It is the mainstay of countless magazine and newspaper features.
Differences between male and female abilities — from map reading to multi-tasking and from parking to expressing emotion — can be traced to variations in the hard-wiring of their brains at birth, it is claimed.
Men instinctively like the color blue and are bad at coping with pain, we are told, while women cannot tell jokes but are innately superior at empathizing with other people. Key evolutionary differences separate the intellects of men and women and it is all down to our ancient hunter-gatherer genes that program our brains.
The belief has become widespread, particularly in the wake of the publication of international bestsellers, such as John Gray’s Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, which stress the innate differences between the minds of men and women. However, a growing number of scientists are challenging the pseudo-science of “neurosexism,” as they describe it, and its implications.
These researchers argue that in telling parents that boys have poor chances of acquiring good verbal skills and girls have little prospect of developing mathematical prowess, serious and unjustified obstacles are being placed in the paths of children’s education and development.
In fact, there are no major neurological differences between the sexes, says Cordelia Fine in her book Delusions of Gender, which will be published by Icon next month. There may be slight variations in the brains of women and men, added Fine, a researcher at Melbourne University, but the wiring is soft, not hard.
“It is flexible, malleable and changeable,” she said.
In short, she says, our intellects are not prisoners of our genders or our genes and those who claim otherwise are merely coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility.
It is a case backed by Lise Eliot, an associate professor based at the Chicago Medical School.
“All the mounting evidence indicates these ideas about hard-wired differences between male and female brains are wrong,” she said.
“Yes, there are basic behavioral differences between the sexes, but we should note that these differences increase with age because our children’s intellectual biases are being exaggerated and intensified by our gendered culture. Children don’t inherit intellectual differences. They learn them. They are a result of what we expect a boy or a girl to be,” she said.
Thus boys develop improved spatial skills not because of an innate superiority, but because they are expected and are encouraged to be strong at sport, which requires expertise at catching and throwing. Similarly, it is anticipated that girls will be more emotional and talkative and so their verbal skills are emphasized by teachers and parents.
The latter example, on the issue of verbal skills, is particularly revealing, neuroscientists argue. Girls do begin to speak earlier than boys, by about a month on average, a fact that is seized upon by supporters of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus school of intellectual differences. However, this gap is really a tiny difference compared to the vast range of linguistic abilities that differentiate people, said Robert Plomin, a professor at the Institute of Psychiatry in London.
His studies have found that a mere 3 percent of the variation in young children’s verbal development is due to their gender.
“If you map the distribution of scores for verbal skills of boys and of girls you get two graphs that overlap so much you would need a very fine pencil indeed to show the difference between them. Yet people ignore this huge similarity between boys and girls and instead exaggerate wildly the tiny difference between them. It drives me wild,” Plomin said.
This point is backed by Eliot.
“Yes, boys and girls, men and women, are different,” she said in a recent paper in New Scientist. “But most of those differences are far smaller than the Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus stereotypes suggest.”
“Nor are the reasoning, speaking, computing, emphasizing, navigating and other cognitive differences fixed in the genetic architecture of our brains. All such skills are learned and neuro-plasticity — the modifications of neurons and their connections in response experience -- trumps hard-wiring every time,” she said.
The current popular stress on innate intellectual differences between the sexes is, in part, a response to psychologists’ emphasis of the environment’s importance in the development of skills and personality in the 1970s and early 1980s, Eliot said. This led to a reaction to nurture as the principal factor in the development of human characteristics and to an exaggeration of the influence of genes and inherited abilities. This view is also popular because it propagates the status quo, she said.
“We are being told there is nothing we can do to improve our potential because it is innate. That is wrong. Boys can develop powerful linguistic skills and girls can acquire deep spatial skills,” she said.
In short, women can read maps despite claims that they lack the spatial skills for such efforts, while men can learn to empathize and need not be isolated like Mel Gibson’s Nick Marshall, the emotionally retarded male lead of the film What Women Want and a classic stereotype of the unfeeling male that is perpetuated by the supporters of the hard-wired school of intellectual differences.
This point was also stressed by Fine.
“Many of the studies that claim to highlight differences between the brains of males and females are spurious. They are based on tests carried out on only a small number of individuals and their results are often not repeated by other scientists. However, their results are published and are accepted by teachers and others as proof of basic differences between boys and girls,” she said.
“All sorts of ridiculous conclusions about very important issues are then made. Already sexism disguised in neuroscientific finery is changing the way children are taught,” she said.
So should we abandon our search for the “real” differences between the sexes and give up this “pernicious pinkification of little girls,” as one scientist has put it?
Yes, Eliot insisted.
“There is almost nothing we do with our brains that is hard-wired. Every skill, attribute and personality trait is molded by experience,” she said.
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
When a recall campaign targeting the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators was launched, something rather disturbing happened. According to reports, Hualien County Government officials visited several people to verify their signatures. Local authorities allegedly used routine or harmless reasons as an excuse to enter people’s house for investigation. The KMT launched its own recall campaigns, targeting Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers, and began to collect signatures. It has been found that some of the KMT-headed counties and cities have allegedly been mobilizing municipal machinery. In Keelung, the director of the Department of Civil Affairs used the household registration system
RSS