Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Richard Todd's avatar

I agree that the distribution of traits differs between men and women, that this is in part due to biology, and that this difference in distributions is important to society. But distributions say very little about individuals, and it is important to keep that in mind. I think you undercut yourself when you proceed to use language like "The rather boring truth is that masculine traits are more useful in some contexts and feminine ones in others...." Phrases like "masculine traits" or "feminine traits" sound too much like you are reverting to a binary, non-dimorphic perspective, very soon after explaining the shortcomings of that perspective. I admit it is not easy to find short, simple phrases to replace "masculine traits" and "feminine traits," and I don't like awkward language. That is, I want to be reasonable about this. But we should work on it, so that language that suggests incorrect binary separations can be gracefully avoided. At a minimum, you might consider "stereotypically masculine traits," or something like that, to remind yourself and your readers that it is nonetheless true that some men will show these traits (whatever they are) to a nonstereotypically low degree and some women will show them to a nonstereotypically high degree. Sometimes quibbling about words is petty, and I try to avoid those arguments. I think this is not one of those cases. Here, I think, it is important to find words and phrases that do not undercut the distinction between distributions and individuals. Hope you can.

Expand full comment
Mark newfie Adams's avatar

Thank you for having the courage to write about this subject! It's sorely needed. The article is also well written and balanced. I hope we can get back to this thoughtful and evidenced based thinking in my lifetime.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts