In Message Fri, 23 Apr 1993 09:04:09 -0500,
  [log in to unmask] writes:
 
>In response to statistical findings that most of our message posters are
>male, K J Fisher responded...
>
>>Or could it be--he said with great reluctance, fearing the worst--could
>>there be just a one in a gazillion chance that men are, on the whole,
>>more aggressive than women?
>
>My personal response to this "suggestion" is that while manifestations of
>aggression by males are taught and reinforced by our society (thus passed
>down from generation to generation), this is in and of itself not a
>justification for positing that men are, _on the whole_ anything.
>
>To assume the extent and limitation of one's attributes on the basis of
>gender is sexism.
>
>Any more questions about aggression?????
>
>
>Jill Boldenow
>U of MN
 
I'm a bit confused by this definition of sexism (especially since I don't
think most feminists would agree with it). It seems to suggest that saying
there are any differences between the sexes is by itself sexist.
 
Perhaps the sex/gender distinction is crucial here. Perhaps it is the
suggestion that there are characteristic differences between GENDERS that is
sexist. But this still can't be right, because there must be some
differences between genders if we are to identify different ones.
 
If I'm reading between the lines correctly, what Jill is saying is that
gender characteristics are taught and reinforced by society, and not
dictated by biology. Even if this is true (and it might well be), it still
strikes me as fair to say men are more aggressive than women if society
consistently teaches them to be so. And saying so is not only not sexist,
it's an important step in coming to terms with the function of gender in
society, which is to say it is important to feminism. In fact, I think
feminists have been saying that men are more aggressive than women for a
long time.
 
But there is a further problem with this conception of sexism. The
assumption here is that gender characteristics are purely the creation of
social convention. Social teaching and reinforcement are certainly
significant processes in the so-called "construction" of gender; no one
would deny that. But the evidence doesn't support the assumption that
biology dictates nothing to gender. The jury is still out, but a rather
substantial body of evidence suggests that gendered behavior IS strongly
influenced by biological factors.
 
Of course, we are likely to ignore such evidence when it is inconvenient, as
when some psychologist suggests that men and women differ in cognitive
abilities. And I'm not saying they do. I'm only saying that we are not
likely to talk about this idea much. And this lack of discussion is due to
our political commitments, not to the quality of the evidence or arguments
on either side. When such evidence suits our political commitments, however,
we are happy to trot it out, as when we argue that homosexuality is not a
choice, but a biological given.
 
I hesitate to re-open an old can of worms (too late, I know), but this is
one example why someone who is NOT a right-winger can become irritated with
PCness: our theoretical positions are sometimes more a matter of political
commitment than of full consideration of evidence and argument. I realize
that all theorizing has political implications, but putting our political
commitments first makes for bad theory and ultimately, I think, bad
politics.
 
So let's not be so quick to use the label sexist for statements that not
only haven't been shown to be false, but are quite possibly true.
 
 
___________________________________________________________
James Peterson
University of Notre Dame
[log in to unmask]
(219)631-7160