Kind of related, have exaggerated/false arguments based on it affected you personally in your life?

Computing is my professional specialism, so I want to chip in on this. It's annoying when you hear male dominance that exists today being justified.

Women have a role in computing going much further back as pioneers, not just typists, which although quite skilful for its time isn't in the same league. Ada Lovelace is a famous example, from a time well before the kind of computers we know today, but there's more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing

It's very difficult to know the answer to this as we can't carry out an experiment where we raise people without social influences.

But I know that when I was a kid there were a whole load of things that women were assumed to be "less good" at than men, such as science and engineering. Yet within my lifetime, I've seen subjects such as medicine and biology become dominated by women at higher education level. Not true of physics and engineering, of course, though mathematics now has a high proportion of women.

It does seem to vary a bit from country to country - in India, it's much more commonplace for women to do engineering and computing than it is over here.

Another widely-held view was that women didn't make very good comedians. This seems extraordinary now, but it was often repeated as an agreed truth well into the 1990s and beyond.

I think it's much harder to understand how socialisation works when it comes to violence and aggression. It's definitely the case that women can be violent, but even so it seems much rarer among women. I remember reading that there was no society on earth where bands of women have gone and carried out raids on other tribes. Yet it is quite usual in many societies for men to do this. Similarly, where is the female equivalent of the male grooming gangs? At least 95% of sex offenders are male. Can it all be down to socialisation?

Huge irony in it coming from the BBC, given how much GenderWoo they peddle; but in 2017 they did some stuff on gender stereotyping & babies’ play - including highlighting that “boys’ toys” aid in the development of things like spatial awareness 🤔

I don't think it's reasonable from what Cordelia Fine presents to come to the conclusion that socialization is more important. What would be justified is to say that she shows that it is difficult to unpick nature vs nurture, particularly from an experiment design POV, particularly with regards to brain structure. (That being said, who ever said brain structure is the only thing that counts as an inherent sex based biological difference? It may be the least important thing. More important, IMO, is the reality that mind and body are not separate and discrete - we are our bodies.)

I think the tendency for feminists to treat human beings differently than other animals, with regards to questions of biology, is difficult to defend, tbh. It's surprising in a way that women's studies historically has not had more cross-over with biology. Or maybe not surprising, but suggests that there may be a kind of ideological bias at work.

As far as countries like Iran - it has been known for a long time that in some male dominated countries, women who do go to university or undertake professional qualifications are more likely to go into areas that are historically highly regarded by men, and also which are often better paid. In more egalitarian countries, there tends to be more of a sex split in career choice, with women going into areas that are more people-focused.

I think there are broadly, not definitively sex-related behaviours. Some would be ultimately connected with female childbearing & breast-feeding; some with male fighting and (possibly) shagging. There might well be sex-related differences in mate-attracting behaviours: observation would suggest they exist, but we have no ungendered societies to study.

When we look at the respective effects of nature and nurture, I like to mention the olfactory bulb. It's one of the very few real brain differences between the sexes, but strangely the trans brigade never mention it. Depending on your source, women have up to twice as many olfactory cells and neurons. Our sense of smell is - on average - far more acute, therefore, and this is empirically demonstrated.

But who are the revered and highly-paid 'noses' of the fragrance industry? Men. These few males have, no doubt, an exceptionally acute sense of smell. Exceptional, that is, for a man. Are their olfactory neurons even more densely packed than a woman's? Nobody knows, because nobody cares. Sensitive noses are only valuable when they belong to men 🙄 Once again, an actual sex difference is overlooked by societies that see men as prototype humans and can't quite handle a female advantage.

We have better colour vision, too. Men tend to beat women on long-distance eyesight. That these differences have morphed into "Women like pretty things that smell nice, but can't plan ahead" tells you a lot more about societal interpretation than any true understanding of what it is to be female or male.

I think it's much harder to understand how socialisation works when it comes to violence and aggression. It's definitely the case that women can be violent, but even so it seems much rarer among women. I remember reading that there was no society on earth where bands of women have gone and carried out raids on other tribes. Yet it is quite usual in many societies for men to do this.

I think this may be* due to physical *strength differences. I suspect that women are just as capable as men at being violent to those weaker than themselves.

Similarly, where is the female equivalent of the male grooming gangs? At least 95% of sex offenders are male. Can it all be down to socialisation?

Again strength, but also women bear the consequences of promiscuous sex, ie. pregnancy.

Have you read "The Power"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_(Alderman_novel)

I’m sorry @CastlesinSpain but both your theses are obviously & immediately flawed.

I suspect that women are just as capable as men at being violent to those weaker than themselves.
We know that women provide the supermajority of care for those humans weaker than themselves & have done since pre-history. Despite all those opportunities for violence, violent women remain rare. Moreover; male violence is not only directed at those weaker than themselves - it is fairly indiscriminate, from VAWG, DV, family annihilation & crimes of that stripe through some cultures’ tradition of “champions” bareknuckle boxing as a way to settle inter-family conflicts to boys’ bullying/school fights & men’s brawling in public.

As for grooming gangs… Women across the entirety of the UK have had access to safe & reliable contraception methods for decades; & now finally all have access to safe & legal abortion in our own countries after decades of unequal provision/access. These hypothetical women are in a position of power: literally making the rules for the children/young people they’re exploiting: “no sex without a condom” would be an obvious one, given other forms of contraception don’t protect against STIs; & doubling with an implant/the coil/the pill to protect against condom failure is an obvious step 🤷‍♀️ Lesbians also exist & wouldn’t need to worry about pregnancy; & depending on the age of the children/young people, relative size & strength wouldn’t be an issue either. Indeed with both sexes one should consider that when it comes to grooming physical control is by necessity minimal - & in theory women would be excellent at grooming teens because of our communication skills & ability to empathise. Again, however, while there absolutely ARE women who commit sex crimes; & certainly there are women who are never reported let alone anything else; sex crimes are overwhelmingly male crimes & were it related to the pregnancy burden as you suggest there would have been increases in female sex offenders each time a new form of contraception became freely available (not the case) & lesbians would approximate male patterns of criminality in this area (not even close).

We have better colour vision, too. Men tend to beat women on long-distance eyesight. That these differences have morphed into "Women like pretty things that smell nice, but can't plan ahead" tells you a lot more about societal interpretation than any true understanding of what it is to be female or male.

Exactly!
The article pp mentioned is great at unpicking such flawed conclusions

https://sfonline.barnard.edu/eight-things-you-need-to-know-about-sex-gender-brains-and-behavior-a-guide-for-academics-journalists-parents-gender-diversity-advocates-social-justice-warriors-tweeters-facebookers-and-ever/