Math Class is Tough – Well-behaved women rarely make (scientific) history

“Math Class is Tough”

By: Shannon Laughlin

The belief that women and men have different rational and emotional proficiencies is not a new idea. In fact, the history of science is peppered with claims that if the two sexes seem to differ in certain abilities, then they must be “hardwired” differently. For example, the Ancient Greeks believed that due to their cold-hearted nature, women must have been the result of a fetus who did not gather the necessary “natural heat” in order to achieve a virile spirit. Charles Darwin reasoned that women were evolutionarily inferior to men and had to sacrifice their own progression for emotional strength. Luckily, radical beliefs such as these are no longer prevalent today, but there are still small notions that perpetuate the idea of talent inequality between the sexes, such as the 1992 Teen Talk Barbie doll stating that “math class is tough” and proceeding to ask about the latest gossip. (Here’s the video in case you don’t believe me).

Along with this societal stereotype, there is an inequality of men and women in math and science careers throughout the world. A 2005 statement from then-president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, sparked a biological perspective on the issue with his suggestion that women have a natural inferiority in the subject. More recently, Simon Baren-Cohen has come up with something called the “empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory,” which states that women and men often have different types of brains, one being an empathizing brain while the other is systemizing. However, the data behind this theory is weak at best, and a bounty of opposing research shows no difference in empathizing vs. systemizing in men and women.

Baren-Cohen’s theory already starts out considerably unsound due to the nature of his proposal. The fact is, we can only recognize trends and patterns that men and women display; there is no actual proof in the “male-female” brain types. All the points he provides are simply observations that have found to be different between the sexes.

Most of the statistics he cites demonstrating that women are more empathetic than men are studies of babies, ages 0-3, which assume that because a trait appears early, it must be inherent. And many scientists- including Nora Newcombe- argue that just because something shows up early does not mean it can be assumed genetic. The studies claim that from birth, females look at people more, have a better ability to infer emotions, and have a greater concern for others. However, other studies have found that boys and girls develop in similar ways during early life. This casts doubt upon the sex differences Baron-Cohen tries to prove. Also, similar studies have been done with newborns looking at people vs. looking at objects. Almost all were inconclusive, stating that no difference could be found in this area. Thus, it cannot be said that women are naturally more empathetic because the research Baron-Cohen provides isn’t consistent with other studies.

As for proving that men are better “systemizers,” Baren-Cohen’s evidence is almost entirely standardized tests that men outscored women in, such as the SAT-Math, the Water Level test, the Rod and Frame test, map reading tests, mental rotation, and many others. This makes for a relatively weak argument because it is shown that standardized tests are poor indicators of ability. The SAT-M test specifically shows a large difference between men and women, but in college math classes women regularly outperform men. A study at the University of California, Berkeley, shows that women with identical SAT scores to men obtained higher GPAs in every major on campus, including math and science. The report determined that women should add about 140 points to their SAT score to accurately predict their college performance. Baren-Cohen then claims that disorders like autism are a result of a “hyper-systemizing male-type brain.” This is not accurate at all, because it doesn’t account for many of the neurological challenges people with autism face, such as seizures and motor symptoms. At large, it cannot be asserted that men have a better systemizing brain than women.

Accompanied by the flawed data to prove the men and women brain types is an even bigger hole: the relationship between systemizing and empathizing. Baren-Cohen states the two brain types as opposites, and makes the case that the more empathizing (female brain) you are, the less systemizing (male brain) you will be. However, research has suggested that there is an extremely weak correlation between the two.

In sum, Baren-Cohen’s empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory cannot be confirmed due to doubtful evidence and large lapses in proof. It cannot be concluded that men and women are proficient in different areas. To summarize his point, Baren-Cohen finishes by saying that the inequality of men and women in the sciences should not be an issue because fixing it would lead to prejudice against sexes instead of judging a person as an individual. However, I have to disagree. The lack of women is a vital issue in STEM- we should be striving towards equality of status, of income, and ensuring balance in the workplace. It all boils down to the stereotypes and sexism that have been so deeply rooted in our history (see intro paragraph). It is unfair that women have to overcome cultural biases to enter and stay in a STEM job, when there is no proven difference been their work and a man’s. Individually, we can’t change the stereotypical way the media portrays women, but we can make a difference by preventing the girls we know from feeling culturally prescribed pressures, and telling them that math class is no tougher for them than for their male peers.

$barbie-math-is-not-hard-sm$

Links:

http://www.icr.org/article/darwins-teaching-womens-inferiority/

http://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=jift

http://www.bu.edu/autism/files/2010/03/Carter-et-al-JADD-20071.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/21/business/company-news-mattel-says-it-erred-teen-talk-barbie-turns-silent-on-math.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886907004217

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199607/gender.cfm

Pictures:

http://www.chicagonow.com/listing-toward-forty/files/2013/11/barbie-math-is-not-hard-sm.jpg

https://www.designedforlearning.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/the-essential-difference.gif

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018759308259

Sara Camilli says:

November 14, 2015 at 1:43 pm

Hi Shannon! I really enjoyed reading your blog post. It made a lot of great points, and I especially liked how you talked about the “math class is tough” Barbie. It was an interesting example that opened my eyes even further to how deeply rooted STEM sexism is in our society. You also mentioned the Baren-Cohen theory, which classifies male and female brains as “systemizing” and “empathizing”, respectively. I agree that this theory doesn’t have sound evidence and that there is a weak correlation between the two “brain types”. This brought to mind for me chapter 8 in Why Aren’t More Women in Science, which discusses how the male and female brains are structurally different, but can use different means to reach the same end. I think this is what we should be focusing on when we consider gender differences, not arbitrary labels of what male and female brains are like.

Yang Yang says:

November 14, 2015 at 9:58 pm

Hi, Shannon! Your example about Barbie is so interesting. I never believe that such a stereotype can be contained in little girls’ toy. Baren-Cohen’s theory simply divide women’s brain and men’s brain as their “functions”. I agree that such simplification is imprudent without enough evidence. I remember that in chapter 8, the author mentioned that men have bigger brain size than women. Some will argue that men are more intelligent than women because they have bigger brain. But they fail to see the whole frame of the picture. Other research shows that neurons are packed more densely in women’s brain, which can be an evidence to support that women are more intelligent than men. And women’ brain consists a larger volume proportion in body than men’s brain. There are many evidence for opposite arguments. I agree that Baren-Cohen’s theory lacks convincing support.

Olivia Choe says:

November 15, 2015 at 12:33 am

I really loved your barbie example. I don’t know about commercials nowadays, but back when I watched tv shows on Disney or Cartoon network i would ALWAYS see those baby commercials and it was orientated towards girls. And the Nerf commercials would be targeted for boys. I really like how you point out that there may be a possibility that women are actually smarter than males. I had the same perspective as you, but I found myself to lean more towards the fact that males may have more spatial advantages because of how their brains are structured and I find chapter 9 really helped support the idea that sure there may be differences; however, females are capable of improving their abilities.

Olivia Taylor says:

November 15, 2015 at 2:20 pm

It really is astonishing how such educated, brilliant historical people were so blatantly wrong and sexist in their ideas of women. The misled ideas of these MEN have infiltrated the minds of everyone – because how could Charles Darwin possibly be wrong? This snowballs and we flash forward to present day, where girls are presumed air-headed over-emotional barbies and boys are the businessmen of the future. Its about time perspectives should be changed.

Afryea Henderson says:

November 15, 2015 at 8:25 pm

Your use of outside sources was very instrumental in developing your argument (I really enjoyed the barbie example and meme). I too believe that it would be more beneficial to focus on gender equality in all areas but I also think that equality cannot be reached until society becomes knowledgeable and actually addresses the issue. I think the problem is that woman do not have enough support that would allow us to gain equality because, as Berenbaum and Resnick stated, people use biological differences in the negative instead of recognizing these differences and embracing them in the positive.