« Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century Economy Advisory Committee | Main | Capitol Hill as waterfront property »
August 11, 2006
The battle of the sexes
In the I-Cubed Economy, women rule. Or at least that is the implication of a recent opinion statement ("leader") in the Economist - "La différence: How women won the sex war":
Men, studies show, are exceedingly good at rotating three-dimensional shapes in their head. Perhaps women once stared open-mouthed in wonder as their mates juggled pyramids of imaginary polyhedra. Such tricks are also quite handy for engineers who specialise in building large bits of machinery, digging tunnels or slinging bridges across rivers. But, now that the rich world has about as many tunnels and bridges as it needs, and the large bits of machinery which aren't made by computers and robots are made by the Chinese, their usefulness is limited.
Modern professional life is dominated by management, which these days sets high store by emotional intelligence, empathy and communication. Wise chaps seeking professional advancement should therefore spend their free time with groups of women, boning up on how to undermine somebody's confidence while pretending to boost it, and how to turn an entire lunch table against an absent colleague without saying a mean word. Such skills are likely to have a greater influence on their lifetime earnings than the ability to spin an icosahedron. It's a girlie man's world, as Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't say.
Ok - take that as slightly tongue-in-cheek. And the in-depth story - "Differences between the sexes" - reveals a more nuanced story. In fact, the stories header is "Men and women think differently. But not that differently." In a meta-analysis study 124 supposed difference between men and women only 22% showed real differences. And in one of the most widely held differences, aggression, it was a matter of tactics not the level of anger. Males were more likely to retaliate physically (direct aggression) while females used social retaliation (indirect aggression).
The story also goes not to talk about how women excel in supposedly "male" engineering and science skills. Although, it doesn't talk about how well successful men do with supposedly "female" social skills. As the story concludes:
Biology may predispose, but . . . it is not necessarily destiny.
So, all of us need to work on developing a complete set of skills to compete in the I-Cubed Economy. After all, it is that full set of skills which makes it so interesting.
Posted by Ken Jarboe at August 11, 2006 8:36 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.athenaalliance.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/831
Comments
I think we need to clarify what we mean by 'destiny' rather than focusing on 'differences'. Biology is destiny but no the way we have conceived it. Humans are always limiting what things mean or how they define it to be able to handle it in the century they live in. We don't know the depth of what is possible and what is limited yet - we're still learning.
There are brain differences, difference in body functions, reproductive abilties, skin types, voice pitch, hormones and chemicals, taste, etc. How much any of them matter in any society or in a situation may or may not make a difference. Our body shape determines the type of clothes we make, the shape of the tools we use, the glasses or cups we use, shape of sizzors, etc. Some shapes will work and others will not. We make our society according to our biology, which includes hormones, chemicals, and any other things that makes us human and make men and women different. A little difference at the start can make a big difference later on if we keep traveling along the same divergent paths over time. The abilitiy of humans to adapt, imagine a different future and try to build it by changing our thinking and enviornment and actions helps us but we have the same biology as before - just adjusted. Men and women can be close to their children but must use different paths to get there. Some women are not close to their chidlren and some men are closer. Lots of things have influenced this (childhood, personal sensitivity, personal beliefs, experiences, etc.) but as it is said - the exception proves the rule - the exception is proof that there is a general rule that applies. This thinking that just beause women can do some things that men can do and visa versa does not mean there are no significant differences - just that this time or in this issue we found a way around it. Our limited thinking gave us the assumptions that certain things were not possible but that did not make the past ideas true completely, but maybe true for what was needed for then. Some cultures have looked at the moon as a god, and attributed power to it over our lives. The truth is the moon is not a god, but it does have some effect on our earth and our lives. How much and what kind may be debatable but there is truth to past thoughts, just not in every way we thought, based on the rules we thought, with the conclusions we always had.
Men like what women have as women which is different from men - women like what men have that is different from what women have. (Gays and lesbians are exceptions which prove the rule) We often find that when past thoughts about how we thought about the world or men and women is wrong or partly wrong, we throw the baby out with the bath water - so it all must be wrong. Not so. Science does not work this way but builds on the past, just not aways the way past thinkers imagined the conclusions.
Equality is another issue that has nothing to do with men and women being similar or different. The conclusion that if we find differences it means one or the other is inferior is a false premise which we love to perpetuate. Who's #1? Both are in different areas. That there are some women in science means some can do it and love to do it and maybe many others don't - because of ability, they don't like the male dominated arena, they don't like what science is dealing with now, they like other things more, etc. Does biology play a part - yes but not always as we think. What we don't like is to be pegged in a box or told we can't do something because we are who we are. Many people have broken the sterotypes of the past but there were some thruths in sterotypes which still linger. People continue with what works best for them or their abilities (men cannot birth babies and society works better when men commit themselves to women in a marriage). We don't have to follow what comes naturally but there are consequences which we are sometimes willing to bear. That does not erase the consequence, just our ability to handle it in our lives.
Posted by: larry at August 11, 2006 4:37 PM
A few comments:
1) Technology and standardization is lowering the need for organizations. While women may have advantages in organization life through social networking, the ability of a single individual to conceive and create a product or service will dimish the need for an army of managers. As evidence, look at the vaporization of the level of hierarchy in most organizations.
2) The visual thinking men are generally better with also works with abstract concepts. The linguistic thinking pattern is cheaper to teach and evaluate, but that in itself does not make it superior.
3) The visual thinking that leads to bridges also works in visualizing the ebb and flow of specie concentrations in a biological cell. Visual thinking is not obsolete.
4) The need for humanistic touches can be replaced by automation. Physical therapy is dominated by high touch and patient interations today, machines that adapt and learn a patients needs will decrease the demand for that high touch.
All advantages are transient.
Posted by: ed at August 14, 2006 2:19 PM