On my drive home from class last night I caught part of the program On Point with Tom Ashbrook on my NPR station. His guest was Cordelia Fine, psychologist and author of Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. In the book, Fine’s mission is to expose and disprove the sloppy science used to justify gender stereotypes, which she labels “neurosexism.” From a Washington Post summary:
Fine traces its roots to the mid-19th century, when the “evidence” for inequality included everything from snout elongation to “cephalic index” (ratio of head length to head breadth) to brain weight and neuron delicacy. Back then, the motives for this pseudoscience were transparently political: restricting access to higher education and, especially, the right to vote. In a 1915 New York Times commentary on women’s suffrage, neurologist Charles Dana, perhaps the most illustrious brain scientist of his time, catalogued several differences between men’s and women’s brains and nervous systems, including the upper half of the spinal cord. These differences, he claimed, proved that women lack the intellect for politics and governance.
None of this was true, of course. Not one of Dana’s brain differences withstood the rigors of scientific investigation over time.
Delusions of Gender sounds very similar to The Mismeasure of Man, though I have not read the former. I tuned in as Ashbrook asked Fine about the political and social implications of her book and the so-called science it demolishes. She explained, of course, that the alleged–and real–differences between male and female brains are used to justify personal, social, political, economic sex inequality. But she is more concerned about scientific integrity than sexual politics.
My excitement quickly turned to agitation as Ashbrook began taking calls.
To summarize the first caller, “Are you a mother, Cordelia? Because I used to think the way you do but once I had my four kids I could no longer deny that sex differences are inborn.” Oh here we go. Fine said yes, she is a mother, but her status as a parent has nothing to do with the facts. Gendered stereotypes affect a child’s life even before zie is born, and even well-meaning parents project their own unconscious biases onto young children. Plus, parents are not the only influence on children’s–even babies’–behavior.
This is why I would be bad at interviews, because I would have been like, “Are you a scientist, Ann? Stop the presses because this lady’s daughters want to be princesses every Halloween and her sons are really rambunctious. Great work.”
The second caller was also a woman, who said she’s been told she thinks like a man because she’s more logical than other women. Then she illuminated Fine by completely misinterpreting the study about women’s tears. “I don’t know if you heard about this study they did but they found that men really don’t like it when women cry in front of them! I think that must be because men are naturally less empathetic.” I was hoping Fine would eviscerate this lady for only reading headlines on Yahoo! News. Not that the National Geographic teaser is any better. The researchers studied sexual arousal in men who sniffed either tears extracted from women’s eyes or a control liquid of saline. The men and women were not in the room together. It was a study of chemical communication. Anyway, Fine just explained that the results do not indicate that women would not react similarly to the scent of men’s tears (or men-men, women-women), but that was not part of the study.
After a break, Leonard Sax joined the conversation. Sax is a physician and psychologist and author of Boys Adrift, Girls on the Edge, and Why Gender Matters. He is an advocate of single-sex education. I found it strange that Sax was invited to be Fine’s foil in the discussion. He mostly writes about how girls are under increasing pressure to be perfect and accomplished in all aspects of their lives while more and more young men lack motivation or direction. I do not disagree with his observations, even if I take issue with some of his claims about their causes or his proposed solutions. He was pitted against Fine on the show, and they argued about the way [some part of the brain] thickens in males versus females over time. He just did not seem like a good fit for this particular topic.
I would have extended the “driveway moment” but Ashbrook announced he would be taking more calls after the break and I just didn’t want to sit through the stupidity. Maybe some kick-ass feminist called in to say something wonderful but I didn’t want to risk it. And Jersey Shore was starting. It seems like no matter what people like Fine do, most folks will cling to the conventional wisdom about sex differences and rationalize it any way they can. I know; that’s the patriarchy for ya. But it’s also the abysmal state of science reporting and education in this country.
Did any of you hear the show? Read the book? Change someone’s mind about brain differences?
“because I would have been like, ‘Are you a scientist, Ann?‘”
THIS. The “well, I have anecdotal evidence that does not jibe with your highfalutin’, rigorous science, so you are clearly wrong. Also: girl monkeys cuddle sticks!” makes me furious.
If anyone is interested, you can listen to the show here.
I’m reading the book right now, but I just started it. I didn’t hear the show, but I did post yesterday on a similar article by the author of Pink Brain, Blue Brain (which I also have but haven’t started reading yet), and one of the commenters said this:
“I wish I could believe this kind of thing would change people’s views and our cultural practices.”
Yeah…it’s pretty depressing. On the other hand, change takes time, but does happen eventually. Cognitive conservatism is a natural feature of human behavior, and there’s not much we can do about it. What gets me is that it’s so often women who are defending antiquated views of girls’ and boys’ behavior. I think the whole “my lady brain and lady ways make me so special” bullshit is more pervasive and (somehow) really compelling to women than we think.
I haven’t listened to the show yet, but I did read the book. The rigour and detail of her research would have made for a very dry read, except that it was leavened with Harpy-worthy snark. I’m impressed with her ability to restrain herself on the show.
I’m so glad someone heard, and was able to summarize, the “On Point” interview. I didn’t listen to it in part because I wasn’t near a radio — but also because I was afraid the call-ins would just frustrate the hell out of me. I read Fine’s book back in December and loved it and think she really just blows all of the crap about oppositional-binary sex/gender essentialism (that is, the cultural belief that “men” and “women” consist of two mutually-exclusive groups of beings whose lives are primarily shaped by their physiological sex … a sex that can be determined instantly, is immutable, and basically fits reactionary stereotypes about gendered behavior) out of the water. Highly recommend the book to anyone who wants a really articulate response to the crap that people like Sax (and much more extreme folks) spew about “difference.”
echidne over at Echidne of the snakes is currently doing a fantastic series deconstructing some of the more well-known “arguments” for the innateness of sex roles. She read Fine’s and Eliot’s book plus Rebecca M. Jordan-Young’s “Brainstorm” and uses their data to make her case.
Apparently, every author was told by parents about how they had been trying to raise their kids in a gender-neutral manner. Still, the children turned out to be gender-conforming therefore all sex differences are innate.
echidne’s master post is here.
I think I’ve mentioned before how, despite his love of purple and hair accessories, I’m constantly told what a “boy” my son is. Whenever he’s willful, high energy, athletic, or displays his vast and obsessive knowledge of trains, someone is on hand to remind me what a boyish stereotype he is.
Which never fails to make my husband giggle. Willful? Gets it from his mother. High energy? Gets it from his mother. Athletic? Certainly NOT from his klutz father. Obsessive knowledge about anything? Ooh, that’s like his mom again.
I can be as stereotypically girly as any other American woman. But every single trait that the world is eagerly willing to ascribe to “boyishness” in my son is a lot more like me than my husband. Nobody is tactless enough to call his advanced (for a three year old) math skills masculine, but that’s the only “boy” trait that seems more like my husband than me. And with a degree in chemistry and a solid grounding in calculus, it’s not like I’m bad at math, just not gifted like my husband.
I argue with the dumbfucks who call in to NPR all the time – out loud, alone, in my car.
@Sara I’m so relieved to know I’m not alone
!
Rachel, I don’t think it’s so much thier “lady brains” that they think make them such special experts on this as it is thier “mommy brains” and “mommy ways.” Comments like the one from the caller wanting to know if Fine was a mother make me think this.
At the risk of being frivolous, allow me to point out that “Cordelia Fine” is a very excellent name. Were I craving an on-air argument with an NPR guest, Cordelia Fine’s name alone would give me pause.
When differences in brain morphology and function between the female and male brains are proposed by an author, why do you assume it is to prove that the female brain is inferior?
There is a lot of research out there that suggests that male and female brains do differ in morphology and function – and that the differentiation begins in utero.
And what do the differences suggest? That men will be poorer at communication, will have lower emotional intelligence and will be far more influenced by the emotional reactions of fear and rage than women will be.
And the downside for women from all this would be, what? You really DON’T want to break that glass ceiling and really DO prefer to pad about the kitchen in your fuzzy slippers?
You may care to look at “The Female Brain” by Louann Brizendine, M.D.
And the downside for women from all this would be, what? You really DON’T want to break that glass ceiling and really DO prefer to pad about the kitchen in your fuzzy slippers?
Ah…smells like….chauvinism! Also…victim-blaming!
Here’s the thing, John:
The glass ceiling—and other gender discrimination—has NEVER been based on any proof that women are less intelligent than men. It’s based purely on prejudice and historically sexist power structures, so even if there were indisputable scientific data proving that women are smarter than men, all the people and companies responsible for discrimination will not suddenly slap their foreheads and go “OMG, I’ve been doing it all wrong! I’m going to change my ways RIGHT NOW!”
Also, John: Louann Brizendine’s garbage-science (which she endlessly repackages and propagates, and which conveeeeeeeeeeeniently backs up all the lazy conventional “wisdom” about gender difference) has been thoroughly debunked, by Fine, Eliot, Jordan-Young, and others.
Anytime I get into a discussion (allright, argument) with someone about gender and its alleged innateness, the “that’s how I thought until I had kids, but my little boy really did run around wrecking things and my little girl was such a quiet angel” argument seems to come up. Very frustrating.
But why do some feminists insist that there are no innate difference between sexes? Do you really believe that varying brain morphologies and circuiting has no influence whatsoever on intelligences, skills, etc?
Is it because you are afraid that if you say there are differences then the door on any hope for equality of rights/wages/and all the rest is gone? The ADA NEVER argued that there aren’t differences; we are differently abled. But the differences in and of themselves should not be used to stop a person from going to her fullest potential.
I wasn’t being smart, sarcastic, or sexist when I marveled at the fact that you would deny gender differences when it should be obvious that the gender differences that exist favor women in the present and future. Okay, I was being sarcastic about the fluffy slippers because, when it comes to innate differences, it’s not us broken Xes that have the edge.
We don’t hunt mastodons anymore – but communication skills are increasing vital. We aren’t needed to move rocks and tree limbs by main strength, but the ability to do mentally challenging, detailed tasks over extended periods of time are increasingly valued – the sorts of work that men, by their mental and physical make up, just aren’t that good at doing – particularly when compared to women.
Look for the engineering and computer programming of the future to be increasingly dominated by women. As an engineer that started out when men did, in fact, hunt mastodon, I can tell you the rise of women in technical fields (architecture, engineering, etc) is only just beginning.
Women make up the majority of the high school graduates in this country, a large majority of the college graduates of this country. It’s not by accident and it probably isn’t some sneaky patriarchal trick to lure you all into a sense of false security.
Human brains, male and female, evolved to maximize chances of survival during a period of time when very different skills and abilities were needed. Do you think it is coincidental that ADHD tends to be a boys disease? For a hunter, the ability NOT to be lulled into concentrating on any one thing is a plus – for someone trying to learn physics, not so much. Men’s peripheral vision tends to be better than women’s peripheral vision. Big whoop. Who has better detailed visual acuity? Better color discrimination? Not us broken Xes.
So find all the authors who echo what you want to believe. But cognitive science continues fleshing out an increasingly detailed understanding of the human brains (plural – for female and male) and their impact on the individual.
Is behavior determined by this? No. But will abilities be affected by it? Absolutely.
John, seriously, stop. Not because I’m angry or fearful of present-day repercussions. You’re not doing yourself any favors by insisting that mastodon-hunting is responsible for brain differences. Evo-psych is NOT science, and anytime you or anyone else talks about savanna ancestors or whatever, I just put another chip on my bingo card. There is NO evidence for these claims, and there cannot be. It is all, and only, speculation.
I’m not sure what the point is behind your sort-of-flattering comments about men’s “broken Xes.” Is this sweet-talk, so I’ll ignore your utter lack of logic? If so: not working.
While there may be differences between “male” and “female” brains: 1) these are not innate and biological as much as learned and shaped over the course of an individual’s life and 2) the differences *across* male brains and across female brains are just as significant–if not more so–than those between single-sex groups.
If you haven’t read Fine, you probably ought not to continue to critique her science.
@John: Oh please. The only difference between you and the garden-variety evo-psych sexist is that you’re unusually willing to slag your own gender in defense of pseudo-science. Absolutely none of your “proof”—ADHD is common in boys because men hunted mastodons!—has any scientific basis. It’s all just “convenient theories for you.”
As for this future you’re predicting where women dominate “broken Xs”…that’s not the goal of feminism, or any of the feminists writing for this site, so quit acting as though you’re handing us a cookie every time you mention it.
“Men’s peripheral vision tends to be better than women’s peripheral vision.”
You’re wrong about that, too.
Ever since we started realizing that brains are plastic, I’ve been waiting for this “innate” differences crap to go away. Since we can’t raise our children gender-neutral in this culture, we can’t find out if there is any innate difference. No one thought that the London taxi cab drivers that had larger hippocampus(es? i?) were born that way.
My favorite factoid from Echidne’s series is the fact that a study that tested 3-dimensional visualization didn’t show higher scores for men when they described the skill to the test-takers as something that would help dress designers and interior decorators.
re: the whole “I thought that too…until I had kids!” line -
I think half the issue is that many new parents are completely shocked to learn that kids come with their own personalities, and are not, in fact, blank slates.* Which throws them for a bit of a loop in terms of how they expected this whole raising children thing to go in general. The first few years anyway.
Take that revelation, mix in a bunch of unspoken (and often unconscious) anxiety about gender conformity, and then add a dash of lack of understanding of child development,** how the brain works, and how stereotypes actually work – and of course you have new parents engaging in a lot of confirmation bias and and assuming that their daughter liking pink is just as innate as her stubbornness.
*perhaps I am wrong and most new parents know this already? but I’ve had several tell me they didn’t – and they tend to be the ones that are also convinced that most everything else their child does is therefore genetically determined….
**children can generally identify gender – and gendered behavior – several months – a good year even – before they learn the word “pink.” It seems to me this ought to be considered when discussing toddlers’ behavior and whether or not any gendered behavior they exhibit is rooted in genetics or learned conformity.
[...] recent posts on raising kids amidst a sea of gender-coded crap, and SarahMC’s on Fine’s neurosexism book (and the redonkulous protests in comments: MASTODONS!) I wanted to weigh in on something I [...]
-> “It seems like no matter what people like Fine do, most folks will cling to the conventional wisdom about sex differences and rationalize it any way they can. ”
The big hope derived from the brilliant work of Fine and other scientists is, that at least the scientific community will gradually cease to support this utter irrational bullshit theories (or should I say wishful thinking) about radical hardwired sex differences. Wouldn’t that already be quite a feat? Eventually, the common public also started to accept that the world is not flat and phlogiston is a myth, but first the scientific community had to come to a rational consensus on this matters.