+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

  1. #1
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    One foot in, one foot out.
    Posts
    293

    Default An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    I absolutely hate discussing gender differences, as I am easily offended by such generalizations, and, while I fit the conclusion that I reach, I am anything but 'masculine' in the societal sense. However, I believe I know why the topic is so offensive, and thus am trying to remedy it. But first, I must say this:

    These are only generalizations. There are always exceptions.

    Anyway:
    I think we can all accept that there are differences between men and women. However, people seem to be determined to divide up the differing personalities in terms of better and worse. This is a critical mistake, as it will invariably offend someone. For example, I think we can all agree the following statements are offensive and immediately label the speaker as an uncouth swine:
    'Men are strong, and women are weak'
    'Men are dominant, and women are submissive'

    'Women are smart, and men are stupid'
    'Women are deep, and men are shallow'
    Fortunately, the days where these type of statements are acceptable in public are past (I think), and we as a society have moved on. However, our current gender generalization assumptions are not much better. All we do now is try to balance our generalizations, such as this:
    'Men are strong, but women are clever'
    This is equal, more or less. However, it is equally insulting, not equally praising, as most people will only see the insult against their gender than the praise.
    Thus, in order to generalize, we must do so in a way that stresses that each gender is equally valid. Here's a good first take on it:
    'Men and Women see the world in different ways.'
    That is not offensive, as there are few ways of seeing the world that are immediately offensive. However, at present this is a tautology, only stating the opening premise. We must be more specific. Thus, I arrive at my generalization, which I think manages to be non-offensive:

    'Men are precise, and women are subtle'

    Notice how these are not opposites. When one is presented with two opposites, the immediate reaction is to take a side. By keeping the generalizations skewed, there is no obvious 'side' to take. Notice also that there is no immediate insult opposite the words. 'Imprecise' is obscure enough that it is not directly offensive, while 'unsubtle' is not generally perceived as an insult.

    Also, there's the and. By using and instead of the more common but, I stress that neither of the viewpoints are meant to be better or worse than the other. This is the most critical point.


    I have not mentioned transsexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, asexuals, intersexuals and people whose sex does not match their gender. This is because I do not know enough of them to generalize about them. All I will say is that my generalization does not necessarily apply to them.

  2. #2
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    I think, very generally speaking, that it's really about men being good at different kinds of things than women are, and vice versa, as your post implies. There is actually brain research that shows why this might be so. For instance, it's not a secret that men tend to be better at spatial analysis than women are (an often-given example is that women are prone to "orienting" a map in the direction they are moving, whereas men will tend to leave it oriented so that north is up). Please note that this does not mean that women can't do just as fine a job reading a map...they just process it differently. On the other hand, women are better at "scanning" their environment and picking out details than men are, which may be why they seem to be better at finding lost items.

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt Taumpy's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,356

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Quote Originally posted by pedescribe
    I think we can all accept that there are differences between men and women.

    Sure, no question. However, the thing people seem to miss is that there is always greater variation among the genders than between them. Yes, men are on average stronger than women. However, women are socialized to think that muscles are unfeminine. At work I'll see women all the time expect not to lift anything heavy, because, gee, there are men around to do it for them. Does that mean if every woman went out and lifted weights and bulked up that the genders would be equal strength-wise? No, I doubt it... but I bet there would be far less variation.

    Quote Originally posted by pedescribe
    Fortunately, the days where these type of statements are acceptable in public are past (I think), and we as a society have moved on.
    You do? I don't think we're beyond that sort of thing all at.

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena
    For instance, it's not a secret that men tend to be better at spatial analysis than women are (an often-given example is that women are prone to "orienting" a map in the direction they are moving, whereas men will tend to leave it oriented so that north is up). Please note that this does not mean that women can't do just as fine a job reading a map...they just process it differently
    And again, I wonder how much of this is innate, and how much of it is socialized. Certainly, I expect some people doing such studies are prone to self-fulling prophesies. After all, "everyone knows" women aren't as good as spatial analysis and "orient" their maps (which women? Do you know them? I don't.).

    Of course, none of this covers the fact that gender isn't binary. It's more of a spectrum, and I think we'd be better off abandoning rigid roles entirely.
    Taumpy: Oh noes, you aren't a super powerful wave of destruction.
    Panther Squad: It's true! My scythe does not shorn the biomonsters in great swaths like it ought!

  4. #4
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    By a Crystal Palace
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Of course, none of this covers the fact that gender isn't binary. It's more of a spectrum, and I think we'd be better off abandoning rigid roles entirely.
    I'd agree with this. In my past experience the differences are far wider between individuals than they are between genders.

    Some people seem to want the gap between gender capabilities to be wider than it is. You run into it a lot in IT, for example the neighbour who insisted that only a man could work on his PC, and ended up with his wife inviting me round to fix it. (It turned out to be purely an attitude towards women problem, although I was wondering what I'd find considering his insistence on a male tech )

    The one that really threw me was a GM who insisted players had to play the same gender because it was impossible to understand the other gender. So considering the game, a player could play a 5000 year old elf, a sentient invisible T-rex, or a living Golem and understand their utterly alien point of view just fine - but only if it's the same gender as the player.

    Given this why raise gender generalisations at all? By raising them you give credence to them and are likely to offend the people it isn't true for, which is most of your audience. I am also interested that you think "subtle" is a good thing e.g. Precise is a required quality on several of the job descriptions I have seen - subtle has never appeared.

  5. #5
    Oliphaunt Baldwin's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    1,031

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    I don't care whether people are offended by a generalization, only whether the generalization is based on facts. I just don't think there are very many male/female generalizations that hold up to scrutiny.

  6. #6
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender diffe

    Why make generalizations about gender at all? Since variation within gender is far wider than variation between genders, it seems like the best course of action is to treat each individual separately, not as a member of his or her gender. And that obviates any need for generalizations about genders.

    So why generalize? It seems like the most likely outcome of generalization is that you're going to end up slotting people into categories they don't belong in.
    I am Frylock at the SDMB.

  7. #7
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Quote Originally posted by Taumpy Tearrs
    And again, I wonder how much of this is innate, and how much of it is socialized. Certainly, I expect some people doing such studies are prone to self-fulling prophesies. After all, "everyone knows" women aren't as good as spatial analysis and "orient" their maps (which women? Do you know them? I don't.).

    Of course, none of this covers the fact that gender isn't binary. It's more of a spectrum, and I think we'd be better off abandoning rigid roles entirely.
    Interestingly, a recent study that I read about in this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0523081208.htm shows the following:

    In general, over the range of tasks measured, where a gender performed better in a task heterosexuals of that gender tended to perform better than non-heterosexuals. When a particular gender was poorer at a task homosexual and bisexual people tended to perform better than heterosexual members of that gender.
    Here is an example as listed in the article, which relates to the map example that I gave:
    For instance in mental rotation (a task where men usually perform better) they found that the table of best performance to worst was:

    Heterosexual men
    Bisexual men
    Homosexual men
    Homosexual women
    Bisexual women
    Heterosexual women
    This seems to indicate that there are differences in our brains that make us better or worse at certain types of tasks, and that some of those differences are gender-driven. Personally, I don't believe in "rigid roles," I think that everyone should do what they are most suited to doing, whether they be male or female. But, there does seem to be some difference in the male brain vs. the female brain, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.

  8. #8
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    I think these kinds of generalizations are useful if and only if they are presented in context with the answer to the implied question - "so what?"

    Absent context, these generalizations are never useful. So what that women are more likely to rotate a map then men? So what that men are stronger? What does that tell us that's interesting? It tells us nothing.

    However, in context, they can be. Women are less interested in engaging in adversarial debates than men are. So what? Perhaps this can tell us something about why women are underrepresented in arenas that value adversarial debates (like politics). Women tend to do more than their share of housework when cohabitating in heterosexual relationships. So what? Perhaps it can tell us something about other differences that we observe between genders, like pay gaps, experiences of depression, women's roles in society, etc.

    (For example, in sarafeena's post above, the "So what?" is that "This seems to indicate that there are differences in our brains that make us better or worse at certain types of tasks, and that some of those differences are gender-driven," a very interesting possibility.)

    I question the motivation of people who make broad generalizations with no qualifiers or contextualizing information.

  9. #9
    Oliphaunt Taumpy's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,356

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena
    This seems to indicate that there are differences in our brains that make us better or worse at certain types of tasks, and that some of those differences are gender-driven. Personally, I don't believe in "rigid roles," I think that everyone should do what they are most suited to doing, whether they be male or female. But, there does seem to be some difference in the male brain vs. the female brain, and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that.

    Absolutely, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging the possibility. Thanks for the link. I could have been a little clearer before. What I mean is, a study like that doesn't necessarily show us that these differences are due to differences in male and female brains, or due, at least in part, to how people are socialized. This is hardly the first study that suggests women have more verbal dexterity than men, but is that because the female brain is more suited to verbal tasks or because women are socialized to be more verbal than men from when they're small children? I'm perfectly willing to accept that either is a possibility (or a combination of both), but I'm not convinced that the question has been sufficiently answered.

    Seeing the sexual orientation angle is certainly interesting, though the link doesn't tell us the breakdown, and I wonder if the amount of admitted non-hetero people involved isn't too small a sample to really say anything. As for my personally not knowing any women that do that... at least 90% of my female acquaintances are lesbian or bi so draw your own conclusions.
    Taumpy: Oh noes, you aren't a super powerful wave of destruction.
    Panther Squad: It's true! My scythe does not shorn the biomonsters in great swaths like it ought!

  10. #10
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Well, I do the map thing, and I'm a straight female, so make of that what you will! There is research that shows the difference in brain structure between men and women, but I don't know enough about it to comment right now. Will try to poke around on the web and find some info.

  11. #11
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Interesting data and posts here.

    One of the things that does come to my mind, however, is a possible answer to the 'so what?' question mentioned above by several posters.

    I'm going to stick with physical characteristics for this discussion, because that's an area where it seems to me that there is evidence to support the claim of measurable differences between the sexes. On average, men have more upper body strength, and tend to be larger than women. So what?

    To my mind, it suggests to me that in jobs where strength and upper body strength, in particular, are an important prerequisite for the work that so-called gender normalizing the standards expected of candidates for such positions may be a mistake. Fire fighting is physically very challenging work, and while I see nothing wrong with a woman choosing the work, I don't see why it's desirable to lower the testing standards for her to that statistical difference between the sexes I mentioned above. The fire isn't going to care, and shouldn't that be the test that people care about when hiring a fire fighter?

  12. #12
    Curmudgeon OtakuLoki's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Whoops, I had it pointed out that I wasn't as clear as I'd meant to be: I have no problem with anyone working in any position.

    I just meant to speak up in favor of using the same standards for all candidates for those positions where a bias based on sex can be expected. By no means should a candidate be excluded from consideration because she's female, once she's met the physical standards for the position. Presuming those standards are the same for all candidates. ETA: In those rare cases where such bias can be shown to matter for the job at hand. Strength testing for computer programmers is just silly, for example.

    Of course, it's also worthwhile to continually question where and when those physical standards remain pertinent to the position. I mentioned fire fighting because that is a job that remains difficult to bring complex tools that obviate the physical standards that used to matter: hoses are still heavy, ungainly beasts and still need to be carried through buildings to fight fires; carrying out people remains another common task for firefighters. And it's so far much easier to use a person who can do both those jobs, than try to design a mechanical tool that do both those jobs, as needed.

    But many other jobs where strength used to be an assumed part of the job just don't have the same day-to-day requirements. To take another traditional bastion, consider the military. While I argue that the infantryman remains the basic, and still vital, core of the field, it is not the end all and be all for the job. So considerations about what the requirements for a good infantryman shouldn't be the standard for defining what standards one must meet to be in the military. I have no real problem with gender normalizing the basic physical fitness test standards, because of that.

  13. #13
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    One foot in, one foot out.
    Posts
    293

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender diffe

    Quote Originally posted by Speusippus
    Why make generalizations about gender at all? Since variation within gender is far wider than variation between genders, it seems like the best course of action is to treat each individual separately, not as a member of his or her gender. And that obviates any need for generalizations about genders.

    So why generalize? It seems like the most likely outcome of generalization is that you're going to end up slotting people into categories they don't belong in.
    That's a fair point, and, typically, I don't. However, some people insist on doing so, and I was trying to explain why I get so offended at their usual efforts, while offering a non-offensive alternative.

  14. #14
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    It would surprise me greatly if an advanced species came to Earth and told us that after much study, there were very few differences between men and women; that somehow, amidst all the variation on this planet with particular consequences, sexual differentiation in humans really didn't imply much of anything besides who bears children. It is very interesting that much of the folk-wisdom or whatever about different sexes has proven to be untrue, but I, for one, would not want to generalize this result in any way. It seems that we are starting to dissolve cultural pressures in this regard, which is great. Would that I could see two hundred years into the future.

  15. #15
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    44

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    I was starting to type up a response to that, but then I realized I was responding to things you hadn't actually said. So, instead, let me just ask for clarification: Why, exactly, would it surprise you so greatly?

  16. #16
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Sex being a distinction without any difference would surprise me because I have not noticed a preponderance of distinctions without differences in science or philosophy. From what I know--an unfortunately important qualifier--there are no such beasts.

  17. #17
    Stegodon Jaglavak's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    360

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    After thinking about the many people I've known, I truely believe that nearly all of the differences between men and women boil down to the body that they find themselves in. Boys are bigger and stronger than girls. This forms the foundation of our world views far more than most folks realize or care to admit. I could go on, but that's the gist of it.

  18. #18
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Aside from physical differences, girls/women are socialized differently from boys/men. That's the source of a lot of gender differences as well (e.g. women are more likely to cook, men are less likely to cry in public, etc).

    I haven't heard anyone seriously argue that there are no meaningful differences between men and women. The challenge is to talk about them in a way that is meaningful and accurate, and which offers enlightenment instead of needlessly perpetuating historical stereotypes.

  19. #19
    Stegodon Jaglavak's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    360

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Y'know, I think those last two posts together pretty much wraps it up. There's not much more to it, really.


    Quote Originally posted by cowgirl
    ....men are less likely to cry in public....
    You've obviously never seen me drop a bottle of Scotch.

  20. #20
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Quote Originally posted by Jaglavak
    Quote Originally posted by cowgirl
    ....men are less likely to cry in public....
    You've obviously never seen me drop a bottle of Scotch.
    Once I watched a man stumble and drop an entire case of beer on the ground. Every bottle inside exploded.

    I think everyone watching cried - especially the men.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Quote Originally posted by pedescribe
    I think we can all accept that there are differences between men and women.
    That's the basic problem. People already agree, pretty much universally, that there are basic differences between men and women. What's worse is that the popular media are full of stories about how scientists have proven that men and women are substantially different in personality trait 'x' or cognitive skill 'y', which lends credence to these ideas. Then add in the fact that, for whatever reason, society seems to be swinging in the direction of believing that all personality traits are acquired before birth from genes (rather than the result of enculturation), and it seems obvious that men and women are different in basic ways.

    But there is little to no scientific evidence for anything along these lines. Whenever studies do seem to find some difference in something like (to pick on something mentioned earlier) spatial reasoning skills, the difference that can be chalked up to sex is minuscule and is dwarfed by the variation that occurs within each sex. And of course, these kind of studies can rarely provide any evidence that these differences are inborn rather than culturally learned.

    The science just hasn't really confirmed any useful generalizations beyond the immediately obvious (e.g. that women are typically sexually attracted to men, and vice versa.) In fact, it is possible to draw some generalizations from anthropology -- for instance, men, just as popular belief would have it, really do seem to do much more of the hunting in hunter-gatherer societies. Also, men in general really do seem to be more violent than women. But, then, these differences are quite possibly the result of the (obvious and indisputable) differences in size and strength between the sexes. And while there's no reason different social roles couldn't lead to the evolution of different personality traits and cognitive abilities, most of the commonly-claimed differences (like, say, that women are more talkative, or that men have better senses of direction) don't seem to be particularly significant when studied formally.

    This really bugs me, too, because there's a major push in the U.S. lately for single-sex education, justified by scientific research that purports to show that little boys and girls learn best in different environments. And it's just complete bullshit. Phony "experts" are churning out books of exaggeration and in some cases out-and-out lies to push this stupid agenda. This is exactly the sort of question science can shed light on, but unfortunately in the public sphere science's basic use seems to be confirming what people already believe. That's what offends me.

  22. #22
    Oliphaunt Taumpy's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,356

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibre
    And of course, these kind of studies can rarely provide any evidence that these differences are inborn rather than culturally learned.
    Thank you! That is pretty much what I was getting at earlier, just stated better.
    Taumpy: Oh noes, you aren't a super powerful wave of destruction.
    Panther Squad: It's true! My scythe does not shorn the biomonsters in great swaths like it ought!

  23. #23
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    109

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    I don't see that there's anything wrong with making biologically, scientifically sound generalizations about men and women. The trouble is knowing what those distinctions are, sorting out the politically motivated accusations of difference with those that can be proved through genetics, hormones, development in utero, brain development, socialization, and so on.

    I have posted this before on the SDMB, but the hypothalamus shows us some very interesting sex-related distinctions. If (during autopsy, of course) it is sliced open and unrolled, the hypothalamus of a heterosexual man appears grainy, as if it had a five-o'clock shadow. A heterosexual woman's appears clean. What's interesting is that a gay man's is indistinguishable from that of a straight man; and a M>F transgendered person is indistinguishable from a woman's.

    There is some dispute about the difference in the corpus callosum, the link between left and right brain hemispheres, and whether a woman's is larger (relative to volume) than a man's, and if so, what that means. I've seen MRI studies that suggest a typical male brain has more volume devoted toward spatial analysis, and a tiny localized area for language, and vice-versa for women — but I don't know how that study was conducted, and whether those brain differences (if real) were caused or reinforced by culture, or whether they were inborn, or if they're restricted to one particular nation where the study was done.

    I've also read a personal report from a F>M transgendered woman who, upon getting testosterone therapy for his transition, found he could no longer cry as easily as before. It's hard to say whether this is a natural effect of testosterone; Wikipedia certainly doesn't confirm it so. In any case, nearly all women have testosterone in them, just at a much smaller quantity.

    The only thing I do stand by is an objective approach. We can't just throw out scientific studies because we don't like the results, or because it isn't politically correct.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Quote Originally posted by Fish
    The only thing I do stand by is an objective approach. We can't just throw out scientific studies because we don't like the results, or because it isn't politically correct.
    No, but a much bigger problem, at least today, is people interpreting the science to claim things it doesn't, just because it confirms previously-held cultural norms, and because being deliberately "politically incorrect" is a great way to gain publicity.

    Fish's reference to disputes over anatomical differences in male and female brains is interesting -- and that's one of the two major problems with this line of reasoning that purports to show differences in cognitive abilities and personality traits. When we do find anatomical differences, they're typically pretty small, and they're argued on the basis of fairly small sample sizes. There is much less certainty than might be assumed as to whether anatomical differences that have been reported actually even exist.

    The bigger problem is that that's all they are: anatomical differences. There's a very gross anatomical difference between men's and women's brains -- men's brains are way bigger -- but, while it would be logical to assume otherwise, it doesn't translate into any difference in intelligence. So talking about small differences like proportionate sizes of this or that brain structure is interesting but it has very little power to demonstrate any relevant real-world difference.

    A related issue is that what we see as brain structures, due to the morphology of the brain upon examination, don't necessarily correspond to anything useful to draw hypotheses about cognitive abilities -- in that every cognitive task involves lots of parts of the brain, and every part of the brain takes part in various different activities. It's not neatly divided up like phrenological diagrams. (I'm not saying you personally believe it is, Fish, please don't take this as a personal accusation!) It's easy to take it too literally when people talk about the "language center" or the "emotional center" or what-have-you and then assume that if, say, a woman's "language center" is proportionately bigger, then she must be more adept with language than a man -- but it is hardly even evidence in that direction, let alone a compelling demonstration that men and women "think" differently.

  25. #25
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    109

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Quote Originally posted by Excalibre
    No, but a much bigger problem, at least today, is people interpreting the science to claim things it doesn't, just because it confirms previously-held cultural norms...
    I won't say that this has never been a problem: obviously people have for a long time twisted science by its ear to make it justify whatever people already believed: using cranial capacity of white skulls to justify greater intelligence of whites over blacks, for instance. As long as science takes place in a competetive, peer-reviewed environment, with great scrutiny, we have a chance of sorting out good results from bad.
    So talking about small differences like proportionate sizes of this or that brain structure is interesting but it has very little power to demonstrate any relevant real-world difference. ... It's easy to take it too literally when people talk about the "language center" or the "emotional center" or what-have-you and then assume that if, say, a woman's "language center" is proportionately bigger, then she must be more adept with language than a man -- but it is hardly even evidence in that direction...
    That's why good science will attempt to corroborate a conclusion with a multitude of data points. I've heard it said that men who suffer strokes are more likely than women to become speech-impaired. If this is true, it might buttress the notion that men (usually) have a "speech center" concentrated in a small, dense area of the brain, more susceptible to a single ischemic event, while women process language in a more widely distributed area. One could also follow up such studies with other carefully designed speech-related tests. We just have to resist the temptation to assume that because "men" and "women" are easily labeled, that science can just as easily distinguish the traits of each.

  26. #26
    Banned
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: An attempt at a non-offensive generalization of gender differences

    Quote Originally posted by Fish
    Quote Originally posted by Excalibre
    No, but a much bigger problem, at least today, is people interpreting the science to claim things it doesn't, just because it confirms previously-held cultural norms...
    I won't say that this has never been a problem: obviously people have for a long time twisted science by its ear to make it justify whatever people already believed: using cranial capacity of white skulls to justify greater intelligence of whites over blacks, for instance. As long as science takes place in a competetive, peer-reviewed environment, with great scrutiny, we have a chance of sorting out good results from bad.
    Well, it's not the science itself that I'm concerned about. It's how science is explained to the public -- what sorts of stories make it into the newsmedia, and how they're interpreted -- that I feel is problematic. The more I compare popular press accounts of studies to the actual results, the more scared I am. Because it's not until science has been filtered through the media that it starts influencing people's attitudes (and for that matter, public policy.)

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts