Does gender even exist?

You here it all the time. Gender differences don’t exist. The only difference between men and women is biological sex.

It follows that everything humans do, men and women are equally likely to do it. If people seem to act according to gender, it’s an illusion caused by stereotypes. 

Well, that’s close to true. Sort of. There are plenty of traditional gender traits that are merely stereotypes. There are plenty of people who do not behave and think like either ordinary males or ordinary females. 

But there is also such a thing as ordinary female behavior. There is such a thing as ordinary male behavior. The two do not overlap one hundred percent. These patterns are not stereotypes but observations about how humans actually behave. How could anyone be so oblivious as to think there is no difference? 

As a matter of fact, they don’t think exactly that. Not the people who talk to me about it.

When people assert that gender differences don’t exist, they aren’t just making an observation. They are trying to change someone’s behavior. The argument is essentially, “Gender differences don’t exist. That behavior is gender-linked. Therefore that behavior is inappropriate.”

This seems illogical at first. It is only illogical if we take it all literally. The first sentence is clearly not literally true anyway, so it’s most likely the first sentence that means something less obvious. So let’s try taking the second and third sentences at face value.

These people are aware of gender differences. They just don’t approve of them. 

When they say there is no difference, that’s an abbreviation for “There is nothing about being male or female that justifies thinking or behaving in a particular way based on one’s biological sex.” 

You’ll excuse me for knocking down a straw man. I just want to point out that it is a straw man.

Or, I should say, a straw person whose gender is irrelevant. 

Why should we care?

Fine, so women think men are wrong. We sometimes think they’re wrong too. Why does it matter?

Because conversations with women can get seriously unpleasant. We’d prefer to find a way to prevent or reduce this. The solution is not to pretend to be something we’re not. There’s got to be another way.

Because investigating this problem might help us translate other things women say.

Because women are no longer powerless. Some women can make our lives better or worse based on their opinion of our behavior.

Because almost everyone once had a mother. Some men need more effective ways to recover from the way their mothers treated them.

Because there is a possibility our behavior does in fact need to change. We should not arrogantly assume we are in the right. We need to apply critical thinking to make sure.

Because we don’t want to be sexist jerks. We’re offended to be called sexist jerks.

Because some traditional masculine behavior is actually unacceptable. We should see if we can influence other men to change their behavior.

Because a disturbing number of men also disapprove of masculinity. Even straight men. We don’t need to care what they think of us, but we can’t avoid them anymore. We should figure out how to respond to them.

Because beyond what any individual says, sometimes it seems that modern society generally discourages masculinity. If that is true, we need to try to do something about it. If it isn’t true, we need to know it isn’t true.

Because we don’t just want to be masculine. We want women to appreciate our manliness. We know this is most likely impossible, but we want to know why it is impossible.

Because some men care even if we don’t. We may find something useful to tell them.

Because when we examine ourselves and examine masculinity, we may get some insight that can make us more manly and better people.

What, if anything, does it mean to be a man in the twenty-first century?

How do we reconcile being a man with being a decent human being? With psychological health? With appropriate behavior in the modern world?

Is that possible? Is it acceptable?

Is it, just maybe, absolutely necessary?

We shouldn’t draft men either

In response to Kendrick’s comment on last week’s post, I should clarify my position on military conscription. Since United States women are not yet required to register for Selective Service, this is still specifically a men’s issue. It is therefore relevant to the topic of gender differences.

While I don’t call myself a pacifist, I am less hawkish than, for example, Kendrick. I believe that war can be the most ethical option, but usually is not. Often the cause is theoretically worthy, but not worth any lives. Sometimes a war is downright harmful to the interests of the nation. I seem to recall that my opinion was less nuanced when I was eighteen, but some boys may mature faster than me.

Since I am a selective conscientious objector myself, it behooves me to support others’ selective conscientious objection. The problem is that the United States does not recognize selective conscientious objection. You’re supposed to blindly trust the top strategists, or you’re supposed to object to all fighting for any reason.

The only way to conscientiously object to a specific war is not to get drafted.

Furthermore, conscription is undemocratic. War is by necessity undemocratic anyway, but that doesn’t excuse making it worse.

The people do not get to vote to declare war, or to institute a draft. We only get to vote for politicians who are more likely or less likely to be in favor of a war. That does not help the immediate situation.

In any case, an eighteen-year-old boy can be drafted before the first election when he can vote. Lowering the voting age to eighteen shouldn’t have fooled anyone.

Of course we have to follow plenty of laws we didn’t vote on. But if someone is required to participate in a war that he ethically objects to, that limits his freedom more drastically.

If we never have another draft, that won’t help those who volunteer because they have no civilian career options. It won’t help those who are already in the armed forces when something starts that they object to. But it will be good for many people’s freedom.

It would be unsafe to ban conscription entirely. The best solution would be to recognize selective conscientious objection, but that sounds politically unlikely. All I can do is hope there will never be another draft.

This post’s featured image is hard to see clearly underneath the title. Here it is again:

Protest in New York City in 1967: still from a newsreel, via Wikimedia Commons

Same but unequal

Last week a federal judge ruled that a military draft for men only is unconstitutional. Before reading the article, I predicted that the case had been brought by a “men’s rights” organization: it did that characteristic thing where it sounds like equality but actually makes things worse for women. My prediction proved to be correct.

The ruling is being discussed in terms of three issues: “Is it okay to allow women in the armed forces?”, “Is it okay to discriminate against men?”, and oddly enough, “Is it discrimination against women to not require them to register for Selective Service?”

The Department of Defense says that if women have to register, women in the armed forces will have more of a sense of being included. This applies whether there’s a draft or not. If women can theoretically be drafted, that makes a statement that their service is valued. But this one benefit doesn’t mean there are no drawbacks.

A fourth question is just as important.

Do women have more right than men to opt out of military service?

I’m not claiming women’s lives are more valuable than men’s. Maybe they are but that’s not currently the point. Conscription is worse for women in several ways:

• Military service is more dangerous for women. Assuming the same duties, they face the same risk from the enemy. Then on top of that, they also have a bigger risk of getting harmed by their own male comrades in arms. That isn’t even the kind of sacrifice we should expect someone to make for their country. It isn’t cowardly to choose to avoid that risk.
• Women are more likely to be conscientious objectors. Don’t mistake me for a pacifist myself, but the option of conscientious objection is at least as essential to democracy as voting. The standards for conscientious objection are more difficult than they should be: my parents’ friend knew a Quaker who was killed in action in Vietnam. If we ever draft women, this problem will become worse, statistically speaking.
• Women are probably less likely to thrive in a military setting. They tend to object to hierarchies. Taking orders and doing chores might look to them like being oppressed by men.
• By age 18, women are more likely to already have clear plans for something else they want to do with their lives as adults. They’re more likely to be planning on going to college. If allowed to make their own decisions, they’re at less risk of accomplishing nothing or behaving badly. They have more to lose by having their lives disrupted, and less to gain by getting whipped into shape by a drill instructor.
• Most importantly, women already have their own equivalent of conscription. They too already have a risk of involuntary service to the duties society assigns to their gender. This even happens during peacetime. Women already have so much less freedom than men. Why should we begrudge the one freedom they have that we don’t? That isn’t just unethical, it’s illogical.

If there’s never another draft again, that’s gender-neutral and good for everyone. If women ever get drafted, that’s gender-neutral and worse for women.

If we always give men and women the same thing, sometimes what women get is worse.

Chamberlain postscript: Wait, but is it TRUE?

This is an afterthought to last week’s post about Joshua Chamberlain, an officer in the American Civil War. Please read the original post for context.

Not once but three times in the previous post, I discounted claims that Chamberlain lied about his accomplishments. My main reason was that I simply did not find the accusations believable enough. To summarize:

• One claim contrary to Chamberlain’s account appears to have come from someone who was not present at the battle in question.
• Magazine articles containing lies, published under Chamberlain’s name, had actually been rewritten by the editors.
• Sources I have read suggest that a Confederate officer agreed with another controversial claim of Chamberlain’s.

While I found little to no evidence that Chamberlain told the truth, the evidence that he lied does not stand up to scrutiny. Of course, everything in history should be taken with one or more grains of salt. I provisionally believe Chamberlain’s claims, while knowing that there is a chance they are not true. This is exactly how I would view these claims if he had not been accused of lying.

As far as this blog is concerned, it matters only slightly whether Chamberlain told the truth. The Chamberlain of Chamberlain’s memoir makes just as good a role model even if he was fictional.

In fact, suppose everything we admire about Chamberlain was fabricated. Suppose that either he did not do these things or his motives were ignoble. That still tells us something important.

It tells us what kind of man he chose to claim to be.

He wanted to be perceived as an inspiring leader and a supporter of human rights. He wanted to be perceived as a fierce enemy and a magnanimous victor. He wanted to be perceived as tough in the face of severe pain and affectionate to his wife.

He wanted, in short, to be perceived as both manly and a decent human being.

Did he achieve this by actually being so, or by lying that he had? Either way, he clearly knew that this was the way a man should be.

What this blog is about

Lots of people these days think masculinity is bad, because it makes you irrational, ineffective, or just a jerk.

Lots of other people think being a jerk is good, because it makes you masculine.

Where are the people who know that this is a false dilemma? That there is no contradiction between being a real man and being a real human? That in fact every straight adult male should aspire to be both?

There aren’t enough of us who think like this, and we don’t talk enough.

Here I am with my two cents’ worth, one more voice from this perspective.

I will look at a lot of stuff about how men stereotypically behave, how we actually behave, and how we should behave. All three may be different.

Here are the basic principles of the blog:

• Masculinity exists. Yes, this is actually controversial.
• There exist people who sincerely value masculinity.
• Masculinity can and should be compatible with mental health, effectiveness, and ethics. This includes ethical treatment of women.
• There’s one more thing I should point out expressly. I’m taking it as a given that we should treat women fairly and ethically. I will assume that readers already agree. I will not waste time arguing in favor of this position.

Please comment! I will read and appreciate all comments, but I will only approve selected comments. I will approve a comment if I personally choose to add it to what other readers see.

I’m not intending to censor people who don’t agree with me. You have plenty of other places to state your own views. In fact, I will probably approve some comments that disagree with me.

I choose to treat comments as an extension of the post. As such, they will be individually selected to appear on my blog.

If you want to say something to me that other readers can’t see, use the contact form.

Okay, that’s enough of that. Time for the real posts now.