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.”

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe