Why neurosexism or "hard-wired gender differences" wouldn't matter, even if they were true.
Disclaimer on the title of this post: I'm not suggesting that Cordelia Fine's book "Delusions of Gender" is delusional, or that she is for writing it. I'm referring to the delusions that she talks about in the book (hard-wired gender differences), and the extra layer of delusion that these would be relevant to modern society even if they were true.
I recently finished reading the book "Delusions of Gender" by Cordelia Fine, which I highly recommend anyone to read; whether you're a feminist or otherwise. It basically unravels all the popular science at the moment which suggests that men and women, as groups, are naturally better suited to different pursuits in life (the age-old "man = career, women = family" rubbish). She details studies that show just how much of an impact societal expectations can have on a person, particularly on a subconscious level; and she breaks down the science which has "proved" natural gender inequalities. It's well worth a read.
I've never held to the idea that person's abilities are predetermined by what they pack in their underpants, and it doesn't take too keen an eye to see how people are socialized into gender stereotypes from before they are born ("Boy baby sleeps in a blue room, girl baby sleeps in a pink room!"). But I'm going to play devil's advocate here, as I tend to, and assume that gender stereotypes are natural, hard-wired and unchangeable: does it really mean anything?
Glasses, Wheelchairs, and Amputee Sprinters
Glasses have been around for thousands of years, in some form. Emperor Nero of Rome used an emerald to get a better view of gladitorial games when he watched, and his tutor, Seneca the Younger, found that small, indistinct letters could be enlarged and seen more clearly under a glass filled with water.
The origin of the modern eyeglass is debated; early evidence has been found from the 13th century in China and Italy.
Regardless, one thing is certain: glasses are a major aid in the lives of people to whom nature gave the short straw of poor eyesight.
If not for glasses, a large proportion of the population would have a lot less in the way of career options than they have now. Bad eyesight? Sorry, you'll never be a pilot, or a pro football player, or a cop. You'll never be able to drive a car.
If not for glasses, people would probably believe that the optically-challenged are naturally dim and slow at learning, when really they just can't see the board at school.
How about wheelchairs? Before the invention of wheelchairs, anyone with a walking disability was excluded from a lot of what the world has to offer; not intentionally, but just by virtue of the fact that they were physically incapable of certain tasks.
Then came wheelchairs, and life got a whole lot easier for you if you were crippled. Stairs were still an issue, but at least you could get around of your volition.
And in response to the stairs, ramps are becoming more and more common for wheelchair accessibility.
With advancements in prosthetic technology, even people to whom nature dealt such a dire blow as leaving them with missing limbs are getting their chances. You want to be a runner, but you have no legs, hmm? Well here, just attach these to yourself, and away you go! There was even a lot of dispute in 2007 over whether Oscar Pistorius, an amputee sprinter, should be allowed to enter the Olympics the following year, or whether his prosthetics actually gave him an advantage.
Once again science comes through to give people opportunities they wouldn't have had otherwise, on account being naturally "suited to other things".
What's the Point of All This?
Scientists are "proving" these days that their are natural neurological differences between men and women: that men are emotionless, logical breadwinners; and that women are caring, comforting homekeepers. (Science has been "proving" this kind of thing for hundreds of years, and have been consistently getting proved wrong, but I digress).
The problem is, they're just looking for a justification of modern sexism. They see the feminist agenda as a problem, and they see these findings as a solution.
But really, the findings are the problem; or rather, evidence of a problem. The evidence is just evidence that nature has created an uneven playing field for different groups, and as conscious human beings we have the ability to override this. Nature doesn't always get it right.
Even if women are not naturally suited to executive, mathematical, scientific, medical, or legal positions, all of which have a lot more potential salary, why aren't we trying to find a way to undermine nature's failings, and use science to give people the opportunities that nature denied them, the way we have so many times before?
