March 30, 2008
In search of the visible woman
From The Guardian:
Women are in a bad way. We are still made scapegoats and traduced and our true natures denied. Two female polemicists have published books explaining why, although they have come to very different, arguably opposing, conclusions. One is also very much better than the other. Susan Pinker is a Canadian developmental psychologist and newspaper columnist perplexed that, after decades of feminism, there's still a pay gap and so few women run major corporations. Girls do better at school and, at least in North America, which is where The Sexual Paradox is really concerned with, enter university in greater numbers. The conclusion she reaches, never mind Simone de Beauvoir's liberating message all those years ago, is that biology is destiny. 'People are programmed,' she writes at one point. Women are 'built for comfort, not speed'. Testosterone makes the male of the species more vulnerable, but also more risk-taking. Oxytocin makes women more empathetic. The trouble with this evolutionary Pinker first sets up what is probably a false opposition (public success and empathy are not in fact mutually exclusive) and then wholly fails to account for high-profile women such as Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton or all the women who are running companies and law firms.
Neither, I suspect, could she explain the pioneer-era women profiled in Susan Faludi's The Terror Dream, who bravely and often viciously fought Native Americans after their menfolk had failed them, usually by running away. These women, Faludi argues, have been airbrushed out of the founding-of-America myth, just as a similar airbrushing is now distorting our accounts of 9/11. The attacks on the Twin Towers left America feeling exposed, Faludi says; by the time it was clear exactly what was happening, there was absolutely nothing that could be done. psychobabble is that while it may get us a little way along the road to understanding, it strands us miles from any useful destination. How far was neatly summed up by Louis Menand in a review of a book by Pinker's more famous brother Steven, a leader in the evolutionary psychology field, when he observed that Wagner may well have been trying to impress future mates - we all are - but it's a long way from there to Parsifal.
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 07:30 AM | Permalink























Comments
Take a look to the new project of mine. It is a website based on really interesting idea. ;) I hope You will love it.
Try the power of it - firsts 28 uploads into 1 euro category is for free.
Address of the website: http://www.individualdream.com/
Posted by: individual dream | Mar 30, 2008 10:26:50 AM
Pinker first sets up what is probably a false opposition (public success and empathy are not in fact mutually exclusive)
This is a very important point - you can't simply stipulate that what you call a "male" quality is more important than what you call a "female" quality. Surely Pinker could have tried to correlate professional success with psychometric tests of empathy or aggression!
wholly fails to account for high-profile women such as Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton or all the women who are running companies and law firms
I've never managed to understand why so many otherwise intelligent people think statistical arguments about propensities can be refuted by counterexample. Unless Pinker is actually saying no single woman ever has as little oxytocin (I doubt she's presenting so silly a mono-factor analysis in any case) as a man, the examples presented fail to show anything. You can argue against statistics in many compelling ways, but anecdote isn't one of them.
Posted by: D | Mar 30, 2008 3:35:38 PM
D., it's possible that Susan Pinker's book is meticulously researched and carefully written. She might even attempt to explain the difference between statistical probabilities and essential characteristics. But as the more enterprising and risk-taking Louann Brizendain (The Female Brain) has demonstrated, you can totally make shit up about sex differences and still get taken seriously.
The market for reassurances that, despite everything, men are still studly and women are still cuddly is apparently inexhaustible. As is the market for reassurances that inequities arising from these differences are part of the natural order of things, and any attempt to address them is to defy biological destiny. As if the whole of human civilization isn't in some sense a defiance of biological destiny.
There's plenty of evidence that societies where power inequities between the sexes are minimized, and where people feel free to color outside the gender lines in their daily lives, are generally more humane and creative places to live for everyone. When is somebody going to write a pop-science bestseller about that?
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Mar 30, 2008 4:37:17 PM
Vicki,
I was trying to point out a terrible argument the reviewer made, one of a type that is admittedly something of a pet peeve.
The Brizendine episode is an excellent contrast - her actual silly arguments were torn to shreds by the people at Language Log, not straw-man caricatures thereof. They provided citations, examples, reasoning and a good measure of wit. They did it so well even the mainstream media caught on eventually.
If Susan Pinker is really being as silly as Louann Brizendine (my own impression is she's a legitimate scholar, though not as illustrious as her brother) that's how you go after her, not by saying she's wrong because she doesn't account for Condoleezza Rice. You don't get to tear down bad arguments with worse ones.
Posted by: D | Mar 30, 2008 5:41:53 PM
D- I wholeheartedly agree with you about the review, and was trying to make the point that whatever the merits of Pinker's book, discussions of statistical differences, gender, and race always seem to play out at this same silly level.
I don't know anything about the book, or what, if anything, Pinker said about the difference between statistical correlation and essential characteristics, but apparently, none of it made any impression on the reviewer. It would certainly be worth celebrating if a sex-difference book made that point in a clear and un-ignorable way.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Mar 30, 2008 6:00:49 PM
Why did 3quarks neglect to give Geraldine Bedell a byline while properly crediting all the men?
Posted by: nick herbert | Apr 1, 2008 11:40:41 PM
Post a comment