DISCUSSIONS ON GENDER

Any discussion of gender inequality I've ever heard gets bogged down sooner or later in the Nature vs. Nurture argument, so I think it's worthwhile to take a little detour from talking about males and females to just think a little bit about this.

There are unquestionably behaviours in the animal world (of which we homo sapiens are a part, whether we like it or not) that are determined entirely by genetics. To use the cliché example, salmon know to swim upstream all at the same time without being taught. It's instinct, and no amount of cultural conditioning will change it.

The argument against this is obvious: we may be animals, but we DO learn things, and we DO have culture. We homo sapiens, with our culture, do all sorts of crazy things which make little or no sense in purely Darwinian my-genes-must-survive terms.  Take suicide for instance: how does suicide make any Darwinian sense at all? I know that umpteen studies have declared some probable link between genetics and a predisposition towards suicide, but ultimately the idea that there's an evolutionary advantage to killing ourselves doesn't pan out.  So, the answer must lie in culture. Culture is such a powerful force on our actions that it can make us go totally against everything our genes are trying to do. Because of culture, we can choose to make ourselves non-productive

I use 'non-productive' rather than 'dead' because in purely Darwinian terms, celibacy and homosexuality go as much against our genes as suicide does. The question of where the genetic predisposition to suicide, and homosexuality for that matter, fits in is more complicated than I have the knowledge to take on. But my best guess is that it exists under the same principle that sickle cell anaemia does- the same genes that put the carrier at risk can, under certain circumstances, provide an advantage that outweighs the risk.

Anyway, getting back to Nature vs. Nurture stuff. I like to think of the Nature vs. Nurture argument as a continuum. Like any continuum, it has two extreme ends. At the extreme end of the Nature side, we have the eugenicists, who hold the blood chilling belief that, like the salmon swimming upstream, our behaviour is determined entirely on genetic grounds and there's no point in trying to culturally fix what is inherent in the genes. The blood chilling bit is how they intend to go about fixing it.  At the other extreme (the Nurture extreme) we have (and this is the part I fear may cause some controversy) the feminists, who hold that culture is what makes us who we are and, like those who commit suicide, our 'I' will always triumph over our genetic code. I'd like to very quickly state that I'm not in any way saying feminist beliefs are blood chilling at all. On the contrary, they're quite humane. But the extreme Nurture view, that if we RAISE boys and girls exactly the same they will BE exactly the same needs is just that: an extreme view. While feminist views have an enormous moral superiority to the views of eugenics, neither of them make 100% rational sense.

What I'm saying out of all this is that, while culture does an enormous part in determining our personality traits, biology has something to do with it too. And with that includes the biological characteristic of being male or female.

Now here's the bit where I think I'm running a risk of being branded a backward male chauvinist pig because I am saying that there are biologically (not culturally) rooted differences in the way males and females behave. And I'm even going to go way out on a very un-PC limb here and say that those differences DO have something to do with the stereotype of females being nurturing and males being aggressive.

Take testosterone for example. The guys have a lot of more of it than the gals do (though this isn't always true as we get older). It's also been experimentally shown to increase aggressiveness, making people do things like interrupt conversations more often. And testosterone is only one ingredient in the hormonal soup we all carry around with us, especially those of us who happen to be 19 or so.

(I realize that I'm not providing a reference to the experiments I mention, but as this is a blog I don't feel they're necessary. If someone really gets irate over this entry and demands I prove what I say, I do have enough confidence that I'll be able to track down the magazine article or whatever it was I read and name the study that I'm willing to say things like "It's experimentally shown...")

...And I'd better start wrapping this up if I want to get any sleep tonight. This has already ballooned into something considerably larger than I intended. The bottom line is that there is no simple answer to Nature vs. Nurture. I know this is a bit of a cop out conclusion, but the fact is our behaviour does have a biological component that's universal to our species in addition to the powerful cultural element we're all studying in Sociology 100. And I just think it's worth bearing that in mind.

Thanks for your patience,
  - Duncan

PS- I'd just like repeat what has already been repeated by almost EVERYONE so far: saying that women are more passionate than men is a STEREOTYPE and NOT ALWAYS TRUE. (sheesh people, give Keno a break! I think he gets the message!)

Sent :  February 3
From :  Randy S

Hey Dr. Phil
Regarding the arguments that were addressed in class: women make better leaders and that women are more passionate then men; I believe that this is a generalization and it stereotypes one gender against another.

In actuality it works both ways, there are just as many passionate men as there are women. Just by seeing the sparks ignited in class when this accusation of, "who was more passionate", was made, for me it just proved that it really could go both ways.  As to what gender would make a better leader, it really has to be up to the individual and how they would approach the task.  I've seen some pretty determined women and vice versa with some guys but in the end you have to look at the individual. Again, as it was in class, this is just my opinion and I look at everyone's opinions with an open mind.  Either way,  it was an awesome topic and it got everyone talking!

Thanks Jen S