Pink, Blue, and the Shades Between

Alright. I am now thoroughly confused by this whole gender issue. Here's the first bit that threw me for a loop:

"alright, he argues that there is scientific proof saying that men are inherintly more aggressive. true, but there is also scientific proof that contradicts this. obviously it's true that generally men are larger than women. it is also often said that men are stronger than women, when in fact that is not true. the basis of strength is usually measured by upper body strength, like how much one can bench-press. but the standart measure of strength is biased to women as women are generally stronger than men in lower-body strength, as our legs and bums are built to support a 9 month pregnant belly. so it's not necessarily true that men are stronger than women."

We start off talking about aggression, it is accepted as true, then told that it's not. Either the assertion that men are generally more aggressive than women is true or it's not. If it is true and data exist that contradicts it, then it's either not true or the data are unreliable.

As far as anatomy goes, to say that women have lower bodies built for pregnancy whereas men have greater upper-body strength is true. But it belies the point that men's bodies are, generally, more suited for physical exertion. And, if physiology is to be a marker of aggression, then it is men who are the more aggressive. To wit:

"Men usually have greater upper body strength, build muscle easily, have thicker skin, bruise less easily and have a lower threshold of awareness of injuries to their extremities. Men are essentially built for physical confrontation and the use of force. Their joints are well suited for throwing objects. A man’s skull is almost always thicker and stronger than a women’s. The stereotype that men are more "thick-headed" than women is not far fetched. A man’s "thick headedness", and other anatomical differences have been associated with a uniquely male attraction to high speed activities and reckless behavior that usually involve collisions with other males or automobiles. Men invented the game "chicken", not women. Men, and a number of other male species of animal seem to charge and crash into each other a great deal in their spare time."

On average, men have larger bodies, run faster, throw further, jump higher, etc.

She then addresses my comment on rape:

"and tim brings up rape. which i think is actually quite a good topic to bring up. men are definitely more prone to rape someone rather than women. in my last post i talked about how the gender split is restrictive & repressive. rape fits in with this. alright, men are socialized to be non-emotional, physically agressive to prove their manhood, macho-types."

What I tried to do and failed at in my last entry was to provide some evidence that gender is rooted, in part, in our genes. How are men socialized to be phsyically agressive, etc.?

"this isnt something hardwired in their body, there isnt an emotional gene. its that society has made men this way."

This is nothing but a repetition of some piety. She cites a male rape vicim who "said that because he was a man, and was always socialized to be non-emotional and a tough guy, he had to keep all of the pain inside of him." Again, I ask for an explanation of and proof for this mechanism. Society/culture is not this disinterested 3rd party that imposes its will upon people. It is composed of people. And, if people have inherent tendencies and traits, why would one not expect these to things in the culture made up of these people? To say that there's no emotional gene is to misunderstand genetics. As I said previously, there seem to be very few one-to-one correlations between a gene and a specific trait. In the same way that there is no gene for sex drive doesn't mean that society or our culture makes us have a libido. The expression of genes is not equivalent to the wave of a magic wand. They do things like trigger hormones and testosterone is linked with aggressive behavior. I'll end this bit with a quote by Richard Tremblay, a psychologist who studies the develpment of anti-social behavior in children: "Babies do not kill each other, because we do not give them access to knives and guns. The question...we've been trying to answer for the past 30 years is how do children learn to aggress. [But] that's the wrong question. The right question is how do they learn not to aggress." {Emphasis mine.}

Next up is the topic of hermaphroditism. She says:

"oh..and about hermaphrodites...yes, they are pretty rare, but what does that have to do with anything??? ditto for them being sterile. is it because they are 'rare' one should consider them freaks?"

They have to do with anything in that she brought them up, not I. She said in her earlier reposte:

"in one study i read, if hermaphrodites were accepted, we would actually have multiple sexes. there would be the man and the woman. then there would be varying degree of mixes. some hermaphrodites have more 'womanly biological parts', others more manly, others a 50/50. our world would be so much different if we were to accept hermaphrodites as they are...just think...what would happen to mens & womens toilets. where do hermaphrodites go? what about changing rooms? what do they do when they fill in the census and have to check male or female."

Now, to me, if hermaphroditism is very rare, then it would seem that its acceptance would have a negligible effect. Again, I didn't introduce it into the conversation so I am befuddled as to why I am being asked what it has to do with anything. Now, are for hermaphroditism being rare and being considered "freaks"...Personally, I think they should be considered people who are different in one respect or another from the vast majority of the human race and should be accommodated as far as possible. And they should be treated like any non-hermaphrodite - based on their personality, on how they are as individuals.

Lastly, she says:

"wouldn't lives of both men and women be much more positive if it were o.k. for men to cry when they want, to sit around and talk about their feelings...it would be so healthy if the barriers between the 2 genders were brought down, like men being able to be more open & emotion, and for women it would be to not be the submissive sex."

Exactly what would be better? To me, and this could be a gross misunderstanding on my part, it sounds like she's saying "Look, things would be better this way and, if our genes our involved, then we can't change anything and the situation is hopeless. Thusly it's all society's fault because it can be changed." Could it be the case that she wants her cake and to eat it too? I mean, does she expect men to merely be able to turn certain things on and off like a light? Can we take on more traditionally feminine characteristics and be expected to turn around and be aggressive when needed, say, as in a time of war? I don't claim to have the answer but I throw it out as food for thought.

My main objection is the tendency for her to just posit a statement like "society does this to men (or women)" and leave it at that. We are supposed to just accept it at face value. And I can't. I won't. If I'm wrong, if all of the science I've been reading is wrong, show me. Tell me how it's wrong.

In the late 1980s, Donald Brown, an anthropologist by trade, I believe, poured through ethnogrpahic literature and came up with a list of human universals - traits that all human cultures share. Among them are:

male and female and adult and child seen as having different natures

males dominate public/political realm

males more aggressive

males more prone to physical violence

males more prone to theft

sex(gender) terminology is fundamentally binary

females do more direct childcare

sex differences

sex differences in spatial cognition and behavior

If my antagonist is right, then this means that every society on the planet is evil and imposes gender roles - and more or less the same gender roles.

One thing I don't want to give the impression of is that, because, for example, males more prone to physical violence, then it's over and things can't get better. Because it can. Take statements like "males more prone to physical violence" at face value. It is a statement of quantity, not quality. It doesn NOT mean that every man will be indiscriminately violent. It does NOT justify murder, spousal abuse, rape, or any other such horrid behavior. What is does say is that making society teach men to be a certain way is not the answer to the problem. Society, the individual, friends, family - everyone has a role to play. Take rape.

My alma mater is very politically correct. As an incoming freshman, I attended an orientation seminar which gave alarming statistics on date rape and bascially said that I, by virtue of being male, was a rapist. (Even worse, I am white.) Rape, we were told, was all about violence and had nothing to do with sex. It was absurd. However nice it would be for a scantily-clad woman to go to a party with a bunch of drunk, horny young men and have absolutely 0% chance of being raped, it is unrealistic. Preventing such rapes is about men showing restraint, about men helping regulate the behavior of other men, about friends helping and, if need be, stopping friends from doing things, and women doing everything they can to keep themselves out of situations which are made dangerous or, at least greatly exacerbated, by drugs and, I dare say, hormones. Rape has a sexual component and I think it's a disservice to women - a great disservice - to tell them that it doesn't. In addition to the love of others we have, making music, painting, and all of the wonderful atrifacts of our creativity that in some measure distinguish us from other simians, we also make war and kill and hurt. We are human animals. We have great intellectual and artistic capacities unique to us that sit side-by-side with baser instincts common to all animals. Society, in my view, has a prominent role to play because it is made of people with all the good and bad characteristics above. Our society/culture should (must?) change but it must also change in such a way as to conform to reality, to promote, encourage, and enhance the best of us.

Alright - my loghorrea has been cured. For the moment, anyway. One other thing I want to say is that I hope no one thinks that I think my antagonist is an idiot or any such thing. It's just that such debates make me more aggressive. (hehe) I am enjoying it immensely. Anyone who says that I am being unduly harsh or that I don't think Ms. Storm is anything other than intelligent, witty, and charming will be severely thrashed across the butt. In addition, I have all of your credit card numbers and will gladly start charging subscriptions at my current favorite porn site for me and all my friends who enjoy porn, which includes women.