No neurosexism please, we're trainers
Training providers need to be careful of indulging in 'neurosexism', after revelations that widely accepted differences between male and female abilities are not hardwired into their brains from birth but are the result of cultural assumptions.
Cordelia Fine, a researcher at Melbourne University, argues in her book entitled 'Delusions of Gender', which is due to be published by Icon next month, that, although there may be slight variations in the brains of men and women, there are no major neurological differences between the sexes.
As a result, there is no scientific justification for believing that women are better communicators and multi-taskers, while men have superior spatial skills or are better at maths. Such prejudices are more the result of education, popular culture and even how people choose to dress their children, but they are putting "unjustified obstacles" in people's path to self development.
What this all means, in essence, is that the wiring of people's brains is soft rather than hard. "It is flexible, malleable and changeable," Fine told the Guardian newspaper.
It also means that people's intellectual abilities are not the product of their gender or genes and those who claim otherwise are merely coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility.
A growing number of scientists are starting to question the notion of 'neurosexism' and express concern over its potentially damaging implications. The idea first emerged as a reaction against the strict traditional view of the sexes in post-War society.
But it was reinforced by international best-sellers such as John Gray's 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus', which stressed the innate differences between how the minds of men and women worked as well as their differences in communication.
- 2211 reads
- login or register to post comments
- Add to a social bookmarking site
- ViadeoShare
No neurosexism please, we're trainers
Biochemically there is said to be a neurological difference between the genders to stress. The hormone 'Oxytocin' when released in females during the stress response is hypothesised to create a 'Tend & befriend' response as opposed to the 'Fight or Flight' response seen predominantly in males.
Here I am discussing this topic on 'Inspire Corporate TV'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewNtGXPwVNs
Jeannette jackson
How much is biology reinforced by culture?
OK _ I haven't read Fine's research but there's enough debate elsewhere in the Grauniad to suggest that it isn't a simple black and white case of nature or nurture but probably a number of factors in play including such things as the level of testosterone exposure in utero. It might well be that a small biological difference is either overridden or reinforced by upbringing, culture, expectations etc. So, empirically, there is a difference and insisting that there is no difference because there isn't a big obvious neurochemical or structural marker for that difference is as much ideology as it is science.
What's more useful to us as trainers is to acknowledge the difference between the stereotypical "male" and "female" ways of thinking and see them not as fixed states in opposition to each other but as alternates; guide ourselves and our students to be able to tap into either mode as suited to the problem and not be constrained by prior assumptions.
Not Really
I haven't read any of Dr. Fine's books, so I did a little homework and discovered that her academic credentials and scientific experience are both excellent. That's why I'm baffled over her conclusions.
There's a substantial amount of evidence that there are real and important differences between male and female brains. These differences begin in utero (before, presumably, any social conditioning can take place). They also exist among rats--who, obviously, are not recognized for having societies capable of conditioning their young to accept stereotyped gender roles.
If Dr. Fine has made a groundbreaking discovery that casts doubt on all the evidence that has accumulated so far, why didn't she publish it in a peer-reviewed journal? By the same token, if these differences really are attributable to societal conditioning, where is Dr. Fine's research in that arena?
Dr. Fine can argue that these differences aren't, in fact, significant, but that would fly in the face of common sense.
To be neurosexist would imply that trainers irrationally believe that the male brain is superior to the female brain or vice versa. To simply recognize that there are differences, however, and that these should be taken seriously, however, just seems like good sense.
Not again!
I can't work out whether Cordelia Fine is ahead of the curve, miles behind it, or just trying to sell a book .... in any event, I'm sure that the majority of her peers disagree, at least to some extent, with her findings .... but you can't beat a bit of contoversy and provocation to sell copy!! (My wife is the mother of three sons .... try telling her there's no neurological difference between men and women!!!)
John