Some scholars criticize the "mamawawa," the men are men and women are women assumption. This job analyzes the flaws in the assumption that men and women are categorical opposites, given some biological arguments. What are the implications for a culture that believes that the sexes are distinct opposites?
Response: Of course, men and women are not categorical "opposites," whatever that is supposed to mean. They are categorically different. That's the point. Thinking in opposites is very Aristotelian. What I mean by this is that when we think in black and white, positive and negative, true and false, this or that, we tend to limit the reality of the universe. We limit the significance of individuals. On the other hand, if we learn to think with multiple possible outputs, we tend to approximate reality much more accurately.
Therefore, let's take a look at this assumption about being biological opposites.
Many people teach that there are "male hormones" and "female hormones." Testosterone is classically defined as the quintessential male hormone and estrogen is understood to be the classic female hormone. Supposedly, the theory goes, men do "men things" because of testosterone. Again, women do "women things" supposedly because of estrogen.
However, although these hormones are clearly significant factors which govern sexual behaviour, they are not categorical opposites. The fact of the matter is that males have estrogen as well as testosterone, and females have testosterone in addition to estrogen. The issue is not categorical ...
This job analyzes the flaws in the assumption that men and women are categorical opposites,