“Why does everything you know, and everything you’ve learned, confirm you in what you believed before? Whereas in my case, what I grew up with, and what I thought I believed, is chipped away a little and a little, a fragment then a piece and then a piece more. With every month that passes, the corners are knocked off the certainties of this world: and the next world too. Show me where it says, in the Bible, ‘Purgatory.’ Show me where it says ‘relics, monks, nuns.’ Show me where it says ‘Pope.’” –Thomas Cromwell imagines asking Thomas More—Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
"As a professional debunker I feel like I know bunk when I see it, and Wertheim has well captured the genre: 'In all likelihood there will be an abundant use of CAPITAL LETTERS and exclamation points!!! Important sections will be underlined or bolded, or circled, for emphasis.'"
On two separate occasions now, one of my colleagues in the English department has posted the story of a baby named Storm on Facebook. Storm’s parents opted against revealing the newborn’s sex to friends and any but immediate family to protect her or him from those nasty stereotypes. In the comments under these links were various commendations and expressions of solidarity. Storm’s parents, most agreed, are heroes. Parents bragged about all their own children’s androgynous behavior, expressing their desire to rub it in the faces of “gender nazis.”
|From the Toronto Star|
When they’re thinking clearly, all parents know a simple truth that gets completely discounted in discussions of gender—it’s really hard to get through to your kids even with messages you’re sending deliberately and explicitly. The notion that you can accidentally send some subtle cue that’s going to profoundly shape a child’s identity deserves a lot more skepticism than it gets (ask my conservative parents, especially my Catholic mom). This is because identity is something children actively create for themselves, not the sum total of all the cultural assumptions foisted on them as they grow up. Children’s minds are not receptacles for all our ideological garbage. They rummage around for their own ideological garbage, and they don’t just pick up whatever they find lying around.
Psychologist John Money was a prominent advocate of the theory that gender is determined completely through socialization. So he advised the parents of a six-month-old boy whose penis had been destroyed in a botched circumcision to have the testicles removed as well and to raise the boy as a girl. The boy, David Reimer, never thought of himself as a girl, despite his parents’ and Money’s efforts to socialize him as one. Money nevertheless kept declaring success, claiming Reimer (who was called Brenda at the time) proved his theory of gender development. By age 13, however, the poor kid was suicidal. At 14, he declared himself a boy, and later went on to get further surgeries to reconstruct his genitals. In his account, written with John Colapinto, As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, Reimer says that Money’s ministrations were in no way therapeutic—they were traumatic. Having read about Reimer in Steven Pinker’s book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, I thought of John Money every time I came across the term gender nazi in the Facebook comments about Storm (though I haven’t read Colapinto’s book in its entirety and don’t claim to know the case in enough detail to support such a severe charge).
Reimer’s case is by no means the only evidence that gender identity and gender-typical behavior are heavily influenced by hormones. Psychiatrist William Reiner and urologist John Gearhart report that raising boys (who’ve been exposed in utero to more testosterone) as girls after surgery to remove underdeveloped sex organs tends not to result in feminine behaviors—or even feminine identity. Of the 16 boys in their study, 2 were raised as boys, while 14 were raised as girls. Five of the fourteen remained female throughout the study, but 4 spontaneously declared themselves to be male, and 4 others decided they were male after being informed of the surgery they’d undergone. All 16 of the children displayed “moderate to marked” degrees of male-typical behavior. The authors write, “At the initial assessment, the parents of only four subjects assigned to female sex reported that their child had never stated a wish to be a boy.”
An earlier study of so-called pseudo-hermaphrodites, boys with a hormone disorder who are born looking like girls but who become more virile in adolescence, revealed that of 18 participants who were raised as girls, all but one changed their gender identity to male. There is also a condition some girls are born with called Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), which is characterized by an increased amount of male hormones in their bodies. It often leads to abnormal testes and the need for surgery. But Sheri Berenbaum and J. Michael Bailey found that in the group of girls with CAH they studied, increased levels of male-typical behavior could not be explained by the development of male genitalia or the age of surgery. The hormones themselves are the likely cause of the differences.
|From Psychology Today and Satoshi Kanazawa|
One particularly fascinating finding about kids’ preferences for toys comes from the realm of ethology. It turns out that rhesus monkeys show preferences for certain types of toys depending on their gender—and they’re the same preferences you would expect. Girls will play with plush dolls or with wheeled vehicles, but boys are much more likely to go for the cars and trucks. And the difference is even more pronounced in vervet monkeys, with both females and males spending significantly more time with toys we might in other contexts call “stereotypical.” There’s even some good preliminary evidence that chimpanzees play with sticks differently depending on their gender, with males using them as tools or weapons and females cradling them like babies.
Are gender roles based solely on stereotypes and cultural contingencies? In The Blank Slate, Pinker excerpts large sections of anthropologist Donald Brown’s inventory of behaviors that have been observed by ethnographers in all cultures that have been surveyed. Brown’s book is called Human Universals, and it casts serious doubt on theories that rule out every factor influencing development except socialization. Included in the inventory: “classification of sex,” “females do more direct child care,” “male and female and adult and child seen as having different natures,” “males more aggressive,” and “sex (gender) terminology is fundamentally binary” (435-8). These observations are based on societies, not individuals, who vary much more dramatically one to the next. The point isn’t that genes or biology determine behavioral outcomes; the relationship between biology and behavior isn’t mechanistic—it’s probabilistic. But the probabilities tend to be much higher than anyone in English departments assumes—higher even than the bloggers at Scientific American assume.
Interestingly, even though there are resilient differences in math test scores between boys and girls—with boys’ scores showing the same average but stretching farther at each tail of the bell curve—researchers exploring women’s underrepresentation in STEM fields have ruled out the higher aptitude of a small subset of men as the most important factor. They’ve also ruled out socialization. Reviewing multiple sources of evidence, Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams find that
the omnipresent claim that sex differences in mathematics
result from early socialization (i.e., parents and teachers
inculcating a ‘‘math is for boys’’ attitude) fails empirical
scrutiny. One cannot assert that socialization causes girls to
opt out of math and science when girls take as many math
and science courses as boys in grades K–12, achieve higher
grades in them, and major in college math in roughly equal
numbers to males. Moreover, survey evidence of parental
attitudes and behaviors undermines the socialization
argument, at least for recent cohorts. (3)
If it’s not ability, and it’s not socialization, then how do we explain the greater desire on the part of men to pursue careers in math-intensive fields? Ceci and Williams believe it’s a combination of divergent preferences and the biological constraints of childbearing. Women tend to be more interested in social fields; while men like fields with a focus on objects and abstractions. However, girls with CAH show preferences closer to those of boys. (Cool, huh?)
I have little doubt that if society were arranged to optimize women’s interest in STEM fields they would be much better represented in them. But society isn’t a very easy thing to manipulate. We have to consider the possibility that the victory would be Pyrrhic. In any case, we should avoid treating children like ideological chess pieces. There’s good evidence that we couldn’t keep little kids from seeking gender cues even if we tried, and trying strikes me as cruel. None of this is to say that biology determines everything, or that gender role development is simple. In fact, my problem with the feminist view of gender is that it’s far too crude to account for such a complex phenomenon. The feminists are arm chair pontificators at best and conspiracy theorists at worst. They believe stereotypes can only be harmful. That’s akin to saying that the rules of grammar serve solely to curtail our ability to freely express ourselves. While grammar need not be as rigid as many once believed, doing away with it altogether would reduce language to meaningless babble. Humans need stereotypes and roles. We cannot live in a cultural vacuum.
At the same time, in keeping with the general trend toward tribalism, the feminists’ complaints about pink microscopes are unfair to boys and young men. Imagine being a science-obsessed teenage boy who comes across a bunch of rants on the website for your favorite magazine. They all say, in capital and bolded letters, that suggesting to girls that trying to be pretty is a worthwhile endeavor represents some outrageous offense, that it will cause catastrophic psychological and economic harm to them. It doesn’t take a male or female genius to figure out that the main source of teenage girls’ desire to be pretty is the realization that pretty girls get more attention from hot guys. If a toy can arouse so much ire for suggesting a girl might like to be pretty, then young guys had better control their responses to hot girls—think of the message it sends. So we’re back to the idea that male attraction is inherently oppressive. Since most men can’t help being attracted to women, well, shame on them, right?
Check out part 2 on "The Objectionable Concept of Objectification."
And part 1 on earnings.
These posts have generated pretty lengthy comment threads on Facebook, so stay tuned as well for updates based on my concession of points and links to further evidence.
And, as always, tell me what you think and share this with anyone you think would rip it apart (or anyone who might just enjoy it).
Update: Just a few minutes after posting this, I came across Evolutionary Psychologist Jesse Bering's Facebook update saying he was being unfairly attacked by feminists for his own Scientific American blog. If you'd like to show your solidarity, go to http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/.
Go here to read my response to commenters.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Why I Am Not a Feminist - and You Shouldn't Be Either part 2: The Objectionable Concept of Objectification
Few women, as far as I know, complain about being treated as sexual beings by men they happen to be attracted to. The trouble arises when they’re treated that way when it’s inappropriate, as in the work situation I’ve described. The problem in such situations—and of course I agree it’s a problem—isn’t that the woman is seen as an object; it’s not even that she’s being recognized as attractive; it’s that someone is refusing to see her as more than merely a sexual being.
It’s just as legitimate to look at the numbers of women who suffer from eating disorders or undergo risky surgeries to improve their looks as evidence of an intense desire on the part of females to have the upper hand over men. The problem young girls face is the same problem young boys face—competition for attractive partners is unavoidable. Judging from suicide statistics, the consequences of this competition are even direr for the boys. The explanation for girls’ increasing self-consciousness and their more readily resorting to more extreme measures is probably the simple fact that media technology has opened the world up to everyone like never before, so that now the standards of beauty are determined by a contest with a much larger pool of contestants—not to mention the technological wonders of digital alteration.
|From shortsupport.org 1|
I’m not saying that they literally think these photographs of
women are photographs of tools per se, or photographs of
non-humans, but what the brain imaging data allow us to do
is to look at it as scientific metaphor. That is, they are
reacting to these photographs as people react to objects.
Benevolent or not, men's feelings toward women in porn are probably the starkest proof that objectification is a nonsensical idea: if men were aroused by objects or instruments, the women in x-rated videos would be passive and inert as often as they are active and enthusiastic. I don't have any numbers to cite on this but I'd say most men, by far, cringe at the thought of taking pleasure without reciprocating. Advocates of objectification theory seem to worry that someone will sneak up behind a man and slap him on the back while he's looking at a woman as a sexual being, causing his mind to get stuck that way. I can't be the only man who on more than one occasion has had sex with one woman only to drive to work a short time afterward and speak to other women in a purely professional capacity. Guys looking at porn and then going to work--got to be happening millions of times a day. People shift modes all the time.
The stats on part 1 of Why I Am Not a Feminist: Earnings are still blowing up. But the comments have stopped coming in. Please let me know what you think. Feel free as well to share this post with anyone you think can tear it apart.
Read part 3: Engendering Gender Madness
Read my response to commenters.
Friday, December 9, 2011
|From a Georgetown University study called "Education, Occupation, and Lifetime Earnings"|
|From a 2011 Gallup Report|
If it were true that the figures showing earnings discrepancies in fact represented compelling evidence of hiring or promoting biases favoring men, I would support the cause of reform—not in the name of women’s rights, but in the name of human rights, in the name of fairness. As stark an image as they paint, however, the results of the studies these figures come from are no more proof of bias than a study showing boys win more often in school sports would be proof of cheating. Just as you would have to address the question of how many girls are even playing sports, you have to ask how many women are applying for top-paying positions. Fortunately, several studies have looked at the application and hiring process directly—at least in academic fields.
|From a CDC 2011 Report|
More money does not necessarily buy more happiness, but
less money is associated with emotional pain. Perhaps
$75,000 is a threshold beyond which further increases in
income no longer improve individuals’ ability to do what
matters most to their emotional well-being, such as spending
time with people they like, avoiding pain and disease, and
enjoying leisure. According to the ACS, mean (median) US
household income was $71,500 ($52,000) in 2008, and about
a third of households were above the $75,000 threshold. It
also is likely that when income rises beyond this value, the
increased ability to purchase positive experiences is
balanced, on average, by some negative effects. A recent
psychological study using priming methods provided
suggestive evidence of a possible association between high
income and a reduced ability to savor small pleasures. (4)
Despite frequent assertions that women’s current
underrepresentation in math-intensive fields is caused by sex
discrimination by grant agencies, journal reviewers, and
search committees, the evidence shows women fare as well
as men in hiring, funding, and publishing (given comparable
resources). That women tend to occupy positions offering
fewer resources is not due to women being bypassed in
interviewing and hiring or being denied grants and journal
publications because of their sex. It is due primarily to
factors surrounding family formation and childrearing,
gendered expectations, lifestyle choices, and career
preferences—some originating before or during adolescence
—and secondarily to sex differences at the extreme right tail
of mathematics performance on tests used as gateways to
graduate school admission. As noted, women in
math-intensive fields are interviewed and hired slightly in
excess of their representation among PhDs applying for
tenure-track positions. The primary factors in women’s
underrepresentation are preferences and choices—both freely
made and constrained: “Women choose at a young age not to
pursue math-intensive careers, with few adolescent girls
expressing desires to be engineers or physicists, preferring
instead to be medical doctors, veterinarians, biologists,
psychologists, and lawyers. Females make this choice
despite earning higher math and science grades than males
throughout schooling”. (5)
These "math-intensive" fields (Wallstreet?) are central to our economy and accordingly tend to mean higher pay for those who chose them. Since the study that compared incomes by gender and education level failed to account for what field the education or the career was in, the differences in fields chosen probably explains the difference in pay. The PNAS study authors cite a Government Accountability Office report whose findings accorded well with this explanation. Ceci and Williams write that
the GAO report mentions studies of pay differentials,
demonstrating that nearly all current salary differences
can be accounted for by factors other than
discrimination, such as women being disproportionately
employed at teaching-intensive institutions paying less
and providing less time for research. (4)
Read part 2: The Objectionable Concept of Objectification
and part 3: Engendering Gender Madness
Read my response to commenters.