The XX Factor: What women really think.

Men Are From Mars, Women From Venus, and We're All on Pluto

Emily, you asked why self-identified feminists like Susan Pinker and LouAnn Brizendine publish books that focus on the differences between men and women. The cynic in me says: The marketplace finds it sexier than more talk about feminist goals that haven't been met yet. (As you pointed out, Brizendine's book was a best-seller.) But to be less simplistic about it: It seems to me that we are at a crux where we think we know more about the brain than ever before. Whether we do or not is perhaps subject to debate—and I really look forward to reading Amanda's series. But all this scientific novelty has resulted in a frenzy of really old activity: the use of new technologies to reaffirm traditional canards about "how women are." (We don't like to take risks, etc.) Whatever the realities of "hard-wired differences," it's kind of astonishing to watch so many columnists and authors use "brain science" to embrace the idea that things are the way they are for a reason. 

So in response to your fascinating question, I have to conclude that even for women it's sometimes a relief to imagine that we don't need to set ourselves the task of reinventing the world. That, combined with the fact that there are some studies that show "real" differences, makes for a tempting menu option. Not to mention that sometimes relationships can make everything seem completely oppositional. Hence, the paradigm that men are from Mars; women are from Venus. It's easier than thinking we're all on Pluto and need to do the hard work of getting back to Earth.

 A wonderful book that debunks a lot of gender myths is Carol Tavris' The Mismeasure of Women. I read it a few summers back, and parts of it are a bit outdated now. But I still recommend it to anyone interested in these questions. Among many other useful exercises, she invites the reader to try to perform a useful thought experiment: Imagine there were a third gender. Men, women, and, say, it. Would we be so focused all the time on construing "difference" as "oppositional"? As she points out, differences between the genders may indeed exist; but as more than one scientist has noted, the differences may pale in comparison to the similiarities.

Mars and Venus Walk Among Us

Yes, I think it's safe to say that Clark Hoyt doesn't get Maureen Dowd, despite her efforts to explain herself to him (what a fun interview that must have been). Dowd said that she's playing with sexist gender constructs, not aping them. She also defended herself as an equal opportunity offender—she questions Obambi's masculinity as well as Hillary's womanliness, and this makes it all more OK. That works for me, most of the time.

It does drive me crazy, though, when women writers or TV commentators, or whoever, make their name by taking supposedly brave stands against what they've decided are feminist platitudes. I'm not talking about Dowd. The easy-mark offender of late is Charlotte Allen, and sometimes Caitlin Flanagan plays this game; in past days, Ruth Shalit had it nailed, if I remember right.

Today in Slate, Amanda Schaffer has a series that takes on a related breed: two scientists (Louann Brizendine and Susan Pinker) who say they're feminists, have read the literature on sex differences in the brain, and emerged to tell us what they frame as the politically incorrect truth—women really are from Venus and men really are from Mars. Specifically, they say that women have better verbal aptitude, talk more often and use more words, are better at empathizing. Men are better bets to be top mathematicians and scientists, a la Larry Summers, and that's not likely to change as the culture changes. Amanda expertly goes in and takes her own look at the science and finds that Brizendine and Pinker played down the contrary evidence, made various questions seem far more settled than they are, and hype the idea that differences are innate, and fixed, when that may well not be the case. She also interviewed various scientists who said, hey, Pinker and Brizendine made my work stand for a proposition it doesn't stand for.

Amanda has also done some thinking about why the reluctant truth-teller female scientist walks among us so prominently at the moment. (Other than the obvious ka-ching, ka-ching answer: Brizendine's book, which came first, was a best-seller.) That part of the series won't run til next week. In the meantime, any thoughts? Do you think that bashing principles or ideas that feminists hold dear fast-tracks certain women to success? Or am I oversensitive, huffy, and in need of a tall glass of iced tea since it's too early in the day for a drink?