gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Gretchen Chapman) (07/11/89)
I would like to argue that there are indeed differences between men and women, but that these differences are not necessarily (morally) valid or unchangeable. Us psychologists believe that behavior is the result of genetics and environmental (experiential) factors. This it the old nature-nuture controversy. In the recent discussion about "natural" versus "socio-historically specific" gender, I would think that natural gender maps onto genetic behavior and historically specific gender maps on to evironmentally determinined behavior. The first point I would like to make is that characteristics about me which are the result of my genes are no more a part of me, no more natural, than characteristics which are the result of my experience (learning, nutrition, etc.) A second point is that there is no such thing as a behavior which is 100% genetically based, or 100% acquired. It is becoming increasing clear that answers to the nature-nuture controversy are in the from of explaining the interaction of genes and environment. So for example, whether one has XX or XY chromosomes (a genetic factor) usually deterimines what kind of genitalia one will develop, which determines whether one will be exposed to testosterone in utero (an environmental factor) which in turn determines what kind of reproductive behavior one engages in (at least if one is a rat). Another term that has been thrown around is "biological" or "physiological". Again, I would argue that the genetic component of triats are no more biological than the acquired component of traits. According to a materialist, everything can be explained by something physical; in short, all behaviors and traits are biological. There certainly are statistical differences between men and women. More women bear children than men, but also, women are more verbal and less spatially skilled than men; women are more nuturing than men, less sexually aggressive than men, etc. Some of these differences are larger than others, and some are better backed by data than others. But if someone provides empirically evidence about a sex difference, I refuse to close my eyes and pretend it isn't real. I also do not believe that some differences are more "natural" than others. If a difference is found, it is interesting to explore the reasons behind this difference, but I don't see why some reasons are more natural than others. None of these differences, nor any empirical finding imaginable, flies in the face of feminism. All of these differences and the reasons behind them are *DESCRIPTIVE*; they simply describe the way the world is. Feminism is a *PRESCRIPTIVE* position; it states the way we should behave to change the world (not everyone agrees on exactly what feminism says, but we all agree that it is prescriptive). I really want to trounce on the naturalistic fallacy here. Is does not imply ought. A description can never lead directly to a prescription. Just because women are more nuturing than men does not mean that they should be, that they should try to be nuturing, that men should try not to be nuturing, etc. The description of the world is informative because it tells us where we need to improve (assuming we know where we would like to be) but is does not validate anything that currently exists. Knowing what we would like the world to be like might not help us change it if certain things are unchangeable. For example, perhaps women are doomed to being nuturing and there is nothing anyone can do to change that. I think some people want to believe that certain traits are not "natural" or genetic, because if they were, they would seem unchangeable. Certainly to say a trait is genetically based is not to say it is unchangeable. Take, for example, the illness of depression. It is known to be largely genetically determined, yet is very modifiable with drugs or cognitive therapy. Although it may be true that genetic determination of a trait is negatively correlated with its changeability, we cannot makes something modifiable simply by refusing to believe that it has a genetic component. Whether a given trait is modifiable or not is an empirical question. If it turns out that some sex differences are not modifiable (and there is always the hope that someday someone will discover a way to modify them), we will have to accept that and find other ways to give women and men to freedom to become whomever they would like to become.
tittle@glacier.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (07/12/89)
In article <8907071844.AA10158@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>, gretchen@cattell (Gretchen Chapman) writes: | None of these differences, nor any empirical finding |imaginable, flies in the face of feminism. All of these differences |and the reasons behind them are *DESCRIPTIVE*; they simply describe |the way the world is. Feminism is a *PRESCRIPTIVE* position; it |states the way we should behave to change the world (not everyone |agrees on exactly what feminism says, but we all agree that it is |prescriptive). I disagree with this. It has been my impression that one of the things feminism did was to challenge the *prescriptive* roles for women in our society. I don't see feminism as prescriptive, except perhaps for a radical subgroup that condems any woman choosing to follow some aspect of a traditional role. But for the most part, I see feminism as a way of encouraging women to see past a largely prescriptive role for them in society and discovering what else they can do if they want. --Cindy -- The probability of forgetting | ARPA: tittle@glacier.ics.uci.edu something is directly proportional | UUCP: {sdcsvax|ucbvax}!ucivax!tittle to .... to .... uh .... | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet
rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) (07/12/89)
>imaginable, flies in the face of feminism. >.... > Knowing what we would like the world to be like might not help >us change it if certain things are unchangeable. For example, perhaps >women are doomed to being nuturing and there is nothing anyone can do >to change that. You see the contradiction here: if, as some argue, complex behaviors like "nurturing" are indeed unchangeable, if women, simply because they're female, *must* be more nurturing than men, then this hypothetical empirical fact makes an enormous difference to feminists. It does indeed "fly in the face" of at least some conceptions of feminism. The question is: why are you even granting this as a possibility? When we consider the kinds of behavior which are typically thought of as "feminine" or "masculine", has anyone ever shown anything like this? Is there any good reason at all to even grant the possibility the such behavior is unchangeable and fundamental? As far as I know, there's nothing even remotely like evidence for this position. We know that, for political reasons, some people would like to find evidence that Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites. In this case, the political agenda is clear. Likewise, some anti-feminists would like to find evidence that certain kinds of gendered behavior is unalterable and undeniable. I think the two projects have about equal legitimacy (i.e. none). Feminists really need to abandon the whole framework of nature/nurture -- this is a dead-end of use only to anti-feminists with an ax to grind. We need to look beyond the individual to the social setting out of which that individual is constituted. It's there, not within the individual, that gender lies and it's there that feminism needs to work.
gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Gretchen Chapman) (07/12/89)
I would like to argue that there are indeed differences between men and women, but that these differences are not necessarily (morally) valid or unchangeable. Us psychologists believe that behavior is the result of genetics and environmental (experiential) factors. This it the old nature-nuture controversy. In the recent discussion about "natural" versus "socio-historically specific" gender, I would think that natural gender maps onto genetic behavior and historically specific gender maps on to evironmentally determinined behavior. The first point I would like to make is that characteristics about me which are the result of my genes are no more a part of me, no more natural, than characteristics which are the result of my experience (learning, nutrition, etc.) A second point is that there is no such thing as a behavior which is 100% genetically based, or 100% acquired. It is becoming increasing clear that answers to the nature-nuture controversy are in the from of explaining the interaction of genes and environment. So for example, whether one has XX or XY chromosomes (a genetic factor) usually deterimines what kind of genitalia one will develop, which determines whether one will be exposed to testosterone in utero (an environmental factor) which in turn determines what kind of reproductive behavior one engages in (at least if one is a rat). Another term that has been thrown around is "biological" or "physiological". Again, I would argue that the genetic component of triats are no more biological than the acquired component of traits. According to a materialist, everything can be explained by something physical; in short, all behaviors and traits are biological. There certainly are statistical differences between men and women. More women bear children than men, but also, women are more verbal and less spatially skilled than men; women are more nuturing than men, less sexually aggressive than men, etc. Some of these differences are larger than others, and some are better backed by data than others. But if someone provides empirically evidence about a sex difference, I refuse to close my eyes and pretend it isn't real. I also do not believe that some differences are more "natural" than others. If a difference is found, it is interesting to explore the reasons behind this difference, but I don't see why some reasons are more natural than others. None of these differences, nor any empirical finding imaginable, flies in the face of feminism. All of these differences and the reasons behind them are *DESCRIPTIVE*; they simply describe the way the world is. Feminism is a *PRESCRIPTIVE* position; it states the way we should behave to change the world (not everyone agrees on exactly what feminism says, but we all agree that it is prescriptive). I really want to trounce on the naturalistic fallacy here. Is does not imply ought. A description can never lead directly to a prescription. Just because women are more nuturing than men does not mean that they should be, that they should try to be nuturing, that men should try not to be nuturing, etc. The description of the world is informative because it tells us where we need to improve (assuming we know where we would like to be) but is does not validate anything that currently exists. Knowing what we would like the world to be like might not help us change it if certain things are unchangeable. For example, perhaps women are doomed to being nuturing and there is nothing anyone can do to change that. I think some people want to believe that certain traits are not "natural" or genetic, because if they were, they would seem unchangeable. Certainly to say a trait is genetically based is not to say it is unchangeable. Take, for example, the illness of depression. It is known to be largely genetically determined, yet is very modifiable with drugs or cognitive therapy. Although it may be true that genetic determination of a trait is negatively correlated with its changeability, we cannot makes something modifiable simply by refusing to believe that it has a genetic component. Whether a given trait is modifiable or not is an empirical question. If it turns out that some sex differences are not modifiable (and there is always the hope that someday someone will discover a way to modify them), we will have to accept that and find other ways to give women and men to freedom to become whomever they would like to become.
ed@mtxinu.com (Ed Gould) (07/12/89)
>|None of these differences [between men and women], nor any empirical >|finding imaginable, flies in the face of feminism. All of these >|differences and the reasons behind them are *DESCRIPTIVE*; they simply >|describe the way the world is. Feminism is a *PRESCRIPTIVE* position; >I disagree with this. It has been my impression that one of the >things feminism did was to challenge the *prescriptive* roles for >women in our society. It seems to me that the proscriptive (not prescriptive - I don't think either of the posters above were discussing drugs :-)) vs. descriptive debate is really a red herring. The original point, if I understood it correctly, was that there *are* demonstrable statistical differences between men and women. Where these differences come from - be they genetic or environmental - is not so important. I think there are two important observations to make. First, even though *statistically* the mean women is, for example, physically smaller than the mean man, there are plenty of examples of individual women who are larger than individual men. The means are not so distant as to make the statistical difference meaningful. Second, there is a difference between "equality" and "equal opportunity." No two individuals are "equal" in any real sense. Thus, I find that the purpose of feminism (like any anti-discriminatory philosophy) is to promote equal opportunity: in this case, opportunities for women that are equal to those that men enjoy. Equal opportunity is achieved when individuals are judged solely on their own merits. But this is difficult to achieve in a society that has for many years - centuries, even - that women do not deserve equal treatment. The means by which we approach this end are, to my mind, the only true controversies among feminists. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA ed@mtxinu.COM +1 415 644 0146 "I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady. I'll fight them as an engineer."
gretchen@cattell.psych.upenn.EDU (Gretchen Chapman) (07/12/89)
In article <19431@paris.ics.uci.edu> Cindy Tittle quotes me and replies: >In article <8907071844.AA10158@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>, >gretchen@cattell (Gretchen Chapman) writes: >| None of these differences, nor any empirical finding >|imaginable, flies in the face of feminism. All of these differences >|and the reasons behind them are *DESCRIPTIVE*; they simply describe >|the way the world is. Feminism is a *PRESCRIPTIVE* position; it >|states the way we should behave to change the world (not everyone >|agrees on exactly what feminism says, but we all agree that it is >|prescriptive). >I disagree with this. It has been my impression that one of the >things feminism did was to challenge the *prescriptive* roles for >women in our society. I don't see feminism as prescriptive, except >perhaps for a radical subgroup that condems any woman choosing to >follow some aspect of a traditional role. But for the most part, I >see feminism as a way of encouraging women to see past a largely >prescriptive role for them in society and discovering what else they >can do if they want. >--Cindy I think you are constraining the meaning of *presciptive* too much. A prescriptive position is anything that contains a *should* or an *ought*. One prescriptive position could certainly disagree with some other prescriptive position. So for example, prescriptive positions could be something like "Womens should be able to pursue any career they are interested in" or even "No one should tell anyone else what to do." Just because we are challenging other prescriptions does not mean that we ourselves are not being prescriptive. My point was only that our job as feminists is not to deny descriptive facts about the world (which is one way this gender/sex discussion could go), but to propose prescriptions about how we should change the world. My first example above is an instance of prescribing a *goal*, something we want to achieve (equal opportunity and all that), but we can also prescribe *beliefs* (i.e. We should all believe in the equal value of both women and men) and *actions* or decisions (i.e. We should start a TV show with better female role models). We may not all agree on what these prescriptions should be, but I'd rather have us arguing over that than trying to re-describe the world in a way that it isn't. (Describing the world is a fine thing to do, but I don't see that as the goal of feminism).
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (07/12/89)
In <8907071844.AA10158@cattell.psych.upenn.edu> Gretchen Chapman wrote: >>|All of these differences and the reasons behind them are >>|*DESCRIPTIVE*; they simply describe the way the world is. Feminism >>|is a *PRESCRIPTIVE* position; it states the way we should behave to >>|change the world (not everyone agrees on exactly what feminism says, >>|but we all agree that it is prescriptive). In article <19431@paris.ics.uci.edu> Cindy Tittle disagreed: >>paraphrased: [ feminists challenge prescriptive roles for women] then Gretchen replied: >We may not all agree on what these prescriptions should be, but I'd >rather have us arguing over that than trying to re-describe the world >in a way that it isn't. (Describing the world is a fine thing to do, >but I don't see that as the goal of feminism). I think both of you have valid points, and both of you are slightly wrong. I definitely agree with Gretchen's point that feminism, as a political position, is prescriptive. In personal and public lives, feminists prescribe changes. However, I don't think it's possible to urge any kind of change on any level without a preliminary descriptive phase. In this light, feminism is a philosophical position, with descriptions that arise from meditations on the status quo. This descriptive/prescriptive mix is as true of reactionary changes to society as it is of progressive changes. In fact, it seems so basic as to be almost a law of rhetoric: one phrases one's complaints so that the solution appears obvious -- or at least a solution seems necessary. When someone from the now-defunct Moral Majority decries the loose morality of modern youth, that is not only a description, but a description that urges that "something be done." When someone from still-alive Feminist Majority decries sexual harassment, that is also a description that urges that "something be done." So, in the end, I must strongly disagree with Gretchen's comment: >(Describing the world is a fine thing to do, but I don't see that as >the goal of feminism). I think that if feminism does not describe the world -- well and accurately, as Gretchen urged -- then it is useless as a basis for political action. Arpa: travis@iko.cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
holstege@polya.stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege) (07/13/89)
In article <8907071844.AA10158@cattell.psych.upenn.edu> you write: [Gretchen wrote, that is --clt] > > I would like to argue that there are indeed differences >between men and women, but that these differences are not necessarily >(morally) valid or unchangeable. ... >gender maps on to evironmentally determinined behavior. The first >point I would like to make is that characteristics about me which are >the result of my genes are no more a part of me, no more natural, than >characteristics which are the result of my experience (learning, >nutrition, etc.) A second point is that there is no such thing as a Of course, this is undeniably true, but to ignore the political force of the term "natural" as applied to alleged sex-differences is, to put it politely, dangerously naive. When someone like EO Wilson says that women are "naturally" less agressive than men, he means that women are genetically doomed to lose in competition with men (in jobs, in money-earning, etc.). He says that a code of ethics based on such supposed facts "would be genetically accurate and hence completely fair." Claims that women and men differ "naturally" in one way or the other are primarily used to argue against any attempt to improve the lot of women, or to argue for limiting women's choices. Advanced education would ruin women's reproductive systems; hard work makes them infertile; women can't do math so no point wasting resources teaching it to them; women are betting are small motor skills so they should take up typing and knitting; etc. etc. The litany is long, depressing, and hasn't changed much. > There certainly are statistical differences between men and >women. More women bear children than men, but also, women are more >verbal and less spatially skilled than men; women are more nuturing >than men, less sexually aggressive than men, etc. There are two general comments I want to make about this list of `facts'. First, the `facts' as stated are not what has been statistically shown. Let's take the `facts' one by one. The first is undeniable and a fact of definition -- women are those members of the species who have certain reproductive organs. As for the rest... First note how the `fact' is stated "women are more verbal than men." The natural reading of this is that most women are more verbal than most men, with the heavy implication that each woman is more verbal than each man. Actually, all that has been shown is that, in those (minority) of studies that show a difference in the performance of (overwhelmingly college-age, white, American) men and women, the average of all the women's scores is slightly greater than the average of all the men's scores. Most studies show no difference at all, and meta-analysis of the data shows that only 1 percent of the variability can be accounted for by sex. That is to say, 99% of the difference between two people in this test has nothing to do with sex. Further, this information tells us nothing about how "natural" this difference is, although such evidence is commonly cited for just such purposes. Suppose we have a test of vocabulary use. Suppose one of the items is `barrette', which refers to something that in our culture women tend to have more familiarity with than men. Suppose we give this test to a bunch of people. Some of the males will get the item wrong, some of the females will, but on average more males than females will get this item wrong. Let us suppose that the remaining items are unbiased. Then we will have `proved' that women are naturally more verbal than men. The alert reader will notice that we could prove just the reverse by putting in a lot of vocabulary terms that relate to baseball and automechanics. It is also interesting to notice that this alleged difference has disappeared in the SAT realm, because ETS has decided that if men do worse on a test there must be something wrong with the test. More on this in a moment. Next we get to the alleged superiority of males when it comes to `spatial reasoning'. One of the favoured tasks for testing this ability involves putting the subject in a dark room with a male experimenter and asking the subject to judge when a light bar that is skewed with respect to a lighted frame is vertical or horizontal. The experiment is often run by having the subject ask the experimenter to adjust the bar one way or another. Is this really a test of spatial reasoning, or mightn't some sexual-social dynamics have a lot to do with this? Also note that when spatial reasoning tests are given to Eskimos who live in an environment with few obvious location cues and whose culture encourages girls to run around and explore, guess what? No difference. The difference generally appears in cultures that restrict girls' exploration of their surroundings, keeping them close to home. Also note that in drafting classes the males start out better but the females quickly catch up with training. Could it be that playing with blocks and climbing trees teaches one more spatial skills than combing Barbie's hair? And yet, this difference (5% of the variability this time) can be and is used to argue that women (generally, universally even) cannot be architects or engineers, that it is a waste of time trying to teach them these things. Related to spatial reasoning, for some reason that escapes me, is mathematical ability. Here the so-called evidence is even flimsier. Most testing is done using the PSAT, the SAT, the GRE, or some other product of ETS. These tests are designed and supposedly validated to predict academic performance. Yet it is known (and has been for some time) that these tests consistently underpredict female performance. So the test is flawed for its stated purpose (which has serious implications for the academic opportunities of women) and ETS has failed to fix the flaw, although the difference in performance in the verbal tests *have* been removed (by conscious choice, by the way). Why? Yet time after time researchers give the tests to people, note there is a (small) sex-difference and conclude that men "naturally" have more mathematical ability than women. Again, why? It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is a nasty anti-feminist political edge to all of this. Finally, we get to the sexual aggression `fact'. I know of no credible evidence to support this. One can also consider that in earlier ages and in many cultures today "everyone knows" that women are *more* sexually aggressive than men. It should come as no surprise that this `fact' was the justification for keeping women out of the public domain, for chastity belts, for harems, for the veil. Some of these >differences are larger than others, and some are better backed by data >than others. But if someone provides empirically evidence about a sex >difference, I refuse to close my eyes and pretend it isn't real. I >also do not believe that some differences are more "natural" than >others. If a difference is found, it is interesting to explore the >reasons behind this difference, but I don't see why some reasons are >more natural than others. This is all true to an extent, but it is important to understand that many, many, many sex differences have been `discovered' throughout history, and the evidence to back it up has been feeble at best, and the differences slight. It is also true that the differences are claimed as "natural" hence "immutable" (a non-sequiter, but a popular one) and that the difference has always been rationalized to favour certain social agendas. It has also been the case that `facts' put forward have flipped-flopped depending on whether current theory made a fact support male superiority or not: men have less-lateralized brains than women/less lateralized; men have larger corpus calloseums than women/ smaller ones; men have larger temporal lobes than women/smaller... Even a cursory study of the history of this field should give anyone pause before swallowing the latest "science proves innane sex-difference" line. I don't think one should close one's eyes to facts either, but one should be very suspicious of those `facts' and even more suspicious of jumping from a small statistical difference in some test to a generalized claim that "men are better/worse at X than women." (implication: naturally, innately, immutably) First, claims of natural differences can lead to reinforcement of those claims. I know many a young girl who, experiencing some short-term difficulty in math, says "well, girls just can't do math" and gives up (or would if allowed to). What do you suppose happens in a classroom when a teacher believes that women are naturally inferior at math? It is naive to suppose that that teacher will not invest more time in the supposedly more able students -- the males. Such effects have been documented. Second, casting the differences as being between men and women leads people to suppose that those differences are innate rather than reflecting the generally different experience of males and females in our culture. Such a supposition leads to the idea that there is nothing to be done, that women will always be paid less, or fail to advance to certain levels of management, or fail to penetrate certain job categories. It doesn't *really* follow, of course, but look at what people say, even the people who do the studies and presumably know better. (Some examples follow.) Finally, the focus on what are, even taken at face value, very minor differences leads to damaging results, and a failure to see what the important variables in differential performance are. Such a failure can have important public policy consequences. What is irksome about so many of these studies is that they do not control for environmental effects that are *known* to have a far greater impact on performance differences than sex. Consider a related example: there is an important difference between the statement "blacks do less well on IQ tests than whites" and the statement that people who suffered from malnourishment during development and whose mothers lacked proper prenatal care do less well on IQ tests than others. If one merely reports the first result, without controlling for the factors given in the second, one has learned nothing, because in this society more blacks live in conditions of poverty than whites. Worse, the public policy of the first statement is to shrug one's shoulders and say "gosh, ain't it a shame those black people are inferior." In conclusion, a quotation to highlight the importance of the misuse of data and the term "natural": "Females, on the average, surpass males in verbal fluency, correct language usage, spelling,... Males, on the average, are superior to females in verbal comprehension and reasoning, mathematical reasoning, spatial perception,... These differences foreshadow the different occupational goals of men and women." Josef Garai and Amram Scheinfeld 1986 [Notice that while females "surpass males" in various tasks, males "are superior". Notice also that minute differences that account for only 1-5% of the variability between individuals is enough to determine occupational goals of an entire sex.] A couple of books worth looking at: Myths of Gender: Biological Theories Anout Women and Men Anne Fausto-Sterling, Basic Books, 1985 Not in Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature R.C. Lewontin, Steven Rose, and Leon J. Kamin Pantheon Books, 1984 -- Mary Holstege@polya.stanford.edu ARPA: holstege%polya@score.stanford.edu BITNET: holstege%polya@STANFORD.BITNET UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!holstege
wengler@hollerith.ee.rochester.EDU (Mikey) (07/13/89)
Gretchen has posted one of the single most coherent, rational, sensible, and correct articles that I have ever seen. That is to say, I agree with it. In particular, she expresses one desire which I hold close to my heart: >>We may not all agree on what these prescriptions [of feminism] should be, >>but I'd >>rather have us arguing over that than trying to re-describe the world >>in a way that it isn't... Travis points out two reasons that description is an essential concern of feminism. First, anyone proposing political change must always say "Since this is true, we must do that." The this that is true is a description, and the that that we must do follows in some emotionally loaded way from the way the this was stated. ie since women are oppressed we must change society. Second of Travis' points: when A says that something is true, B often hears that something must be done about it, and will usually hear just what it is that should be done as well. Say "Its wrong to burn the flag" and many people will hear "we should send people to jail that do so." Say that "Women on average seem a bit more interested in taking care of babies than men do" and people hear "we should have a society in which women are _expected_ to care for children and are blocked from other things." It is an unfortunate thing that people really do operate this way. I would call it an intellectual immaturity. It without a doubt stands in the way of the pursuit of knowledge. Gretchen has clearly matured past this pitfall, and sees how this inference of prescription from description can be harmful. Here it goes: "I am a man and I know most men want to sleep with women (and i infer therefore that all men should want to sleep with women). So, since I don't want to sleep with women I am bad. So to liberate myself I must deny the fact that most men want to sleep with women, so that I can lose the prescriptive inference that I should want to sleep with women." I hope you all see a problem with that example. Most men really do prefer women, so if I tie my liberation intellectually to the idea that it is not the case that most men want to sleep with women, people will see the fallacy, and not pay credence to my desire for liberation. Gretchen realizes that even if 98.8% of all women really want to marry rich doctors and stay at home painting their fingernails and their children, THAT SHE CAN STILL DO SOMETHING ELSE, and laws and societal expectations shouldn't stand in her way. My right to live my life as I want is not dependant on how most men or most women or most whatevers choose to live theirs. That is a prescription which requires no detailed description of what others are doing. Mikey My situation is hopeless, wengler@ee.rochester.edu but not serious. weng@uordbv (bitnet) ur-valhalla!wengler
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (07/13/89)
In article <2308@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> Mikey <wengler@ee.rochester.EDU> writes: >In particular, she expresses one desire which I hold close to my heart: >>>We may not all agree on what these prescriptions [of feminism] should be, >>>but I'd >>>rather have us arguing over that than trying to re-describe the world >>>in a way that it isn't... The problem with this has been well explained in another posting. Description is hardly as objective as you make it out to be. These "facts" which you claim to be describing are constructions, and can be as sexist as any other social constructions; they're not "out there" waiting to be discovered by diligent social scientists. This whole prescription/description thing seems misguided to me for just this reason (rather like the nature/nurture dichotomy). >My right to live my life as I want is not dependant on how most men or >most women or most whatevers choose to live theirs. That is a >prescription which requires no detailed description of what others are >doing. This is naive in just the same way as the statements above. From what perspective do you imagine you can make this decision? The very concepts that you use to think about the problem are part of a framework which comes from the broader social context -- the same context you think you can ignore. There really is no "outside" to this, there's nowhere objective for you to stand and contemplate these kinds of issues. Individuals are NOT free in this way -- insofar as we're constituted as individuals at all, it's only within a particular social context, with its set of concepts, its particular facts and truths, its knowledge. There are 1001 questions to answer about how and why our particular context is sexist in the way that it is, how it got this way, whether it can be remade some other way etc etc. But we really have to leave the realm of the individual and the realm of empirical fact gathering -- all we'll find there are mirrors of what we already know. Feminism cannot be an empirical science if it expects to make the kinds of changes we probably all want.
randolph@Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (07/13/89)
A lot of good comments have been made about the relations of the
biological sexes and the cultural genders. I think I'd like to add a
simplification of some of the arguments of descriptive and
prescriptive thought. While academics may do works which are
apparently entirely descriptive or prescriptive, day-to-day we learn
in order to act and act in order to learn. So these kinds of thought
are very closely linked.
In the case of all those studies of the differences between men and
women -- we do them because we want to use that knowlege in our lives
and in our wider politics. I could, I'm sure, find substantial
psychological difference between people who weigh more than 150 pounds
and people who weigh less (for one thing, there are probably more
women in the lighter group :-). It's unlikely, though, that we are
going to do masses of studies on this subject; weight is a rather cool
social issue at the moment.
The other consideration is that in the area of reasoning about groups,
the language is corrupt. Gretchen Chapman comments:
For example, perhaps women are doomed to being nuturing and there is
nothing anyone can do to change that.
Let's look closely at the semantics of this sentence. Now, one of the
problems with this is that it contains an implicit statement; that men
are free to not be nurturing. Masculine qualities are sometimes
assumed to be the opposite of feminine qualities. On top of that,
it's pretty evident that no woman is nurturing *all the time*. So
what is meant by "being nurturing" is a predisposition towards
nurturing perceptions and behaviors at certain times. By writing
"women are doomed to being nurturing" you imply that nurturing is a
kind of object which can be found in all women. This all is plain
silly -- there is no reason to assume that masculine behaviors oppose
feminine behaviors and behaviors are patterns of actions, rather than
objects. Yet it's the way we all learn to think. And, for most of
us, it's the only way we think.
Now it's quite evident that Gretchen Chapman knows this perfectly
well. Yet she also writes:
But if someone provides empirically evidence about a sex difference,
I refuse to close my eyes and pretend it isn't real.
Gretchen, there's of course no reason to close your eyes . . . yet
what makes you so interested? Unless you're a clinician for whom this
is useful information, a scholar in this field, or a social policy
maker -- what difference does a statistical difference between the
sexes make to you?
Point of all this, to reiterate, is simply that, as a culture, we have
a whole mass of theories about behavior (as do all cultures, as far as
I know), and those theories use gender as an explanation where it
simply won't do. A lot of studies are done to support these theories.
Since the prevailing theory of gender has women as submissive, it's a
problem for feminists; it must either be transformed or criticized and
destroyed.
And, as an extremely radical idea, I throw out the hypothesis that we
might be able to construct a culture which considers people to have
temperaments without regard to gender or sexual orientation. Sex, you
see, is a given. You look at a baby and (usually) you know. So you
can start the prescriptions at a very early age. Temperament, on the
other hand, must be learned through interaction. Just how would such
a culture model psychology? How would they relate sex and
temperament?
++Randolph Fritz sun!randolph || randolph@sun.com
"My role -- and that is too emphatic a word -- is to show people that
they are much freer than they feel, that people accept as truth, as
evidence, some themes which have been built up at a certain moment
during history, and that this so-called evidence can be criticized and
destroyed." -- Michael Foucault, *Technologies of the Self*geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (07/14/89)
In article <10546@polya.Stanford.EDU> Mary Holstege <holstege@polya.stanford.edu.stanford.EDU> writes: >Of course, this is undeniably true, but to ignore the political force >of the term "natural" as applied to alleged sex-differences is, to put >it politely, dangerously naive. When someone like EO Wilson says that >women are "naturally" less agressive than men, he means that women are >genetically doomed to lose in competition with men (in jobs, in >money-earning, etc.). He says that a code of ethics based on such >supposed facts "would be genetically accurate and hence completely >fair." I haven't read the assertions of Wilson that you are referring to, but his conclusions are certainly invalid. While it may be said to be scientifically valid to say that males of almost every mammalian species (including humans) are naturally more aggressive than females, the conclusion that females are doomed to lose in competition does not necessarily follow. There are other qualities than aggression that can be brought to bear on a situation that may lead to a successful outcome for the female. If the females choose to compete on male terms, and cultivate male characteristics, it will certainly be a difficult, if not insurmountable, struggle. >Claims that women and men differ "naturally" in one way or the other >are primarily used to argue against any attempt to improve the lot of >women, or to argue for limiting women's choices. Advanced education >would ruin women's reproductive systems; hard work makes them >infertile; women can't do math so no point wasting resources teaching >it to them; women are betting are small motor skills so they should >take up typing and knitting; etc. etc. The litany is long, >depressing, and hasn't changed much. The problem isn't that the differences are not there, it is that people are using them to justify invalid arguments. Arguing with them by denying the differences would seem to be conceding that if the differences *can* be proven, then the arguments for oppression and subjection of women *would* be valid. I think this is a foolish and anti-scientific position. I will not deny its political power. The fear of feminist wrath has somewhat inhibited publication of scientific results in the field of cognitive differences in brains of males and females, and perhaps explains why most of the leading researchers in the field are women (they can get away with saying that there are differences easier than men would be able to). This is not the way science should be, obviously. >[A bunch of nonsense showing lack of understanding about how >verbal and spatial differences are established]. The difference in spatial reasoning abilities between male and female is a mammalian characteristic, not simply a human or even primate one. Males of most mammalian species do better in spatial learning. This may have something to do with the difference in the sizes of sexual territories that males keep versus females. The best work on this subject is done in voles (small rodent-like mammals). Species that are not territorial do not have males that are better spatially. Why are females better verbally? One interesting speculation is that the stronger lateralization of the male brain (to provide the spatial reasoning ability) leaves them less versatile vis-a-vis language. It is certainly proven true that males are less capable of recovery from aphasia after a dominent hemisphere stroke than are females. >take a genius to figure out that there is a nasty anti-feminist >political edge to all of this. The researchers you refer to are for the most part female. I know some of them, and as far as I can tell, they are progressive, liberated, liberal-minded women themselves. They have no axe to grind against feminism. They are merely reporting the results of their research, and have taken quite enough flak from those who do indeed have an axe to grind. While the presence of sexual difference does give anti-feminists a basis for trying to construct arguments justifing keeping women down, denial of the differences is a strategy that is risky in that then as the differences are scientifically established, you have to abandon that argument. You should currently be arguing that regardless of differences, there is no ethical basis for discriminating against women.
nadel@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel) (07/22/89)
Gordon Banks writes: >I haven't read the assertions of Wilson that you are referring to, >but his conclusions are certainly invalid. While it may be >said to be scientifically valid to say that males of almost every >mammalian species (including humans) are naturally more aggressive >than females, the conclusion that females are doomed to lose in >competition does not necessarily follow. There are other qualities >than aggression that can be brought to bear on a situation that may >lead to a successful outcome for the female. I agree with all this. I am not saying that there are no differences between men and women and if there were that would justify the conclusion. I am saying that the alleged differences are far less well established than is commonly believed, that the false conclusions *are* drawn, even by people who ought to know better, and that the impact and often the intent of these conclusions is to `put women in their place'. >If the females choose to compete on male terms, and cultivate male >characteristics, it will certainly be a difficult, if not insurmountable, >struggle. Of course, here you contradict all your fine words above and assert something for which there is no proof, that in fact women cannot hope to compete with men on `male terms', which in this context one is invited to read as `aggressiveness'. (Aside: when children are rated for aggressiveness boys are only rated as more aggressive when the raters *know* which children are male and which female.) >The problem isn't that the differences are not there, it is that >people are using them to justify invalid arguments. Arguing with >them by denying the differences would seem to be conceding that >if the differences *can* be proven, then the arguments for oppression >and subjection of women *would* be valid. I agree with the first statement (except that I also believe that many of the alleged differences happen not to be there). I do not concede that the conclusions follow. I did not stress this point in my message, although I did mention it in passing a couple of times. >I think this is a foolish and anti-scientific position. ?? Which conclusion? The conclusion that differences support oppression or the conclusion that we should deny those differences that do exist? Actually, neither is a wise or scientific position, although the name of science has been repeatedly called upon to support the first. >The fear of feminist wrath has somewhat inhibited publication of >scientific results in the field of cognitive differences >in brains of males and females, and perhaps explains why most of the >leading researchers in the field are women (they can get away with >saying that there are differences easier than men would be able to). I don't know about that. The only relevant publication I read is BBS, but it has at least one sex differences article just about every quarter. Doesn't sound like suppression to me. Still, I imagine there is some caution, which I think is a good thing. It is also heartening to see that many researchers are being a bit more subtle in their reasoning and their approach. Suppression of research certainly isn't my aim: criticism of lousy research that fails to account for certain variables *is*. >>[A bunch of nonsense showing lack of understanding about how >>verbal and spatial differences are established]. Nice try, but this cheap trick won't work. I am talking about very many real studies published in real journals and real books by real scientists summarizing that work. >The difference in spatial reasoning abilities between male and >female is a mammalian characteristic, not simply a human or even >primate one. Males of most mammalian species do better in spatial >learning. Oh? Where are all these studies? Seriously, I haven't seen a great many studies that even look at these questions. How is `spatial ability' measured in a vole, and why should we believe that it has anything to what is measured by the various sorts of tests that are given to humans to measure the same thing? Why has the difference disappeared in Eskimos, if this is pervasive throughout Mammalia? >This may have something to do with the difference in >the sizes of sexual territories that males keep versus females. If it exists, it may. Many mammals, and certainly many primates do not have such breeding territories. >The best work on this subject is done in voles (small rodent-like >mammals). Species that are not territorial do not have males >that are better spatially. Ah. So a few studies on voles (using what measures?) justifies the conclusion that among human beings (what? 100 million year separation?) females are less adept `spatially' than males. Ah. Very convincing, I'm sure. >Why are females better verbally? There is little good evidence that they are. >One interesting speculation is that the stronger lateralization >of the male brain (to provide the spatial reasoning ability) >leaves them less versatile vis-a-vis language. An interesting speculation, yes, but do men in fact have a greater lateralization? Well, 70 years ago women had more lateralized brains, we were told. How is lateralization determined? Well, a lot of this lateralization has been determined by a few studies that involved autopsy of a dozen brains. You know what a dead brain is like? Sloppy, that's what. So you cut open this brain and find the corpus calloseum. Then you find a particular part of it, because, you see, it is not that the whole c.c. in women is on average larger than men, just part of it. So you decide where that part starts and the other part ends and you measure its surface area. Then, maybe, you divide by the size of the brain because women tend to be smaller than men, or perhaps you divide by the surface area if the whole cc. In any case, there is a lot of room for error, no one has ever done any control to determine how much variance in measurements there can be, no control has been done to determine how much the dead and preserved brain differs from a living brain, the measurements are not done blind (i.e. by those who do not know whether the brain is a male's or a female's), and the magnitude of the difference is, even taken at face value, slight. Why should I believe such a thing? >It is certainly proven true that males are less capable of recovery from >aphasia after a dominent hemisphere stroke than are females. Nooo.. It is certainly proven true that men seek out therapy more often and for longer than women following a dominant hemisphere stroke. Does that prove that they actually suffer greater deficit? >>take a genius to figure out that there is a nasty anti-feminist >>political edge to all of this. >The researchers you refer to are for the most part female. I am aware of this. There are plenty of anti-feminist females in the world and plenty of women who would be more than happy to pin their individual ineptness in math on some instrinsic female deficit. However, I do not think most of them work with some conscious intent to oppress women. It would be absurd to hold such a position when it is not necessary to suppose individual malice. >I know some of them, and as far as I can tell, they are progressive, >liberated, liberal-minded women themselves. They have no axe to >grind against feminism. In most cases, this is quite true. That does change the fact that the research is used by those who *do* have a nasty axe to grind. It also does not change the fact that much of the research, while often packaged in cautionary language, is (mis)appropriated by the press and others to further particular agendas that the researchers might well be appalled at. So too, one does not need to be an anti-feminist to have swallowed a lot of scientific perspectives that lead one to look at the world in terms that lead to sexist conclusions. The very choice of looking first at sex differences and accepting any difference between sexes on face value is at base a sexist decision. Not consciously, perhaps -- I have a great deal of respect for the honesty and integrity of most scientists -- but there nonetheless. Choosing to look at things one way rather than another is a choice. One is not absolved of the consequences of that choice or the consequences of use of one's data (stripped from context) to support various agendas just because the choice was a conventional one. One is not absolved of the responsibility of speaking out against false conclusions drawn from one's research when it is taken from context. It is also, unfortunately, true that many feminists foster anti-feminist ends when they adopt what are, at base, sexist positions. Anti-male sexist statements are as anti-feminist as anti-female ones. Accepting positive stereotypes for women is just as dangerous in the long run as accepting negative ones. A lot of feminists seem to have missed this point, however. >You should currently be arguing that regardless of differences, >there is no ethical basis for discriminating against women. I argue that as well. But the more I look at studies that purport to prove various differences, the flimsier the evidence becomes. I actually believe that some of these differences, even those I have criticized, do exist. The evidence for them varies from slim to none, however, the differences are slight even when taken at face value (other factors are *far* more significant in every case), and the sweeping conclusions drawn from them are both real, pervasive, and dangerous. I'll fight such dangerous notions on every front I can and with every tool I can muster. More quotes for your `amusement': John MacKinnon, The Ape Within Us: [About Ms. Average] "her biological make-up has ... designed her for fulfilling quieter, less spectacular roles.... For all her opportunity and capability Ms. Average is going to end up in a supportive domestic role." [For *all* her capability, mind you, even though Mr. Average differs little from her, if at all.] "Women's libbers will be constantly let down by their sex's biologically lower motivation for fighting for glory in the industrial head-hunt of the economic rat-race." William and Lea Shields, Forcible Rape: An Evolutionary Perspective "We suggest that *all* males are potential rapists.... We expect that the probability of an individual raping will be a function of the average genetic cost/benefit ratio associated with the particular conditions he faces." [All men will rape when they can get away with it, it basically the message of this (and other related) work. If I were a man, I'd be insulted. But `science' has `proven' it by studying mallards and scorpionflies.] Holstege@polya.stanford.edu ARPA: holstege%polya@score.stanford.edu BITNET: holstege%polya@STANFORD.BITNET UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!holstege
nadel@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel) (07/22/89)
Regarding sex differences in spatial abilities among humans and voles. I read one of the articles Gordon cited on voles. It studied two populations of voles, one in which males covered a larger territory than females, the other in which the territories between the two were similar. In the first group, spatial ability was greater in males and in the second group, they were similar between the sexes. Assuming these studies are valid, they show that differences in spatial ability by sex is not a given since there was no difference in the second group. But most importantly, the cause and effect cannot be separated. In the first group, did the increased spatial ability cause an increase in territorial coverage among males or did the increased territorial coverage cause increased spatial ability? There is evidence among humans that differences in environment affects spatial ability. In a Kenya village, children who undertook tasks that led them away from home performed better on several measures of visual-spatial ability than children remaining close to home. [1] Cross-culturally, Eskimos, who roam over a large relatively featureless area, have greater spatial abilities than the Temme of Sierra Leone, who roam over land with vegetation of various colors. [2] Eskimo girls are allowed more freedom relative to Eskimo boys than is the case for Temme girls. There is no sex difference in spatial ability among Eskimos but there is a difference among the Temme. [2,3] Other cultural studies suggest that sex differences in spatial ability are strongest in societies in which the female social role is most limited and that these differences tend to disappear in societies in which women have a great deal of freedom. [4] These studies show that environment can play a large role in spatial ability. To the extent that males and females have a different environment, they may have differences in spatial ability. This does not say that sex differences in spatial ability do not exist, just that these differences are not inevitable. Judy MD-Ph.D student -- 10 months to go! [1] Nerlove SB et al. J Social Psychology 84:3-10 (1971) [2] Berry JW. Int J Psychology 1:207-229 (1966) [3] MacArthur R. Int J Psychology 2:139-140 (1967) [4] Berry JW. Canad J Behav Sci 3:324-36 (1971)
rshapiro@bbn.COM (Richard Shapiro) (07/22/89)
In article <12869@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: > While it may be >said to be scientifically valid to say that males of almost every >mammalian species (including humans) are naturally more aggressive >than females, the conclusion that females are doomed to lose in >competition does not necessarily follow. The use of "mammalian" here (and elsewhere in this article) is a classic ploy. We know immediately that the perspective will be reductionist: human beings are mammals, therefore the interesting things about human behavior are the same as the interesting things about mammalian behavior in general; and since we know that general mammalian behavior is, more or less by definition, "natural", we can supposedly conclude that the "corresponding" human behavior is equally "natural". A major question has been begged here, simply by the use of the word "mammalian". In fact, the kinds of highly complex gendered behavior we've been talking about here has no parallel in the non-human world, mammalian or otherwise. Cells are made up of atoms, but if we want to do biology we don't make that reduction (in general) -- we miss everything that's interesting about cells. Human beings may be mammals, but if we want to study them, likewise we don't make that reduction (or we shouldn't) for exactly the same reason. Are female chimps paid less than their male counterparts? Do male squirrels tend to regard female squirrels as sex objects? Have female voles been denied full subjecthood? You see how silly these questions are; but THESE are the kinds of questions feminists ask about men and women, and in that context, they're far from silly. The "mammalian" perspective is simply at the wrong level. >The problem isn't that the differences are not there, it is that >people are using them to justify invalid arguments. No, you've missed Mary's point completely here. The differences in question are not "there", as pre-existing facts. They're interpretations by sociologists or psychologists or what have you, and as such they have, implicitly or explicitly, a political agenda. Feminism offers a different agenda, a different set of interpretations in which the claimed "differences" may well be seen to be arbitrary. > Arguing with >them by denying the differences would seem to be conceding that >if the differences *can* be proven, then the arguments for oppression >and subjection of women *would* be valid. I think this is a foolish >and anti-scientific position. See above. Science has its own politics. >The fear of feminist wrath has somewhat inhibited publication of >scientific results in the field of cognitive differences >in brains of males and females !!! Can you justify this claim? I'd be astonished if this were true. Perhaps these researchers are worried, not about feminist wrath, but about feminist deconstruction which shows up the arbitrariness and interpreted nature of these supposed truths, and the agenda which underlies them. In other words, perhaps they've begun to see that their work is not as objective as they once thought. >You should currently be arguing that regardless of differences, >there is no ethical basis for discriminating against women. This is an impossible position. You assume that there are socially significant differences and then want to argue that "ethically" these differences don't matter. You can't win this argument because you've given up already in your initial assumption. But there's no reason to grant that assumption at all. A better approach is too show that these supposedly objective differences aren't "facts" to be dealt with (ethically or otherwise), but constructions and interpretations which should be recognized as such.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.EDU (Greg Lee) (07/23/89)
[originally submitted Tue Jul 4 06:17:25 1989, lost in mail and finally posted... -clt] In article <12411@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, by rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro): >... Gender, on the >other hand, has been abstracted from its linguistic context to refer to >the social and psychological manifestations of sex, i.e. masculine and >feminine. Gender in its linguistic context already refers to a social and psychological manifestation of sex, since language is social and psychological. >... In other words, it's much more than semantics. As soon as you >begin to derive social differences from physical ones, you start on the >slippery slope of natural gender. But when you refer to gender as a manifestation of sex, you've already conceded such a derivation, haven't you? Let's reflect on that notion "natural gender" in language. It's arguable that gender is natural in language, since many languages have gender or classifier systems. And for those languages that have a masculine/feminine gender system, it's natural to classify males as masculine and females as feminine. I don't think there's any getting around that. If that weren't so, we wouldn't say it was a masculine/feminine gender system -- it's true by definition. But there isn't anything natural about a gender system being masculine/feminine; at least, I don't think so. Other, very differently derived classifier systems are found. Navaho, I've read, has 7 genders; Bantu languages typically have a few more than that; Quechua, according to a study by Brent Berlin, has a system with over 200 categories. So, linguistically, gender may be natural, but it's not naturally masculine versus feminine. >... If there really >were natural genders, than feminism would seem to be in big trouble, it >would seem to be flying in the face of the undeniable facts of nature, And, anyhow, even if there do turn out to be some facts of nature to fly in the face of, what's wrong with that? Does anyone really think it's always good to do what comes naturally? Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
nadel@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel) (07/23/89)
In article <43073@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@bbn.COM> writes: >In article <12869@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >> While it may be >>said to be scientifically valid to say that males of almost every >>mammalian species (including humans) are naturally more aggressive >>than females, the conclusion that females are doomed to lose in >>competition does not necessarily follow. > >The use of "mammalian" here (and elsewhere in this article) is a >classic ploy [blah, blah]. > >In fact, the kinds of highly complex gendered behavior we've been >talking about here has no parallel in the non-human world, mammalian >or otherwise. >for exactly the same reason. Are female chimps paid less than their >male counterparts? Do male squirrels tend to regard female squirrels >as sex objects? Have female voles been denied full subjecthood? We were only talking about aggression, not complex gendered behavior. If you want to argue with me, please argue against positions I adopt, not those you read into what I said. > >No, you've missed Mary's point completely here. The differences in >question are not "there", as pre-existing facts. They're >interpretations by sociologists or psychologists or what have you, and >as such they have, implicitly or explicitly, a political agenda. First, do you suppose there are *any* facts in science that are not subject to interpretation? Everything must be interpreted. Scientific facts must be interpreted within the scientific paradigm. Arguments to refute the facts must be based on flaws in the research, not after the manner of your ridiculous generalized accusation that those who have done the research which indicates gender differences (most are women) have done so to promote a political agenda. This arguemtn is gratuituous and ad hominem, as well as false. >Feminism offers a different agenda, a different set of interpretations >in which the claimed "differences" may well be seen to be arbitrary. > Yes, and creationist "deconstruction" provides a different set of interpretations for fossils, too. Let's just try keep these other paradigms separate from science, shall we? Of course no one can be totally objective, but I'll take the scientists over the creationists or the feminists on objectivity. > >>The fear of feminist wrath has somewhat inhibited publication of >>scientific results in the field of cognitive differences >>in brains of males and females > >!!! Can you justify this claim? I'd be astonished if this were true. One male researcher told me he would have liked to work on gender differences, but did not feel it was politically wise for a male to do so. Another who does work on it (in mammals) said that he has to be very careful about the titles of his talks and who finds out about his research. He is desperately trying to keep a low profile with respect to the press. His work shows that males are more strongly lateralized and he is very careful never to say anything that might imply that this has implications in humans for fear of the aforementioned "wrath". So yes, I know first hand that (some) people are afraid of this issue and downplaying it to keep out of trouble. (Sorry if this goes against your notion of why they are doing their work.) Hell, I'm a coward too: when I was called by a reporter who wanted me to give a statement about neurologic differences between males and females (she seemed to want me to say the there was some basis for there being less females in computer science), I could have told her some differences, but then I had this vision of pickets in front of the medical school...and told her to call a female collegue of mine (Jerri Levy) who was more qualified (and also hopefully more immune to feminist criticism). >A better approach is too show that these >supposedly objective differences aren't "facts" to be dealt with >(ethically or otherwise), but constructions and interpretations which >should be recognized as such. Good luck, but I think the ground is being cut out from under that argument as time goes on. Don't get left with the flat-earthers.
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (07/24/89)
In article <10781@polya.Stanford.EDU> elroy!ames!polya.stanford.edu!holstege (Mary Holstege) writes: >>If the females choose to compete on male terms, and cultivate male >>characteristics, it will certainly be a difficult, if not insurmountable, >>struggle. >Of course, here you contradict all your fine words above and assert something >for which there is no proof, that in fact women cannot hope to compete with >men on `male terms', which in this context one is invited to read as >`aggressiveness'. We know at least one reason that males behave more aggressively: testosterone. In experiments with animals, females can be made as aggressive as males by administration of testosterone, and the males can be made even more aggressive than they naturally are by giving them extra testosterone. Of course, such experiments in children would be unethical, but unfortunately, some persons insist on performing such studies on themselves, although not with an eye to making themselves more aggressive. I'm talking about athletes, and especially body builders. Female body builders have found that anabolic steroids (male sex hormone analogues) make them more aggressive as well as putting muscle (and hair) on their bodies. Male athletes have found that excessive amounts of these hormones can make them so aggressive that minor traffic incidents, or bumping in crowds can easily lead to fisticuffs. In utero testosterone is responsible for the male phenotype (XY males in the absence of testosterone are phenotypic females). So to make a long story short, I do believe that females can compete on male terms (aggressiveness, etc.) IF THEY REALLY WANT TO. They can take assertiveness training, lift weights, do martial arts training, and become more masculine than males. BUT WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO? Perhaps when more females reach the upper eschelons aggressiveness won't be given so much weight in consideration for hiring and advancement. I really think most females do not want to become like males and will not choose to do so, nor to compete on that basis. Of course that's just my opinion. If you are interested in pursuing this line, I can post my opinion about why there are so few women in surgery (and it isn't just overt discrimination in selection of trainees, either). It is too long to append to this posting, however. I'll also make another posting dealing with your criticism of lateralization studies tomorrow.
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (07/24/89)
>We know at least one reason that males behave more aggressively: >testosterone. In experiments with animals, females can be made as >aggressive as males by administration of testosterone, and the males can >be made even more aggressive than they naturally are by giving them >extra testosterone. I've already responded to this, implicitly, but perhaps it would be useful to do explicitly. The kinds of gendered behavior which we've been discussing here CANNOT be unproblematically derived from the sorts of animal behavior you keep referring to. You need to demonstrate a connection, but instead you're using a metaphor to simply assume it. Yes, indeed, it's well known that testosterone levels in (non-human) animals are directly correlated with something we might call "aggression". But raw aggression in this sense is so thoroughly regulated in human society that it's not at all obvious that testosterone has any significant effect on human behavior. You need to show that it does, not assume that fact on the basis of studies done on other animals. More importantly, what we call "aggressiveness" in human behavior is related to this other aggression only metaphorically. When it's said that men are more aggressive than women socially, or at work, we're talking about a behavior which only superficially resembles animal aggression. But you've taken this metaphor literally, assumed that the two kinds of behavior are the same simply because they have the same name; and then concluded that there's a simple physiological basis for the social fact of greater male "aggressiveness". It should be obvious that the kinds of gendered behaviors which are of interest to feminists are not replicated in any other animals. They are quite specific to human society and need to be understood on that basis. If animal studies are to be considered useful, you need to *show* some kind of correlation, not assume it. In fact, it seems quite clear to me that there's no very good evidence, from animal studies or elsewhere, that these behaviors have a physiological basis at all. Quite the contrary, the diversity of social practices would seem to suggest just the opposite. The obvious questions to me are: why this *insistence* on claiming a physiological basis for these behaviors? Why are you so anxious to make this reduction, when there isn't any evidence for it (despite diligent searches for such evidence)? What other assumptions are you making that lead you to approach the issue in this way?
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (07/24/89)
In article <10781@polya.Stanford.EDU> elroy!ames!polya.stanford.edu!holstege (Mary Holstege) writes: >Oh? Where are all these studies? Seriously, I haven't seen a great many >studies that even look at these questions. How is `spatial ability' measured >in a vole, and why should we believe that it has anything to what is measured >by the various sorts of tests that are given to humans to measure the same >thing? I can't find the paper on the voles (I heard the author give a colloquium and have it somewhere). The usual method is learning mazes, which males are superior at. I am not sure what other methods were used. If you seriously want to read this work, I'll find the reference for you. He also talks about other mammals and the sexual territory stuff. >Why has the difference disappeared in Eskimos, if this is pervasive >throughout Mammalia? I don't know, and I am not familiar with the studies in the Eskimos. It isn't inconceivable that subpopulations might arise which lack the characteristic. Is this only one study, or have other workers verified it? >Ah. So a few studies on voles (using what measures?) justifies the >conclusion that among human beings (what? 100 million year separation?) >females are less adept `spatially' than males. No the effect was first noticed in humans, not voles, and is unquestionably present. The tests on humans are much more extensive and the papers showing the difference probably run into the hundreds. The problem with humans is that advocates of environmental influences claim that the differences are due to environment not nature. (In other words, little boys are treated differently than little girls and somehow this results in their doing better on tests of spatial ability). Since it is unethical to control the rearing environment for humans, animal experiments must be resorted to. The finding of the same differentials in animals that are found in humans makes the environmental argument much less tenable. Another interesting study that would implicate heredity is the work of Jerre Levy (U of Chicago female neuropsychologist) on Turner's Syndrome. Turner's patients have only one X chromosome. Their spatial ability is terrible (in fact their score on the performance part of the Wechsler is almost retarded). However, verbally, they test superior with average verbal IQ about 120. Further testing showed that their brains seem to be unlateralized (essentially two dominant (verbal) hemispheres). Again, I don't have the reference, but you should be able to find it with a computer search (paper appeared in the 70's). >>Why are females better verbally? >There is little good evidence that they are. There is superb evidence that they are. Maybe you meant evidence that they are *inherently* better verbally. The evidence that they test better verbally is incontrovertable and objective. Obviously no animal studies can be done on verbal ability. >An interesting speculation, yes, but do men in fact have a greater >lateralization? Well, 70 years ago women had more lateralized brains, >we were told. How is lateralization determined? Well, a lot of this >lateralization has been determined by a few studies that involved >autopsy of a dozen brains. You know what a dead brain is like? Sloppy, >that's what. I know what a dead brain is like, having autopsied them and been present for hundreds of brain autopsies. They aren't sloppy if they are fixed in formalin for three weeks before cutting. Quite precise measurements can be made. But why would measurement errors occur in a way to systematically effect female brains in a way differently than male brains? Only if there was some intrinsic difference, no? The 70 year-old corpus callosum studies you are talking about aren't the only way to determine lateralization. It can be done by measuring asymmetry in temporal lobe volume (less asymmetric in females) (these studies were done blind). In fact, you can even do imaging studies (CT, MRI) to show it, but that isn't the only way to show assymetry of function. I'm talking about psychologic and physiologic studies in live patients where lateralization can be determined without an autopsy. Such determination must be done prior to epilespy surgery, so many of these techniques were developed for that purpose. Brenda Milner is the psychologist most associated with the early studies here. BBS is a good source, but most people won't want to read that. Check out the chapter on Sex and lateralization in Sally Springer's book: "Left Brain Right Brain" (get the latest edition, more has been added recently) for a good discussion of the literature on gender differences in lateralization. Patricia Churchland's "Neurophilosophy", and Norman Geschwind's "Cerebral Lateralization" are also good sources to start with. >>It is certainly proven true that males are less capable of recovery from >>aphasia after a dominent hemisphere stroke than are females. >Nooo.. It is certainly proven true that men seek out therapy more often and >for longer than women following a dominant hemisphere stroke. Does that prove >that they actually suffer greater deficit? I honestly don't know where you are getting such information! This phenomena has been known clinically by neurologists for over 100 years (long before "speech therapy" existed!) and was studied by Jeanette McGlone extensively in 1978. There were over 85 patients in her study and the males did 3 times (!) worse than females. No known speech therapy technique can come within *leagues* of making such an astounding difference in aphasia. She did not select her cases from those who sought therapy anyhow, but where in the world did you get the idea that men seek therapy more often and for longer than women? This is entirely counter to all other studies that have ever been done that show that women seek medical care far more often and are more compliant with therapeutic programs than men. Any physician can tell you from experience the many cases of the husband who is finally dragged to the doctor at death's door by his concerned wife. I also refer you to the work of Hanna and Tony Damasio regarding aphasia recovery.
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (07/25/89)
In article <3115@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> elroy!ames!cadre.dsl.pitt.edu!geb (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >We were only talking about aggression, not complex gendered behavior. >If you want to argue with me, please argue against positions I adopt, >not those you read into what I said. Well, let's see now. If your argument about testosterone and aggression in animals is, as you say, not about the complex gendered behavior we find in human beings, than we have nothing to argue about. I agree completely. I might then ask why you offered in the first place. But in fact, you claimed an explicit relationship between this kind of aggression and the general social aggressiveness typically considered to be a masculine attribute (and that aggressiveness is nothing if not a "complex gendered behavior"). You want it both ways: to make deductions about gendered human behavior from animal studies, and then to deny the deduction when it's shakiness becomes apparent. I'd like to know explicitly: are these animal studies relevant to feminism or aren't they? If so, why? >First, do you suppose there are *any* facts in science that are not >subject to interpretation? Everything must be interpreted. Just so. Consequently, you need to examine the presuppositions and assumptions which lie behind any particular "fact". This is exactly what I've been doing. One can't make assumptions and question those assumptions at the same time. I've elected to question; you've elected to assume.
holstege@polya.stanford.edu (Mary Holstege) (07/25/89)
I think it is about time to call a halt to this. We can debate interpretation
back and forth until doomsday, and to do a really good job of it I would have
to go back and reread some of those studies and spend a lot of time and
frankly, I have other things to do. I also think we are rapidly leaving the
domain of interest of most people here. So let me try to drag the conversation
back to more general issues, rather than contesting each study one by one.
My general points are these:
(1) The evidence for most -- strike that -- for the overwhelming majority of
putative sex-based differences is not only not compelling, as its proponents
would have us believe, it is not even very good.
(2) What evidence there is is widely accepted uncritically (and I mean here not
by scientists primarily but by policy makers at one level and another)
and overinterpreted (read: misinterpreted) primarily because it justifies
extant inequalities.
A study is done on animals. A behaviour or set of behaviours is given a
label "aggression" or "rape" or "altruism". Certain biological variables
are correlated to the behaviour. Then whammo! the term is misappropriated
into the human context and all sorts of pronouncements are made about what
is "natural" for humans. Either a human study is never done, or the human
study measures quite different things, which, though the magic of language,
get called the same thing and therefore presto! they are the same thing.
Animal studies are never done blind and human studies rarely are. Controls
(in human studies) are often missing or clearly inadequate. Alternative
(non-biological determinist) explanations are given short shrift. "Natural"
is taken widely to mean "immutable" and a small difference between genders
is expanded to apply to all men and all women (or the overwhelming majority of
men and the overwhelming majority of women).
For example, it is true that if you pump female rats full of testosterone
they will exhibit certain behaviours. Not terribly surprisingly, these
behaviours are directly related to sexual behaviour in rats: mounting and
biting. Are we justified in calling this "aggression"? Well, I don't know.
Is it the only "cause" of aggression in rats? Whan a mother rat attacks an
invading predator, is that "aggression"? Maybe it too is hormonally mediated,
and do we know whether it is testosterone? Have the controls been done?
Clearly testosterone does not effect human brains as it does rat brains: I
don't notice many men who go around biting people's necks and leaping on
women's backs. Have human hormone levels been correlated to human aggression?
Well, there are pathological cases (overdoses of anabolic steroids). An actual
measurement of testosterone in human males shows that the levels *fall* during
violent episodes and only rise after the fact. Castration (either chemical or
actual) of prisoners has only reduced recidivism on sexual offenders, not on
violent offenders.
Consider a difference species. Cats. Sometimes when you stroke a female cat,
she responds with a characteristic behaviour: she whips her head around,
somewhat spasmodically, teeth bared. She may bite at you, and if you persist
she will strike with her claws. It generally happens after they have been
petted for some time, and the cat will often immediately invite further
petting. Is it "aggression"? Cats in heat respond this way much more
frequently. I have seen it in neutered males on occasion, but not in toms.
It is quite likely (although I do not know) that this is a behaviour
mediated (triggered, for the biological determinists amoung you) by hormones.
Female cats show this same behaviour at the conclusion of mating. (Toms have
torn ears from other toms, but that fine network of scars on the nose is the
fault of females.) Is it "aggression"? If I pump a cat full of the
appropriate hormone and I see the (sex-act-related) behaviour more often,
have I proven that female cats are more aggressive than males? Well of course
not. `Everyone knows' that tomcats are always fighting each other. The point
is that for someone who believes that males are more aggressive than females,
any time a male is "aggressive" or a male hormone precedes female "aggression"
the proposition is verified, but precursors of female "aggression" are ignored.
When the momcat jumped for my throat when I picked up her kitten, that was not
"aggression" that was "maternal nurturance instinct".
Suppose I accept that statement that, on average, males are 20% more aggresive
than females. Why does this mean that "women cannot compete on male terms"?
*That* statement says that *no* woman can compete with *any* man on male terms.
Rubbish. And how are we to know that the proper variable isn't simply body
size, or physical strength? Why cast it first and only as a *sex* difference?
And what, if anything, does violent sex-act-related behaviours in rats and cats
have to do with violence amoung humans? Or with warfare? Or threatening
letters? Or success in business? Or pay? Yet all these human characteristics
are taken to fall under the same rubric "aggression" that labelled the rat
behaviours. Are we justified in playing this semantic game? I say no. I say
further that it is both morally indefensible and scientifically dubious to use
common human terms such as "rape" and "aggression" to label very specific
behaviours in non-human animals. It is worse to draw from those studies any
conclusion about the human behaviours just because one has misused a human
term.
-- Mary
Holstege@polya.stanford.edu
ARPA: holstege%polya@score.stanford.edu
BITNET: holstege%polya@STANFORD.BITNET
UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!holstegegeb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (07/26/89)
In article <43161@bbn.COM> elroy!ames!BBN.COM!rshapiro (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >Yes, indeed, it's well known that testosterone levels in (non-human) >animals are directly correlated with something we might call >"aggression". But raw aggression in this sense is so thoroughly >regulated in human society that it's not at all obvious that >testosterone has any significant effect on human behavior. I'm not sure what controlled studies have been done, but patients receiving testosterone replacement definitely know when their levels are too high or low (or perhaps their wives and coworkers can tell better) by their touchiness. One of the major problems with atheletes on anabolic steroids is their aggressivness. In football, perhaps this is an asset (not always, if you get tossed from the games). You seem to be making some very unjustified assumptions yourself. First, who says that human aggression is better regulated than in animal societies? Our societies are extremely violent, with crimes and wars occurring all the time. What makes you think we are any less aggressive than animals? Animals have social conventions that have been very well studied for preventing aggression (see the studies on wolves for example). I don't think you have a leg to stand on making the argument that humans are any different in this regard. The testosterone makes the animals so they breach the social conventions and you have males of lower rank attacking larger and stronger males even though they normally would submit to the hierarchy. Next, the chemical structure of the hormone is extremely similar in humans and animals, the receptors are present in the same tissues (including brain). Thus there is every expectation that it serves the same purpose in humans as it does in every other species. If you are claiming it doesn't, shouldn't you be providing a reasonable alternative explanation, with some evidence to back it up? [There appears to be very little concrete evidence one way or the other on *either* side of this. Both sides could stand to assume the burden of proof if they're to garner any acceptance. - MHN] >The obvious questions to me are: why this *insistence* on claiming a >physiological basis for these behaviors? Why are you so anxious to >make this reduction, when there isn't any evidence for it (despite >diligent searches for such evidence)? What other assumptions are you >making that lead you to approach the issue in this way? I suppose I read evidence differently than you do. My inclination is to seek explanations for *all* phenomena that I see around me in the natural world, rather than consider them to be separate or part of a different realm. I have been this way ever since I can remember, having read books about astronomy, physics, and biology from the time I learned how to read. I can certainly imagine that a sociologist or a humanist would see things differently. But saying that a social order is based in nature (as all of them really are) does not mean it is being justified as good or the only possible course. I believe that humans have (by nature) more complex social structures than other animals and indeed *can* override the more bestial aspects of our natures. Yes, I do believe that males are naturally more aggressive and that women are oppressed and subjected largely because of male natures, which we have inherited from our animal forbears. However, I also believe that we can use the thinking part of our nature to evolve ethical and social systems whereby we can suppress and overcome our "baser" tendancies, and that the fact that these baser natures exist does not mean that we should just let "nature take its course".
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (07/26/89)
In article <18834@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu> Judy Badner said: > >Regarding sex differences in spatial abilities among humans and voles. >I read one of the articles Gordon cited on voles. It studied two >populations of voles, one in which males covered a larger territory >than females, the other in which the territories between the two were >similar. In the first group, spatial ability was greater in males >and in the second group, they were similar between the sexes. >Assuming these studies are valid, they show that differences in spatial >ability by sex is not a given since there was no difference in the >second group. But most importantly, the cause and effect cannot >be separated. In the first group, did the increased spatial ability >cause an increase in territorial coverage among males or did the >increased territorial coverage cause increased spatial ability? > But weren't the voles two different species of voles, not just two different populations of voles? The idea being that the differences are hereditary not environmental. Now why the differences evolved, is another question entirely. Obviously, the environment is the base cause of that. >There is evidence among humans that differences in environment affects >spatial ability. In a Kenya village, children who undertook tasks that >led them away from home performed better on several measures of >visual-spatial ability than children remaining close to home. [1] Yes, all inborn neurologic "abilities" must be exercised in order to develop. If you patch a kitten's eyes from birth to several months, it will be functionally blind (please kids, don't try this at home). If you don't teach a child to speak until it is 3 or 4, it will never learn to use language properly. You are right that it is difficult to show (in humans) what part is due to nature and what part to nurture. What is certain is that there are sex differences. Perhaps with the radical changes in freedom of women we will soon find out.
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (07/27/89)
In article <3144@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> elroy!ames!cadre.dsl.pitt.edu!geb (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >I suppose I read evidence differently than you do. My inclination >is to seek explanations for *all* phenomena that I see around me in the >natural world, rather than consider them to be separate or part of a >different realm....But saying that a social >order is based in nature (as all of them really are) does not >mean it is being justified as good or the only possible course. >I believe that humans have (by nature) more complex social structures >than other animals and indeed *can* >override the more bestial aspects of our natures. Examine these two points a little more closely. Let's agree that people can "override" our "natural social order". What is the resulting order? By definition it's no longer the "natural" order; presumably it's some kind of hybrid. The more overriding we do over time, the further removed this hybrid order is from the original natural order, i.e. the more "artificial" it becomes. And unless you have a God's-eye view, the ability to distinguish between the artificial component and the remnants of the natural component (if any) will vanish very quickly (we don't, after all, know what the original natural order was like). It might as well be purely artificial at that point. You can claim that this or that aspect is "natural" for human beings, but how could anyone ever prove such a thing? We've never observed human beings in a state of nature -- we have no basis for comparison. Now even a quick look at social history makes it clear that the social order has busily been changing throughout recorded history. Not only is this overriding possible, it has in fact been happening for a very long time. But what does this mean about our *current* social order, which is the result of this enormous history of overriding the natural order? One thing it clearly means is that our distance from this natural order is now very large indeed. And this means that when you look at our current culture, and the social differences between men and women, your are *NOT* looking at an order which is natural in any useful sense; you're looking at one which is predominantly one of our own construction, our own overriding. As explained above, there may still be remnants of the natural (or there may not be) but we have no means of identifying them as such. And *that* means that if you want to explain some aspect of this order, the natural world is exactly the wrong place to look. We're also agreed that human beings are unique in this ability to override nature -- other animals are bound by the natural order, while we have constructed for ourselves an artificial one. This would certainly seem to suggest that animal studies will shed very little light on the facts of our own social order; we would need to know in advance exactly what you're trying to show -- that such and such an aspect of social order is something we share (naturally) with the animal being studied. So by following your own hypothesis of overridability, we end up at the position I've maintained from the start (though I arrived at that position from a completely different route): that the natural world is not the place to look for explanations of human society. Looking to Nature for explanations of 'masculine' and 'feminine' (for instance) can only make sense if these aspects of human society are not overridable. You're certainly free to make that assumption, but considering its implications, you should be prepared to offer a rigorous defense.
travis@douglass.cs.columbia.edu (Travis Lee Winfrey) (07/29/89)
In article <10865@polya.Stanford.EDU> elroy!ames!polya.stanford.edu!holstege (Mary Holstege) writes: >So let me try to drag the conversation back to more >general issues, rather than contesting each study one by one. > >My general points are these: > >(1) The evidence for most -- strike that -- for the overwhelming >majority of putative sex-based differences is not only not >compelling, as its proponents would have us believe, it is not even >very good. > >(2) What evidence there is is widely accepted uncritically (and I >mean here not by scientists primarily but by policy makers at one >level and another) and overinterpreted (read: misinterpreted) >primarily because it justifies extant inequalities. People interested in this discussion might want to read the following books: Violence Against Women: A Critique of the Sociobiology of Rape Suzanne R. Sunday and Ethel Tobach, editors Gordian Press: NY, 1985 This covers in detail many of the arguments Mary Holstege and others have already discussed. Particular attention is given to the logical difficulty of moving from studies on animals to conclusions about humans -- and a common propensity to make exactly these types of invalid conclusions, particularly when they support the status quo. The particular conflict that spurred the book was a paper from a certain biologist discussing rape as an evolutionary strategy. There is also Stephen Jay Gould's book on the Mismeasure of Man, which discusses science's long, erroneous, history of drawing conclusions about the abilities of entire races, as opposed to the two genders. I haven't read it yet, but the mental mechanism is clearly the same. t Arpa: travis@cs.columbia.edu Usenet: rutgers!columbia!travis
nadel@aerospace.aero.org (Miriam H. Nadel) (07/30/89)
In article <3145@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> elroy!ames!cadre.dsl.pitt.edu!geb (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >> >But weren't the voles two different species of voles, not just two >different populations of voles? The idea being that the differences >are hereditary not environmental. Now why the differences evolved, is >another question entirely. Obviously, the environment is the >base cause of that. Even if the vole populations were different genetically, one cannot assume that all differences between them were due to genetic etiologies. There were two differences between these vole populations that the authors pointed out: 1) males ranged further than females in one population while neither ranged far in the second population 2) males had more spatial ability than females in the first population and the spatial abililities were equal in the second. The authors theorized that increased spatial ability led to increased ranging but there was no evidence that this was a more likely proposition than the theory that increased ranging led to increased spatial ability. One of these differences is probably genetic but this study does not prove which one. >Yes, all inborn neurologic "abilities" must be exercised in order to >develop. If you patch a kitten's eyes from birth to several months, >it will be functionally blind (please kids, don't try this at home). >If you don't teach a child to speak until it is 3 or 4, it will >never learn to use language properly. >You are right that it is difficult to show (in humans) what part >is due to nature and what part to nurture. What is certain is that >there are sex differences. Perhaps with the radical changes in >freedom of women we will soon find out. Okay, suppose males and females are born with an equal amount of spatial ability. For whatever reason (genetic, cultural, environmental), males exercise their abilities more. Therefore, males have increased spatial ability. Now is this difference nature or nurture? Think about it! Judy Geneticist extraordinaire M.D. graduation in 9 months, 23 days!
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (08/01/89)
In article <13095@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >deduction when it's shakiness becomes apparent. I'd like to know >explicitly: are these animal studies relevant to feminism or aren't >they? If so, why? > Yes, I believe they are relevant. Since human behavior is a manifestation of the functioning of the human brain (just as animal behavior is a product of animal brains) if we are truly to understand the reasons behind such behavior, we have to understand the brain. This is not to say that human behavior is fixed and determined. It is clear that there is great variety among humans of different cultures, and that the environmental influences on behavior are very great, but there are definitely constraints and limits to such influences. Feminism is concerned with human behavior (that of men toward women, women toward men, and women toward women). Seeking to explain the patterns we observe through history and among various cultures through an abstract ideal philosophy without reference to our neurobiology will surely hinder feminists in the attainment of lasting changes in society resulting in the liberation of women and the improvement of society through greater relative feminine influence. Too often, I believe, feminists have sought to assess moral blame rather than delve into the reasons for the inequities.
holstege@polya.stanford.edu (Mary Holstege) (08/01/89)
In article <13094@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: > >I can't find the paper on the voles (I heard the author give a >colloquium and have it somewhere). The usual method is learning mazes, >which males are superior at. I am not sure what other methods were >used. If you seriously want to read this work, I'll find the reference >for you. He also talks about other mammals and the sexual territory >stuff. Yes, I would be interested. Please forward a reference to me. >the papers showing the difference probably run into the hundreds. The >problem with humans is that advocates of environmental influences claim >that the differences are due to environment not nature. (In other >words, little boys are treated differently than little girls and somehow >this results in their doing better on tests of spatial ability). Since >it is unethical to control the rearing environment for humans, animal >experiments must be resorted to. The finding of the same differentials >in animals that are found in humans makes the environmental argument >much less tenable. This is the core of it and I will refrain from pointing out some of the problems of interpretation in the work you talk about it and just focus on this. It has been shown -- repeat -- shown that environmental effects can produce the differences in mental abilities and personality that we are talking about here. Even if you take a raw difference between normal males and normal females (it is unclear what, if anything, you can learn about normal behaviour from pathological cases) at face value, the magnitude of the difference is as small or smaller that the magnitude demonstrated for known environmental causes, and biological determinists routinely neglect environmental explanations. In particular, cross-cultural studies are extremely rare. As the old saw goes, all we know about psychology is the psychology of college freshmen. Furthermore, even taken at face value, alleged sex-based (versus happens-to-be- correlated-with-sex-in-our-culture) differences account for 1% to 5% of the variability of individuals. Other factors are far more important. It's a lot like height (only less so): typically women are 10% smaller than men, and indeed I am about 10% shorter than my brothers, but I am also taller than most men on the planet. Being Dutch has more to do with my height than being a woman. Such magnitudes do not justify general statements that women are more verbal than men or that men are more spatially adept than women or what have you, because the reading of such statements is that all or the overwhelming majority of women/men fall into certain patterns. The implication that can (and is) drawn is that any particular person is presumed to fit the gender stereotype. This may sound terribly abstract and unimportant to you, but from my side of the stereotype I see such results being misused to justify job discrimination, and I see people routinely presuming that I am incapable of math, just because I am a female. -- Mary Holstege@polya.stanford.edu ARPA: holstege%polya@score.stanford.edu BITNET: holstege%polya@STANFORD.BITNET UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!polya.stanford.edu!holstege
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (08/01/89)
In article <43390@bbn.COM> elroy!ames!BBN.COM!rshapiro (Richard Shapiro) writes: > >Examine these two points a little more closely. Let's agree that >people can "override" our "natural social order". What is the >resulting order? By definition it's no longer the "natural" order; >presumably it's some kind of hybrid. The more overriding we do over >time, the further removed this hybrid order is from the original >natural order, i.e. the more "artificial" it becomes. You have overinterpreted what I said. Since culture is not hereditary, there is the constant tendancy to move back toward the baser nature and civilization is only precariously maintained. Furthermore, it takes constant effort as individuals to use our frontal lobes to override our limbic system, and perhaps the great mass of the people still are primarily governed by the latter. So we don't want to take the overridability argument too far. It is something to be strived for, but few will actually achieve it. >Now even a quick look at social history makes it clear that the social >order has busily been changing throughout recorded history. But who was it that said "the more things change, the more they remain the same." In many ways, our changes have just facilitated our more efficient application of bestiality to relations with each other. > >We're also agreed that human beings are unique in this ability to >override nature -- other animals are bound by the natural order I'd rather put it another way...our nature provides a different form of adaptability in our higher cognitive processes. We still have a nature which we can not transcend. We also still have parts of our nature (emotional) which we do share with other animals and I see no possibility that we can soon become like computers or vulcans and transcend that completely. If you wish to argue that we can completely transcend our natures, I would think that it is you that would have to offer strong arguments as well.
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks) (08/07/89)
In article <11011@polya.Stanford.EDU> elroy!ames!polya.stanford.edu!holstege (Mary Holstege) writes: > [Spatial gender differences in voles] > >Yes, I would be interested. Please forward a reference to me. The vole papers are: American Naturalist v. 127 74-88 (1986) Animal Behavior v 37 pp 322-331 (1989) Another is in press in J. of Compar. Psychol. The author, Dr. Gaulin, is going to try to get a Unix account so he can enter the discussion. There is a lot of new stuff that really bolsters his arguments that weren't done yet for the original papers.
drh@spock.UUCP (David R. Hawley) (08/15/89)
Hummm.... This is an interesting topic, and I'd like to hear comments to some
observations I've made during my life. My topic is SURVIVAL oriented sports.
It's always seemed illogical to me that Hollywood portrays women slugging guys,
and knocking them out. My concern is that a woman will try this in real life,
and the results could be disasterous.
I was taught (both verbally and by actions) never to hit a female, because
females were supposed to be the "weaker" sex. I noticed that my sisters
and most females were in fact about half my size, and that even the athletic
females were not only physically weaker than me, but my smaller male friends
(this seems to be a fact of life, and to date I've observed a tiny percentage
of woman who were stronger than myself, or many, many average guys (5'9"-6'2";
150 lbs - 210 lbs) also I've noticed that a vast majority of the girls/women
I've seen particpate in survival oriented athletic activities weren't as
agressive as the male counterparts.
Some examples:
I didn't make the fencing team in high school I was the sixth best male, but
could easily out fence the females scoring almost 100% of the points, the
results on the swimming team were very similar, and the martial arts classes
I've attended were definitely domintaed by the guys. In my adulthood I
usually come in at about the top 25%, of a 10K, or a 10 mile race, which is
where the very best women were comming in.
Running isn't necessarily a survival oriented sport.
Now before I get flamed to a black mass of xy chromosomes, I'd like to add that
I've seen women win at golf, tennis, etc. sports that don't require the
agressive, or almost violent actions of the sports men do better at (from
personal observation). I know perfectly well that women are just as
intelligent, and usually more limber than men. They could learn martial arts
if they spent years of dilligent effort, (although this is rarely the case,
at least in the martial arts studios I've stumbled onto, by chance). They
could also learn to shoot guns, but once again you don't see many women at
rifle/pistol ranges. I've tried to convince many, many females that I
have loved (my sisters, women friends, lovers) to learn martial arts, or to
buy a gun. Every single one said she could never do the latter, and not a one
has done the former.
Is my lifetime experience somehow a coincidence? Are my facts somehow slanted
(perhaps it is somehwere between my 50% smaller, and the 10% smaller mentioned
earlier). I have heard that women are stronger pound for pound, and that women
can tollerate more pain (from a male doctor). Is this all from social training?
What about testostarone (my dictionary doesn't have the word) (male hormone),
you know, the one that allows body builders to leg press 800 lbs, and to bench
press 400 lbs. What about the rules disallowing women in combat? Do you think
it's ALL chauvinism?
Again, I do think women are equal in all important matters (for the 20th
century) like brains, ordinary physical tasks like driving, or even racing
cars or motorcycles. I envy most womens ability to stay in touch with their
emotions (this is another "taught" behavior, I imagine). I do believe in
equal pay for equal jobs. What I'm talking about is what would happen if we
lost our police state, ie. government and we had to make do with our phisical
prowess. I'd like to see more women building up their strength, and self
defense skills. It could happen, on a personal level in any given night in
the city.
David
--
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ * }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
David R. Hawley "And they will fly with the wings of Eagles"
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ * }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}amadeus@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood) (08/17/89)
In article <34104@spock.uucp> EBay.SUN.COM!spock!drh writes: >I was taught (both verbally and by actions) never to hit a female, because >females were supposed to be the "weaker" sex. I noticed that my sisters >and most females were in fact about half my size, and that even the athletic >females were not only physically weaker than me, but my smaller male friends >(this seems to be a fact of life, and to date I've observed a tiny percentage >of woman who were stronger than myself, or many, many average guys (5'9"-6'2"; >150 lbs - 210 lbs) also I've noticed that a vast majority of the girls/women >I've seen particpate in survival oriented athletic activities weren't as >agressive as the male counterparts. You realize of course a lot of this may have to do with environment and how these people were reared... and size and strength are not necessarily related. >Some examples: >I didn't make the fencing team in high school I was the sixth best male, but >could easily out fence the females scoring almost 100% of the points, This one I took exception to because I fence. I'm a decent fencer; it's a hobby for me so of course I'm not necessarily as intense as the people who compete. But in our fencing department there are men and women I can beat, just as there are men and women who can leave me in the dirt. I haven't seen a correlation *except* that when I began fencing I was more intimidated by male opponents. Once I got going, however, I just started taking the same attitude with everyone, male or female. I fence foil because I dislike sabre. But I don't think that has to do with being female, it's just me. I have a female friend who's a lethal sabre fencer. Ouch! >Running isn't necessarily a survival oriented sport. Swimming isn't necessarily either, is it? :-) >Now before I get flamed to a black mass of xy chromosomes, Sorry, but I wouldn't use "black" and "mass" together like that; it's funny. >They [women] could learn martial arts if they spent years of >diligent effort, (although this is rarely the case, at least in the >martial arts studios I've stumbled onto, by chance). Ummm, where do you live, anyway? I know lots of women into martial arts and at least one black belt... >They could also learn to shoot guns, but once again you don't see >many women at >rifle/pistol ranges. This is very true. I know this because my father and my uncle taught me to shoot when I was 10, and I knew how to handle guns long before that. But, because of the prevalent male attitude about size and strength and just about women in general (I'm 5'5 1/2"; I weigh about 113 and I do look a bit on the fragile side), I have been insulted inadvertently more times than I could ever recount. >I've tried to convince many, many females that I have loved (my >sisters, women friends, lovers) to learn martial arts, or to buy a >gun. Every single one said she could never do the latter, and not a >one has done the former. Is my lifetime experience somehow a >coincidence? Could be. Have you ever tried to convince any males you cared about to learn martial arts or to buy a gun? Maybe they might not want to, just as these women seem not to. Of course, if you're already convinced that these men don't need these warnings (because either they don't need them or they already have these things), then I can see why it hasn't come up. >Do you think it's ALL chauvinism? Actually, yes, but chauvinism so old and so deeply ingrained that it's difficult to take people to task for certain aspects of it. >I envy most womens ability to stay in touch with their emotions (this is another "taught" behavior, I imagine). Yppr. Just like it's not ladylike to fight, real men don't cry (unless they're Alan Alda). >What I'm talking about is what would happen if we lost our police >state, i.e. government, and we had to make do with our >physical prowess. Then we'd all be in trouble. >I'd like to see more women building up their strength, and self >defense skills. It could happen, on a personal level in any given >night in the city. I'd like to see more *people* doing this, male and female, because you're right. It could happen to any one of us. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =========================================== ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Susan L. Cecelia Harwood *<:-) amadeus@walt.cc.utexas.edu The University of Texas @Austin "...suspended in gaffa..." --Kate Bush ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =========================================== ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~