In Nora S. Newcombe’s essay, “Taking Science Seriously: Straight Thinking about Spatial Sex Differences,” she recognizes the misconceptions surrounding the idea that men have superior spatial abilities compared to women. Growing up, I was a strong softball player as I was able to accurately through the ball a fairly large distance. The phrase “throw like a girl” always bothered me because it made me feel like even my abilities were never good enough compared to my male peers. Many people were surprised when they realized that I was able to throw the ball accurately because society’s depiction of females’ abilities; however, Newcombe introduces the idea that biology may play a role in men’s improved spatial abilities. Although there may be exceptions to the rule of these skills, for the most part most women are inferior to men in that respect according to the author.
Newcombe identifies various assumptions regarding spatial abilities in men and women, but comes to the conclusion that society should focus on improving these skills in both sexes rather than waste attention on the differences. One theory that is addressed is the concept that men are provided with superior skills for reproductive reasons and to be able to find their way to navigate toward sexual partners. This idea is quite farfetched and the author reasons that other abilities such as “charm and stealth” might be more effective in “impregnate[ing] many females” (Newcombe 73). However, charm and stealth seem to be extremely coercive techniques in which men would be more likely to dominate and attack women. I might suggest that other qualities such as physical stamina and strength would be superior in men for reproductive reasons rather than the skills previously mentioned. In this case, Kumria and Newcombe arrive at similar conclusions regarding the concept that biology plays a major role in the difference in skills between men and women. However, Kumira argues that there are significant biological differences and while Newcombe questions the existence of the difference itself and believes that actions should be taken to improve the abilities of both sexes.
Upon addressing the various theories about spatial skills, Newcombe questions the purpose for a sex difference in this essential skill. She explains that both men and women would greatly benefit from spatial advantages and there is no evident reason as to why there would be a difference in the first place. I appreciate the fact that the author addressed this point since may of the previous authors have not questioned whether or not there is a justification for the difference itself, although many have indicated that there is indeed a difference in ability. Valian is the one exception thus far as she indicates that the reason behind gender schemas affecting performance is due to the fact that humans are biologically conditioned to categorize individuals based on certain characteristics; therefore, women are less likely to feel confident in subjects that are male-oriented, thus leading to the lack of representation in the scientific fields.
In my opinion, Newcombe’s argument addresses many assumptions regarding the idea that there is a difference in spatial abilities between the sexes, but the focus on disproving misconceptions excludes her own opinion from shining through. Although it is evident that she believes that there are differences in spatial abilities, it is unclear as to what reason she believes they exist in the first place. One assumption she fails to address is the idea of gender schemas affecting the difference in this ability. Based on the lack of concrete evidence used to support the concept of biological differences between the sexes, I must conclude that societal stereotypes have a greater impact on the lack of women in the sciences; whereas, biological factors do not play as large of a role in the low representation of women in these fields.
Works Cited:
Man in Space. Digital image. The Insight Newspaper. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2015.
<http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3UVbfm5ropo/U3UDJKkIlsI/AAAAAAAAGs0/OF0VtNP
gvYc/s1600/space.png>.
Nora S Newcombe. “Taking Science Seriously: Straight Thinking about Spatial Sex Differences.”
Why Aren’t More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 2007. 69-77. Print.