Males and Females
There is a difference between sexes.
In what follows, we shall reflect mainly about sex, though gender will inevitably appear. The latest trend is that of many universities, including IE University, having a student population comprising more females than males--as intelligent beings, I ask that we rationally allow our feelings and experiences to help us make sense of this article. If not, we may delude ourselves that one sex is better than the other or that humans are unisex. We cannot do either, as the cause for feminism will most likely fail if they are done.
But before I move on, I need only say that the following discourse begs further subjective and objective qualifications, material that I cannot fit into this article. I intend to draw awareness to a problem that has been founded on a range of misperceptions and falsifications that have been generated from mistreatment and hurt, reactions and overreactions. This problem is closely tied to many issues. It is also a problem that primarily results from the failure and near-absence of the love I described in my Valentine’s Day article. If we do not address this problem, both males and females will be immensely affected, and society may face a bleaker future.
The problem is that many people do not seem to realize just how different males and females are from one another. Or if they do recognize the differences, they downplay them.
Of course, we males and females are closely related genetically, but the slight variations of the genes between our two sexes give rise to characteristics that are more concentrated in one sex, and generally balanced by more or less opposite characteristics in the other. Then there are the social constructs; these are important, but are less significant than or supplement biological structures, which will be discussed in further detail below.
Firstly, we should not mess with nature. As many scientists have proven in a variety of experiments and theories affecting a range of topics (electrons to weather to ecosystems), human manipulation of at least one “delectable” variable--that is, a variable that scientists and/or popular opinion believe(s) will solve a given issue--can cause an unforeseen chain of events. An example of such shortsightedness would include the development of synthetic fertilizer by German chemist Fritz Haber, a substance that has heavily contaminated many bodies of water.
A lesser example, biological in fact, would be the widely questioned ice-pick lobotomy, a practice that irreparably marred many patients, including John F. Kennedy’s sister. In anthropology and evolutionary psychology, the difference between sexes is how humans have been operating to great progress, discounting the moral ineptitude and abuse we continue to display, such as that of males toward females.
Moving on to the social construction of gender in relation to sex, it is indeed crucial that we firmly address and end the prejudices predominantly focused on females by males, and the inappropriate and frequently violent behavior that flows from them. But we must not inadvertently mix this endeavor with the “equalization” of males and females, in which sexual (behavioral and psychological) distinctions are disregarded--equality should be sought, but not in the way that some vocal activists think these days.
To begin with, it really is not possible to equalize the sexes, as shown by results from studies about gender (in)equality in countries: the most gender-equal countries (Scandinavian) still do not see many females in executive positions and science/mathematics careers; females prefer other roles and are interested in other fields. Moreover, by doing so it would place opposite inclinations within a person, leading to split-personality and identity crises at one end and gender dysphoria at the other; impose a person’s perceptions of what characteristics are “good” on another, in terms of what each sex should adhere to, observing that being “unisex” is unfeasible; and cause distress in the relationships between males and females as they both grapple with something unnatural.
As most of these “equality” initiatives occur at a young age, it is very helpful to note, as well-regarded psychologist Linda Blair has mentioned, that “[b]etween the ages of three and about seven, the child is searching for their identity, and part of their identity is their gender, you can't deny that.” We must acknowledge that male and female characteristics are best situated in their respective sex.
Much of the male stigmatism towards females has arisen from qualities of female personality and body that a historically male-driven economy has frowned upon--an economy that females have appreciated and taken for granted as well. In other words, males have taken to connecting such things as menstruation and smaller physique with intellectual and moral inferiority.
Females have been faced with a much more palpable gender bias and disparity because the male tendency towards aggressiveness, and thereby competitiveness, enables economic growth and productivity, the fundamental elements of a global order fuelled by an international economy. Why the continued promotion of higher and unhealthier levels of the mentioned male traits when they have led to societal upheavals over the past century? And why the debasement of female traits that the world would do better with fostering?
Female characteristics such as “openness to feeling” (sensitivity and friendliness for example) should not be viewed as inferior to male characteristics such as “openness to ideas”. As recent studies concerning the propagation of mindfulness in the United Kingdom have shown, “[d]isorders like anxiety and depression were the most common...appear[ing] more often in girls”. Female sensitivity should not be discriminated against, considering among other things that it is very beneficial to ensuring cooperation in workplaces and public spaces. Disturbingly, if “equalization” occurs, then we will have a much more difficult time treating the girls mentioned above, for we might consider them susceptible to the things that affect boys more (physical engagements for example), when they clearly are not (instead, emotional interactions). Again, this is not a matter of the majority of genes that create immense similarity between males and females, but the ones that enable psychological dissimilarity.
And this is not to say that people of both sexes cannot possess varying combinations of traits attributed to the other. Rather, the two sets of traits compliment each other. For example, the conception of males leading and women serving is one of harmony. As with many other ‘stereotypes’, it has been overblown. Males should be servant-leaders and females leader-servants, the latter leading in their capacity as well. This may cause readers quite some discomfort so I shall elaborate: as males statistically tend towards assertiveness and single-mindedness, it is most beneficial for them to lead in the pursuit of the fulfillment of an objective, but not in the black-and-white identification of machismo. Females can also steer the direction, for they offer and arouse empathy towards a cause, in addition to their ability to multitask. To emphasize, females should be treated with respect.
Another image has been criticized as well: the knight saving the princess. Many believe that this is chauvinistic and misogynistic. There is no denying that males have harmfully used this idea, believing that it is only by their intervention that an event can be bettered. I know, as much as they would if they were respectfully but firmly challenged to consider their mentality, that that notion is hypocrisy. What of the idea that “behind every man there is an even better woman”? Males must accept that females can fend for themselves and save males as well. Furthermore, we can each learn to shape our situations ourselves. I urge us all to understand that the knight genuinely wants to (not needs to) save the princess because she is valuable (not as an object) and worthy of admiration.
If we do not change course, our world could experience a harrowing time period. The trajectory resulting from the #MeToo movement, a more piqued embrace of the female and an extension of the female rights movement of the late 20th Century, points to a debilitating future, especially because it continues to be entangled with ideas such as sexual liberation.
The female (feminists and those at both extremes) movement is seeking change, rightly so, but it must be careful. Whatever the outcome, it will inherit the wrongs of a male-dominated world -and unfortunately, this would be in a world in which males feel demeaned due to the overzealousness of some activists, a devastating aspect when combined with males’ inherent aggressiveness.
The differences between the sexes are not something to stamp out. The world can achieve so much more through the combined power of males and females, through both assertiveness and empathy.