Cordelia Fine and Delusions of Gender
Delusions of Gender, the new book by Cordelia Fine ripostes much of the current news coverage on gender differences in the brain. in evaluating evidence for female brains that are empathy-wired and communication-wired, and for male brains that are math-wired but with weaker communication abilities, she finds, "''a surprising number of gaps, assumptions, inconsistencies, poor methodologies and leaps of faith'' in the evidence that would support such conclusions.
Fine studied psychology at Oxford and has a PhD in neuroscience. She does not suffer fools gladly. She complains in the book that, "'It is appalling to me that one can, apparently, say whatever drivel one likes about the male and female brain and enjoy the pleasure of seeing it published in a reputable newspaper, changing a school's educational policy or becoming a bestseller.''
Sonia Fuentes, our Title VII advisor, and her friends and collaborators, are very interested in the use of such evidence to argue for single-sex education. In an email to me, Sonia said, "If others have comments on how Fine's book addresses or has implications re legal issues in the US about sex segregation or how her research relates to research of folks like Janet Hyde and Lise Eliot, please let us know at spfuentes@comcast.net.
In an article on Fine's book, Suzy Freeman-Greene of Age says Fine found her son Isaac's kindergarten teacher "was reading Why Gender Matters by US physician Leonard Sax. An influential campaigner for single-sex education, Sax once claimed that the areas of the brain involved in language and fine motor skills mature about six years earlier in girls, while those involved in maths and geometry mature about four years earlier in boys. Fine dismisses such ''neurononsense.''" I must say I found no convincing evidence for these claims when I reviewed brain differences for AWIS Magazine recently. So I agree with Fine.
Anyone out there reading Fine? Let us know what you think, and email Sonia if you find parts related to the single sex education issue.
cheers,
Laura
BTW, since the STEM discussion I've been trying to spell out Science Mathematics Engineering Technology or some variant of it in my postings and it's undeniably CLUNKY! I tend to say just "science and math." How offensive is that to people in engineering and technology? Do you feel excluded on purpose or neglected? I may be pushed back to STEM!
cheers,
Laura
Yes, I am in favor of a choice of single sex education. I am not in favor of imposing it.
Since I've been at Pomona College, I have heard about how a couple of strong women in science and math here really made it almost as productive of women in science and math as the women's colleges, just by doing everything they could to support and foster these students. So I think it can be good anywhere, if only people care and do something about it.
Cheers,
Laura
Laura, I am not sure from what you posted if you're in favor of single-sex ed or not. I believe there is excellent evidence that women take on leadership roles much more after such education. It doesn't much matter whether the guys think they're protecting themselves, if it works so well for women, in my opinion.
Hi Helen,
I went to a women's college myself, and there are some good studies showing disproportionaly large percentages of women in science and math started at women's colleges. I suppose there are studies on K-12 too. The talk about separating K-12 sounds a lot like Taliban-speak to me, I must say. Y ou'd think men were an endangered species that needs maximum protection from rampant sexuality of young women from what some of these proponents of m and f separate K-12 say on TV and in print. And it's all based on the shakiest of conclusions from neuroscience.
cheers,
Laura
I agree with Small Science Woman that Fine's main contribution is to question the application of these "findings" to modify the educational system. Are we "experimenting" with same sex education correctly? In many ways such experiments have already been done with private schools that are gender selective, and there are decades worth of data. So can't you use those real data to determine whether same sex education works "better"?
I bought a copy and have started reading it. It feels light and entertaining (unless you're the experimenter she's skewering) so I think it would make perfect vacation reading.
I wish I had time to read it, it's a pretty big book! I looked at it in Borders and thought I'd better wait for vacation time.
Hi Laura,
Yes, Fine's book is worth reading. But for me, the Young-Jordan one you recommended earlier is more interesting and complete.
I think Fine is more interested in the ways these ideas have been misused in coming up with policies, less interested in the biology per se.
I really am enjoying this book. Fine is very funny but that doesn't take away from her insight, which is right on target. Not many real sex differences exist, and the ones the popular press loves to cite are the shakiest ones (connection between hemispheres, hippocampus).
