“Male and female He created them.”
Gender is not a simple concept. Sex is its biological counterpart, and even that has its ambiguities. We are pre-determined genetically from the moment of conception to be male or female, by virtue of possessing either an XY or an XX pair of chromosomes; but sometimes things get a bit mixed up morphologically during embryonic development and the anatomical parts do not develop according to plan. So our anatomical sex (possession of sexual organs) may not correspond to our genetic sex. And the hormones secreted by the sexual organs are another factor that may occasionally deviate, adding hormonal sex as an additional variant. In by far the most cases, genetic, anatomical, and hormonal sex coincide, but the above-mentioned abnormalities occasionally exist.
Psychologically, we are of course affected by hormones, and would expect some male-female differences because of this. Whether or not men and women differ in psychological and mental characteristics inherently or only as a result of differential education is a matter of dispute. Even feminists seem to come in two varieties: those who argue for no inherent differences, which to them strengthens the claim for equality of rights, and those who argue that women possess special virtues (such as nurturance) that men lack, and that men exhibit certain specific vices (such as aggressiveness) that women lack. We can label these two schools of thought the symmetrical feminists (A) and the asymmetrical feminists (B). The A type feminists are integrationist, assimilationist, and partnership-oriented; the B-type feminists are either romantic worshippers of the virtues of motherhood and adherents of the Goddess religion, or radical man-haters, or both. A-types tend to believe in purely environmental shaping of human characteristics, B-types tend to be genetic determinists; like adherents of patriarchy, they believe that “biology is destiny”.
Both A-types and B-types may have part of the story right; as in all aspects of human characteristics and behaviour, heredity and environment both play a part. High levels of testosterone in young males do seem to correlate with aggressiveness, and most violent offenders in our jails are young males. This also corresponds to what we know about young males among other animals, such as bulls who are prone to attack others, and stags who “lock horns”. In many species, males seem to engage in fights or at least competitive displays to gain mating rights with females. Humans do not follow the same mating customs, but some of the hormonal mechanisms may linger on. Female hormones may play a role in mothering instincts, but the picture is not very clear. Regarding the environmental influences on gender development in humans, we shall have much more to say later, since it is probably the main factor.
Carl Jung thought that each of us have some of the psychological characteristics of both sexes; mainly of our own sex, but also a slight admixture of the opposite sex. He called these aspects Anima (the female traits in the male psyche) and Animus (the male traits in the female psyche). Male and female are not in stark opposition to each other, according to this view; they are more like the classical Yin and Yang of Chinese philosophy, in which the two sinuous shapes in the circle have within them a drop of the opposite essence. Developmentally, too, the human embryo at certain stages has ambiguous sexual organs, and even human adults have vestiges of organs of the opposite sex: the clitoris is the female equivalent of the male penis, and the male prostate is a vestige of the female uterus.
Before we move on from biology to sociology, one more aspect should be noted: the extreme difference in the biological strategy of male and female gamete production. Sperm are produced in huge excess, but not very carefully; most of them die before they reach their goal. Ova, on the other hand, are produced at the rate of only one a month, are tremendously larger than sperm, and great care is lavished to make each of them perfect. These different strategies have been called (in a different situation) the R and the K strategies; they are alternative ways to ensure survival. Some creature (e.g. plants, fishes) produce a lot of offspring, but do not provide any parental care, so that only a few survive; that is an R strategy. It seems wasteful, but it works, because not much energy is expended in prolonged care. Other creatures (e.g. birds and mammals) produce only a few offspring at a time, but tend them very carefully for a long time. This too works and is successful. I have not heard anyone refer to the difference in sperm and egg production as R and K, but it seems obviously applicable. However, it would be too far-fetched to conclude that men tend to produce a lot of goods sloppily when they work at a trade, while women work more slowly but with less error. Biology does not translate so easily into work habits.
Among psychological differences that have been noted, though often disputed, are differences in cognitive reasoning, in emotional responses, and in moral judgment. Let us examine these in turn. Some of them sound like stereotypes and may not be true empirically. The best image is again the yin and yang with the opposite spot quite prominent in each half. In other words, the differences we are pointing out are interesting differences between two human types, but they may not coincide entirely with male and female. There may be a partial overlap (a tendency for each gender to behave in a certain way, i.e. an observed correlation that is more than 0 but less than 1), or maybe in some cases no overlap at all, only a folk belief that the difference exists. Moreover, the question will still be open whether the differences, if any, are genetically or environmentally explainable.
Cognitive differences are usually ascribed to differences in lateralization, i.e. specialization of cognitive functions between the left and the right brain hemisphere. It is not that men tend to be left-brain thinkers and women right-brain thinkers, as is sometimes said; but rather that in men there is a larger difference between the two brain hemispheres and their different modes of thought than in women, whose brain hemispheres are more alike. It is a difference in degree, not in kind. As is well known, left-brain thought is supposed to be linear, logical, rational, and analytical, and connected with speech; while right-brain thought is described as holistic, intuitive, synthetic, and linked with imagery. It is somewhat like the difference between intelligence and creativity. Neither is superior or inferior, merely different; and of course they are meant to be complementary, like yin and yang, not in competition.
If it is true that men tend to think more logically and rationally than women, the explanation would be that, because of the greater asymmetry of function between the brain hemispheres, they tend to suppress the right hemisphere and use the left more, i.e. allow the left to become dominant. There is here a possible combination of heredity and environment: the greater lateralization of the brain in men may be innate (genetically determined), but the decision as to which hemisphere to favour and which to suppress may be brought about by conditioning and education. If so, it may be different in different cultures. Women, on the other hand, because of their lower tendency to lateralization, continue to think with their whole brain as children do before lateralization occurs. They would therefore be capable of both analytical and synthetic thinking, but neither with the acuity of a man. This is possible, but not proven.
Intuition, which is often ascribed to women, may be simply unarticulated reasoning, not expressed verbally (even in thought). Since the right brain hemisphere lacks speech, its mode of thinking might tend to be of this non-verbal kind, but it is full-fledged full-valued reasoning nevertheless, producing valid results confirmable in practical experience. The reasoning may even be unconscious, like solving problems in your sleep, but solving them nevertheless with validity.
In emotional development, men in our society are brought up not to express emotion, even to repress it; while women are allowed more freedom of expression. Because in a patriarchal society men are supposed to be in charge of the commanding posts in family and society, they must repress emotional reactions, it is said, because this might interfere with clear thinking. But repressing emotion is psychologically unhealthy, and this social requirement may be a factor in the higher incidence of heart disease in men and their shorter life span. It has been shown that hard-driving, highly ambitious people do tend to be at higher risk of heart attacks and strokes. The opposite extreme is a type of personality that internalizes all blame and guilt for failures instead of getting outwardly angry at others; and that type of person, perhaps typically a woman, is psychosomatically more prone to get cancer rather than heart disease.
In moral reasoning, L. Kohlberg established his scale of moral judgment largely with male subjects, and Carol Gilligan has criticized him for it, claiming that the scale of moral development for women is quite different. Kohlberg’s scale begins, typically, with the young individual’s drive to escape pain of punishment (stage 1) and to receive the pleasure of reward (stage 2). Becoming socialized, the boy-child then aims to please others by conforming (stage 3), and eventually in mature years tends to obey the law (stage 4), fulfill social role obligations (stage 5), and may even form his own system of moral rules (stage 6). The development, we note, is from concern with self with its pains and pleasures, gradually to a wider and wider social responsibility toward others.
Gilligan (in her book “With a Different Voice”) claims that women in their moral development follow an almost opposite course. A small girl first feels herself to be part of her family or play group and wants to preserve friendly and cooperative relations there, even at the cost of some self-denial. Then, gradually maturing, (but Gilligan unfortunately does not establish the separate stages), the girl becomes aware that she has some personal rights of her own. Both man and woman arrive at the same final stage 6 of principled universal moral conscience, but each arrives there by a different route.
The two different routes to stage 6 are highly idealized types, and I do not believe that most real men and women follow either route exactly; probably they travel some middle road that partly overlaps for both sexes. But, as usual, it is useful to point out the extreme types in order to understand the real behaviour.
If Kohlberg’s scheme was incomplete, as Gilligan claims, does this also apply to such developmental schemes as Erikson’s (basic trust, autonomy, initiative, industry, identity, intimacy, generativity, integrity)? Does it likewise apply to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (physical needs, security, belonging to a loving group, a sense of self-worth, self-actualization)? Are these schemes built up by male researchers as applying to male subjects? Would women respond “in a different voice”? I do not know the answer, for I don’t think that the research has been done. But Erikson’s and Maslow’s schemes do share with Kohlberg’s the basic paradigm of development from the individual self first to the social self later, which Gilligan labels as the male model of development.
Turning to the sociology of gender differences, we must note the different social roles ascribed to men and women. We speak here of traditional Western society as it existed, say, in the 1950s; the situation has changed now, may have been different in the distant past, and may also be different in different societies, but we cannot consider all these aspects in this short essay.
Traditionally, in our century in the West, the family and household roles, the workplace roles, and the political roles assigned to men and women by society have been as different as their biological roles and the form of clothing worn. Men worked outside the home to earn cash to feed, house and clothe their families, while women worked in the home to cook, wash, clean, shop, and look after the children. The division of labour was seen as complementary and functional, and in a healthy family would not be seen as oppressive. There was wife and child abuse in dysfunctional families, which was largely hushed up and suffered in silence, but the ideal in a good family seemed reasonable enough.
Yet, it seemed inherently unfair that marriage limited women to only one possible “career” of life-work, while for men marriage did not at all limit a choice of careers; there was much more freedom of choice for men. But perhaps that was significant only for the professional classes; for farmers, herdsmen, fishermen, and coal-miners a man’s life-work was largely predetermined by his father’s occupation and the job opportunities in the local community.
Political power in the larger community – the city, the province, the state – was almost entirely in the hands of men. Women did not even vote until early in this century; it was assumed that women would vote as their husbands did, that the family was such a tight unit that their political views would be identical; and in any case, men were more “rational” and understood “power”, while women were “emotional” and would break down under stress. Women were seen as needing protection, men as providing protection.
As for women being in actual leadership positions, this was very unusual, except for Queen Victoria, who inherited her right to rule the vast British Empire. In spite of such exceptions, men were normally seen as leaders and initiators, women as followers and imitators. This is symbolized by the custom of traditional Japanese women to walk always a few steps behind their husbands. These were ascribed social roles; what roles might have been achieved or acquired if there had been free choice from the same starting line in an even playing field, still remains to be shown in the future, for we do not have these fair and equal conditions even now.
But is there a biological reason for the differential social roles for men and women? Are not women necessarily preoccupied with child-bearing and child-rearing in what would otherwise be their most productive years in out-of-the-home careers? This was certainly the situation in primitive times, when a woman had to bear many children in order to have enough of them survive, i.e. when the child mortality rate was much higher than it is now. (These conditions still exist in some economically backward countries.) She had to practice a bit more of an R strategy than a pure K strategy. But we have almost an opposite situation now: the world is overpopulated, and the rate of population growth must start to level off or decrease soon; we no longer need to pursue pro-natalist policies. Some countries try to achieve zero population growth, a few even promote one-child families. This would actually leave a woman engaged purely in household tasks incredibly lonely, bored, and unfulfilled.
There is another reason for obliterating the difference in social gender roles, just as the difference in clothing styles and hair styles has been gradually disappearing. The fact that children have been largely reared by the mother rather than the father has had deep psychological effects on the next generation of boys and girls, and their own perceived gender roles. As traced by , this has resulted in a self-perpetuating cycle of gender roles reproduction in generation after generation.
This is how it works: As girls are brought up by mothers, they pick up their gender role from the role model of the mother, and simply grow and mature into it, without having to change. Boys, however, are also brought up by mothers, and at some point in their development to maturity, they have to experience a drastic change and adopt a male role model. In primitive societies, this change-over is effected by initiation-rites which adolescent boys (but not girls) undergo. This is a transition, for a 13-year-old, both to adulthood and to manhood. In the Jewish tradition, it is the Bar-Mitzwe; the recent practice of a Bat-Mitzwe for girls is a mistake due to misunderstanding, I believe.
The break-away of the boy from his mother is portrayed in myths such as the story of the Wild Man, now taught widely in men’s groups. In that story, the young prince was playing with his golden ball when it fell into the cage where the wild man was kept confined. The wild man would not return the golden ball unless the prince released him from the cage; but the key to the cage was kept under the mother’s pillow where she slept. The prince had to fetch the key, which was forbidden. He released the wild man by opening the cage, but then was afraid of being punished for stealing the key, and let the wild man carry him off to the woods. Thus the boy was dramatically parted from his mother to enter the all-male world of primitive passions (“wild”) of aggressiveness and sexuality.
There are physical changes in both girls and boys at puberty, but again for boys the change is away from the mother, the primary care-giver. The boy’s voice changes, while the girl’s does not, remaining both as in childhood and like her mother’s in pitch. The growth of facial hair is another sign of a break-away. And so the boy also breaks away from the kitchen and household duties performed by his mother and sister, and seeks his fortunes elsewhere. Leaving the home for an adventure trip or as a journeyman learning a craft to become a master is a tradition in folk-tales as it was in medieval social reality. It was never done by girls. We are reminded of the social habits in prides of lions, where young females stay with their native group while young males leave to try to take over another group from an aging ruling male.
This pattern leads directly to a simple prescription if we want to change traditional gender roles: abolish the mother’s monopoly on child rearing. After all, the fact that she bears the children does not automatically mean that she has to bring them up single-handed. If father and mother share child-rearing duties more or less equally, the children’s break-away at maturation can be an equal experience for both both and girls, since they would have had their role models present at all times from the beginning, and there would be no traumatic Wild Man experience for the boys to make them into aggressive macho men. Thus we can initiate a virtuous cycle toward partnership to replace the vicious cycle toward domination which now operates.
What is being referred to in the last sentence is Riane Eisler’s classification of societies into partnership societies (in pre-agricultural and early agricultural times) and dominator (patriarchal) societies (in later and present times). This is done in her book “The Chalice and the Blade”.
I will now engage in a bit of archeological fiction; I don’t know that the following is true, but I have read hints here and there that it might be. It concerns the ancient division of labour between men and women, and who invented what. I like to imagine (and this is probably not fanciful) that men did the hunting and women did the berry-picking in hunter-gatherer societies. Then, at the next stage in time, men learned to herd and domesticate animals instead of hunting them, while women learned to cultivate plants rather than just picking wild ones. This was the double invention of animal husbandry and agriculture. Both inventions were a natural follow-up of the previous activity of each gender, and it means that men specialized in dealing with animals in both steps while women specialized in dealing with plants.
In our times, men specialize in industry while women specialize in services, two of the main sectors of a modern economy. It is not entirely true as a sharp division, of course, but there is a bias toward it. This would correspond well with the stereotype of women being more interested in human relationships, men being more interested in things and in ideas.
And perhaps, in ancient times according to Riane Eisler, settled agricultural partnership societies in which women played a large role were raided and attacked by animal-herding nomads (Toynbee talks about this in “A Study of History”) who were basically patriarchal. The nomads won and partnership societies became transformed into dominator societies. Goddess religions gave way to monotheism with a male dominator god. Perhaps in the Old Testament the Hebrews were such nomads and the Canaanites were the settled farmers. It puts a whole different slant on the so-called Western religions.
Genetically, men and women are over 99% the same (in terms of DNA base pairs), but the small difference shows up significantly. (“Vive la difference!” said the Frenchman in a joke.)