Comments on: Masculine and Feminine: Is It All In Our Head?

By: John Alan Turner

John Alan Turner — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:21:29 +0000

Right again, Brent — on both accounts. First, the phenomenon I think you’re referring to is what Karl Popper and others have referred to as “scientism” — the belief that natural science trumps everything from philosophy to psychology to religion and everything in between. Far too often, science attempts to answer things it has no way of answering (specifically things ontological and teleological). Science, by definition, cannot answer these things, and it is only within the context of origin and destiny that we are really able to discuss morality with any sense of “ought” rather than “is”.

Now, as to the differences being real/meaningful/important/intentional whether they are biological or socially constructed…this is part of what I’ve been trying to get at in this entire conversation. There are differences, and saying this does not imply that one sex/gender is inferior to another.

Men and women are equal, but they are not identical. Rather, they are complementary. This means they cannot always be interchangeable. That’s really my point. And that point has implications.

By: Brent White

Brent White — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:09:59 +0000

“bran structure…” Oh brother!

I like Kimmel’s book because in my view he successfully attacks a harmful legacy of Enlightenment thinking: our culture’s over-reliance on and unquestioned faith in science. Science itself, as you know, is human-made; it is biased; it is ideological. All of its conclusions are provisional at best and will change over time. Having said that, I’m a big fan of it. But it can’t answer life’s ultimate questions.

Regardless of the extent to which gender differences are biologically or sociologically determined, they are real and meaningful. And–we Christians should hasten to add–purposive. That would be true even if it were 100 percent “nurture.” Right?

By: John Alan Turner

John Alan Turner — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:52:43 +0000

Brent,
I hear you. I think that, historically, the mainstream has overemphasized biology and under-emphasized the sociological forces you mention. However, I think the mainstream tide is turning and we’re now left with textbooks, such as Kimmel’s, which (in my opinion) overemphasizes the role of society in determining gender and pretends there is no biological distinction between male and female (apart from genitalia, of course).

I think Fajita’s comment (his name is really Chris Gonzales, and he’s a Ph.D. student at the University of Minnesota) is right on target. People who push too hard on one or the other side of the “nature vs. nurture” pendulum are probably trying to sell something.

By: Brent White

Brent White — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:52:41 +0000

Hey, John… Kimmel tackles the argument about brain hemispheres on pp. 34-35. Says Jonathan Beckwith, professor microbiology and molecular genetics at Harvard Medical School: “[E]ven if they found differences [between male and female brains], there is absolutely no way at this point that they can make a connection between any differences in bran structure and any particular behavior pattern or any particular aptitude” (35).

By: Brent White

Brent White — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:46:19 +0000

These forces are so strong and pervasive, in other words, that they will _appear_ to us to be biological (because we are already bent toward seeing the world that way). The differences ARE real and mostly unchangeable, just not for the reason that we think.

(I hate when I do that: In the above post I wrote, “which discusses in depth about many of the issues.” Should read “which discusses in depth many of the issues.” Proofing!)

By: Brent White

Brent White — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:40:40 +0000

Reading through the many responses, I see that no one picked up my baton and ran with it. That’s OK. I only took one graduate-level sociology course, but it blew my mind on this whole sex/gender discussion. BTW, the terms aren’t interchangeable: sex is biological; gender is socially constructed. (In fact, many cultures have more than two!) Anyway, we read the following book in the class, which discusses in depth about many of the issues you raise above, especially your strong reliance on biology and science:

Michael Kimmel, _The Gendered Society_, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Anyway, I found it very surprising–contrary to most of what I thought I knew… Maybe the guy’s full of it, but he makes a compelling case. Read it if you dare. But I take issue with people saying things like, “I see these differences so often between boys and girls or men and women that there MUST be something biological going on. It must be mostly nature.” That’s the gist of the discussion above, right? But that underestimates (at least in Kimmel’s view) how strong are the sociological forces that shape gender in our world.

By: John Alan Turner

John Alan Turner — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:09:19 +0000

The way I read the data, Matt, it seems like women — with the thicker fibrous connection — can transfer information faster between the two hemispheres. This may make for quicker decisions and judgment calls (aka “women’s intuition”).

Girls typically learn to talk sooner, read earlier and suffer from fewer reading and learning disabilities than boys.

It also seems that men’s brains are more compartmentalized when it comes to the separation, storage and retrieval of information. In other words, male brains seem to be able to file ideas away and shut down while women’s brains keep ideas and problems going around and around until the ideas and problems are acknowledged and named.

So, it would seem that the speed with which women can cross talk has pros and cons.

You studied this stuff in greater detail than I did, Matt. What’s your take? How far off-base am I?

By: Matt Dabbs

Matt Dabbs — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:42:49 +0000

I still think we have to be careful in saying men don’t have much cross talk. Even in men, the brain is still extremely interconnected. If our brain didn’t cross talk we would have a hard time seeing, breathing, smelling, walking, thinking, and sneezing all at the same time. There is quite a bit of cross talk.

So I am not quite sure what “the cross-talking from one hemisphere to the other is only present in a small percentage of men” means. Can you help me get what you are saying here? I think I know what you are saying but I would like to hear more on it.

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:56:06 +0000

I have two girls and a boy. I’ll never be convinced of the nurture-and-culture-only view. I completely agree with Fajita’s comment here.

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:22:31 +0000

I do find it a bit funny that many of those in the ‘culture has caused the genders to react the way they do’ crowd may well be saying the genders are the same because … well, the culture says there shouldn’t be differences. No offense, just a curious irony.