Did anyone else see the 60 Minutes Report last night? Basically, Girls are doing so well academically (dominating test scores, leadership positions, etc in all levels of education) because they have been encouraged to do so by society. Oh, and also because there are so many more women teachers. Boys, OTOH, are getting screwed because their only encouragement comes from athletics. Oh, and also because there are so many more women teachers. Right on!
Did they explain why boys still get called on in class like 10 to 1 over girls? IIR, this was true even when newly minted feminist teachers, trained to be sensitive to gender roles in the classroom, would see a bunch of raised hands. They would still go for boys, 10 to 1. Also, what "dominating" test scores are they talking about? Not college entrance exams, for sure... from 1997 data: "the SAT gender gap actually increased by one point to 40. Females now score 36 points below males on the Math portion of the SAT and 4 points lower on Verbal."
Around 2/3 of the students in my classes at Temple have always been women--including the required courses that everyone in the school has to take. However, Temple is a public school. At schools like Princeton, Harvard and Penn, the numbers a significantly skewed in favor of men. It will be interesting to see what kind of impact this has on the future. As a result of htese trends, middle-class women should at least be able to achieve a greater degree of economic parity with middle-class men, one would think.
I am not basing this on anything scientific, but it seems that women choose majors in college that lead them to less "successful" jobs. In general they pick things like English, History, or Education. IMHO, women would be able to close the traditional gender gaps of those chose better career paths. I'm a engineering student (gonna graduate in December ) and only 10% of engineers are women. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason for this other than woman just don't choose this career path. What am I really saying, I don't know.
Women, it has been shown, have a lesser degree of test taking skills than men. It could be the result of society's educational effect on women, or it could be the fact that the female mind operates in a significantly different way than a male's. I wish I could go out and find an article from a respected source, but I don't have the time. And I am sure I have read that this statistic has changed of recent. Not a complete 180, but women are gaining on men in standardized testing. Maybe you can console yourself with the fact that the US college system is something like 57% women and 43% men. Congratulations on your upcoming graduation. The female mind operates better regarding subjects like English and History. In most cases women are better suited than men for professions like these. However there is obviously no concrete rule in this case. Regarding engineering and the lack of women in that particular field: The female mind is not as good with math and scientific sbujects as the male mind. Psyiological studies have shown the operation of men's mind is more condusive to math oriented subjects than women's.
That Women are less dorky then men? Just kidding. I was a History major and there were at least two men to each women in my classes much to my dissapointment.
I liked the way you started out, but then your argument degenerated to "the female mind is not as good with math and scientific subjects as the male mind" While there may be an ounce of truth to your argument having Barbie dolls who say "Math is hard" is not exactly encouraging young girls in the direction of engineering or science both heavily math related subjects. When did that Barbie come out? A few years back I think. Not in the too distant past. I was never discouraged from taking math or told that it should be more difficult b/c of my gender and gee whiz I've got an Honours degree in Science. Go figure. When and if we ever stop discouraging our girl children from maths b/c they cannot wrap their pretty little heads around abstract concepts or it makes them less feminine, maybe then you will see a rise in women's performance in the field of maths and sciences. Just a thought...... To think I always thought I was an equalist in highschool. Guess my love of sport and science makes me a femi-nazi to atleast a few deluded individuals. http://www.people.virginia.edu/~tsawyer/barbie/barb5.html
Re: Re: Boys getting jobbed I don't know about significantly: Princeton 2001-2002: 2,385 men; 2,228 women http://ntigger.princeton.edu/registrar/data/oe_items/ug_candid_by_class_gen.pdf Harvard has 52% men, 48% women in their class of 2006 http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~admisweb/stats/Prof06_files/frame.htm Penn doesn't have gender stats that I could find.
Re: Re: Re: Boys getting jobbed Well, significantly was probably the wrong term. I should have also realized that, going with national trends, those schools would have changed significantly in the last decade. It is actually significant compared to the national undergraduate average of 60-40 women-men, however.
Perhaps they enjoy it, but they are making less money. And before you go off saying that money is everything, it is still the typical indicator of success and power.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boys getting jobbed According to the National Institute of Education Statistics, total enrollment in degree granting institutions in 1998-1999 was 14,791,224, 8,300,578 of whom were women, or 56.12%. However, since 1975, the total number of men enrolled in degree granting institutions has increased by 341,649, whereas the number of women enrolled in degree granting insitutions has increased by 3,264,716. At this rate of increase, the current academic year is probably looking at something very close to a 60-40 female-male split. http://nces.ed.gov//pubs2002/digest2001/tables/dt172.asp
While in some ways this is a social issue, it is mostly a neurological physiology issue. The female mind processes and stores information in a manner different from males. This in no way makes them inferior. It does not mean that all females are bad at math, or that females in general are bad at math. All it says is that the way the mind processes and stores information can affect the test scores/grades of that person. I am male, but math is far from my subject. I have aptitudes in science, english, history, philosophy...pretty much everthing but math, and subsequently I do not succeed at the same level in math related courses that I do in the others. Now conventional science would say that I am supposed to be better at math, but that is not the case. No one should ever be discouraged in any way from furthering their education (male or female). But in addition to the nature of our brains, society has taken this a step further with what we might call "The Barbie Syndrome." It is a sad part of society's history, but it is a part, and it is changing. Women are making amazing advances in the worlds of engineering and science and I applaud them for it. I believe that if you convince yourself you can do it, there is no reason why you can't. The human mind is an amazing machine that can defy the laws of nature (operation) and can easily break the laws of society. I hope you don't think that I see you as a fem-nazi. I have female friends at several Ivy League schools studying in hugely varying fields of study and I am behind them 100 %. And for those who say women can't do math I can point them to a friend who is starting he first year at WIT (Wooster, MA) and who is studying for her degree in aerospace engineering.
Do you mean that there are studies out there that demonstrate women (when considered as a group) will inevitably score lower than men (when considerd as a group) on multiple choice tests concerning algebra and the quadratic equation as a result of neurological and physiological differences from men? Further, these studies have conclusively shown that neurological / physiological differences are the main reason for the disparity in average test scores rather than other causes? Have these studies have identified the SAT gene in men and women, that determines how well someone will perform on such tests? What is "conventional science" anyway? Did you ever tell your math teacher the reason why you do not succeed in math courses? So our brains have something like "The Barbie Syndrome" built into them? Really? What is "society" anyway? I am sure that women everywhere are grateful for your applause. What are the "laws of nature" that the human mind regular defies? What are the "laws of society" as well? Without even going into the ways in which the term "femi-nazi" is offensive to feminists everywhere but also puts a perverted spin on the Holocaust, it was heartwarming to see that your friend has overcome her genetic inferiority in math and science.
You teach? You mold the young minds of our youth in this country? God help us. You certainly have the revolutionary thing down though. Lets start at the beginning. Yes there are studies stating the male and female brain process and store information differently which can lead to lower test scores in the mathematical sciences. This is not a guarantee and the human mind is far from uniform. Conventional sciences would be: physics, chemistry, biology, etc. As opposed to psychology, sociology, newer sciences that focus on different aspects of the operation of the brain (i.e. behavioral sciences). I never said I didn't succeed, I said I did not succeed at the level I did in other courses. Math classes were always my B classes. The human brain has little "built into it." There are those who believe the infant human has no instinct other than suckling. However, the brain can be programmed almost as easily as a machine...or so some say. Society programs the human mind through everyday activities. Did your parents give you dolls as a kid, or GI Joe? We are taught how to behave by our parents and those around us. So yes, from early on in life "The Barbie Syndrome" can be put into our minds. Society as defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary 1 : companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : COMPANY 2 : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession 3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests 4 a : a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity. Consider it a show of respect. The human brain can be damaged and yet function in ways that were once thought to be impossible. A policeman was shot in the head and lost all ability to speak, yet months after he has left the hospital and physically recovered he still could not speak. However, in the months approaching the 1 year mark of his brush with death he found that his speaking ability was slowly returning. The doctors couldn't believe it this was something they had never seen before, and could not definitively explain. The human brain has the ability to make things work that shouldn't sometimes. Law of society: boys like girls, and girls like boys. Murder is a bad thing. Girls wear dresses. Just because it is a law doesn't mean it isn't bent or broken. And societal laws/values/norms/taboos, vary from culture to culture. Once again, call it a show of respect. Try it sometime.
This reminds me of a classic 007 quote... Some Military guy: Sometimes I don't think you have the balls for this job. M: At least I don't have to think with them. Actually, I thought this was another Afghan man-boy love thread.
You know, when I came back to this board, I was going to apologize for my overly arrogant remarks. However, after reading your post I have changed my mind. You know, perhaps the most annoying thing about college students is that they often assume they are the only ones who ever went to college. And nothing makes me want to respect people more than when they look at my personal profile / previous posts and then act horrified when find out I am a teacher. Perhaps you would have enjoyed a comment such as "you are soon to be a product of our higher educational system? Good God! Who are they letting through these days?" As far as me being a teacher, if you will notice, all of my questions are rather teacherly. I aksed you to cite your sources and define your terms. Don't your teachers ask you to do that? Or you do get away with comments in papers like "society has many laws that the human mind often breaks?" Such as... ? Cite your source dude. That is partially what my questions were asking for. Besides, even if such studies did exist, were they able to connect specific differences in male/femlae physiology that led to different responses on specific SAT questions? Can the inexactitude of such studies--whatever they are--be accurately connected to specifc, culturally based particulars of human experience? I think not--though I urge you to offer sources that counter my opinion. As a teacher, nothing impresses me more than disagreeing with me and doing a good job of it. 130 years old isn't "conventional"? OK-- sure. Still, this actually isn't a bad clarification. If you had such said "natural sciences" your point would have been clear in the first place--the use of the term "conventional science" was such an example of X-files / pop culture inexactitude that I felt compelled to question it. Anyway, no natural science I know of has ever done a study on American standarized testing. Besides the use of the dictionary to define your term--something that makes my blood curdle and which I outlaw in my classes--I actually agree with you here. However, the reason I pointed this out in the first place was because you claimed that "society" (ugh) simply furthered what was already genetically human. You wrote that through the Barbie complex, society was simply taking phsyology one step further. That was our disagreemnet on that point. If you really believe that there is not much more in the human mind besides the urge to suckle--with which I more or less agree--how can you say that women and men have different mathematical abilities on a genetic level? Overall, why did I ask you those questions? Well, because terms such as "society," "conventional science," "laws of nature," "laws of society," and crutches people usually use in order to support overly generalized positions. They are also, not surprisingly, the sort of terms I see all too often in first-year comp papers. I just can't stand when people use them as the actual basis of their worldviews. You also failed to document any of your sources. Are we simply to believe that you are accurately reporting them? On what basis should we assume them to be true? I have never read any such studies. I asked you if there were such studies, and you simply claim that there are, without offerring any proof. After personally insulting me and then, among other things, falling in line with the new conservative trivalization of the Holocaust by using the term feminazi, you then demand respect. In the future, before doing any of these, please at least avoid frequent use of pop culture ideas and cliches to support sweeping, covert generalizations about female inferiority that have no documentation whatsoever.
I assume nothing regarding the education of others. For all I know you went to Harvard, but don’t confuse education with intelligence. I looked at your post and it appeared to me to be written by someone who has been educated, but lacked something…I immediately thought college student, but then I recalled that there are those who indicate what they are doing with their lives at present in their BS profiles. I did something all teachers should love, I researched. Your questions were very teacher-like, I did notice that, but before you start enjoying the view from that high horse, I want to tell you something. If I were in a class discussing this, then I would cite resources, I would take the time to go to the library, find appropriate sites online, or interview respected authorities, but this isn’t a classroom, and I don’t have the time to do that. Something that as a teacher you should really be aware of is the damage that the internet can do to a student. It is not the end all, be all of resources. Much of what you find on the internet is personal opinion, not fact. Where have I gotten my information? Textbooks from classes I have taken, respected speakers that lectured at classes I took, or who I saw voluntarily out of class. Also, I don’t have the time to scour the internet for sources who may or may not be the right ones to cite in these cases. I can assure you, however, that these are not statistics and studies that I am just making up to be right. I wouldn’t come to this forum and post what I have at length if I wasn’t posting something I knew about and had experience with. While I respect your request for citing and I respect your questioning of the facts I stated, I think you went about it in a wholly inappropriate way. Sarcasm and patronage is not the way to get a point across. I also supremely dislike using a dictionary for anything other than personal research assistance, and can honestly say that I have never used a dictionary definition of any papers I have written…in at least the last 10 years. But once again, this is not something I have hours to do. If I had a few days and the desire to really go into something like this I am sure I would be able to do any teacher proud, but not in this case. Why is the operation of the brain being different in females such an impossibility? Females and males are quite different. It doesn’t mean they aren’t equal, but the level of equality that people are looking for these days has little to do with genetics, and everything to do with societal perception. If I had said something along the lines of, “The operation of men’s minds make them worse at a certain task (say organizing)” would you have jumped down my throat? Men and women are different. They are genetically different, they are psychologically different, and they are emotionally different. You might notice however, that only one of the differences I mentioned is based on nature; genetics. The rest are determined by us, our parents, our friends, our teachers, our neighbors, our bosses, our fellow employees, our political figures, etc. This argument (not ours, but in the concept of this argument) boils down to the “Nature vs Nurture” theory. What makes us who we are? Are we inherently good or evil? I have studied enough to believe that it is the “Nurture” factor that makes us who we are. There are studies that support this, but like everything in life, it is not guaranteed. There are studies that say otherwise, and some are actually quite compelling. But it is not for certain, nothing is. When I combine what I have learned in all my social science classes and all my “conventional science” classes I believe that “Nurture” is the stronger of the two arguments. And I never claimed “society furthered what was already genetically human.” Because I believe that nothing is ingrained in our minds other than to nurse. Our society, our culture, our environment, whatever you want to see it as, makes every person what they are. This is my belief, and there are studies that share it. But again, I must reiterate, there are no absolutes in life except death and taxes. Again, if I had the time I would gladly go out and find sources for you, but I do not. Let’s get two things straight, I used the term fem-nazi because someone else used it, I was addressing their use of it. I personally don’t like the term either. And I NEVER demanded respect. I said I was respecting someone else and that you should try it. I never asked, nor demanded any respect for myself. Let’s get one more thing right. Nothing…I repeat nothing I have said should lead to believe that females are inferior to males (in general). I chose to comment on the situation that was being discussed, had I written about how men can’t organize the way women can because of their brain physiology would we even be having this discussion? Women are not inferior, they are different, and difference should not imply inferiority. There are some things that men, as a whole, do better than women, as a whole. And there are some things women do better, as a whole, than men. No matter how hard people try, no single person is ever going to be exactly equal to another. A man is not equal to a woman in every way, as a man is not equal to another man in every way. Equality on a general level is something we should all strive for, but when you look close enough at anything you will find it is not as perfect as it seems. Just out of curiosity, are you male or female? There is no malice in that queston, I just want to know who this arguement is coming from.
Thank you for your post. You responded in a far more clam and respectful manner than I did, that's for sure. As far as the personal information you were wondering about, I am male and I did not go to Harvard. Even if I said I did, of course, there would be no way I could prove it. As far as internet discussions go, don't worry, I try to warn my students about them at every turn. I just have an entirely unjustifiable, overly elevated view of bigsoccer. I responded the way I did because few things get my blood up more than saying that broadly based and yet to be understood physiological differences between people can be directly connected to miniscule particulars of cultural experience. In other words, I find it deductively and inductively dubious to connect generalized and yet to be understood aspects of the brain to something so clearly culturally based as standardized testing. I also find it disturbing, as it is the sort of argument that has been used to oppress people of various sorts for centuries. I urge you to keep this in mind when you post ideas along the lines of the ones you have put up. Please realize how explosive some of the ideas you are posting can be. Arguing that not yet understood neurological aspects of human physiology can be connected to cultural particulars is always extremely dangerous stuff.