Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research

Volume 2 Article 7

September 2019 Gender Differences: A result of differences in the brain or socialization? Courtney Storms [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/locus

Recommended Citation Storms, Courtney (2019) "Gender Differences: A result of differences in the brain or socialization?," Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research: Vol. 2 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/locus/vol2/iss1/7 Storms: Gender Differences

Gender Differences: A result of differences in the brain or socialization?

Courtney Storms Seton Hall University

Abstract hood play to occupational choices. It is heavily debated as to whether these gender differences are There are obvious differences between males a result of socialization or a result of differences and females observed in society; aside from phys- between the male and female brain. This debate ical features, gender differences are present from is a difficult one to assess because there is ade- infancy through adulthood in virtually all areas quate evidence for both sides of the controversy. from childhood play to occupational choices. It is Those taking the side of socialization use the in- heavily debated as to whether these gender differ- formation to show that the brain is malleable and ences are a result of socialization or a result of dif- is influenced by parents, peers, and the environ- ferences between the male and female brain. This ment, while those taking the side of essential dif- paper will explore both sides of the controversy, ferences between the male and female brain use outlining the evidence offered by Cordelia Fine the information to yield insight into how the brain and Simon Baron-Cohen in their books ”Delu- is organized. sions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference” and ”The Essen- Cordelia Fine, author of Delusions of Gender: tial Difference: Male and Female Brains and the How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Cre- Truth About Autism.” Fine defends the argument ate Difference, argues that “What we experience that the brain is malleable and influenced by par- and do create neural activity that can alter the ents, peers, and the environment, while Baron- brain, either directly or through changes in gene Cohen defends the argument that there are essen- expression” (Fine 236). The brain’s neuroplastic- tial differences between how the male and female ity is what allows it to be molded by socializa- brains are organized. Historical evidence, obser- tion. On the other hand, Simon Baron-Cohen, au- vations, and testing are cited by each author to thor of The Essential Difference: Male and Fe- support their stance on the controversy. As greater male Brains and the Truth About Autism, argues technological advancements are made in neuro- that there are innate differences between the male science, scientists can continue to study the brain and female brain. His theory is that “The fe- with greater precision and accuracy, and gain fur- male brain is predominantly hard-wired for empa- ther insight to support or refute a side in this de- thy. The male brain is predominantly hard-wired bate. for understanding and building systems” (Baron- Cohen 1). In other words, on average more fe- There are obvious differences between males males than males have a brain suited for empathiz- and females in society; aside from physical fea- ing and on average more males than females have tures, gender differences are present from infancy a brain suited for systemizing. In his argument, through adulthood in virtually all areas from child- he also theorizes about the prevalence of an ex-

Published by eRepository @ Seton Hall, 2019 1 Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2019], Art. 7

treme male brain with advanced systemizing and the wind, and the stars. Understanding these sys- low empathizing that manifests as autism, and an tems will allow for better navigation and survival extreme female brain with advanced empathizing of harsh conditions (Baron-Cohen 118-119). Psy- and low systemizing which is still an area for fu- chologist Doreen Kimura also highlights the im- ture research. Although Fine and Baron-Cohen, portance of navigational abilities to male repro- are on opposing sides of the controversy, neither ductive success. Males tend to have more sexual author reduces gender differences to one factor. partners than females, therefore, requiring them Both authors support their views with historical to travel greater distances to mate. This leads evidence, observations, and testing. Kimura to make the argument that navigational The main brain types identified by Baron- differences between men and women emerged Cohen include brain type E or the female brain, due to natural selection for reproductive advan- brain type S or the male brain, and brain type B tage (Kimura 121). Making tools along with hunt- or the balanced brain. He also theorizes the exis- ing, tracking, and navigation require time spent in tence of an extreme male brain (extreme type S) solitude. A systemizing brain, as opposed to an and the extreme female brain (extreme type E); E empathizing brain that likes to socialize, is better represents stronger or more developed empathiz- suited for tolerating the solitude required for those ing, while S represents stronger or more developed aspects of life. Spotting fluctuations in the mar- systemizing (Baron-Cohen 6-7). This paper will ketplace is another form of systemizing that is im- focus on whether or not there are actually criti- portant for trading. The ability to read these buy- cal differences between the male and female brain sell profitable systems, will increase one’s own that impact behavior, or if gender differences in wealth, which will in turn increase social rank, behavior are due to socialization. leading to better reproductive success. In regards Baron-Cohen uses evolutionary theory to ex- to power, one must understand where they are in plain the advantages of the male and female brain the rank, and identify what circumstances would and why they would have evolved. He explains gain rank or cost rank when making decisions. that “traits usually only come under genetic con- Those of higher social rank have better survival trol when they confer some survival and repro- chances because it ensures protection from the ductive advantage to the organism in two battles: group. The reproductive benefit of power is that surviving to reach adulthood, and being selected it creates greater access to females. Darwin’s the- to become a parent” (Baron-Cohen 115). Advan- ory of sexual selection deems females as having tages of the male brain include using and mak- the greater role in selection because their invest- ing tools, hunting and tracking, tolerating solitude, ment of time and energy for producing offspring trading, power, social dominance, expertise, ag- is greater than a male’s. This is why social dom- gression, and leadership. The ability to use and inance is important for men’s fertility. Achiev- make tools increases both the chances of survival ing social dominance brings males more power, and reproductive success. Tools allow one to more which in turn, gives them greater access to fe- efficiently hunt, fight, build, fix, and work which males. Males achieve social dominance not only can increase one’s status in the community. Good through threats or physical force, but also by be- systemizing ability is also important for under- coming an expert in something valued by the cul- standing the natural systems involved in hunting ture; systemizing allows one to do this. Aggres- and tracking. Hunters must be able to not only sion, entailing a lack of empathy, allows males to identify the tracks of specific animals, but also to control the sexual activities of their partners. This create mental maps of the area to avoid getting allows them to be polygynous, giving them ac- lost. Natural systems also include the weather, cess to many females. Finally, in regards to lead-

https://scholarship.shu.edu/locus/vol2/iss1/7 2 Storms: Gender Differences

ership, those who can view a team as a system brain that allowed these traits to survive. can identify how each individual member func- In their books, both Fine and Baron-Cohen tions in the system while identifying and replac- discuss many of the same topics, like parenting, ing problems within the system. Leaders would toy preferences, hormones, and the brain, but they have more access to resources and higher social fall on opposite sides of the spectrum when dis- rank, which not only leads to greater chances of cussing their origins. When discussing parent- survival, but also greater opportunities for repro- ing, Fine recognizes that gendered expectations duction (Baron-Cohen 118-126). develop even before the birth of a child. Birth an- Baron-Cohen goes on to identify the advan- nouncements, for example, are constructed differ- tages of the female brain which include making ently for boys and girls. In a study of 400 birth friends, mothering, gossip, social mobility, and announcements, “Parents of boys, they found, ex- reading one’s partner. Each of these have both pressed more pride in the news, while parents of survival and reproductive advantages. Making girls expressed greater happiness” because “the friends helps to form social alliances for protec- birth of a girl more powerfully triggers the warm, tion, while also creating networks for childcare. fuzzy feelings relating to attachment, while the It also increases community stability which de- greater pride in a boy stems from an unconscious creases aggression between adults, and increases belief that a boy will enhance standing in the so- chances of survival for female and child commu- cial world” (Fine 194). There was also a sta- nity members. Having more developed empathiz- tistically significant difference in the number of ing skills is crucial for mothering because it allows birth announcements for boys than girls: more one to have a better read on their child’s needs birth announcements were published for boys than and feelings. When children feel a sense of care for girls. Fine has also found “implicit paternal- and support, they are able to develop a secure at- ism” in the choice of baby names. For exam- tachment. This form of attachment helps infants ple, boys were more likely to share a first initial “not only learn faster but they are more easily ac- with their father, while girls were equally likely cepted into their peer group, they are rated as more to share a first initial with either parent (Fine popular, and they develop more stable relation- 196). Once parenting actually begins, gendered ships throughout their lives” (Baron-Cohen 128). expectations impacted how mothers perceived the In doing so, these children will grow into adults physical abilities of their infants. For example, who have greater survival and reproductive suc- the crawling ability of girls were underestimated, cess. Being attuned to the community gossip helps while the crawling ability of boys were overesti- to reinforce close friendships, gain important in- mated. This suggests the implicit gendered be- formation about the community, and develop al- lief that boys are more capable of motor feats than liances. When women find a mate, typically they girls. Fine continued to notice difference between move to mate’s community. When in a new com- the treatment of male and female babies that re- munity, they have no blood ties to its members, so flect implicitly held gender stereotypes. For ex- the ability to be socially mobile and build relation- ample, “parents encouraged gender-typed activi- ships with those not genetically related to them ties and play, and discouraged cross-gender be- is important. Finally, reading one’s partner helps havior” (Fine 202). When cross-gendered behav- to reduce spousal aggression, find more sincere ior did occur, it was more accepted of females than mates, judge a mate’s intentions, and prolong the of males. Fine theorizes that even before birth, and relationship, which helps to increase the spread continuing through childhood, gendered expecta- of their genes (Baron-Cohen 126-130). Overall, tions held by parents impact the behavior of male there were advantages of both the male and female and female children.

Published by eRepository @ Seton Hall, 2019 3 Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2019], Art. 7

Fine also explored gender neutral parenting haviors. He discusses parenting in relation to the where gender associations in the environment differences between how boys and girls are treated were reduced, and where anatomy and reproduc- by their parents, but does not discuss gender neu- tive functions were deemed the only differences tral parenting. Parents tend to control boys by between what it means to be a boy or a girl by punishing, prohibiting, and threatening them more looking at the Bems. Sandra and Daryl Bem were often than girls. Some believe that this is due psychologists who chose to raise their son and to how boys have been socialized, while others, daughter gender-neutrally. Their decision was “to like Baron-Cohen theorize that “boys are poorer restrict as much as they could their young chil- empathizers than girls, which leads them to be dren’s knowledge of the ‘cultural correlates’ of less socially compliant, less skilled at picking up gender at least until they were old enough to be the social cues of boundaries, and requiring more critical of stereotypes and sexism” (Fine 214). In frequent disciplining” (Baron-Cohen 88). Baron- Fine’s exploration of the overwhelming lengths it Cohen suggests that the parenting styles of boys took for the Bems to create a gender neutral en- and girls are different because their brains are vironment, she reveals the significant prevalence hardwired differently. Parenting styles do not so- of gender stereotypes that are present in daily cialize male and female behavior, parenting styles life. The children did not conform to sex-typical are instead a consequence of the male and female dress, accessories, or hairstyles, and the shows brain. For example, because females are better they watched and the literature that they read were empathizers, they are better at “social referenc- censored to eliminate the production of gender ing.” This enables girls to “look at a parent’s face stereotypes. Within the household, parenting and to detect whether something is permitted or not” chores were shared equally between both parents. (Baron-Cohen 88). In other words, girls can pick Although precautions can be taken in the home up on social cues, gestures, and facial expressions to eliminate gender stereotypes, Fine references from their parents, whereas, boys need explicit Australian psychologist Barbara David who sug- verbal expression of what is permitted or prohib- gests that parents “‘cannot be a model for ap- ited. The differences in the male and female brain propriate gender behavior, unless the child’s ex- require parents to parent boys and girls differently. posure to the wider world (for example, through Fine and Baron-Cohen both look at chil- friendship groups and the media) suggests that the dren’s toy preferences and provide differing views representative parent is a or prototypical male or on why children often display sex-typical toy female”’ (Fine 217). To elaborate, unless gen- choices. On one hand, Fine attributes sex-typical der stereotypes are eradicated everywhere, gender toy preferences to in-group bias. In-group bias neutral parenting alone will not eliminate gender is conforming to the preferences of their own stereotypes because “gender is continually em- group; females preferring female sex-typed toys, phasized through convention of dress, appearance, and males preferring male sex-typed toys. Gender language, color, segregation, and symbols” (Fine is a social category that drives children to belong 227) that children are exposed to outside of the to the social identity of male or female (Fine 228). home. Fine references a study constructed by Rebecca It can be inferred that because Baron-Cohen Bigler and colleagues to support her views on the theorizes that the male and female brain are hard- influence of in-group bias. In this study, a group of wired differently, he would believe that even com- preschoolers from two different classrooms were plete gender-neutral parenting with no exposure to divided into two groups, one labelled Red group gender stereotypes would result in boys and girls and one labelled Blue group. For three weeks, demonstrating the sex-typical preferences and be- these preschoolers wore red or blue in accordance

https://scholarship.shu.edu/locus/vol2/iss1/7 4 Storms: Gender Differences

to their group label. In one of the two classrooms, cepts, and counting and sorting increase there was no mention of the groups aside from with higher levels of amniotic testos- their dress. In the second classroom, the students terone? No, it decreases in girls, and has decorated their cubbies red or blue, lined up with no relationship in boys. Puzzle solving? their group (red or blue), and were greeted based No. Classification skills (for example, on their group label. Children’s views became bi- “find all the small ones”?) No. A test of ased based on which group they were assigned spatial ability? No. (Fine 111) to. The bias was stronger in the classroom where Fine discards Baron-Cohen’s opinion on prenatal the differences in the groups were more present. testosterone based on the fact that she found an The part of this study that correlates with Fine’s underwhelming amount of evidence in support of view is that “The children preferred toys they were it. told were liked by their own group and expressed Baron-Cohen proposes that social behaviors a greater desire to play with other Red (or Blue) are impacted by hormones, like testosterone, children” (Fine 228). This relates to the in-group which usually manifest in higher levels in males. bias referred to by Fine because it shows that if For example, in a study of male-to-female trans- boys typically play with one type of toy and girls sexuals, the participants showed an increase in in- typically play with another type of toy, a child direct or relational aggression (typically associ- will most likely desire belonging to their gendered ated with females) and a decrease in direct aggres- group by choosing to play with the toy that is typ- sion (typically associated with males). This sug- ically associated with their group. gests that testosterone influences the form of ag- Whereas Fine suggests that children’s sex- gression one demonstrates (Baron-Cohen 99). He typical toy preferences are a result of in-group then references a study that he and his colleagues bias and socialization, Baron-Cohen suggests that conducted to test the influence of prenatal testos- children’s toy choices do not reflect social influ- terone on behavior. In this study, Baron-Cohen ences. Before age two, children already display and his colleagues tested amniotic fluid for lev- sex-typical toy preferences, for example, boys will els of prenatal testosterone that he received from choose a truck over a doll, while girls will choose Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, a hospital a doll over a truck, yet they cannot label either a specializing in the analysis of amniotic fluid. The “boy” toy or a “girl” toy (Baron-Cohen 91). This researchers contacted the mothers whose amniotic reveals that toy preferences are innate and not so- fluid had been stored and asked them to partici- cialized because they are apparent before the dif- pate in the study by bringing their toddlers into ference between boy toys and girl toys are ac- the lab. They “found that the toddlers (at twelve knowledged. and twenty-four months of age) who [they] had It is suggested by Baron-Cohen that behaviors, identified as having lower fetal testosterone, now like systemizing, can be impacted by levels of fe- had higher levels of eye contact and a larger vo- tal testosterone, however, Fine rejects this notion. cabulary” (Baron-Cohen 100). Inferring that eye She points out that the level of prenatal testos- contact and communication indicate empathizing, terone has no correlation to systemizing skills like Baron-Cohen theorizes that empathizing skills are mathematics or visuospatial tasks: critically influenced by fetal testosterone. In a fol- Does accuracy on a mental rotation test low up study of the toddlers, who were then about at age seven correlate with amniotic four years old, Baron-Cohen found that lower so- testosterone? No. Does a four-year- cial skills and restricted interests were demon- old’s skill at copying a block structure, strated by those who had higher prenatal testos- understanding a number facts and con- terone. It was interpreted that,

Published by eRepository @ Seton Hall, 2019 5 Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2019], Art. 7

Lower levels of fetal testosterone (seen a psychological state (Fine 151). The difficulty of more commonly in females) lead to bet- interpreting brain imaging data is also acknowl- ter levels of language, communication edged by Fine when she states that “There isn’t a skills, eye contact, and social skills all simple one-to-one correspondence between brain signs of better empathizing. And if re- regions and mental processes” (Fine 152). In do- stricted interests are an indicator of in- ing so, the brain is being oversimplified because it depth systemizing, these results clearly is not recognizing the interconnectivity within the show that good systemizing abilities are brain. linked to higher levels of fetal testos- Unlike Fine, Baron-Cohen used structural and terone. (Baron-Cohen 101) functional differences in the brain to support his Further support for the notion that higher lev- stance on vital sex differences between the male els of prenatal testosterone leads to better sys- and female brain. In Baron-Cohen’s exploration temizing is data revealing that these individuals of the brain, he focused on “which brain regions demonstrate better performance on the Mental Ro- are known to play a role in empathizing and which tation Test, a test requiring strong systemizing play a role in systemizing, and then looked for skills. Whereas Fine proposed that there is lit- sex differences in these brain regions” (Baron- tle support for the prenatal testosterone theory, Cohen 109). The regions considered to be parts Baron-Cohen found much evidence in support of of the “social brain,” which are those associated it. with empathizing, are the amygdala, the orbito- Both Fine and Baron-Cohen discuss the struc- and medial-frontal areas, the superior temporal ture of the brain in their books. Fine focuses on sulcus, and the corpus callosum. The amyg- the difficulties in studying the brain structures, dala impacts one’s ability to judge another’s emo- whereas Baron-Cohen highlights what he found to tion. In studying the amygdala of males and fe- be structural differences between the male and fe- males using functional magnetic resonance imag- male brain. In Fine’s discussion, she suggests that ing (fMRI), there were differences between re- “There are two ways that males and females can sponsiveness of the amygdala when looking at diverge in brain activation: how much activation pictures of fearful faces. The orbito- and medial- is seen and where that activation is. Neither piece frontal areas of the prefrontal cortex are activated of information, unfortunately, tells us much about when trying to determine another person’s inten- psychological sex differences” (Fine 151). Con- tions or thoughts. The superior temporal sulcus tinuing, she states that activation of an area does is activated when one is being watched by an- not necessarily reveal that anything useful is even other person, and thus trying to determine that happening in the brain; brain activation does not person’s mood or intent. The corpus callosum is always correlate with critical involvement. Fine the brain structure that connects the left and right makes this argument in regards to the amygdala. brain hemispheres, allowing them to communi- When observing brain activity of the amygdala, cate. Some studies have shown that the corpus males and females show different responses when callosum is larger in females than in males. If looking at pictures of fearful faces. Baron-Cohen females do have a larger corpus callosum, it can suggests that this reflects an essential difference be inferred that this would allow for faster inter- between the male and female brain, however, Fine hemispheric information transfer, like communi- argues that this is only a difference in brain activ- cation or empathizing (Baron-Cohen 110-111). In ity, not a difference in the brains. Fine actually the article “The Trouble with Sex Differences,” accuses researches of reverse inference, or back- Lise Eliot, a professor of neuroscience, rejects the wards reasoning, for using brain activity to infer idea that the corpus callosum is larger in females

https://scholarship.shu.edu/locus/vol2/iss1/7 6 Storms: Gender Differences

than males. She stated that one highly publicized and stereotypes early in his book due to his aware- postmortem study of the brain revealed this no- ness of potential reader concerns on the topic of tion, and even though a meta-analysis of 49 stud- sex differences. Defining himself as a responsible ies showed no sex difference between the corpus scientist, he claims that “Responsible scientists in callosum of males and females, the claim stuck this field are careful not to perpetuate the mis- (Eliot 896). Kimura suggests that discrepancies taken attitudes of former generations by assum- could emerge due to different methods of measur- ing that sex differences imply that one sex is infe- ing the brain and the age of the person whose brain rior overall” (Baron-Cohen 10). He believes that is being studied (Kimura 123). In regards to sys- sex differences can be studied and reported with- temizing abilities, brain weight and the hippocam- out oppressing either sex. Similar to Ann Cudd’s pus are associated with it. The male brain is heav- discussion of objectivity in her article “Objectiv- ier, which could be due to having more neurons in ity and ethno-feminist critiques of science,” where the cortex than women. This can impact systemiz- she makes the argument that the impact of bias ing abilities because it could increase the attention on science can be limited if we acknowledge and to detail that is needed. Baron-Cohen believes that recognize that they exist (Cudd 96), Baron-Cohen the hippocampus is associated with systemizing believes that “It is by acquiring and using knowl- because in rats when the hippocampus was dam- edge responsibly that sexism can be eliminated” aged, their ability to navigate mazes (a systemiz- (Baron-Cohen 11). Scientists can do better sci- ing task) suffered. It has also been reported that ence when they are consciously aware of the bi- the hippocampus was larger in male rats than in ases that exist in the world. Baron-Cohen also de- female rats. Baron-Cohen suggests that in future fends himself against the critique that he is just research the planum parietale and the preoptic area stereotyping men and women by claiming that of the hypothalamus should be studied to test if “stereotyping reduces individuals to an average, they play a role in systemizing (Baron-Cohen 112- whereas science recognizes that many people fall 113). He also highlights Broca’s Area which is outside the average range for their group” (Baron- associated with language. During language tasks, Cohen 9). In his book he makes it clear that al- Baron-Cohen notes that Broca’s Area in men and though more men on average have a systemizing women were activated differently. Male brains brain, there are also men that have an empathizing only showed activation in the left hemisphere, brain, and although more women on average have while about 50% of women showed brain activa- an empathizing brain, there are also women who tion in both hemispheres (Baron-Cohen 58). Eliot, have a systemizing brain. a critic of essential differences between the male Fine allocates a significant portion of her book and female brain, does admit that “Structures that to criticizing the theory that male and female do seem to exhibit reliable volumetric sex differ- brains are hardwired differently. Her critiques are ences (at least during certain developmental ages) ideological, presenting the case that an essential include the amygdala, caudate, and portions of the difference between male and female brains is a orbitofrontal cortex” (Eliot 896). Even critics of justification of gender inequality, and therefore, Baron-Cohen’s theory, admit that there are evident has negative political implications because it sug- differences between the male and female brain. gests female inferiority. For example, the gender The topic of sex differences can bring up much wage gap between men and women, where men controversy due to some of the perceived impli- of the same position and credentials as women cations that it is deemed to have regarding sex- usually earn more than women, has “‘neurologi- ism and stereotypes. Baron-Cohen defends him- cal or hormonal roots’” (Fine XXI). Fine claims self against ideological critiques regarding sexism that this theory is supporting a sexist society. She

Published by eRepository @ Seton Hall, 2019 7 Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2019], Art. 7

continues to delve into ideology critique by claim- Fine also makes the assertion that neuroscien- ing that a male and female brain “justifies a status tists and other researchers contribute to the “file- quo in which politics, wealth, science, technology, drawer phenomenon, whereby studies that do find and artistic achievement continue to lie primarily sex differences get published, but those that don’t in the hands of (white) men” (Fine 91). Her cri- languish unpublished and unseen in a researcher’s tiques are entangled throughout her book and will file drawer” (Fine 134). This phenomenon is a be further discussed in the following pages. form of biased reporting, or cherry picking. When Fine devotes one third of her book to Neuro- scientists are consciously only reporting findings sexism. When neuroscience is used inaccurately that verify their own beliefs, they are partaking and portrays sexist ideologies, it becomes neuro- in cherry picking; it is conscious form of confir- sexism. According to Fine, “because the brain is mation bias. Eliot, too, discusses the file-drawer such a biological organ, with its axons and fat and phenomenon. She states that omissions of nega- neurochemicals and electrical impulses, there is a tive findings contribute to distorted literature and temptation to chalk up whatever sex differences biased reviews, and in turn, reinforce biological we see in the brain to differences in male and fe- essentialism (Eliot 898). The file-drawer phe- male nature” (Fine 170). Fine criticizes the nega- nomenon is just one empirical critique expressed tive personal and political effects of neuroscience by Fine. when findings are not interpreted and communi- Empirical critiques are made when evidence is cated responsibly. The ideological critique of neu- challenged. Fine empirically critiques several au- rosexism presented by Fine is that “Neurosexism thors, including Baron-Cohen, based on the data promotes damaging, limiting, and potentially self- provided or methodologies used in studies. Fine fulfilling stereotypes” (Fine 174). In other words, specifically articulates her empirical criticism of males and females will be more inclined to con- Baron-Cohen’s Empathy Quotient and Systemiz- form to the gender status quo as a result of neu- ing Quotient, which he uses to diagnose brain rosexism. In the article “Gender Role Stereo- type-E or the female brain and brain type-S or the types, Expectancy Effects, and Parents’ Socializa- male brain. Baron-Cohen determines that those tion of Gender Differences,” Jacquelynne Eccles, who score higher on the Empathy Quotient have Janis Jacobs, and Rena Harold, review how par- a female brain and that those who score higher ents influence self-fulfilling stereotypes in their on the Systemizing Quotient have a male brain; children based on their perceptions of males and those scoring about equal on both are determined females due to neuroscience. They use the ex- to have a balanced brain. Baron-Cohen reports pectancy effect perspective to study parents’ so- that women score significantly higher than men on cialization of gender role stereotypes which lead the Empathizing Quotient and that men score sig- to self-fulling prophecies. For example, “gender nificantly higher than women on the Systemizing differences in self-perception of their abilities may Quotient. Fine turns to Amanda Schaffer, a jour- lead females and males to select different edu- nalist, to look at the concerns of these two tests cational training programs, and to aspire to dif- and how the results of the tests are misrepresenta- ferent occupations” (Eccles, Jacobs, and Harold tive of the actual data which would be a form of 184). This self-fulfilling prophecy could be reason cherry picking because it was done consciously. for the gender gap in professions like mathemat- Schaffer found that less than half of the women ics, physics, and engineering. Although the self- who have taken the tests have a female brain, fulfilling prophecy were socialized into their chil- therefore, she questions how empathizing can be dren by their parents’ expectations, these expecta- characteristic of the female brain when less than tions were formed as a result of neuroscience. half of females actually have brain type-E. When

https://scholarship.shu.edu/locus/vol2/iss1/7 8 Storms: Gender Differences

she questioned Baron-Cohen, he “‘admitted that uli must be viewed from the same angle. In Baron- he’s thought twice about his male brain/female Cohen and Connellans’s study, the babies were not brain terminology, but he didn’t disavow it”’ (Fine all tested from the same angle. The final critique 16), making his decision conscious. Fine goes on of their methodology deals with the effects of ex- to criticize this test by claiming that it is not a perimenter expectancy. Connellan was accused of valid test of empathizing because it is extremely taking no precautions to eliminate information in- subjective. Self-report measures, especially in re- dicative of the babies’ sexes, which could result lation to social sensitivity like the Empathizing in unconscious differential treatment of the babies Quotient, are often inaccurate in regards to their evident in motions, eye openness, and mutual eye predictive validity; they rarely accurately predict gazes. Knowing the sex of even just some of the interpersonal activity. Fine continues to critique newborns being tested could impact the results of Baron-Cohen’s measures of systemizing and em- the study (Fine 115). pathizing by stating that the concept of gender is Fine devoted an entire chapter of her book, primed. These measures prime a gender identity titled “Brain Scams,” to highlighting her empir- by having participants note their sex prior to com- ical critiques of studies and scientists who take pleting the questionnaire. In doing so, the partici- the same stance as Baron-Cohen, believing that pants tend choose the more stereotypical answers the male and female brain are essentially differ- for their gender (Fine 9). The items within the ent. Louann Brizendine, a neuropsychiatrist, re- questionnaires also present choices that are clearly ceived much criticism. A major empirical criti- associated with a particular gender. cism of Louann Brizendine is that her facts are of- Baron Cohen and Jennifer Connellan’s new ten false or nonexistent in the literature that she born study was also empirically criticized by Fine cites. When examining Brizendine’s claim, which for its methodology. In their study, they aimed coincides with Baron-Cohen’s claim that female to look at gender differences in infants so that brains are wired for empathizing, she found that they could rule out socialization as a factor for the data often did not compare males and females, early gender differences. One hundred and two that the data was speculative, that the data she pre- day-and-a-half old infants were offered to look at sented contradicted the data found in her refer- a mobile or Connellan’s face. This test was de- ences, and that her claims were untrue (Fine 161). signed “to measure the babies’ interest in the face Eliot also notes that Brizendine’s claims tend to be versus interest in the mobile: empathizing ver- “bold confabulation[s]” (Eliot 896). This strong sus systemizing” (Fine 112). Results showed that criticism accuses Brizendine of fabricating, dis- males looked longer at the mobile, while females torting, and exaggerating data. looked longer at the face. Baron-Cohen consid- It is not only Brizendine who provides false ered the difference in attention on the two to re- claims in support of her theory. Fine goes on flect innate, or hardwired, differences. According to criticize the absurd claim made by an educa- to Fine, however, his methods were easily scru- tional consultant that “girls see the details while tinized. For one, each of the stimuli were pre- boys see the big picture because the ‘crockus’. . . is sented independently rather than simultaneously. four times larger in girls than boys” (Fine 162). This makes it hard to determine which the new- The “crockus” does not exist, giving his claim born had a preference for. Another consideration no scientific support. Fine infers that he made is that babies, in general, do not have very good this claim as an educational consultant in support eyesight and are therefore drawn to top-heavy pat- of single-sex schools. If authorities can be con- terns, like faces. In order to ensure that all stimuli vinced that males and females have two different are at the same degree of top-heaviness, the stim- brains that learn differently, support can be gath-

Published by eRepository @ Seton Hall, 2019 9 Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2019], Art. 7

ered for single-sex schools. Leonard Sax is an- correlates of female inferiority” (Fine 132). The other educational speaker from the National As- mid-nineteenth century was considered to be the sociation for Single Sex Public Education who too beginning of the neuroscience of sex differences. uses neuroscience, or the brain, to defend the need Male scientists and medics used their findings to for single-sex schooling. In Fine’s book, she re- oppress women acting as a source of opposition ports the accusations that Sax’s claims are fab- to women’s suffrage and equal education. Neu- ricated through over-interpretations and misinter- roimaging technology replaced tape measure and pretations of data. Eliot also criticizes Sax for brain sales used in the Victorian era. Fine warns making claims that encourage gender segregation scientists not to fall into the same traps as the pro- in schools (Eliot 895). Even if structural differ- fessionals in the past because what was in the past ences resulted in sex differences, Fine suggests deemed modern and sophisticated, is now viewed that “there is no reliable way to translate these as absurd and irrational. Fine also highlights the brain differences into educational practices” (Fine asymmetry of power and status that the sex differ- 167). Her criticisms of these men were both em- ences presented by the scientists in the past cre- pirical due to false evidence and ideological due ated. She noted that it was not until the mid to late to the perceived negative implication that it would twentieth century that the “US legislation require have (sex segregated schools). that married women be able to apply for credit in In the introduction, Fine states “When we fol- their own names. And. . . that it became possible low the trail of contemporary science we discover in the eyes of the law for a British husband to rape a surprising number of gaps, assumptions, incon- his wife” (Fine 79). sistencies, poor methodologies, and leaps of faith Fine even points out the history of male and as well as more than one echo of the insalubrious female dress, and how this has changed over time. past” (Fine XXVII). In regards to the “insalubri- Today, blue is considered to be a stereotypically ous past,” Fine is referencing a completely sexist male color, while pink is considered to be a stereo- history where women had no rights and the gen- typically female color. This color phenomenon, der inequalities were even greater than they are however, is recent. Through the end of the nine- today. In the late eighteenth century, facial ver- teenth century, children, for the most part, wore ticality was used to measure intellect. This idea unisex white dresses. When colored fabrics were of facial verticality was used to support women’s produced for children, the pink-blue labeling of inferiority to men. Later it was not facial ver- gender was reversed. Pink was deemed a stronger ticality, but the cephalic index, or “the ratio of color, and was therefore associated with boys, skull length to skull breadth” (Fine 132) that cor- while blue was reserved for girls because it was related with female inferiority because it was be- delicate, dainty, and a symbol of faith. According lieved to measure mental capacity. This measure- to Fine, these associations were created to demon- ment was later revoked due to the observation that strate gender distinctions, and continue to do so there was no difference between the head shapes today. Fine uses the fact that the current pink-blue of the “inferior” and “superior” social groups (fe- labeling did not emerge until the mid-twentieth males and males respectively). Next, women were century to support the view that gender color pref- deemed inferior to men due to their brains being erences cannot have a genetic or evolutionary ori- smaller and lighter. Eventually, “it became un- gin because these preferences are less than a cen- avoidably evident that one could be slight of brain tury old (Fine 208-209). but substantial of intellect (and vice versa)” and Baron-Cohen also refers to history in his book. so “the hypothesis was reluctantly abandoned, and He references a past where “the very idea of psy- the brains searched more intimately for the neural chological sex differences would have triggered

https://scholarship.shu.edu/locus/vol2/iss1/7 10 Storms: Gender Differences

a public outcry” for “the 1960s and 70s saw an in popular magazines or broadcasted on popu- ideology that dismissed psychological sex differ- lar television stations, readers tend to still believe ences as either mythical, or if real, nonessential” the original claim to be true. This is related to (Baron Cohen 10). He suggests that in the past, the irrational primacy effect that was discussed in people held too simplistic of a view, a view that Sara Gorman and Jack Gorman’s, Denying to the assumed sex differences were solely due to cul- Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save ture. In his book, he does not reduce sex differ- Us. They define this effect as “giving more cre- ences to just biology, for he asserts that this would dence to what we hear or experience first than ev- be doing the exact opposite error that was made in erything that follows” (Gorman and Gorman 110). the past. Although he argues that the male and fe- When early and, sometimes irrational, findings on male brain are hardwired for systemizing and em- sex differences receive high-profile media atten- pathizing respectively, he does not reduce the dif- tion, future perceptions on the topic will likely ferences in the behavior of males and females only become colored. Fine reports that the negative to biology. Even though he articulates that his re- impact of misrepresented media attention to top- search is not stereotyping nor is it oppressive, he ics like sex differences is that “media reports of felt that even in the 1990s the topic of psycholog- gender that emphasize biological factors leave us ical sex differences was too politically sensitive to more inclined to agree with gender stereotypes, to be publically debated. For this reason, he waited self-stereotype ourselves, and even for our perfor- to complete The Essential Difference: Male and mance to fall in line with those stereotypes” (Fine Female Brains and the Truth About Autism, and 172). These stereotypes are projected throughout postponed its publication until 2003, a new mil- various media sources. lennium which he believed was impacted by fem- Children’s literature, children’s television inism. With the emergence of feminism, he found shows, television advertisements, and movies of- that although there were things that men could do ten reflect sex-typical norms. Fine believes that better than females, there were also things that “The power of the media to dish up a stripped- women took pride in doing for they could do them down, concentrated version of cultural values en- better than men. He felt this new millennium ables it to represent the higher status of males in would be more accepting of his theory because of this uncomfortable blunt fashion” (Fine 222). For the rise of feminism. example, in classic picture books women were of- Eliot discusses how “sex differences in the ten pictured wearing an apron, illustrating the sex- brain are real and clinically important but often ist stereotypes that women belong in the kitchen or grossly distorted in popular discourse” (Eliot 895). performing household chores (Fine 219). In text, Sex differences are often misrepresented in, and female characters were described as “beautiful, misinterpreted by, the media and press. She notes frightened, worthy, sweet, weak, and scared. . . the the negative political implications that result from other gender as big, horrible, fierce, great, terri- uninformed literature or broadcasts, stating that ble, furious, brave, and proud” (Fine 220). These “popular portrayals of sex differences in the brain adjectives reveal a clear distinction between the are riddled with claims that are highly extrap- attributes that men and women are perceived to olated, misinterpreted, or just made up but are have. Female characters are less often repre- nonetheless used to justify the differential treat- sented in the plot of adventure books than males, ment of boys are girls in school or men and women and are overall less represented than males on in the workplace” (Eliot 896). Eliot mentions that TV and in commercials which demonstrates the even when scientific claims are challenged and idea that males are valued more than females in proven wrong, if they have already been published society. In regards to commercials and in on-

Published by eRepository @ Seton Hall, 2019 11 Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2019], Art. 7

line toy advertisements, gender stereotypes are of- 4560.1990.tb01929.x. ten expressed. Girls are represented playing with princesses, dolls, and kitchen sets, while boys are Eliot, Lise. “NeuroView: The Trouble represented playing with Legos, cars, and action with Sex Differences.” Neuron, vol. 72, figures. Today’s media is plagued with the projec- Jan. 2011, pp. 895-898. EBSCOhost, tion of gender stereotypes. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.12.001. Fine argues that “Our minds, society, and neu- rosexism create difference. Together, they wire Fine, Cordelia. Delusions of Gender: How gender. But the wiring is soft, not hard. It is Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create flexible, malleable, and changeable” (Fine 239). Difference. Norton, 2011. Fine believes that human brains are soft-wired, al- lowing them to be molded through socialization. Gorman, Sara E., and Gorman, Jack M. Denying Baron-Cohen, on the other hand, argues that, on to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will average, males are hardwired for systemizing and Save Us. Oxford University Press, 2017. women, on average, are hardwired for empathiz- ing. Based on the evidence presented, it seems Kimura, Doreen. “Sex Differences that sex differences are almost equally influenced in the Brain.” Scientific American, by biology and culture. Sex differences appear no. 3, 1992, p. 118. EBSCOhost, to be prewired, where males appear prewired for search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&Au systemizing and females prewired for empathiz- thType=ip,sso&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.24939218 ing, but these wirings can be either altered or sup- &site=eds-live&authtype=ssocustid=s8475574. ported based on the culture and social context that one is in. As greater technological advancements are made in neuroscience, scientists can continue to study the brain with greater precision and accu- racy, and gain further insight to support or refute a side in this debate.

References

Baron-Cohen, Simon. The Essential Difference: Male and Female Brains and the Truth About Autism. Basic Books, 2003.

Cudd, Ann E. “Objectivity and ethno-feminist critiques of science.” After the Science Wars, edited by Keith Ashman and Philip Baringer, Routledge, 2001, pp. 80-97.

Eccles, Jacquelynne S., et al. “Gender Role Stereotypes, Expectancy Effects, and Parents’ Socialization of Gender Differences.” Jour- nal of Social Issues, vol. 46, no. 2, 1990, pp. 183201. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1540-

https://scholarship.shu.edu/locus/vol2/iss1/7 12