In my last post I talked about a hoax perpetuated by Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay, which I argued was not only a bad hoax that didn’t prove what it set out to prove, but seems to be indicative of misogyny in higher academic circles as well. I’d like to use this as a launching point into two future posts. This one I am going to address James Lindsay’s claim that gender studies ignores biological differences completely and whether or not this is even important, and then I thought it would be interesting to look in more detail at the gender imbalance that does exist at the higher echelons of intelligence, and academics.
So let’s begin our investigation into biological differences between men and women with the assumption that such differences exist. There are clearly some genetic differences and if it’s a collection of genes that go into our various behavioral qualities it’s plausible that there are differences. But let’s go a step further and say some of the stereotypical ones are true. An employee at Google reminded us of several of them. So let’s say men or more aggressive/assertive, more competitive, they are about things, and have a high drive for status, and let’s say, and I hate to even pretend this is the case, that men handle stress better and are less neurotic. Anybody who’s seen the typical working mother knows that it’s probably more likely that men just don’t have as much stress, but for now let’s assume this is the case. So conversely this assumes that women are more agreeable, cooperative, don’t have a high drive for status and prefer to have a more balanced lifestyle, are more about people over things (this sort of translates also to the stereotype of women being better nurturers than men), and don’t handle stress as well.
The first thing that matters of course is how different are these things. In a previous post I talked about some basics about statistics and that any trait is distributed about some mean value. If the difference between men and women in some trait like aggression is small, there is a lot of overlap. Meaning there are many women who are as aggressive as men and increased probability that some women will be more aggressive than some men. The main difference is that you will only find men in the hyper-aggressive end of the distribution, and only find women at the far opposite end of the aggression distribution (super timid?). Whatever metric you might use to measure aggression the closer the averages between men and women the less presumptive you could be about any particular gender having that trait. It’s arguable though that even if there is more separation if you were interviewing applicants for a job this would not be something you could simply assume and use as a basis for making your decision. That is still discrimination. Even if the odds are in your favor there is still a chance you could be unfairly punishing somebody solely based on their gender instead of their individual qualities.
But let’s say the differences were significant enough to have some meaning. Are any of the traits that women are supposed to have bad for any reason? Our friend at Google actually doesn’t consider them bad, but simply wants to say that maybe there is just some natural reason for why there aren’t more women in tech and hey who are we to fight nature?
Imagine a society that was built valuing the traits that are so “obviously” female. What would that world look like? Could we say it was worse? Let’s say you were a man going in for a job interview at a corporation. In this world where the feminine traits were valued, where they are the ones that society was built around you might hear things like this at your interview:
EMPLOYER: Now you list here on your application that one of your strengths is competitiveness. How do you think you would fit into the cooperative philosophy we have here at our company?
EMPLOYER: I’m a bit worried that your aggressiveness might be a problem in a leadership role. We’re looking for someone who is more thoughtful before making decisions and listens more carefully to ideas that come from their team over making decisions unilaterally.
EMPLOYER: As a man we know you are more about things, but things are used by people, and so really what we are looking for is a more people focused person.
EMPLOYER: We think it’s great that as a man you can handle stress really well, but our company has gone to great lengths to creating a stress free environment so that’s not a quality we are looking for.
EMPLOYER: As you know children are the future and the key to a child’s development is having a parent home in those early times especially. Given that men aren’t interested in a more balanced lifestyle you’ll simply be expected to take on more responsibilities as your female colleagues go on leave without compensation for those extra duties. And given that we are playing an important role in our children’s welfare, those extra duties you take aren’t considered as additional experience when being considered for promotion.
A female friend of mine were talking and she just said to me, “I am not exactly sure what life should look like, but if I were to build it all back up from scratch, it wouldn’t look like this.” I think another thing we have to consider when we are analyzing studies that purport differences between males and females is how much of our society is structured with maleness as the standard. If women and men have different traits as a result of their biology then much of what we see in society will naturally show women as being disadvantaged as compared to men in a society that is built on traits they on average excel at. There is nothing inherently better about favoring competitiveness over cooperativeness, there is nothing inherently better about favoring things over people. Why should assertiveness be more rewarded over being agreeable? These are all examples of a male standard that women are being forced to meet for no reason other than this is a man’s world. Even the way we do education could be argued as being structured with male education in mind, given for a long time educating women wasn’t a priority as they weren’t expected to utilize that knowledge in a career. So if men and women learn differently, maybe we are forcing them to conform to a different style of learning. Now, I’m not saying that biologic differences don’t exist, but it seriously casts some doubt on any study that is trying to disentangle biological differences between men and women in a world that still uses maleness as the gold standard that everyone must meet.
Finally the onus is on those who purport biological differences in traits between male and female to demonstrate that they are significant and useful in any way. There a lot of reasons to doubt that this is the case. In a series of meta-studies and research findings by psychologists by Janet Shibley Hyde, Elizabeth Spelke, and Diane Helpern indicate little to no difference between cognitive abilities in language and mathematics among men and women. Their results are summarized here. From this same summary, Spencer (1999) found:
“… that merely telling women that a math test had previously shown gender differences hurt their performance. The researchers gave a math test to men and women after telling half the women that the test had shown gender differences, and telling the rest that it found none. Women who expected gender differences did significantly worse than men. Those who were told there was no gender disparity performed equal to men.”
In another study by Gneezy et. al (2009) differences in competitiveness between women and men is challenged. Participants from villages that are matriachal (Khasi) and patriarchal (Maasi) in India were asked to take part in a game of throwing tennis balls into a basket:
“They were given a choice of a simple payment for the task—about 40 US cents—or they could earn three times as much if they beat they the other player. Among the Maasai, half the men chose to compete, while only a quarter of the women chose to. Among the Khasi, not only were the results reversed, but Khasi women were even more competitive than the Maasai men: 54% of the women opted to compete, as did 39% of the Khasi men.”
The clear role that socialized gender roles plays in differences between men and women is highlighted in a paper by Guiso et. al (2008) where employers were asked to make quick decisions about who to hire for a job based on performance on a 4 minute math sprint exam:
“Men and women employers alike revealed their prejudice against women for a perceived lack of mathematical ability. When the only information that the employers had was a photograph of the candidate, men were twice as likely to be hired for the simple math job, no matter whether it was a man or woman doing the hiring, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The hiring bias did not disappear when candidates self-reported their ability on the task, in part because women tended to underestimate their ability while men tended to boast. And even when the employers received accurate information about the actual performance of the candidates, the bias did not fully disappear. The more prejudiced a person was, as measured by the Implicit Association Test, the less likely they were to correct their bias.”
Confirming the findings from this study as well as outlining the difficulty with pointing to biological differences as any sort of major cause for the presence of women with high levels of cognitive abilities and leadership roles, I strongly recommending reading this article by Halpern et al (2012) published in Scientific American.
The article will make a nice launching point into my next post where I talk about the intersection of feminism and atheism or lack thereof. What seems clear is that there continue to be strong biases against women in both academia and in the work place. While such bias still exists in our society it seems more apt for the Boghossians, Lindsays, and Shermers of the world to spend more of their time worrying about that imbalance instead of mocking a field which may not be as bereft of scholarship as they claim, and which may have some valid arguments to make. And if they are the scientists they claim to be and going to rail against a field which denies biological differences between men and women, they should also make sure that all the findings out there fit that assertion. It seems far from clear that those differences are significant enough to be meaningful in any gender make up of any corporation, tech company, or university.
It may be that at some point biological differences do give us important information that can help men and women achieve better states of well-being in reaching their full potential, but it seems clear we are far from that stage in our society. Only once we truly see that there is no career or field that women are less qualified for, and that we live in a world that puts emphasis on good human values, not male values, should biological differences really be part of the discussion.