“Biology is not destiny,” and androgens are not demigods
I stand corrected. THIS is my favorite paper that we have read – while some parts were a little “iffy” (looking at you, dated gender-based career example on page 150) like all good friends, there are some things we can overlook to keep a good friendship. Moreover, I believe it is fair to say Chapter 11, “The Seeds of Career Choices: Prenatal Sex Hormone Effects on Psychological Sex Differences,” written by Sheri A. Berenbaum and Susan Resnick is quite largely responsible for shaping my own opinion on why there aren’t more women in science.
Berenbaum and Resnick take on tough topics, such as sex hormones, prenatal exposure, CAH, what is SO important about androgens, that we continually read throughout this compilation of papers, but then actually support their claims with examples and data. (What a novel idea!) They argue three main cases. (1) Sex hormones may uphold sex differences in career choice, but people often misunderstand how biology may affect behavior which may lead to career choices, and not be the direct link to those choices. (2) The famous sex hormone, androgen, (or infamous, depending on if you are like me and were tired of hearing about how many great things your friend’s friend androgen does without ever having been properly introduced) does have a link to biological aspects such as increased spatial ability, childhood activity interests, and personal characteristics and social interactions. However, this sex hormone is just the tip of the iceberg, rather social interactions are what really lie below the surface and are the true driving force behind “long-lasting psychological effects” which may influence career choices. (3) Androgen may have a specific initial effect on behavior, but the environment shapes and constantly effects behavior. The days of nature versus nurture are over and are replaced with nature via nurture. Biology isn’t as tough as it thinks it is.
Like in Melissa Hines’ article, Berenbaum and Resnick also criticize their example data and own conclusions. On page 149, they include a study where some females with CAH perform better on spatial tests than females without CAH. However, “there are some inconsistencies in results” due to the lack in number of females with CAH. You can’t experiment on the same, small group to get the most valid results. Again on page 151, they debunk another experiment testing the effects of androgens, for they say there are too many other factors that may be contributing to results other than solely androgens. Isn’t that the case with most cognitive experiments? What I derived from Hines was kind of a throw in the towel and take a more strained philosophical approach. What I find after reading Berenbaum and Resnick’s pieces is I guess it is better that the answer to why there aren’t more women in science can be explained with PSYCHOLOGY (big letters and all). The so-called soft science may prove to be more valid than the biological experiments that drive this debate in circles. Let’s hear it for Psychology and Sociology, the underdogs. But, concluding like a true feel-good book with happy endings and hope, the ultimate answer to why there aren’t more women in science may still be out there…
All this time reading through these papers, I’ve felt like I have been a part of a conversation where people would talk amongst themselves, excluding me. Then, Dr. Berenbaum and Dr. Resnick lean over and whisper what everyone else is talking about to fill me in. Much appreciated, Sheri and Susan! My opinion that has taken many shapes and sizes now rests squarely in the mold of their thesis: “sex-related career choices and outcomes arise through the mediating and moderating effects of socialization on sex-hormone-influenced individual differences in behavioral development” (148). They really hit the nail on the head with this one and their thesis seems like a Frankenstein masterpiece of my thoughts that I couldn’t quite stitch together myself.