Originally posted by alltoomanyWomen, afaik, have not done as much as men in many fields, not just religion. And while male oppression is likely part of the reason, IMO it's an oversimplification to say that accounts for the whole picture. I think the Bell curve also has something to say about it. Ie, more males lie at both extremes of the curve than females, so then, naturally, you'd have more men than women that are geniuses, mystics, etc, just like you'd have more men than women that are morons, simpletons, etc.
it's a very interesting thought...
Originally posted by Mindship
Women, afaik, have not done as much as men in many fields, not just religion. And while male oppression is likely part of the reason, IMO it's an oversimplification to say that accounts for the whole picture. I think the Bell curve also has something to say about it. Ie, more males lie at both extremes of the curve than females, so then, naturally, you'd have more men than women that are geniuses, mystics, etc, just like you'd have more men than women that are morons, simpletons, etc.
Mother nature could be a moron?
Originally posted by Mindship
Women, afaik, have not done as much as men in many fields, not just religion. And while male oppression is likely part of the reason, IMO it's an oversimplification to say that accounts for the whole picture. I think the Bell curve also has something to say about it. Ie, more males lie at both extremes of the curve than females, so then, naturally, you'd have more men than women that are geniuses, mystics, etc, just like you'd have more men than women that are morons, simpletons, etc.
those "tails" aren't nearly large enough to account for the sheer numbers you are talking about. The male distribution curve would need to dwarf the female one for that to be true, also, we'd see a much more disproportionate amount of men on the lower end. come to think of it, I suppose their might have been more males in the group homes for the mentally handicapped that I worked in, but not but a huge majority...
Anyways, most geniuses, mystics, etc, don't come from those tails anyways. They come from people working hard and being given opportunity. Every "name" we remember from history isn't some one in a billion super mega genius.
Originally posted by inimalistIn the special ed classes I work with, in a class of 15, you'll have, typically, only 1 or 2 females. Also, I did mention male oppression as another factor.
those "tails" aren't nearly large enough to account for the sheer numbers you are talking about. The male distribution curve would need to dwarf the female one for that to be true, also, we'd see a much more disproportionate amount of men on the lower end. come to think of it, I suppose their might have been more males in the group homes for the mentally handicapped that I worked in, but not but a huge majority...
Originally posted by inimalist"Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration."
Anyways, most geniuses, mystics, etc, don't come from those tails anyways. They come from people working hard and being given opportunity. Every "name" we remember from history isn't some one in a billion super mega genius.
...so for the most part what you're saying may be true. However, there are some exceptional individuals by the time you get to the 3rd standard deviation; and if they work as hard as the lower deviations -- well, all else being equal, they are more likely to make breakthroughs, or whatever.
Off the top of my head: would not Einstein, Newton or Mozart be considered bona fide geniuses?
Originally posted by inimalist
those "tails" aren't nearly large enough to account for the sheer numbers you are talking about. The male distribution curve would need to dwarf the female one for that to be true, also, we'd see a much more disproportionate amount of men on the lower end. come to think of it, I suppose their might have been more males in the group homes for the mentally handicapped that I worked in, but not but a huge majority...Anyways, most geniuses, mystics, etc, don't come from those tails anyways. They come from people working hard and being given opportunity. Every "name" we remember from history isn't some one in a billion super mega genius.
Some of them surely are though.
Originally posted by inimalist
lolyou mean if it were written by people who weren't in a position of authority?
because women in positions of authority don't act very different from males
Because they have no other choice; they have to. Women bosses who don't act like men quickly find that their employees start to walk all over them. Less than 5% of all CEO's in the US are women, and even women in lower level mangement are still fish out of water.
I've had several women bosses in the past, and they've all told me things along those lines. They basically have to conform to the business world which was made by men, for men.
Originally posted by Mindship
Off the top of my head: would not Einstein, Newton or Mozart be considered bona fide geniuses?
Newton, ok, fine. Mozart, forgive my ignorance, but I can't say for sure... I just don't know...
Einstein... no. I'm not going to say he is in the class of "super amazing genius". This could even be said of Newton to some degree, but in both cases, they merely articulated what was "on the tip of everyone's tongue" at the time. I have a lot of problems with looking at individual scientists and saying "look at how smart they are", as if science can ever be an individual accomplishment.
Einstein is probably the best example of this too. As a young man, he revolutionized the ffield. As an old man, he argued to his grave against the next generation of people like him. There is a weird trend in science, you contribute your part before you are 35, then everything you say is counter-productive. Was Einstein smart? sure, of course.
Here, not to compare myself to Einstein, but it is somewhat similar in my field. I come from a philosophy/sociology background, and am learning in my textbooks the things it took the top people in my field their careers to figure out. Not only do I have (errrrr....) close to equivalent knowledge as them (not in the application or bredth, but you get my point), but compared to many of my peers who are bio and chem students, I can look at problems from perspectives they don't even think about. I look at Einstein more as that type of intellectual. Again, I'm not even close to as important or intelligent, but I think, as a culture, we like our heroes, and that isn't really congruent with the steady march of science, which is ultimately faceless. People graduating 1st/2nd year physics courses understand relativity better than Einstein did.
(Thats cool about the special ed courses though, well, not cool, but interesting. I've got a sort of pet theory about boys with problems being ignored by the system because of the push for "equal class time" [god, this sounds terrible without me expanding it]. Are these kids potentially of that type, or are they really just the low end of the bell curve?)
Originally posted by Bardock42
Some of them surely are though.
the best example of this, I tend to think, are the top tier chess players in the world. strangely enough, pretty much 100% men. Importantly, chess is a major sport in Russia, where there aren't the same pressures against women in science and math. It actually does imply something biological, but let me stress, only in like the top percent of a percent. Basically, its not the "maleness" that makes them good at chess, but something else that only comes with male genetics.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Because they have no other choice; they have to. Women bosses who don't act like men quickly find that their employees start to walk all over them. Less than 5% of all CEO's in the US are women, and even women in lower level mangement are still fish out of water.I've had several women bosses in the past, and they've all told me things along those lines. They basically have to conform to the business world which was made by men, for men.
can I present my mother as exhibit b?
obviously there are exceptions to every rule (she calls herself a feminist, and is a very well paid lobbyist for the food industry of Ontario), but I tend to think what they are calling "maleness" are expectations of power that everyone has to conform to. Our society does more to culture these qualities in men through gendered play at young ages, and through what type of media is targeted at the kids, or even stuff as simple as how we punish misbehaviour in boys and girls.
I don't disagree ultimately, except to say, I don't think it is anything "male" that makes a better boss. The same way there are women who would make much, much better soldiers than I, or cops, etc.
Originally posted by alltoomany
don't ACT different from males, why do you think that is?
as I was just saying, there are certain qualities that will make you an effective leader, and having power itself fosters certain qualities in people. Females are no less suceptable to these pressures, and if they want to succeed, they have to play the game.