Breaking down myths
In Same Difference: How Gender Myths Are Hurting Our Relationships, Our Children, and Our Jobs (2004), authors Rosalind C. Barnett and Caryl Rivers take on various "myths" of gender difference. A summary of some of these arguments appears in their article Against Single-Sex Public Schools (L.A. Times, 2006) (subject discussed here on Difference Blog). Their complaints about many evolutionary psychology theories are valid: that they are based largely on speculation, that they extrapolate widely from animal studies and anecdotal evidence, that their sources are not peer-reviewed.
The authors' main complaint is that gender difference literature is used to justify discrimination. Studies that do not confirm gender stereotypes, they say, "don't make headlines." On her website, Barnett says: "the future of gender is marked by a decreased emphasis on difference and an increased emphasis on individual abilities, talents and preferences." While a noble social concept, this model would weaken scientific investigation, according to Larry Cahill (2006). Cahill's review for Nature Reviews Neuroscience addresses some of the dangers of ignoring the effects of gender in scientific research. The review also addresses what may be the biggest myth of gender and the focus of Barnett and Rivers' complaints: that gender differences necessarily make one sex or the other better-equipped. Cahill's article says: "neural sex differences can, in some cases, create behavioral sex differences, but might, in other cases, prevent them (when, for instance, they would be maladaptive) by compensating for sex differences in other physiological conditions, such as sex hormone levels."
I find myself worrying frequently about whether the sources I post to Difference Blog are being accepted without skepticism -- by me, or by the readers. I once stated my personal mission as being to "increase the amount of skepticism in the world." Generally, I feel no matter what I write, it will be interpreted to fit the reader's beliefs. When I research and write these articles, I am aware of comparing myself to the "male" and "female" models that I'm building, and trying to fit myself into the middle ground. Perhaps I don't give other people enough credit for objectivity; usually I'm afraid I give them too much.
The authors' main complaint is that gender difference literature is used to justify discrimination. Studies that do not confirm gender stereotypes, they say, "don't make headlines." On her website, Barnett says: "the future of gender is marked by a decreased emphasis on difference and an increased emphasis on individual abilities, talents and preferences." While a noble social concept, this model would weaken scientific investigation, according to Larry Cahill (2006). Cahill's review for Nature Reviews Neuroscience addresses some of the dangers of ignoring the effects of gender in scientific research. The review also addresses what may be the biggest myth of gender and the focus of Barnett and Rivers' complaints: that gender differences necessarily make one sex or the other better-equipped. Cahill's article says: "neural sex differences can, in some cases, create behavioral sex differences, but might, in other cases, prevent them (when, for instance, they would be maladaptive) by compensating for sex differences in other physiological conditions, such as sex hormone levels."
I find myself worrying frequently about whether the sources I post to Difference Blog are being accepted without skepticism -- by me, or by the readers. I once stated my personal mission as being to "increase the amount of skepticism in the world." Generally, I feel no matter what I write, it will be interpreted to fit the reader's beliefs. When I research and write these articles, I am aware of comparing myself to the "male" and "female" models that I'm building, and trying to fit myself into the middle ground. Perhaps I don't give other people enough credit for objectivity; usually I'm afraid I give them too much.