User:Sjm594/sandbox

A topic I'm interested in exploring is how biological determinism and occupational sexism tie into each other. As in, exploring the idea of some people believing that women are lesser than men in education and capability is just how we were made to be.

Wikipedia page on interesting book that details the history of biological determinism in terms of craniology: The_Mismeasure_of_Man

Craniology, also known as Phrenology refers to the science that concentrated on measuring the human skull. In the 19th century, craniology was a popular concept that several biological determinists utilized to justify their claims. While one could assume that it wouldn't be difficult to leave behind the biological aspects when discussing the correlation between intelligence and brain size, it's much easier said than done. Like Kaplan and Rogers' essay said, "social constructions of reality cannot safely leave behind biology." There is way too much history behind biology that it would be impossible to discuss intelligence and brain size without looking into the history of it all. Though craniology is now dismissed as a pseudoscience, craniology was often referenced to justify the sexist notions of women's inferior intelligence. Social constructs seemed to be on the back of the minds of biological determinists who refused to acknowledge them--to many of them, it seems that men are intelligent simply because they were made superior to women, and there's no contesting that "fact".

While not overtly sexist, biological determinism certainly has aspects that seem to reflect those of patriarchy. Biological determinism states that behavior is innate and lies solely in one's genes. This belief inadvertently reinforces the prevalent gender roles in our society. The male is the dominant figure because it is "in his genes". The woman is feminine and loving because it is "in her genes". Essentially, there is no room for deviation because each person has a role that they must fill. Behavior is pre determined and the individual's genes completely dictate how that person will change over time.

Princeton University page on biological determinism: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Biological_determinism.html

Contributions

I added the homosexuality section to the Biological determinism To the same page, I added the Racism section. Nov 27th- I added the sexism section to that same page. So far, the two sections I added previously are completely intact!

Word count as of 12/02/13:  880 words

Homosexuality

Though scientists are unsure as to whether homosexuality can be attributed to biological or social factors, many LGBT rights activists have used the theories of biological determinism to support their cause. This has become a frequent point of dissension between pro-gay individuals and anti-gay individuals. Because a single cause has not been determined as the cause of homosexuality, many scientists theorize that a combination of biological and social determine one's sexual orientation. Gay rights advocates believe that proving that homosexuality has a definite biological basis will prove it to be an unchangeable characteristic, thus allowing homosexuals to be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. One area of research that has been a valuable tool for gay rights activists has been Dean Hamer's work studying the "gay gene". Another researcher who worked with Hamer in finding evidence for biological influence in male homosexuality was Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist. In 1991, LeVay published an article in Science Magazine that detailed the difference in hypothalamic structures between homosexual and heterosexual men. His findings in studying the INAH-3 implied that "sexual orientation has a biological substrate." Though his research showed that there was a biological basis in sexual orientation, LeVay cautioned against people interpreting his article to say that he found that homosexuality is genetic, emphasizing that he had not "locate a gay center in the brain-- [as] INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior." He merely hoped that his work would serve as a catalyst in working towards finding more evidence that homosexuality is genetic.

Racism

In modern society, people with racist notions often use the aspects of biological determinism to justify their beliefs that people of different races are separated by ability and predisposition. This linking of one's race with inferiority has been prevalent in society for centuries and has lead to slavery, war, and racial segregation. Nina Jablonski, a professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University, notes that while many people assert that race is a social construct, racist beliefs that one's skin color is somehow associated with one's moral, social, and intellectual characteristics still persist to this day. And although there have been countless studies that provide genetic evidence that races are nonexistent, the belief that one's race makes one innately superior over another endures as an unavoidable influence in today's world. These notions of ingrained superiority lie in the belief of a particular hierarchy of skin color. Deep-rooted racism appears to be based on the belief that differences in people's intellectual capabilities, moral values, and behavioral proclivity are somehow analogous to one’s skin color. This enduring belief of predisposition based on race can be attributed to the acceptance of biological determinism and the use of biological deterministic values to determine a “natural” social order. Racism that stems from the belief of biological determinism appears to be detrimental to both parties, according to Jablonski. For the person with the racist ideals, it often plants the idea into their head that their own race is inarguably superior in every aspect and for the race being targeted, it puts into their mind the idea that they are somehow inferior, weaker, or stupider. This categorization “becomes determinative of personality and individual experience, and is itself a destination.

Sexism

Many people with extreme sexist beliefs often attribute the inferiority of a particular sex to that sex's biology. Though it is not always the case, the components of biological determinism are often used by those who who hold sexist beliefs against women. In terms of academia, the assumption that women's supposedly inferior abilities in math and science can in any way be attributed to their biology has been challenged on several different occasions. Richard Lewontin, an American evolutionary biologist who worked closely with Steven Rose and Leon Kamin, wrote the 1984 book Not in Our Genes which explored just how biological determinism worked in the scientific and academic realm. As Lewontin notes, this challenged belief’s basis is the “evidence” that demonstrates that men statistically have larger brains, are stronger, are more likely to hold higher positions in the work place, and are recognized more often for their academic contributions, etc. Lewontin goes on to state that these statements for the most part go undisputed and are viewed as being dependent on “underlying biological differences between males and females at the level of brain structure.. In "NINETEENTH-CENTURY CRANIOLOGY: THE STUDY OF THE FEMALE SKULL", Elizabeth Fee, a historian of health and medicine discusses what many anthropologists of the 1860s viewed as a "social problem". In a time where the women's rights movement was viewed as a legitimate hazard, several anthropologists of the Anthropological Society set out to use their scientific educational background and positions to undermine the advocates of gender equality in the educational and scientific realm. One of the main reasons behind this was that many anthropologists believed that women were assigned a specific role in nature and that they were never to stray from that set role. This role was motherhood, to which all women were "biologically destined ." The Anthropological Society emphasized that women were to wholly accept and embrace this role because motherhood was seen as completely "incompatible with intellectual pretension, economic competition, or the vote."

My Peer Reviews

Peer review for DayziahN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DayziahN/sandbox

-Really great job on implementing all of the readings we did in class-- it's obvious that you have a really good understanding of the many readings we did in class seeing how you were able to pick and choose the relevant information. Also, I think it's great that although you saw that some of your information was already on another wikipedia page, you weren't discouraged and simply just took the information to another page that could use the information. Also, I noticed that you were very diligent in your citations and cited everything meticulously! One minor grammar error I edited was changing "male's" to "males" in the third sentence of your first contribution. Also, I thought the following sentence could be split into two sentences for better flow: "Women earn 54% of all bachelor's degrees in the United States and 50% of those in science and only 9% of U.S. physicists are women." I changed it slightly to read like this: "Women, in the United States and many European countries, who succeed in science tend to be graduates of single-sex schools. Women earn 54% of all bachelor's degrees in the United States and 50% of those are in science. Furthermore, only 9% of U.S. physicists are women." Other than that, great work! You utilized the class readings well and placed the information where it would be most relevant.

Peer review for DaniellePool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DaniellePool/sandbox

-Awesome detail in your contributions. Your research is evident and it really shows that you put a lot of thought into analyzing the information and embedding it effectively onto each respective page. I think you did a good job in summarizing Not in Our Genes for your Social Construction section of the Biological determinism page by by including the points that were relevant to the section. I can see that you put a lot of time in effort by the thoroughness of your words. Also, I can see you used readings from our class and also some outside information, which both add a lot to your pages. There's no glaring grammar mistakes and your formatting is clean and easily maneuvered. Citations seem to be done correctly and when needed. Good work!