Gender Issues and Biology
Studies show that adults respond to the cries of a baby they believe to be a girl much sooner than they respond when the child is believed to be a boy. Other studies show that, even within the same family, daughters are coddled more while their male siblings are taught to “buck up.” Consequently, female children are more likely to be rewarded for crying, tattling, or displaying emotional frailty. It is worth pointing out that even when parents who purposefully set out to combat gender bias will subconsciously sabotage themselves. Such is the nature of bias. Furthermore, a child is not raised in seclusion. Friends and family members also subconsciously influence the child with their gender bias. The average child is exposed to traditional gender roles in many forms, from the lives of those around them, TV, books, or even from other children within a playgroup. Additionally, parents may underestimate the ability of even infants to absorb bias. From a scientific standpoint, pre-linguistic development absorption of societal norms should not be unusual. It is, after all, a commonly accepted fact that infants learn language, facial expressions, and other essentials through observation. Since bias manifests itself through actions or words, it cannot be excluded from this list. All attempts to raise an unbiased child will be scientifically suspect, since there are too many uncontrollable factors. The fallacy in the “intrinsic aptitude” argument lies in assuming that the impossibility of raising an unbiased child is caused by nature, rather than an inability of procuring ideal experimental circumstances.
The typical supposition claims that men are biologically inclined towards math and science, whereas women are more likely to pursue literature or history. It is interesting to note that this belief persists despite the accomplishments of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, Tolstoy, Chekov, Pushkin, or Dostoevsky. Lest mastery of English be then limited to women, the English, and Russians, let the talents of Martin Luther King Jr., F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, or Thomas Jefferson- all of them American men with a genius for the English language- be forgotten. Additionally, figures of power, such as political or religious leaders, often relied upon their ability for speech in order to retain or gain influence. Many of them (it cannot be denied) were male. Considered within the context of literary history, the idea of female superiority in this area is farcical. Attempting to excuse belief in masculine mathematical advantage by claiming that women are better communicators is offensive and stupid.
The strength of the pro-nature argument rests not on fact, experiment, or even basic reasoning. It relies on a tired and false association between femininity and emotional expression. It is no longer considered part of acceptable masculine behavior to be loquacious. In fact, the most verbose men in modern entertainment are flamboyantly gay stereotypes who clearly ape feminine ideals through campy dramatics, attire, and even patterns of speech. Consider that the stereotypical gay man refers to male compatriots as “girlfriends,” and most frequently appears in literature and television as the sidekick of the heroine rather than as a protagonist in his own right. Macho (and presumably heterosexual) men are silent, even when being brutally beaten. Women are not better at expressing their feelings because of genetics. They are trained to it from birth. Communication is not a threatening skill, nor a terribly important one. Observe, for example, the typical difference in pay between the average writer and the average statistician. Even when unpublished writers are not included, the disparity is evident. There’s a reason the puppets in the musical Avenue Q sing “What can you do with a B.A. in English?” American culture idolizes math, even while many, if not most, Americans suffer from “math anxiety.” The supposed difficulty of the math and sciences in comparison to other disciplines (and what else is there, except the humanities and social sciences?) attributes greater struggle and therefore greater talent to math and science graduates. Associating skill in math and science with masculinity places women at a disadvantage because the skills they are supposedly biologically gifted with simply are as valuable or as well-respected. It is therefore sexist to excuse male mathematical talent by saying “women are good at expressing their feelings through words.”
Supporters of intrinsic aptitude often attempt to soften their statements even further by pointing out that their theory is merely a generalized statement. Individual men and women may differ widely, they say. This is total bullshit and undermines their argument. Were their statements really that general, they would be meaningless. There would be no value to making such a statement. This is another transparent attempt to make sexism more palatable by pretending it won’t affect the accurate assessment of individual men and women. The inaccuracy and sheer blind stupidity of this statement can clearly be shown by substituting race for sex. Allowing rough generalizations to shape cultural expectations always has a negative effect. Psychologists have strongly emphasized the benefits of positive role models. Were the intrinsic aptitude argument allowed to stand, women would suffer from a lack of role models in math and science. Men, on the other hand, have role models in all fields except homemaking. Men even have role models in feminism- witness Egyptian jurist Qasim Amin’s role as “father” of the Egyptian feminist movement.
It does not make sense that an important evolutionary adaptation, such the capacity for spatial reasoning, would be linked to sex. Clearly, mental talents like mathematical ability or linguistic talent are useful to both sexes. The species is best served when traits related to mental ability are passed down irregardless of the offspring’s gender. If modern men tend to think spatially (i.e. in units of measurement rather than by landmarks) it does not automatically follow that women are biologically less capable or likely to do the same. It is more likely that men are culturally conditioned to be more confident in their ability to approximate units of measurement and therefore more likely to use that ability when judging distances or giving directions.
In fact, evidence to support the sociological roots of the math/language split is abundant. Women and girls in single-sex environments are more like to make guesses and improve their scores on math tests. Furthermore, the education system itself is responsible for associating math with science, and for establishing boundaries between disciplines which do not exist in reality. These divisions are convenient for educators, but are unlikely to occur in nature.
In short, although biology plays an important part in the development of human beings, it plays no role in the current debate over differences between men and women. The credibility of science is being borrowed in order to justify sexist reasoning. It is clear that biology determines certain physical differences between men and women. Indeed, it is biology that denotes gender: men carry a Y chromosome; women do not. However, there is no evidence that biology gives either sex an advantage in any form of intellectual pursuit.
The typical supposition claims that men are biologically inclined towards math and science, whereas women are more likely to pursue literature or history. It is interesting to note that this belief persists despite the accomplishments of Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton, Tolstoy, Chekov, Pushkin, or Dostoevsky. Lest mastery of English be then limited to women, the English, and Russians, let the talents of Martin Luther King Jr., F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, or Thomas Jefferson- all of them American men with a genius for the English language- be forgotten. Additionally, figures of power, such as political or religious leaders, often relied upon their ability for speech in order to retain or gain influence. Many of them (it cannot be denied) were male. Considered within the context of literary history, the idea of female superiority in this area is farcical. Attempting to excuse belief in masculine mathematical advantage by claiming that women are better communicators is offensive and stupid.
The strength of the pro-nature argument rests not on fact, experiment, or even basic reasoning. It relies on a tired and false association between femininity and emotional expression. It is no longer considered part of acceptable masculine behavior to be loquacious. In fact, the most verbose men in modern entertainment are flamboyantly gay stereotypes who clearly ape feminine ideals through campy dramatics, attire, and even patterns of speech. Consider that the stereotypical gay man refers to male compatriots as “girlfriends,” and most frequently appears in literature and television as the sidekick of the heroine rather than as a protagonist in his own right. Macho (and presumably heterosexual) men are silent, even when being brutally beaten. Women are not better at expressing their feelings because of genetics. They are trained to it from birth. Communication is not a threatening skill, nor a terribly important one. Observe, for example, the typical difference in pay between the average writer and the average statistician. Even when unpublished writers are not included, the disparity is evident. There’s a reason the puppets in the musical Avenue Q sing “What can you do with a B.A. in English?” American culture idolizes math, even while many, if not most, Americans suffer from “math anxiety.” The supposed difficulty of the math and sciences in comparison to other disciplines (and what else is there, except the humanities and social sciences?) attributes greater struggle and therefore greater talent to math and science graduates. Associating skill in math and science with masculinity places women at a disadvantage because the skills they are supposedly biologically gifted with simply are as valuable or as well-respected. It is therefore sexist to excuse male mathematical talent by saying “women are good at expressing their feelings through words.”
Supporters of intrinsic aptitude often attempt to soften their statements even further by pointing out that their theory is merely a generalized statement. Individual men and women may differ widely, they say. This is total bullshit and undermines their argument. Were their statements really that general, they would be meaningless. There would be no value to making such a statement. This is another transparent attempt to make sexism more palatable by pretending it won’t affect the accurate assessment of individual men and women. The inaccuracy and sheer blind stupidity of this statement can clearly be shown by substituting race for sex. Allowing rough generalizations to shape cultural expectations always has a negative effect. Psychologists have strongly emphasized the benefits of positive role models. Were the intrinsic aptitude argument allowed to stand, women would suffer from a lack of role models in math and science. Men, on the other hand, have role models in all fields except homemaking. Men even have role models in feminism- witness Egyptian jurist Qasim Amin’s role as “father” of the Egyptian feminist movement.
It does not make sense that an important evolutionary adaptation, such the capacity for spatial reasoning, would be linked to sex. Clearly, mental talents like mathematical ability or linguistic talent are useful to both sexes. The species is best served when traits related to mental ability are passed down irregardless of the offspring’s gender. If modern men tend to think spatially (i.e. in units of measurement rather than by landmarks) it does not automatically follow that women are biologically less capable or likely to do the same. It is more likely that men are culturally conditioned to be more confident in their ability to approximate units of measurement and therefore more likely to use that ability when judging distances or giving directions.
In fact, evidence to support the sociological roots of the math/language split is abundant. Women and girls in single-sex environments are more like to make guesses and improve their scores on math tests. Furthermore, the education system itself is responsible for associating math with science, and for establishing boundaries between disciplines which do not exist in reality. These divisions are convenient for educators, but are unlikely to occur in nature.
In short, although biology plays an important part in the development of human beings, it plays no role in the current debate over differences between men and women. The credibility of science is being borrowed in order to justify sexist reasoning. It is clear that biology determines certain physical differences between men and women. Indeed, it is biology that denotes gender: men carry a Y chromosome; women do not. However, there is no evidence that biology gives either sex an advantage in any form of intellectual pursuit.