Thursday, April 16, 2009

Baron-Cohen and complementarianism

I don't really want to be a full time debunker of complementarianism (well sometimes I do) but I can't help but notice things in passing. Here is a blog post which is reaffirming Foh's interpretation of Gen. 3:16. It says,
    Men are more task-oriented than women. And not to say that women are not ambitious or do not value their jobs, but research has supported that men are more more systematic. The pastor mentioned research by Carol Gilligan (In a Different Voice), which I have read and definitely agreed with most of it. There has been some controversy over her work, fueled by the fact that she for a long time refused other researchers’ requests to view her data. But, if you want a more modern source, check out Autism researcher Simon Baron-Cohen, PhD. I did research with him back in high school. Absolutely amazing theories (and evidence) on differences between the “male” and “female” brain. ...
    Thus, in the same way, women are cursed to try to manipulate, control, and exert authority over their husbands,
And she goes on the show how true Ephesians 5 is with respect to men and women. Once again social science is seen to back up gender-based hierarchy in marriage.

But back to the research of Baron-Cohen. Here is an excerpt of the NY Times review of The Sexual Paradox by Susan Pinker, which I read recently,
    In her zeal, Pinker veers to the onesided. She doesn’t acknowledge that some of the research cited in her footnotes is either highly questionable as social science (Louise Story’s 2005 article in The New York Times, for instance, about her survey of Ivy League women’s aspirations) or has never been replicated — like the findings from Simon Baron-Cohen’s laboratory that newborn girls showed more interest in looking at human faces, while newborn boys preferred mechanical mobiles.

    Pinker omits the work of scientists who have shown that sex-based brain differences pale in comparison to similarities. We shouldn’t wish the role of sex differences away because they’re at odds with feminist dogma. But that doesn’t mean we should settle for the reductionist version of the relevant science, even if the complexity doesn’t make for as neat a package between hard covers.
Tiddly, piddly, men are biggly and women are liddly. This at least has been replicated. BTW, I love all you guys who read my blog.

Big PS here - Men are not more "systematic." Males are more "systematizing." There is a big difference. As controlling is to control, so is systematizing to system. It is not a compliment, it is an observation based on the fact that there are more males with Asperger's than females. There are more males with Down's syndrome also. I hope we are not going to call males "downsian."


Suzanne McCarthy said...

I am sorry about that last bit, but that is where some of this research is coming from. I don't like it myself. One of the most famous people we know with Asperger's is a woman - what of it all? The real truth is that certain diagnoses generate funding, so beware of all this research.

Lin said...

This is one thing that always bothered me about comp teaching and research..the little boxes they put us in. I am extremely task oriented and compartmentalized. I am not a big talker except when I am presenting in my work. I have never fit woman profiles in the comp books.

CD-Host said...

I think you guys may get a chuckle out of 10 reasons men should not be pastors.

The comments regarding the stereotypes are mostly just silly and obviously countered by zillions of examples.