<Course>
Male and female genders are different in many ways. To understand these differences, many researchers have been conducted about this subject. In the book Thinking Critically About Research on Sex and Gender, some of these researchers are analyzed and assessed based on their strengths, weaknesses, and the validity of their results. Specifically in Chapters 4 and 12, similarities and differences in terms of the assessment of researches on sex differences are presented.
First of all, Chapter 4 and Chapter 12 focus on the same major topic, the analysis of different researches conducted about sex differences. Chapter 4 focuses on sex differences in terms of mathematical skills while Chapter 12 focuses on sex differences in terms of aggressiveness.
In addition, both chapters present assumptions about the male and female genders. For instance, Chapter 4 discusses the assumption about the mathematical skills of girls and boys. It is said that “boys and men are superior at math” and that this characteristic is innate (Caplan and Caplan 37). Chapter 12 also talks about the assumption about males and females regarding their level of aggressiveness. As stated in the chapter, “men and boys are generally assumed to be more aggressive than women and girls, and this sex difference is considered inborn and inevitable” (Caplan and Caplan 102).
Moreover, both chapters discuss that although the traditional interpretation of the differences between males and females in terms of their math skills and level of aggressiveness matches the assumption, it doesn’t mean that the assumptions are correct. For instance, researches about the math skills of male and females have always been interpreted in favor of the male genders. However, the researches that were conducted had biases, limitations, and were “riddled with methodological and interpretational errors” (Caplan and Caplan 36). For example, socialization enhances mathematical skills of males while it interferes with the mathematical skills of females (Caplan and Caplan 38). Aside from socialization factors, Eccles and Jacobs found out that math anxiety, an attitudinal factor, are higher in girls than boys, and this helps explain the differences between their performances in math (qtd. in Caplan and Caplan 38). Likewise, the assumption that males are innately aggressive, which are also backed up by some research, may not always be correct as discussed in Chapter 12. For instance, it has been assumed that male’s are naturally aggressive for the protection of human species. On the contrary, being aggressive toward fellow human beings does not support this assumption (Caplan and Caplan 103). Moreover, using animals as research subjects to prove male aggressiveness are not accurate because theorists tend to choose animals that have differences in levels of aggression and “those in which aggression is common rather than those in which is relatively rare” (Caplan and Caplan 104).
Despite these similarities, social and political consequences are discussed in Chapter 12 unlike in Chapter 4. Because of the assumption that males are naturally aggressive, their aggression toward others is often justified and thus, the blame is often directed to their victims (Caplan and Caplan 109). Specifically in 1985, the American Psychiatric Association proposed a diagnosis called “Paraphilic Coercive Disorder,” in which “a man who had either attempted or completed a rape and who described himself as preoccupied with or compelled to commit rape was to be considered as having this disorder” (Caplan and Caplan 110). Although the proposal was rejected, defense attorneys continue to use the justification that their clients are psychiatrically disturbed.
Overall, Chapter 4 and Chapter 12 present several similarities and a difference. Both chapters talk about researches on sex differences, present assumptions about math skills and levels of aggression, and both discuss the limitations, biases, and methodological errors in the researches that were conducted about the said topic. On the other hand, only Chapter 12 presents insights about the social and political implications of sex differences in terms of level of aggression. These two chapters offer critical insights that are helpful in understanding sex and gender.
Works Cited
Caplan, PJ and JB Caplan. Thinking Critically About Research on Sex and Gender. (City of Publication): Pearson Education, 2009. Print.
