Boys will be boys and girls may be girls, but they are also human, writes Tony Humphreys.
The belief that males have certain innate capabilities different to females became a basis for social, political and religious engineering that caused - and continues in less developed countries to cause - major exploitation and marginalisation of females.
For example, 20 years ago in this State it was assumed that girls did not have the head for mathematics, science and leadership. However, since girls have been given the opportunity to study what were traditionally male school subjects, they now outshine males in all subject areas. It would seem then that the belief in genetic differences in capabilities between males and females is not substantiated in cultures where equal social and educational opportunities are created for males and females. As equal opportunities are extended into political, social, occupational and religious spheres, I have no doubt that the advantage that girls are showing in the educational sphere will exhibit itself in these areas as well.
Nonetheless, the notion that "boys will be boys" and "girls will be girls" has not bitten the dust.To be fair, there is a small percentage of men who show excellence in areas of knowledge and skill that were traditionally bastions of female power - domestic science, parenting, emotional literacy, nurturing. Not that that is something new - the poets that touched our hearts have been mainly male; renowned chefs are, more often than not, male and the great psychological innovators have been male.
So what is all this continuing controversy about genetic differences in potential between males and females and how come it is only males who are still protesting about it? Is it because the notion of genetic difference has served men better than women? Is it a defensive reaction on the part of some males to the growing equality that women are attaining across the full spectrum of human potential? Is it because women are not only holding onto what were their dominant social roles, but are also excelling in what were mens' dominant social roles? Is it because women are blowing the whistle on unequal and unhappy relationships? Is it because many women are choosing not to marry or to be lone parents?
Whatever it is, what needs to be seen is that gender was never meant to limit human potential: its purpose was to ensure the survival of the human species. Regrettably, it became a sinister means of employing a genetic issue as a tool for social, educational, political and religious engineering. There are some authors who believe that it is now both "psychologically correct" and "politically correct" to consider both males and females as having equal human potential. This is just another defensive ploy by threatened males to weaken the emerging reality of equality between men and women.
The question is no longer one of differences in genetic potential between males and females, but the same vast potential for human expansiveness that exists in all human beings. The difference comes down, not to gender, but to individuality and choice. Alongside each human being possessing vast potential there is an innate drive in each of us to express out own inherent individuality, uniqueness and giftedness. Whether you are male or female, you have the right to express yourself in any ways that fit for you, once your ways do not threaten the presence of other people in your life.
Rather than boys being boys or girls being girls, what is needed is for both boys and girls to be human and for them to express and explore the limitless expansiveness of being human, each in their own unique way. It is for parents and teachers to encourage the individuality of each child and to create equal opportunities for both sexes to explore their vast potential and unique gifts.
Dr Tony Humphreys is a consultant clinical psychologist and author of Examining Our Times
