Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!daemon
From: geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: sex/gender
Message-ID: <12869@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 13 Jul 89 17:05:07 GMT
References: <8907071844.AA10158@cattell.psych.upenn.edu> <10546@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: ambar@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.
Lines: 76
Approved: ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu

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.