Hacker News Reader

(By the way, if you ever want a conclusive argument that girls being raised to love pink and hate math is societal

The most staggering thing about these assumptions is not merely how they contradict current scientific understanding, but they contradict reality. Pink used to be a boys' color: the idea of pink as "girly" didn't exist 100 years ago. Ironically, this commonly-given-example is itself a fantastic example of how wrong such assumptions about gender differences actually are.

It's rather laughable -- and sad -- how almost every single "scientific study" (often evolutionary psychology, a popular pseudoscience) claiming such absurd biological gender differences just happens to support 1950s stereotypical American gender roles, as opposed to gender roles anywhere else in history, anywhere else in the world.

The reality is that the biological differences are negligible in most regards, at least mentally -- claiming "girls naturally prefer pink" is just as absurd as insisting that blacks are genetically predisposed to like playing basketball. It denies the vastly greater importance of societal and cultural effects, dumps blame for problems -- such as gender bias in STEMS -- on biology instead of humans, and is pretty much flat-out sexist.

Agreed. Thank you for your post! That's basically exactly what the book I recommended says, except she goes into 200+ pages of detail about it (with much supporting evidence.)

It is -- and that book should be required reading for anyone making any comment on this subject. It's shocking how often I see posts, especially on Hacker News, that take for granted "gender differences" that have been proven not to exist! And often by self-proclaimed scientists and skeptics, no less.

>'The reality is that the biological differences are negligible in most regards, at least mentally -- claiming "girls naturally prefer pink" is just as absurd as insisting that blacks are genetically predisposed to like playing basketball. It denies the vastly greater importance of societal and cultural effects, dumps blame for problems -- such as gender bias in STEMS -- on biology instead of humans, and is pretty much flat-out sexist.'

Perhaps instead of picking strawmen then we could address something closer to the real questions being asked: whether girls prefer to mimic nurturing behaviour or act out creativity in their play (and the converse, that boys prefer aggressive or constructive play) and that blacks are genetically predisposed to excel at sports similar to basketball (I'd have probably picked East Africans and long distance running).

Surely biologically speaking females should prefer play that mimics nurturing behaviour? (No, not exclusively, nor indeed every female, but generally as a population compared with young males). If males carried the developing human in utero I'd expect it to be different.

Just be careful to not fall into some sort of extremism.

Gender differences appear to be a blend of nature and nurture. If one thinks nature doesn't matter, it's pretty easy to obtain direct proof to the contrary - just alter one's hormonal chemistry (especially the estrogen / testosterone balance) and watch what happens to the mind. The experiment is simple enough and there might even be ways to do it without falling into legal hot waters.

Nurture is also important, no doubt.

For whatever reason, the NPR article (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/15/143724644/ith-new-toys-lego-ho...) doesn't bother to mention the "Inventor's Workshop" set (http://www.brickset.com/detail/?set=3933-1) which, perhaps despite the pink & violet splashes, is at least a little bit encouraging, no?

The line that "Boys are easier to sell to than girls" is a simple statement of fact: namely that the marketers at Lego back in 2005 (many of whom were probably men themselves) had more ideas about how to sell to boys. I don't think that's necessarily sexist, it was just a recognition of their limitations. There are other companies that find it easier to sell products to girls than boys.

Deliberately selling to a smaller market was how they chose to try and build a healthy business at the time, and it certainly seems to have been very lucrative for them. You might read that as narrow-mindedness, but to me it just sounds like they were trying to focus. Anyway, the whole point is that Lego now appears to have outgrown this approach! The people at Lego actually do want girls to buy their products.

The Business Week article (http://www.businessweek.com/printer/magazine/lego-is-for-gir...) mentioned in the NPR piece goes into considerably more depth about why Lego found it more difficult to create products that appealed to girls. It also talks about how Lego have actually recognised that simply splashing pink over something isn't a guaranteed way to sell to girls. They're actually trying to look beyond the superficial stuff like colours, at the psychology of play and how that differs between boys and girls, and they genuinely seem (to me at least) to be trying to be as inoffensive about the way they go about that as they can.

Some of the stuff the Lego researchers found is actually quite interesting too: that girls particularly hated the minifig, for instance (something which would have never occurred to me!), because they found it harder to project their personalities onto something so abstract.

I don't think it's fair at all to say that Lego is in any way to blame for any of this. Their products are (mostly) designed for kids of 4+, by which time it's impossible to say which gender differences have been externally "imposed" by society and which may be gender-innate. As a father of both a girl and a boy I am aware that there are differences of both sorts, but that they're so entangled that objectivity about the subject is nearly impossible for a lay-person. My wife and I both try to discourage the superficial gender stuff as much as we can, but we're not going to stop our 3-year-old daughter from owning a Barbie (I bought her the computer engineer one) or declaring that her favourite colour is pink if that's what she wants (FWIW, she's also very interested in Daddy playing StarCraft II - she likes the Zerg).

Lastly, here's a quote from the BW piece that is sadly absent from the two follow-up articles it spawned, “There is no reason to think Lego is more intrinsically appealing to boys.” I'm really not sure why the news that Lego are trying to market their products to girls is being given such a negative spin here. I look forward to buying Lego for both my kids when they're older.

It's really sad, but it wasn't that long ago that Lego was in deep financial trouble with horrible sales. Geeks can say what they want, but it seems to have worked out for Lego pretty well

On the bright side, you can make your own custom Lego set: http://designbyme.lego.com/en-us/Default.aspx

There's more time and money involved but if it's really important to people, if there's a will there's a way.

The building sets also include an "inventor's workshop", which looks pretty cool, and seems to be exactly the right thing to encourage women scientists & girl geeks.

Why do we need more girl scientists and geeks? I'll never get that. Will having more women in roles traditionally held by men somehow make the world better? Will the woman scientist have a better chance at curing cancer? Will the woman construction worker lay better brick?

I just don't get it. It seems like there's a subset of women who are into science and are smart and are going after or currently holding roles that are traditionally held by or usually dominated by men who for some reason want every other woman to be into the same things because somehow it's for the betterment of the world. If women and men really are equal (and I can't and won't say women are any less capable) then a woman doing "man work" shouldn't produce any different result.

True, but if they never try to do it because society tells them that they shouldn't (devil's advocate here, not claiming this is what happens) then we're missing out on 50% of the potential cancer-curing talent who, by your argument, are equally capable of doing so but end up shampooing dogs or whatever instead.

But then if they're equally capable but prefer shampooing dogs then is that really a problem? All of us are capable of things that we prefer not to do. I was on a track to become a doctor but decided to program instead. I'm capable of both but prefer not to be a doctor. See what I mean?

Yeah, absolutely - clearly people should be able to choose what they want to do. The problem would be if you wanted to become a doctor but were told by everyone that you shouldn't be (because, you're a man, or a woman, or black or white or yellow or whatever it happens to be). You might still do it (and let's hope so, we generally need more doctors) but it would be harder for you and thus statistically you'd be much less likely to do it. That would be society's loss - especially if you ended up shampooing dogs :-)

  > if they're equally capable but prefer shampooing dogs
  > then is that really a problem

The problem is that their like/dislikes/personalities are not formed in a bubble. Society has influence over these things.

So then why should it be alright for men? No one really makes a stink about needing more men florists or hospice nurses? Doesnt it seem like instead of really talking about or trying to fix the gender stereotype issue we aren't doing much good by singling out women. It seems like we're making them into victims. Wouldn't you say the problem works both ways and focusing on one gender or race turns them into victims imstead of addressing the entire issue as a whole which could be more helpful?

Actually, when I put "we need more male" into Google, the two cases it suggests are "we need more male teachers" and "we need more male nurses" which were the two cases that I had immediately thought of.

  > No one really makes a stink about needing more men
  > florists

That's because people aren't clamoring for more florists in general.

  > hospice nurses

Why did you specify hospice nurses rather than just nurses in general? There is a demand for more nurses in general, and part of that is a push to get more men into nursing.

  > It seems like we're making them into victims.

Huh? We're talking about how children are influenced. They aren't victims. Unless you think society at large has no influence over the development of a child, I'm not really sure what you're up in arms about here.

The whole point is to spend less time discouraging some types of play while encouraging others based on gender roles (i.e. Billy shouldn't be playing with dolls, he should be playing with toy guns).

Also, if a child only ever sees male doctors, do you think that doesn't subtly influence whether or not being a doctor is seen as a male-only thing to do? (The same could be said of only seeing women nurses. It cuts both ways.)

>Why do we need more girl scientists and geeks?

You are only considering a symptom of the problem. It isn't just a question of more women as geeks or scientists. It's how women are treated in society. Things like getting catcalled while walking to class. Being called a slut for wearing a skirt, a prude for wearing a dress, manly for dressing in slacks, or sexy rather than professional.

No, we don't need more women as scientists, or doing math, or building things, or designing video games, or writing books, or plays or tv scripts. And we don't need women collecting garbage, serving in combat roles in the military or elected to government.

But the sum total of a person's experiences add up.

When someone in a video games says "You got raped, bitch." Or a little girl feels shamed into playing with bratz dolls rather than legos. Or while walking down the street a stranger demands she smile because she's so pretty, ignoring she might have her own feelings. Or she plays a video game where the female characters all have impossibly giant breasts spilling out of impractical armor. Or when watching block buster movies where no two main character women (if there even are) talk to each other about something other than a man. Or every time she steps out side someone helpfully reminds her that she could be raped at any moment; she better accept a man's offer to chaperon her. Oh, and why hasn't she married a nice man yet and had some children? She's not getting any younger you know. It all shapes who a woman is.

So no, we don't need more women working as scientists. But if you work to build and maintain a culture where women are guilted, shamed, and literally forced into stereotypically feminine roles because that's the way it is and you're content with that then you certainly help to guarantee she won't be curing cancer, building a better engine, developing a faster computer, or a creating a realistic lead woman character in the next blockbuster game or movie.

I don't think it is a question of needing more girl scientists and geeks. If there is a question, I think it is merely one of removing institutional barriers to those who want to take this path.

> We need more women scientists

Are you a scientist?

Are you capable of realizing that your comment is unhelpful and does nothing to advance the conversation?

No, I don't understand why my comment does nothing to advance the conversation.

The poster ericabiz says the US needs more women scientists and I asked her if she was a scientist. If not, I was going to ask her why she wasn't.

EDIT: I don't give a damn what ericabiz does. I wanted to know whether she really believed toys or suggestive advertising or whatever was really to blame for the lack of women in science. Because I think there are some other reasonable possibilities, for example, that science is a shitty career with huge uncertainty. A person with the skills and inclination to be a scientist can easily be a doctor/surgeon, vet, engineer, etc and have much better career potential.

BURGERBRAIN: LOL guess I wasn't thinking. Good thing you are here to spread sarcastic bullshit around.

"we need" does not imply "I personally have an obligation to provide with my own career decisions"

We need more brain surgeons. We also need more welders.

Why am I not simultaneously a brain surgeon and a welder? Baffling stuff!

We must make brain surgery and welding less baffling!

Personally I think we should invent brain-welding, whatever that may turn out to be.

No, I don't understand why my comment does nothing to advance the conversation.

It's too short, and your intent isn't clear from just "Are you a scientist?"

The poster ericabiz says the US needs more women scientists and I asked her if she was a scientist. If not, I was going to ask her why she wasn't.

Putting all that into your first comment would have made it clear what you were trying to accomplish, and spared you the downvotes.

...[edits]...

So you got downvoted. It happens to all of us. No need to get disrespectful over it, just diagnose what went wrong and avoid it in the future.

Just put more of your point in your original post, and people will realize that you actually have a point. They'll be less likely jump to conclusions about your intelligence. >.>

For example, "Are you a scientist? If not, why not? I ask because I wonder if we're jumping to conclusions about the cause of the gender disparity in STEM [...]" would suggest that you're a sane person who has a real point to make.

I want this discussion to go somewhere, by the way. It was an interesting thought.

Nope, I'm not. I basically really suck at school, and am pretty awesome at computers and making money. That's why I started a startup at age 20 instead of finishing college, then sold it for a nice profit when I was 26. Now I'm on to another startup, and run a popular blog to boot.

Hey that's really cool. I wasn't meaning to be insulting, if that's how you took my comment. I had this awesome dialog planned that would have resulted in deep insight all around but then the comment was downvoted to hell and I became flustered.

Dude, I run a popular blog. I've had every insult imaginable thrown at me. No offense taken. I tend to answer every question in the same dry, blunt manner. ;)

> By the way, if you ever want a conclusive argument

Does it negate any evidence for the fact that for hundreds of years our predecessors were hunter and gatherers, whose roles were distinctly filled by men and women? There is a theory that hunters (men) largely looked for large blue horizons (hence a blue sky) to go hunting for animals and gathers (women) looked for berries (hence red, or a hue of red) and thus why we are drawn to those colors. I'm curious as to how far back in history her books relates back to.

I could just as easily make up a story about how males are intrinsically attracted to pink and red, the color of animal flesh from a recent hunt and how females are attracted to blue waters since in many pre-agrarian societies women had to carry water back to camp.

Without empirical studies with solid controls these are just stories. Evolutionary psychology theories are especially guilty of these kinds of story-making explanations that aren't held up to evidence.

Prior to WWII, though, pink was usually associated with boys' clothes and blue with girls' clothes. So that doesn't fly.

I find it interesting how many people assume the current cultural preferences that are less than a century old have some hundreds-of-thousands of years of biological conditioning behind them...... Why is there a need to ground these things in biology? Why not look at culture as culture, and recognize that large parts of it are entirely biologically arbitrary, but that they fit together in meaningful ways?