Why we have to start valuing science over sexual politics if we want to tackle the literacy gender gap

Science, not sexual politics, holds the answer to closing the literacy gender gap.

The rise in the number of children reading for pleasure, revealed in the annual Children's and Young People's Reading report earlier this year, is clearly a cause for celebration. However, as The Bookseller noted, the increase relates solely to girls; the number of boys who said that they enjoyed reading remained static, resulting in a widening of the existing gender gap. The report states that "61.6% of girls enjoy reading either very much or quite a lot compared with 47.2% of boys. Conversely, nearly twice as many boys as girls say that they don’t enjoy reading at all (12.8% vs. 7.3%)."

Studies show that reading for pleasure is closely linked to wider academic achievement and a similar gender gap is seen in children's GCSE results (measured using the standard criteria of percentage of students achieving 5 A*-C grades). This is not a new phenomenon, boys have been underachieving in UK schools for over a generation. While sixteen-year-old boys were outperforming sixteen-year-old girls in the 1950s, by the end of the 1960s this gap had closed and in the early 1980s it began to open up in the opposite direction with girls outperforming boys (see graph below). Between 1988 and 1995 the gap increased rapidly and for the last two decades it has remained between 7% and 9%. Last year it reached an 11-year high of 8.8%, this year it stands at 8.4%.

Gender Gap in O Level and GCSE results 1962-2006
From Gender and Education: the evidence on pupils in England 2007

While cases such as Malala Yousafzai's highlight the severe educational inequalities still faced by girls in undeveloped countries such as Pakistan, the widely held perception that girls generally receive a second-rate education in comparison to boys is several decades out of date. In a New York Times article earlier this year psychologist Gijsbert Stoet, who studies educational inequality at Glasgow University, commented that “the message you get is that girls around the world don’t get a chance in education, but that is not true for most of the world.” Stoet’s claim is backed up by PISA research which shows that on average, 15-year-old boys score worse than 15-year-old girls across combined achievements in mathematics, reading and science in 70% of PISA tested countries.

"Many people take a partizan, pro-female approach to gender equality. For such people, being pro-boy is often equated with being anti-girl"

The New York Times article quotes Doctor Stoet as being surprised by “the lack of eagerness to solve the problems that boys face.” I think this lack of eagerness is rooted in sexual politics. As I commented in my last post, many people take a partizan, pro-female approach to gender equality. For such people, being pro-boy is often equated with being anti-girl and attempting to tackle inequalities that favour women over men is regarded as inappropriate while there are still so many inequalities that favour men over women. For those with a less partizan approach to equality, this is a false dichotomy; inequality should be tackled wherever it occurs, no matter which group it disadvantages. It's not a zero-sum game; we can and should be both pro-girl and pro-boy.

Another current aspect of sexual politics that discourages many from tackling boys' underachievement is the widespread belief that gender (as opposed to sex) is entirely the product of nurture, with nature playing no significant role. There are many subscribers to this fundamentalist nurture-only view in the world of children’s literature and literacy and some of them are very vocal in their views. Attempts to address the literacy gender gap by responding to boy-typical preferences are condemned by nurture-only fundamentalists on the grounds that acknowledging such preferences reinforces sexual stereotypes. A nurture-only interpretation of gender is also used to dismiss the need for gender-balance among the female-dominated gatekeeper groups in children’s literature (publishers, librarians, reviewers, awards judges, teachers and book-buyers). The argument goes something like this: It doesn't matter if it’s overwhelmingly one sex determining what's suitable and appealing in children’s literature — if we raise both sexes in the same way, they'll develop the same tastes. Then they’ll find the same books equally appealing and the literacy gender gap will disappear. Anyone advocating a gender-sensitive approach to tackling the literacy gap is publicly denounced as a sexist (I speak from experience here). So it’s little wonder that few are eager to propose or pursue such solutions.

"Taking a 'gender-sensitive approach' does NOT mean gender branding"

I should stress that taking a "gender-sensitive approach" does NOT mean gender branding. There is good evidence to suggest that gender is not binary and everyday experience tells us that an individual child’s behaviour and preferences are not simply dictated by whether or not they possess a Y chromosome. This is one reason why gender-branded books are a bad idea. However there is also good evidence to suggest that biological factors play an important role in determining the sex-typical behaviour evident in the population as a whole.  A gender-sensitive response does not require young readers to be pigeon-holed according to their sex; publishers can still produce books that accurately reflect boy-typical reading preferences without deterring potential female readers by marketing these books as being “for boys”.

There is now a large body of scientific evidence suggesting that prenatal hormone levels play an important role in determining sex-typical behaviour and preferences. Studies show that children of both sexes who are subjected to high levels of testosterone in the uterus are more likely to be boy-typical in their play preferences. However, high prenatal testosterone levels are far more common in boys, which is one reason that such play preferences are 'boy-typical'. Nurture also plays an important role in determining play preferences – other studies show that parents are far more likely to encourage a girl to play with a doll than a truck – but the consensus within the scientific community is that children’s play preferences are determined by BOTH nature and nurture.

One of the studies that’s helped to identify the role prenatal hormones play in determining sex-typical preferences is the Cambridge Child Development Study conducted by the Neuroscience Centre at Cambridge University. The prenatal testosterone levels of 235 Cambridgeshire children were measured via amniocentesis and the children’s development monitored at regular intervals as the children grew older. The study has been running for over a decade and the children have now grown into teenagers. The results suggest that prenatal testosterone levels are related to a number of sex-typical behavioural characteristics including children’s play preferences. One example is the boy-typical preference for playing with machines and vehicles. Although the study has not collected any data directly relating to media preferences, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that a child who has a preference for playing with machines or vehicles will probably have a similar preference for reading books or watching TV shows about machines or vehicles as well.

"Only about 15% of the public accept that brain gender is a product of both nature and nurture"

Arguably the UK’s leading authorities on gender development are Melissa Hines, Director of Cambridge University’s Hormones and Behaviour Research Lab and Simon Baron-Cohen, the Director of Cambridge's Autism Research Centre. You can watch Professors Hines and Baron-Cohen outline some of the evidence relating to children’s play preferences at a panel event in the video below. The event was organised by the Wellcome Trust, a charitable foundation committed to promoting the public understanding of science, and brain gender is certainly an area that would benefit hugely from better public understanding. Towards the end of the discussion Professor Hines mentions that only about 15% of the public accept the that brain gender is a product of both nature and nurture, with the majority subscribing to either a nurture-only or nature-only view.

One commonly cited sex difference in children’s reading preferences is that boys are generally more interested in non-fiction than girls are. Professor Keith Topping, author of the 2015 What Kids Are Reading report, which analysed the reading habits of over half a million UK schoolchildren, has said that the scarcity of non-fiction books in UK schools “could be disadvantaging boys at the expense of girls” and the report suggests that this scarcity might reflect a preference for fiction over non-fiction among primary school teachers, who are predominantly female. My own survey of children’s book reviews published in national newspapers in 2013 showed a similar imbalance, with fiction outnumbering non-fiction reviews by a staggering 46:1 ratio. The survey also showed that, like primary school teachers, the reviewers selecting the books were predominantly female.

I believe this particular sex difference is not so much to do with fiction versus non fiction as narrative versus non-narrative content. I think most girls will readily read non-fiction content presented in a narrative form (e.g. a biographical novel) and most boys will readily read fictional content presented in a non-narrative form (e.g. a book of cross sections of Star Wars vehicles).

"The female-typical preference for narrative is currently being exploited to encourage more girls to study STEM subjects"

The female-typical preference for narrative is currently being exploited to encourage more girls to study STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). The introduction of more storytelling into science in the form of fiction or biography has proved to be an effective tool in engaging girls in these traditionally male-dominated fields. It’s now recognised that, while a straightforward outlining of facts and theory in STEM subjects may work well for boys, girls generally respond better to a narrative approach. So stories that illustrate how individual people are responsible for or benefit from STEM are helping to make STEM subjects seem more relevant and appealing to girls.

It could be argued that by openly acknowledging a female-typical preference for storytelling, STEM educators are reinforcing a sexual stereotype. However even the most fervent nurture-only-fundamentalists seem reluctant to voice such arguments. I suspect that the reason they're willing to turn a blind eye is that, in this instance, they recognise that exploiting a sex-typical preference is an effective way to close the STEM gender gap and counter the stereotype that science is for boys more than girls.

If we want to close the literacy gender gap and counter the stereotype that reading is for girls more than boys, we need to follow STEM’s example. We need to be more responsive to sex-typical preferences. We need to be more proactive about getting male gatekeepers into all areas of children’s literature. We need to start valuing science over sexual politics. And we need to stop shouting “SEXIST!” every time someone suggests that, ON AVERAGE, different sexes might have different preferences.

"Fear of sexism has produced a bias against conceding sex differences"

For some people acknowledging innate sex differences is indistinguishable from old-fashioned sexism and so ideologically out of bounds – regardless of the evidence

The title of this post is a quote from a 2011 Slate article by William Saletan. The article was written in response to a panel discussion of “The Promise and Peril of Research on Sex Differences” at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in 2011 and is an excellent primer for anyone interested in the debate on innate sex differences.

The panel, which consisted of neuroscientist Lise Eliot, behavioural neurobiologist Larry Cahill and psychologists Melissa Hines, Janet Hyde and Maryjane Wraga, represented a diverse range of expert opinions on this controversial subject.

The article notes that the debate “didn’t settle the controversy, because it isn’t binary, and evidence is complex.” So instead of attempting to present a conclusion, Saletan highlights ten pitfalls to be wary of when assessing arguments regarding innate sex differences. It’s well worth reading the whole article, but I’m going to pick out five of the pitfalls that Saletan identifies which are particularly relevant to my experience of debating the issue in relation to the gender gap in children’s literacy.

1. Ideology

In my experience the belief that “there’s no such thing as innate sex differences” is often rooted in ideology rather than evidence. I commented in an earlier post that I suspect that many people who hold this belief are not aware of the evidence that helped establish it – or the degree to which this evidence has subsequently been discredited. For some people acknowledging innate sex differences is indistinguishable from old-fashioned sexism and so ideologically out of bounds – regardless of the evidence. Saletan notes that “fear of sexism has produced a bias against conceding sex differences, which gets in the way of frank discussion and investigation.”

2. Casual Extrapolation

Saletan describes psychologist Melissa Hines recalling “an incident in which, after she had described data on toy preference among girls, a male physicist said she had just explained why it was hard to recruit women to teach physics. The leap from dolls to doctorates was effortless, though groundless.”

Similarly inappropriate extrapolations are often made by individuals on both sides of the innate sex differences debate. One thing that distinguishes Hines’s book Brain Gender from many others on the subject is the way in which Hines carefully avoids such extrapolations.

3. Stereotypes

Saletan notes that “girls differ from boys, but girls also differ from other girls.” And goes on to say that “you certainly can’t infer from a person’s sex how well he or she will do on a test.”

I know from my own experience that no matter how carefully one tries to qualify an argument about sex differences by saying that some girls will have boy-typical reading tastes and vice versa, one will inevitably be accused of stereotyping simply for describing certain reading tastes as boy or girl-typical. In this context “boy-typical” means “commonly associated with boys”, it does not and should not mean “exclusive to boys” or even “better suited to boys”. Saletan explains that sex differences don’t show up as separate clusters, but as “overlapping distributions”, a point I attempted to get across in the “Twin Peaks” section of my essay NATURE and NURTURE.

4. Either/Or

In my experience an Either/Or approach, ranks alongside Ideology as the most commonly encountered pitfall in arguments on sex differences. There’s no reason whatsoever to regard nature and nurture as mutually exclusive factors and yet I’ve heard from several people who seem to assume that the indisputable evidence that nurture influences a child’s reading tastes can also be taken as indisputable evidence that nature has no influence.

The growing number of recent studies demonstrating the influence of nature on children’s preferences are dismissed by the nurture-only lobby as either biased, unreliable or unconvincing. Even if all of these studies were invalid, discrediting the evidence that something is true is not the same as proving it is false. Separate evidence is needed to demonstrate this and no such evidence has come to light.

5. Inferred Immutability

I think one reason many people find innate sex differences difficult to accept is that they associate them with a biologically deterministic view of gender roles. This perception has some justification. In his book The Essential Difference, psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen states its central theory thus:

The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy. The male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems.

Saletan comments that “several panelists targeted the word hardwired as a misleading metaphor for explaining the brain”. Neuroscientist Lise Eliot, who moderated the panel discussion, regards the brain as plastic and susceptible to change. In her own book Pink Brain, Blue Brain Eliot argues that “adults need to be aware of boy-girl differences so that we can help children compensate for them early on”. Instead of a gender-neutral approach to child development, Eliot advocates differing approaches for boys and girls, which reflect their different preferences, but are intended to close the gaps on their differing abilities. As I said in my essay FIGHTER and FASHIONISTAS, I believe that such an approach can be used to close the gender gap in children’s literacy and this is the type of approach I’m advocating in COOL not CUTE.

Click here to read William Saletan’s SLATE article in full

Documentaries on Sex Differences and Boys’ Literacy

UPDATES: This post has been updated with the following new content:

June 2014: The Gendered Brain panel discussion added.

September 2014: Horizon: Is Your Brain Male or Female? documentary added. Gareth Malone documentary moved to the top of the page.

THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE UNISEX BOX
Recent evidence has brought a new perspective
to the scientific understanding of sex differences

It’s clear from some of the responses I’ve had to Cool Not Cute that some people don’t accept that some boy-typical or girl-typical tastes are partly innate and believe that such differences are entirely a result of upbringing — a view recently popularised by Cordelia Fine in her book Delusions of Gender. In my last post I noted the contrast in the way this book was reviewed in the mainstream and the scientific media and on page 8 of Nature and Nurture I highlight one of the instances where Fine misrepresents the scientific evidence to suit her argument.

All but one of the documentaries on this page examine the scientific evidence that suggests that BOTH nature and nurture are responsible for sex differences in preferences.

Although it doesn't deal directly with the science, I've included this first documentary as it shows how an awareness of sex differences in children's preferences can help to close the gender gap in children's literacy.

Gareth Malone's Extraordinary School for Boys (BBC 2010) 

My argument in Cool Not Cute is about prevention: I believe that boys’ underachievement in literacy can be nipped in the bud if the first books that boys encounter reflect their enthusiasms as much as TV or video games currently do. This 3-part series is about cure. In it choirmaster Gareth Malone attempts to mend the long-broken reading habits of older primary school boys. Malone believes that primary school teaching tends to encourage girls more than boys and sets out to correct this bias by introducing a number of boy-friendly factors including risk, competition and vigorous outdoor activity. 

This second episode focusses on reading. It begins with the boys play-fighting a Roman battle with swords and shields, an activity that’s intended to fire-up their enthusiasm to read about the Romans. Acknowledging the importance of appealing book content, Malone takes a group of reluctant boy readers to a bookshop to make their own choice of boy-friendly books to add to the school library. “I don’t want the teachers [all but one of whom are female] to be deciding on all the books,” he explains to them.

This approach is more effective with some boys than others and no doubt some of the girls in the school would also have benefitted from it. However, while Malone’s experiment lacks scientific rigour, it shows how an awareness of sex differences can be used to close gender gaps and promote equality between the sexes. Malone is hardly a swaggering alpha male and it’s clear that his promotion of activities with boy-typical appeal is intended to engage boys in schooling so that they will turn into well-rounded individuals rather than brutish sexual stereotypes.

The other 2 episodes of the series can also be viewed using the links below:
Gareth Malone's Extraordinary School for Boys: Episode 1
Gareth Malone's Extraordinary School for Boys: Episode 3

Bang Goes the Theory (BBC 2009) 

This short clip from the BBC’s Bang Goes the Theory science magazine programme deals with sex differences in children’s toy preferences. It features both a Child X study, which suggests that nurture plays a role in determining children’s tastes, and Melissa Hines and Gerianne Alexander's primate study, which suggests that nature also plays a role.

The Gendered Brain (Wellcome Trust and Kings College London 2013)

This is a panel discussion featuring Melissa Hines, Director of Cambridge University's Hormones and Behaviour Research Lab, Simon Baron-Cohen, Director of Cambridge University's Autism Research Centre and novelist and poet Michèle Roberts.

During the discussion, Hines and Baron-Cohen outline some of the evidence demonstrating that both nature and nurture are responsible for sex-typical characteristics in human behaviour. While this combined nature and nurture view is now held by most psychologists and neuroscientists, Hines refers to a study which shows that only 15% of the public accept it, with the majority of the public believing that either nature or nurture are solely responsible.

Horizon: Is Your Brain Male or Female? (BBC 2014) 

Both of the studies in the Bang Goes the Theory clip above are also featured in this 2014 Horizon documentary. Michael Mosely and Alice Roberts examine recent evidence, with Mosely presenting the evidence for nature in the first half and Roberts the evidence for nurture in the second. Mosely and Roberts appear to reach different conclusions by the end of the programme; while Mosely seems to accept that both nature and nurture may play a significant role in determining gender identity, Roberts appears unconvinced by the evidence suggesting that nature may play a significant role.

The Gender Equality Paradox (NRK 2010) 

This Norwegian documentary (in English and Norwegian with English subtitles) features interviews with researchers on both sides of the innate sex differences debate. The “paradox" of the programme’s title is that young people in gender-egalitarian countries such as Norway tend to be more gender-typical in their career choices than young people in less gender-egalitarian countries. Evolutionary psychologist Anne Campbell offers an explanation for this paradox in the programme.

It’s worth noting that all of the researchers featured in the programme that accept the evidence for innate sex differences are either scientists or medical practitioners, while none of the researchers dismissing the scientific evidence are scientifically or medically qualified.

Brainsex (BBC 2005) 

This documentary examines a range of sex-difference studies including those carried out by psychologist Richard Lippa in collaboration with the BBC. The Lippa/BBC studies are based on the analyses of survey results from 200,000 people across 53 countries and demonstrate consistent sex differences in preferences across all cultures.