Having had more time to construct a more thorough response to the question regarding differences between the sexes, this is the point I was poorly articulating this morning: these differences are purely physiological and divorced from gender.
Yes, there are differences: hip size, for instance, is the easiest way for archeologists to determine if a skeleton is male or female; whenever a vaccine is developed for prostate cancer, it won't be prescribed to me; men aren't going to gynecologists, but urologists; and hormone therapies affect the sexes differently, e.g. testosterone for women. Men and women have physiological differences, not fundamental differences.
If Bederman would dismiss these very base level differences as some kind of societal construction, a figment of our imagination, then she's being an absolutist and ignoring pragmatism and the larger question. Yes, gender is a complete construction, and the roles have been built on observed differences between the sexual functions that have been assigned social meaning. These kind of superficial differences is where early homo [insert what have you] got the idea to divide labor: If new mothers need to breastfeed regularly, then maybe their partners should go hunt and gather for the time being. I'd argue the male-female gender role stems from this very notion and has subsequently evolved overtime from an innocuous observation to thinking-causes-infertility-in-women-because-too-much-blood-is-going-to-their-heads-and-not-their-ovaries ideologies (I'm looking at you, G. Stanley Hall), which act as though our differences are inherently meaningful.
The larger question here isn't Are there differences? but Do they matter?
A: No. (unless you're an archeologist or medical doctor)
Love it. I definitely agree with your stance, but I can't help but keep asking- so who created all of these constructs? Just a question that plagued me while we were reviewing the book. It's so strange to think that we're in these roles because someone said so-who said so? Definitely puzzling.
ReplyDeleteAs an archaeologist, I have to put my 2 cents in. Yes, there are certain parameters that we use to determine sex in specimens, i.e., attributes of the skull and width of the pelvic flare, pelvic girdle, and sciatic notch. The point I tried to make in class (on 1 hr. sleep, so I was not very coherent!) is that even in such scientific applications, there are always exceptions to any rules. There will always be specimens that fall within an androgynous zone. Hiram Bingham famously touted a belief in a cult of virgin females that resided at Machu Picchu based on his analysis that 80% of the remains found there were women. More modern researchers have found an evenly split ratio of men and women that were buried at the site and have debunked Bingham's theory. I think a lot of archaeologists and historians have probably interpreted their evidence through lenses of assumed gender attributes and roles. Modern day historical researchers must always be cognizant of such cultural biases that may leak into their methods and theories. I'm sure Bingham and his audience found the idea of a caste of beautiful, young virgins that worshipped the sun and the Inca emperor quite tittillating. That's why I find such a book as Bederman's very important, because it helps us question and deconstruct the past (and present) cultural tropes about gender.
ReplyDelete