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.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
Out of 64 participating universities in this year’s Stars Program — through which schools directly recommend their top students to universities for admission — only 19 filled their admissions quotas. There were 922 vacancies, down more than 200 from last year; top universities had 37 unfilled places, 40 fewer than last year. The original purpose of the Stars Program was to expand admissions to a wider range of students. However, certain departments at elite universities that failed to meet their admissions quotas are not improving. Vacancies at top universities are linked to students’ program preferences on their applications, but inappropriate admission
RSS