Gender Differences, Empirical or Innate?

To most members of the human species, the differences between the sexes seem as confounding as they are numerous. Many social dilemmas great and small have been attributed to cross-gender misunderstandings that are largely considered a consequence of human nature. The question of gender differences, as important as it is to the study of human behavior, is of particular interest to psychologists. For many years, the popular psychological view was differential; male and female psyches were considered fundamentally dissimilar. This position is elaborated in the works of such authors as Karen Horney and Carol Gilligan. However, more recent scientific evidence counters differential hypotheses, instead revealing the intrinsic similarity of the male and female psyche. Eleanor Maccoby’s article entitled “Gender and Relationships: A Developmental Account” is an excellent example, citing empirical data that effectively disproves theories such as Horney’s or Gilligan’s. Given the findings, one must conclude that either extreme is unsustainable, and that few supposed gender differences are universal.

Karen Horney begins “The Distrust Between the Sexes” with a general account of human psychology in relation to the opposite sex. This perspective acknowledges parental associations as the presiding factor over sexual relationships throughout life, largely along the theories of Sigmund Freud. After her initial stance, however, Horney takes a different route in describing “Man’s fear of woman,” and male jealousy of female reproductive ability (364). She explains the distrust harbored by men as, “an anxiety of psychogenic origin that goes back to feelings of guilt and childhood fears,” (368) and that men tend to, “devalue pregnancy and childbirth and to overemphasize male genitality,” (367) as a method of ego defense. Horney hypothesizes that, “even men who consciously have a very positive relationship with women and hold the in high esteem as human beings, harbor deep within themselves a secret distrust of them,” and gives numerous anthropological examples throughout the essay as proof of this (364).

Carol Gilligan’s argumentation takes a somewhat similar approach, dealing primarily with parental roles in psychological development. One notable congruency between Gilligan and Horney is a reactionary attitude toward Freud. The two authors acknowledge the validity of Freud’s approach but feel that many theories of traditional psychoanalysis attempt to force women into a masculine model of psychosexual development. Gilligan is especially vocal in stressing the incorrectness of trying to, “fashion women out of masculine cloth” (840).

On establishing this focus on sexual differentiation, Gilligan goes on to cite the theories of several other experts to strengthen her argument. In referencing the work of Nancy Chodorow, Gilligan states that, “basic sex differences recur in personality development,” as a result of a child’s stance toward his or her mother (841). She goes on to say that, “relationships, and particularly issues of dependency, are experienced differently by women and men” (842). Gilligan further notes studies into the sexual discrepancies of schoolyard play routines and early moral development, again focusing on the stark differences uncovered in these areas.

The two authors follow a very similar logic throughout their respective essays. Horney attempts to explain the male psyche in relation to women, reversing the antiquated Freudian model that centered on penis envy and unjustifiable castration anxiety. Gilligan makes her opinions of Freud very plain at several points in her essay, and cites theorists that place women in a less negative light. Both women attempt to convey the very simple and almost common sense idea that men and women are very different.

However, as both writers follow a similar reasoning, both make similar grievous errors in the argumentation of their essays. In reacting to Freud, for example, Horney forms diametrically opposite theories that reflect a deeply feminist view of psychosexual development. At many points in her essay, Horney focuses on negative aspects of the male psyche that, according to her, are the underlying causes of “the cultural supremacy of the male” (367). Gilligan’s approach is significantly less severe but likewise tinted with feminist ideals, as becomes evident when she describes the theories of Freud, Piaget, Erikson, and others as overly masculine in their focus. This superimposing of female psychology, while perhaps legitimate, betrays a highly subjective stance that weakens each author’s arguments.

A fundamental logic error arises when one examines the evidence provided to validate each woman’s views. Karen Horney presents extensive anthropological and mythical data, such as the Cult of the Virgin, in support of her theories (365). Carol Gilligan, in turn, substantiates her claims with Snow White and Sleeping Beauty (846). One may very well argue the validity of these claims in a culturally specific context, but they prove nothing about the nature of gender differences in the whole of humanity. This is to say little of the fact that so much data of this sort exists that examples can be found to substantiate nearly any claim conceivable. One could just as easily argue the female dominance of men by citing the amazons. Additionally, the two women regard even the specific culture(s) to which they refer as homogenous entities, an assumption that will always prove to be invalid.

Given more modern evidence, it is not difficult to see how each writer was not able to convincingly argue her claims. A more recent essay, entitled “Gender and Relationships: A Developmental Account,” uses scientific evidence to prove a fundamental opposite point: men and women aren’t very different. The author, Eleanor Maccoby, spent over a decade studying gender differences with, “analyses to reveal not only the direction of sex differences but… their magnitude” (Pettijohn 76). Maccoby’s findings, with corroborating evidence from her colleagues, found that, “there were very few attributes on which the average values for the two sexes differed consistently” (Pettijohn 76). Furthermore, Maccoby discovered that, “When it comes to attributes in the personality-social domain, results are particularly… inconsistent” (Pettijohn 76). These two facts directly refute the differential claims of both Horney and Gilligan in stating that few supposed gender differences are truly universal. Maccoby goes on to state that, “In general… personality traits measured as characteristics of individuals do not appear to differ systematically by sex” (Pettijohn 76). Maccoby concludes that, “male and female persons really are much alike, and their lives are governed mainly by the attributes that all persons in a given culture have in common” (Pettijohn 76). Therefore, where Horney and Gilligan argue that men and women are psychologically different, Maccoby’s studies prove the opposite.

Naturally, one must not assume from these findings that men and women are identical. In fact, a very recent psychological dictionary stated that, “The differences in secondary sex characteristics are now known to be not quite so large nor so unequivocal as some had thought, but… are to a considerable extent genetically influenced” (Reber 715). Additionally, the subject of childhood playmate preference, as mentioned by both Gilligan and Maccoby, has come under considerable scrutiny as a distinctly differentiated phenomenon between the sexes. According to Maccoby’s own account, “Gender segregation is a widespread phenomenon,” and playmate preferences in children are “difficult to change” (Pettijohn 78). Other less specific mental faculties, such as aggression or verbal reasoning, have been proven to vary considerably from one sex to the other. It is still important to note that many behavioral patterns that have been associated with a particular gender in the past have never been scientifically substantiated. As the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology goes on to state, “The underlying causal factors for (mental, emotional, and social behavior patterns) have yet to be unequivocally determined” (Reber 715).

It seems obvious, then, that either extreme on this issue is altogether unsustainable. Science has proven the male and female psyches are not fundamentally dissimilar, as proposed by such experts as Horney and Gilligan. In fact, numerous trials and experiments have proven incapable of substantiating any more than the simplest of differences, and these are little more than generalities with exceptions. The domain of personality in particular has become unable to define anything more than slight tendencies between men and women. All of this shows that very little of the sexually differentiated psyche is a direct result of biological human nature.

Of course, this conclusion in no way diminished the contributions of Karen Horney and Carol Gilligan. On the contrary, the views of both women are worthy of further study with regards to such fields as anthropology and psychotherapy. One might even continue their arguments toward intrinsic psychological sex differences on the basis of personal experience. As the saying goes, however, the proof is in the pudding. Given the recent findings of Maccoby and others, gender differences have been shown to be empirically acquired and culturally specific.

Resources

Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002.

Pettijohn, Terry F. Notable Selections in Psychology. Guildford, CT: Duskin/McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Reber, Arthur S. The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1995.