Barring certain reproductive bits, men and women are basically the same. Discuss.

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

I know we've touched on this on other threads, but I was hoping to troublemake start a discussion on this specific issue. So often I've heard people say "of course wanting equality does not mean we think women and men are the same. We cherish and celebrate the differences between them" and the like.

Well, what are the differences then?

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that men and women are fundamentally pretty much the same, squashy bits aside.

What do you reckon?

blanket

Need to start previewing messages

Also, most serial killers are men, and boys have higher instances of speech delays, ADHD and so forth. These show that male and female brains are wired differently.

Hmm, just realised I said the brains are not that different, then said they were different.When it comes to intelligence i.e which subject I doubt there is much difference when it comes to which subjects girls and boys can do better (well these days it seems that girls are better at all subjects but thats a different debate connected to classroom etiquette). But when it comes to behaviour I think the differences are probably greater.

"But women can be their own worst enemy - otherwise why the guiltily proud feeling about having a science degree? There should be no need for guilt."

I think you have misunderstood me slightly (but I'm not sure ).

What I meant was that I am proud of having a science degree.

Part of the reason I am proud is that it is not something that many women have (well this particular science anyway).

Where the guilt comes in is that I consider having a science degree to be superior to a more "feminine" discipline.

And thus I am doing my own sex down by saying that something that many women do is crappy.

Does that make more sense?

In being my own person and doing what I was good at, even though it was not what women are "supposed" to be good at, i have bought into the notion that "male" things are better than "female" things.

Which is disappointing because what i keep saying is that "mens" things and "womens" things are both valuable and that actually both sexes should be allowed to do whatever they want, while actually underneath that I agree that the "womens" stuff is rubbishy.

But then again, maybe i think that those things are rubbishy because I am not built to enjoy them? Don't know.

sakura that is an interesting point - whether we are talking about intelligence/ability or whetehr we are talking about behaviour, or both.

Most serial killers are men - OK and I always argue that a lot of how we behave is socialisation. But do I really believe that socialisation can explain that difference? Probably not. I also have recently said that i think that men externalise negative emotion (aggression) while women internalise it (self harm, eating disorders etc). I am not sure that is all down to socialisation, although I think at least some of it is. Girls are (apparently) becoming more violent if they are in areas where it is the "done thing".

It can still be the case even with those things though, that while more women might be like this, and more men like that, it still can't be said that it applies across the board IYSWIM.

Really interesting thread.

Bumper, I'm not sure about this:
"Also, it wasn't that long ago that woman's primary role was to have children and had a lot more than two."

I'm no anthropologist, but it's my understanding that the whole idea of 'women's place is in the home' origniated around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Before then, everything (pretty much) took place in the home, and men, women and children were all involved in production (making things, growing food etc.) So while it was true that women had primary responsibility for children, they would have done lots of other things as well, and one woman (perhaps an older child) would have looked after lots of children while the other women worked.

The idea of the housewife has only ever been a middle-class phenomenon anyway, even post-industrial revolution, working-class mothers worked outside the home as it wasn't possible to survive on one wage.

So women have always done things outside of the traditional domestic sphere. I suppose what is a constant is that men haven't seen childrearing as their responsiblity.

Not sure how this fits into the debate, but I thought I'd throw it in anyway.

Sorry I'm getting into a stream of consciousness thing here and not making much sense

So,ISNT,are you saying you feel science subjects are intrinsically better than arts subjects??
That's a whole new debate!

What's your degree in,then?(go on - out yourself to all of MN and lurkers worldwide ) - sorry,just noseyinterested!

Physics.

Not intrinsically better. But definitely harder?

My friends did things like history of art and their homework was to watch films and things like that while I struggled with fiendish calculations.

But why am I dismissive of the subjects my friends did? Is it because I have bought into the patriarchal idea that "mens" things are inherently better? Or is it because as I am the sort of person who is good at physics I struggle to see the appeal/point of arts type stuff? Or is it upbringing? My parents were keen on "proper" subjects and very dismissive of things they saw as "soft"

Who knows

Good point, inveterate. Also the points about transsexualism are interesting.

Just want to clarify that I didn't mean that scientists shouldn't research this per se. I was only pointing out the power relations within which decisions are made about what research gets funded and what doesn't.

I don't know if anyone looked at that 'neurosexism' article by Cordelia Fine that I linked to earlier in the thread, but I think it makes for interesting and pertinent reading. She talks about the popularity of books about male brain/female brain aimed at the lay reader, pointing to their misinterpretation of scientific research and speculating on why these accounts are so appealing and so dangerous (because such accounts may encourage us to accept the status quo, because they may create self-fulfilling gender prophecies, and because lay readers lack the expert knowledge required to question them).

Hmmm,must admit I tend to agree with you...I think History of art is interesting,but perhaps not as intellectually demanding!
I don't see History of art as a "womens" subject particularly though - perhaps because
I went to a university where there were no full on arts subjects,and my school friends and sister all went on to study science subjects too,so thats my "normal".

We were taught Physics,in our single sex girls school,by a teacher who told us girls couldn't do Physics!I think his powers of scientific observation were a bit flawed though as we mostly did pretty well!

I think interdisciplinary work involving material reality and social constructs is always going to be difficult.

I am not convinced of the value of neuroscience that is trying to demonstrate differences between men and women. It is completely unacceptable to do such studies in connection with race and we should remind ourselves why that is, and the consequences of such research.

I think Germaine Greer and other feminists who have spoken out about the way that trans issues are being framed are right. Males do not want to become females - they want to look like females. It is incredibly sexist as it defines female sex as being about appearance. What biologically defines any animal's sex is its reproductive organs. I am female because I have a womb and mammary glands. Men who want to become women do not desire those things - they desire biological drag.

I am interested in the concept that in the past women had this very defined role and would interested for people to explain what they think this is and how they think they know this.

Good point about neuroscience and race millyr, taht crossed my mind earlier but I couldn't think of how to put it.

Is it true that people who are transgender only want to look like the other sex - I read something once that said they "feel" like the other sex IYSWIM. Do transgender male to female people only want to look like women but not be like women?

Of course in asking that question i am accepting that there is a fundamental difference

As women how can we know whether men feel teh same as us or not? we can't can we?

molesworth thanks for the nudge am reading the link.

just read "According to Brizendine, combining motherhood with career gives rise to a neurological ?tug-of-war because of overloaded brain circuits? (p. 160). Career circuits and maternal circuits battle it out, leading to ?increased stress, increased anxiety, and reduced brainpower for the mother?s work and her children."

If there were such a thing as a female brain, and a man had a female brain, it would make sense that he would then want a female body. But I have never heard a trans person express the desire to get pregnant or breastfeed children. Most males who want to become females want to look like women but not have the biological capabilities of women. So do we draw from that the conclusion that the female brain is interested in what her body looks like but not what her body can do? That seems sexist to me.

What on earth is a career brain circuit? Humans evolved when there was no such thing as a career. How can we have developed sex specific circuits that specialise in a role that did not exist in the environment we adapted to? It is just a load of nonsense.

Aye, it is blatant nonsense - the article is entitled "Will working mothers' brains explode?"

I started to read the article,Molesworth and then got distracted - have read it now.

The men who opposed higher education for women would have been right behind the author of The Female Brain,I reckon.(possibly not,though,they would probably have regarded writing the book as dangerously unfeminine..)

This is a good point: "such accounts may encourage us to accept the status quo, because they may create self-fulfilling gender prophecies, and because lay readers lack the expert knowledge required to question them.

A lot of scientific research is misinterpreted either by the press or by lay readers,it seems to me,partly because what people want the research to say isn't what it actually does say,and many people lack the expert knowledge needed to judge on that.

I really enjoyed that article, completely agreed with it.

However I have a problem with milly's proposition. I never felt "broody", never felt a burning desire to have children, I had them because it was "what you do" and people seemed to rate it, because I was getting on a bit but mostly because i had met a wonderful man and he wanted children. He would have 10 if he could, and sit happily with children hanging all over him. I on the other hand feel that 2 is more than enough

But I'm definitely a woman. Soooooo where does that leave things? I know I am not alone in feeling this way, and I know my DH isn't alone as a man feeling how he does.

Saying that women feel a desire to get pregnant and BF is again a stereotype of a female as a "nurterer" surely?

ISNT, surely wanting to do other things apart from being pregnant is about being a person, not being a woman? That is surely the whole argument of this thread. Almost everything we experience and do is the same for both men and women. Most of our wants, needs and experiences are about being people, not about being a particular sex?

So most of what women want to do has nothing at all to do with being a woman.

It wouldn't really bother me if I had been born a man. I really don't think the body I am in is that important.

"But I have never heard a trans person express the desire to get pregnant or breastfeed children."

That is an interesting point,Milly ,which hadn't ever occured to me.

Not sure exactly how this ties in,but there was a case of a boy who was injured badly during circumcision as a baby,so his parents and doctor decided to operate more and bring him up as a girl - which was a total failure.

www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dr_money_prog_summary.shtml

So even though this poor child was brought up as a girl in an enviroment where it was expected that he could be a girl,he felt male.

I think that is what Robert Jensen is trying to get at in his discussion of masculinity. When he asks men to say what think they think masculine traits are, and they respond with things like protectiveness, providing, bravery and so on. Jensen's point is that these are human traits. Most of what we are is not about whether we have breasts or not, or whether we choose to use our breasts or not.

My point is not that all women want to nurture. Pregnancy and breastfeeding is reproduction anyway - nurturing is far wider than that. It is just as nurturing to leave your child and go out and work for 8 hours to support them as it is to give them a cuddle.

Pogleswood, because he was male, surely? He was still producing male hormones, even though his penis was not there? My dog is castrated, but it has not become a female!

Pogleswood, that case sprang to my mind too (vaguely remember watching the documentary). But look at this bit (from the article you linked to):

"Convincing Brenda of her gender
[Dr Money] insisted that to fully understand that she was a girl, [Brian/Brenda] needed to grasp the difference between men and women, and frequently spoke to her about her genitalia. He took photographs of her and her brother naked. He tried to persuade her to have a vagina constructed, which, at the time, would have been made out of section of her bowel or else from the skin of her thigh, which would then be inserted into the pelvic region.

He showed her graphic photographs of a woman giving birth when she was seven years old in an attempt to get her to agree to having a 'baby-hole' made. He also suggested strongly that she take hormone tablets in order to make her grow breasts when she was 12. Other scientists, including Dr Money's ex-students, argue that he did these things in the best possible interests for his patient - to make her believe that she was indeed a girl. Brenda however felt traumatised and became suicidal.

Finally when she was 13, the family told her and Brian the truth."

So it's not as if sex change surgery was performed on him when he was tiny and he was brought up as a girl in any straightforward sense. No wonder he was traumatised.