This time: Gender. Are there innate differences between the sexes, or not? What does denial of the Blank Slate say about gender policies? And about rape.
Earlier posts about this book: post 1, post 2, post 3, post 4, post 5, post 6, post 7.
–Ch18, Gender
Pinker begins by considering the [1968] movie 2001 (as one example among many potential ones) against current reality. Among its misses was the role of women—who in the film are still secretaries and assistants. How quickly social arrangements can change. Several things caused the change in the status of women. The expanded moral circle; technological and economic progress, including lowered infant mortality; and of course feminism. Beginning with the right to vote etc with the 19th amendment, and especially changes in the 1970s with business life. Still, things have not improved in much of the world.
Yet feminism seems to be opposed to the idea that the minds of the two sexes are different; because if they are, then isn’t discrimination justified? So isn’t the Blank Slate more supportive of women’s independence? Headlines about equality of women in various societies are not backed up by evidence. Meanwhile conservatives invoke supposed sex differences by condemning the choices of women.
But: equality is not about all groups of humans being interchangeable; it’s the moral principle that individuals should not be judged by the average properties of their group, 340.2. There are no differences between the sexes that are true for all men or all women. Notions like ‘proper role’ are scientifically meaningless. Still, sex differences are fundamental. This chapter will clarify the relation between the biology of human nature and various controversies, including the gender gap and sexual assault.
Some lunatic fringe positions might be criticized. Example of equity feminism vs gender feminism. The latter makes claims about human nature, including the idea that gender is socially constructed. Research on the biological basis of sex differences has been led by women. Author names names. Some of their claims have not been verified with evidence. E.g. the two sexes do not think in different ways. The very word feminist is associated with gender feminism, which is why most women reject the label but agree with the positions of equity feminism.
Biologically, it’s meaningless to think there’s an advantage to being one sex over the other. They’re a single species. They think the same way, feel the same emotions. Of course their minds are not identical. Examples 344m, such as sexual proclivities, violence, play. Differences are wider at the ends of the overlapping bell curves. More examples. Many sex differences change with culture. While some radicals think only genitalia differ without socialization, there’s lots of evidence of the differences between men and women; detailed list of examples, p346ff. All cultures have divisions of labor by sex. They reflect different parental strategies. Similar differences are found among many other primates, and mammals. The diversity of mitochondria DNA. The Y chromosome has effects on the brains of boys. The brains are visibly different. Testosterone varies and affects behavior. So do phases of menstrual cycles. Androgens. Examples of children with birth defects raised as the opposite gender, but still showing the behavior of their original one. Turner’s syndrome, in which children are neuter. And boys and girls are not treated much differently by parents in the US, except for toys.
So: by now many people do acknowledge that males and females do not have interchangeable minds. Yet some professional women are uncomfortable with the idea. It’s still true that women earn less. In academia and tech, a lot of women in universities trickle down to a minority in the work place. Yet notions of barriers and bias remain (not inherent brain differences). Maybe women just don’t want to work in tech. Yet differences are always taken as signs of bias, and the goal of 50%/50% insisted upon. The glass-ceiling theory.
Author stipulates: discouraging women from their ambitions is an injustice. Discrimination might exist but can be shown other ways. And of course some women are ‘qualified’ to be whatever they might want to be. It’s crucial to think in statistical terms. And so on. Policies to enforce equitable salaries would have costs. Further, people’s choices, whatever they are, should be respected.
Next issue: rape. We study it in order to reduce it. Current dogma is that rape has nothing to do with sex; it’s about power. The official theory came from 1975 Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller. Until then women were assumed to be complicit in various ways 361t, such as the way they dress, because men just can’t help themselves. (Examples; a lot of conservatives still think this way. And this thinking seems to be a doctrine of Islam.) Still, Brownmiller thought rape was about gender oppression. This appeals to the doctrine of the Noble Savage. The rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine will go down as one of the popular delusions… The truth is, men want to have sex, and use every tactic they can, including violence, which they use in all sorts of situations. That men are working for the good of their gender is silly; 362b. And so on.
Also, Brownmiller dismissed the need for scientific methodology to verify her claims. Patriarchy was assumed. The 2000 Thornhill/Palmer book outlined the genetic strategy for rape. They did not presume that rape was ‘natural’. Their theory aligns with the equity-feminist analysis. They were protested against. Examples 366.
Some still think rape is only about coercing women. But there’s more evidence that it’s about sex, 367b. Understanding all this, we can hope to reduce or eliminate it. Addressing violence, sexist attitudes, or sexual desire. Some suggestions, like women avoiding provocative dress, are merely prudence. We don’t live in a perfect world. Some therapies ignore the reality and counsel rapists about traumas from their childhood. There is ‘chemical castration.’ There is plenty of common ground. Nice summary, p371.
[[ It occurs to me as I review this chapter that this a quintessential example of an element of tribal mentality that virtually everyone today would deny, or if understood, to overcome. Maybe it’s from pre-tribal mentality; it’s about understanding, and accepting, the logic that rapists really might leave more of their genes in the next generation, complete with their propensity for sexual violence. That modern humans rebel against enacting this propensity is an indication that, as the species has grown into tribes and communities and societies, behavior appropriate to earlier eras is no longer suitable. Would that modern humanity realize this about so much else. ]]
\\
Next chapter: children. Nature vs. nurture, and so on.
