An Education on Estrogen – Chelsea Eareckson Blog 7
Chelsea Eareckson
Chapter 7 Blog
I walked into my AP Calc class first day of senior year, ready to conquer the class. However, when I began to search for a seat, I noticed that the class was predominantly male. Furthermore, the few girls in the class were huddled in the back corner, looking scared and intimidated. Not knowing what else to do in this unfamiliar environment, I joined their ranks and sat in the very back. This was the first time I had experienced a clear gender gap in an academic setting. It made me wonder, why aren’t there more women in this math class? Melissa Hines, a highly qualified psychologist and neuroscientist, believes she has an idea why. She explains her thinking in her essay, “Do Sex Differences in Cognition Cause the Shortage of Women in Science?”, which draws off of her book Brain Gender. Hines directly states in her introduction that “innate sex differences in cognitive abilities do not cause the shortage of women in science” (Hines 101), which she supports by disputing the evidence that claims there are cognitive sex differences and that different hormones have different effects on learning patterns.
Hines begins by proving that an actual innate characteristic that differs between women and men is not relevant to the gender gap in the math and science fields. A study done by Paul Broca and Gustave Le Bon that concluded that women’s smaller brain size was the innate characteristic that caused less intelligence in women. Hines points out that size does not matter when considering intelligence of a brain, and brain architecture is much more important (Hines 102). Women actually have a more efficient brain architecture in the cerebral cortex, so one could argue that women actually have a higher capacity for intelligence. I think the inclusion of the disproval of a relation between an innate characteristic and intelligence is crucial in the introduction because it sets the tone for the rest of the essay. The reader’s preconceived, innate sexist beliefs that are instilled by society are deconstructed, and the reader will be much more open to what Hines is trying to say in her essay. Ideas that may have been subconsciously rejected by the brain because of bias are much more likely to be accepted, and her point is achieved much more effectively.
Hines goes on to discuss the concept of cognitive sex differences. HInes states that “claims that men are more intelligent than women are not supported by existing data” (Hines 103) and brings in her own quantitative data to support that assertment. She concedes that there are spatial tasks that men excel at, but follows that up with the data that there are spatial tasks that women excel in as well. This is the first time I’ve heard that women can excel at certain spatial tasks, which is very interesting. Generally, all the essays we have read have agreed that men are better as a whole at spatial tasks. Not once have I seen that women can be better than men as a whole at certain spatial tasks. This is crucial information that is not well known even by the experts in the gender inequality field. It makes me wonder how much more information is not being publicized, and how this missing information could affect interpretations of the gender gap in the math and science fields.
Finally, Hines investigates studies into the hormonal effects on learning patterns and behaviors. Though there are some studies that showed that androgen exposure to females during development enhanced intellectual ability, the majority of studies found that there was no correlation to intelligence and exposure to androgens (Hines 106). She also found that the claims that elevated estrogen inhibited women’s intellectual ability were not supported by the results of the studies that were performed (Hines 108). This is worrying, because many academics have accepted these claims without proper support.
After reading Hines’ essay, I think I also have a better idea as to why I was so outnumbered in my AP Calc class. Her essay shows just how much evidence is being overlooked about the relationship between the biology of women and their intelligence, and my assumption as to why it’s being overlooked is because of bias. We have seen much evidence that suggests many people underestimate women and their abilities, and this seems to hold true when drawing conclusions about the gender gap in STEM fields. Despite evidence that points to the conclusion that innate gender specific characteristics do not influence intellectual ability, many people still believe that they do. This may be because evidence not only would have to indicate that women and men are intellectually equal, but also overcome pre-existing subconscious bias. Subconscious bias is almost worse than conscious bias in this case, because people aren’t aware that they are underestimating women and therefore cannot fix their line of thinking. I acknowledge that I have my own biases as a woman who is interested in the science field, but I believe innate gender differences do not cause the shortage of women in math and science fields just like Hines, and that society’s bias is definitely related to the gender gap that currently exists.
Works Cited
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.
