Gender Differences

I am about to get myself in hot water.  As a sociologist, I know better than most how toxic discussions about gender differences have become.  Nonetheless, with a female candidate poised to run for president, some candor on this subject might prove useful.

One of the oddities about Hillary Clinton’s campaign is that she simultaneously exults in the prospect of being our nation’s first woman president, while insisting that there are no differences between men and women.  One might expect that if the latter were true, the gender of our president would not matter.

Another oddity that should at least be mentioned is that if Hillary gets elected, it will because she is the wife of a former president.  She has accomplished so little in her own right that she would never have obtained sufficient public recognition on her own.

In any event, the question is, are men and women the same in every respect—except for their sexual plumbing.  Are all of their differences—assuming they exist—the result of how they are raised?  And if so, can they be eliminated by raising boys and girls in the same way?

The feminists have no doubts.  They are convinced that a selfish male hegemony has suppressed women at least since we were hunter-gatherers.  Men, in order to gain an unearned advantage over women, have forced their wives to remain barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. 

Hillary’s ascent is therefore emblematic of female liberation.  She has broken through the glass ceiling and is consequently blazing a trail that other women are bound to follow.  In the long run, this must culminate in the obliteration of gender differences.  Androgyny will eventually take hold with men and women treated exactly the same.

Back in the old days (I am myself somewhat of an antique) we used to say vive la difference.  We men hoped to marry women—not other men.  Yes, we wanted sex, but we also wanted female companionship.  In our chauvinistic state of delusion, we thought women were different—softer and more emotionally supportive.

But now we know better.  The ideal woman ought to be as aggressive as Hillary.  She must be willing to tear men limb from limb to demonstrate that she is no shrinking violet.  Moreover, we men should be pleased by this development.  It allows women to stand shoulder to shoulder by us in this cold cruel world.

But what about all that data which shows that men tend to be more aggressive than women?  Or that research which shows that women are superior at multi-tasking?  And how about the studies that indicate women are better at reading emotions, while men are better at spatial relationships?

Let’s throw all of the stuff out!  Let’s also disregard that fact that every society of which we have any knowledge has had a gender division of labor.  Evidently our ancestors were misinformed.  If only they had access to a feminist primer, they would have learned better.

There is no doubt that gender relations have changed.  Where once nearly all women were homemakers, the majority are today employed outside the home.  There is also no doubt that women want to be respected.  They do not intend to be confined to a second-class status.

Nor should they be.  Hillary has every right to run for president.  And other women are well-qualified to be the CEO’s of major corporations.  As a society, we can no longer subscribe to rules that limit female aspirations.  There are no moral, mental, or physical reasons to do so.

But why must we pretend that men and women are exactly the same?  Both genders are smart.  Both can exercise good judgment.  There are even cases where women are more aggressive than men.  But aren’t there areas in which average differences in orientation persist?

What is needed is thus not a feminist hegemony in which we are forced to fit an egalitarian mold.  People—both men and women—must be free to be themselves.  If this reveals differences, then so be it.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University