Hello QUILTBAG,
My previous attempts to open constructive gender dialogue have failed horribly (especially in the erotica subforum), but I'm going to try again with two major differences: a non-fiction recommendation that's primed my debate, and an audience that's interested in gender studies precisely because their personal experiences generally don't fit in the neat binary boxes that Western thinking creates. Disclaimer: I identify as "genderqueer" myself, and find the sort of team mentality between men and women (in general) to be baffling at best and alienating at worst--so of course I'm going to gravitate towards scholarly material that attacks said team mentality. In other words, my opinion is that "Mars/Venus arguments are truly and utterly bullshit."
If nothing else, just check out the book. It's basically my new bible (not that I really had a bible to begin with--shush you). It's called Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. It's not hard to find on your standard distributors.
Here's one of many points Fine found during her study. Consider it a taste of what you can expect if you pick up the book.
1) Neuroimaging that attempts to justify modern day concepts of "male" and "female" mental characteristics by mapping the brain is spotty at best.
Fine cites a number of studies where men and women had fMRIs and PET scans hooked up to their heads. The studies varied by method, but each had two things in common: They exposed men and women to stimuli, and then mapped how the brain responded to produce a picture of the brain activity. The scientists behind these studies often conclude that specific sections of the brain are responsible for responding to certain stimuli--and that because different patterns emerge in men and women, they must intrinsically respond differently by virtue of their sex.
Fine refutes these studies with two elegant counter-citations. One study replicated the conditions of one of the above studies, where they had a brain hooked up to an fMRI and asked the subject to identify the emotional state of the person in the picture. The brain of the subject lit up, just as the first experiment. The catch? The subject was dead salmon. That's not a euphemism, by the way.
She notes that this "does not mean those areas of the fish brain were related to postmortem piscine empathy, but that the means of interpreting neuroimaging data are not adequate." The statistical models by which those brain pictures from fMRIs are produced are not currently capable of mapping complex brain activity, like identifying emotions.
The second study she cites to challenge "intrinsic sex properties"* is about a comparison of how men and women fare in emotional identification.
*For example: "Men have brains hardwired better for linear thought and visuospacial thinking, whereas women have hardwired brains for empathy and social skills." --Every Neurosexist born in the last 50 years.
They had two individuals, one male and one female, enter a room with an examiner under the pretense of performing an experiment. The examiner "left the room to change the projector's light bulb" for 6 minutes. A hidden camera recorded them while the examiner was gone. 6 minutes later, the examiner re-enters, and informs the subjects that they had just completed the first part of their experiment.
The second part was to watch the replay. They had to note, based off their body language, what emotion they were feeling at particular parts. Then they were asked to watch it again--and identify what the other person was feeling at particular parts. The first list of one person is used to judge the accuracy of the other person's list.
They had two test groups perform this experiment. In the control, women did fare better than the men. But in their experimental group, they informed the subjects that for every correct (that is, matching) answer they got, they would be awarded $2. In the experimental group, men and women scored equally.
This study, and hundreds more cited by Cordelia Fine and explained in entertaining detail, suggest what us genderqueers already know or suspect: The boundaries between men and women aren't so clear. The men are capable of empathizing on equal terms with women. And remember, this is just one study: Fine also approaches the "women in science/math" issue and highlights that women are likewise capable of achieving stereotypically masculine things given non-threatening conditions.
---
Even if I've arrived to Fine's conclusion by different means (and now simply have better evidence to support it), my experience is that a lot of people still cling to the team mentality. But those "differences" that people champion between men and women are largely self-fulfilling prophecies. If you tell women they'll suck at math before they take a math test, then they'll suck. If you tell men they suck at reading emotions before testing their ability to read emotions, they'll suck. Once again, Fine explores the self-fulfilling prophecy with a number of studies as well as good ol' fashioned philosophy.
Parents are actually teaching their children that these things apply universally. And that's a problem. It's taken me nearly two decades to chip away at the masculine stereotypes projected on to me because of my body. It pains me to imagine what it would be like to have disempowering images forced upon me--and that's why I consider feminism to be a moral imperative, not just a "movement." The idea that anyone could be told what they're good or bad at because of their sex fills me with a frothy righteous rage.
What do you think, QUILTBAG? Do you subscribe to inherent gender differences? Or would you rather see what we have in common--that we're all human?
My previous attempts to open constructive gender dialogue have failed horribly (especially in the erotica subforum), but I'm going to try again with two major differences: a non-fiction recommendation that's primed my debate, and an audience that's interested in gender studies precisely because their personal experiences generally don't fit in the neat binary boxes that Western thinking creates. Disclaimer: I identify as "genderqueer" myself, and find the sort of team mentality between men and women (in general) to be baffling at best and alienating at worst--so of course I'm going to gravitate towards scholarly material that attacks said team mentality. In other words, my opinion is that "Mars/Venus arguments are truly and utterly bullshit."
If nothing else, just check out the book. It's basically my new bible (not that I really had a bible to begin with--shush you). It's called Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine. It's not hard to find on your standard distributors.
Here's one of many points Fine found during her study. Consider it a taste of what you can expect if you pick up the book.
1) Neuroimaging that attempts to justify modern day concepts of "male" and "female" mental characteristics by mapping the brain is spotty at best.
Fine cites a number of studies where men and women had fMRIs and PET scans hooked up to their heads. The studies varied by method, but each had two things in common: They exposed men and women to stimuli, and then mapped how the brain responded to produce a picture of the brain activity. The scientists behind these studies often conclude that specific sections of the brain are responsible for responding to certain stimuli--and that because different patterns emerge in men and women, they must intrinsically respond differently by virtue of their sex.
Fine refutes these studies with two elegant counter-citations. One study replicated the conditions of one of the above studies, where they had a brain hooked up to an fMRI and asked the subject to identify the emotional state of the person in the picture. The brain of the subject lit up, just as the first experiment. The catch? The subject was dead salmon. That's not a euphemism, by the way.
She notes that this "does not mean those areas of the fish brain were related to postmortem piscine empathy, but that the means of interpreting neuroimaging data are not adequate." The statistical models by which those brain pictures from fMRIs are produced are not currently capable of mapping complex brain activity, like identifying emotions.
The second study she cites to challenge "intrinsic sex properties"* is about a comparison of how men and women fare in emotional identification.
*For example: "Men have brains hardwired better for linear thought and visuospacial thinking, whereas women have hardwired brains for empathy and social skills." --Every Neurosexist born in the last 50 years.
They had two individuals, one male and one female, enter a room with an examiner under the pretense of performing an experiment. The examiner "left the room to change the projector's light bulb" for 6 minutes. A hidden camera recorded them while the examiner was gone. 6 minutes later, the examiner re-enters, and informs the subjects that they had just completed the first part of their experiment.
The second part was to watch the replay. They had to note, based off their body language, what emotion they were feeling at particular parts. Then they were asked to watch it again--and identify what the other person was feeling at particular parts. The first list of one person is used to judge the accuracy of the other person's list.
They had two test groups perform this experiment. In the control, women did fare better than the men. But in their experimental group, they informed the subjects that for every correct (that is, matching) answer they got, they would be awarded $2. In the experimental group, men and women scored equally.
This study, and hundreds more cited by Cordelia Fine and explained in entertaining detail, suggest what us genderqueers already know or suspect: The boundaries between men and women aren't so clear. The men are capable of empathizing on equal terms with women. And remember, this is just one study: Fine also approaches the "women in science/math" issue and highlights that women are likewise capable of achieving stereotypically masculine things given non-threatening conditions.
---
Even if I've arrived to Fine's conclusion by different means (and now simply have better evidence to support it), my experience is that a lot of people still cling to the team mentality. But those "differences" that people champion between men and women are largely self-fulfilling prophecies. If you tell women they'll suck at math before they take a math test, then they'll suck. If you tell men they suck at reading emotions before testing their ability to read emotions, they'll suck. Once again, Fine explores the self-fulfilling prophecy with a number of studies as well as good ol' fashioned philosophy.
Parents are actually teaching their children that these things apply universally. And that's a problem. It's taken me nearly two decades to chip away at the masculine stereotypes projected on to me because of my body. It pains me to imagine what it would be like to have disempowering images forced upon me--and that's why I consider feminism to be a moral imperative, not just a "movement." The idea that anyone could be told what they're good or bad at because of their sex fills me with a frothy righteous rage.
What do you think, QUILTBAG? Do you subscribe to inherent gender differences? Or would you rather see what we have in common--that we're all human?
