Two weeks ago (7/17/08), I posted about Banks et al's (2008) study of aging in England (ELSA), which found women over 50 reporting higher quality-of-life, and men over 50 reporting higher mental well-being. At the time, I noted that this was reported in newspapers as "women over 50 are happier."
Plagnol and Easterlin (2008) published similar results this month based on a U.S. sample. Plagnol and Easterlin found that younger women tended to report higher satisfaction and happiness than younger men, but differences decrease until age 48, and then reverse. This story is being reported as "Men over 48 are happier than women" (Google News).
What strikes me about these studies is that their results seem so similar when you read them, but their reportage is completely opposite. They were both conducted by teams of sociologists and economists, so I have every reason to believe that their working definitions of "well-being" are similar. I'm also struck that the articles appear only two weeks apart, I've yet to find a single article that contrasts the two studies. The British study follows a cohort, while the American study contrasts "population representative" surveys, but their results seem fairly consistent. Both studies focus on the shortfall between people's aspirations and attainments as a major cause of unhappiness.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Genes and transsexuality
Bentz et al (2008) found that a gene polymorphism (CYP17 -34 T>C) may be associated with female-to-male transsexualism, but not male-to-female. The gene is involved in the metabolism of sex hormones; the presence of the variation is associated with higher levels of male and female sex hormones. The study, covered yesterday in New Scientist (2008), lends greater credibility to the theory that early brain hormone environments may be a contributing factor in transsexuality for FTMs. 44% of 49 FTM transsexuals had the gene variation, compared to 31% of 915 female controls. The variation is more common in men and male-to-female transsexuals, but there was no significant variation between these groups. Overall, the variation was present in 40% of males/MTFs and in 31% of females/FTMs.
So, the reactions I've seen to this so far in FTM blogs are largely annoyed that the New Scientist called FTMs "women." I sort of feel that misses the point. If you could be tested for this gene variation, would you want to be? I think I actually wouldn't. I spend enough energy worrying that I'm not transsexual enough. Willful ignorance, here I come. Still, I find it exciting to find any study of transsexuality that includes males, females, FTMs, and MTFs.
So, the reactions I've seen to this so far in FTM blogs are largely annoyed that the New Scientist called FTMs "women." I sort of feel that misses the point. If you could be tested for this gene variation, would you want to be? I think I actually wouldn't. I spend enough energy worrying that I'm not transsexual enough. Willful ignorance, here I come. Still, I find it exciting to find any study of transsexuality that includes males, females, FTMs, and MTFs.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Military segregation: the ATS
"The Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS; often pronounced as an acronym) was the women's branch of the British Army during the Second World War. It was formed on 9 September 1938, initially as a women's voluntary service, and existed until 1 February 1949" (Wikipedia).
Gerard J De Groot (2002), in his article "'I Love the Scent of Cordite in Your Hair': Gender Dynamics in Mixed Anti-Aircraft Batteries during the Second World War", examines the lengths gone to in order to maintain the non-combatant role of women in the ATS.
My brain is a little toasty today. I went to my drafts to see if I had anything started that wouldn't take much to finish. The answer was: no, not really. But I had De Groot's article, which I put aside in February 2007, and really wanted to talk about. The thing I like about it is how necessity forced a culture into allowing women into traditionally proscribed roles, and the weird measures that culture took to maintain "order." I hadn't heard of the ATS before, but I think it falls into the "Rosie the Riveter" model. I have such a crush on Rosie.
Gerard J De Groot (2002), in his article "'I Love the Scent of Cordite in Your Hair': Gender Dynamics in Mixed Anti-Aircraft Batteries during the Second World War", examines the lengths gone to in order to maintain the non-combatant role of women in the ATS.
My brain is a little toasty today. I went to my drafts to see if I had anything started that wouldn't take much to finish. The answer was: no, not really. But I had De Groot's article, which I put aside in February 2007, and really wanted to talk about. The thing I like about it is how necessity forced a culture into allowing women into traditionally proscribed roles, and the weird measures that culture took to maintain "order." I hadn't heard of the ATS before, but I think it falls into the "Rosie the Riveter" model. I have such a crush on Rosie.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Threat of divorce
Author Carl Weisman says that greater numbers of messy divorces are contributing the the high numbers of men who prefer to stay single (Reuters, 2008): "Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all". Weisman notes that the number of never-married men over 40 is increasing. A related story from the New York Times (2006) notes that men with less education are even more likely to reach 40 without ever marrying, but questions whether that choice falls to men or to women: "'Men don’t marry because women like myself don’t need to rely on them,' said Shenia Rudolph, 42, a divorced mother from the Bronx."
My mixed feelings about marriage have not gotten any easier to handle since I transitioned. As a woman, I had this irrational feeling that the fact that I'd never been engaged was some kind of reflection on my worth as a person. As a man... I have the same stupid hang-ups. The neuroses don't go away. They've lessened with time, and with finally having healthy and stable relationships, but they're still there. It's stupid, and I kick myself over having them, because I know it's stupid. I've never been much at peace with the idea of making less money than my partner -- but I don't have the socially ingrained fear of alimony, either. I think that's programmed into boys alongside fear of pregnancy.
Friday, July 25, 2008
More support for Hyde
It's been nearly two decades since Janet Shibley Hyde's meta-analysis of mathematical ability (Hyde et al, 1990). Results published in today's issue of Science appear to confirm Hyde's "Gender Similarities Hypothesis" (Hyde 2005) which states that there is no difference in mathematical ability between boys and girls.
The Science article, "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance" (Hyde et al, 2008), is being billed as the "largest study of its kind" (Discovery News, 2008). Analysis of standardized test scores for over 7 million students challenges not only the average difference between boy's and girl's scores as non-significant, but also the distribution of these scores. Although the top tier of math scores on the SAT showed a male advantage among white teens, this was reversed in the Asian population, suggesting a cultural influence more than a biological one.
The Neuroanthropology blog mentioned a neologism by Cordelia Fine which I think applies here: "Neurotosh." Fine was specifically talking about Louann Brizendine, but I think the term can be equally well applied to the arguments of Leonard Sax, one of the major champions of single-sex education.
I've gone over Hyde's work several times over the past two years, and while I've occasionally had questions about her criteria, my current stance is that her findings are sound. Gender differences in mathematical performance are attributable to stereotype threat, not to innate difference in ability. I feel like this question has been answered. The real question now is the one raised by Susan Pinker: whether a difference in mathematical interest exists, and whether this is even a problem.
The Science article, "Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance" (Hyde et al, 2008), is being billed as the "largest study of its kind" (Discovery News, 2008). Analysis of standardized test scores for over 7 million students challenges not only the average difference between boy's and girl's scores as non-significant, but also the distribution of these scores. Although the top tier of math scores on the SAT showed a male advantage among white teens, this was reversed in the Asian population, suggesting a cultural influence more than a biological one.
The Neuroanthropology blog mentioned a neologism by Cordelia Fine which I think applies here: "Neurotosh." Fine was specifically talking about Louann Brizendine, but I think the term can be equally well applied to the arguments of Leonard Sax, one of the major champions of single-sex education.
I've gone over Hyde's work several times over the past two years, and while I've occasionally had questions about her criteria, my current stance is that her findings are sound. Gender differences in mathematical performance are attributable to stereotype threat, not to innate difference in ability. I feel like this question has been answered. The real question now is the one raised by Susan Pinker: whether a difference in mathematical interest exists, and whether this is even a problem.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Attractiveness Ratings
Andreoni and Petrie (2007) assessed the effect of physical attractiveness on earnings in a public goods game. Attractiveness was rated by 4 male and 4 female undergraduates on the basis of photographs. Attractive people tended to earn slightly more than average-looking people when contributions were secret. When information on contributions was revealed, attractive people earned less than average-looking people.
Several gender effects were noted in the experiment. Women tended to be ranked as significantly more attractive than men. Men appeared to be more reactive to the presence of attractive people in their cooperativeness. Men also increased their contribution when contributions were known.
This consistently bugs me. Even when (probably heterosexual) women are doing the rating, women are rated as more attractive than men. In the experimental group, 15 of the 18 "most attractive" people were women, and 13 of the 18 "least attractive" were men. This makes me wonder what the basis is for the ratings. I find myself doing it, as well. I'm far more likely to find a woman than a man attractive. But historically, I'm more likely to get physically or emotionally involved with a man. In short, I'm baffled by the concept of attractiveness. The economic game part of this experiment is somewhat interesting to me, but the assumptions wrapped up in the ratings really grabbed my attention.
edit: See also Marcus and Miller, 2003 -- "the highest levels of consensus [in attractiveness ratings] occurred when men judged the attractiveness of women and the highest levels of idiosyncrasy occurred when men rated other men"
Several gender effects were noted in the experiment. Women tended to be ranked as significantly more attractive than men. Men appeared to be more reactive to the presence of attractive people in their cooperativeness. Men also increased their contribution when contributions were known.
"When performance is unknown, people tend to reward beauty and females. And, when performance is known, the beauty premium disappears and the female premium switches to a male premium. These results appear to be rooted in beauty and sex stereotypes and have three main components. . . . First, relative beauty is rewarded. . . . Second, women benefit for being stereotyped as helpful. . . . Third, when performance is known, the gender premium switches from a female premium to a male premium. That is, while women gain the benefits of beauty, men gain the benefits of information." -- Andreoni & Petrie, 2007, p 89-90
This consistently bugs me. Even when (probably heterosexual) women are doing the rating, women are rated as more attractive than men. In the experimental group, 15 of the 18 "most attractive" people were women, and 13 of the 18 "least attractive" were men. This makes me wonder what the basis is for the ratings. I find myself doing it, as well. I'm far more likely to find a woman than a man attractive. But historically, I'm more likely to get physically or emotionally involved with a man. In short, I'm baffled by the concept of attractiveness. The economic game part of this experiment is somewhat interesting to me, but the assumptions wrapped up in the ratings really grabbed my attention.
edit: See also Marcus and Miller, 2003 -- "the highest levels of consensus [in attractiveness ratings] occurred when men judged the attractiveness of women and the highest levels of idiosyncrasy occurred when men rated other men"
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Estradiol and depression
It has been suggested that the higher rates of depression in women (versus men) are partially hormonal in origin. Walf et al (2008) found that male mice and female mice with artificially elevated levels of 17β-oestradiol (E2) showed a decrease in depressive-type activity. Knockout mice (mice engineered to have no receptors for E2) showed no change in behavior with administration of the hormone. In humans, Epperson et al (2007) found that post-menopausal women treated with E2 were similarly resistant to relapses of depression to women being treated with Prozac. In contrast, Morrison et al (2004) found E2 ineffective in treating current depression in post-menopausal women. E2 levels do not appear to influence depression in men, but testosterone does (according to Barrett-Connor et al, 1999).
I continue to find it interesting that the relationship between hormones and depression appears to vary by sex: that the same hormone administered to men and women will have different effects on their depressive symptoms. Most of the transmen I know have reported a reduction of depressive-type symptoms after going on testosterone, but most transwomen I know also got less depressed when they started hormones. It's very tempting for me to say that the mood improvement is due to feeling empowered by "doing something" about your transition, but the differential effects in animals and humans make me wonder if it's more complicated than placebo (which is plenty complicated enough).
I continue to find it interesting that the relationship between hormones and depression appears to vary by sex: that the same hormone administered to men and women will have different effects on their depressive symptoms. Most of the transmen I know have reported a reduction of depressive-type symptoms after going on testosterone, but most transwomen I know also got less depressed when they started hormones. It's very tempting for me to say that the mood improvement is due to feeling empowered by "doing something" about your transition, but the differential effects in animals and humans make me wonder if it's more complicated than placebo (which is plenty complicated enough).
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
In other words... [essentialism quotes]
One of the main points of the gender/sex difference debate is the so-called "nature vs. nurture" question: are differences inborn and immutable, or are they the result of differentiated socialization? In a lecture at Harvard earlier this year, Camille Paglia (2008) said:
I don't mean for this week to turn into a "defense of Difference Blog" week, but I felt that all three of these quotes, especially together, really summed up my reasons for this project. Like Paglia, I agree that social factors alone can not fully explain the observed differences in men and women. Like Liberman, I believe that scientific observations (especially in adult brains) are as likely to be the result of behavioral differences as the cause. Like Cahill, I believe that a neurological difference does not always lead to a behavioral difference. Therefore, I don't think that a project meant to explore sex and gender differences can afford to ignore social, neurological, or other physiological differences. However, I'm not prepared to draw conclusions about the causes -- and I hope that the ambiguity doesn't scare you off.
"without a grounding in basic biology, neither students nor teachers can negotiate the tangle of nature and culture that produces human sex differences. . . . science must be made a fundamental component of all women’s or gender studies programs."I am reminded of Mark Liberman's (2006) comment on the "innateness" of neurological findings:
"[Brooks (2006)] writes as if demonstrated group differences in brain activity, being "biological", must therefore be innate and essential characteristics of the groups, and not 'socially constructed'. But how else would socially constructed cognitive differences manifest themselves? In flows of pure spiritual energy, with no effect on neuronal activity, cerebral blood flow, and functional brain imaging techniques?"In turn, this reminds me of my favorite quote from Larry Cahill's (2006) review, "Why sex matters for neuroscience":
"as [De Vries {2004}] has effectively argued, neural sex differences can, in some cases, create behavioural sex differences, but might, in other cases, prevent them (when, for instance, they would be maladaptive) by compensating for sex differences in other physiological conditions, such as sex hormone levels."
I don't mean for this week to turn into a "defense of Difference Blog" week, but I felt that all three of these quotes, especially together, really summed up my reasons for this project. Like Paglia, I agree that social factors alone can not fully explain the observed differences in men and women. Like Liberman, I believe that scientific observations (especially in adult brains) are as likely to be the result of behavioral differences as the cause. Like Cahill, I believe that a neurological difference does not always lead to a behavioral difference. Therefore, I don't think that a project meant to explore sex and gender differences can afford to ignore social, neurological, or other physiological differences. However, I'm not prepared to draw conclusions about the causes -- and I hope that the ambiguity doesn't scare you off.
Monday, July 21, 2008
500th post: Other Difference Blogs
Although I haven't found any other daily site posting about gender differences in the same way that Difference Blog does, there are a lot of blogs about the differences between men and women. In honor of the 500th post, I thought I'd take a moment to look at some of the other types of sex/gender blogs being written, in arbitrary order:
I've presented the types in order of how prevalent they seem to me, based on over a year of watching blog alerts. The issue is that most people write a post or two about gender differences - not an entire blog. Who would read it? Gender and sex differences are assumed as part of another topic: education, relationships, parenting, or careers.
I keep looking for someone else doing something like Difference Blog, and I haven't found it yet. I can't decide if it's because everyone else has already figured out that this is a bad idea, or if it's because I need to keep doing it. It's been almost two years now; I haven't run out of topics yet. What other blogs do you read? What categories or blogs did I forget? Did I give the wrong impression about one of the blogs listed above?
- The "Feminism Isn't Dead"-type: Feministing , Feministe, and Girls Can't What? are unapologetically feminist blogs (although the last is oppressively pink. </personal taste>)
- The "Look, Women Scientists!"-type: See Jane Compute, Scientiae Carnival, Fairer Science, and She's Such a Geek demonstrate that there are women in science careers. They talk about what it's like from the inside.
- The "Why Feminism Threatens Me"-type: like Men are Better than Women and What Women Never Hear are very different responses to the evils of feminism. MABTW is angry-mysogynist in a way that is supposed to be funny, and WWNH is a heartfelt plea for a return to traditional values.
- The "Man and Woman writing together"-type: GendersSpeak and Of Two Minds tackle this format.
- The "Sensitive Man"-type: The Masculine Heart is the only one I've found discussing the emotional lives of men.
- The "Google-Alerts"-type: Gender Pop is the closest in type to DBlog, by commenting on stories from "pop culture" and "pop science". Editor "Elisha" says little about herself in her bio. It doesn't seem to update consistently.
I've presented the types in order of how prevalent they seem to me, based on over a year of watching blog alerts. The issue is that most people write a post or two about gender differences - not an entire blog. Who would read it? Gender and sex differences are assumed as part of another topic: education, relationships, parenting, or careers.
I keep looking for someone else doing something like Difference Blog, and I haven't found it yet. I can't decide if it's because everyone else has already figured out that this is a bad idea, or if it's because I need to keep doing it. It's been almost two years now; I haven't run out of topics yet. What other blogs do you read? What categories or blogs did I forget? Did I give the wrong impression about one of the blogs listed above?
Friday, July 18, 2008
The importance of "Date Night"
Men are more likely than women to identify their spouse as their best friend, according to USA Today (2008). The article is based largely on results from the University of Denver's Center for Marriage and Family Studies. The Center's co-directors, Howard Markman and Scott Stanley, also found that men and women define marriage "date nights" differently:
Men and women may play different roles in creating date nights, too. Dyck and Daly (2006) found that in two-income parent families "fathers played an important role in instigating couple time whereas mothers played a significant role in its implementation."
Hell, I'm still not really used to the idea that I have friends apart from my partner. Some fairly formative years for me were spent with my partner as my only close friend. Since transition, it's been much easier for me to form relationships that weren't based on sex, but sometimes I forget. So yes: as a man, I've had an easier time making friends. This probably makes me (even) weird(er).
"'Males and females have different definitions of what a date is,' Markman says. 'Females' definition is much more planned in advance and the husband puts more effort into it. For a guy, grabbing coffee — that's a date.'" (USA Today, 2008)That difference in definitions leads men and women in couples to report very different lengths of time since their last date nights: women say 17.8 weeks, while men say 9.
Men and women may play different roles in creating date nights, too. Dyck and Daly (2006) found that in two-income parent families "fathers played an important role in instigating couple time whereas mothers played a significant role in its implementation."
Hell, I'm still not really used to the idea that I have friends apart from my partner. Some fairly formative years for me were spent with my partner as my only close friend. Since transition, it's been much easier for me to form relationships that weren't based on sex, but sometimes I forget. So yes: as a man, I've had an easier time making friends. This probably makes me (even) weird(er).
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Happiness after 50
Women over 50 view quality of life differently than men, according to Elizabeth Breeze of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). An article in the Telegraph (UK, 2008) suggests that women are happier and more optimistic than men. "Women are affected negatively by caring for someone else or if they are not in employment but if they see their children and family more they are positively affected," Breeze told the Telegraph.
The ELSA report "Living in the 21st century: older people in England" (Banks, Breeze, Lessof & Nazroo, 2008) found that married women tended to report higher quality of life than their husbands. However, it also reports that men report higher mental well-being than their wives. The authors seem to equate mental well-being with happiness. Quality of life is defined as having one's needs met on the axes of "autonomy, control, self-realisation, and pleasure."
Last Friday we talked about "sensationalist reporting" of gender differences (7/11/08), and I think this is a perfect example. The ELSA report spends far more time on socioeconomic differences, and the press abstract (Banks & Marmot, 2008) has one sentence about gender differences. However, this morning, there were 9 articles in Google News about the gender difference in "happiness", and only one about the fact that poor people tend to die younger than rich people -- the main finding of the report. In short, the newspapers seized on the "sexy" finding about women being happier (which generally, they aren't) and ignored the obvious, if depressing, findings about poverty.
The ELSA report "Living in the 21st century: older people in England" (Banks, Breeze, Lessof & Nazroo, 2008) found that married women tended to report higher quality of life than their husbands. However, it also reports that men report higher mental well-being than their wives. The authors seem to equate mental well-being with happiness. Quality of life is defined as having one's needs met on the axes of "autonomy, control, self-realisation, and pleasure."
Last Friday we talked about "sensationalist reporting" of gender differences (7/11/08), and I think this is a perfect example. The ELSA report spends far more time on socioeconomic differences, and the press abstract (Banks & Marmot, 2008) has one sentence about gender differences. However, this morning, there were 9 articles in Google News about the gender difference in "happiness", and only one about the fact that poor people tend to die younger than rich people -- the main finding of the report. In short, the newspapers seized on the "sexy" finding about women being happier (which generally, they aren't) and ignored the obvious, if depressing, findings about poverty.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Title Nine-ing of Science
An article in yesterday's New York Times (2008), by John Tierny, revisits the question of differences in men's and women's interest in the hard sciences. The STEM fields (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) tend to be disproportionately male-dominated, but many researchers are suggesting that this is no longer an issue of bias. By way of example, the NYT article notes Rosenbloom et al (2007) who shows that men and women with an object-orientation (rather than a people-orientation) are equally likely to choose careers in technology. However, fewer women than men display a preference for working with objects rather than people.
The National Science Foundation has been reviewing science departments in several universities for Title IX compliance since at least last year. Both male and female scientists seem to be responding unfavorably to the interference. Amber Miller, of Columbia University, was quoted about such a review in Science (2007): "I wanted to say, 'Leave me alone, and let me get my work done.'"
None of the sources cited in the NYT article argue for differential ability in STEM fields. The question is framed as whether women want to participate. Perhaps another question to ask is: do men? According to the Tierny article, Susan Pinker "argues that the campaign for gender parity infantilizes women by assuming they don’t know what they want". But how does anyone know what they want? The argument is that somehow a preference for working with people or working with objects is innate, and tied to physical sex. Isn't it more likely that women are rewarded more for people-oriented pursuits, or that men are rewarded more for object-oriented pursuits?
The National Science Foundation has been reviewing science departments in several universities for Title IX compliance since at least last year. Both male and female scientists seem to be responding unfavorably to the interference. Amber Miller, of Columbia University, was quoted about such a review in Science (2007): "I wanted to say, 'Leave me alone, and let me get my work done.'"
None of the sources cited in the NYT article argue for differential ability in STEM fields. The question is framed as whether women want to participate. Perhaps another question to ask is: do men? According to the Tierny article, Susan Pinker "argues that the campaign for gender parity infantilizes women by assuming they don’t know what they want". But how does anyone know what they want? The argument is that somehow a preference for working with people or working with objects is innate, and tied to physical sex. Isn't it more likely that women are rewarded more for people-oriented pursuits, or that men are rewarded more for object-oriented pursuits?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Unpleasant dreams
A meta-analysis by Schredl and Reinhard (2008) concludes that women do recall dreams more often than men. This may explain Blagrove et al's (2004) finding that women reported more nightmares and unpleasant dreams than men did. Blagrove et al also found lower levels of overall well-being among people with more nightmares and unpleasant dreams.
Negative dreaming isn't necessarily a sign of unhappiness, however. In a Western Mail (2006) newspaper story, Blagrove points out that "even happy people have more negative dreams than positive ones". In the same newspaper story, Blagrove is quoted on content differences between men's and women's dreams: women are more likely to dream about emotions and their family, while men are more likely to dream about their jobs and strangers. These content differences are confirmed by Bursik (1998), who points out that the content of men's and women's dreams is converging as societal gender roles converge.
I really hadn't thought about my dreams in a while. I remember dreaming a lot when I was a woman, but I was also very unhappy a lot of the time. I tend to think that unpleasant feelings cause unpleasant dreams, rather than the other way around. If I'm wrong, women's greater incidence of depression might be tied to their tendency to remember more dreams: wouldn't that be interesting?
I'd say my dreams are more often surreal than unpleasant. They're often sexual, and rarely violent. Surreal sex dreams are more troubling once I've woken up. An awful lot of my dreams over the past few years have had emotional content of distraction and delay: just this week I dreamed I could fly, but ended up spending the dream waiting in a checkout line, so I didn't get to do much flying.
Negative dreaming isn't necessarily a sign of unhappiness, however. In a Western Mail (2006) newspaper story, Blagrove points out that "even happy people have more negative dreams than positive ones". In the same newspaper story, Blagrove is quoted on content differences between men's and women's dreams: women are more likely to dream about emotions and their family, while men are more likely to dream about their jobs and strangers. These content differences are confirmed by Bursik (1998), who points out that the content of men's and women's dreams is converging as societal gender roles converge.
I really hadn't thought about my dreams in a while. I remember dreaming a lot when I was a woman, but I was also very unhappy a lot of the time. I tend to think that unpleasant feelings cause unpleasant dreams, rather than the other way around. If I'm wrong, women's greater incidence of depression might be tied to their tendency to remember more dreams: wouldn't that be interesting?
I'd say my dreams are more often surreal than unpleasant. They're often sexual, and rarely violent. Surreal sex dreams are more troubling once I've woken up. An awful lot of my dreams over the past few years have had emotional content of distraction and delay: just this week I dreamed I could fly, but ended up spending the dream waiting in a checkout line, so I didn't get to do much flying.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Transitioning from Prison
Marie Sullivan, president of Arizona Women's Education and Employment, Inc, has been helping former prisoners re-enter the workforce for nearly 30 years. In an interview with Joe Garcia of azTalk (2008), Sullivan said:
I really feel like that quote sums up my feelings on gender differentiated programs in general. It seems like whenever a program is proposed as being particularly effective for men or for women, for boys or for girls, it's because the program invests more resources, energy, or attention on the program members -- things that would be beneficial for boys or for girls. In fact, that conundrum was one of the main reasons I stopped doing volunteer safer sex outreach. Although programs that catered to both men and women seemed to be more effective for men than programs that targeted men-only, the state and federal health grants only wanted to support outreach to high-risk populations (gay men).
We were surprised to learn that male and female ex-offenders have similar needs. . . . The dynamics may be somewhat different, but the context is invariably the same. The most successful programs, whether they're targeted to ex-offenders, displaced homemakers, seniors re-entering the workforce or returning veterans, take a comprehensive and customized approach that addresses each individual's specific needs. The program models we've developed for women work extremely well for men. In fact, they're often more effective than the traditional male models.
I really feel like that quote sums up my feelings on gender differentiated programs in general. It seems like whenever a program is proposed as being particularly effective for men or for women, for boys or for girls, it's because the program invests more resources, energy, or attention on the program members -- things that would be beneficial for boys or for girls. In fact, that conundrum was one of the main reasons I stopped doing volunteer safer sex outreach. Although programs that catered to both men and women seemed to be more effective for men than programs that targeted men-only, the state and federal health grants only wanted to support outreach to high-risk populations (gay men).
Friday, July 11, 2008
Blogs weigh in on Hyde
Daisy Grewal, in the Sexual Stereotypes blog (2008) she authors for Psychology Today (2008), calls Janet Shibley Hyde's hypothesis "one of the most important ideas in gender today." In her post titled "Why Gender Doesn't Matter" (in contrast to Leonard Sax's book: Why Gender Matters (2005), Grewal points out that "overinflated claims of gender differences appeal more to our intuitions", and sell more books, than claims of gender similarity.
William Harryman, on his blog on male emotionality (The Masculine Heart, 2008), expresses relief that Psychology Today hosts Grewal's article, in comparison to other articles he called "irresponsible" in an earlier post. On the other side of the argument is Jared McLain, of Searching For Mind (2008), who says that "the statistics of gender differences will always be trending toward the nihilistic" and that since "the difference in fact do exist makes it apparent that gender does matter".
So, to distill the positions: Grewal is saying that sex/gender differences are largely sensationalist, Harryman is saying that publishing sensationalist science is irresponsible, and McLain is saying that any difference that reaches the threshold of statistical significance is likely to be true. I do spend a lot of time and energy worrying if I am being irresponsible, and trying not to be sensationalist. Moreso, I believe that statistically significant results are probably generalizable on a limited scale, but that the interpretations of these results (as biological, as socially ingrained, or as intentional) are usually where the biases of the researchers come into play.
One point that I found particularly interesting was Grewal's point that meta-analyses "often include studies in their review that were not published in an academic journal" (allowing inclusion of studies that don't find a statistically significant result). As Rich Little's head said in Futurama S5E08: "Interesting, if true." I have found no evidence of meta-analyses including unpublished results -- including Hyde's.
William Harryman, on his blog on male emotionality (The Masculine Heart, 2008), expresses relief that Psychology Today hosts Grewal's article, in comparison to other articles he called "irresponsible" in an earlier post. On the other side of the argument is Jared McLain, of Searching For Mind (2008), who says that "the statistics of gender differences will always be trending toward the nihilistic" and that since "the difference in fact do exist makes it apparent that gender does matter".
So, to distill the positions: Grewal is saying that sex/gender differences are largely sensationalist, Harryman is saying that publishing sensationalist science is irresponsible, and McLain is saying that any difference that reaches the threshold of statistical significance is likely to be true. I do spend a lot of time and energy worrying if I am being irresponsible, and trying not to be sensationalist. Moreso, I believe that statistically significant results are probably generalizable on a limited scale, but that the interpretations of these results (as biological, as socially ingrained, or as intentional) are usually where the biases of the researchers come into play.
One point that I found particularly interesting was Grewal's point that meta-analyses "often include studies in their review that were not published in an academic journal" (allowing inclusion of studies that don't find a statistically significant result). As Rich Little's head said in Futurama S5E08: "Interesting, if true." I have found no evidence of meta-analyses including unpublished results -- including Hyde's.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Sports Concussions
Alexis Chiang Colvin, co-author of a study presented at the 2008 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Annual Meeting today (see PPT presentation), reports that men and women have different recovery profiles after concussion (EurekAlert, 2008). The study found significant gender differences in reaction time between male and female soccer players who had suffered concussions in the course of their sport. The difference remained when controlling for BMI, suggesting that recovery differences "cannot simply be attributed to size differences," said Colvin.
However, Barnes et al (1998) found higher rates of concussion history among male soccer Olympians versus females (50% to 22% over a 10-year period). Among elite college soccer players, Boden et al (1998) found incidence rates of 0.6 per 1000 exposures for men versus 0.4 per 1000 exposures for women. Colvin's presentation does not appear to examine potential differences pre-injury between the groups of players.
I've had two concussions that I can remember: one when I was eight, and another when I was twenty, both caused by my own stupidity. With a lower rate of incidence of concussion in women's soccer, I wonder if the women who suffer concussions might have slower reaction times (than their teammates, or than men) to start with -- that the concussions are the result of their impaired reaction times, rather than the cause.
However, Barnes et al (1998) found higher rates of concussion history among male soccer Olympians versus females (50% to 22% over a 10-year period). Among elite college soccer players, Boden et al (1998) found incidence rates of 0.6 per 1000 exposures for men versus 0.4 per 1000 exposures for women. Colvin's presentation does not appear to examine potential differences pre-injury between the groups of players.
I've had two concussions that I can remember: one when I was eight, and another when I was twenty, both caused by my own stupidity. With a lower rate of incidence of concussion in women's soccer, I wonder if the women who suffer concussions might have slower reaction times (than their teammates, or than men) to start with -- that the concussions are the result of their impaired reaction times, rather than the cause.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Multi-tasking revisited
"Ask a roomful of scientists to pick a winner..." says Melissa Healy (orig. LA Times, 2006) "and most will simply venture that women and men multi-task differently." Healy's article quotes Ruben Gur, who specializes in sex differences in neuropsychology at the University of Pennsylvania: "In a stressful, confusing multi-tasking situation, women are more likely to be able to go back and forth ... Whereas men will be more likely to deal with (the situation) as, ‘I see/I do, I see/I do, I see/I do.'”
Gur's proof seems to lie in the lateralization of tasks, as discussed in Gur et al (2000); men's brains seem to activate more selectively while women's seem to activate both hemispheres for the same task. Interestingly, in the 2000 study, Gur found the opposite, with men's brains showing greater bilateral activation.
Other than bilateral activation, another theorized explanation for differences in multitasking is in the difference between men's "spotlight" minds and women's "floodlight" minds (Gur again, in Healy's article). In contrast is the idea that women are more detail-oriented, as discussed by Malcolm Gladwell (New Yorker, 1997) citing Silverman and Eals (1994).
So, is multitasking the tendency to do several things at once, or the ability to switch tasks quickly, or the ability to split attention? If you're paying less attention to more things, is that "better" multitasking than closer attention to fewer things? Why is cooking several dishes at once given as an example of multitasking, butwatching the television reading the internet* while having the television on (something my cisgendered boyfriend does constantly) not multitasking? Do you multitask? Personally, I find myself uncomfortable at either extreme - working with too many distractions or trying to focus on one task.
Related posts: 3/6/07, 4/9/08
* I got distracted while writing. How appropriate.
Gur's proof seems to lie in the lateralization of tasks, as discussed in Gur et al (2000); men's brains seem to activate more selectively while women's seem to activate both hemispheres for the same task. Interestingly, in the 2000 study, Gur found the opposite, with men's brains showing greater bilateral activation.
Other than bilateral activation, another theorized explanation for differences in multitasking is in the difference between men's "spotlight" minds and women's "floodlight" minds (Gur again, in Healy's article). In contrast is the idea that women are more detail-oriented, as discussed by Malcolm Gladwell (New Yorker, 1997) citing Silverman and Eals (1994).
So, is multitasking the tendency to do several things at once, or the ability to switch tasks quickly, or the ability to split attention? If you're paying less attention to more things, is that "better" multitasking than closer attention to fewer things? Why is cooking several dishes at once given as an example of multitasking, but
Related posts: 3/6/07, 4/9/08
* I got distracted while writing. How appropriate.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Negotiations revisited
A AFTAU press release (2008) suggests that women may be better negotiators than men, according to Yael Itzhaki, a lecturer in Management at Tel Aviv University. Itzhaki's simulations showed that "women are more generous negotiators, better co-operators and are motivated to create win-win situations."
It should be noted that Itzhaki's simulations were based on equal power for the negotiating parties; the simulation was of a "joint venture." Stuhlmacher and Walters meta-analysis (1999) found that men consistently achieved higher salaries, and no potential moderator of this effect ("Opponent sex, relative power of the negotiator, integrative potential of the task, mode of communication and year of the study") eliminated or reversed the male advantage.
Maybe I have an irreversibly male bias here, but Itzhaki's paper seems to be redefining the win conditions. That may be totally appropriate. The thesis of Susan Pinker's The Female Paradox (see 3/7/08 and 7/1/08) is that the male model of success isn't universal, and shouldn't be. I guess on a personal level, I do think that everyone should be able to define success on their own terms. On a scientific level, I think this is comparing apples and oranges. I personally ascribe to the "lose-lose" method of negotiation. As my partner often says: "if everyone is a little unhappy, it's probably fair."
It should be noted that Itzhaki's simulations were based on equal power for the negotiating parties; the simulation was of a "joint venture." Stuhlmacher and Walters meta-analysis (1999) found that men consistently achieved higher salaries, and no potential moderator of this effect ("Opponent sex, relative power of the negotiator, integrative potential of the task, mode of communication and year of the study") eliminated or reversed the male advantage.
Maybe I have an irreversibly male bias here, but Itzhaki's paper seems to be redefining the win conditions. That may be totally appropriate. The thesis of Susan Pinker's The Female Paradox (see 3/7/08 and 7/1/08) is that the male model of success isn't universal, and shouldn't be. I guess on a personal level, I do think that everyone should be able to define success on their own terms. On a scientific level, I think this is comparing apples and oranges. I personally ascribe to the "lose-lose" method of negotiation. As my partner often says: "if everyone is a little unhappy, it's probably fair."
Monday, July 7, 2008
One-Night Stand
Men as young as 20 are taking erectile dysfunction pills in order to meet unreasonable expectations posed by women, "psychosexual therapist" Mary O'Conor told the Belfast Telegraph (2008). O'Conor calls these women "ladettes" -- in that they are behaving like "the stereotypical lad" (in expecting sex and not desiring further contact afterwards). She voices concern that men are going too far trying to perform on demand. O'Conor's conclusions seem to be based solely on observations made in her clinical practice.
Meanwhile, Anne Campbell (2008) reports that women are more likely to report negative feelings (and less likely to report positive ones) than men over a one-night stand. There was no interaction between gender and "mated status" -- that is to say, men were no more likely to report having a fling during a relationship than women. Campbell's online survey received responses from 998 men and 745 women (non-heterosexuals excluded), mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
I have no particular problem with one-night stands, but I tend not to do them much because negotiations take so damn long for me. Still, I have had one-night stands both before and after transition, and I can't say I noticed much of a difference in my response. I am baffled by Campbell's evolutionary psychology approach to regret, but I am amused by the following sentence in her conclusion:
Meanwhile, Anne Campbell (2008) reports that women are more likely to report negative feelings (and less likely to report positive ones) than men over a one-night stand. There was no interaction between gender and "mated status" -- that is to say, men were no more likely to report having a fling during a relationship than women. Campbell's online survey received responses from 998 men and 745 women (non-heterosexuals excluded), mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
I have no particular problem with one-night stands, but I tend not to do them much because negotiations take so damn long for me. Still, I have had one-night stands both before and after transition, and I can't say I noticed much of a difference in my response. I am baffled by Campbell's evolutionary psychology approach to regret, but I am amused by the following sentence in her conclusion:
The fact that women, and to a lesser extent men, may subsequently regret their actions is immaterial unless these regrets are sufficiently strong as to override sexual consummation at the next opportunity.Story of my life, Anne.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Chicks
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) traces use of the word "chick" (referring to a young woman) as far back as 1927, to Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry. By 1975, the word found its way into the title of Robert Baker's "Pricks" and "Chicks": a plea for "Persons", but only as an example of one of many belittling words for women. Chick-based names for genres began to appear with postfeminism. OED cites 1988 as the first appearance of the phrase "chick flick", while "chick lit" appeared in 1993 (both in fairly disparaging contexts).
This year, the website Chickipedia (described as "a web-based, women-based, wiki-based database of hot chicks" and "the first female-only encyclopedia") attempts to re-cast "chick" in a positive light. It's worth noting that the Chickipedia Team Photo includes all men - and what may be a cardboard stand-up of Angelina Jolie.
I've always associated the word "chick" with a particular type of femininity, a type which I tend to dislike. I dislike "chicks". I can't think of a similar word for men off the top of my head, but guys who perform masculinity like "chicks" perform femininity bother me just as much. I hope.
This post was written in advance. Dan4th is away for the holiday weekend.
This year, the website Chickipedia (described as "a web-based, women-based, wiki-based database of hot chicks" and "the first female-only encyclopedia") attempts to re-cast "chick" in a positive light. It's worth noting that the Chickipedia Team Photo includes all men - and what may be a cardboard stand-up of Angelina Jolie.
I've always associated the word "chick" with a particular type of femininity, a type which I tend to dislike. I dislike "chicks". I can't think of a similar word for men off the top of my head, but guys who perform masculinity like "chicks" perform femininity bother me just as much. I hope.
This post was written in advance. Dan4th is away for the holiday weekend.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Family Income
In the 2000 U.S. census, a figure of "median family income" was reported, as was "median household income". Non-family households are cases where a domicile is inhabited alone or shared with only non-relatives, including unmarried partners. Family income tends to be higher than household income, largely because over 80% of non-family households consist of a single person. Median income figures were also reported for full-time employed men and women, respectively. In this spreadsheet, I compare the incomes for men and women to the median "family" incomes to see which of the 25 largest U.S. cities has the largest proportion of dual-earner families.
I really wanted to look at this, and I couldn't find any research that talked about it. I included Cambridge, MA, where I live, in the spreadsheet because it really is all about me, and because I enjoy comparing it to Boston.
I really wanted to look at this, and I couldn't find any research that talked about it. I included Cambridge, MA, where I live, in the spreadsheet because it really is all about me, and because I enjoy comparing it to Boston.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Romantic Love in the Brain
Fisher et al (2005) and Aron et al (2005) (see 9/12/06 for their 2002 study) describe romantic love as more of a drive and reward system than as an emotion unto itself. Both papers come from fMRI scans of 17 people who described themselves as newly and "madly" in love. Romantic love, their 2005 fMRI study suggests, activates dopaminergic reward pathways. Among the 10 women and 7 men scanned for the study, no behavioral or fMRI result correlated with sex at a significant level.
Helen Fisher and Arthur Aron published several papers in 2002-2006 on the neural basis of romantic love (see Fisher's publications list), using a model which separates mate choice into three main drives: sex drive, romantic attraction, and male-female attachment.
At least in Fisher and Aron's sample, love seems to work the same for men and women. I've never found any evidence of a neural difference in romantic love between men and women. I don't feel like I write enough about gender similarities, although I think they far outnumber the differences.
I believe any changes I've seen in my own conception of romantic love over the past decade are far easier to attribute to age and experience than to any hormonal or societal changes. I'm certainly a lot less likely to mistake lust for love than I was 10 years ago. I'm not as quick to say it or to feel it. However, with the unreliability of emotional memory, I'd be hesitant to say that I remember the quality of romantic love from my youth. One thing I will say outright: I'd hesitate to call it rewarding. New love, as I recall, is intense, but I wouldn't call it pleasant.
Helen Fisher and Arthur Aron published several papers in 2002-2006 on the neural basis of romantic love (see Fisher's publications list), using a model which separates mate choice into three main drives: sex drive, romantic attraction, and male-female attachment.
At least in Fisher and Aron's sample, love seems to work the same for men and women. I've never found any evidence of a neural difference in romantic love between men and women. I don't feel like I write enough about gender similarities, although I think they far outnumber the differences.
I believe any changes I've seen in my own conception of romantic love over the past decade are far easier to attribute to age and experience than to any hormonal or societal changes. I'm certainly a lot less likely to mistake lust for love than I was 10 years ago. I'm not as quick to say it or to feel it. However, with the unreliability of emotional memory, I'd be hesitant to say that I remember the quality of romantic love from my youth. One thing I will say outright: I'd hesitate to call it rewarding. New love, as I recall, is intense, but I wouldn't call it pleasant.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Pop Science Reactions
In today's Slate (2008), Amanda Schaffer (with Emily Bazelon) attempt to explain the popularity (and validity) of books like Brizendine's The Female Brain and Pinker's The Sexual Paradox, calling them "evangelists" who "push the science further than it really goes." This tone is very similar to Emily Bazelon's March review (2008, NYT) of Pinker's book.
Schaffer and Bazelon do a good job of laying out the "sides" in the current sex difference debate. On one side, Liberman of Language Log and Janet Hyde argue for overall similarities; on the other, Pinker and Brizendine emphasize difference. One prominent figure notable for his absence from the Slate review is Simon Baron-Cohen, whose controversial work both Brizendine and Pinker draw from extensively.
I recently had a debate with my mother about "science books" versus scientific papers. My mother is an avid non-fiction reader. I barely read any non-fiction in book format, but read a lot of studies. I tend to find the voice of science books thoroughly offensive in the way that Schaffer and Bazelon describe in their review. Science books written for the lay audience, in my experience, always overstate the results, and focus too much on the author's intuition, rather than replicable results. I'm constantly frustrated by the paradox that it seems to take 200 pages to oversimplify the case, but only 10 pages to report a more complex (and more accurate) result.
Schaffer and Bazelon do a good job of laying out the "sides" in the current sex difference debate. On one side, Liberman of Language Log and Janet Hyde argue for overall similarities; on the other, Pinker and Brizendine emphasize difference. One prominent figure notable for his absence from the Slate review is Simon Baron-Cohen, whose controversial work both Brizendine and Pinker draw from extensively.
I recently had a debate with my mother about "science books" versus scientific papers. My mother is an avid non-fiction reader. I barely read any non-fiction in book format, but read a lot of studies. I tend to find the voice of science books thoroughly offensive in the way that Schaffer and Bazelon describe in their review. Science books written for the lay audience, in my experience, always overstate the results, and focus too much on the author's intuition, rather than replicable results. I'm constantly frustrated by the paradox that it seems to take 200 pages to oversimplify the case, but only 10 pages to report a more complex (and more accurate) result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
