Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:35:51.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Women and the Mismeasure Of Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Judith Genova
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent attempts by the neurological and psychological communities to articulate thought differences between women and men continue to mismeasure thought, especially women's thought. To challenge the claims of hemispheric specialization and lateralization studies, I argue three points: 1) given more sophisticated biological models, brain researchers cannot assume that differences, should they exist, between women and men are purely a result of innate structures; 2) the distinction currently being drawn between verbal/spatial thinking abilities is fraught with ideological commitments that undermine the intelligibility of the distinction; 3) the model of thinking as information processing which underlies all this research confuses thinking with internal processing strategies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 3 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Feminism and Science, Part 2 , Spring 1988 , pp. 101 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abel, Elizabeth, ed. 1982. Writing and sexual difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Alper, Joseph. 1985. Brain asymmetries. Feminist Studies 11 (1): 7–37.10.2307/3180130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bever, Thomas. 1980. Broca and Lashley were right: Cerebral dominance is an accident of growth. In Biological studies of mental processes, ed. Kaplan, David Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Blakeslee, Thomas R 1983. The right brain. New York: Berkley Books.Google Scholar
Bleier, Ruth. 1986. Sex differences research: Science or belief? In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Bleier, Ruth. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, John L 1980. Sex and side: A double dichotomy interacts. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:229–230.10.1017/S0140525X00004441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryden, M.P. 1979. Evidence for sex‐related differences in cerebral organization. In Sex‐related differences in cognitive functioning: Developmental issues, ed. Wittig, Michele Andrisen and Petersen, Anne C. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bryden, M.P. 1980. Sex differences in brain organization: Different brains or different strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:230–231.10.1017/S0140525X00004453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buffery, Anthony and Gray, Jeffery A. 1972. Sex differences in the development of spatial and linguistic skills. In Gender differences: Their ontogeny and significance, ed. Ounsted, Christopher and Taylor, David D. Edinburgh: Churchill & Livingstone.Google Scholar
Cole, MichaelGay, John, Glick, Joseph A. and Donald, Sharp 1971. The cultural context of learning and thinking: An exploration in experimental anthropology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Coulter, Jeff. 1979. The social construction of mind. New Jersey: Roman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Coulter, Jeff. 1983. Cognitive theory revisited. New York: St. Martin's Press.10.1007/978-1-349-06706-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, Mary. 1982. Gyn/ecology. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, Anne 1985. Myths of gender. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fee, Elizabeth. 1980. Nineteenth century crainology: The study of the female skull. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 53:415–433.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, Steven Jay 1981. The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Gould, Steven Jay 1984. Biological potentiality vs. biological determinism. In Designer genes: I.Q. ideology and biology, ed. Leng, Chee Heng and Khoon, Chan Chee Maylasia: Institute for Social Analysis.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merill B. 1983. Discovering reality. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Ruth. 1979. Have only men evolved? In Women look at biology looking at women, ed. Hubbard, Ruth, Henifin, Mary Sue and Fried, Barbara. Cambridge, MA: Schenkkman.Google Scholar
Jaggar, Alison M 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Kinsbourne, Marcel. 1980. If sex differences in brain lateralization exist, they have yet to be discovered. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:241–242.10.1017/S0140525X00004581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jerre. 1972. Lateral specialization of the human brain: Behavioral manifestations and possible evolutionary basis. In The biology of behavior, ed. Kiger, J.A. Jr. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R.C. and Rose, Steven and Leon, Kamin 1984. Not in our genes. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Maccoby, Eleanor Emmons and Jacklin, Carol Nagy 1974. The psychology of sex differences. California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
McGuinnes, Diane. 1980. Strategies, demands, and lateralized sex differences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:244.10.1017/S0140525X00004635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuinness, Diane and Janet, Sparks 1983. Cognitive style and cognitive maps in representations of a familiar terrain. Journal of Mental Imagery 7 (2):91–100.Google Scholar
Marks, Elaine and De Courtivron, Isabelle 1980. New French feminisms. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, M.J. 1980. Influences of sex on variation in human brain asymmetry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:244–245.10.1017/S0140525X00004647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, Sharon Churnin 1979. Sex‐role as a mediator of intellectual functioning. In Sex-related differences. See Bryden 1979.Google Scholar
Needham, Rodney, ed. 1973. Right and left: Essays on dual symbolic classification. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rich, Adrienne. 1976. Of woman born. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Sayers, Janet. 1982. Biological politics: Feminist and anti‐feminist perspectives. New York: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Springer, Sally P and Georg, Deutsch 1981. Left brain, right brain. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh 1979. Sex differences and the dichotomization of the brain: Methods, limits, and problems in research on consciousness. In Genes and gender II: Pitfalls in research on sex and gender, ed. Hubbard, Ruth and Lowe, Marian New York: Gordian Press.Google Scholar
Vandenberg, Steven and Ruse, Allan R. 1979. Spatial ability: A critical review of the sex‐related major gene hypothesis. In Sex‐related differences. See Bryden 1979.Google Scholar
Waber, Deborah. 1979. Cognitive abilities and sex‐related variations in the maturation of the cerebral cortical functions. In Sex related differences. See Bryden 1979.Google Scholar
Wittig, Michele Andrisen 1979. Genetic influences on sex‐related differences in intellectual performance: Theoretical and methodological issues. In Sex‐related differences. See Bryden 1979.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Sybil. 1973. Basic differences of thought. In Modes of thought, ed. Horton, Robin and Finnegan, Ruth London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar