A hedgehog was hibernating in a comfy hole one winter when a rabbit showed up, begging for shelter, as his own hole had just been destroyed. The hedgehog agreed to share his home, and the rabbit moved in. As the days passed, it became clear that the situation was less than ideal: the hole was not well suited for two animals, and the hedgehog's spines only made things worse. What were the animals to do?As my professor explained it, this scenario typically provokes one of two responses:
that the animals should try to come to a peaceable solution and share the space, or that the hole belonged to the hedgehog and the rabbit should seek shelter elsewhere. The relevant virtues would presumably be friendship or perhaps compassion, and justice. And stereotypically, women tended to favor the cooperative solution, while men pointed out the hedgehog's prior claim. (I forget what the professor's point was really supposed to be- perhaps that it's worth considering multiple perspectives when you're faced with an ethical dilemma?)
When I heard the story and how the stereotypes were supposed to work, I was surprised, and said so to a classmate sitting next to me, because I had felt very strongly that if it was the hedgehog's hole, then he ought to be able to occupy it in peace, even if he had been generous enough to share it for a while. (I've wondered since if my answer was prompted as much by having four siblings and becoming rather possessive of my things as it was by anything having to do with my gender.) My classmate, in turn, expressed his surprise, because he had felt strongly that the animals ought to try to work out a solution that would be mutually beneficial.
How would you respond to the story? Would your response support or undermine the stereotype? Is there anything to the idea that women are more likely to value friendship, cooperation, and compassion, while men are more likely to value justice or other related virtues?
Let me start by saying that I am generally very "female" in the way I think, approach situations and resolve problems. However, after 3 years of legal training and a summer of trying to memorize as much law as possible, my first thought is of the hedgehog's prior claim. I then move to the idea that if it's possible to work out something, they should consider it, but sometimes it's just not possible. I often think that experience, education, and training can alter our natural way of approaching any given situation. Lawyers are trained in the "masculine" rationality and ideas of justice rather than cooperation, especially in the US adversary-driven system (other countries have more cooperative approaches to settling claims out of court, or even as part of their court system.) Thus whenever there is a "right" of some sort involved, my training kicks in and my answers would be opposite of my gender. But if it's just me and my husband, or friends and family, then my approach to things is very "feminine" cooperative, non-confrontational, and willing to work things out (and my thoughts are very connected and I do not have a nothing box.)
ReplyDeleteOne final thought that might be of interest is that many more women go into public service and legal services work than men. Some of that is due to the significant pay cut legal services attorneys must take, but some of it is also because the job demands cooperation and compassion for people who often come to you after making a poor choice (or many) and messing up their lives in a very preventable way. They come as a last resort, and while there is some fighting for the person's rights, there's much more trying to help rectify mistakes and put the person on the right track. Many of the clients are very needy, and there's almost a parenting type aspect to the work. So perhaps the aspects of the job that tend to favor stereotypical feminine quantities is what brings many more women into legal services work, especially when the rest of the field is very competitive and justice driven - more stereotypically masculine traits.
Hmm. I've come to the conclusion that I don't much like scenarios like that one. The facts it presents are enough to form a picture in the listener's mind, but a great deal of the scenario is known only to the teller of the story.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, this takes place in a world of animals that can talk and make friends and form social contracts. I'm not a zoologist, but I think a real hedgehog would operate by instinct and prefer to hibernate alone, whether that means kicking the intruder out or looking for a new hole. If it did allow the rabbit to stay, it wouldn't be out of a sense of compassion or social obligation-- that's something we read into the story.
At the same time, I have a response that says "Awww, cute little hedgehog and fuzzy bunny! I want them to be friends!" Disney and countless children's stories lead me to anthropomorphize animals, especially cute ones. (Would it affect anyone's answer if this story were about a snake and a scorpion?)
Perhaps I am not supposed to get bogged down by the fact that the story is about talking animals. Its true intention is to reveal something about humans, so maybe I'm meant to think of an analogous human scenario.
But that throws things into even further confusion, because there's not enough information in the story for me to make an informed decision on. It's kind of like someone saying to me, "My roommate is really getting on my nerves. He thinks we should try to get along, but I think he needs to find a new roommate." Who's right? I don't know! Not enough information!
What really bothers me about the story is that it was used to make such a simplistic statemet about men and women thinking differently. If you don't have the "expected" reaction, you can't help but think for at least a moment, "Why don't I fit the pattern? Am I weird? Is something wrong with me?"
It sounds like it caused you a moment of puzzlement, Liz, and your classmate too. I wonder how many other people were thinking "Am I the only one?" I've been there myself a lot of times. (Actually, it occurs to me that this might only happen to those who think too much, which is a trait that you and I may share.)
I don't see any Biblical reason why a man can't place a high value on compassion (the good Samaritan) or a woman can't place a high value on justice (Deborah the judge). God made us male and female, but he didn't make us all the same.
Lars and his roommate hosted a homeless guy for several months. He had no regard for their belongings, stole things, cursed at them, etc. At the beginning I felt like Lars should make it work, but quickly I grew to believe that the right thing to do would be to kick him out.
ReplyDelete