The discussion of gender differences often boils down to a question of nature vs. nurture, although the assertion that we cannot (or should not?) change "nature" is in itself under debate. Jake Young writes a decent lay-person friendly review of some of the basic theories of the neurological differences between men and women. Specifically, he reviews Simon Baron-Cohen's systematizing vs. empathizing theory in contrast with Janet Hyde's "similarities hypothesis," which is basically the theory that the physical differences between men's and women's abilities are non-existent or small.

My own understanding of the distribution of ability is largely informed by a theory I first saw quoted (from Steven Pinker) on Patri Friedman's blog in May of 2005, namely that there is greater variation in males than in females, leading to greater differences at the extremes.

If Baron-Cohen's systemizating vs. empathizing model is correct, perhaps some of the differences are based in the metric used to measure intelligence. If intelligence is defined strictly as being tied to pattern recognition, then a systemizing brain will tend to test higher than an empathizing one. However, using Robert Sternberg's model of "analytical or crystallized, practical and creative" intelligences seems to weigh non-analytical intelligence too heavily on education. It seems clear that a person can be intelligent without being educated, but only pattern-recognition test seem capable of measuring this ability.

Tel Aviv University's Hagit Messer-Yaron, a professor of electrical engineering and anti-sexism activist, says "Men tend to look at technology. Women's perspective tends to be wider, more multidisciplinary." This, of course, is the argument used for all types of diversity, not only in the sciences, but in all fields. People of different backgrounds will necessarily approach problems from different perspectives.

The danger of these arguments is in the seductive nature of statistics. It is always tempting to apply the aggregate to the individual. This is the cruel science of the insurance company, the odds-maker, and one-size-fits-most. The predictions are a precise fit for no one and laughably or tragically wrong for some. The moral issue becomes this: should society discard the models (and what utility they offer) entirely or should those who exceed the models be responsible for finding their own fit?

---

My personal experience with sexism can be defined as "oblivious." I've never actually noticed sexism applied to me in the moment. I've certainly noticed differences in the ways I am treated when people respond to me as a man compared to when they responded to me as a woman, but the differences never seem to correspond to a lack of respect of regard. My time in the sciences as a woman was very brief and superficial. I spent three months as a math major in college, and changed majors because it failed to hold my interest. I never felt any pressure to leave the Math Department; in fact, my decision to leave was met with resistance at home, at school, and in my social circle.

In all of the -isms that I could easily apply to myself, I generally find it is my own reaction that is the problem, and not the attitudes of those around me. I can certainly find discrimination if I look for it, but I don't see how looking for it is useful. Generally someone insulting me on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, or even something as superficial as height (I'm pretty short) isn't really concerned with those factors at all. They're looking for a way to get under my skin. Applying their insults to the entire class of men, bisexuals, or short people isn't a useful way to figure out what they mean.

I'm not arguing that sexism doesn't exist. I'm just arguing that looking for it is equivalent to chasing your tail. It doesn't do anything but tire you out.