V. Feminist Questions, Feminist Answers: Towards a Redefinition

Abstract

In 1979, Rhoda Unger presciently asked ‘Should we study sex differences?’ More than 25 years later, this question remains as contentious and unresolved as it was then. In the intervening years, there has been intense, sophisticated, and eloquent debate among feminist psychologists on the merits and demerits of the sex-difference venture. In 1994, Celia Kitzinger posed the same question in a special feature of this journal and invited six feminist psychologists to respond (see Kitzinger, 1994). Three of the respondents argued in favor, and three argued against. Sex-differences research continues. Clearly, whether psychologists should or shouldn’t study sex differences, they still are! By posing the question, not whether sex differences exist or are meaningful, but whether we should study them at all, Unger catalyzed an incredibly important and ongoing debate that has enriched all feminists, wherever they stand on the question. On ‘Toward a Redefinition of Sex and Gender’ (1979), Unger has written: ‘[M]y article on this topic is frequently cited for the wrong reasons’ (Unger, 1998a: 98). The ‘wrong reasons’, according to Unger, were subsequent citations of her attempts to introduce terminological clarity regarding ‘sex’ versus ‘gender’. In fact, Unger has noted that it was her arguments against sexdifferences research that she feels were the most important part of the paper, not the distinction between sex and gender. In ‘Toward a Redefinition’, Unger not only posed the question ‘Should we study sex differences?’, she also answered the question with an incisive five-point critique of sex-differences research. In this critique, Unger highlighted a number of important issues to which feminist researchers have subsequently devoted considerable attention. For