Op-Ed
Bringing Bio Back
Email: 
Share: 
Don’t Kill the Messenger
Imagine a naked man. Let’s call him Adam.
Once the image is firmly in your mind, zoom in on exactly what it is that makes dear Adam the strapping chap he is. Ready? Now, take that oh-so-distinguishing organ and do the following: flip in inside-out, turn it upside-down and move it upwards about a foot or so, so that it fits snuggly alongside Adam’s digestive organs. Alright then; you now have a woman!
I should hope that for most of you, the results of this stimulating thought experiment seem more than a little suspect. In fact, the above demonstration closely resembles what you would have experienced as a scholar of biology … in eighteenth century Europe. Thankfully, we’ve come a long way since then in our understanding of basic anatomy.
After the French Revolution, with its groovy calls for liberté and égalité, science began focusing more explicitly on the biology of gender. Once the feminist era hit, however, women were put in the difficult position of being forced to prove their intellectual parity with men; amidst fierce debate, it became unfashionable to suggest that, apart from their “privy members,” men and women had anything that set them apart.
In writing this column, I started to feel a certain nostalgia for the bygone days of student protests and hunger strikes. Could I use this column, I wondered, to kick-start a brand-spanking new revolution at C.U.? In my mind, I got as far as ripping off my bra and setting it ablaze on the Arts Quad. But the thought of standing alone and braless outside McGraw Hall as a tour of eager pre-frosh marched by gaping in awe as I danced hysterically around my sizzling underwire left me less than motivated.
Today, however, our generation is bearing witness to the most radical resurgence. We, ladies and gentlemen, are Bringing Bio Back.
New research is focusing on behavioral traits that are correlated with gender differences. Let’s start with a simple one. According to a UCL report, women have superior social skills, are more empathetic and are able to use more abstract verbal skills. This helps to explain the traditional discomfort that arises when “over-emotional;” women try to discuss “feelings” with their “robotic” boyfriends.
But I’ll throw out another one — men tend to outperform women in mathematical reasoning. WAIT! Before you get all riled up, hear me out. I’m not suggesting that subtle variations in average scores can account for the dramatic gap in the number of men and women involved in many professions; obviously, gender discrimination is at play. But still, isn’t it possible that innate differences play some role in men’s and women’s choices to pursue different fields? So why is it that I feel so nervous suggesting it?
The whole issue was thrust onto the international stage when former Harvard President Lawrence Summers suggested that inborn differences explain women’s failure to excel in math and science. His insensitive and inaccurate comments provoked nationwide uproar.
Still, was the press too hasty in denouncing Summers? Was he only trying to encourage a healthy, scientific debate?
In the end, the problems inherent in this field are great. For example, what role does socialization play in behavioral gender differences? Did some innate feminine drive lead me to spend hours recreating the Miss America pageant with my entourage of busty Barbies [I always rigged it so the red-head would win], or would I have been just as content if my parents had — in a move toward progressive “gender-neutral” parenting — bought me Hot Wheels instead?
It’s easy to blow these differences out of proportion. Certainly, there is great overlap between the genders. Some, for example, would characterize my longstanding fear of relationship commitment as “masculine” [SO WHAT? I enjoy personal space!] On the other hand, I know my brother only ripped apart my Aladdin figurine piece by piece and left the pile of mangled plastic limbs outside my bedroom door to justify the pleasure he had in imaging himself as an exotic carpet-rider.
But in the end, we have to decide: are we, in the name of political correctness, ready to say that the differences between XX and XY are limited to genitalia? I’m going to go ahead and say no. I think behavior factors in as well.
The implications of this trend are far-reaching, but they shouldn’t be feared. We can only gain when new scientific advances add to our cumulative knowledge pool. For example, perhaps this country could improve its abysmal standardized test scores if we started tailoring our schools’ curriculum to differences in learning style based on gender.
Even I recognize the discomfort that accompanies this kind of discussion. Could a male student have written what I just wrote? If a guy had backed Lawrence Summers, would I have felt compelled to write in to the editor … something along the lines of “You saying I can’t integrate a trigonometric function, motherf@#%*$?”
It’s scary to imagine ourselves as being products of biological impulse, the imperfect results of rough evolutionary struggle. Frankly, I would be a happier person if I tuned out all this “science” mumbo-jumbo and continued to believe that I had been placed on this rotating sphere of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen with a greater purpose in mind. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore science in the name of … well, pseudo-science. Look at it this way: I’m a history major specializing in the political construction of memory in postwar France. If I can think like a scientist, anyone can.
Katie Engelhart is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. She can be contacted at kengelhart@cornellsun.com. Don’t Kill the Messenger appears alternate Tuesdays.