I originally posted a bit of a rant to Facebook regarding this Psychology Today article claiming that women need love, while men need respect. Excerpt:
"Choice quotes:
- "we [women] are naturally physically affectionate and nurturing, and we just love signing emails and cards with lovey dovey phrases and long lines of xoxoxo’s."
(We do? We are? Man. I am totally failing at being a woman.)
- "It was determined out of this research that a woman’s primary need is for love, and a man’s primary need is for respect."
(It's all right guys; don't worry about respecting me anymore. All I need is your looooove.)
---
I was being tongue-in-cheek, sardonic, and probably a bit hyperbolic. I wasn't really planning on going into a detailed analysis of why I found the article to be problematic.
K: "Interesting thought: instead of ranting about what offends you, take the stuff and try it, or, at least consider what may be true in it instead of nitpicking all the "offensive" stuff (offensive in quotes because I think getting offended is a choice...but that's another topic altogether).
I actually find the love/respect dichotomy to be very useful in my marriage.
...And keep in mind that nobody fits into a perfect mold, nor is this stuff completely one sided. I need respect, but love and affection are important to me in a way that they aren't to my husband. Similarly, he needs love, but is not willing/ready to receive it when he feels disrespected."
Another person followed up with this:
Pretty much hit the nail on the head, L! But since verbosity is apparently my strong suit, I'd like to go into a little more detail, now that I've had time to sit down and put my thoughts together.
K, from what I can see, your comment has a few parts:
- Consider/acknowledge the truth in the article
- (And/or apply it to my marriage)
- Don't nitpick the "offensive stuff"
- Getting offended is a choice
- No one fits into any one mold
- Based on personal experience, the love/respect dichotomy works well in your marriage
I definitely want to respond to (1), (5), and (6) of this comment. I also want to go into why I'm troubled by the article.
(Edited to add: I won't be addressing whether or not I agree with the studies, because 1) I can't find the original studies online right now, and 2) I think that requires additional thought and analysis.)
But, K, while I doubt you intended it this way, 2-4 are derailing. They also feel a little ad hominem to me. In short, I won't be addressing these points; they are not relevant to an overall discussion on the article's meritorious and/or problematic elements.
First off: I'm not rejecting wholesale the idea that love and respect are absolutely crucial parts of relationships, or saying that you shouldn't use them in your own relationship.
L is completely right; what I am rejecting is the really vast generalizations that are being made by Biali, the article's author. In fact, I think we agree on point (5) - no one fits into one mold. That's why - to extend the analogy - the molds being cast by Biali (and Eggerichs) are so frustrating and rant-inducing.
(Edited to add: I won't be addressing whether or not I agree with the studies, because 1) I can't find the original studies online right now, and 2) I think that requires additional thought and analysis.)
But, K, while I doubt you intended it this way, 2-4 are derailing. They also feel a little ad hominem to me. In short, I won't be addressing these points; they are not relevant to an overall discussion on the article's meritorious and/or problematic elements.
First off: I'm not rejecting wholesale the idea that love and respect are absolutely crucial parts of relationships, or saying that you shouldn't use them in your own relationship.
L is completely right; what I am rejecting is the really vast generalizations that are being made by Biali, the article's author. In fact, I think we agree on point (5) - no one fits into one mold. That's why - to extend the analogy - the molds being cast by Biali (and Eggerichs) are so frustrating and rant-inducing.
So. As you requested, K, I'll begin by acknowledging the article's potential merits:
- All relationships – marriage, friendship, or otherwise – can benefit from a reminder that mutual love and respect are important.
- If, in fact, women are overwhelmingly socialized to value love more than respect, and men are socialized to value respect more than love, this kind of study may be useful in helping us to generally understand how to more successfully interact with and relate to people.*
However, that doesn’t negate the problematic bits. The two states (1) has useful elements, and (2) has problematic elements are not mutually exclusive.
Moreover, as seems to be happening here, your particular value system may mean you feel the merits outweigh the issues, or vice versa. That's totally fine; our unique experiences will color these kinds of perceptions differently.
But! A perception validating a generalization for you doesn't make the generalization itself valid for everyone (and I think we're also agreeing on this point, since you mention that these things aren't one-sided. Which is exactly my point - the article casts them as being one-sided.)
You can totally stop reading here, if you'd like, because I think this is essentially the tl;dr version: the article's generalizations are problematic because Biali takes a trend about heterosexual relationships and interprets it as representing the natural behavior of every man, woman, and marriage. But if you'd like a little more of my thought process, feel free to read on.)
---
1. A brief history of essentialism
I don’t know how much background you have with feminist and sociological discussions around gender essentialism, so I apologize if I’m explaining concepts with which you are already familiar.
Gender essentialism is the assumption that men are naturally one way and women are naturally another – other forms of essentialism also exist, i.e. racial essentialism.
If you want to be technical about it, sociologists consider gender essentialism to be a form of biological determinism, which, in turn, is reductionist, insofar as it takes complex issues and distills them in often-limiting ways.
This often manifests as sweeping generalizations that are difficult to actually prove. They are “othering” – creating an “us” and a “them”, a “natural” and an “unnatural”. They've also historically been used to justify inequity.
Some examples:
Essentialism in its many incarnations – whether rooted in gender, race, or something else – has been used to justify all kinds of inequity and oppression: slavery, colonialism, and even women not getting the vote (underlying sentiment: politics is unsuitable for women due to their weaker, delicate, and more fragile constitutions). In short, it's got a pretty bad track record.
Moreover, as seems to be happening here, your particular value system may mean you feel the merits outweigh the issues, or vice versa. That's totally fine; our unique experiences will color these kinds of perceptions differently.
But! A perception validating a generalization for you doesn't make the generalization itself valid for everyone (and I think we're also agreeing on this point, since you mention that these things aren't one-sided. Which is exactly my point - the article casts them as being one-sided.)
You can totally stop reading here, if you'd like, because I think this is essentially the tl;dr version: the article's generalizations are problematic because Biali takes a trend about heterosexual relationships and interprets it as representing the natural behavior of every man, woman, and marriage. But if you'd like a little more of my thought process, feel free to read on.)
---
1. A brief history of essentialism
I don’t know how much background you have with feminist and sociological discussions around gender essentialism, so I apologize if I’m explaining concepts with which you are already familiar.
Gender essentialism is the assumption that men are naturally one way and women are naturally another – other forms of essentialism also exist, i.e. racial essentialism.
If you want to be technical about it, sociologists consider gender essentialism to be a form of biological determinism, which, in turn, is reductionist, insofar as it takes complex issues and distills them in often-limiting ways.
This often manifests as sweeping generalizations that are difficult to actually prove. They are “othering” – creating an “us” and a “them”, a “natural” and an “unnatural”. They've also historically been used to justify inequity.
Some examples:
- All men are naturally more logical and rational than women (and therefore they are better at math/science.)
- Heterosexuality is natural (because men have penises and women have vaginas.)
- Sex is a natural part of all relationships.
- All women are naturally more nurturing than men.
Here's how some of the above have been used. I imagine you've probably heard these arguments in some form or another.
- #1 is used to justify gender imbalances in math/science/tech fields ("Fewer women in tech isn't actually an issue. Women just aren’t as naturally good at math and science.")
- #2 dismisses and delegitimizes non-heterosexual individuals and relationships ("Being gay isn't 'natural', therefore you shouldn't do it / it's wrong / it's a choice.")
- #3 alienates any relationship that doesn't happen to include sex – whether asexual, celibate, or something else.
- #4 is results in social ostracism of non-nurturing women (and, conversely, of nurturing men). Since being nurturing is also often viewed as being weak, it can be used to reinforce that women are less tough (or suited to difficult situations) compared to men. It also can be used to suggest that nurturing men are somehow emasculated or effeminate.
Essentialism in its many incarnations – whether rooted in gender, race, or something else – has been used to justify all kinds of inequity and oppression: slavery, colonialism, and even women not getting the vote (underlying sentiment: politics is unsuitable for women due to their weaker, delicate, and more fragile constitutions). In short, it's got a pretty bad track record.
We’re so keen to identify the “natural” or biological root of differences that we often overlook that which makes us similar.
To roughly paraphrase one of my favorite vloggers, Hank Green: people in this world aren’t black and white. Everyone and everything is grey.
The sooner we acknowledge that, the sooner we can stop trying to create boxes and fit people inside of them. We'll be able to open our eyes and see that the beauty of humanity is that each and every one of us exists in a continuum of experience.
There is no one way to interact with men. There’s no one way to interact with women. There’s no one way to interact with people who have any given characteristic – be it race, sexual orientation, or breakfast cereal preference.
There are only ways to interact with people – distinct, unique individuals. And the way to interact with people is by respecting and loving them; by extending them common decency and politeness. And I believe that we should do this not because of any characteristic they may have - like whether they're a man or a woman - but because they're thinking, feeling beings.
In short, to quote the other study I originally linked: “Men and women are from Earth”, and I believe we should treat them as such.
In short, to quote the other study I originally linked: “Men and women are from Earth”, and I believe we should treat them as such.
---
2. My issues with the article
In the case of this article, there's also a failure to acknowledge the very real difference between socialized behavior (which is constructed) and innate behavior (which isn't).
Biali states the following in a way that implies we should nod our heads and accept them as indisputable facts.
These aren't actually facts. They're opinions - and pretty sexist ones, at that.
Both Biali and Eggerichs appear to be using the Love Lab studies to support their hypotheses about men and women's innate characteristics, but their error is that they also appear to have assumed their hypotheses were true before they ever even saw a single study.
I can't find the original studies (I'll link to them if I do find them), but I'm highly skeptical that the original study authors' hypotheses were about men and women's innate behaviors in heterosexual marriages (and if this was the hypothesis, I would remain highly skeptical; proving biological innateness is typically much more difficult than, say, identifying sociocultural influences and their impact on individuals over time.)
More likely, the studies sought to identify marriage trends. These trends cannot be separated from social influence. On their own, these trends cannot legitimately say anything about innate behavior.
My point: interpreting a trend as irrefutable substantiation for reductionist hypotheses you've always assumed and believed are true based on personal experience is pretty fallacious.
---
3. Why it's all so problematic
In and of itself, this article isn't the most harmful essentialism I've ever seen. Sure, it probably isn't hurting anybody (at least not overtly - but the overall framework of gender roles it plays into can be quite harmful. Separate discussion.) But it’s still problematic to claim that women are “naturally” anything, or that men are “naturally” anything.
I posit that when we focus on differences, even in an effort to relate to one another, we create divisiveness. This focus on differentiation seems to substantiate the "men will be men" truisms that people nod along with, not realizing that they're agreeing with and reinforcing stringently restrictive (and even demeaning) sociocultural definitions of what's acceptable male or female behavior - definitions which end up being more harmful than helpful.
By applying reductionism to our discussions of race, gender, sexuality, and other challenging and complex concepts, we're doing a disservice to ourselves as a society. We're purporting to know exactly what all wives need, what all husbands need, what all marriages and relationships need.
But we don't actually know what everyone needs. We're nowhere near knowing it. For every article or study suggesting that women and men are inherently and irrevocably different, more and more research comes out to support that we are more similar than we think. And I'd personally prefer to focus on similarities, rather than differences.
Neither I, nor this article, nor the study can say whether what works in your relationship is innate or not. You and your husband are two points in a continuum of experiences and contexts which we cannot hope to distill down to “all women X” or “all men Y”.
As the title implies, we’re unpacking essentialism here. We’re unpacking biases and stigmas which we might otherwise nod along with. I have them. Probably everyone has them. Sometimes they’re overt, and sometimes they’re subtle.
Interesting sources:
2. My issues with the article
Biali presents a lot of statements as factual, when they are actually (to quote Hank Green again) “hypotheories”.
Hypotheories combine a hypothesis - a question requiring experimentation to see if it is scientifically sound - and a theory, which is the product of having thoroughly and rigorously experimented and reached a conclusion about your hypothesis.
Compared to an actual theory based on experimentation and data, hypotheorists believe their hypotheories are true based on some kind of internal (aka: I-observed-this-anecdotally-and-believe-it's-indisputably-true-even-though-my-experiences-are-likely-skewed-by-my-sociocultural-context) rationale, even though they are actually:
Hypotheories combine a hypothesis - a question requiring experimentation to see if it is scientifically sound - and a theory, which is the product of having thoroughly and rigorously experimented and reached a conclusion about your hypothesis.
Compared to an actual theory based on experimentation and data, hypotheorists believe their hypotheories are true based on some kind of internal (aka: I-observed-this-anecdotally-and-believe-it's-indisputably-true-even-though-my-experiences-are-likely-skewed-by-my-sociocultural-context) rationale, even though they are actually:
- Unproven, difficult to prove, or even have strong evidence suggesting the contrary - either the hypotheorizer doesn't know - or doesn't care - to offer more rigorous substantiation.
- Entrenched in and informed by the hypotheorizer's own biases, stigmas, and value systems - none of which are objective data.
In the case of this article, there's also a failure to acknowledge the very real difference between socialized behavior (which is constructed) and innate behavior (which isn't).
Biali states the following in a way that implies we should nod our heads and accept them as indisputable facts.
- The tagline: “Women naturally give love, but our men really want something else”
- “The thing is - men being men - most don’t actually know what they most deeply need from a woman (other than the obvious!) and would not be able to describe or articulate it."
This seems to be making the claim that "men being men” = all/most men innately aren’t capable of explaining or articulating their feelings, wants, or desires. If I was a man, I’d find it pretty troubling that someone was making sweeping generalizations that I cannot, by virtue of being a man, readily express and articulate my feelings and needs. (And the author using the word “most” here really doesn’t mitigate this.)
Another way we see this portrayed is when people say, “Women are naturally better at communicating and relating to others versus men.” Well, okay. Are women naturally better, as in biologically predisposed? Or were they socialized to be more effective communicators? Was it more socially acceptable for them to communicate, perhaps because men who communicate well and express their feelings are undermined as being non-masculine?
Also, is this “other than the obvious!” implying that the "obvious" thing men want is sex? Ugh. This is a great example of an exclusionary statement (men who are asexual, relationships where sex isn’t a factor or an option), plus it’s playing upon the gross-yet-socially-acceptable joke of “hurr-hurr, all men care about is sex!” These kinds of statements? Doing a disservice to men and women. - “As Eggerichs explained, our culture is totally skewed towards feminine needs and relationship styles. Love is all about, well, love. Women are all about love. As he pointed out, women are made to love – we are naturally physically affectionate and nurturing, and we just love signing emails and cards with lovey dovey phrases and long lines of xoxoxo’s.”
I would love to see evidence of how our culture is “totally skewed towards feminine needs and relationship styles.” What are feminine needs, exactly? What’s a feminine relationship style? (Are we talking about rom-coms?) And what evidence is there that we are “made to love”? (How are women any more "made to love" than men?) - “[…] letting a man be a man and recognizing him for his “manliness” and his internal blueprint for leadership.”
I think it’s really problematic to imply that all men naturally have an internal leadership blueprint (are we implying here that women don’t?)
So then do we find an essentialist way to justify, for example, why more men are in leadership positions? Or that women aren’t cut out for leadership because they’re not naturally predisposed towards it?) These statements seem innocuous before you begin to examine them, but are they, really?
These aren't actually facts. They're opinions - and pretty sexist ones, at that.
Both Biali and Eggerichs appear to be using the Love Lab studies to support their hypotheses about men and women's innate characteristics, but their error is that they also appear to have assumed their hypotheses were true before they ever even saw a single study.
I can't find the original studies (I'll link to them if I do find them), but I'm highly skeptical that the original study authors' hypotheses were about men and women's innate behaviors in heterosexual marriages (and if this was the hypothesis, I would remain highly skeptical; proving biological innateness is typically much more difficult than, say, identifying sociocultural influences and their impact on individuals over time.)
More likely, the studies sought to identify marriage trends. These trends cannot be separated from social influence. On their own, these trends cannot legitimately say anything about innate behavior.
My point: interpreting a trend as irrefutable substantiation for reductionist hypotheses you've always assumed and believed are true based on personal experience is pretty fallacious.
---
3. Why it's all so problematic
In and of itself, this article isn't the most harmful essentialism I've ever seen. Sure, it probably isn't hurting anybody (at least not overtly - but the overall framework of gender roles it plays into can be quite harmful. Separate discussion.) But it’s still problematic to claim that women are “naturally” anything, or that men are “naturally” anything.
I posit that when we focus on differences, even in an effort to relate to one another, we create divisiveness. This focus on differentiation seems to substantiate the "men will be men" truisms that people nod along with, not realizing that they're agreeing with and reinforcing stringently restrictive (and even demeaning) sociocultural definitions of what's acceptable male or female behavior - definitions which end up being more harmful than helpful.
By applying reductionism to our discussions of race, gender, sexuality, and other challenging and complex concepts, we're doing a disservice to ourselves as a society. We're purporting to know exactly what all wives need, what all husbands need, what all marriages and relationships need.
But we don't actually know what everyone needs. We're nowhere near knowing it. For every article or study suggesting that women and men are inherently and irrevocably different, more and more research comes out to support that we are more similar than we think. And I'd personally prefer to focus on similarities, rather than differences.
Neither I, nor this article, nor the study can say whether what works in your relationship is innate or not. You and your husband are two points in a continuum of experiences and contexts which we cannot hope to distill down to “all women X” or “all men Y”.
Generalizing statements are an impediment to thinking complexly and viewing people and relationships as intricate and multifaceted. There is no one relationship “fix” for men or for women.
There is no one, overarching example of what it means to be a woman or a man. We are not representative.
There is no one, overarching example of what it means to be a woman or a man. We are not representative.
We are single points in a vastly complex continuum of experiences and contexts. We are all grey area.
---
4. Why unpack essentialism?
As the title implies, we’re unpacking essentialism here. We’re unpacking biases and stigmas which we might otherwise nod along with. I have them. Probably everyone has them. Sometimes they’re overt, and sometimes they’re subtle.
But the important thing is that they're there, and this act of unpacking is useful because it allows us to separate opinion from fact and discover where biases are rooted within ourselves.
In the case of this article, this is an opportunity to hold media to a higher standard where we say, “Actually, I’d prefer it if you wouldn’t present that thing over there as a fact, because it’s really just your opinion. We probably all shouldn’t nod along with it. Instead, let's discuss it and realize that there’s some deeply-fascinating-but-also-problematic shit going on here."
In criticizing this article, I am not criticizing what works for your relationship. If you derive benefit from this kind of article, more power to you. It's the "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" effect, and it's this mold I'm railing against.
My own anecdote: I asked my husband what’s more important – love, or respect? His reply was love. So where does he fit into the schema of what’s “natural” and what isn’t, per this article’s opinions-presented-as-facts? Is he unnatural?
But neither of our experiences and anecdotes prove or disprove anything about all men or all women.
Should we talk about trends, or use the general ideas from studies to better relate to each other as humans? Sure, absolutely.
However, when we (as a society) engage in scientific dialogue, I think it’s crucial to avoid the kind of generalizing language I indicated above.
At best, it’s unhelpful because it perpetuates a divisive mentality. At worst, it’s exclusionist and/or used to justify inequity. And when the media does use generalizing language, I think it’s productive to call it out for what it is – particularly when it’s coming from a source which people ostensibly treat as factual, like a publication such as “Psychology Today”.
(By the way, a similar rant goes for media sources which present correlative data as indicating a causative relationship. It's bad science, it's lazy, and it spreads misinformation.)
In the case of this article, this is an opportunity to hold media to a higher standard where we say, “Actually, I’d prefer it if you wouldn’t present that thing over there as a fact, because it’s really just your opinion. We probably all shouldn’t nod along with it. Instead, let's discuss it and realize that there’s some deeply-fascinating-but-also-problematic shit going on here."
In criticizing this article, I am not criticizing what works for your relationship. If you derive benefit from this kind of article, more power to you. It's the "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" effect, and it's this mold I'm railing against.
My own anecdote: I asked my husband what’s more important – love, or respect? His reply was love. So where does he fit into the schema of what’s “natural” and what isn’t, per this article’s opinions-presented-as-facts? Is he unnatural?
But neither of our experiences and anecdotes prove or disprove anything about all men or all women.
Should we talk about trends, or use the general ideas from studies to better relate to each other as humans? Sure, absolutely.
However, when we (as a society) engage in scientific dialogue, I think it’s crucial to avoid the kind of generalizing language I indicated above.
At best, it’s unhelpful because it perpetuates a divisive mentality. At worst, it’s exclusionist and/or used to justify inequity. And when the media does use generalizing language, I think it’s productive to call it out for what it is – particularly when it’s coming from a source which people ostensibly treat as factual, like a publication such as “Psychology Today”.
(By the way, a similar rant goes for media sources which present correlative data as indicating a causative relationship. It's bad science, it's lazy, and it spreads misinformation.)
---
I assert that as humans we all crave love and respect.
I also assert that until we lay off the “men are from Mars and women are from Venus” essentialism, it will be very difficult to attain true equity in our society or lives.
So long as we subscribe to the belief that men and women are from different planets, we draw artificial lines in the sand.
So long as we tell ourselves that men are leaders who need respect and women are nurturers who need love, we are creating a world of dichotomy instead of infinite possibilities; otherness and divisiveness, instead of unity.
Essentialism leaves no space for those who do not fit. It invalidates and delegitimizes the experiences of those who are different from its dictates. It says, "you don't belong here" to the nurturing men and the women leaders. It creates a framework which inherently excludes those whom its narrow definitions cannot possibly ever include - telling them that they cannot and should not rightfully exist.
I assert that as humans we all crave love and respect.
I also assert that until we lay off the “men are from Mars and women are from Venus” essentialism, it will be very difficult to attain true equity in our society or lives.
So long as we subscribe to the belief that men and women are from different planets, we draw artificial lines in the sand.
So long as we tell ourselves that men are leaders who need respect and women are nurturers who need love, we are creating a world of dichotomy instead of infinite possibilities; otherness and divisiveness, instead of unity.
Essentialism leaves no space for those who do not fit. It invalidates and delegitimizes the experiences of those who are different from its dictates. It says, "you don't belong here" to the nurturing men and the women leaders. It creates a framework which inherently excludes those whom its narrow definitions cannot possibly ever include - telling them that they cannot and should not rightfully exist.
We don't really need to remember or prove how men and women are different. What's most important is that people are different.
It's not about the best approach to use on someone based upon their sex or gender; it's by talking to those whom we love that we discover what they need from us - whether it's love, respect, or something else entirely.
To end, I will give you a quote from a great article called “Embracing Your Inner Skeptic”:
“Embracing your Inner Skeptic doesn’t mean disbelieving every study you come across. It doesn’t mean that we should never use studies to back up our opinions. What it does mean is turning a critical and — dare I say it? — skeptical eye to everything that we encounter. Studies we like, studies we don’t, news articles… there is always something to be gained from asking questions and separating interpretation from data. Science is possibly one of the most useful tools at our disposal, which makes it that much more important for us to be on our toes when it’s used by us or others.”
It's not about the best approach to use on someone based upon their sex or gender; it's by talking to those whom we love that we discover what they need from us - whether it's love, respect, or something else entirely.
To end, I will give you a quote from a great article called “Embracing Your Inner Skeptic”:
“Embracing your Inner Skeptic doesn’t mean disbelieving every study you come across. It doesn’t mean that we should never use studies to back up our opinions. What it does mean is turning a critical and — dare I say it? — skeptical eye to everything that we encounter. Studies we like, studies we don’t, news articles… there is always something to be gained from asking questions and separating interpretation from data. Science is possibly one of the most useful tools at our disposal, which makes it that much more important for us to be on our toes when it’s used by us or others.”
And this, I hope, is something about which we may all agree.
---
---
Interesting sources:
- The Gender Similarities Hypothesis
- Embracing Your Inner Skeptic
- Men and Women are from Earth: Examining the Latent Structure of Gender
- Probably more that I'll add here later.
---
*Caveat: Just as something like Myers-Briggs may provide a framework through which we can understand and relate to people, generalizing personality characteristics through trends this way may be a good starting point for relating to others, but it isn't evidence that, for example, all INTP people are exactly alike any more than all women are all the same as each other, or all white people the same as each other. Claiming it's somehow innate and traceable back to gender, sex, race, or some other “biological” element can be pretty sketchy.
No comments:
Post a Comment