Brain Differences and Sex

PAGE 2 OF 2

We are in a bit of pickle here.  We have several ways in which we can
respond to Daphne's latest missive.

We can quit the women's studies biz and go into something less
controversial, say, basket-weaving.  Nobody argues about basket-weaving.

We can return the rhetorical flourishes and get into a full-out flame war:
A new experience for the newbies but old hat to the rest of us.

We can acknowledge that some women's scholars are in over their heads.
Well, duh. So are some male scholars. So are the generations of male
scholars who kept women out of the university among other places; and the
male scientists who do studies on heart disease on men but report it as
being generic; or cancer, or any other disease in which studies on women's
bodies would offer different results than on men.

We could earn a whole chapter in the revision of Daphne's book by asking
her to leave. It might even make the headlines in the New York
Post:   <Women's Studies e-mail list silences woman professor>

Or we could agree to disagree. It is clear that the differences are not
bridgeable.

"And . . . I developed into a
critic of academic women's studies with its often reductive and
politically-driven approaches to knowledge claims. I think these very
attitudes are manifest on this list on an almost daily basis."

That says it all. I had long wondered why Daphne stayed on Wmst-l despite
the fact that we irritate the hell out of her.
I am sorry that it has come to this because all of our lives have changed
because of the women's movement and the women's studies that grew out of
it. I had one woman professor in my undergraduate classes, and only one
woman professor in law school. I am only 51, so my attendance in those
institutions is not that distant in time. If it wasn't for women's studies,
we'd still be reading idiotic accounts of history without women. And I am
sorry because I admired Daphne's work (if you've ever seen her Oral history
textbook or her narrative with Brazilian women, they are wonderful.) I have
called her my friend in the past but this is an issue that we both feel too
deeply about to let our differences slip away like water under a bridge.
WMST-L will keep on keeping on, and Daphne will keep flinging
brickbats.  It's not that her criticism is without merit--sometimes it is,
but a constant barrage of criticism can only destroy its object.

I am tired of the insidious poisoning of this e-mail list resulting from
these discussions. Daphne's not going to change her perspective about
women's studies nor are we.

So let us agree to disagree.


Dra. Rosa Maria Pegueros, J.D., Ph.D.
Department of History
    & Women's Studies Program
217C Washburn Hall
80 Upper College Road, Suite 3
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
         E:mail: pegueros  @  uri.edu
         Phone:(401) 874-4092
         Fax  :(401) 874-2595
Web pages:
http://www.uri.edu/personal/rpe2836u/
http://nick.uri.edu/artsci/wms/pegueros.htm

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens
 can change the world, indeed it's the only thing that ever has".
                                        --Margaret Mead, Anthropologist

Gaile Pohlhaus wrote:


> Perhaps Daphne may sound a bit harsh here but she has valid points.  Often
> in feminist discussions there seems to be a 'party' line and if one suggests
> another option or point of view, even though based on research, one is at
> best ignored or at worst shouted down because it does not 'fit.'  Are we
> becoming oppressors?

As a graduate student finding her way through the maze of academic politics
over the last few years, I've pondered these questions many times, and have
variously found myself on opposite sides of this issue -- sometimes even
within the same week!   On the one hand, true debate and intellectual
inquiry tend to suffer in the presence of a mandated "party line," in
Gaile's phrase.  On the other hand, workers within a struggling and hotly
contested paradigm may find that a "united front" makes it easier to defend
against legitimate enemies.  The question for me is, "what are the long term
effects of stating an allegiance?"  Feminism still qualifies as a
hotly-contested paradigm.  We have plenty of real enemies, both within and
without the academy.  I think the wariness of many feminists to consider
"anti-party line" arguments stems from that knowledge -- not from
closed-mindedness.

It's the difference between an ideal, and a concrete pragmatism.  Ideally, I
believe "party lines" are bad for the intellect.  But practically, I see
that people who protest the feminist "party line" find themselves in the
company of dangerous bedfellows.  The feminist academic who -- for
example -- embraces the science of sex-brain differences, may find that the
allies she makes do _not_ share her large-scale goals.  That feminist
scholar, then, will have separated herself from her "posse" only to find
that she now has _no_ posse, because the other side only welcomed her as
long as she was questioning feminists.

Daphne calls for an ideal space, where the free exchange of ideas is not
hampered by political goals. I want that space too, but we've never had it
before and we don't have it now. Even before identity-politics began
reshaping the face of academe, political agendas underlay the previous
paradigms, too.  And now that feminism & multiculturalism *have* shaken up
the academy, the political agendas of the old guard are even more likely to
be in use. Of all the academics I've known, I've never met one who had a
"purely objective" interest in anything. Some are better at appearing
neutral than others. Some may  not even be *aware* of how their politics
impact their work.  But that doesn't mean it isn't happening!

Much as I hate this to be true, the university is not a space "above" real
life politics -- the kind of space where truly objective debate and critique
could thrive.  Instead, academe is a big old fashioned shoot-out between
warring gangs (we fight for resources, recognition, administrative support,
etc.).  As long as I really am stuck in this crummy dichotomy of good guys
and bad guys, I choose the feminists (my good guys) because they share my
long-term goals and values.  Do I long for a space where there are no gangs,
no sides, and no "stakes" to motivate turf wars and bloody fights? Hell yes.
Give me one, and I'll debate till the cows come home.  Some aspects of the
feminist party line, I freely admit, give me a headache.  But I'd rather
have a headache than get shot dead.  At the moment, those are my only 2
choices.

I don't mean to give the impression that I'm unconflicted about this. I've
been known to critique the party line. I make a distinction between
critiquing *within* feminist communities, and doing it "in public" where the
enemies can hear.  This is a rather bogus distinction, as I sometimes chide
myself -- even within feminist communities, critique can be upsetting for
those who feel themselves on the front line of battle (when you & your enemy
are locked in mortal combat, you don't want to hear someone supposedly on
your side shouting "Hey, you're doing that wrong.") I've pissed off some
allies, which I regret, and I'm still trying to figure out a _modus
operandi_ that will allow me to adhere to my principles of intellectual
rigor, while also allowing me to be a good sister.   So I take my
conflicting yearnings and juggle them on a day-to-day basis.  It's confusing
and discomfiting, but what else is there?

I have a question for those on the list (if there are any) who've decided
that it's purely healthy to question the "party line." How do you reconcile
your intellectual ideals with your political goals?  Have you ever found
yourself inadvertently giving succour to your enemies? If you identify
yourself as a feminist, and therefore your primary concern is obtaining a
better world for women (what I'd consider a fundamental goal of feminism),
doesn't it worry you when your critiques of feminism are adopted by people
you detest?  And if it doesn't worry you -- how come?

I don't mean to sound antagonistic -- I'm really asking.

Ilana Nash
inash  @  bgnet.bgsu.edu

>Patai wrote:
>Kimura ... discusses seasonal and
>time-of-day variations in hormone levels (estrogen and testosterone), and
>says there's a "fair amount of evidence that variations in estrogen across
>women's menstrual cycle are related to changes in spatial, verbal fluency,
>and articulatory-motor skills.
>
>... suggests some ways in which they may have been adaptive in the
>hunter-gatherer milieu. She says that males'  greater skill in targetting
>(throwing accuracy)  is one of the most reliable sex differences that is
>known...
>
>She discusses areas in which women do better
>(fine motor tasks, verbal memory), and those in which men do better...
>At the end of her book she says that  for some real-world activities, these
>average differences may be significant, AND goes on to say that in general,
>each individual is unique and therefore   "equity requires treating each
>person as an individual, not as a member of a group" (186).

I am sorry. I don't seem to see where these findings break stereotypes or
go into areas of knowledge that are unknown to us. Thank you for your time
in responding. For those further interested in Kimura's work you may want
to look at the following. In all cases Kimura obviously puts the
characteristics of the group above that of the individual, otherwise why do
group-defined studies?:

"Estrogen replacement therapy may protect against intellectual decline in
postmenopausal women." Hormones & Behavior. 29(3):312-21, 1995 Sep.
Where Kimura explains how: "estrogen may guard against some of the
intellectual decline which is to be expected postmenopausally" (I didn't
really expect this decline - or perhaps I am already too declined to notice?).

"Sexual orientation and performance on sexually dimorphic motor tasks."
Archives of Sexual Behavior. 24(4):395-407, 1995 Aug.
In considering throwing skills Kimura writes: "Heterosexual men
outperformed heterosexual women, whereas gay men threw less accurately and
lesbians tended to throw more accurately than their heterosexual
counterparts.... To the extent that sociological factors have been
controlled, the study suggests that both sexual orientation and
motor/cognitive predispositions may have early biological contributions.
(there are more studies on the biology of orientation - note that bisexuals
are rarely included)

Rather than tire you with further examples of scholarly excellence I will
defer to Rosie's well-written points and leave it at that.

peace,
Linda D. Wayne
University of Minnesota
wayne005  @  tc.umn.edu

Rosie,

How distressing that you find my messages an "insidious poisoning" of, and
"brickbats" thrown at, the list. The reason I bother staying on the list is
because I *know* there are other people in women's studies who share my
concerns and are hoping to see the field improve and give up its hostility
toward other views.  I actually DO believe, as you evidently do not, that a
variety of views can and should be expressed and that mine are not beyond
the pale.  I should think my messages, which are focused and specific to
particular discussions,  make that clear.  Every time you respond as you
just did, you just make my heart sink a bit more (occasional friendship
notwithstanding).

And as for the male scholars you refer to, even assuming they're all as
badly motivated as you say, I have never thought the feminist program was to
do as badly as men but in a new direction.

I am also surprised that you are inviting readers to just "agree to
disagree" --i.e., trying to preventthem from giving  consideration to the
substantive issues in this discussion, which was about brain differences and
sex AND the way women's studies professors seek out information from this
list.

D.
---------------------------------
daphne.patai  @  spanport.umass.edu

As the sender of the original post, I do want to clarify that I did not
intend to suggest that there are no brain differences between men and
women, or that these differences may not be important, or that feminists
simply respond to science (instead of doing science themselves).  I am
trying to gather information to help a group of students plan a well
rounded research project.  The student who proposed the research used a
local news anchor as her primary source of information, and this person
referred her to neuroscientific research on brain differences between
the sexes.  From what I have gatherered from the proposal and the
sources listed, the news anchor and my student are assuming that they
can link all gender differences to these research articles.

I don't want my students to downplay difference; I want them to think
hard about the ways in which we interpret and analyze difference.  In
short, I am trying very hard to keep my students from being reductive.

Just wanted to clarify --

Suzanne

************************
Suzanne Thompson Clemenz
Purdue University
Women's Studies/American Studies
clemenzs  @  purdue.edu

Anne Fausto-Sterling's Sexing the Body is an excellent discussion of the
brain and other biological sex differences, critiquing the research method
as well as premises and conclusions, but it would hard going for students.
A more accessible book is Marianne van den Wijngaard, Reinventing the
Sexes: The biomedical construction of masculinity and femininity. Indiana
University Press, 1997. It's relatively short and puts the discussion of
science in the context of feminist theory.
JL

****************************************************************
Judith Lorber, Ph.D.            Ph/Fax -- 212-689-2155
319 East 24 Street               judith.lorber  @  verizon.net
Apt 27E
New York, NY 10010
Facts are theory laden; theories are value laden;
values are history laden.   -- Donna J. Haraway
****************************************************************

Diane Halpern often provides a thorough and balanced view of gender
differences in cognition.  For example,

Halpern, D. F., & LaMay, M. L. (2000). The smarter sex: A critical review
of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 229-246.

Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Jerre Levy also does an excellent job looking at neurological issues and
sex and gender, however this is the most recent chapter of hers I could
find quickly.  A more thorough search might locate something more up to date.

Levy, J., & Heller, W. (1992). Gender differences in human
neuropsychological function. In A. A. Gerall & H. Moltz (Eds.), Sexual
differentiation. Handbook of behavioral neurobiology, Vol. 11 (pp.
245-274). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Elaine Blakemore


******************************************************************************

Elaine Blakemore
Associate Professor and Department Chair
Department of Psychology
Indiana - Purdue University
Fort Wayne, IN 46805
219-481-6400  (after January 15, area code is 260)
219-481-6972(fax)
Blakemor  @  ipfw.edu

http://users.ipfw.edu/blakemor/blakemor.htm