It's objectively obvious that men's bodies and women's bodies are different -- in some ways -- men have penises, women have uteruses, men have more testosterone, on average, women have more estrogen, on average, and so forth, but why do you assume that men's brains and women's brains must be wired differently?
It seems to me that the logical outcome of trying to find "male" ways of teaching math to males and "female" ways of teaching math to females is to lump all males together, regardless of how their brains are actually wired, and lump all females together, regardless of how their brains are actually wired, and that would be supremely stupid, as well as unethical.
Here's why I say this:
When the federal government forced Exxon to hire women to work in the refineries, I took their battery of aptitude tests, and they told me that I scored higher on spatial ability than anybody else who had ever taken the test -- male or female.
Spatial ability is, of course, traditionally considered to be a "male" ability. If we did things the way you suggest, my superior spatial ability would be irrelevant, because I am female, thus, cannot possibly be wired better in spatial ability than males. My unique abilities would be irrelevant.
You'd be killing me with kindness by putting me into another pink collar ghetto so I can be taught "female" ways of using spatial abilities, just as men always do with women if they get the chance to do.
I think that the right way to do things is to let people rise or fall based on their own unique inherent abilities.
The Supreme Court got it right about race in Brown vs. Board of Education. Separate is never equal, and will never be equal. Segregation based on race is inherently discriminatory. Likewise, segregation based on sex is inherently discriminatory.
There is no ethical way to discriminate between individuals based on their membership in a class. The only ethical way to behave towards individuals is to treat them as individuals. |
