Feminism and biology

I have been part of a discussion elsewhere on the role of biology in causing men’s violence, and more broadly on biological essentialism in general. I have noticed that some radical feminist bloggers seem to be expressing a more or less grudging acceptance of the role of biology in determining men’s behaviour, especially when it comes to why they are so incredibly violent. However, I utterly reject this position, and I would like to explain why. I have been accused in the past of being too ideological over this, but my position is not ideological – rather, (I hope) it is based on a sound understanding of biology, the application of logic, and considerations of practicality. My position comes more from my knowledge of science (I have a bachelor’s degree in a biological field) than it does from my knowledge of feminism.

This is absolutely a debate that needs to happen, because this question is central to feminist strategy. Sheila Jeffreys has said that feminist activism in the 1970s emerged in a context in which progressive people were generally rejecting biological explanations for human behaviour (not just feminists – also in terms of black people not being inherently stupider than white, etc.) and that this was a central pillar of feminist politics at the time. I don’t think this means that we shouldn’t be discussing the issue today; those of us who weren’t around in the 1970s need to figure things out for ourselves, and we should not unquestioningly adopt every position taken by our foresisters. However, as far as I’m concerned this is one position we do not need to question.

The first point that needs to be considered here is the state of the science of sex differences. Coincidentally, I just finished reading Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender yesterday, and I cannot recommend this book too highly for anyone who is thinking about this issue (or anyone at all, really). It is an utterly brilliant critique of the claims for inherent gender differences put forward by popular neuroscience, and even sometimes in actual neuroscience. I can also say that based on my own experience in biology, many of the issues of methodology and analysis that she critiques in neuroscience are similarly pertinent in other areas – for example, evolutionary biology; I also suspect that endocrinology (the study of hormones) is in a similar state of confusion.[1] To summarise Fine’s book, there is no solid evidence that sex differences exist in the brain. Additionally, scientists have no way to link violent behaviour to specific genes. In short, there is no scientific consensus on whether violence – or many other non-physical human characteristics – are biological.

I will say now that I believe it is possible that there are sex differences in the brain, and that there are biological factors involved in male violence. However, science has not so far proved either of these statements, and even if it had, I believe it is best to act as if there are not. As an example, I especially think it is entirely possible that there is a genetic basis to violence (though I think it is quite likely a human characteristic rather than a male characteristic). However, genes do not exist in a vacuum, and are in no way solely responsible for the extreme levels of male violence that are so much in evidence at this point in history. This violence can only be explained by a social context that encourages and even rewards men for behaving violently, while teaching them that women are less than human, good only as fuckholes and breeders.

Let me talk for a moment about the way (good) science is done. When designing experiments, scientists talk about “confounding variables” – these are variables that the scientists may not be aware of and which affect a scientific result because they affect the thing that is being examined. If they are not controlled for or eliminated, they can lead to spurious results. An example is the way scientists of the nineteenth century tried to prove that women were intellectually inferior due to having smaller brains. Women do, on average, have smaller brains than men, but the confounding variable here is body size: when the fact that women are generally smaller than men is controlled for using statistical techniques, there is no difference in average brain size between women and men.

When it comes to studying humans, there is one absolutely enormous confounding variable that is impossible to fully control for: the existence of society. It isn’t really possible to design an experiment to examine humans in their “natural state”, much as evolutionary biologists would like to convince you otherwise – and this is the main reason why evolutionary psychology is generally complete garbage. In the case of anything to do with gender, the existence of patriarchy makes it impossible for scientists to get at the “essence” of femaleness or maleness, because patriarchy warps the behaviour of both the sexes to such a great extent.[2] In this context, we will never get to the bottom of the role of biology in the behaviour of the sexes until patriarchy is eliminated. In other words, there really isn’t too much point worrying about it until feminists have succeeded in destroying patriarchy altogether.

It probably sounds like I’m pretty anti-science right now, but I’m not really. I think there is a place for scientific (or social scientific) research on humans and possibly even on sex differences, provided it is aware of the patriarchal context of human society, the difficulty in controlling for this confounding variable, and the limited applicability of any results that are achieved. Given that only radical feminists seem to really understand the patriarchal context of human society, however, I don’t hold high hopes.

In the other discussion someone asked if there wasn’t any point in feminists keeping up to date on the latest research in this area. In short, I would say no, there really isn’t any point. The reason for this is that it takes years of advanced study to get to a point where you can understand a lot of this science, let alone have the skills to critique it.[3] If individuals have the time, money and interest to do this, then all power to them, but it should not be the concern of the feminist movement. There are so few of us, and so many constraints on our time and energy. We should be focusing on what we do best, which is attacking the social and cultural factors that support patriarchy. There are plenty of good scientists out there, like Cordelia Fine and the host of others she cites in her book – Anne Fausto-Sterling and Mark Liberman come immediately to mind – who are fighting a constant battle to prevent bad science from taking over the public consciousness. I’m not really sure that there’s much we can do to help them beyond offering encouragement from the sidelines (I’m including myself in the “we” because even after four years of study I don’t really have the knowledge and experience to do much more) and continuing to provide a more general critique of science from a feminist perspective, as feminists constantly do in areas such as reproductive technology and agricultural science. I’m not saying that feminists shouldn’t get involved in science, because I think we should – we need feminist scientists just as we need feminist politicians, feminist novelists and feminist electricians – but it’s ridiculous to make it a central concern of the feminist movement as a whole.

Let’s do a thought experiment and imagine, for a moment, that reliable scientific evidence for, say, the biological origin of male violence emerges. Let’s assume that this evidence is completely incontrovertible and undeniably true. What will feminists do in response? Well, firstly, they might give up. I don’t think this is likely, though it would certainly be very disheartening to women (such as myself) who have based their entire philosophy on the assumption that social construction is all. Secondly, they might turn to science for a solution. This option is so ludicrous to me that I had never even considered it before yesterday, but I suppose we might as well have a bit of fun with it. So, even supposing that the technology exists to “correct” whatever biological thing it is that causes male violence,[4] how would it be implemented? How would feminists get control of the technology and convince everyone else to let them do it? Who would decide how to use it, and who to use it on? etc. etc. The very idea is farcical.[5]

In fact I think what would probably happen is that feminists, after the initial disappointment, would go back to doing what they were doing before the announcement: i.e., working to reduce the social and cultural factors that work to enforce women’s subordination (which, unlike biological factors, UNDENIABLY EXIST). Because even if there are biological factors involved, reducing social and cultural factors will make a real difference to women’s lives. This is what we can change, and what feminists have been changing for years, with some degree of success.[6] So in other words, caring about the science at all would have been a bit of a waste of time and energy.

In summary:

1. No conclusions can be drawn from the science as it stands.

2. No real conclusions will be able to be drawn from the science until patriarchy is eliminated, or at least significantly reduced.

2. Even if conclusions could be drawn, there would be little choice for feminists but to continue to focus on social and cultural factors.

This is not an ideological stance at all – it is a practical stance. It is simply most useful politically to proceed from the assumption that there are no biological factors involved. There are plenty of good ideological reasons why feminists should work on the assumption that biology plays no role in male violence, such as the fact that it gives men an excuse for bad behaviour, unfairly restricts the opportunities of those exceptional individuals who might “transcend their biology”, and opens up all sorts of other issues to biological explanations, and then we’re back to “poor people are poor because they’re stupid” and “black people are morally inferior” and “get back in the kitchen, woman!” (for the record, I CAN read maps, with no difficulty at all, and I wouldn’t know an emotion if it punched me in the face), and also new things, like “transgenderism”. Or whatever else – it’s a slippery slope. Biological essentialism along these line has traditionally been used to justify the status quo, and it is still being used for this purpose today (just read Cordelia Fine already!): this alone is a good reason to be highly suspicious, especially when there is no proof.[7] And feminists should know this, as much as anyone else. Personally I stand by all these ideological reasons and I think they’re good enough on their own, but just in case they’re not, see above. And if you don’t trust my take on the science, read Delusions of Gender.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________

[1] One of my pet peeves is when people (feminists and non-) hand-wavingly attribute male aggression/violence to testosterone. Now, I don’t actually know much at all about endocrinology so it is possible I am wrong, but the impression I have is that there is simply no clear link between testosterone levels and violence or aggression. I apologise for being a finicky scientist here, but making broad statements about testosterone is just intellectual laziness.

[2] In the context of social science, I have written before on this issue, though superficially; Chapter 6 (Methodology) of Catherine McKinnon’s Toward A Feminist Theory of the State is the best I have ever read on it, and Sheila Jeffreys’ The Idea of Prostitution also addresses it very well. Related issues exist in science as in social science; again, Delusions of Gender is the best reference I can give here.

[3] Please, please go straight to Delusions of Gender to understand this point. Fine shows with incredible clarity the way in which unscrupulous scientists can present information in misleading ways, which is then jumped on by the media and popular science as it “challenges political correctness”. In reality, the results of this “research” really just support the status quo, which is why the media loves it. However, it is extremely difficult for non-scientists to critique this research, because they do not have the skills or the knowledge or the access to the journals in which the research is published.

[4] Hint: it doesn’t. But, e.g., let’s pretend the science shows that it’s genetic and assume that it can pinpoint the genes involved (there is NO WAY it can do this at the moment, by the way). The big issue here is that every cell in the body has a complete set of DNA in it (though not every gene is active in every cell) and so you’d have to change the DNA of a very large number of cells for it to be effective. The only technology I’m aware of that actually has the potential to change genes on a scale large enough to be useful – though there may be others – is gene therapy, which uses a vector (such as a virus) to add or remove bits of DNA in specific places. Theoretically, this could work because that’s what viruses do anyway, and this characteristic could be harnessed *for science!!* But gene therapy is considered risky even by the incredibly low standards of risk of masculinist science, because who knows how the DNA in the viruses could mutate? The bigger problem, however, is that the science is so far from being capable of actually being useful for this kind of thing that it is not a solution that can even be considered at this stage, so we might as well just forget about it. This is true, as far as I know, of all other possible scientific “solutions”.

[5] That said, I really like Sheri S. Tepper’s post-apocalyptic take on this “solution” in her book The Gate to Women’s Country.

[6] It may not seem like much progress has been made, and in a way there hasn’t, but I think a lot of the reason for this is that patriarchy has to come up with new ways to get around the changes forced by feminism. Which means that feminism can make change.

[7] This is actually an important distinction – for example: unlike sex differences in the brain or a genetic cause for male violence, there is objective proof that females are biologically distinct from males – hence issues with transgenderism.


17 Comments on “Feminism and biology”

  1. Hecuba says:

    You are spot-on when you stated this ‘but I think a lot of the reason for this is that patriarchy has to come up with new ways to get around the changes forced by feminism. Which means that feminism can make change.’ Precisely Male Supremacist System/Patriarchy has to constantly create new misogynistic claims to maintain men’s pseudo right to dominate and control women. So the issue is all about men clinging tightly on to their male power and male control over women collectively.

    The latest is the popularisation of biological essentalism wherein women and men are supposedly from different planets. Whilst women and men are biologically different this does not mean women and men are biologically designed to enact only certain societal roles wherein men accord themselves power and domination over women, whilst women are told their sole role is to be men’s servants/slaves.

    On the issue of testosterone Anne Fausto-Sterling has written about this in her book Myths of Gender. Testosterone in itself does not cause males to commit violence against women but this claim neatly absolves male perpetrators from their accountability. Logically if we believe testosterone causes men to commit violence against women then men as a group must be subjected to severe limitations on freedom of movement in order to enable women (who are still majority of human race) not to be subjected to male violence. Ridiculous I know but it is just as ridiculous as claiming ‘men are not responsible for their actions.’ Why oh why do we not say ‘males have the choice and they decide when and if they will commit violence against women.’ Men constantly claim ‘women choose to enter prostitution; women choose not to enter further education etc. as if ‘choice’ in itself is something all women can enact irrespective of the Male Supremacist System’s societal-economic constraints/oppression it imposes on women but not men. But I’ve yet to hear the claim ‘men choose to commit violence against women’ emanating from male supremacists.

    Science has always been studied from the male perspective and despite the fact women have always studied science it is the male voice we always hear ‘declaiming their scientific research is the default one.’ Neatly ignored is the fact male scientists cannot remove their socialisation wherein they view the evidence/research through their male lens. Feminist scientists when studying animal behaviour discovered that what they witnessed was totally different to what male scientists had claimed. Feminist scientists recognise that one’s social conditioning cannot be removed when studying animal/human behaviour but unlike male scientists, Feminists acknowledge which is why they say there is so such thing as ‘objective and neutral scientific study.’

    The human brain is not sexed – see Lesley Rogers’ book Sexing The Brain. Rogers is Professor of Neuroscience and Animal Behaviour.

    Malestream media always takes ‘snippets’ of scientific research in order to reinforce Male Supremacy’s claim that women are from venus and men are from mars. Unfortunately Josephine and Joe Public read these popularist science articles and assume the content is correct. This is how male supremacist propaganda operates because when these pseudo science articles are debunked, the general public never learns about the debunking.

    Herstory teaches that whenever Feminists manage to wrest a miniscule of women’s fundamental rights from the hands of men, Male Supremacy/Patriarchal System immediately responds with new claims/old claims and so the backlash commences. Claims that women and men are from different planets is not new because that arch misogynist Aristotle claimed only man was default human whereas women are failed men! Biological essentalism is Male Supremacist System’s backlash with a new twist wherein genes supposedly govern men’s and womens’ lives. which reinforces the claim women are ruled by their genes and therefore women will never, ever liberate themselves from male domination and men’s Male Supremacist System. But the good news is men have never ever successfully managed to conquer and control all women because there have always been and always will be some women who refuse to submit to male domination and that is why Feminism is very much alive.

    Much of what Feminists in the 1960’s and 70’s discovered is just as valid today as it was then, when Feminists critiqued/challenged all the major Male Supremacist Institutions; including male dominated science; male controlled medicine; economics; law and education. All of which operate to maintain the lie men alone are the ones who are capable of defining what is and is not reality, and what is and is not real scientific research. But what these male dominated/male controlled institutions ignore is the fact their views are through the male myopic gaze because they continue to declare man is the default human and women only exist in relation to man and his perspective/views – not that women are autonomous individuals who do not exist to serve men.

    • lizor says:

      “Logically if we believe testosterone causes men to commit violence against women then men as a group must be subjected to severe limitations on freedom of movement in order to enable women (who are still majority of human race) not to be subjected to male violence.”

      Yes. This.

      What amuses me about the “it’s biology” excuse for male violence, selfishness and all-round assholery is that it sounds exactly like the justifications used to keep women disenfranchised and out of the sphere of representative politics, education, etc.

      If men are, in fact, socially crippled and bereft of self control due to hormones, then we as a society must seriously question their ability to hold public office or to occupy any position of responsibility for other members of their community. If biology is the irreversible agent of regressive social behaviour, then men are in essence unfit to vote or to carry any sort of social authority.

  2. Amy says:

    Thanks for this. I am not actually 100% in opposition to the male violence=biology argument. But I do think we can’t ignore the social, and that making male violence socially unacceptable (and genuinely so, and have such unacceptability reflected in laws, customs, interactions, media/entertainment, etc.) is important in at least reducing it.

    Is epigenetics the correct term to discuss cultural/environmental factors that influence gene expression? And with testosterone, I haven’t read much on it’s ties (or lack of) to violence, but Germaine Greer wrote that “[researchers] still cannot define any specific influence of testosterone on the behaviour of the human male” (p.154 The Whole Woman). She also wrote, “[there is a] possibility that violent men are not violent because they have more testosterone to cope with, but that they have more testosterone because they are more violent” (p.155 The Whole Woman). You bring up important points about confounding variables.

    Men’s violence is likely not 100% biological, nor 100% social. Biology and society aren’t even separable. They exist together, humans are social, but does biology cause society or does society influence the biology, or is it both, and if so does that prove male violence=biology? And if it does prove that, are attempts to change the social useless? Would at least some men be impacted by social changes, and therefore the violence reduced? Have women not been shaped and impacted by the influences/limitations society puts on us? (I think Cordelia Fine’s book shows this in things like stereotype threat.) I have to think on this more.

    • Hi Amy, thanks for your comment. I don’t know much about epigenetics, but from what I can gather it doesn’t really refer to what you said, though it seems to be quite broad (but not that broad!). I think it relates to changes to chromosomes that don’t affect DNA sequence. But in popular usage I think I might have seen it used to refer to cultural and environmental factors…

  3. Quesadilla says:

    There is a biological difference which, *if not exploited and used by males*, does not set females apart. However, we are deep within a system that exploits fertility.
    Female=designed to be fertile
    Male=not designed to be fertile

    If it’s not testosterone that creates so much aggression, then why do people who juice become much more aggro? I think testosterone is something that must be kept only high enough for normal body function and limited by diet. That way, as males grow up, they don’t carve deep aggression pathways into their brains during formative years.

    Both sexes (and intersex) are born with a human brain. There is no male brain and female brain, unless perhaps females simply have a more complex (have more available pathways to turn on when needed) one due to the whole childbearing detail. It’s not the brains are simply different, ie, pink and blue. More like the female one is default and the male one is some low-performance mutant of that. Any brain differences must correspond to actual expected life activities. It’s not about blue brains and pink brains. It’s more like 100% there (f) brains and 90% there (m) brains.

    That said, I posit that the difference is so small that if males will simply *try*, and parents will stop with their “stroke the male ego” bull, that the difference would not show. But since males do not try, rather they take some lame substitute for pride that they destroy and ruin everything decent, their lack is obvious.

    • If it’s not testosterone that creates so much aggression, then why do people who juice become much more aggro?

      I’m sorry, but that’s like saying that an increase in the number of females in the workforce is the cause of climate change. Just because they both happened to be increasing at the same time doesn’t mean one caused the other. Correlation does not equal causation – you have made no attempt here to control for confounding variables and so your claim is just as invalid as those male scientists in the 19th century claiming that women have smaller brains.

      Just to give an example of a possible alternative explanation: people who “juice” (I assume this means take testosterone) are probably pretty likely to be trying to conform to some kind of hyper-masculine stereotype, part of which involves being aggressive – so they may take on this characteristic subconsciously. Alternatively, the fact that testosterone is widely perceived to increase aggression may make them behave more aggressively when they take it, again subconsciously. To test the hypothesis properly you’d have to give them testosterone without them knowing what it was they’d been given.

      • Matrim Cauthon says:

        True that correlation doesn’t equal causation, but you are wrong in this case.

        There are plenty of studies that link between steroids and aggregation, and it simply cannot be handwaved by you saying that it’s only correlation. Since you also have declined to follow/keep-up with studies, you are in no platform to tell scientists that they are wrong.

        It’s easy to know whether or not something causes another – just take the men off the juice and see if the aggression subsides. The result will not be what you like.

        On the other hand – feel free to let the women out of the office – and the result will be – global warming will not subside.

  4. demonista says:

    Reblogged this on demonista and commented:
    Word. Biological determinism has usually been a current in radical feminism, historically, but what makes it disturbing is that it is increasingly becoming *the* party line, and radical feminists with different analyses are being declared liberals and dick pleasers. Catherine does a great analysis on the science and what it actually says, and how limited it is. Within the p, considering boys are also gendered, we cannot observe anyone in nature, sans socialization, for example.

    • bugbrennan says:

      Curious where this is happening, demonista.

      I ask this question, which I ask others who fall on the “other side,” so to speak. What difference does it make if Men are born violent or if they are made that way? The effect is the same. Do you think it’s because there is hope in one theory and despair in the other?

      • Essentialism is an important issue for feminists to debate because it goes to what types of society are even possible. Indeed, if you look at the debates where those *for* a bio explanation of much male-pattern violence are participating, they often remark this. Feminism isn’t about noting ‘effects’ and throwing our hands in the air and sighing ‘well that’s that then’, but about looking to change the situation of women as a sex. So the question of what types of social organisation are even possible (and, potentially, whether some men are likely to act as allies at stages of the struggle) becomes very relevant.

        I have been concerned to see some feminists sidestep this point and attempt to draw attention to the psychology of the individual woman discussing the theory. Not only is this a common derailer of political debates on many issues (Person A is driven by optimism, Person B is driven by pessimism), but it’s also a version of a method commonly used to undermine feminism: draw attention away from our analysis, towards assessing the woman instead. (Not saying you were attempting to do this, just pointing out the problem.)

        Back on essentialism, it’s also worrying to see some pro-essentialism feminists wanting to put forward technological measures to deal with male-pattern violence, of a type that leapfrogs over the small point that women don’t have political power. And the institutions that would implement these measures (I haven’t seen these feminists discussing building alternative political and state institutions) are designed to support the capitalist class and male privilege. Well, I’m not ‘worried’ by it, I’m frustrated. Because it’s pie-in-the-sky stuff even if you supported the measures – it’s the political struggle we need to focus on. And the fact that feminists spend time discussing these measures indicates their illusions in the ability to reform these profoundly unreformable institutions.

      • No, it is because it is central to defining what strategy we use.

        Thanks for your great comment, liberationislife.

  5. Thank you for writing this! Pretty much flawless. Only today I thought quite a lot about this issue and I have to agree with demonista that it really is disturbing the way quite a few are putting it as if those who believe in any potential for actual humanity in men are hopeless and brainwashed quasi-libfems. It is entirely possible to acknowledge the pervasiveness and atrocious nature of patriarchal conditioning without having to conclude that it’s impossible for men to escape it. What else would we be fighting for, after all? Complete separatism until either the human race is gone or one side manages to reproduce without the other? All-out war and violent counter-subjugation? I think not.

    Kinda ironic also that feminists who have fought phrases like “boys will be boys” and the claim that men simply ‘can’t help themselves’ should now say just that, while thinking this stance is more radical than the suggestion that men too, have the potential to be human beings.

    • Thanks, sistertrinity. I completely agree that it’s ironic that feminists have fought against the idea that men are not responsible for their behaviour are now arguing exactly that. However, I’m pretty wary of focusing too much on men’s supposed “humanity”, and of supposing that men can (or, more to the point, would want to) escape patriarchal conditioning.

      • I wouldn’t suggest focusing on that either, no. At the same time, ignoring men completely is probably not going to help us, so I guess they need to factor into all this somehow.

  6. ehungerford says:

    Reblogged this on Revolutionary Combustion and commented:
    “Let’s do a thought experiment and imagine, for a moment, that reliable scientific evidence for, say, the biological origin of male violence emerges. Let’s assume that this evidence is completely incontrovertible and undeniably true. What will feminists do in response? Well, firstly, they might give up. I don’t think this is likely, though it would certainly be very disheartening to women (such as myself) who have based their entire philosophy on the assumption that social construction is all. Secondly, they might turn to science for a solution. This option is so ludicrous to me that I had never even considered it before yesterday, but I suppose we might as well have a bit of fun with it. So, even supposing that the technology exists to “correct” whatever biological thing it is that causes male violence,[4] how would it be implemented? How would feminists get control of the technology and convince everyone else to let them do it? Who would decide how to use it, and who to use it on? etc. etc. The very idea is farcical.[5]

    In fact I think what would probably happen is that feminists, after the initial disappointment, would go back to doing what they were doing before the announcement: i.e., working to reduce the social and cultural factors that work to enforce women’s subordination (which, unlike biological factors, UNDENIABLY EXIST). Because even if there are biological factors involved, reducing social and cultural factors will make a real difference to women’s lives. This is what we can change, and what feminists have been changing for years, with some degree of success.[6] So in other words, caring about the science at all would have been a bit of a waste of time and energy.”

  7. I agree, and this piece has really made me think. The thought action I take away from this is; Males are conditioned to behave violently. As children they are raised to recognise that they are rougher and stronger than female counterparts but they are not discouraged strongly enough from the aggressive behaviour. In most childhoods, ‘rough & tumble’ is encouraged. Young boys tend to play ‘violent’ games like cops & robbers. They advance into violent visual stimulation which can and in most instances does desensitize them. Most popular movie and game genres core plot line incorporate hyper sexualized female forms and targeted violence against females. Although a lot of young males are raised to understand this is unacceptable behaviour in the ‘real world’, I think there is a missing piece in violence education. I believe the missing piece is the acceptance of male aggression and violence as ‘normal’, from a very young age and also glorifying and publicizing ‘strength & dominance’ as necessary parts of the male condition.
    I want children and I want them to be conscious, contributing people towards society so I have thought about this a lot. If I become a mother of a male, I will encourage and educate him to disconnect with his genetic assigned disposition towards violence and introduce him into a creative way to deal with residual testosterone fueled aggression. Just as women have always had to work hard to conceal, balance and control their hormones, in return, men respectfully also need to do so. It’s a social attitude that needs to be addressed and adjusted. I think it can be changed, relatively easily (when we remember the alternative) if it begins at home and is continued into society.

  8. Matrim Cauthon says:

    I’ll have to applaude your stance on men’s tendency toward violence. At least you are consistent in saying that biology play no role in behaviors, whereas many feminists take the convenient route – biology plays a role when denigrating males, and no role when it applies to inherent male/female differences.

    While it is true that science never proves anything conclusively, with enough evidences, to disprove it becomes contrarily harder, and sexual differences is extensively studied not just in humans but in animals as well.

    Good luck with your goals to prove biologies play no role in men/women differences.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers