The danger of assuming that men and women are different

The other day, I saw the film of a brilliant play, ‘12 Angry Men’ by Reginald Rose, which is about a 12-man jury deciding the fate of a teenage boy from a city slum who has been accused of murder. Setting aside the dire sexism of the play (an all-male jury; it was made in 1957), it is a wonderful portrayal of human nature, leaders and followers. Over the course of the play, one member of the jury (Henry Fonda) convinces all the others, one by one, that they shouldn’t automatically assume the defendant is guilty. He unpicks every piece of apparent evidence, revealing it to be unreliable, while exposing the prejudices of the jury which underlie their assumptions.

Why is this relevant? After I watched it, I thought about the issue of the science of male and female human brains. Since time began, people have assumed that men and women are fundamentally different (not only physically and hormonally, but behaviourally as well).

For example, in the late 19th century, Henry Maudsley, eminent psychiatrist, said that “a woman does not easily regain the vital energy that was recklessly spent on learning”.

This assumption, which persists over time, has led to, reinforced and backed up stereotyping of male and female roles in society; for example, women are better suited to caring and empathetic roles, such as nursing; men are more suited to competitive and leadership roles, such as business leaders and politicians.

At a closer look at the scientific evidence, we find a different story. Although there are some studies that show there may be differences, there is no general consensus – and I wrote about here when the magazine Scientific American devoted a whole issue to the subject earlier this year. There are some excellent books written about this; Professor Deborah Cameron’s and Cordelia Fine’s – published just a few months ago.

Professor Cameron was a speaker at our Inspiring Leaders event in November (podcast here) and also at a fascinating controversial debate at King’s Place in London, which is podcasted by the Guardian here.

No one disputes the obvious biological differences. What are under dispute are higher cognitive differences. Some scientists do claim to have found differences but many scientists have found none. My concern about assuming that there are differences in cognitive abilities before they are actually agreed on is that this automatically leads to different treatment and expectations in society. For example, if women are assumed to be less good at maths, they will perform worse, and this negative effect of stereotyping has been demonstrated by researchers.

The scientists, such as Simon Baron Cohen, who do claim to have found differences have conducted many of their experiments on adults. In these cases, I would argue that we cannot rule out the possibility of the brain adapting over time and developing skills that are practised (and men will practise certain skills more, because that’s what’s expected of them).

Other scientists assume that, because differences have been shown to exist in animals, humans must therefore have them too. Navigational skills differences, for example, do indeed exist in animals. However, what has also been found is that the brain difference between males and females is proportional to the difference in size of territory or habitat. Therefore, in species where the male roams around alone and the female stays in a tight space, males are better at navigation. The brains are said to be ‘plastic’ and adapt over time to suit their tasks and lifestyles.

This plasticity has been shown in taxi drivers; they have a larger hippocampus - the part of the brain associated with navigation in birds and animals - compared with other people. The hippocampus grows larger as the taxi drivers spend more time in the job.

What if all gender differences in cognitive skills, in both animals and humans, are plastic? What if boys end up doing maths and engineering, climbing trees and the echelons of society, because that’s what society expects them to do? What if women fall into domestic roles because of all those toy tea sets and pretty pink dresses? And what if, when scientists try to test these 'natural tendencies', the results are influenced by not only the scientists' preconceptions but also those of the test subjects?

The argument against this stance – and I have begun to discuss with my neuroscientist friends – is the warning not to fall into what is known as the ‘Naturalistic Fallacy’ trap, which is to assume that anything other than biological equality (at a cognitive level) is bad, and that we should be thinking of positive ways to deal with the inequalities rather than insist they do not exist. I would argue back that I do not insist they do not exist – I have just not seen enough evidence to show that they do exist. And I’m concerned about thinking about ways to deal with differences (because this leads to discrimination), before they have actually been agreed on.

So I'm looking for more evidence, and very interested if anyone wants to discuss this with me. Until we have a consensus, I think it may be very dangerous to make assumptions.

Inspired Leaders: reflections and contemplations

When Caroline and I sat down and thought about what we wanted for our ‘Inspiring Leaders’ event last month, we were faced with a conundrum.

Camden Speakers Club, which I run, is for women and men, and helps members develop their public speaking skills. Progressive Women is aimed at women who want to network with other women who are interested in politics and the economy.

How would we marry up?

We decided we would hold an event for women and men on leadership, so that anyone could benefit. And there would be discussions about why there aren’t enough female leaders in all spheres of life – because this is very relevant to leadership issues in general. And, as a bonus, all the speakers and trainers would be female.

After all, most events feature mainly men, and the majority of society’s leaders are men, so it’s about time to turn the tables.

Our decision felt right, but seemed as though we were venturing into new territory. It was risky; bringing together different groups: from the feminism movement, the speakers club crowd and other interested people. These groups don’t often mix. Would it work?

This, perhaps, was why it did work. The event allowed discussions – about the barriers to women as well as issues of leadership that affect everyone – to come out into the open. As well as – thanks to our wonderful speakers and trainers – stimulating sessions and conversations which helped people to think about how they could develop their skills to become better leaders.

We were overjoyed to receive excellent feedback. Many people said they were inspired, and learned something, and want to do more.

Personally, I was more inspired than I could ever have imagined. And, as some people have asked me what my own thoughts were on event, I thought I would write some of them here.

Organising an event is an intense experience. Often there is so much happening and so many practical details that there isn’t much time for wallowing in the meaning of it all.

On the other hand, the meaning is the reason it’s being done in the first place. It’s the vision. And, during the run up to Inspiring Leaders, every now and then something happened which resonated with the vision, and made it all very real and worthwhile.

The first notable moment for me was when we asked attendees to fill out their choices for the training sessions. When it was all filled out, I saw the doodle poll in full – a mass of coloured boxes on the screen. At once, I realised that this was about people choosing to come to our event; people wanting to benefit from the wonderful top class trainers who were giving up their time and expertise for free.

I realised that people were coming.

A few days before the event, there was another high moment. The event was completely sold out and the tweets were rushing in.

“Can’t get to #InspiringLeaders, really disappointed. Will book earlier next year,” one said. Next year? That person had the idea before we did.

The third euphoric moment was during the event itself. In the first panel session, I sat in the front row and listened to the brilliant speakers talking about working harder than everyone else, having passion and sticking to values and being terrified. And taking the shit – but doing it anyway.

It was such a beautiful and powerful truth, so honest and simple. It humbled me too. The speakers – regardless of their prestigiousness – made us all feel as though we are all on a similar journey, whether we are aiming to be in politics, pursue other artistic or professional goals, or simply to inspire and motivate others.

And that’s what hit me most. The truth of leadership. That we just need to keep on going; work hard, keep at it, deal with the shit.

That leadership is about being genuine.

That leadership is about passion.

That leadership is about being supportive to others, and recognising that others support us.

That there will always be barriers, but the key is finding a way over them. We have to take risks, knowing there will be a struggle.

That I have learned how to deal with some shit, but there are some barriers I may be still using as an excuse not to do things.

That this, in itself, can be my biggest barrier.

I want to do more of this; get these debates out into the open. I believe this an important part of starting to think about and plan change. Awareness of issues, acknowledgement of problems and sharing of ideas.

And I want to do other things, which is perhaps a subject for another blog post.

What I learned from the event is that I just have to get on and do them.

After a wrote a draft of this post, I saw that Kristie West, trainer at the Inspiring Leaders event, had written an article on a similar topic. She blogs over here. Progressive Women is holding an event in January on New Year's Resolutions. See here. 

Cuts protest and equality out in the cold

It's been a week of protests; some violent, some peaceful. A few days before student riots took over the headlines, on Monday, a relatively quiet and well-behaved group of people stood outside the High Court in sub-zero temperatures. I was there, joining the protest against the Coalition’s cuts which disproportionately affect women.

The government's budget contains nearly £8bn worth of cuts to tax and welfare; an estimated 70% will come from women.

The Fawcett Society, which campaigns for gender equality in the UK, had sought a judicial review of the budget. The court ruled a rejection. However, the government has admitted that it forgot its legal duty to consider whether cuts would disproportionately affect certain groups and the Treasury was unable to provide any evidence that it had carried out an equalities impact assessment.

Families with children will bear the brunt of privatisation and cuts. We already live in an unequal society – this budget is regressive.

The cuts will severely hold back progress towards equality, and I think this is the real concern.

       "One, two, three, four… tax the rich, not the poor
       Five, six, seven, eight… women’s rights just won’t wait"


My concern: slower journey towards equality
Note: In the text that follows, I refer to majorities; my statements are therefore referring to averages and general outcomes, not individual cases.

The majority of carers – of children and elderly people – are female. Two thirds of public sector workers are female. The reasons for this are this are manifold and complex, but two main ones are:

• Women have children and working conditions are still not fair enough to allow them to have the same opportunities of men who have children (because they do not physically bear them). The public sector offers better conditions for those who have caring commitments (eg fewer working hours expected).
• Women and men are brought up to believe they are suited to different types of jobs; ie women are more suited to caring jobs. There is, as yet - as far as I can tell - no conclusive evidence that women are born with this tendency. 

Because of the inequality, cuts to the public sector and services will affect women more. These cuts will generally affect only women and their children – not men, who are, in most cases, the main earners.

(In contrast, imagine if there were vast cuts to the private sector. The majority of workers are men, but their whole families would be affected, as most are breadwinners.)

In an ideal world, men and women would be free to work in the public or private sector – it would be their choice. Women wouldn’t be constrained by care commitments, as the sexes would share them equally. People wouldn’t be controlled by stereotypes, which dictate their supposed suitability for one type of job or another.

In this ideal world, these drastic cuts to the public sector would (although, I believe wrong for other reasons), not be so devastating to equality.

As it is, the greater effect on women means that they will be even more dependent on men, less likely to work, more likely to care for children and relatives and less likely to escape from violent relationships.

So, as it is, our hope of achieving an equal society is very much hampered by the unequal cuts.

Porn is consumed as much as coffee

The world porn market is nearly $100 billion. No wonder it’s so hard to fight against. There are a large number of people making a large amount of money from the use and abuse of women purely for the pleasure of men (mainly). It’s one of the world’s biggest inequalities.

To put this amount into perspective, global markets of cannabis and coffee are each about $100 billion.

This is a sixth the size of the world tobacco market, and an eighth the size of the pharmaceutical market.

And this is three times the size of the world markets for alternative medicine and video games, which is equal to the revenue of the Catholic Church.

Source: Wellcome Trust ‘High Society’ exhibition