Sex and Gender Worksheet - Thought Prompts

Anthropology - Human Diversity

Worksheet #3

Sex & Gender

Part 1

Instructions: Please indicate whether the following are gender or sex characteristics. 

1. Having ovaries: sex  

2. Giving birth: sex 

3. Producing sperm: sex 

4. Having testes: sex 

5. Having XY chromosomes: sex 

6. Taking care of children: gender 

7. Providing [food, shelter, etc] for the household: gender 

8. Doing well in sports: gender 

9. Being neat: gender 

10. Being aggressive: gender

Part 2 

Below are common gender stereotypes in U.S. society. Your task for this part of the worksheet is to write a reflection as an anthropologist: break them down and determine whether these stereotypes are rooted in biological truths or if they are culturally constructed. Please write down your thoughts; I have put questions beneath each statement to encourage reflection, but you don’t need to answer them all.

1. “Men have more casual views about sex.” 

• Do you think the reason for this stereotype is because men are biologically different from women (and other genders) or is it because society has taught men to behave certain ways and taught women to behave certain ways? Is it the same in other industrialized cultures? What about foraging cultures? 

• Why do you think that and where do you think this stereotype comes from?

The most common idea supporting this statement is that because men have higher testosterone levels they have higher sex drives and therefore in order to simply “satiate the carnal desire” they have more casual views about sex. However, with a new study (*) with healthy subjects this has been shown to be completely false - there is no correlation. What is more likely, according to the scientist at the head of the study, is that in our society men are taught from a young age to be more comfortable with their bodies than women, and this leads to disproportionate masturbation rates. This is relevant because although they do not know whether sexual desire or masturbation always comes first, what they do know is most of the time masturbation leads to sexual desire. If men are more comfortable touching their bodies they are more likely than women to be stirring up their sexual desire (also men don’t receive backlash in society if they try to pursue or even talk about pursuing the desire with another individual). 

There is definitely a cultural construction of how men and women should think about and respond to sex. Men are seen as strong conquerors (which can be dangerous!) and get “points” for “scoring” a lady. (Heterosexuals especially uphold this. While heterosexuals tend to view gay men as weak, within the gay community gay men also seem to respond to our men-must-have-the-most-sex culture.) The more people they sleep with the more bragging rights they have and the more successful they seem (at least among other men). However, women are seen as weak and emotional so they’re more choosy with their partners (which makes hetero male bragging rights all that much “better.”) and would prefer the encounter to be meaningful. The truth is there are women who have preferences like culturally-approved men and men who have preferences like culturally-approved women (but of course these people are shamed). Our society has assigned a certain “appropriate” code of conduct for each gender in the binary system. 

The “man the hunter” hypothesis appears to be a likely origin for this gender stereotyping. Particularly because it suggests that female bodies were fundamentally passive to evolution - so why wouldn’t they be passive bodies in other parts of life too? Passivity is usually associated with weakness (as are emotions). Also if a man is able to take down a bear, shouldn’t he be able to “take down” a woman too if he is truly a man? Plus isn’t a woman’s whole purpose to stay at home and rear children? So what’s the problem with that? The ignorance surrounding females in a society (and other societies around the world) forgets the incredibly important role mothers play, the equality between the sexes, and the variety that exists in nature. This fake science forces a narrative on people that most benefits the men in society who have an inferiority complex and need to assert their superiority above others. And so the culture was kindled.  

* livescience.com/21114-testosterone-sex-drive-masturbation.html 

2. “Girls suck at math.” 

• Is this stereotype rooted in a biological difference between girls and boys or is it because of some societal influence, such as barriers to girls interested in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics)? 

• What kinds of toys are boys vs girls exposed to when they are young? Would this contribute to a difference in their interests in school subjects? 

• Do teachers have a role in this at all? 

The stereotype is definitely from societal influence. It doesn’t make any sense from our evolutionary history that men would be inherently better at math. And modern studies further support environmental factors, not biological ones, that affect success of males and females in certain fields. It is in places where we see greater gender equality that we also see this gender gap shrink (&). But of course our society supports this misconception that men are just biologically more logical and therefore more likely to be skilled in math. This is what leads to people investing more in boys to pursue STEM careers (whether it be parents or teachers etc.). This strong man, weak woman dichotomy can make it difficult for some women and men to accept their more stereotypically female interests because society makes it mean they are weak or doing a “woman’s job” (meaning really something more akin to a “servant's job”). Girls are also actively turned off from STEM careers as people tell them it will be too hard and they won’t be able to be successful. 

And early exposure to gender roles through children's toys would definity contribute to a person’s future career goal. People tend to pursue something that they already feel enmeshed in and already know that they enjoy. In other words we are responding to our surroundings when we choose a career. Therefore, if we just look at the two most basic toys associated with gender, cars for boys and dolls for girls, and we assume that those toys are loved by their owners, is it not plausible that a boy might want to go into technology or engineering and a girl might want to become a nurse or a social worker or teacher? People can be interested in many things but in the end we pursue what we were exposed to. How do you know if you like something if you haven’t tried it or thought about it or knew it existed? And how do you develop skills in this same type of unknown area? It is the environment that we provide for our children that plays a statistically significant role in the differences in the ability of men and women, not our biology. Also sure people vary (although all of whom are people), but the individual biological advantages we may have over each other (e.g. flexibility) are negligible when we account for exposure and experience.

& https://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/share

3. “Women are better cooks.” 

• Is this stereotype rooted in a biological difference between men and women? Or is it a cultural expectation? 

• Do you imagine a man or woman in your mind’s eye when you hear the word “chef”? Why?

The grounds for this statement are wholly cultural. I don’t think people even make fake scientific excuses for this. They know this statement is made because women are “supposed to be” in the kitchen. 

The annoying thing is a “chef” usually brings to mind a man. Why is that? Because “chef” is a success title. A (successful) man provides for his family and a woman just takes care of the family and the house at home (she does not need to be successful). A chef is rewarded for “his” efforts and provides for “his” family, whereas a woman cook at home is just expected and she does not need to be rewarded. 

Side note: Why does it seem like everything in this class is controversial?? Omg more people just need to take this class (with an open mind)!! 

Smith, mercantilists, and Malthus - History of Economic Thought

Smith vs. Mercantilism

The works of mercantilists, and later, Adam Smith were influential in the development of economic thought. Adam Smith was an academic studying within the social sciences through a philosophical lense. This is what separated him from the mercantilists and allowed readers to view economics from a fresh perspective. The mercantilists generally promoted policy or ideas that would promote their own well-being. Ironically, both Smith and the mercantilists believed that people were selfish, but only the mercantilists saw it as negatively affecting society and the economy. Smith believed humans’ self-interest could drive the society and the economy forward on its own and mercantilists thought government intervention was needed in order to deal with such a characteristic.. Both were interested in explaining the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, but their methods and conclusions were almost opposites.

One of the questions Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations asks is: What is the nature of a wealthy nation? Well, first it is wise to look at how the wealth of a nation is measured. Smith suggested wealth be measured in per capita income, whereas mercantilists believed a nation’s stock of bullion (precious metals) reflected its wealth. As a result, Smith was able to see the mutual benefits of both imports and exports, and did not agree that the country running the largest trade surplus was an indicator of its superior wealth and power. Smith would have considered a country whose government focused on laissez-faire trade policy preferable to a mercantilist inspired trade-regulating government (Landreth and Colander 90-91). Another important factor to Smith was that the purpose of production be consumption, not production itself. He says this is because the focus should be on the consumer’s interests, “and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer…, [b]ut in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer...” (Smith 877).

The second question Smith’s Wealth of Nations poses is: What are the causes of a wealthy nation? Smith’s primary cause, which is rooted in a dependence upon capital accumulation (which would be the responsibility of the capitalists), is the division of labor (Landreth and Colander 94). This also extends to division of labor between nations, another reason for his support of free international trade. With mercantilism, due to their preference for protectionism, there could not be much room for division of labor within a single country because the extent of the market would be quite small. In addition, Smith’s division of labor, for the sake of efficiency, also requires a highly productive labor force. From his point of view labor producing a vendible commodity constituted productive labor, and those selling services were involved in unproductive labor. Productive labor adds value to the materials he worked with and unproductive labor adds to the value of nothing. Therefore, Smith saw landlords’ payment of servants useless, as well as their constant consumption and lack of savings (Smith 438).  Mercantilists, on the other hand, were concerned with overproduction and underconsumption, so lack of individual saving was desirable “...because it led to lower consumption, lower output, and lower employment,” and would have praised landlords for their actions (Landreth and Colander 54). 

Principle of Population Essay

Richard Malthus developed his essay based on the rising population at the time that put pressure on England’s food supply while the lower-class became more impoverished. But what ultimately inspired him to publish in 1798 was his disagreement with his father who held the same opinions as the Utopian writer Godwin. This meant his father believed the government was the source of misery, vices and evils in society and was more in favor of the peaceful sort of anarchy Godwin described (Malthus 56-57). However, Malthus, after examining Godwin’s idea, concluded it was unrealistic and simply only something of the imagination. Peaceful anarchy can only last so long before “The spirit of benevolence, cherished and invigorated by plenty, is repressed by the chilling breath of want” (Malthus 60), and it's every man for himself due to limited supply of land and increasing population growth. Malthus believed that changing the government wouldn’t solve society’s problems, and the problems could not be removed along with the institutions. He said this was because “Human institutions...are mere feathers that float on the surface, in comparison with those deeper seated causes of impurity….” (Malthus 61). Though, while government institutions do not completely rid society of miseries, they do still help mitigate them (Malthus 61). 

Malthus’ principle of population was based on his idea that population grows geometrically and food supply grows arithmetically. In effect meaning that population grows much faster than food supply and as a response population checks would ensue to keep them in line with food production. There would be positive checks, increases in death tolls due to war, famines, disease and similar disasters. And there would be preventative checks, a postponement of marriage, and therefore postponement of the decision to have children. Preventative checks could be enforced by the government. However, people would likely have premarital sexual relations resulting in vice and misery. In his second edition of the essay he reconsiders the preventative check, and concludes moral restraint, postponing marriage without premarital sexual relations, could be more effective. Thereby leaving government interference and the inherent vices of people behind and no longer making the argument against the Utopian writers. Though this did not negate his original proposition that the population would continue to grow faster than the food supply, and something needed to be done about it (Landreth and Colander 115-117).

Malthus’ principle of population became important to economic analysis as it was applied by classical economist David Ricardo to Adam Smith’s wage fund doctrine as an extension to it, and eventually earned the name “iron law of wages” (Landreth and Colander 117). Smith found the wages fund to be dependent on the size of the capital stock, or the amount of inventory saved up by the capitalists in order to provide laborers with subsistence items for the duration of the production period. (Landreth and Colander 104). And Ricardo added that the size of the labor force is determined by the Mathusian population principle. Therefore, if the wages fund increases thereby raising wages and making resources more accessible, the population will increase in the short run. In the long-run the labor force will be of sufficient size that the real wages return to the cultural subsistence level. (Landreth and Colander 121-122). 

Bibliography

Landreth, Harry, and David C. Colander. History of Economic Thought. Fourth ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002.

Malthus, Thomas. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Printed for J. Johnson, in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1798.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations. University Of Chicago, 1977.