Gender Roles and Gender Trouble

Finding the Sweet Spot

In my previous post I laid out my views on gender where gender categories are related to traits along multiple axes including an individual’s sex, self-identification, appearance, personality, behavior and social interactions with others. As I discussed, any definition of gender and gender categories that isn’t entirely circular must either equate gender completely with sex, thereby losing its value as a discrete concept, or rely in part on gender stereotypes which originate from average sex differences.

The cost (and benefits?) of gender stereotypes

Given that almost every individual will deviate from at least some of these stereotypes and therefore be less than perfectly gender conforming, over indexing on gender when making predictions about individuals can lead to an excessively essentialist view of men and women. 

We’re generally averse to holding (or at least admitting that we hold) stereotypes about groups because they can often bias our assessments of individuals. This is a problem since generally speaking, there’s higher variance in the expression of a given characteristic (e.g. disagreeableness) among individuals within a group than there is difference in the average expression of the characteristic in separate groups. 

More pertinently, we often have more informative data points to judge individuals on than things like race or gender. As an example of how stereotypes can problematically affect individual judgements, there's some evidence to support that the move to blind auditions by orchestras had a small but significantly positive effect on increasing the number of female musicians selected.

So, should we seek to forget or ignore the gender stereotypes we hold? The most obvious reason to subvert or abolish gender stereotypes is if they’re not even an accurate reflection of the “average” person in the group. In that case, continuing to believe them is harmful both to yourself and others since your incorrect beliefs will lead you to misinterpret empirical evidence and come to wrong conclusions. 

But, as I’ve discussed in previous posts, the evidence we have indicates that many of the most universal gender stereotypes do reflect real average sex differences. The problem is not so much gender stereotypes, which are unavoidable given that the human brain operates as a pattern recognition machine, but morally weighty gender norms and the social punishment that gender non-conforming people have been subject to. Much of the desire to deny that gender stereotypes reflect average sex differences has been a reaction to the mistreatment of non-conformers. Historically gender non-conforming people have been subject to significant social, and sometimes economic, censure and exclusion.

That said, acknowledging representative gender stereotypes allows us to explicitly identify default lifestyles and relationship structures (gender roles), which tend to lead to productive and fulfilling lives for typical men and women. These can serve as rough frameworks for individuals to riff off while saving each of us from the burden of discovering the correct path for ourselves wholly alone, arrogantly assuming generational wisdom will only obstruct our individual expression. The reality is that while some of us are not at all suited to these default paths (and should not be shamed or thought less of for failing to comply with them), most of us are not as unique or complicated as we might like to think.  

As Camille Paglia summarizes in her essay Gender Roles: Nature of Nurture, “A modern democracy, based on the concepts of individual liberties, has an obligation to protect all varieties of personal expression. But the majority of earthlings do seem to find clear gender roles helpful compass points in the often conflicted formation of identity. Gender questioning has always been and will remain the prerogative of artists and shamans, gifted but alienated beings.” 

Must gender roles be oppressive?

So, the issue is not so much that we hold gender stereotypes (which is unavoidable) or that we use those stereotypes as the basis for the construction of gender roles, but:

1. Whether they line up with reality and 

2. How we treat people who don’t fit them. 

We can think about a culture’s particular expression of gender roles along these two axes. To what degree do gender roles jive with real average sex differences (x axis) and how strictly do we enforce adherence to those roles at the individual level on the basis of endowing them with moral authority (y axis). 

Well-aligned but loosely enforced gender roles should be the goal of feminist and men’s rights activism. As I said above, well-aligned gender roles partially reduce the individual burden that comes with generating an ideal to strive for. However, gender stereotypes don’t necessarily need to become gender norms. We can recognize average sex differences and how they inform the conception of a good life for most people without claiming that what is typical is morally superior. We can recognize gender roles while also accommodating and respecting individuals who select a drastically different path.

Perhaps a few examples (all within a North American context) will illustrate this framework:

I’d place gender polarized 1950s society in the upper right quadrant. Relatively high on the alignment axis but also oppressively high on the enforcement axis (hence the birth of second-wave feminism).

Image generated by DALL-E 3

On the other hand, I’d say circa 2015 girl-boss style feminism was quite misaligned in its failure to recognize sex differences and (at least in some subcultures) was also somewhat strongly enforced. That intuition comes from my imagining the social response to an intelligent young woman who’s decided to become a stay-at-home-mom rather than focus on her career. 

Image generated by DALL-E 3

This brand of feminism reeks of internalized misogyny. It not only confuses individuals with misaligned roles but ironically elevates traditionally masculine values like competition and invulnerability above traditionally feminine values like cooperation and interconnectedness. That said, it sure was fun to complain about manspreading, mansplaining and the like.

Image generated by DALL-E 3

Finally, I’d place 2023 in the bottom left corner - misaligned but loosely enforced. The dominant narrative ignores or denies sex differences and since it insists that gender is wholly determined by self-identification it’s difficult to make normative claims about how individuals express it. 

The paradox of feminist misrepresentation

So, I believe feminist activism should aim at a society with well-aligned but loosely enforced gender roles. The alignment part really shouldn’t be that hard. Most people find the sex differences (that we have evidence for) intuitive since they tend to match their own anecdotal observations of men and women reasonably well. Simplistic (and arguably problematic) as it may be, there’s a reason why a book like “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” was so massively successful. So why does it seem to be that feminists, who should be unusually astute observers of sex and gender, doubt or ignore sex differences?

The women who are attracted to and have the largest voices within feminist movement are often significantly gender non-conforming (in personality and behavior if not in appearance). Because they’re excluded by and uncomfortable with gender roles, they’re more likely to rebel against their strict enforcement. And because successful activists of any type are generally more aggressive and disagreeable than the average person it’s no surprise that the average feminist activist would be significantly gender non-conforming

As feminism succeeded in emancipating women we’ve increasingly had options beyond domestic heterosexual life, so gender non-conforming women have been able to choose alternative lifestyles. This includes eschewing motherhood and choosing to primarily engage with other women like them. So, increasingly the women who were attracted to gender studies and feminist activism were not only gender non-conforming themselves, but were primarily in discussion with other gender non-conforming women.

This scenario makes the confusing denial of sex differences by feminists more understandable. If you’re not gender conforming and all the women you’re in regular contact with aren’t gender conforming, it’s much easier to believe that most purported sex differences aren’t real but simply are a product of social conditioning.

The focus of feminism in my lifetime has centered on women’s measurable economic and social success, largely through representation in high status roles, and on reducing the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment especially on college campuses and in the workplace. 

I believe that women’s unencumbered access to high status roles is an important feminist goal but that a demand for equal representation is symptomatic of a lack of understanding of average sex differences (in ability but more importantly in preferences) and of an elevation of traditionally masculine above traditionally feminine values (as with girl-boss feminism). The focus on sexual assault and harassment is certainly a laudable goal but again has often focused on the experiences of young upper middle class and career-oriented women and doesn’t speak to issues related to motherhood or to building healthy heterosexual relationships (bell hooks being a notable and welcome exception).

Feminism is valuable precisely because of the reality of sex differences. Insofar as we live in a capitalist system and women have a relative preference for relationships and family over accumulating capital, men will continue to hold more direct political and economic power than women. This is why we still need an intentional movement to represent the interests of women, especially because these interests (which have implications for having and raising families) are critical to humanity's long run future. Mainstream feminism is not only unattractive to many women and men, who reflexively distance themselves from the term, but also actively harmful in that it obstructs the establishment of a movement to represent the actual interests of women.

The motivation to adopt a wholly social constructionist view of gender has also been aided by the increasing visibility of trans people and the desire to make the concept of womanhood in particular more inclusive. Trans people deserve legal rights and protections as well as social accommodations and inclusion, but trans women face different challenges than female women and form a very small minority of all women. Awareness and understanding of trans identities can lead to thoughtful reflection about gender, socialization etc., but denying the reality of sex and pretending trans people are modal rather than exceptional leads to personal confusion as well as the inevitable backlash that we see now.

The universalization of gender questioning

Many of the complaints about and anger towards popular gender theory today come from its universalization of “gender trouble”. It encourages everyone to question and make active decisions about their gender identity, even though this sort of introspection and struggle is only relevant for a few of us. In addition, it downplays or denies the role of sex and sex differences in gender norms and stereotypes.

The integration of gender theory into elementary school curriculum, such as in Ontario where teachers are expected to “challenge cisgenderism” and “integrate trans-positive, gender-inclusive, and 2SLGBTQ+ positive content into the teaching in all subject areas from Kindergarten to Grade 12” (emphasis mine) seems likely to impose an unnecessary individual struggle with gender and sexuality for children that are actually straightforwardly gender conforming (which is most children). An excessive focus on gender questioning is not costless. It's not just that useless is useless, useless is bad. Children could be exploring several other dimensions of their personality, goals etc. instead of reflecting on gender.

Image generated by DALL-E 3

The request for everyone to introduce themselves with preferred pronouns is a minor but increasingly pervasive example of this universalization. I understand that the desire for everyone to state their pronouns is intended to allow gender non-conforming people whose preferred pronouns may not be obvious to state them without singling them out. But the absurdity of the practice is immediately revealed as you go around the circle and hear straightforward, expected and binary pronouns from all but maybe one person in the group. 

Stating your “preferred pronouns” is also an implicit affirmation of a particular understanding of gender in which gender categories are determined primarily or entirely by self-identification. What if I don’t have “preferred pronouns” because I see gender identity as a combination of my sex, how I view myself, how others see me etc. My preference is that people call me by whatever pronouns they think are most appropriate for me.

Our culture is in general very liberal about what adults choose to do with their bodies and their minds (at least outside of reproductive health). While I occasionally see comments on the individual decisions of adult trans people, such as Jordan Peterson’s inflammatory tweet about Elliott Page, most of the reactionary energy is in response to:

• the attempted universalization of gender questioning

• the insistence that gender is determined only by self-identification and the concomitant disregard for sex and sex differences

• the way in which gender is being discussed in schools

• the shutting down of any nuanced discussion on what constitutes safe and ethical treatment for trans youth

• the demand that gender-related treatments should be considered healthcare (and therefore covered by insurance)

• and trans inclusion in areas like prisons and sports where the rights of trans women and females potentially conflict

Conclusion

Feminist activism should promote the acceptance and accommodation of gender non-conformers, but it needs to start from a base of knowledge about sex differences if its analysis is going to be of use to regular people. It should represent the issues that matter to most women rather than just those of a loud minority. And while some basic understanding of gender theory is likely relevant and helpful to most people, teaching children that their gender is something they need to actively choose seems likely to create far more stress than benefit on average.