What is gender essentialism, and how has it historically served to justify women’s subordinate social status?
All the advice in books like those mentioned previously rests on the pervasive assumption that there is something fundamentally different between women and men. The assumption is also that difference lies at the essence, or core, of the person and generally arises from biological or genetic factors. As we discussed in Chapter 1, this perspective is known as gender essentialism (Prentice & Miller, 2006). But what does this really mean?
It’s easy to understand the idea of essential differences between groups by thinking about animals. We know that a dog is a dog and a cat is a cat because fundamental differences make up their essence—for example, dogs bark and cats meow; dogs leave their poop uncovered and cats do not. Because dogs and cats have different essences, knowing that an animal is a dog as opposed to a cat provides a lot of information about how it will behave. Gender essentialism makes the same assumptions about human gender. The idea is that because women and men have biological differences (a topic we’ll complicate in Chapter 4), they must also have differences in behavior, attitudes, expectations, hopes, goals, talents, and skills (Dupre, 2016).
Gender essentialist assumptions have an intuitive appeal. However, data show that in most ways women and men are more similar than different (Hyde, 2005; Zell, Krizan, & Teeter, 2015). Despite this finding, the popular media typically take any difference—even a small one—and focus on it, creating a magnifying effect. Let’s consider the following example. One group of researchers found a small gender difference in the left and right hemispheres of the brains of women and men, such that the two halves of women’s brains were somewhat better able to communicate than the men’s (Ingalhalikar et al., 2014). The researchers didn’t link the brain difference with actual differences in behavior or abilities. However, the press release about the study suggested that this small difference explained why women and men have distinct sets of cognitive skills, such as better memory and social understanding in women and better spatial skills in men (Penn Medicine, 2013). Although, as we’ll discuss below, other research has found small differences in some cognitive and social skills, this particular study didn’t actually link the brain difference to any behavioral and cognitive differences.
But because gender essentialism quickly gains traction, in response to that press release, the popular press and blogosphere used the research findings to make statements expressing stereotyped views of women and men—usually reflecting the assumption that women are inferior to men (O’Connor & Joffe, 2014). This one article and press release generated at least 87 popular press articles, 162 blog posts, and 420 blog comments. Some were overtly sexist. One commenter said, “C’mon Ladies . . . let’s face facts. Men invented piratically [sic] everything you use and enjoy. The Telephone, The Computer, The Jet Engine, The Train, the Motor Car, Etc Etc the list is endless. Without us, you would still be scratching around in caves so lets [sic] have no more of this nonsense and concentrate on your hand bags” (O’Connor & Joffe, 2014, p. 7). Housework wasn’t mentioned in the research article or the press release, but another commenter noted that the article showed “Men are less likely to notice dust, which, women tell me, is a mix of fine particles that settle on furniture” (p. 6). As you can see, a very small finding snowballed into something bigger that could influence people’s thoughts and help them justify sexist beliefs.
Using biology to make claims about gender essentialism has a long history, and generally these claims justify stereotypes of women’s inferiority. Claiming that there are fixed, biologically based differences between women and men as a means to justify or reinforce gender stereotypes is called neurosexism (Fine 2010; Fine et al., 2013). In reality, though, neurosexist claims are not justified by scientific fact.
your turn
Think about articles or books you’ve read that deal with sex or gender differences. What are the common themes? Are they derogatory to women or to men? If so, in what ways? Have you read any books or articles that focus on gender similarities? Do you think books about gender similarities—as opposed to differences—would be best sellers? Why or why not?
Psychologist Stephanie Shields (1975, 2007) studied how gender differences have been understood historically and noted that in the 19th century many philosophers claimed that women were fundamentally inferior to men. As scientists sought explanations for why, one theory blamed women’s reproductive capacities, arguing that menstruation consumed biological resources that could otherwise have “promoted further brain development” (Geddes & Thomson, 1890, as cited in Shields, 2007, p. 96). Other explanations focused on brain size (Shields, 1975). Scientists initially thought that men had larger brains than women (since their skulls were larger), which supposedly would justify women’s inferiority. But when scientists subsequently measured brain weight as a ratio to body weight and found that women’s brains are actually larger than men’s, brain size lost favor as an area of research.
So much early scientific research was explicitly sexist that when women began to enter the field of psychology, they dedicated almost all their energies to debunking problematic stereotypes about women (Rutherford & Granek, 2010). Early feminist psychologists conducted studies showing that menstruation did not impair mental or motor abilities (Hollingsworth, 1914) and that women and men were actually more similar than different on most psychological traits (Thompson, 1903). The need to defend against sexism continued for so long that eventually feminist psychologists questioned the necessity of doing any research that focused on gender differences—whether to confirm or debunk those differences. The concern was that simply giving attention to the issue of similarities and differences makes them seem more important than they are. Instead, feminist psychologists turned to other areas in need of attention (e.g., rape, domestic violence, and pregnancy; Rutherford & Granek, 2010).
Distinguishing between Sex and Gender In 1979, psychologist Rhoda Unger boldly asserted that questions about sex differences, which seemed to dominate psychological research and the popular press, were “someone else’s questions” (Rutherford & Granek, 2010, p. 29; Unger, 1979). To Unger, questions of difference maintained the status quo because they couldn’t be disentangled from their history, which involved a false assumption of female inferiority. To move the conversation away from gender essentialism, she made a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. In this view, biological sex is fixed, but how one behaves is a product of socialization and, therefore, should be considered gender. Unger’s goal was to show that sexist socialization practices, rather than innate features, might account for observed differences (even small ones) between women and men. Unger also encouraged feminist psychologists to pursue research that focused more on social explanations than on biological ones.
Although it was productive to delineate sex and gender, in doing so, Unger opened the door to new challenges. First, separating sex and gender mistakenly suggests an exclusionary relationship between biology and psychology when, in fact, research shows that they’re interdependent. It is impossible to attribute any one characteristic solely to biology or psychology (Unger & Crawford, 1993). When studying sex and gender, researchers remind us that “complex interactions are the rule, not the exception” (Unger & Crawford, 1993, p. 124). Unger’s decision to separate these concepts was a strategic push, specific to the late 1970s, to move the field in a direction that focused less on biological essentialism.
As we discussed in Chapter 2, more contemporary feminist researchers move beyond defined categories of sex and gender and, instead, take intersectional approaches that recognize the fluidity and dynamic nature of identity categories (Rutherford & Granek, 2010). In other words, modern feminist psychologists acknowledge that it’s impossible to distinguish between sex and gender, much like it’s impossible to disentangle race from gender, because what we think of as part of our biology can be socially constructed (see Chapter 4). In practice, researchers use these terms inconsistently, and language choices vary over time and among academic journals (Unger & Crawford, 1993). For this reason, we will use the term sex/gender throughout this chapter to signify the interdependence of the two categories, a practice that is increasingly popular among contemporary feminist researchers (van Anders, 2015).
Sex/Gender Differences and Sexism Historically, sex/gender differences have served to justify sexism, and this practice continues today. However, the sexism is more subtle now than it used to be. Consider the books discussed above. Nowhere do they describe women as explicitly inferior; they simply describe women as different from men. For example, women are seen as good communicators who want intimacy and connection. These aren’t negative descriptions; however, these attitudes are consistent with benevolent sexism. As we saw in Chapter 2, benevolent sexism is often a justification for gender inequality and can lead to hostile sexism when women step outside of the boundaries considered appropriate for their sex/gender.
In fact, research has shown that belief in sex/gender differences is related to both hostile and benevolent sexism (Zell, Strickhouser, Lane, & Teeter, 2016). In one study, men who believed in large sex/gender differences were more likely to endorse hostile sexism, and women who believed in large sex/gender differences were more likely to endorse benevolent sexism (Zell et al., 2016). Also, sexism increased among participants who read a paragraph about how women and men are different, while it decreased among those who read a paragraph about how they’re similar. In light of these findings, it appears that believing that women and men are different is one current cause of sexism.
Because discussions about difference have historically been motivated by assumptions about women’s inferiority, some feminist psychologists hesitate to discuss sex/gender difference at all (Rutherford & Granek, 2010). Nevertheless, it’s important to understand what the science says. Some sex/gender differences do exist, but as this chapter will show, they’re mostly small, and their causes are extremely complex. Explanations focusing only on biology or socialization are now considered to be overly simplistic. Instead, many important aspects of the lives of girls and women are best understood within a biopsychosocial model in which biological, psychological, and social factors all interact. Since popular culture is full of statements about gender essentialism and assumptions about neurosexism, it’s critical to understand the history as well as the tensions associated with research in this area.