Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero!andrew.cmu.edu
From: nk09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nicholas Kushmerick)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: men&women: same or different?
Message-ID: <82059@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Date: 24 Aug 90 17:12:13 GMT
Sender: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Lines: 63
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R


Hi --

I've been thinking about a contradiction that I've noticed in the the
feminist movement.  I'm sure that this has been discussed at length by
feminists but as I'm no scholar of feminist theory I have not yet run
across an acceptable resolution.  Let me try to explain...

As I see it, the major belief that feminists espouse is that men and
women are physically different, but that these differences should in no
way their relationships with each other, because (1) the physical
differences tend to matter only slightly (e.g. maybe it would be thought
that a hunter should be strong (ie, a man), but then again, maybe
light-footed (ie, woman) hunters would have an advantages; each gender
has its strengths and weaknesses with respect to hunting), and (2) even
if the differences mattered, the differences *among* men and *among*
women are large compared to the differences *between* men and women
(e.g., you can always find a very tall women, a man with a very
high-pitched voice, etc.).

Psychological differences are another matter.  Here, the differences are
admitted to be great, due to societal pressure to for women to act
"feminine" and men to act "masculine."  Therefore, given some time and
maybe some sort of direct action, it is hope that these pressures will
dissipate, and the psychological differences will just disappear, since
there was never any biological basis for them.

In other words, today, men and women are difference but these
differences are either unimportant, small, or unrelated to gender in a
biological way.

This all makes sense and I agree.  However,  I've also heard some
feminist statements that contradict this.  For example, the other day I
heard a speech by Helen Coldicott saying (major paraphrase) that men
cause wars because they just don't have the right maternal instincts,
etc.  If, she seems to think, men really cared about their children,
their future, their friends, as much as women, they would see war as
stupid and would never give it a second thought.  Unfortunately, there
are very few women in positions of power who could make "the women's
position" known and thus wars go on.  The solution, she says, is for
women so seize control and set humankind back on the right course.  I
could go on about the details of the supposed differences but I think
you see my point.

So I hope you can see my concern:  Which is it?  Are men and women
equivalent save those ways that societies bend us?  Or are we really
different, and are their feminists out there who believe that women's
ways/beliefs/values/instincts are superior?

I assume that there are different schools of thought in the feminist
movement, and that some might agree more or less with either of these
positions.  But this contradiction seems quite startling to me, and I
can see no way to straddle the fence.

Me?  I think that rationally the first model of gender makes more sense.
 The problem is that empirically, the second does seem reasonable.   I
of course keep telling myself that what I perceive as gender differences
are just those nasty old results of societal pressures.

Comments, questions and suggested reading are all welcome, either posted
to this board or through private mail to me:   kushmerick@andrew.cmu.edu

-- Nick