Deborah Cameron: The Myth of Mars and Venus
I do love these sorts of things. Deborah Cameron had an extract of her upcoming book, The Myth of Mars and Venus, in The Guardian a few days ago. She wants to take issue with, amongst other people, Simon Baron Cohen, the researcher whose work underlies our EQSQ personality tests. Excellent, this is the way science advances.
However, actually reading through it I think she really rather misses her mark. Her basic thrust is that the differences between men and women are socially created and enforced, rather than being anything innate or genetically based. Thus, say, the idea that men interrupt more than women could be based on the fact that the powerful interrupt more than the non-: and it’s men that hold the power in our society.
She might even be right on that specific point, but I think she rather spoils things by stating that the variability between men and women on many things isn’t actually all that great (well, quite, we are the same species, after all) and then going on to state that the variance within men and within women is greater than that between the averages between the two groups. This is true, of course, but she uses it as a refutation of Baron Cohen and thus the science upon which our personality tests are based. But, err, the whole point of using them is that being XX or XY doesn’t tell you whether you are systemizing or empathic. We’re actually insisting that the variance amongst men and amongst women is greater than the averages between them, that’s why you take the tests to find out rather than looking between your legs.
Telling us that what we’re doing is right is a very odd way of refuting the argument.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
I liked this, especially Cameron’s argument that if you’re told your entire life, not only outrightly, but through all the subtle things that, as a matter of course, support the public’s most basic gender assumptions, how easy is it to defy those assumptions?
Of course it’s easier for higher educated women (and men). This is where I’d argue with Cameron: she refers to a book from Steven Pinker that dares to say what Pinker defines as “unsayable in polite company.†Cameron counterargues, claiming speaking about gender differences is far from “unsayable,†but simply repeats society’s assumptions (especially since the 90s “Mars vs. Venusâ€). Whatever of the public, I hardly think this is within speakable range in most academic circles. Pinker, a Harvard Psychology professor, probably has not been in much “polite company†that would accept this argument.
Still, Cameron’s arguments seem solid. I find it too bad she misinterprets Baren-Cohen, as I think there might be more syntheses between the two than she’s aware. Still, I too first interpreted Baren-Cohen as just another one propelling gender stereotypes. Since, I’ve come to appreciate this notion of “systemizer†and “empathizerâ€: it’s a compelling theory. Why, I wonder, did he not simply call it that: “systemizerâ€/“empathizer†(or “balancedâ€)? Why even use the terms “male brain typeâ€/“female brain typeâ€?
November 4th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I agree there, I think that a good part of the disagreement that people have with the S B-C theory is just that, that he’s used “male” and “female”. Take that out and a lot more people would agree I think.