Chelsea Eareckson: The Puberty Problem (Blog 4)
Chelsea Eareckson
The Puberty Problem
Childhood is a time of laughter, learning, and love. It is also a time of establishing patterns of bias and sexism, according to Elizabeth S. Spelke and Ariel D. Grace. Spelke and Grace work to dispel commonly cited reasons for the biological differences between the sexes as the reason for the gender discrepancy in the math and science fields in their essay, “Sex, Math, and Science.” Though this is a very powerful approach, I feel that their conclusions are weak and unsupported.
The authors begin by evaluating the statement, that “boys may be inherently more focused on objects, and girls on people” (Spelke and Grace 57). They reference several studies that state that there are no significant differences between the number of boys and girls interested in objects versus people. These patterns continue from toddlers through preschool years (Spelke and Grace 58). They conclude that “young boys and girls do not divide up the labor of understanding the world” (Spelke and Grace), using the research that suggests that sex has no influence on whether an infant or toddler is interested in objects or people more to support this. However, because we are discussing sex differences through the lens of biology, I believe that Spelke and Grace are leaving out significant facts when drawing their conclusions. We learned in Kimura’s essay that prenatal androgens (the male sex hormone) is responsible for enhancing the spatial reasoning ability and therefore the focus of males on objects. This hormone isn’t produced in mass quantities until puberty (Androgens), which would explain why the differences based on gender were negligible in the infant/toddler study because infants and toddlers have not gone through puberty yet. Androgens produce secondary sex characteristics, so their effects wouldn’t be visible until later in life (Androgens). Many studies, including the ones Spelke and Grace use, demonstrate that the gender difference in mathematical performance on tests appear just around the age that puberty starts and androgens are produced in higher quantities. Spelke and Grace fail to acknowledge this, misleading the reader.
The authors progress then to examine if males are better at mathematics. They discuss how math is not a skill found in the nonhuman animal kingdom, so “if there is a biological basis for human mathematical reasoning, it must depend on systems that evolved for other purposes” (Spelke and Grace 59). They find that infants and toddlers of both sexes perform mathematical tasks based on small, exact numbers of objects with equal skill and ability (Spelke and Grace 59).. Again, they support their conclusions on the results of studies on infants, before the prenatal androgens have begun being produced in the male bodies. They concede later in this section of the argument that “sex differences do emerge at older ages” (Spelke and Grace 59), and that older females approach math problems differently than males, which is mirrored in the test results that are used to support the biological theory. Despite the fact that they essentially admitted that the gender you are influences the way that you solve a math problem, they continue to argue that gender, biologically, has nothing to do with mathematical skill. Our biology has to influence our mathematical skill, if only in the technique we use. The ignorance of this fact in Spelke and Grace’s conclusion undermines its strength.
I am much more satisfied with the two authors’ discussion of the claims of more male geniuses and gender bias. I believe that tests are skewed to accommodate the male technique (spatial approach) of solving math problems, because tests were originally developed to evaluate males (before women were granted an education). Spatial ability is what made men good at math, so the tests tried the participant’s spatial ability. In the modern age, we can see the flaw in testing spatial ability, because it is discriminatory toward females in the testing situation. This is my assumption, but Spelke and Grace seem to be operating on the same assumption. Research results of gender differences in techniques of math problems should be incorporated into the test developing process, so that tests more accurately reflect the mathematical skill of females versus men. The authors deconstruct the disparity of test results, proving with evidence that “male and female students… were equally likely to major in science” (Spelke and Grace 61) and that male and females were equally as able to learn challenging concepts at top institutions (Spelke and Grace 61). They also incorporated interesting social studies about bias in parents and how parents underestimate their daughters but overestimate their sons (Spelke and Grace 62). It’s important that they mention it isn’t an intentional bias, because that calms the defensive reactions of every reader that has a child. It is the unconscious bias that has dug itself into society like a dormant cancer, a silent but deadly disease that we have found no cure for.
Despite the weakness of the conclusions, this essay was very thought provoking and brought some very valid points. It is a very complex issue that Spelke and Grace attempted to tackle, and overall, I found the points they made exciting and it made me hopeful that one day we will resolve the misconception that the female biology holds women back. Then, maybe, childhood will return to being a time of just love, laughter, and learning.
Works Cited
“Androgen.” TheFreeDictionary.com. Farlex, n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.
Ceci, Stephen J., and Wendy M. Williams. Why Aren’t More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007. Print.
