Dispelling the myth of the gendered brain with Gina Rippon

Written by Gina Rippon

gendered brain

For International Women’s Day 2023, we interviewed Gina Rippon, Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Neuroimaging at Aston University (Birmingham, UK) and author of the book ‘The Gendered Brain’. Gina discusses her work dispelling the myths around gendered brains, how gender stereotyping influences children, as well as her advice to her younger self.

Please could you tell us about yourself and how you got to where you are today?

I’m a Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Neuroimaging at Aston University. I’m pretty much retired from active brain imaging now, but that’s what I’ve been doing throughout my academic career, particularly from 2000 at the Aston Brain Center. My background is in psychology and physiology: I did a first degree in psychology and my PhD on the cognitive neuroscience of schizophrenia. Since then, I’ve studied different areas within cognitive neuroscience, particularly trying to understand how and why brains are different. This drew me into arguments about sex differences in the brain, which I have been researching, writing and talking about for some time and then my book ‘The Gendered Brain’ came out in 2019.

Could you provide us with an overview of what’s discussed in your book?

It’s called ‘The Gendered Brain’ because I was trying to close the loop between different, age-old explanations of men’s and women’s different places in society.  There was a ‘biological determinist’ view, claiming that whatever it was that made men’s and women’s anatomy different also made their brains different, so they had a different set of skills and personalities, which then determined their ‘rightful’ place in society. This chain of argument was based on the notion of ‘hard-wired biology’. In the second wave of feminism, in the 1970s and 80s, this idea was quite sternly rejected. It was felt that women’s biology had been weaponized against them, and that the forces that had led to women being in inferior positions were just the result of patriarchal societies trying to keep women ‘in their place’.

Once brain imaging became more widely available, it was initially used to support the continuing argument that there were hard-wired sex differences in the brain.  However much we might like to take a socio-political, egalitarian view, there were fundamental biological differences that meant we couldn’t change things. My book was challenging that and saying that what goes on outside the brain can change brains as much as what goes on inside. We now know, in the last 30 years or so, that the brain is much more plastic and susceptible to what’s going on in the outside world and that attitudes and experiences that may, by the nature of society, be gendered, will impact differently on developing brains.

What are the implications of people thinking that the brain is gendered?

First of all, the original argument was that if it was biological, it was innate and fixed. You were hardwired, which meant that you had certain skills, but wouldn’t and couldn’t have others.  That was an important argument because it meant that effectively you had the brain you were born with and that would take you to where you were meant to be. I think the danger of taking that kind of view is that if you think something is biologically based, you believe it can’t be changed. We know that this ‘essentialist’ view is still playing out in all sorts of arenas today. If you look at the under-representation of women in science for example, or the generally poor position of women throughout the world, in society, politics or business, we need to recognize that these are not the end-products of a pre-determined pathway, but something we could and should be changed.

I’m not dismissing the idea that there are sex-based differences in the human brain, but we can’t just assume that these must be the result of some kind of internal biological programming. We need to determine what other factors might be causing those differences, why some people underperform or some people cluster in different kinds of skill sets. It’s important that we realize that these things can be changed and that what can change them is the agency that we have in constructing our society and, very importantly, in bringing up our children.

How do you think this research can help bridge gender gaps?

One of the things that we’ve been looking at recently is the effects of gender stereotypes in the early years. I’ve been part of a commission that the Fawcett Society (London, UK) set up to investigate how profound an influence gender stereotypes can have and whether there are negative consequences? The answer is a firm ‘yes’. We need to be very careful about the expectations we instill in young children about who they are, what they can and can’t do, as this can have knock-on effects in terms of how they view themselves and their futures. We want to be sure that any potential they have isn’t undermined by a generic stereotypical view of what being a girl is like and what being a boy is like.

Do you think we’re beginning to see a change in opinions?

I’m quite an optimistic person so I would say yes, I think we are. Just the fact that this commission was set up shows some sort of change. Toys are a hugely powerful influence on children, and we are seeing toy manufacturers look at the role they play in stereotyping. For example, Lego conducted a review that looked at the effect of gender stereotypes on creativity, and were so horrified by what they found that they said they would stop gendered toy marketing. France has also passed a law banning the gendered marketing of toys. I think people are starting to wake up to the fact that there are things out there that can make a difference and that they can do something about them.

What inspired you to write this book?

I’d been a very run-of-the-mill academic for most of my career. Then in 2010, I gave a talk at the British Science Festival, which was my first foray into public communication of science. The talk was about myth-busting the powerful idea that there are two types of brain, female and male, showing how the research doesn’t really support this idea and suggesting that maybe we should look at different explanations for gender gaps seen throughout the world. I was taken aback by the – not always positive – response to saying that men’s and women’s brains are much more similar than you think they are.

I’m not a sex-difference denier, which is one of the more polite things I have been called. I think every brain is different from every other brain and I think that’s probably the best way forward to actually try and understand the link between brain and behavior. The book aimed to challenge long-held beliefs about female and male brains, to look at all the different arguments that have been marshaled in this debate and assess how good they were. Further, if they didn’t stand up to such scrutiny, to discuss how else we could interpret the data, and what other factors should be taken into account.

What resources or networks have you found useful in your career particularly as a woman in science?

I think networks are really important. As an early-career researcher, I was part of what was the British Psychophysiology Society, now called the British Association of Cognitive Neuroscience. I found the networking opportunities their meetings offered, where you could try out some tentative ideas to experts and novices in the field and get feedback (positive and negative!) really beneficial.

With respect to the work I do now, there is an international network I belong to called NeuroGenderings. It’s a network not just of neuroscientists, but philosophers, sociologists and anthropologists, for example, who have an interest in arguments about gender and society, and how that has been attacked or justified by reference to neuroscience. It’s been useful to talk to people with different vocabularies and frameworks. I find this can be very challenging (in a good way), and I’m sure they find the same talking to neuroscientists but, particularly in this area, you need to ensure you’re not blinkered. You need to be much more interdisciplinary than perhaps in other areas.

What’s your advice to your younger self?

A single word possibly: focus – so many exciting questions to pursue!  But otherwise, with respect to personal experiences of being a woman in science, if you’re not happy with the status quo, either in your day-to-day life or in your academic discipline, then ‘call it out’. I think I’ve been pretty fortunate in terms of how gendered attitudes affected my career progression, but there were certainly points at which I feel I should have stood up more and drawn people’s attention to what was going on. Luckily, there are other people who have been prepared to do that and, perhaps rather tentatively, I joined them, but I would now tell my younger self to be more forthright! Also, make sure that whatever you’re doing, it is something you are passionate about, because that will carry you through all sorts of bad times as well as good ones.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

It’ll be interesting to see how International Women’s Day links up with areas such as the problem of the underrepresentation of women in science. Sometimes there is a feeling that science has opened its doors to women and therefore women are free to go and be scientists if they want to be – the so-called level playing field. I think that’s something that needs challenging. There is something called the gender equality paradox, which is the observation that in the most allegedly gender-equal countries, there’s the biggest underrepresentation of women in science. It would be interesting to get together with lots of other people on (and after) International Women’s Day and discuss this so-called paradox. The theme of IWD 2023 is equity and we need to make sure that everyone realizes there is still a long, long way to go.

You might also like: