Stereotyping women right out of science
scienceblogs.com
scienceblogs.com
Case in point, in a previous article he casually dismissed the whole Men's Rights movement, claiming that rape is commonly advocated by its activists. This is absolutely inane and inaccurate.
The feminist movement was born out of the desire to bring equality to both genders and to remove inequalities that affected many women. Over the years, a vocal fringe managed to go far beyond that noble intent, and started advocating hatred towards men. Guess what, they are a just a fringe. They don't invalidate the positive achievements of the movement.
The Men's Rights movement was born with a similar intent, to attempt to fix existing inequalities that affect many men today. In this movement, just like feminism, there are people who go too far, and instead of advocating equality, advocate hatred towards women.
Among feminists you will find a higher percentage of women with a bias against men. Among men's rights activists, you will find a higher percentage of men with a bias against women. And regardless of the movement, there will always be people who go too far.
The truth of the matter is that people have a hard time accepting the fact that males need a support/advocacy group too. Many people in today's society assume that being white, heterosexual, and male equates to not having any of your rights violated. This too is far from the truth. There are serious injustices and double standards that affect and destroy the lives of many men. Their rights should be defended just as much as those of women. And both efforts should be considered honorable and not shameful.
Men and women are different, we can't expect both sexes to be equal in every single regard. However, we can - and should - expect both sexes to have the same rights under the law. And there is nothing wrong with advocating that.
DISCLAIMER: I'm not part of the feminist or the Men's Rights movement; I simply consider myself in favor of equal rights. I support the right of both groups to exist, while not agreeing 100% with either of them.
</rant>
All animal rights activists are like PETA.
All anarchists throw bombs.
All Republicans are Tea Partiers.
All Christians are fundamentalists.
It seems like you have no critique with this article. Is that right? Because if so, what is the point of your comment here? Do you want people to ignore an article which you believe is correct just because you don't like something else the same author wrote? Shouldn't we be happy with correct articles no matter who wrote them?
Many people in today's society assume that being white, heterosexual, and male equates to not having any of your rights violated.
Ah, our old friend "many people". Many people in the US believe they've been abducted by aliens. Many people believe that the stars control their destiny. So what? It is a big planet. There are many many crazy people of every imaginable stripe. I associate with some hardcore leftists and radical feminists and none of them would ever accept your claim above. They'd find it bizarre.
As an aside, I'll point out any battle for women in science was lost long before women med students had to put up with their misogynistic counterparts. The issue is about the women who didn't make it to med school in the first place.
Women are not being told they can't do science anymore (that's what the article seems to be suggesting). Instead they're being told they need to look pretty and live up to certain standards of beauty. Living up to these standards is a lot of work for young girls and doesn't leave much time for much else. Men on the other hand can neglect such standards and still be socially accepted. I can't even imagine what a woman would go through if she dressed like your average male engineer.
It also depends on the woman how difficult these standards of beauty are achieving. Many of my female friends are engineers (comp, ee, cheg) and look excellent. Not because they "dress to the nines" but because they put on a little makeup and a nice shirt. The ones who were less accepted socially tended to be those who didn't take care of themselves, including the men.
Also, as a comp sci guy, I don't like the "tolerance for all quirks" thing we have going in some ways. It is great that we are passionate about our stuff, but there is social decorum that we should follow. Showers, general professionalism, and paying attention to how others feel about things -- these should not be considered polite suggestions but requisites.
really? In business, politics and law, we tolerate a lot of manipulative, egotistical assholes. why shouldn't the nerds get a break on some things, too? If I can save 20 minutes in the morning by throwing on jeans and a T shirt and not messing with my hair, really, what's the problem with that? why should I waste time/money on dressing nicely?
Really, I think the fact that nerds aren't held to the same level of 'professional appearance' as others of the same pay grade is that manipulating others, generally speaking, isn't our job.
The fact of the matter is, how someone dresses is simply not a good indicator of honesty, skill, or anything else you might actually care about.
I know my first impression, when I see someone in a suit, is "who is he trying to impress? and why can't he do it with his skills, rather than his appearance?"
I would love if life were a pure meritocracy filled with lollipops, puppy dogs and mediocre metaphors... but it isn't. There isn't a great way to determine the difference between honest, skill or anything else -- but if one person is willing to put on a suit and the other wants to opine about his irrelevant ethics... well we know who usually gets the job.
Let us also face the fact that we get a lot of egotistical assholes in tech -- except they do not bathe or make an attempt at decorum which is why people think we are so undesirable (according to the above). And the fact that someone is a slovenly self centered jackass that acts like a jerk to anyone who isn't a linux/vim fanboi that does xyz -- that doesn't mean he brings anymore value to a company of any size.
In my experience the best people have been pretty chill, bathe every day, observe general social decorum, and try not to act like jerks. I refer to both PhD and those sans BS.
I don't remember the last time I saw an experienced SysAdmin or Programmer interview in a suit and get the job. No, wait, I do. It was shortly after the .com crash. the applicant was mostly a visual basic programmer. Really old guy who was missing his index finger. He got the job, too, and was pretty good (he was doing something for our accounting systems, if I remember right) As I recall, I recommended the guy (It wasn't my decision, but being one of the other programmers, I got to make a recommendation) because he brought actual code to the interview, which is something else that is at least moderately unusual (not as unusual as the suit, but certainly not common.)
A nice shirt? sure. A tie? well, maybe. but a full on suit, from what I've seen, is pretty rare for technical positions, even during the interview.
Now, i've probably only participated in maybe 50 interviews for 'real companies' so my sample size isn't huge. it's possible that I just haven't seen the suits.
it depends on what you mean by 'the best' - some of the most effective people i know (in terms of 'getting things done' and making money) are somewhat less technically skilled, but have those social skills you are talking about. It really does give them an edge.
Nobody is saying that social skills and technical skills are not better than technical skills alone. However, for people who are technically skilled enough, well, they get a lot of slack when it comes to social skills.
The best technical people I know require some of that slack. social skills, just like technical skills, require effort and practice... nobody has the time to become the best at everything.
When were the biological arguments refuted? source? From what I've heard, there seems to be more evidence for the biological side now (eg http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07... ).
"Using contemporary data from the U.S. and other nations, we address 3 questions: Do gender differences in mathematics performance exist in the general population? Do gender differences exist among the mathematically talented? Do females exist who possess profound mathematical talent? In regard to the first question, contemporary data indicate that girls in the U.S. have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance, a pattern that is found in some other nations as well. Focusing on the second question, studies find more males than females scoring above the 95th or 99th percentile, but this gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations. Furthermore, data from several studies indicate that greater male variability with respect to mathematics is not ubiquitous. Rather, its presence correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes. Responding to the third question, we document the existence of females who possess profound mathematical talent. Finally, we review mounting evidence that both the magnitude of mean math gender differences and the frequency of identification of gifted and profoundly gifted females significantly correlate with sociocultural factors, including measures of gender equality across nations."
Let's be clear here though. There are indeed be biological differences between the male and female brain. Females may be better at certain tasks than males and vice-versa. The question is, is there evidence to suggest biological factors could play a significant role in explaining the extremely low amounts of women in science? Consider the fact that even if some biological difference in mathematical ability could be demonstrated, that wouldn't even come close to explaining the disparity. We're not trying to produce Nobel Laureates here, just scientists.
Your original comment said the biological arguments were "refuted". Lacking conclusive evidence for hypothesis A is a lot different than "refuting" hypothesis A. I think a more fair statement is that we don't really know.
The relevant biological differences may not be in math skills. It may be in competitiveness, risk taking, etc.
Or the biological origin may be second order. For instance, it may be true that men and women have the same innate drive towards competitiveness. But there is certainly a biological difference in what men and women find attractive. Men are attracted primarily to signs of fertility. Women are attracted to signals of status and dominance. Thus men might culturally condition themselves to be more competitive in order to earn status and get laid. Thus there will tend to be more men at the top of any high status, competitive field. The roots of this will be biological, but the effect is second or third order.
the biological arguments have been proven to have no merit
However, in terms of interest they could have a lot of merit. Innate interest is often invoked to explain why a ridiculous number of women go to veterinary school, for instance. Did you know that the first Humane Societies were started by women, in a time when women did pretty much absolutely nothing?
In this case, "woo" refers to the "softer" attributes often associated with women - nurturing, caring, feeling.
"Woo woo, a term used by scientific skeptics for pseudoscience, alternative medicine and New Age beliefs."
Just because a word has multiple definitions doesn't mean you can pick one that doesn't apply and call me wrong.
Is it that simple?
It's my understanding that most med school admits these days are women.
I've also heard that surgeons are atypical doctors.
If either of those are true, the conclusion is questionable.
Also, medicine isn't all or even most of science.
And as far as your question goes "is it really that simple?" In the context I presented (effective early education versus discrimination in the workplace), I personally believe it is that simple. Women with talents in the sciences wont be ignored simply because they are too valuable to business and society. We just need to figure out a way to produce more technically skilled women. While we're at it, we should probably figure out a way to produce more technically skilled men too. Getting people to go into technical fields is already difficult, it just happens to be more difficult with women because of social factors.
On the other hand, I sometimes get the impression (I am primarily viewing this as a teacher of elementary age pupils) that persons with talents in the sciences ARE ignored (at early school age) even though they will be valuable to business and society if they develop those talents as they grow up. I teach supplemental math classes to advanced learners on weekends. I'm gratified that the pupils' parents (many of whom sit in and observe my lessons) think my work is valuable, and that the children think the classes are worth leaving home for on a weekend, but the market for my services only exists because those pupils feel their talents aren't being developed during regular school hours. I'm delighted that I have both boys and girls as pupils, and that through middle-school age (taught by a different instructor in my program) the girls persist in the supplemental math classes quite as avidly as the boys.
But I note for the record that I just came home from sending my son off to the American Regions Mathematics League (ARML) competition this weekend. The Minnesota Gold and Minnesota Maroon teams include quite a collection of math-liking young people, but only just a few girls. Sometime about high school age, at least in my state, there may continue to be a female interest in subjects that lead to being medical doctors, but there seems to be little support for boys, and next to none for girls, in high school for subjects that lead to being mathematicians or economists or computer scientists.
Maybe you and I are agreeing that if someone squeezes through the funnel of high school, the person with talents in the sciences can count on a reasonably assured career, even in a recession economy. But I find it worrisome that sometime around high school age, a lot of girls stop squeezing through the funnel.
This I've seen quite a bit of. It's also why the Simpsons satirizes this on a regular basis; it's because it's now a cultural phenomenon. In most mainstream film and TV programming, scientists and engineers are portrayed as socially inept and unattractive idiot savants, and the heroes are typically portrayed as tough-as-nails buffoons.
This is because the producers are pandering to the stereotypes.
When people grow up with these sorts of stereotypes, it's not hard to see how they become self-perpetuating. By pandering to the stereotypes, the producers are effectively passing the stereotype of their parents on to their children when those children are in their most impressionable stage of development. Unless their parents take on the responsibility of educating them about how inane the stereotypes are, they become self-fulfilling prophecies... like most prophecies.
I don't believe this is true. In general, individuals behave irrationally all the time. Societies are even worse.
There are all sorts of mechanisms by which societies make irrational decisions, but here's one example: we can't evaluate future value. A middle aged woman who has just discovered a cure for heart disease is incredibly valuable. But you'll never get that middle aged scientist if society doesn't spend expend a lot of time, money, and attention on her when she's an uninteresting 12 year old with absolutely nothing remarkable except a vague interest in chemistry. There are lots of critical decision points where society should be investing in that woman, but at almost all of those points, her visible value is very very small.
"Women feel, while men think" is essentially
a solved debate as far as gender issues go.
Now, you can debate all you want over the validity of these personality tests, but when women are asked how they react to situations, they tend choose to select the "feeling" axis. Perhaps that's not actually what they think, and they're just trying to conform to female stereotypes, but I really don't think it's resolved at all.
This is one of those cases where details matter: psychometrics are not simple.
To address intuition, INTPs- where N stands for intuition- are actually the "scientist" types. However, like you note, the combination is comparatively rare. "Intuition" for MBTI talks about how you perceive incoming information. http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-bas... But you're right, the definition of "intuition" in MBTI is... unintuitive.
If it's trained, which most people I've encountered will vocally agree with, and a glance at many cultures will show extreme training in this area, parroting it will only make things worse.
http://www.sengifted.org/articles_social/Sak_SynthesisOfRese...
Proof! Kind of.
Yes and no. Many people think that "men think, women feel" is absurd, so in that sense we've moved on. But on the other hand, right in this thread, there are comments by people insisting that it is true, so in that sense, we haven't moved on.
More to the point, human beings have all sorts of beliefs that they can't/won't admit to holding. That's the whole point of Implicit Association Tests: pretty much everyone who intellectually believes that racism (for example) is bunk will have a brain that makes racist associations. That is true today, even though we've moved beyond the notion that black people are inferior to white people. Those subconscious associations still exist, and they still affect how people behave, so it makes sense that we should occasionally discuss them openly.
PZ is living in the real world where real people have brains that make sexist associations even though those same people would never make equivalent sexist comments.
any battle for women in science was lost long before women med students had to put up with their misogynistic counterparts
Why is there only one battle? Can't there be multiple battles? I mean, making sure women get to med school is important, but if med school programs systematically shunt women to specialties they don't really enjoy so they end up dropping out of the field dissatisfied early on, that seems like the kind of problem that would make it harder to recruit women into med school to begin with....
It's not patriarchal to teach girls and women logic and critical-thinking skills. In fact, it's critically important to do so to counteract the enculturation they've received that a lack of critical thinking capability is somehow good and right and an ideal of womanhood; just like it's important to teach them self-defense skills to counteract the simple mechanical fact that (on average) women are smaller and weaker than men.
The gender bias problem can't be fixed simply by reversing this stereotype; it goes much deeper than that. It's not whether women can do it or not; it's blindingly obvious that they can. It's that significant numbers of them are put off by the culture and either cut their careers short or don't start one at all.
Kind of sad that he has to use a pseudoscientific theory of mind to make his point.
1. The "nurturing" sort of work isn't inferior to the analytical style of work. Both are important. Raising children is one of the most important things we do, and God knows a lot of people aren't doing a very good job of it.
2. The erroneous assumption that men are always better-suited to analytical work and women are nurturers is problematic and ridiculous. It screws people both ways. Male nurses are considered effeminate, while women who excel analytically are underestimated.
3. Combating sexism in academia, research and medicine is a noble goal, but I don't see solutions being put forward here.