There's nothing natural about gender stereotyping
Rosamund Urwin
06.09.10

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23874529-theres-nothing-natural-about-gender-stereotyping.do

So both sexes should rejoice at Cordelia Fine's new book, Delusions of Gender, a vitriolic attack on the sexism masquerading as psychology that is enjoying a renaissance.

Fine debunks the evidence used in a wave of articles to claim that the persistent inequalities between the sexes have their roots in innate differences between "male" and "female" brains. Instead, she argues that the mind is incredibly malleable and heavily influenced by how others perceive us.

I don't know if it is the journalist or Cordelia Fine herself, but the inclusion of the example of pink dresses over diggers kinda destroys the argument.

Another example of silliness is the case of the MtF who, apparently, claims that, "The more I was treated as a woman, the more woman I became. If I was assumed to be incompetent at reversing cars, oddly incompetent I found myself becoming."

These sorts of toys which children choose reflect their aspiration. To that extent, this is learnt behaviour.

The claims, by the transsexual, that when they were assumed to be incompetant, they became so, are in most people's experience.

The issue is, do women have different, innate intellectual priorities than men.

I take the position that they do. Quite simply because women and men are designed for different roles.

But that leads to the real issue here.

QuoteThe "it's biology, stupid" approach is the ultimate way to protect the status quo. It's genius, really. Of course there shouldn't be more women designing cars: our brains can't cope with mechanics. Not when there's cooking to be done. I suspect in a century, these views will look as ridiculous as the once-common opinion that education shrivels the ovaries.

These people start from the position that designing cars is somehow superior to cooking. They start from the position that anything associated with men is good and positive and anything associated with women is bad and negative.

I'm reading Pink Brain, Blue Brain by Dr. Lise Eliot, and I'm really enjoying it so far. I strongly agree with her that there are some SMALL innate differences in the brain between males and females, and these differences become much larger with experience (conditioning, practice, etc.). I'm not that far in yet, but so far it seems like a realistic, no-nonsense rejection of either preferred extreme of pop science-- ONLY nature or ONLY nurture. The tagline is, "How small differences grow into troublesome gaps--and what we can do about it".

Something that I'm surprised this article didn't mention is the well-studied phenomenon of stereotype threat. For example, women who are reminded of the stereotype that women are bad at math perform worse than men on a math test than if it hadn't been mentioned (there, they perform equally).

And spacial... I'd be careful about using the word "designed" here.

Quote from: brainiac on September 06, 2010, 10:12:34 PM
Something that I'm surprised this article didn't mention is the well-studied phenomenon of stereotype threat. For example, women who are reminded of the stereotype that women are bad at math perform worse than men on a math test than if it hadn't been mentioned (there, they perform equally).

And spacial... I'd be careful about using the word "designed" here.

I apologise of the word seemed inappropriate. My own examination of life is that everything tends to fit into its role within its own eco system. Humans function because, inspite of the physical deficiencies compared to almost every other animal, within our own ecosystem, our brains make up for this. More specifically, the apparently instinctive tendency to improve our environments form one generation to the next.

Within humans, there is male and female. Both function in essentially the same way except each has specific roles in reproduction. For this men and wonem, generally are ideally suited, physically and mentally.

I extended this postulate to include homosexuals, (and by inference, transgendered people), as support within the feral community. I made this point last January. It was met with general derision. It's important to me at least, so I didn't pursue it.

In the article, there is a reference to women being reminded they perform badly at math(s).

QuoteOnly last week, one paper declared that girls "may be naturally less inclined to study maths and physics at A-level than boys". But there was nothing "natural" about it.

What bothered me though was the implication that this sort of imposed compartmentalisation only affects females.

I wonder what would happen if a female equivelent of 'All Men are Rapists' was levied at women?

Equally, I am curious about the consequences of having western men's fashion styles condemed by the UN along the same lines as ritual male genital mutilation.

Hypocricy, presumably, doesn't apply to feminists.