“All men are like other men – All men are like some other men – All men are like no other man.”
Anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn used that quote long ago, thus the noun “men,” rather than a contemporary “person.” However, the message was sound in mid-20th century, and is sound today. If you watch TV or read the news, you’re aware of the fact our oldest institution of higher learning has freshened nature vs. nurture debates. George Will, Ellen Goodman, Maureen Dowd, and former heavyweight Rush Limbaugh are among those who responded to Harvard President Lawrence Summers’ assertion that perhaps females, consistent with the stereotype, are less adept at math and science than males. It’s an old argument. It’s fueled by “evidence” suggesting less math and science aptitude among girls on standardized tests. That’s another concern, bias-free tests, but that’s beyond this column. In following the argument, I’m amazed how spokespersons use the words “sex” and “gender” interchangeably. People in our society are often uncomfortable talking about “sex,” so a substitute word lessens discomfort. But they’re not synonymous. Although you are likely to be asked your “gender” on an application or questionnaire, the document should ask “sex.” Sex refers to the distinction of male or female. It’s a biological term. It has social implications when combined with other words, such as sex appeal, or sexual gratification, or sexploitation. But it’s based on the fundamental fact that male and female are different – biologically. Gender moves from biology to sociology. Gender deals with norms which prescribe male or female behavior, and descriptions of male or female “traits.” Gender is rooted in culture, causing questions such as “What are little girls made of?” No matter how delightful and charming the Maurice Chevalier song, “Thank Heaven for Little Girls,” the truth of the sentiment dealt with biology; the fact little girls become grown women. Phyllis Burke, in “Gender Shock,” frankly argues men are not from Mars, women are not from Venus – indicating there’s nothing innate or natural about gender roles. Since social change is slow, she argues that “gender deviant” children are “treated” to “correct” their gender “identity.” It’s frightening to learn of what is done to children by “treatment” designed to change traits and behaviors that to the children are both natural and “normal.” That term “normal,” remember, is based on social definition. The dominant society defines. Burke points out that in our society, “a gay carpenter is not as sick as a gay hairdresser, and a lesbian nurse is not as sick as a lesbian plumber.” Tools and building are compatible with “male” traits, while nurturing and caring are within the realm of little girl interests. So say the “norms.” When I started college, students were required to take general education courses that accounted for about half a college program. One requirement at my college was a minimum of one year of a laboratory science. Typically, men students enrolled in zoology, while women enrolled in botany. Men slopped in animal blood and guts in zoology lab, while women studied petals and stems of plants in their laboratories. “What are little girls made of?” Few colleges offered athletic competition for women in my day, but if they did, it was most often field hockey – complete with cute little skirts and knee-high socks. Physical education was segregated. There were no coed offerings in archery, golf, fly casting, water aerobics, folk dance or other non-sexist life activities. Men students sought to be “masculine,” while women played their expected “feminine” roles. The occasional pre-engineering women, visible by her slide rule companion, was a object of cruel humor, and the rare male elementary education major was avoided. These things have to do with gender, not sex. Which takes us back to the opening quote. — All persons are like all other persons. We know there are greater differences within social and ethnic groups than between them. Each of us holds in common with our fellow beings the fact we’re human. Even in the cultural realm, we all have language, or a system of communication. And, there’s strong evidence to indicate all human groups have a belief system which includes the supernatural. But even basic blood types are limited to just four. — All persons are like some other persons. Yes, there’s such a think as group membership. Groups may be based on a biological aspect, but the key to their impact on the individual is identification and cohesion. Left-handed redheads might form a statistical group, but one without group identity. Women’s studies would not be offered in college curricula if there were not a sex identification as well as gender differences worthy of note and study. Sociologists speak of primary and secondary groups. The most powerful of primary groups are the families of orientation (by birth or adoption) and procreation (by marriage or cohabitation). For better or worse, each of us is like other members of the groups to which we belong, even if they are socially defined, rather than biological. — All persons are like no other person. We’re all unique. No two persons, even identical twins, can have the same experience and emotions during a lifetime. We need to acknowledge and applaud individuality. However, the unique character of an individual can become notable as a departure from social expectations. Thus, responding to concerned parents and strong social norms, psychologists and psychoanalysts created the label “gender identity disorder” and added it to the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual” of the American Psychiatric Association in 1980. I believe this is dangerous. To focus on personal development as being human, group, and individual, should help us learn about our fellow humans without being judgmental, without labeling folks as being deviant or abnormal. Watch a women’s softball game and then tell me if the players throw “like a girl.” Watch a college women’s track meet and then tell me if the competitors run “like a girl.” Watch a women’s gymnastics meet and see whether women can be talented, strong athletes, and still be “feminine” A woman basketball player might wear a band around her head, a tattoo on her deltoid muscle, and give “high fives” to her teammates. A woman gymnast might carry flowers into the gym, wear a delicate ribbon in her hair, sparkle mascara, and give hugs to her teammates and coaches. Is one more “normal” than the other? The individual is a product of nature and nurture, and no, you can’t be “whatever you want.” If for no other reason, I could never have been a defensive end in the NFL. You see, I’m not 6’ 5”, 290 lbs., and didn’t run the 40 in five seconds. And, yes some women can be mathematicians and great scientists. Harvard needs to hire more women in order to help educate their president.
Clayton Diskerud, Lake Augusta, is an emeritus professor of Social Science and Criminal Justice (for which he was program director). He has taught at the University of Minnesota and Carthage College in Kenosha, Wis. He is an occasional contributor to the Advocate and one of three senior citizens who contribute to the Senior Views column.
