Hey, all. I want to go back a few digests and pick up on the biological
differences debate. A few months ago, I heard Bonnie Spanier (SUNY-Albany)
speak here in Houston, and she pretty effectively blew away the currently
popular (at least in the mainstream media) assumption that women and men are
just different, as if we come from different planets!!! :) (Mars/Venus, give
me a break.) Spanier's approach is, as a scientist herself, to study the
"studies" that "prove" sex defferences and to point out the gender biases that
inform (or rather, disinform) the most popular ones. For example, _Time_
recently showcased a study which "proves" that homosexuals differ biologically
from straights, something to do with the size of their hypothalmus (I'm
summarizing from sketchy notes and memory, so don't quote me on the particulars)
The flaws in the study were amazing. First, he used a very small population
and he allowed as straight any man who said he was, without any consideration
for how how many straight men have had same-sex experiences or how many gay men
may be passing. Further, of the few women, he didn't even include their sexual
orientation--they were just "women"--yet he didn't confine his findings to
males. Finally, and most amazing, all of the gay men in his study had AIDS!
Yet, b/c he wanted to find a biological determination for sexual orientation,
he attributed the brain difference to sexuality rather than considering that
the difference might be the result of HIV/AIDS. Levay (I think that was his
name)noted these things early in his study, but then ignored them and drew the
conclusions he wanted.
Other examples she cited were testoserone studies attempting to prove that males
are more violent/aggressive than females b/c of testosterone. One in partiuclar
that I remember was a prison-based study that "proved" that criminals are more
violent (that the rest of us?) b/c they have too much testoserone, again
a cause/effect argument without considering that the argument may simply need
to be reversed. Spanier asks why testosterone is automatically assumed to be
the cause and not an effect. Isn't it equally plausible that males are
socialized to violence/aggression and testosterone production is the result?
Isn't it at least as plausible that prison conditions might _result_ in physio-
logical changes such as testosterone production? But then, maybe we (collective
global society) are more comfortable with a study that "proves" that people who
get locked up are just criminal from birth.
Spanier also talked about athletics--we assume that men are more athletic b/c
they're stronger and just naturally better at it. Why not assume that they're
stronger b/c they're socialized to physical activity. (Just think about the
prohibitions against female physical acticity--bound feet, high heels, hoop
skirts, whale-bone stays, mini-skirts, the list goes on.) Spanier noted that
women athletes are improving (setting new records, etc) at a much faster rate
than men b/c it's only been in the last few decades that women's athletics have
been encouraged (and even now, there's an appalling privileging of male
athletics). Spanier pointed out that there are greater physical differences
w/in gender categories and across diet/geography catergories than there are
across simple sex categories.
OK, I admit I liked Spanier's lecture b/c I'm a dyed-in-the-wool social
constructionist (I'm _essentially_ a social constructionist? :) ) But I think
we do well to question simplistic sex-difference theories by looking at who
stands to gain from them. If women and men are from different planets and just
_naturally_ intended for different labors (pun intended), well, the opportunity
for oppression is obvious.
Sara
