Gendered Extremes

I honestly haven't read any of the posts on this week's readings. So, I apologize if I'm repeating any of your points.

I wanted to address the argument in "How Boys and Girls Learn Differently". I avoided this piece until the last possible second. Statements like this make me cringe. It limits how we address boys and girls. It totally ignores the progress in society due to movements in feminism and the queer community.

Men are not from Mars and women are not from Venus. We both live on Earth.

The authors make very valid points as to the physical differences in males and females. I won't deny that. But they seem to overvalue the importance of biology over social conditioning and evolution. Is it possible that certain parts of a person's brain develop better when they receive stimulation that supports brain development, like lifting weights to build an isolated muscle? Could humankind have slowly weeded out characteristics that were more androgynous than others over the course of time? It's obvious that males and females are different, but how have our behaviors and traditions perpetuated these differences?

The authors point out how our current society (I assume they mean the West) demonstrates both more androgynous developments as well as more traditionally gendered outcomes. They accurately attribute the differences due to the struggle of resources. However, the scarcity of resources has little connection to biology. Maybe they should look at how power structures skewed by the uneven distribution of resources has an effect on gender roles.

Additionally, why does the growth of more gendered households mean that sex dictates it so. I see widening gap in political and social views in the US. While feminism has allowed women to choose motherhood, careers, or both, many families, communities are trying to hold onto what they feel are traditions in family structures. I see extremes in gender roles that are due more to choice and privilege than sex.

How do we explain families of single-sex parents?I have female friends who are raising their child together. As far as gender roles, there are overlaps everywhere. Their son loves balls as much as dolls. He plays with his blocks in equal amounts with his kitchen set. When will biology make this all void?

I go back and forth on the authors' arguments...

When considering the advanced growth in only men due to raised levels of testosterone, I realize the authors have neglected to mention that similar patterns have existed in women as well. My wife is nearly 5'11". Her grandparents were both 5'4". Could there be other factors? Her father (over 6'2") is a chemical engineer and grew up in an auto worker's household during the automotive boom. His shorter parents grew up in a much more impoverished environment. Could malnutrition/greater nutrition have had a much greater effect than lower/increased levels of testosterone?

When I look to my students over the last ten years, I again see the differences primarily caused socially, not biologically. Fathers and mothers of sons celebrate athletic achievements and allow their sons certain liberties with their speech. Girls are coddled, protected. As a result of the differences, they act differently.

Of course, I have found that when there are students who diverge from these gendered characteristics, there is also a divergence in their upbringing. More athletic, "butch" girls have relationships with their fathers revolving around sports or more (so-called) masculine activities. Conversely, boys more attached to their mothers (usually single parents) with strong female role-models such as sisters and aunts tend to demonstrate supposedly feminine characteristics.

Biology alone cannot explain these differences and variances. Again, I'm not saying they're not factors, but a more balanced argument has to be made.