Pinky and the Brain

*Warning : long rant ahead* :)

Again, I apologise... :) I'm not talking about the wacky cartoon mouse-duo who strive to take over the world. I'm talking about the Pinky... as in finger...

An article was recently published in the newspapers, linking finger-length ratio to one's spatial intelligence (i.e. the ability to see and manipulate objects in 3 dimension). People with longer index (2nd) fingers than ring fingers were found to have higher levels of testosterone (a sex hormone) than people with similar-length index and ring fingers. Those with greater finger-length ratios (ie greater differences in length) were also correlated with possessing a greater spatial ability, and thus a stronger grasp of subjects such as mathematics and hard sciences.

In another journal, Neuroimage, different brain-cell types were found to differ between females and males. Males were found to have a greater percentage of grey-matter in areas that were related to isolated tasks and local processing (ie mathematical manipulations and hard sciences), while females were found to have a greater percentage of white-matter in their brains (white matter is necessary for integrating information, such as for language).

In other words, males were 'predisposed' to a better spatial ability, and were hence innately better-suited to mathematical and scientific manipulations (which was similar to a comment made by Harvard's chief executive before all these findings were publicised).

So is it true? Are males really innately better at math, science, and navigation because of their biological make-up? While I have a few male friends who could easily get you lost in complicated mathematical or scientific arguments, those same friends would (very) easily get themselves lost while trying to get from point A to point B. Similarly, I've got female friends who can wind through unknown territories and obscure alleys to get to their destinations, yet could not figure out even the first step in solving a math problem. And vice versa. Female friends who were absolutely brilliant in maths and science, and male friends who were just clueless at these subjects.

Yes, we are embarking on the age-old argument for gender equality (or inequality). Personally, I'm not a feminist, I believe we were created to be different. There are innate differences between the two genders, just look at our physical composition : each gender has specific organs (and curves) that are... well, okay... more developed than the other gender. Males are better at certain sports such as athletics (and full-contact rugby *ouch*) because of their more-muscular builds, while women are better at others such as gymnastics and rhythmics (and touch rugby) because of their agility and grace.

However, I do not support the view that one gender is superior to the other. We all have the same two eyes, two arms, two legs, one heart and one mind. We are not limited to only one set of abilities and skills. We are both as capable at surpassing our abilities if we put our minds to it, and can be just as resilient in the face of challenges and adversity. I am a strong advocate of equal opportunity, but do NOT advocate the idea of complete uncompromisable equality between sexes that embodies the attitudes of many feminists today. I'm still impressed by displays of chivalry, such as when male friends hold open doors for myself and other females.

I guess I'm just crying foul at the preconceived notion that our choices and abilities are determined by our biology and genes. It was these stereotypical ideas that sparked my aversion to the colour pink, even in childhood, as a silent banner of protest against the over-generalisation that 'all girls like pink' (don't get me wrong, I don't hate all things pink, I just avoid getting any pink-coloured belongings or clothes). Phrases like 'Boys play with Transformers, girls play with Barbie dolls...' may also have resulted in my other aversion to Barbie dolls, but then again, I think it's because I find their their big eyes and perpetual fixed grins rather creepy...

And ideas like 'boys are better at maths, girls are better at arts' - these ideas perpetuate such gender stereotypes, and make it challenging and more difficult for women to excel in male-dominated areas, such as in mathematics, engineering, and the sciences. Yet, research by Elizabeth Fennema and her co-workers from the University of Wisconsin has shown that mathematical ability and achievement is not distributed according to gender. It's not about the genes. It was a conscious (or unconscious) choice by many females to go into other areas besides these, possibly due to the reiteration of stereotypes that these domains were 'the preserve of males', or the institutions' lack of support for their other commitments (eg. family). Ironically, it was also reported in another newspaper article that grant applications by females were more likely to get approved. (Yes! My project supervisor is a female! $$$... And a very capable one too! :)

If we are equally capable at doing something, then we should have the same opportunity to put in our efforts, and equally deserve the recognition for our work and achievements. It shouldn't depend on whether we're male or female, Asian or Caucasian, native or foreigner, young or old. That's what equal opportunity is about.

Even if we're lab mice, and want to take over the world tonight.