Time and time again arguments are made asserting a biological basis for observed differences in performance between men and women, particularly in the fields of math and science. In 2005, Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard University, remarked that “in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination [which have caused fewer women to be employed in these careers]” (1). Perhaps even more salient is the popular book Freakonomics, by Steven Lewitt, which maintains that research in Muslim countries in which education is single–sex, and so the negative impact of stereotype threat, or the fear of an individual to confirm a stereotype of a group to which they belong, on performance is eliminated, proves, having found differences in the math scores of males and females, that men are better at math than women. Unfortunately, this analysis still fails to take into account the different social pressures on men and women in Muslim society, specifically that education is of less cultural importance to girls, a trend which is reflected in their higher drop–out rate. Nevertheless, recent cross–cultural studies have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the differences in performance between men and women are not, as one might be led to believe, rooted in their biology, but rather are the result of strong sociocultural influences.
Published just last month, a study performed by Jonathan Kane and Janet Mertz provides the most convincing support for this case (2). Using a gender–gap index, which compares the genders in terms of income, education, health, and political participation, the authors analyzed the math performance of boys and girls across more than 26 countries. The results showed that math achievement at the low, average, and high ends of the curve was higher in countries where there is greater gender equity. According to Kane, it is “for these reasons, we believe it is much more reasonable to attribute differences in math performance primarily to country–specific social factors.” This is a major finding as it firmly suggests, after decades of controversy, that the only significant difference in the ability of men and women is determined by the society which they are in; thus, gender equality is something that can be strived for. Mertz puts this nicely saying, “this is not a matter of biology: none of our findings suggest that an innate biological difference between the sexes is the primary reason for a gender gap in math performance at any level. Rather, these major international studies strongly suggest that the math–gender gap, where it occurs, is due to sociocultural factors that differ among countries, and that these factors can be changed.”
The main import of these studies is that, given an equal playing field, boys and girls will perform at the same level. Therefore, the challenge is to provide for this environment. However, this is more difficult than first comes across. With fewer female role models, gender stereotypes, and sexist discrimination among many more obstacles, it is imperative that we stop attributing inequality to biology and start taking responsibility for the actions that actually create it if we ever hope to live in a truly equal world.
1. L. H. Summers, Remarks at NBER Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce (2005). Available at http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php (26 February 2012).
2. J. M. Kane, J. E. Mertz, Not. Am. Math. Soc. 59, 10-21. Print (2012).