Comments on: Deborah Cameron: The Myth of Mars and Venus http://www.eqsq.com/vivreladifference/2007/10/03/deborah-cameron-the-myth-of-mars-and-venus/ Vivre La Difference Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:34:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Tim Worstall http://www.eqsq.com/vivreladifference/2007/10/03/deborah-cameron-the-myth-of-mars-and-venus/#comment-8727 Tim Worstall Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:40:31 +0000 http://eqsq.com/vivreLaDifference/deborah-cameron-the-myth-of-mars-and-venus.html#comment-8727 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. 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.

]]> By: lucy http://www.eqsq.com/vivreladifference/2007/10/03/deborah-cameron-the-myth-of-mars-and-venus/#comment-7538 lucy Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:30:59 +0000 http://eqsq.com/vivreLaDifference/deborah-cameron-the-myth-of-mars-and-venus.html#comment-7538 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. Venus”). 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 “empathizer”: it’s a compelling theory. Why, I wonder, did he not simply call it that: “systemizer”/“empathizer” (or “balanced”)? Why even use the terms “male brain type”/“female brain type”? 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. Venus”). 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 “empathizer”: it’s a compelling theory. Why, I wonder, did he not simply call it that: “systemizer”/“empathizer” (or “balanced”)? Why even use the terms “male brain type”/“female brain type”?

]]>