Have and do women contribute as much to Culture, Science and Art as men?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Anthony Stark
Do women and have women contributed as much to Culture, Art and Science as men. In terms of both quality and quantity? Has feminism increased the female contribution in these areas? Should we value the female intellect as highly?

Astner
No. Yes. Yes.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Astner
No. Yes. Yes.

Proportionately? Evidence please.

Astner
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Proportionately?
It doesn't have to be proportionate when your asking whether or not it has increased.

Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Evidence please.
Evidence for what? Be more specific.

Bardock42
I'm in agreement with Astner

Oliver North
considering they were actively blocked from contributing to all of these until just recently (in most cases), I'd say no if we mean in aggregate. In terms of, have their limited contributions been just as important and groundbreaking? of course.

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Oliver North
In terms of, have their limited contributions been just as important and groundbreaking? of course.
Everytime someone says that, kevlar comes to my mind.

I wonder why? hm

Cyner
yes, no, yes

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by Astner
No. Yes. Yes.

Raisen
In all honesty we know that the answer is NO, NO, and NO, but some of them are nice to look at so who cares?

Oliver North
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Everytime someone says that, kevlar comes to my mind.

I wonder why? hm

strange, I was thinking of Simone de Beauvoir and Marie Currie

Oliver North
It's somewhat odd that culture is the one getting the most "no" answers, as it is arguably the only thing that women have been historically able to and allowed to have influence over. Even in situations where women were considered second class citizens, they often weren't the "victims" of culture, but found ways to express themselves in the limited roles they had...

EDIT: I suppose it depends on what people mean by "culture"

TheGodKiller
L1pepaAdkWA

Symmetric Chaos
Men have never contributed to culture, science, or art.

Lord Lucien
Originally posted by Astner
No. Yes. Trick question-they don't have one. I agree.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Oliver North
It's somewhat odd that culture is the one getting the most "no" answers, as it is arguably the only thing that women have been historically able to and allowed to have influence over. Even in situations where women were considered second class citizens, they often weren't the "victims" of culture, but found ways to express themselves in the limited roles they had...

EDIT: I suppose it depends on what people mean by "culture"

I think the answers are regarding the questions asked in the original post, rather than culture, science and art. At least my agreement with Astner was in answer to that.

Oliver North
oops, well I feel dumb now...

Mindship
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Do women and have women contributed as much to Culture, Art and Science as men. In terms of both quality and quantity? ..............Quality........Quantity
Culture......Yes..............Yes
Art............Yes..............Not sure
Science.....Yes..............No

Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Should we value the female intellect as highly?We could. Or we could go like the Kzinti.

Anthony Stark
On some levels women have influenced Culture and some rare examples have contributed to Science and Art at a very high level. Is this though a bit like monkeys with typewriters? You have enough, you get something worth reading out...

Where is the female Tesla, Lavoisier, da Vinci, Newton, Archimedes or even Karl Gauss? Where is the female Marx or Machiavelli. I think we have had a number of notable female martyrs who have made a difference. Women can be passionate but can they really on mass contribute?

MF DELPH
I think it's yes across the board, actually, though science is tricky. In art and culture women have contributed greatly by not only creating art (particularly music) but also in being the muse and inspiration from which many men produced their art (or for whom it is produced, also, again, particularly in music). While there's not a female equivalent that I am aware of for figures like Socrates, Newton, etc. (mainly due to gender inequality in Western Society keeping women out of higher learning for centuries/millenia), women are still the first teachers of children so they do contribute and provide the foundation.

Placidity
Wow. Have you guys manginas been enrolled in gender studies?

No.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by MF DELPH
While there's not a female equivalent that I am aware of for figures like Socrates, Newton, etc.

There aren't really equivalents to "Socrates, Newton, etc" among men either. Focusing on people who have been deified and popularized for their accomplishments is fairly pointless, no one is ever going to match them. Heck even Tesla wasn't as brilliant as angelTESLAangel.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by MF DELPH
I think it's yes across the board, actually, though science is tricky. In art and culture women have contributed greatly by not only creating art (particularly music) but also in being the muse and inspiration from which many men produced their art (or for whom it is produced, also, again, particularly in music). While there's not a female equivalent that I am aware of for figures like Socrates, Newton, etc. (mainly due to gender inequality in Western Society keeping women out of higher learning for centuries/millenia), women are still the first teachers of children so they do contribute and provide the foundation.

Some would argue the preponderance of women in Education is having a negative effect on culture and boys in particular. In terms of females as composers and musicians.... Mozart, The Beatles, Philip Glass, Hendrix, Led Zepplin etc. A muse undoubtedly contributes indirectly; however, does a muse directly create? Perhaps I should reword my initial opener as - Do women produce as much? Beyond kids that is. Re: Gender inequality is this more a biological instinct and natural nurturing role than something men (the bad guys) thrust upon them in the West? Joan of Arc, Lizzy the first, Boudica all wielded power, what was their legacy?

Lord Lucien
So are there any female members here who can weigh in on this?

Placidity
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So are there any female members here who can weigh in on this?

Not to hard to predict what their answer would be.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Placidity
Not to hard to predict what their answer would be.

But is it anymore of an honest answer than some pussy whipped posters here?

Oliver North
Originally posted by Anthony Stark

Where is the female Tesla, Lavoisier, da Vinci, Newton, Archimedes or even Karl Gauss? Where is the female Marx or Machiavelli. I think we have had a number of notable female martyrs who have made a difference. Women can be passionate but can they really on mass contribute?

in the rare cases, historically, where women were given the same opportunity as men to even participate in science, we don't recognize the spectacular among them because they weren't recognized in their own time. I forget her name, but a woman demonstrated that the atom could be split decades before it was presented by the male scientists who are credited with the discovery, it isn't that there is no female Tesla, it is that the female Tesla was almost certainly not given the opportunity, and if she was, was likely ignored by the wider scientific community due to mysogyny at every level of society.

and not being able to think of a female equivalent to Marx speaks far more about your own knowledge base than about women :/ for instance, ummm, Rand lol, Hannah Arrendt, de Bouvouir who I mentioned earlier... etc, you know, if you just want the ones I can think of off the top of my head...

Mindset
Originally posted by Mindship
..............Quality........Quantity
Culture......Yes..............Yes
Art............Yes..............Not sure
Science.....Yes..............No

thumb up

Supra
No..yes..no...no

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
I forget her name, but a woman demonstrated that the atom could be split decades before it was presented by the male scientists who are credited with the discovery

I spat my tea out at that erm

Oliver North
to be fair, I also don't remember the male who did it, not being a historian of physics or being bothered to do a google search

Supra
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Do women and have women contributed as much to Culture, Art and Science as men. In terms of both quality and quantity? Has feminism increased the female contribution in these areas? Should we value the female intellect as highly?

Lol this coming from the guy with a Naked Tony Stark in his pic and sig..lmao

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
to be fair, I also don't remember the male who did it, not being a historian of physics or being bothered to do a google search

Uh huh, so when the rare triumphant female scientist is triumphant, female and a scientist, you can' be bothered to remember her name or search for it. Shame, shame on you..... erm

Oliver North
we're I a feminist historian of science, you might have a point

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
we're I a feminist historian of science, you might have a point

You're? More than one of you? huh? ;-)

Oliver North
haha, damn iPhone!

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
haha, damn iPhone!

I do question the accepted narrative that men kept women down in the west. To be completely honest; the number of men who had the education and money to be involved in the stated areas, was and is still very few. The vast majority of people from both sexes do not contribute intellectually to the advancement of humanity, even within the groups wealthy enough and educated enough to be able to do so.

Supra
Originally posted by Placidity
Wow. Have you guys manginas been enrolled in gender studies?

No.

Many have bought tampons and pads and are using them

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Supra
Many have bought tampons and pads and are using them

Many put wimmin on pedestals....

Oliver North
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
I do question the accepted narrative that men kept women down in the west. To be completely honest; the number of men who had the education and money to be involved in the stated areas, was and is still very few. The vast majority of people from both sexes do not contribute intellectually to the advancement of humanity, even within the groups wealthy enough and educated enough to be able to do so.

sure, but even among the privileged, women were excluded

Supra
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Many put wimmin on pedestals....

Your gay or straight?

Bardock42
It's sort of the point though, exceptional female scientists and artist are rarely given anything close to the deification that certain male individuals are given.

But the important point, imo, is the fact that women weren't and still often aren't (although perhaps in subtler ways) the same opportunities to participate in the discussed realms.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, but even among the privileged, women were excluded

To a point, I would question why in far more egalitarian times, where almost equal numbers of those able have almost equal access to the education required to achieve; we do not see equal levels of achievement and contribution. If women are truly equal in ability.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Supra
Your gay or straight?

I am neither gay nor straight, I am a celibate warrior monk.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's sort of the point though, exceptional female scientists and artist are rarely given anything close to the deification that certain male individuals are given.

But the important point, imo, is the fact that women weren't and still often aren't (although perhaps in subtler ways) the same opportunities to participate in the discussed realms.

I would disagree, you don't see a male scientists day or posters of spurious male scientists on school walls. As you do with female scientists.

Please expand on the 'subtler ways'

Bardock42
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
To a point, I would question why in far more egalitarian times, where almost equal numbers of those able have almost equal access to the education required to achieve; we do not see equal levels of achievement and contribution. If women are truly equal in ability.

Development and education is hardly equal among genders now. Neither are cultural expectations and narratives. These are very strong and fundamental differences. A good example is computer science, the different ratios between genders in different countries currently, and the vast differences over the decades in these ratios show what a huge influence cultural expectations and narratives have.

Innate, natural ability is the last thing we should jump to in explaining differences in genders in our society. It is almost impossible to test or account for.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Bardock42
Development and education is hardly equal among genders now. Neither are cultural expectations and narratives. These are very strong and fundamental differences. A good example is computer science, the different ratios between genders in different countries currently, and the vast differences over the decades in these ratios show what a huge influence cultural expectations and narratives have.

Innate, natural ability is the last thing we should jump to in explaining differences in genders in our society. It is almost impossible to test or account for.

Isn't that through choice? Certainly in the U.K. women do better than boys till 16+ education, mainly due to coursework. Boys score higher on tests. Equal numbers - almost - go to University. The choice of courses does though divide here...

Innate, natural ability may well be the first thing that explains the differences in gender. I'm not so sure it is impossible to test or account for. I think using outcomes rather than supposition or theory it becomes relatively simple.

Bardock42
Sure, it is sort of "choice", however a choice strongly influenced but what society expects and envisions for women vs. men.

The differences that things like priming for gender alone can make in even the most extreme differences between the genders, like spatial reasoning, makes a natural explanation extremely unlikely. And, imo, should discount most studies that are done without accounting for these narratives.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, it is sort of "choice", however a choice strongly influenced but what society expects and envisions for women vs. men.

The differences that things like priming for gender alone can make in even the most extreme differences between the genders, like spatial reasoning, makes a natural explanation extremely unlikely. And, imo, should discount most studies that are done without accounting for these narratives.

Hmmm, but does priming for gender mean the same as it once did. I could and will argue in the U.K. White working class boys are primed to fail in a way white working class girls are not. In both of these groups the opportunities we are talking about rarely appear.

In more affluent male and females, the emphasis is often on a traditional profession; Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant.

In the most affluent, we tend to see more classical subjects studied, History, Art etc.

Surely with these demographics only outcome becomes usable within each group.

Supra
We get it you dont like women

Placidity
Originally posted by Supra
We get it you dont like women

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive

Supra
The well has been poised

Silent_Bomber
No, I don't think so.

Generally women are more focused, and interested in other things, such as socialising with friends, family, and consumerism.

Though as always there are certainly exceptions to the rule.

Bardock42
-

Bardock42
Sorry, had to extend my post a bit, here we go:



Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Hmmm, but does priming for gender mean the same as it once did. I could and will argue in the U.K. White working class boys are primed to fail in a way white working class girls are not. In both of these groups the opportunities we are talking about rarely appear.

In more affluent male and females, the emphasis is often on a traditional profession; Doctor, Lawyer, Accountant.

In the most affluent, we tend to see more classical subjects studied, History, Art etc.

Surely with these demographics only outcome becomes usable within each group.

No one is denying that we are closer to gender equality now than we have been. And there is an issue with lack of upward mobility, I don't have stats on whether that affects men or women more however, but it's probably not good for either.

And I do agree to a degree, that, especially in early schooling, certain traits which society determines to be feminine can be a slight advantage. However this advantage is quickly lost once out of school, as other gendered expectations handicap women.

And I completely disagree with your conclusion. Splitting classes into what they prefer to study, disregarding for the moment whether the classification you've given is correct, does not in any way get rid of gender expectations for the people within the groups. If you want to make statements about natural ability, you have to account for so much cultural input that it is a) hard to draw any conclusions and b) completely useless statements if you don't take them into account.

An approach more akin to economic research is necessary to get any understanding of the influence of gender as defined by society. Accidental experiments and historical evidence gives some of the best points about just how much has already proven to be nonsense. To me, partly cause that is my field of slight expertise, examples in computer science of the split in men and women being so immensely up to culture, even though many gender essentialists will hold that there is an innate difference in men and women's ability in the subject are mind-boggling. A drop of women in computer science in the US from 38% to around 12% in 30 years, as culture has deemed computer science to be a "male subject" for example is something that a gender essentialist has to bend over backwards to explain away.

One of the most striking examples against the "Oh, that's just what girls naturally like" view, vs. the more real "that's what society teaches girls to like" (while surely not completely accurate, definitely more accurate than the earlier) is the insane fact that until the early 20th century, in the US pink was strongly associated with boys, and only marketing and a cultural shift has then, arbitrarily I might add, decided that this color (and only this color) should be associated with girls. An argument of "Oh, girls just naturally prefer pink" can't possibly be made when considering the facts, similarly all sorts of gendered toys and games are a result of society's indoctrination, not society taking what girls or boys enjoy naturally.


And while I can't be absolutely sure, it is my belief that almost all gender essentialism as it is widely practiced and held today, can be discarded as nonsense. At least if the trajectory of information showing natural gender differences to be false and made up continues.

tl;dr girls and boys aren't that different

Tzeentch._
It's interesting how mild Bardock's gotten over the years. He's getting old.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
It's interesting how mild Bardock's gotten over the years. He's getting old.

We are all getting old.

Mindset
I'm not.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Bardock42

And I completely disagree with your conclusion. Splitting classes into what they prefer to study, disregarding for the moment whether the classification you've given is correct, does not in any way get rid of gender expectations for the people within the groups. If you want to make statements about natural ability, you have to account for so much cultural input that it is a) hard to draw any conclusions and b) completely useless statements if you don't take them into account.

An approach more akin to economic research is necessary to get any understanding of the influence of gender as defined by society. Accidental experiments and historical evidence gives some of the best points about just how much has already proven to be nonsense. To me, partly cause that is my field of slight expertise, examples in computer science of the split in men and women being so immensely up to culture, even though many gender essentialists will hold that there is an innate difference in men and women's ability in the subject are mind-boggling. A drop of women in computer science in the US from 38% to around 12% in 30 years, as culture has deemed computer science to be a "male subject" for example is something that a gender essentialist has to bend over backwards to explain away.

One of the most striking examples against the "Oh, that's just what girls naturally like" view, vs. the more real "that's what society teaches girls to like" (while surely not completely accurate, definitely more accurate than the earlier) is the insane fact that until the early 20th century, in the US pink was strongly associated with boys, and only marketing and a cultural shift has then, arbitrarily I might add, decided that this color (and only this color) should be associated with girls. An argument of "Oh, girls just naturally prefer pink" can't possibly be made when considering the facts, similarly all sorts of gendered toys and games are a result of society's indoctrination, not society taking what girls or boys enjoy naturally.


And while I can't be absolutely sure, it is my belief that almost all gender essentialism as it is widely practiced and held today, can be discarded as nonsense. At least if the trajectory of information showing natural gender differences to be false and made up continues.

tl;dr girls and boys aren't that different

You see the nature/gender essentialism, as practised today is difficult to discard as nonsense when we see how feminine some boys are who have hormonal inbalances. I would argue the caricature of a lisping sissy may be an unpleasant mockery, but within it and the choices such an individual makes - we can see how he is influenced by his hormonal drives to bi*ch about people and take a hairdressing course. The same can be seen with girls who have a hormone imbalance- they are likely to visit the lisping sissy to get their crew cut, whilst wearing their dungerees. I would argue the stereotypes continue over into Education and eventually world contribution. It's not preposterous to envisage such a model.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
To a point, I would question why in far more egalitarian times, where almost equal numbers of those able have almost equal access to the education required to achieve; we do not see equal levels of achievement and contribution. If women are truly equal in ability.

we see increasingly equal levels of achievement that has yet to penetrate to the highest echelons of the corporate and scientific worlds, sure. However, compared to the 50-70s, it is much more equal, and the trend suggests that it will continue in that direction. At the end of the day there still may be things like biological differences in the approach to child rearing, competition, etc, that slant things in various directions, but it is sort of inarguable that things are getting more evenly distributed. I don't think a failure to immediately create an equal distribution of power between the genders means that women don't achieve as much, as if you talk to women who do science, they will still tell you they feel pressures that men do not (my girlfriend and I are both in graduate studies in science, I can give some anecdotes about this type of thing if you want).

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
we see increasingly equal levels of achievement that has yet to penetrate to the highest echelons of the corporate and scientific worlds, sure. However, compared to the 50-70s, it is much more equal, and the trend suggests that it will continue in that direction. At the end of the day there still may be things like biological differences in the approach to child rearing, competition, etc, that slant things in various directions, but it is sort of inarguable that things are getting more evenly distributed. I don't think a failure to immediately create an equal distribution of power between the genders means that women don't achieve as much, as if you talk to women who do science, they will still tell you they feel pressures that men do not (my girlfriend and I are both in graduate studies in science, I can give some anecdotes about this type of thing if you want).

You have a real girlfriend? confused Bardock I can believe might have, he seems like a ladies man, you though not so much. Good for you though.

Back to topic, do you see your girlfriend as your creative equal within your field of expertise...? Answer honestly.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
Back to topic, do you see your girlfriend as your creative equal within your field of expertise...? Answer honestly.

yes, and objectively she is much more successful than I am as well.

I'd say in general I might be more outside-the-box in terms of creativity and such, but in terms of contribution to science, etc, I am certainly in her shadow.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, and objectively she is much more successful than I am as well.

I'd say in general I might be more outside-the-box in terms of creativity and such, but in terms of contribution to science, etc, I am certainly in her shadow.

Spoken like a well trained youg man. ;-)

Oliver North
so evidence that contradicts your first thesis is simply evidence that men are trained?

I can't pretend I expected much better...

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
so evidence that contradicts your first thesis is simply evidence that men are trained?

I can't pretend I expected much better...

That's not what I said; however, personal testimony is subjective evidence at best. Please produce evidence and don't get so upset, the snarky comment was in jest it wasn't meant seriously. You know, it was a masculine locker room punch in the arm style joke between guys. Tongue in cheek etc.

Oliver North
I provided factual and suggested anecdotal evidence.

Are you suggesting women aren't more represented in the highest levels of science than they were 40 years ago?

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
I provided factual and suggested anecdotal evidence.

Are you suggesting women aren't more represented in the highest levels of science than they were 40 years ago?

Really? You sure?

I am suggesting given the equality of access to higher Education in most Western Countries, that the results and representation have not reflected this. Even when you factor in gender socialisation.

Oliver North
so, it is a failure because the change is gradual?

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
so, it is a failure because the change is gradual? I would be interested to see if the change is stagnant or even in decline. Figures would be interesting.

TheGodKiller
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There aren't really equivalents to "Socrates, Newton, etc" among men either. Focusing on people who have been deified and popularized for their accomplishments is fairly pointless, no one is ever going to match them. Heck even Tesla wasn't as brilliant as angelTESLAangel.
I am not sure about others' opinions regarding this issue, but Emmy Noether's name always comes to my mind when I hear the big names like those mentioned in this quote.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I am not sure about others' opinions regarding this issue, but Emmy Noether's name always comes to my mind when I hear the big names like those mentioned in this quote.

Whilst her work probably was one of the greatest women ever she lacked the theoretical to practical application ability of most of those mentioned above.

TheGodKiller
Most of her work being purely theoretical in nature, and not doesn't have anything to with this though, amirite? Nevermind the fact that her Theorem is a pretty important practical tool in modern theoretical physics?

Or are you merely trying to bite on someone's personal opinion as part of your faux misogynistic gimmick on this thread?

Oliver North
Originally posted by Anthony Stark
I would be interested to see if the change is stagnant or even in decline. Figures would be interesting.

www.google.com

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Most of her work being purely theoretical in nature, and not doesn't have anything to with this though, amirite? Nevermind the fact that her Theorem is a pretty important practical tool in modern theoretical physics?

Or are you merely trying to bite on someone's personal opinion as part of your faux misogynistic gimmick on this thread?

The theoretical nature of their work I would argue is one of the differences in the way the few female Scientists of note function. This perhaps is a notable difference and something which requires highlighting. I am sure some women are able to make the leap from theory to application themselves......... certainly.

Not at all and I see nothing misogynistic about this thread; faux, gimmicky or otherwise, I do see some posters social conditioning and world view prejudicing their ability to answer subjectively based on evidence.

Anthony Stark
Originally posted by Oliver North
www.google.com

I think Google is unlikely to help here.

Ushgarak
Troll thread- closed.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.