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 It is fortunate that this archaic law was retracted, or Calvin Klein and thongs may never have achieved such notoriety.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.

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.

Women have always been “the fairer sex” and, no doubt, many arguments can be made on the esthetics of beauty for and against this. However, when it comes down to it, this is a subjective observation. What about cleverness? Are there objective measures that can indicate categorically if the male brain or the female brain has the greatest capacity for intelligence?

There are many professional and self-assessment tests around to measure the supposed “intelligence” of males and females. Our very own EQ and SQ tests sit alongside other emotional intelligence tests and a vast range of personality tests that purport to elucidate the truth about male and female brains. But what do the facts say?

What the Statistics Say about Male Versus Female Intelligence
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that in 2004 17-year old females outperformed males in reading, while 17-year old males outperformed females in mathematics. This would seem to support the notion that male and female “intelligence” is different but not that one gender is cleverer than the other.

Have Women Become More Intelligent in the last 30 Years?
Another study from NCES highlights the changes in womens’ higher education since 1970. From being the minority of undergraduates in 1970, women became the majority in 2001. This trend is projected to increase through 2013. Does this mean that women have become cleverer?

The Truth About Women’s Intelligence
NCES examines the increase in women undergraduates in different sectors of the population and the results are telling. In the period from 1999 to 2000 women comprised 63% black undergraduates, 62% students age 40 or older, and 70% single parents. It seems, then, that the increase in intelligent women is associated more with groups that historically have had less opportunity (or perhaps desire) to further their education.

The real truth is that this tells us nothing about the innate intelligence of either gender. It tells us that more women are seeking to become better educated but nothing about whether they are able to learn more effectively (surely one measure of intelligence).

Unless, of course, the pursuit of knowledge per se is an indication of superior intelligence, in which case women are taking the lead in the gender intelligence battle.

Sources:
• Trends in Educational Equity for Girls & Women, 2004, National Center for Education Statistics
• Gender Differences in Participation and Completion of Undergraduate Education and How They Have Changed Over Time, by Katharin Peter and Laura Horn, 2005, National Center for Education Statistics

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.