Male and female brains

By Madeleine Whybrow 

The idea that men and women are inherently different, particularly in psychological terms, is a popular, perhaps even obvious, view. Common sense tells us that behaviour depends heavily on gender; men are often more aggressive and prone to risk-taking, whereas women tend to be kinder and more communicative. Could it be that these differences are hard-wired into our brains?

This possibility does not sit well with those of us who believe in gender equality. Any fundamental differences between men and women would not only explain certain inequalities, but also would invalidate attempts to remove them. If it were true that men were naturally better leaders, for example, it would make schemes to encourage women in this area, at best, pointless.

We are a long way from knowing for sure what causes these differences. However, there is a strong body of evidence that many, if not all, are down to environmental, not biological, factors. It is becoming clear that children develop certain gendered characteristics as they see how other people behave and expect them to behave. It raises the possibility that what we see as gender characteristics is not natural behaviour but rather learned from the people around us.

It is natural to hope that our children may have certain attributes and to reward behaviour which reflects this. If, however, we expect different characteristics from girls than from boys, these will begin to shape the stereotypes that so many of us conform to. It is not unreasonable that we might want our daughters to be caring and pretty, or for our sons to be lively and outgoing  yet, in doing so, we make such gendered qualities a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Some parents may not even be aware that they are making such a differentiation, nor of how early it begins. In one study¹, 30 sets of parents were interviewed within just a day of their child’s birth. They were significantly more likely to describe daughters as little, beautiful, pretty, and cute, and as resembling their mothers. What’s more, these comments did not correspond to the weight, height or overall health of the babies. These parents were projecting gendered characteristics on to their children before they were too young to even display any.

In another study², 204 adult participants were shown a video of the same toddler reacting to a jack in the box. Half the group were told that the toddler was called David, the other half that it was called Dania. Those who thought it was a boy were more likely to say it was displaying anger; and those who thought it was a girl to say it was displaying fear. That is to say, they perceived the male child to be showing an aggressive emotion, and the female child a passive one.

Countless other studies (many listed of which are listed here) reach the same conclusion: that adults attribute gendered qualities to children even when no measured differences exist. However, one particularly telling experiment took place in 2000³. The motor skills and risk-perception of 23 toddlers were measured by presenting them with ramps of varying steepness and recording which they attempted to, and which they succeeded to, crawl down.

In agreement with other such studies, they found no significant difference between boys and girls. However, before the experiment they had asked the children’s mothers what steepness of slope they expected their offspring to attempt and to actually achieve. The mothers of sons were significantly more likely to overestimate their children’s motor skills and likelihood to take risks. Again, this shows that adults expect their sons to have different traits to their daughters, thus it is no surprise that this view becomes reality, regardless of true differences between genders.

There is one vital question which remains: if gendered characteristics are not biological, where did they originate from? One possible explanation is that our psychological differences were born from our physical ones. Even in fairly modern history, our ancestors’ physical traits would have determined their roles in society; men, with their strength and height, would have been hunters and fighters, whereas child-bearing women would have been carers and home-makers. It would therefore have been sensible, perhaps even necessary, that men learnt to be aggressive and assertive and women to be caring and homely. These traits continue to be seen as masculine and feminine even as the physical reasons for their existence become irrelevant.

Of course, we have no way of telling how much our perceptions regarding gender is learned from our surroundings but it is clear that the differences between men and women would less pronounced were it not for these external influences. The idea that male and female brains are more similar than they appear also supports the growing body of thought that our gender identity is separate from our biological sex and that it much more fluid than just being a man or a woman. Either way, just the possibility that gender is not what we thought it was opens up new and exciting discussions which we should all embrace.

Studies cited:

[1] Rubin J Z, Provenzano F J and Luria Z. The Eye of the Beholder: Parents’ Views on Sex of Newborns. The Eye of the Beholder: Parents’ Views on Sex of Newborns. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1974.

[2]  Condry J and Condry S. Sex Differences: A Study of the Eye of the Beholder. Child Development 1976

[3] Mondschein E R, Adolph K E and Tamis-LeMonda C S. Gender bias in mothers’ expectations about infant crawling. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2000.

Air your views/join the debate with Madeleine Whybrow

at her twitter: https://twitter.com/MissMadeleine1