randy@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/20/83)
The discussion about women as world leaders brings to mind (to me) the question of whether women are innately less aggressive than men. One side of the fence claims the societal environment and upbringing causes the differences one observes today. Others say genes and hormones do the trick. Consider the following: There is a strange (likely genetic) disease in which male babies are born with a drastic hormone imbalance giving them the appearance of females. This persists until puberty when suddenly (over a period of only months) the child's hormones return to male levels and he acquires male genitalia, etc. This is of course VERY rare. A few years ago in the Philipines, several cases were discovered. As you can imagine, the anthropologists flocked out there in droves about the time the children were to reach puberty (11 or 12 years old). The point here is that these kids had been raised as girls with all the upbringing this primitive culture bestows on girls. The idea was to see if they would "suddenly" acquire "male" traits such as aggressiveness after the change. Well, supposedly they did. (Does anyone have any further information, like a reference, on this?) Hearing about this had a big effect on me as I was always on the 'environment' side of the fence. - Randy -- Randy Trigg ...!seismo!umcp-cs!randy (Usenet) randy.umcp-cs@udel-relay (Arpanet)
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (07/22/83)
Several articles posted here recently bring up a point that some of the
posters have missed. Namely:
To what degree can you speak of a particular trait as "male" and "female" when
the intra-group differences with respect to this trait are great?
Consider passivity and agression. How meaningful is it to ask whether males
are innately agressive and females are innately passive when you can go
anywhere between the two-fisted macho man subject to raging hormonal influences
to Caspar Milquetoast? An extreme example, to be sure, but how many of you
would say that there was more difference between the "average" or "typical"
female and the average/typical male than between, say, you coworkers of a
given sex?
There may be sex-linked differences in these traits, but I strongly suspect
they're not of major importance relative to the total human variation in
those traits. Several people have pointed out that the female political
leaders that come to mind are not passive and unaggressive; quite the
contrary. I am suspicious of broad sweeping statements about "women" or
"blacks" or ...; usually, they merely reflect the prevailing cultural
stereotype of the group in question. Consider the support those stereotypes
get from our culture. I am a faithful reader of the daily funnies, and I
get megadosed with the "typical household" with the flighty female and the
male with the roving eye. We no longer have the blatant racist stereotypes
of the type we had in comics earlier in the century, but how many action
heroes are young white males? In short, before jumping to a conclusion
about how "women are ..." check whether you're truly giving a reasoned
response or merely repeating a cultural prejudice. (Thank you, Ginger @
Boeing Aerospace, for putting Freud and the person who cited him in their
place. If his response was meant as a joke, it wasn't very funny; that
line has been repeated SO many times it's become part of our cultural white
noise. And thank you, those who have pointed out that asking what "women"
would do depends more on who the woman is than on her being a woman.)
Guy Harris
{seismo,mcnc,we13,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!guyhutch@dadla-b.UUCP (07/22/83)
Regarrding agressiveness in behaviour: The case of the rare genetic disorder quoted recently doesn't prove anything. The cultural conditioning in the Phillipines has men being very macho and aggressive, and the sudden "transformation" of the subjects into males would probably cause them to act like males. In addition, the increases in hormone levels would be more severe than for the usual puberty. Informal and formal studies done on bodybuilders and strength athletes have shown a more reliable indicator with regards to this. Subjects (male and female) using large amounts of anabolic steroids in order to aid in gaining and maintaining muscle mass, have also undergone severe shifts in personality, with agressiveness noticeably increased. The amount taken pushes male hormone levels to more than twice the difference between men and women. When the dosages are closer to the norms, the data shows an inconclusive relationship between agressive behaviour and hormone use, and the indications are that the major effects are placebo. Steve Hutchison
rwhw@hound.UUCP (07/22/83)
I would imagine that to answer the question about females being in the
Armed Forces and being President would come about when it happens. Until
then all comments are just a lot of nonesense.
Royguy@rlgvax.UUCP (07/25/83)
I would imagine that to answer the question about females being
in the Armed Forces and being President would come about when it
happens. Until then all comments are just a lot of nonesense.
I can't deduce the meaning of your first sentence; which question are you
referring to? The question of whether having women in the Armed Forces
or as President is desirable? In the case of voting for President, the
question was whether you would vote for a woman for President or not. That
question IS relevant, even though no woman is running presently, as it reveals
much about the person's attitude towards women. The only non-bigoted answer
is "it would depend on the woman"; citing Freud's bigoted and misogynistic
old chestnut about women (which reveals a lot about Freud's acceptance of the
norms of a male-run society, and nothing about women) doesn't indicate that
much real thought has been given to the question.
I don't consider that sort of response acceptable in our society, regardless
of whether the group in question is women, or blacks (see the recent elections
in Chicago for an ugly example), or gays, or whomever. If you think women
aren't emotionally capable of handling the demands of high office, try to
examine the PARTICULAR WOMAN as a candidate for the office, IGNORING as best
you can the fact that she's a woman. Then, if you conclude that she seems
to be able to handle the office, perhaps the view that women can't hack it
is due for a reappraisal...
Guy Harris
{seismo,mcnc,we13,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!guy