This is a refreshing radio program from CBC debunking swell of voices who insist once again on the inate differences between men and women (and of course how women and men are better suited to different societal roles). What's new about this latest affront to gender equality is its supposed grounding in science and therefore its claim to neutrality. CBC lays out the arguments for innate gender differences and against. Yet, overwhelming (at least at the end of part 1) the evidence shows that our young girls and boys may appear to have different neural structures and consequently different abilities, but there's no strong evidence to support that these are biological rather than shaped by the enviroment.
For example, one study, quoted in the program, revealed that mothers talk differently to their little girls than to their little boys. To their girls, they not only used more complex language but also geared their language to expressing emotion. Boys were spoken to in relatively simply phrases that often resembled short commands. Why then would the boys show less verbal ability than girls?
This program should lead to a healthy skeptiscm regarding any findings coming from the natural sciences. When the medical norm is that there are no gender differences, so negative studies won't be published, what's published is the few studies that do show some kind of difference. Any sort of found gender difference in a data set is also an opportunity to publish another article. Publish or perish. The social demands of the science community influence the type of results that make it to the public realm. In contrast to the natural sciences, social psychology studies increasingly show that gender is reinforced by expectation. Our gendered identity is perhaps intrapolated by society more than we care to admit.
These are just some gems from a solid program at a particularly parched moment for the fields of feminism.
It would be helpful to any feminist to remember that the great institutions we have built to enrich the knowledge of ourselves such as the natural sciences consist also of people. Why are there less women in politics? Why do women consistently earn less than men? We may not choose to stay at home and take care of kids because we are biologically programmed to do so, but rather because we do not have the social support. All women need a man with us like Margaret Thatcher's husband. It is they who will love us enough to see us stand at the full height of our ability. We will all be richer for it.
For example, one study, quoted in the program, revealed that mothers talk differently to their little girls than to their little boys. To their girls, they not only used more complex language but also geared their language to expressing emotion. Boys were spoken to in relatively simply phrases that often resembled short commands. Why then would the boys show less verbal ability than girls?
This program should lead to a healthy skeptiscm regarding any findings coming from the natural sciences. When the medical norm is that there are no gender differences, so negative studies won't be published, what's published is the few studies that do show some kind of difference. Any sort of found gender difference in a data set is also an opportunity to publish another article. Publish or perish. The social demands of the science community influence the type of results that make it to the public realm. In contrast to the natural sciences, social psychology studies increasingly show that gender is reinforced by expectation. Our gendered identity is perhaps intrapolated by society more than we care to admit.
These are just some gems from a solid program at a particularly parched moment for the fields of feminism.
It would be helpful to any feminist to remember that the great institutions we have built to enrich the knowledge of ourselves such as the natural sciences consist also of people. Why are there less women in politics? Why do women consistently earn less than men? We may not choose to stay at home and take care of kids because we are biologically programmed to do so, but rather because we do not have the social support. All women need a man with us like Margaret Thatcher's husband. It is they who will love us enough to see us stand at the full height of our ability. We will all be richer for it.
