New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Not Mars or Venus

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Men and women are not nearly as different as the media and pop psychologists would lead us to believe, according to a new metastudy of gender research.

Girls don’t have the same mathematical proclivity as boys? Not true. Men can’t communicate as well as women can in relationships? Not so either. And it turns out that the self-esteem problems usually associated with teenage girls are just as pronounced in teenage boys.

Of course, there are cognitive and emotional differences between the sexes, says Janet Shibley Hyde, a psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who reviewed 46 major gender studies done over the past 20 years. Males are indeed more physically aggressive, for example. But Hyde hopes her work reveals how we tend to concentrate on our differences instead of similarities and how we exaggerate any scientific finding that might unveil minor contrasts.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Humans like to categorize, Hyde explains, and once we devise categories we immediately start judging one as better than another. But there is a big social cost in getting hung up on claims that just aren’t supported. “If we believe men can’t communicate, what are the implications for, say, marriage?” Hyde asks. For example, why should a wife try to work things out with her husband if current culture tells her he is incapable of understanding her?

“If we say boys are better at math,” Hyde continues, “we’re potentially overlooking the mathematical talent of many girls.” That could mean girls unnecessarily limit their own career opportunities, and it also undermines a vast talent pool for scientific and technical professions. Rather than believing pop psychology, Hyde says, we need to listen to scientific data that “tell us when we’re holding on to false stereotypes.”

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe