This presidential campaign year has seen a morphing of many of the gender issues that have circulated in our culture for nearly 40 years. I have watched this play out in the political arena with feelings of anger, amazement, frustration and, most recently, a profound sense of hopelessness.
As a topic, gender is still radioactive. Back when I first read Betty Friedan and Kate Millett, I never imagined it would remain unresolved and problematic for so long—the ultimate bubble under the tablecloth kind of problem. But then again, I never imagined that my own views on what it means to be male and what it means to be female would change as drastically as they have over the years. At age 18, I thought I had it all figured out. I didn’t.
Tuesday’s Science Times had a fascinating article on this topic that adds a number of additional layers to the ongoing complexity. I’ve posted most of that article here, with a few edits. It’s a worthy read.
When men and women take personality tests, some of the old Mars-Venus stereotypes keep reappearing. On average, women are more cooperative, nurturing, cautious and emotionally responsive. Men tend to be more competitive, assertive, reckless and emotionally flat. Clear differences appear in early childhood and never disappear.
What’s not clear is the origin of these differences. Evolutionary psychologists contend that these are innate traits inherited from ancient hunters and gatherers. Another school of psychologists asserts that both sexes’ personalities have been shaped by traditional social roles, and that personality differences will shrink as women spend less time nurturing children and more time in jobs outside the home.
To test these hypotheses, a series of research teams have repeatedly analyzed personality tests taken by men and women in more than 60 countries around the world. For evolutionary psychologists, the bad news is that the size of the gender gap in personality varies among cultures. For social-role psychologists, the bad news is that the variation is going in the wrong direction. It looks as if personality differences between men and women are smaller in traditional cultures like India’s or Zimbabwe’s than in the Netherlands or the United States. A husband and a stay-at-home wife in a patriarchal Botswanan clan seem to be more alike than a working couple in Denmark or France. The more Venus and Mars have equal rights and similar jobs, the more their personalities seem to diverge.
These findings are so counterintuitive that some researchers have argued they must be because of cross-cultural problems with the personality tests. But after crunching new data from 40,000 men and women on six continents, David P. Schmitt and his colleagues conclude that the trends are real. Dr. Schmitt, a psychologist at Bradley University in Illinois and the director of the International Sexuality Description Project, suggests that as wealthy modern societies level external barriers between women and men, some ancient internal differences are being revived.
The biggest changes recorded by the researchers involve the personalities of men, not women. Men in traditional agricultural societies and poorer countries seem more cautious and anxious, less assertive and less competitive than men in the most progressive and rich countries of Europe and North America.
To explain these differences, Dr. Schmitt and his collaborators from Austria and Estonia point to the hardships of life in poorer countries. They note that in some other species, environmental stress tends to disproportionately affect the larger sex and mute costly secondary sexual characteristics (like male birds’ displays of plumage). And, they say, there are examples of stress muting biological sex differences in humans. For instance, the average disparity in height between men and women isn’t as pronounced in poor countries as it is in rich countries, because boys’ growth is disproportionately stunted by stresses likemalnutrition and disease.
Personality is more complicated than height, of course, and Dr. Schmitt suggests it’s affected by not just the physical but also the social stresses in traditional agricultural societies. These villagers have had to adapt their personalities to rules, hierarchies and gender roles more constraining than those in modern Western countries — or in clans of hunter-gatherers.
“Humanity’s jaunt into monotheism, agriculturally based economies and the monopolization of power and resources by a few men was ‘unnatural’ in many ways,” Dr. Schmitt says, alluding to evidence that hunter-gatherers were relatively egalitarian. “In some ways modern progressive cultures are returning us psychologically to our hunter-gatherer roots,” he argues. “That means high sociopolitical gender equality over all, but with men and women expressing predisposed interests in different domains. Removing the stresses of traditional agricultural societies could allow men’s, and to a lesser extent women’s, more ‘natural’ personality traits to emerge…”
Men and women shouldn’t expect to understand each other much better anytime soon. Things could get confusing if the personality gap widens further as the sexes become equal. But then, maybe it was that allure of the mysterious other that kept Mars and Venus together so long on the savanna.
I am an old fashioned feminist who never believed in biological sex differences except the obvious related to genitals and procreation/nursing. Well, until I had children and discovered I popped out of bed at the slightest noises while my husband snored through it all. But if I weren’t a pop-up mom, I’m convinced he would have had to be. Most of what we do that is “gendered” is fulfill our own and others’ expectations. Most sex difference research has been debunked over the years with the fact that : the similarities between the sexes far outweigh the differences, and even more interesting, the differences among human personalities far outweigh any miniscule sex differences. This is rarely mentioned in sex difference research. Also rarely mentioned is that the range of sex difference behavior always falls along an enormous spectrum and this spectrum does not change, just the minor fluctuations of where the mean falls on the spectrum among different groups. To me, the most convincing has always been: sex differences are always tiny, personality differences are always huge, regardless of gender. I would have thought that sex difference research would have fallen off the map by now.
GS, my point of view for some time as been in line with everything you have written here. However, witnessing the recent public discourse and response to two American politicians, Hillary and Sarah Palin, has been a very sobering, extremely painful and personally upsetting experience for me. It has been so disruptive to my consciousness that I have had to pull back from my usual ravenous political reading. I cannot believe what has happened, how differently these two women have been viewed, evaluated, responded to. The gender issues that I have hoped would have settled down after so many years are still unresolved. How do you explain what has happened in the last two weeks? I feel under siege.
With Hilary, I saw the use of sexism as a tactic. In fact, she perfectly fit the stereotype of a woman riding in her husband’s coattails, including her years as his spouse in the White House as part of her political experience. I did not agree with feminists who viewed her as victimized. I’ve worked with too many powerful women in my time who had zero to do with feminism until it suited their careers. She’s one. Too many feminists sided with her simply because she was female. I voted based on quality, not gender. Reverse sexism is still sexism.
Also, there was plenty of fuss about Obama being black, he just played it down because that would only hurt him politically.
As for Sarah: now that one is painful, clearly cynical, scary, clearly meant to one-up Obama not choosing Hilary. clearly chosen for all the wrong reasons: only because she’s female, a mother of five, an evangelical Christian. If she is ever president, which is highly likely if McCain wins, the Bush years will seem wonderful. The choice just shows what a sick, sick country we are and I too have felt sick and have stopped reading the news completely. But I hate to say this but I truly believe the feminist fuss over Hilary and claims to vote for McCain made this an inevitable countermove. I don’t think any of this is about sexism. It’s about politics as usual.
Sexism AND politics. Perhaps I’m naive, but I have watched the sexual dynamics play out with the way these two women are perceived with such blatantly different results.
Hillary is middle-aged. Several commentators said her tone of voice reminded them of a nagging wife. (I want to scream when I think about this even now.) Her ambition and intelligence were used against her repeatedly. She was threatening to many men. I don’t understand this, but it was clearly the case.
Then along comes Ms. Palin. She’s very sexy, confident and ambitious. As one commentator wisely pointed out, her leadership style is closer to Bush’s than anyone else’s–agree with me or you’ll be punished, my way or no way, loyalty to me first, God told me to do this, shooting from the hip…But her physical appearance has resulted in her being treated very differently than Hillary. She gets a pass where other women, many of them so much more competent and intelligent, have not. It just pisses me off. I know, I know, I know, who said life is fair? But I am still PISSED.
Ooooh! You are pissed. I’m not messing with you!
But, really, we all perceive all of this from our own life experiences. Everything you are saying is very true. I think I’ve just developed the ability over time to ignore idiots…I mean commentators and their ridiculous comments. I haven’t been aware of Palin getting a pass maybe because I tuned out the second McCain made that move the day after Obama’s incredible speech. So, I’ve heard none of the Palin rhetoric and don’t want to. I also have a thing about tuning out religious fanatics in general, being up to my neck in Middle East politics for various reasons. I know who I’m voting for. I don’t want to waste my energy. I wasted a great deal of energy on Hilary. I can see how Hilary would be threatening to men and sound like a nagging wife. I once called a cop who said that about me. I was only 30! But I know for a fact that such guys are miserable people.
Hilary will always be a sore point for women on both sides of the fence. I know my old feminist establishment friends were enraged with my comments about Robin Morgan’s rant. It’s fascinating how strongly each side feels about this issue. I mean, Hilary may have been called a nag, but Obama was called a Muslim.. as if that were an insult. That bothers me much more.
Well, I love you anyway. And frankly, the only thing I objected to about Hilary were those brightly colored pants suits. Definitely NOT presidential.
QS, the fact that you can make me laugh at the end of the day–brightly colored pants suits are definitely not presidential!–says it all. Thank you for engaging in this with me. I actually feel less pissed. And that is the first lift I’ve been able to feel since all this happened.
Interesting to see this – always looking forward to more
Well, this is fun. I’ve been trying to stay out of the Palin thing — I like my blood pressure low — but as long as it’s just ourselves…
To take an anthropological perspective, much of the power Palin seems to revel in these days comes directly from her all too evident fecundity. She has the raw female power of a bitch nursing a litter, and even a man walking in on that must defer. Her turfy snarl, her greasy-looking copious beehived hair, her image in photos — streaming with the grume of elk and the blood of fish — her frank baring of gender characteristics like legs, her confidence in proceeding to whatever’s next on instinct alone, her clannish interpretation of dominance and its perks — all this is very animal, canine/ursine type. It’s threatening, and it’s getting to people in ways they can’t articulate, and subduing them and forcing them to make nice.
Test: if not for her too-many children, how would Sarah Palin be coming off? An ambitious Alaskan know-nothing? Just another eschatological terrorist, only Christian? A bad hair book burner? A petro-swillng pork-loving anti-environmentalist? A triple threat to the rights of women and girls? She needs those kids, from the ill-aspected pregnant teenager to the infant at a perpetual disadvantage — signal: she is bountiful, she is provident, she can afford these non-earners. Yes, she has turned Hillary from nag to sybil, a very guardian of civilization. The lies and corruption that so distressed some about Hillary now look like the slightest of abuses. But Hillary was a mother only once, and the female face of power, since before Roman times, is more compelling when truly fecund. “Faustina-Empress-Fecund,” it says on one side of a coin of the realm of Trajan.
Ever since I heard Palin’s speech, the hairs on the back of my neck have been standing up. I don’t have to think about her. All I need to do is to seek to remove her by any means necessary. Her feral presence is a wolf at the door, heralding a long, long night. It’s not enough for her to lose, not even remotely enough.
WOW!! Elatia, you rock girl! You lifted my spirits at least 30 points.