TIME: Almanac 1990s

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1990s / Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso / time / 012092 / 0120302.000 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 5.3 KB | 114 lines

<text id=92TT0128> <title> Jan. 20, 1992: Making Sense of la Difference </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1992 Jan. 20, 1992 Why Are Men and Women Different? </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> SCIENCE, Page 51 COVER STORIES Making Sense of la Difference </hdr><body> 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. </body></article> </text>