Well anatomy IS the big factor when it comes to difference between the sexes - the biological and chemical factors are the key difference that lead to other behavorial difference. Am I not right? If not, please correct me. I'm obviously not an expert.
There are different schools of thought on the sex/gender dichotomies.
Judith Butler has written books about the "Performativity of Gender". That is, gender is something assigned to us and we play out the formulae we are supposed to play out. There's much research and analysis behind her writing (which is somewhat difficult to read, it's in a very dense philosophical style). But basically, the idea is that gender is a performance we play, whether we are "men" or "women".
Anne Fausto-Sterling's article "
How To Build A Man" is also a good read that goes into the steps that it takes to construct a gender identity.
Joan Roughgarden has written about sexual selection from an evolutionary biologist perspective.
There are of course biological differences, both in appearance and in functionality. I don't see how anyone could deny that unless he / she lives under a rock.
What I think most people who'd argue against the idea that men and women are always inherently different, is in terms of how men
ought to act, and how women
ought to act. This is the idea that fuels every form of sexism. Whether we're talking about different rules for male promiscuity and for female promiscuity, or for how men are allowed to act when they're sad (man up, don't cry, lash out if you must etc.) and how women are allowed to act when they're mad (be polite, swallow your anger, act like a lady etc.)
There is lots of evidence for the idea that masculinity and femininity are not only not consistent across cultures (which means they are not inherently there, but are correlated to cultural norms), but also that it is
ingrained into humans from an early age, from parents decorating their unborn babies' rooms in pink for girls and blue for boys, to other factors that reproduce
gender roles.
Well.. anatomy and physical differences is what I was meaning. And yes, I do believe there are issues of intelligence and temperment that are affected by race - though I don't beleive they are exclusively linked to race or that even if race is a dominating factor in that.
So then what's the point of saying there are intelligence and temperament factors affected by race? Are you suggesting things like certain races are smarter than others? Are you sure about the homogeneity of races?
Making blanket statements is dangerous territory. And not just politically incorrect. It's logically incoherent to say that all men are this or that or all women are this or that or all blacks are this or that or all whites are this or that. That's not unlike saying all Muslims are this or that or all Canadians are this or that. Besides the differences between "races" is more of a spectrum rather than clear markers.
But we can't deny that humanity has progressed very differently along very racial lines - though its one of many factors. There are obviously other factors as outlined in books like Guns, Germs and Steel. But obviously scientists like to avoid the racial differences like the plague, for good reason.
There are historical reasons that are at play. Anthropology and history documents a lot of how certain groups of people colonized and dominated over other groups of people. This happened in multiple instances within and over almost all the regions of the world. To deny all that history and attribute the "progress" of certain cultures or "races" to purely biology is not a good idea as it denies the lived reality of humans and disempowers future progress.
Topic: Are you a feminist?