On Gender:

Before I even began reading the book, I felt that the premise is both outdated, and unfair. We’re living in a world where, according to a friend, who is a lesbian, “Gender is a social construct.” Despite the advances in science and all things exact and proven, elements as huge as “what makes a boy a boy and a girl a girl” are still determined by the individual, and there is no equation to predict how an individual will feel, or how they will identify. The truth of the matter is that we have so many different ways of identifying (straight male, transgender female, etc) that the gray area is, by far, too expansive to cover with labels of male and female.That being said, I’m along for the ride that the book is offering. I understand that you are either born with a penis, or a vagina, or both, or neither (I have no evidence to back up the latter), and that genetics have passed on to you a predetermined sex, which can have an affect on how you interact with your environment.

The book immediately places the blame (or credit) on the mother for the psychological differences between boys and girls, as girls are able to identify as a continuation of a mother-daughter lineage steeped in femininity, and boys, seeing themselves as separate from this heritage, are left to complement their sisterly counterparts by being masculine and manly and other macho words.

Regarding abortion, I liked how the arguments for and against come down to selfishness/selflessness or responsibility (to others or self). While I don’t feel adequate enough (not my body, not my call) to comment on the topic of abortion, I will say that I agree that the choice is not one easily made. I liked how the interview excerpts represented a wider variety of women considering/that have considered abortion, than the typical floozy or rape victim, in context of the arguments for and against abortion. The women presented had so many other conflicts to be concerned with than just ending or saving a life (one had a relationship that would end without an abortion). Considering the rest of the book, I suppose that it is safe to say that the focus on women does allow the author to present widely varied sample, from different walks of life, and possessing different perspectives. However, it is also safe to say that the perspectives presented do not speak for the entire female community.

I also took note of the children’s responses to hypothetical situations. Where the males were focused on law and justice, the females were more concerned with interpersonal relationships. This divergence in logical reasoning reminded me of my social psychology class when I was an undergrad. The professor was describing differences between men and women:

1. Women are more likely to trust someone.

1A. Men are more likely to discover/sense a liar.

2. Men communicate to report.

2A. Women communicate to build rapport.

These guidelines, I believe, are “supported” by Gilligan’s research. Do I think they are accurate? Nope. Do I think it’s a bit of a stretch? You bet.

Gilligan is able to “justify” these, though, in the sense that her analyses on interview subjects (particularly the interviews with the 27-year olds in the final chapter, where they are asked to describe themselves) tends to reflect the stolid, justified male, and the caring, soft woman. I find it tough to trust her analyses, because it seems as though she is looking for the response to carry the meaning that would fit her idea of the “female way of thinking” versus the “male way of thinking.” I feel if a man and woman were (separately) walking down the street holding holding ice cream cones, Gilligan would assume it typical of the man to have that, because the ice cream is cold, and the cone is hard; it would be equally assumed that it is typical of women to eat sweet things, and that the cone is in place of a wasteful styrofoam bowl, making her meal eco-friendly. In short, I believe that the differences between men and women is loosely supported from the data presented, although Gilligan’s pursuit in defense of her opinion causes some “facts” to be more apparent than others. I think this mostly stems from trying to find opposing factors in male and female psychology, again trying to cover the gigantic gray area in a simplistic manner.