The Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings. On January 4, 1969, the United Nations “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” entered into force. The charter defines “racial discrimination” as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

Racial Discrimination Ruled Unconstitutional
The 1969 UN Charter would seem to be a step forward from the 1951 ruling in “Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas” where the Court found “no willful, intentional or substantial discrimination” in Topeka’s segregated schools. Appeals followed and it was only in 1954 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, finally, that segregation was unconstitutional. The story of this landmark ruling began when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) launched an attack against the 1896 ruling that “separate but equal” is constitutional. In its systematic assault on this doctrine the NAACP cited many examples of how segregation is detrimental, including the 1940’s “doll test”.

The Effects of Segregation on Black Children
During the 1940’s Kenneth B. Clark and his wife, Mamie P. conducted a series of tests investigating the effects of segregation on black children. The results of the “doll test” were published in a paper for the 1950 White House Mid-Century Conference on Children and Youth. In the doll test, black children between the ages of three and seven were shown baby dolls identical in every way apart from skin color. They are asked to identify the race of each doll and to indicate which doll they preferred. The majority of black children selected the white doll and attributed more positive characteristics to the white doll. This, and other evidence, induced the Clarks to conclude that, “prejudice, discrimination, and segregation” caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred.

Racial Discrimination in the 21st Century
That racial discrimination still exists is not in question. Whether we like it or not, we are prejudiced. This is highlighted by the Implicit Association Tests discussed in a previous column. Sad but true. However, have we at least encouraged a sense of equality and self-love in individuals of a given race? Apparently not. Kiri Davis, a 17-year old high school student repeated the Clark tests recently on a group of 21 young black children in New York. The results? Fifteen of the children preferred the white doll and attributed more positive characteristics to the white doll. It is disturbing to watch the video and see a young black girl indicate that she prefers the white doll, the white doll is nicer, the black doll is bad–and then see her consternation when Kiri asks, “And which doll is most like you”? It seems the seeds of racial discrimination are planted early.

I’m not planning to offer some cute explanation relating to EQ and SQ quotients. Take the EQ SQ tests, by all means, but they won’t tell you anything about racial discrimination. Discrimination on the grounds of skin color is illogical and unfeeling. Skin color tells you nothing about a person’s abilities or beliefs. Nevertheless, the systemizer in me wonders what the results would be with a group of white children.

I’m not sure I would like the answer.

Sources:
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland
• Brown v. Board Exhibition, The Library of Congress, 2004
• Introduction to the Court Opinion on the Plessy v. Ferguson Case. 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
• The Doll Test, Komo-TV, 2006

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

Today, I happened upon “Gender Equality Gobbledygook” by Janice Shaw Crouse. She was writing about the Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report, “The State of the World’s Children 2007″. Crouse is a recognised authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women’s concerns. As I read the piece I could almost see her rolling her eyes and shaking her head. I was compelled to find the UNICEF report and read it for myself. I mean, the well-being of our children is a serious issue. What could have caused Ms. Crouse to be so derisory?

Women and Children: The Double Dividend of Gender Equality
The first thing that struck me was the subtitle of the report, “Women and Children. The Double Dividend of Gender Equality.” The five chapter titles continued in a similar vein:
* A call for equality
* Equality in the household
* Equality in employment
* Equality in politics and government
* Reaping the double dividend of gender equality

Politics and Prejudice: The Double Whammy of a Secret Agenda
While the stated purpose of the UNICEF report is to highlight the plight of the world’s children, the actual agenda seems to be about reinforcing clichéd feminist beliefs concerning the unequal treatment of men and women in just about every facet of life. The focus is shifted again and again from the welfare of children to issues around gender equality. Maybe there is a connection between gender discrimination and the well-being of our children, but surely it isn’t the only factor?

Fruitless and Futile: The Double Trouble of a Misleading Report
I have not read the entire UNICEF report. I don’t feel inspired to do so. I feel cheated and guilty. I care about the world’s children and unwarranted gender discrimination, but the ambiguity apparent in the purpose of the report has left me unwilling to invest the time required to read it. It has also left me suspicious of future UNICEF reports (despite the fact that the report carries a disclaimer stating, “Commentaries represent the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect UNICEF positions”).

The report reminds me of one of those full-page “advertorials” you see in newspapers. The ones that appear to be balanced and informative articles but are actually designed to promote a particular product or service. The UNICEF report is ostensibly about the state of the world’s children but actually says more about gender equality than children, per se. However, legally, advertorials must state their true agenda.

Shouldn’t the same be true for a report like this?

Sources:
• Gender Equality Gobbledygook, by Janice Shaw Crouse, 2007, Townhall.com
• The State of the World’s Children, 2007, UNICEF

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

Apparently, I do not associate “male” with “career” any more (or less) than I associate “female” with “career”. Neither do I have an automatic preference for white people over black people. I do, however, have a slight automatic preference for young people compared to old people, and straight people compared to gay people.

The Implicit Association Test
Project Implicit is a virtual laboratory comprising a network of facilities and scientists at Harvard University, the University of Washington, and the University of Virginia. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures unconscious bias in our behavior. Data from the IAT reveals that most people associate family with females, careers with males, liberal arts with females, and science with males. It seems also that Americans (including ethnic minorities) prefer whites to blacks, young people to old people, and thin people to fat people.

Unconscious Bias and Career Progression
Modern morals and legislation demand that we treat everyone equally in our personal and working lives. Most employers would argue that they never discriminate against people because of their “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin”-the basis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Indeed, it is likely that when we make conscious, considered decisions we live up to these high ideals. But what about knee-jerk reactions, snap judgments, and our unconscious responses?

Some Job Applicants are More Equal than Others
When we interview a middle-aged, overweight, black woman, does our unconscious mind compare her unfavorably with the young, fit, white man applying for the same job? Do we react differently, perhaps? Keeping a little more distance, failing to maintain eye contact, and making the hand-shake shorter. All these combined could make a job candidate feel ill at ease for no reason that he or she could put his or her finger on. This discomfort is likely to result in a less than spectacular performance and the employer’s decision to hire the more confident, enthusiastic, and prepared applicant. No discrimination there. Really?

Biased from Birth
The ongoing research around unconscious bias seems to provide conclusive evidence that we all judge and discriminate unconsciously in ways we would vehemently deny. After reading the literature my own results surprised me. I grew up in a small Welsh town. There were two black students among one thousand in the high school I attended. None of my friends, relatives, and contemporaries openly discriminated against black people; but there was an unconscious sigh of relief among the older generation when my friend split with the African guy she dated for a number of years. How could this culture have failed to give me some unconscious bias, even if I choose not to live by those standards in my conscious life?

Systemizing Versus Empathizing Bias
Maybe it is because I am first and foremost a systemizer. When I last took the EQ SQ tests I scored 111 (SQ) and 65 (EQ). I approached the Project Implicit demonstration tests as a “system” and attempted (successfully, it seems) to dissociate the two concepts (for example, Gay or Good, and Straight or Bad) when categorizing a third group of words (for example, joyful, happy, nasty, horrible) as either “Gay” or “Good” or “Straight” or “Bad”. It sounds complex, but it isn’t. It made me wonder if empathizers find it harder to overcome unconscious bias than systemizers.

That said, my systemizing tendencies failed me completely on one test. The results show that I have an automatic preference for Martha Stewart compared to Oprah Winfrey. Given that we know I don’t exhibit race preferences, does this mean I prefer convicted felons to philanthropists?

I’m confused.

Sources:
• Project Implicit
• Implicit Association Test, Demonstration and Research, Harvard University

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

An online survey on childcare revealed that more than 90% respondents would employ a female nanny to care for their children. Only 54% respondents would employ a male nanny. Without delving deeply into the demographics of the quiz-takers, the results were nonetheless interesting. In addition, the questions asked were, perhaps, as telling as the responses.

The Intelligence on Male Nannies
The survey explores male versus female attitudes towards childcare and maternity leave. The reasons given for NOT employing a male nanny varied from “they’re too careless,” through “typically, males are emotionless,” to “sex offender sites…majority [of offenders] are men,” and “[men] could not multi-task.” Those that approved of male nannies cited that men are “calm under pressure,” along with “the ability to care is not dependent on gender,” and (loved this one) “the ones who choose to do it are very good at it, otherwise they would choose to do something else.”

The Intelligence on Female Nannies
The responses pertaining to female nannies praised women as patient with children, terrific, having a natural connection, being more maternal, having excellent intuition, etc. Even though there was a small percentage of respondents who stated they would not employ a female nanny, there were NO negative responses about female nannies.

Female Brain Bias in Setting the Survey
As I pondered the results of the survey I noticed a glaring omission in the questions. Clearly, the survey-setter was trying to set unbiased, balanced questions; with any choices relating to men countered by a the same choices relating to women. However, one question asked whether women should be entitled to maternity leave. Four percent of respondents believed that women should not have maternity leave, 28% believed it should be unpaid, and 74% believed it should be paid. Displaying classic stereotypical gender bias, the survey-setter did not even ask if men should be entitled to paternity leave. How would women react if they were ignored in this fashion? I, for one, would scoff and shake my head at the ineptitude and lack of logic.

The Truth is Out
Unfortunately, I must confess to my sins. I am embarrassed and contrite. The revised version of the survey, set by yours truly, now includes a question on paternity leave and is available for completion.

More on this topic when I have analysed the results further (hopefully with a COMPLETELY open mind).

Sources:
• Male versus Female Bias in the Childcare Debate, (Survey) SurveyMonkey.com

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

The image of a woman “wearing the trousers” in a relationship isn’t a pretty one. This description is usually an insult to the man and a dubious compliment for the woman at best. Online, trouser-wearers are described variously as dictators, calling the shots, in charge of the relationship, and worse. Their counterparts are doormats, under the thumb, and “suckers”.

Trouser-Wearer Self-Assessment Tests
There are online quizzes directed at both genders designed to elucidate which partner is the wearer of “an outer garment for covering the body from the waist to the ankles, divided into sections to fit each leg separately.” When put like that it seems ridiculous that it can be such a trying emotional test for women (if they are perceived as wearing them) and men (if they are perceived as not wearing them). Is it possible that “trouser-wearing” parallels a more scientific evaluation of the differences between the male and the female psyche?

An Alternative to the EQ SQ Tests?
Could it be that, as with male versus female biases relating to work and leisure activities, we are actually seeing an empathizing versus systemizing split in the trouser-wearing debate? Has “wearing the trousers” become synonymous with the systemizing male brain type? This may explain why more men (who tend to be systemizers) wear the trousers, figuratively speaking; and why fewer women (who tend to be empathizers) fall into the trouser-wearing category. Perhaps, instead of EQ and SQ quotients, we could start calculating Skirt and Trouser quotients.

A Male Brain Trouser Crime
Some time ago a law was mooted, “[Proposed law] provides that if a person appears in public with his pants below his waist and is exposing his skin or intimate clothing, it is a crime and the person can be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.” It is fortunate that this archaic law was retracted, or Calvin Klein and thongs may never have achieved such notoriety. On the other hand, maybe it was the sight of Britney Spears in the early part of THIS century that spurred Louisiana congressman Dick Shepherd to propose the bill in May 2004.

What a Richard!

Sources:
• Who Wears the Trousers? Tickle
• Who Wears the Trousers? Get Lippy
• Trouser, Dictionary.com
• House Bill No. 1626 by Representative Shepherd CRIME: Prohibits wearing pants below the waist (2004)

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

A long time ago in a galaxy very near to home (the one we live in, in fact) it was thought that evil spirits were “allergic” to certain colors. According to Rabbi Dr. R. Brasch, “It was considered that the association of blue with the heavenly sky rendered satanic forces powerless and drove them away.” Blue was thus displayed on male babies to protect them. In classic gender stereotyping that occurs to this day (see Are Men More Equal than Women? The Truth about the Earnings Gap) female babies were considered inferior and so were not protected like this.

As human beings became more civilized they acknowledged this gross neglect of the fairer sex, by introducing pink as the color for girls. The time-frame is a bit hazy, but it’s clear it must have been MUCH later. It’s hard to imagine that choosing the color of their children’s wardrobe made even the smallest blip on the radar of medieval parents.

20th Century Gender Color Stereotypes
It seems that stereotypes change often, and in the early part of the last century pink was a boy’s color. In 1914, “The Sunday Sentinel” newspaper advised parents, “If you like the color note on the little one’s garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.” In 1918, “Ladies Home Journal” said much the same thing, “…pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is pertier for the girl.” It was in the 1950’s, apparently, that pink took over as the color for girls, though I cannot find any definitive evidence in support of this.

The Onset of Gender Color Stereotyping in Childhood
A study carried out within the last ten years, concluded that preschool aged girls prefer the color pink, and preschool aged boys prefer blue. The reasons why this is so are less clear, but the evidence is convincing. Gender stereotyping (if that’s what it is) is well established before children go to school. Preschool children even chose the “right” color (pink for girls, blue for boys) when choosing the preferred color for a child of the opposite sex.

The Importance of Gender Color Stereotyping
But let’s not forget that in and of itself gender stereotyping is not a reflection of the worth of an individual. Certain stereotypical behaviors make life easier for us. It’s convenient, for example, that when a man and woman are heading for the same door, the woman knows the man will open the door and allow her to walk through first (that does still happen, doesn’t it)?

And how else are we supposed to know that a small, bald, and completely swaddled baby is male or female, unless, of course, he or she is dressed in blue or pink?

Sources:
• Why is the Color Blue Used for Boys and Pink for Girls? Historical Boys’ Clothing
• The Effects of Stereotypes and Situational Factors on Childrens Favorite and Preferred Colors, Erin Shoots (1996) The Missouri Western State College

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

My online education is not complete. There are, apparently, 10,500,000 (that’s ten and half million) web pages devoted to hilarious gags about men and women (search on ‘men women joke’). ‘Men joke’ yielded 16 million pages, while ‘women joke’ served up 15 million. Analyzing the humor could be an interesting psychology study; are women really the butt of fewer wise-cracks than men? Or is there truly more to laugh about with men?

Of course, there are many serious web sites exploring gender differences. No-one really doubts that men and women are different, but every new scientific (and not so scientific) biology or psychology study yields a new difference (or similarity) between men and women. Most of them are published online, it seems, and I feel compelled to share my new-found education.

An Online Education in Physical Differences between Men and Women
The Women’s Sports Foundation believes a fair boxing competition is possible between a man and a woman as long as they are matched for physical variables. This is hard to imagine when protective gear for two such different physical variables is required. A UK study shows that men often achieve better sports performance times because of testosterone (let’s face it—it is the answer to everything). This male hormone encourages the production of hemoglobin (the stuff than carries oxygen around in the blood) and as a result men can produce more energy and achieve better performance times. A University of Michigan study indicates that in a group of men and women of comparable height, weight, and fitness, the women were more likely to sustain a particular type of knee injury. Where’s the justice in that?

An Online Education in Differences in Psychology between Men and Women
A psychology study from the University of California, Irvine shows that men and women can have similar IQs, but quite different brains. Men have more gray matter (responsible for information processing) and women have more white matter (responsible for networking information). A special issue of Fortune magazine celebrating women in business reveals that men are blind-sided by crises that women are more likely to anticipate. On the other hand, in an admittedly unscientific survey conducted by Bruce Balsam of Elliot Horowitz & Co., men claim that they would take professional advice for their finances, while women say they would not. This appears to be backed up by another Fortune article that reveals the average 10-month return on stock of 8 female CEO’s. Minus 14.8%. Sigh.

The Ultimate Online Education Trivia
Perhaps the most riveting piece of Internet nonsense (I’m beginning to think that online education is an oxymoron) comes from The Linux Documentation Project. The “How To” section includes instruction on “the 3 button serial mouse,” “3D graphics modeling and rendering,” “802.1X port-based authentication,” and, of course, “How to Encourage Women in Linux.” I’m sure it’s very sexist to assume that women need to be encouraged, but men, presumably, do not. Worthy of a psychology study, for sure.

Does anyone actually know what Linux is?

Sources:
• Female and male athletes seem to respond to training in a comparable manner. Peak Performance
• The Art of the Decision, by Janet Guyton; and Hall of Fame, by Eugenia Levenson, Fortune, Nov. 14, 2005
• Contact Sports - Male Versus Female Competition in Boxing: The Foundation Position, Women’s Sports Foundation
• Intelligence in Men and Women is a Gray and White Matter, (2005), University of California, Irvine
• Knee Injuries Likelier for Female Athletes, The University Record (March 5, 2001)

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

A 30-year old man is hospitalized with a severe head injury and has to undergo psychological assessment. The psychologist shifts uncomfortably and says gravely, “I’m afraid we have no choice but to perform a brain transplant. We have a 20-year-old female brain at a cost of $2,000 or a 70-year-old male brain for $50,000. I’ll leave you to think about which you’d prefer.”

The man thinks smugly how the higher price must prove that even an old male brain is superior to a young female brain. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have $50,000 and he decides he’d better find out if the female brain has any redeeming features. He has his BlackBerry with him and starts researching on the Internet.

The Truth About the Male Brain Versus the Female Brain
He discovers that males have, on average, bigger brains, and that there are some traits that can be attributed more frequently to men and some to women. It seems that men may tend to be better map readers, although they hate to ask for directions; and women perhaps are better at reading body language, although they always fail to understand that men are not mind-readers. He knows the psychologist will be back soon and hurries to check if there is a published psychological assessment verifying male or female superiority. From Samson and Delilah to Brad and Angelina, he finds that although there are certainly differences between men and women, there is no definitive evidence to support superiority of gray matter in either gender.

The Psychologist Returns
The only logical conclusion the man can draw is that the male brain is superior, even though he found no evidence to support this. He makes his decision just as the psychologist returns. “I’ve decided,” he says, “$50,000 is a lot of money, but I must have the superior male brain.” The (female) psychologist smiles wryly. “Whatever gave you that idea?” she asks, “The reason the male brain is more expensive is because it has never been used.”

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

Wrap a baby in a pink blanket and adults coo and smile, speaking softly and sweetly to the little “girl.” Wrap the same baby in a blue blanket and adults bounce it up and down, speaking loudly to the little “boy.” At least, that’s how I remember it.

Call it a personality test (the endurance kind…), call it an example of the earliest social education. These scenes from Nova’s 1980 documentary on gender stereotyping “The Pinks and the Blues” have stayed with me, though the program aired twenty-five years ago. PBS archives say, “this program graphically and powerfully illustrates the ways in which adults create gender characteristics in infants according to their sex.”

Are Gender Stereotypes “Made”?
Created? The female brain and the male brain are made, they’re not inborn? Yes, some folks argue, gender stereotying at all levels is not natural, it’s a product of our upbringing. The fancy name for this group is “social constructionists.”

Are Gender Stereotypes “Born”?
On the other side of the fence are psychologists, like Simon Baron-Cohen, who agree that socialization (for example, the cooing and bouncing) is important. However, “what we’ve found is if you go back in time to when children are very small, you still find these sex differences even before experience or socialization has had much chance to have an effect.”

Baron-Cohen cites an oft-cited finding: “Little girls will look longer at a human face, and little boys will look longer at a mechanical mobile suspended above the crib.”

I can imagine the constructionist interpretation: The little girl sees a human face and anticipates happily the sweetness and caress, inviting it by holding the gaze. The little boy sees a human face and averts eyes quickly–anything to avoid the bouncing, jiggling, and yelling that must follow. “Gimme the damn mobile. Ah, what a relief!”

What does this mean to you and me?
Does it really matter whether the many and varied factors that determine our scores on the EQ SQ personality tests are hardwired or socially determined? Yes, says the social constructionist. You’ve been shaped to be the “you” that you are. So, you can change your rock bottom EQ score and forge ahead with that career in social work if you really want to. And, if you’re a boy, you can learn to love pink.

On the other hand, if that low EQ and high SQ is hardwired, it’s probably telling you that a technical education would be an easier option for you.

And that you really do prefer the mechanical mobile to the human face.

Sources:
• The Pinks and the Blues, Nova (1980)
• Interview: Simon Baron-Cohen discusses tracking causes of autism back to the womb, by Alex Chadwick. Day to Day (NPR) Aug 15, 2005.

About the author
Tamise Van Pelt, Ph.D., is a systematizing female who was stripped of her pink blanket by a marauding band of social constructionists when she insisted that her low EQ score was genetic.

23% of men access porn sites on company time either on purpose or “by accident” (yeah, yeah). Only 12% of women admit to having viewed porn sites for any reason. Websense elucidated these findings in its sixth annual Web@Work survey. In addition, the study indicated that more men than women access the Internet from work for personal surfing.

The Male Online Experience
Men spend more time online: they logon more, are more likely to be broadband users, purchase more, pay bills more, research more, download more, and are more interested in the technology. Men are more likely to communicate with organizations. These are highlights from the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

The Female Online Experience
The Pew/Internet report goes on to say that women use the Internet more for communication–emails, sharing news, planning events, and forwarding funny jokes and stories. Women include a far wider range of topics and activities in their emails. Women are also more likely to communicate with friends and relatives.

The Internet and EQ:SQ Theory
Overall, women use the Internet only very sligthly less than men. However, as with the male versus female intelligence debate, it seems that the empathizing-systemizing theory appears to hold true for the Internet. The way men and women use the Internet is different. That’s not to say that men never use the Internet for communicating with friends and relatives or that no women embrace the new technologies of the Internet fully. But, on average, women are the communicators and men are the technophiles.

Equality on The Internet
As we saw with higher education, it seems historial opportunities and aspirations influence womens’ use of the Internet. Women over thirty trail behind men online; however, women under thirty and black women use the Internet more than their male colleagues. Oddly, unlike career choice, most women probably don’t mind having it pointed out that they use the Internet differently to men. They can accept this “inequality” quite smugly. So why do women want to be “equal” at work?

The Last Word on The Internet
There’s another area where women are catching up to men, too. According to Websense, in their 2004 survey 100% women who visited porn sites said they did so unintentionally. In the 2005 survey 11% women who visited porn sites said they visited these less-than salubrious sites on purpose.

Progress, indeed.

Sources:
• Surfing the Web at Work May Be as Addictive as a Cup of Joe, 2005, Websense, Inc., Sixth Annual Web@Work Study
• How Women and Men Use the Internet, 2005, Pew Internet & American Life Project

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.