home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Time - Man of the Year
/
Time_Man_of_the_Year_Compact_Publishing_3YX-Disc-1_Compact_Publishing_1993.iso
/
moy
/
012092
/
0120302.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-04-03
|
5KB
|
109 lines
SCIENCE, Page 51COVER STORIESMaking Sense of la Difference
By BARBARA EHRENREICH
Few areas of science are as littered with intellectual
rubbish as the study of innate mental differences between the
sexes. In the 19th century, biologists held that a woman's brain
was too small for intellect but large enough for household
chores. When the tiny-brain theory bit the dust (elephants,
after all, have bigger brains than men), scientists began a
long, fruitless attempt to locate the biological basis of male
superiority in various brain lobes and chromosomes. By the 1960s
sociobiologists were asserting that natural selection, operating
throughout the long human prehistory of hunting and gathering,
had predisposed males to leadership and exploration and females
to crouching around the campfire with the kids.
Recent studies suggest there may be some real differences
after all. And why not? We have different hormones and body
parts; it would be odd if our brains were 100% unisex. The
question, as ever: What do these differences augur for our
social roles, in particular the division of power and
opportunity between the sexes?
Don't look to the Flintstones for an answer. However human
beings whiled away their first 100,000 years or so, few of us
today make a living tracking down mammoths or digging up tasty
roots. Much of our genetic legacy of sex differences has already
been rendered moot by that uniquely human invention:
technology. Military prowess no longer depends on superior
musculature or those bursts of hormones that prime the body for
combat at ax range. As for exploration, women -- with their
lower body weight and oxygen consumption -- may be the more
"natural" astronauts.
But suppose the feminists' worst-case scenario turns out
to be true, and males really are better, on average, at certain
mathematical tasks. If this tempts you to shunt all the girls
back to home ec, you probably need remedial work in the
statistics of "averages" yourself. Just as some women are taller
and stronger than some men, some are swifter at abstract
algebra. Many of the pioneers in the field of X-ray
crystallography -- which involves three-dimensional
visualization and heavy doses of math -- were female, including
biophysicist Rosalind Franklin, whose work was indispensable to
the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA.
Then there is the problem that haunts all studies of
"innate" sex differences: the possibility that the observed
differences are really the result of lingering cultural factors.
Girls' academic achievement, for example, as well as apparent
aptitude and self-esteem, usually takes a nose dive at puberty.
Unless nature has selected for smart girls and dumb women,
something is going very wrong at about the middle-school level.
Part of the problem may be that males, having been the dominant
sex for a few millenniums, still tend to prefer females who
make them feel stronger and smarter. Any girl who is bright
enough to solve a quadratic equation is smart enough to bat her
eyelashes and pretend that she can't.
Teachers too may play a larger role than nature in
differentiating between the sexes. Studies show they tend to
favor boys by calling on them more often and pushing them
harder. Myra and David Sadker, professors of education at
American University, have found that girls do better when
teachers are sensitized to gender bias and refrain from sexist
language, such as the use of "man" to mean all of us. Single-sex
classes in math and science can also boost female performance
by eliminating favoritism and male disapproval of female
achievement.
The success of such simple educational reforms only
underscores the basic social issue: Given that there may be real
innate mental differences between the sexes, what are we going
to do about them? A female advantage in reading emotions could
be interpreted to mean that males should be barred from
psychiatry -- or that they need more coaching. A male advantage
in math could be used to confine girls to essays and sonnets --
or the decision could be made to compensate by putting more
effort into girls' math education. In effect, we already
compensate for boys' apparent handicap in verbal skills by
making reading the centerpiece of grade-school education.
We are cultural animals, and these are ultimately cultural
decisions. In fact, the whole discussion of innate sexual
differences is itself heavily shaped by cultural factors. Why,
for example, is the study of innate differences such a sexy,
well-funded topic right now, which happens to be a time of
organized feminist challenge to the ancient sexual division of
power? Why do the media tend to get excited when scientists find
an area of difference and ignore the many reputable studies that
come up with no differences at all?
However science eventually defines it, la difference can
be amplified or minimized by human cultural arrangements: the
choice is up to us, and not our genes.