I’ve been chatting via e-mail with readers about the nature v. nurture argument and for the sake of simplifying the discussion, I’m posting the chat in the blog.

Without a background in biology or anthropology, I can’t add much to the discussion about why men and women are different. So, instead I ask, does it matter why men and women are different? If Brooks and crew are right, that genetics helps determine personality, does it take us to places that we don’t want to go? TJ says yes. Genetics can be used to rationalize all sorts of inequalities. The world has been predestined to be run by men and the home front by women. And I agree with him. Yes, I can see how the genetics argument can take us places that I don’t want to go. I definitely think that Brooks was going there. Genetics has be used throughout history to justify all sorts of other inequities about race and class. Phrenology was used to explain “deficiencies” in certain ethnic groups.

However, I think that why were are different can be a huge distraction and that the thing to do as progressives is to move beyond this discussion to figure out how to lessen these inequities with smart educational programs and smart social policy. Genetics doesn’t have to mean destiny. For example, if little girls are more likely to be obedient, a trait that serves them well in school, but not in the larger world, then we need to teach them to break rules. Nurture can overcome genetic tendencies.