Men are from Mars, and Women Too: On Psychological Gender Differences

By Patricia Zhang

When we say “you're acting like a girl” or “be a man,” what do we mean? Gender may be the most significant divide, as proclaimed by old philosophers, but men and women are not psychologically different. Simone De Beauvoir, in her revolutionary work titled “The Second Sex,” stated that “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Men and women have been conditioned by a multitude of societal factors to seem unalike each other. Additionally, if they were different, it does not pose any relevance. In this essay, I will prove that men and women are psychologically the same by drawing from multiple studies and refuting opposing arguments. Then I will explain how it does not matter if they were different, as giving it relevancy leads to discrimination and prejudice.

The burning question in this debate is, “are women and men born different, or are they shaped this way by society?” Needless to say, there are apparent sex differences between those assigned male and female at birth. For example, a 2017 Stanford Medicine paper revealed that a man’s amygdala, a vital emotion center in the brain, is larger than a woman’s and works slightly differently. In general, however, it is redundant to say that sex differences correlate directly to gender differences (in this essay, I use the term “sex differences” to refer to biological differences, and “gender differences” to refer to personality differences). The role of biology isn’t zero, but it doesn’t provide sufficient evidence to suggest that gender differences result from sex differences. An article published by Harvard Business School explains, “while there are (of course) biological differences between the sexes, social science has shown that men and women are more similar than different on a wide range of characteristics.” Thus, we can't just halt the debate on the grounds of biological differences.

In 2001, a study published by personality researchers Paul Costa, Robert McCrae, and Antonio Terracciano encompassed over 23,000 men and women from 26 cultures and had them fill out personality questionnaires. The outcomes showed that women tended to rate themselves higher in aspects such as agreeableness while men rated themselves as more assertive. When a somewhat identical questionnaire was released in 2008, similar results emerged. These studies, on the surface level, seem to prove gender differences. Yet, there's a significant flaw in this research design. Participants were able to rate themselves, meaning that they could simply be providing answers that align with standard views of how women and men should act. Studies like these display how difficult determining noticeable differences are.

Comparably, research attempting to demonstrate gender differences in the Big 5 personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and neuroticism) has failed to make a substantial impact; only minor differences have been found, and only on the basis that these differences could be relevant because they are also self-reported. Suffice to say, it isn't fair to infer that there are differences for certain. On the other hand, many studies attribute men and women to being the same psychologically.

Janet Shibley Hyde, Ph.D. of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, discovered that males and females from childhood to adulthood are more alike than different on most psychological variables. Across dozens of studies, Hyde discovered that this is consistent with the “gender similarities hypothesis,” which states that genders are more similar than dissimilar. Moreover, Hyde found that gender differences primarily relied on the context in which they were assessed. For instance, after participants in one experiment were told that they would not be identified as male or female and wore no identification, none conformed to stereotypes about their sex when given a chance to be aggressive. Oddly enough, the opposite happened - women acted more aggressively than men. Hyde's studies also analyzed gender differences over a period of time. The resulting conclusion suggested that gender differences fluctuate with age and are thus not stable.

Likewise, if men and womens sex differences lead to colossal gender differences, where would transgender people fit into this argument? If, as researcher Paul Irving said, “men and women are almost different species,” this excludes transgender people and instead creates a narrative that since men and women are so different, it's impossible for a man to become a woman. This is contradictory to supporting transgender and non-binary people, and Hyde’s research shows that gender differences are not from sex differences.

Costa's study, alongside other ones in a similar vein, seems to suggest extraordinary differences between men and women. Despite their research, it's hard to believe that women and men are so inherently different that it only makes sense for the woman to clean and the man to work. Yet, how exactly do men and women gain knowledge about gender differences? To answer this, I want to turn to philosopher John Locke.

An interesting part of Locke's philosophy is his idea of the “tabula rasa.” The term “tabula rasa,” coined by Locke, means “blank slate” in Latin. Locke had an empirical view of knowledge, meaning he believed that we begin as blank slates and gain knowledge through experience. How women act differently from men and vice versa is adapted purely by this concept of knowledge through experience. Furthermore, that kind of insight is a posteriori knowledge. A posteriori knowledge is information dependent on evidence or experience. This is in contrast with a priori knowledge, which is defined by philosopher Immanuel Kant as “absolutely independent of all experience.” Gender differences are a posteriori knowledge, as they come from experience and evidence of the gender roles people must conform to, which will be proved in the following paragraph.

 The tabula rasa is essentially the famous nature vs nurture debate in psychology, showing how our awareness of gender roles being a posteriori knowledge relates to the psychology of men and women. Our a posteriori knowledge paints our blank slate, our tabula rasa, with a particular schema about how men and women should act. This idea relates to De Beauvoir's “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman,” which means that biologically girls aren't born women but grow into them sociologically. It is neither nature or the sex assigned at birth that defines a girl or woman. In contrast, it is her emotional experiences and her a posteriori knowledge. Maltz and Borker proved this in 1982, with their research which showed that the games children play contribute to introducing children into masculine and feminine cultures. For example, girls playing house promotes personal relationships and having a family. Boys, conversely, tend to play more competitive team sports. This would go on to affect them as they grew up, their childhood games affecting their adulthood views.

It's been established that women and men are psychologically the same yet appear different via socio-cultural influences. Then, where do we go from here? Should we acknowledge this or not? Despite the ubiquity of the “Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus” story, there shouldn't be importance to any dissimilarity or similarity between men and women. If men and women were as different as popular media would continue to suggest, bringing these differences to the forefront would lead to continuous, everlasting prejudice.

We can examine this using a hypothetical. If we were to conclude that different races were psychologically different (they aren't), then we would set roles for the various races. For example, if one race seems psychologically weaker, we would set the norm for that race to only work in specific fields. These norms lead to associations, prejudice, and discrimination, “that race can only do light work.” In the generations to come, anyone of that race who wants to step outside of that norm will instantly face ostracism for not adhering to the common heuristic of what that race should be doing.

The hypothetical isn't exactly far-fetched either. Women have consistently and constantly been denied opportunities and success, and only in the 1920s could they even vote in America. This results from similar circumstances as our hypothetical scenario and proves that if we give any differences any big meaning, it'll lead to common misconceptions and stereotypes.

Throughout centuries men and women have slouched underneath the weight of gender roles. These norms are also clearly harmful. In her book “The Feminine Mystique,” Betty Friedan analyzes the idea of the feminine housewife popularized in America around the 1950s. Through anecdotes and statistics, she uncovers the truth beneath the facade that “every woman should want to be a housewife.” In the book, it is revealed that during the mid-1950s, 60 percent of female students terminated their personal education before they became “undesirable” in the marriage market. Marriage, however, didn't make these women happy, and Friedan spends chapters explaining the inner turmoil some of these picturesque housewives faced.

The problem of women being nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression as men can't be solved by realizing that men and women are different. However, it can be helped by pushing for equality and rejecting social norms that may affect women developing depression. This should be done regardless if men and women are different. Gender roles obviously don't only affect women, but focusing on gender differences will not let us understand inequality but enforce it.

Contrary to the idea that mindsets based on a patriarchal society die out within one generation, intergenerational ideals of men and women have been passed on subconsciously for years. As children become aware of their “place” in society and develop their a posteriori knowledge, it's hard to fight against the flow, and anyone who repudiates to fit into predetermined molds will nevertheless be sucked in or heavily scrutinized. Alongside this, when gender roles emerge, so do media portrayals that emphasize them. For example, Marilyn Monroe typically played the part of “dumb blonde,” and despite her being incredibly intelligent, she was labelled more of a sex symbol by Hollywood. Today, she’s still associated with her movie roles highlighting the “bimbo” stereotype.

On the other side of this coin lies a different yet similar argument. Men and women are not psychologically different, nonetheless, this also shouldn't matter because if we say that they are already the same, it will create a lack of a push for gender equality. Putting so much emphasis and so much meaning on the baseline of “we are all the same” will not do anything to solve the ongoing oppression of women. Only acknowledging the current condition will cease to make an actual change without continuous actions against gender norms.

Thus differences or similarities are not important. Giving relevance to differences or similarities will not help us progress as a society and leads to negligence of personal identity. Providing meaning to the parallels also gives meaning to the differences, and in its entirety, the differences between men and women shouldn't be focused on. As proved before, concentration on dissimilarities leads to gatekeeping of jobs and opportunities. It is not logical to focus on the differences between men and women rather than focusing on gender equality as a whole. Fundamentally, the point is that regardless of similarities or differences in gender, all genders deserve to be equal and treated the same way.

When we say “you're acting like a girl” or “be a man,” we mean the act as a specific schema of a girl or a man based on preconceived stereotypes. Innately, despite some sex differences, there are no major gender differences, as proved by researchers such as Hyde. Gender differences are verisimilitude and amass from societal priming. Children learn gender roles as they grow up, making it empirical knowledge that appears through nurture. We shouldn't give these peculiarities or parallels attention as it fundamentally doesn't matter in pushing for gender equality. Let's not need to notice either differences or similarities and instead forge a way that is independent of these so that we can say “be yourself'' instead of “act like a role.”