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.
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.
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'
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Supra
We get it you dont like women
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
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.
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).
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? 😕 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.