Feminism - Post-apocalypse version

[The guy from the Vale]

Noone is denying that may play a role, C4JS. But why does that difference arise? Could it be that it's because girls are taught early on that boys are better at math? You know, that analysis isn't wrong so much as stopping before asking the actual hard and uncomfortable questions.

I'd also say that basically everbody in this thread who comes from a STEM background has acknowledged sexism in the field - including Commodore, if unwittingly.

@Crazy Cat Lady in Training This can get me so riled up. Some of the best mathematicians, physicists, chemists and computer scientists I know are women. But at the same time, I met far too many bone-headed guys at college who thought women couldn't think logically, including some who thought women couldn't write source code even though the first programmer ever was a woman! The mind just absolutely boggles.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

7 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Noone is denying that may play a role, C4JS. But why does that difference arise? Could it be that it's because girls are taught early on that boys are better at math? You know, that analysis isn't wrong so much as stopping before asking the actual hard and uncomfortable questions.

I'd also say that basically everbody in this thread who comes from a STEM background has acknowledged sexism in the field - including Commodore, if unwittingly.

@Crazy Cat Lady in Training This can get me so riled up. Some of the best mathematicians, physicists, chemists and computer scientists I know are women. But at the same time, I met far too many bone-headed guys at college who thought women couldn't think logically, including some who thought women couldn't write source code even though the first programmer ever was a woman! The mind just absolutely boggles.

No I'm sure there is a level of sexism involved in those fields as well. But just as a counterpoint to what other people have mentioned here, we should always be aware that in general terms men and women are not exactly the same, they will in general be drawn more in one direction or another and not just because of cultural processing, but because of who they are and things they excel at. Thats just a part of life and we should acknowledge it when trying to examine why imbalances happen.
 

[The guy from the Vale]

See, it's the last part of your statement that is unproven. We don't know how many women are discouraged from pursuing a STEM career at an early age due to cultural processing that "girls are just worse at math and science" without any evidence for that actually being the case.

[Chaldanya]

No I'm sure there is a level of sexism involved in those fields as well. But just as a counterpoint to what other people have mentioned here, we should always be aware that in general terms men and women are not exactly the same, they will in general be drawn more in one direction or another and not just because of cultural processing, but because of who they are and things they excel at. Thats just a part of life and we should acknowledge it when trying to examine why imbalances happen.

Y'know I've seen it myself with my son.  He's four years old. Up until about a year ago he couldn't give a crap if a toy was "meant" for him or not (he had a doll and a pushchair) but now we'll be told what is and is not for girls and boys and he likes something but doesn't want it because boys aren't supposed to play with such things (this is hearbreaking by the way that it has started so young). And it's funny how this has coincided with them naturally becoming more involved playmates now instead of side-by-side play and interacting with children who are told these things and parrot them back.  So yeah, keep telling yourself that we are naturally drawn one way or another because biology or some such.

 

[Jo498]

18 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Given that men feel threatened and emasculated when, say, their female partners make more money than they do; given that many men threaten to take other men's "man card" away for any number of infractions; given that the most dangerous time for a woman in a domestic violence situation is when she tries to leave, no I do not think we're "far more tamed." 

o.k., I certainly do not doubt domestic violence etc. I probably misunderstood. I had the impression that "toxic masculinity" did not refer to something we clearly understand as misbehavior (and usually, if maybe not very effectively) punish with the force of the law but as something silently approved of by most men or by "society". As for the "softer" things that men feel emasculated by powerful (that is usually economically successful because if men weren't physically more powerful in most cases we would have a different problem wrt domestic violence) I am afraid that this belongs to a class of things that cannot be changed quickly. There is also clear evidence that successful women have a problem finding partners because they also prefer their men to be at least as successful as they are...

As for the taming. There can be no doubt that our society has been strongly tamed in many respects. My favorite example are childrens' books. Take almost any book until the 1960s or 70s, e.g. La guerre des boutons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Buttons_(novel), Das Fliegende Klassenzimmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Classroom, Kalle Blomkvist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bergson and one will very frequently find not only severe physical punishment of boys by their parents but also fairly brutal fights between boys or gangs of boys and this will often be seen as a good sport and fun leisure activity (there are exceptions like the glorious "Swallows and Amazons"). If you go back a little further (e.g. Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn) it will get worse and often torturing animals for sport will be a "innocent" boy's pastime.

Of course, there are other more subtle sorts of control and violence that are worse today than in former times. Not just the labor market, also the workplace is "stacked against" males good at physical labor and (below) average in intellectual (especially verbal) skills since decades. (And today even many technical skills are less favored compared to verbal ability where it seems that women are simply better on average than men.) The typical modern work environment has been thoroughly "feminised" (or civilised, if you prefer). One is supposed to be clean, thorough, soft-spoken, polite etc. because this is how an office environment is supposed to be.

I am not saying we should go back to shovelling dirt and cussing at each other, not enough job openings and lousy pay, I guess. But there are deep reasons for "toxic m" that are only vaguely related to the "male image". Many of these guys do not just feel emasculated, they *are* emasculated in an important sense because they cannot get decently paid work (note that provider for a family is already a step "down" from "archetypically male" hunter/warrior, or rather a step up in civilization/taming) their strengths are obsolete and they do not have acceptable (or healthy) outlets for them. And we have not and maybe cannot change/d the status-conferring character of decent jobs and wealth. I am not saying that these are excuses for e.g. domestic violence. But apart from the fact that such changes are usually slow and take more than one generation, one cannot simply change attitude and mindset if the societal environment (and, I'd argue, the biology, but one can probably make the argument in a "marxist" fashion, just pointing at the societal and especially work environmentst) remains as it is. It's the old canard from the Threepenny Opera: "Wir wären gut, anstatt so roh, doch die Verhältnisse, die sind nicht so" (We would be good, instead so rough, but the circumstance are not like that).

[butterbumps!]

19 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

See, it's the last part of your statement that is unproven. We don't know how many women are discouraged from pursuing a STEM career at an early age due to cultural processing that "girls are just worse at math and science" without any evidence for that actually being the case.

I mean, it's not like toys were ever sold to girls that reinforce how "math is tough!" or anything.

I do think girls are discouraged from a number of STEM-type pursuits, often perhaps totally unintentionally.   Tools are "too dangerous" to play with.   Girls aren't supposed to get messy.   There's always a section of specific "girls toys" broadcasting what sort of pursuits they ought to like.  I imagine that for many girls, the desire to go forward with STEM-related careers has probably undergone a death by a thousand cuts by the time they go to choose their majors.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

14 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

See, it's the last part of your statement that is unproven. We don't know how many women are discouraged from pursuing a STEM career at an early age due to cultural processing that "girls are just worse at math and science" without any evidence for that actually being the case.

I've read a few articles that posit it's not "that girls are worse", it's that society in general, particularly parents and teachers, tend to tell girls "yep, it's hard, so don't feel bad for having problems" and tell boys "try harder, and you'll figure it out." It's not new, either -- here's an article from 2011 talking about research stretching back to at least the 1980s.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls

How do girls and boys develop these different views? Most likely, it has to do with the kinds of feedback we get from parents and teachers as young children. Girls, who develop self-control earlier and are better able to follow instructions, are often praised for their "goodness." When we do well in school, we are told that we are "so smart," "so clever, " or " such a good student." This kind of praise implies that traits like smartness, cleverness, and goodness are qualities you either have or you don't.

Boys, on the other hand, are a handful. Just trying to get boys to sit still and pay attention is a real challenge for any parent or teacher. As a result, boys are given a lot more feedback that emphasizes effort (e.g., "If you would just pay attention you could learn this," "If you would just try a little harder you could get it right.") The net result: When learning something new is truly difficult, girls take it as sign that they aren't "good" and "smart", and boys take it as a sign to pay attention and try harder

[Theda Baratheon]

17 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

No I'm sure there is a level of sexism involved in those fields as well. But just as a counterpoint to what other people have mentioned here, we should always be aware that in general terms men and women are not exactly the same, they will in general be drawn more in one direction or another and not just because of cultural processing, but because of who they are and things they excel at. Thats just a part of life and we should acknowledge it when trying to examine why imbalances happen.
 

That's the thing though...In terms of the brain and what men and women actually enjoy intellectually, especially in STEM, I really don't think there's a huge difference between men and women. I did a bachelor of ARTS degree and have persued lots of artsy thigs but when I think back on it I really loved science in school and it was one of my best subjects I actually got a higher grade in science than history and yet I did a history degree and am working on a history masters ? ? I just DON'T think women are brought up to believe they can be but as good at maths and science - there are so many little things that happen growing up that add to this.

My friend Jo is the smartest person I know I'm terms of mathematics - she did computer studiesin college and was the ONLY GIRL in the whole year. I just DON'T BUY that it's because somehow in our dna it says women don't like science and maths very much, I just don't buy that at all, I think it's these areas are already so male dominated, even as 16 year olds that it just puts girls off. I don't believe in forcing women into STEM who are just not into it but I do believe schools should try that little extra to make it seem like its something all people can get into. 

Actually, I was working in a museum the last few months as a workshop leader and STEM ambassador on a project about the bloodhound super sonic car and we were getting school groups in to make their own model cars and test it on this air pressure pump and track we had set up in the gallery. the best team was a team of girls, and girls consistently made better cars LOL. it was the boys that made amazing looking cars that...just didnt go fast. Too bulky, too impressive looking and the girls made the simplest, most efficient designs. and we tried very hard to say THE BLLODHOUND TEAM IS 50/50 MEN AND WOMEN and asked who would want to be an engineer and these were primary school children and just as many girls as boys were putting their hands up. it wasnt that i unfairly focused on the girls as I helped and encouraged all the children I just made a little extra effort to make the girls feel like this was something they could be interested in. 

Of course some of them were not interests in cars just like some of the boys weren't!! 

[Jo498]

So when do we pick "equality of opportunity" over "equal outcomes" and when vice versa?

There are by now more women in college, more medical doctors, psychologists and veterinarians than male ones and probably about gender parity in law practitoners in many countries. When do we start campaigning for exactly 50% males in college, for more male primary school teachers and pychologists? Or for more female slaughterhouse workers and garbage collectors? Which percentage is acceptable to be explained by preference, differences in ability or the intractable vagaries of career choices and which must be some kind of (not so) subtle discrimination?

If despite "girl's day" and now maybe "boy's day" there are still more female psychologists and nurses and more male electrical engineers and garbage collectors what do we do? Enforce quota? To what extent?

[The guy from the Vale]

JC4S: It doesn't need to be entirely man made to also be influenced by cultural norms, and it's the latter we can and should change.

[Chaldanya]

I'm not sure why its such a sore point to simply state that there are generalised differences between the sexes. Anyone who has lived more than 5 years on this planet will have noticed it anyway. 

Really? You can't understand it? Women have been told for a very long time that they couldn't do certain things because they were women. "You're just better at being nurturing because you're a woman", "Women just aren't as good as men at thinking logically, it's just the way they're wired". I guarantee you all women will have heard those at some point in their life and it's then backed up by the entirety of society saying it as well. So yeah, it's a sore point...

[mormont]

59 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

No I'm sure there is a level of sexism involved in those fields as well. But just as a counterpoint to what other people have mentioned here, we should always be aware that in general terms men and women are not exactly the same, they will in general be drawn more in one direction or another and not just because of cultural processing, but because of who they are and things they excel at. Thats just a part of life and we should acknowledge it when trying to examine why imbalances happen.

People aren't exactly the same. You pick two men, or two women, and they will be very different. In fact, I would suggest that the specific differences observed between two random women will be greater and more significant than the differences between men and women in general.

So why is the latter the thing that always, always has to be brought into any discussion of feminism? Because it's the only alternative explanation available for the problems we're talking about, and because it's so attractive: if this is just a fact of life, there's nothing that can be done, so there's nothing we should be doing, no changes we have to make.

But it's nonsense. Yes, there are some biological differences between men and women. But the extent of these is routinely exaggerated: they are dwarfed by the enormous differences imposed by culture: and there are numerous times when differences thought to be biological turn out not to be biological at all, or to be enormously aggravated by cultural factors.

The constant demand to 'acknowledge' factors that explain a small percentage of a problem is usually employed as a tactic to derail the discussion of the factors that make up the overwhelming majority of that problem. We see it in discussions of equality of all sorts. I would urge you to recognise that people on this thread already know about biological differences and don't need you to remind them: grant them that amount of respect and move on.

Also, 'cool story bro' on a feminism thread? That is either blatantly trolling or completely tone-deaf and either way is unbelievably crass.

40 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

 Not just the labor market, also the workplace is "stacked against" males good at physical labor and (below) average in intellectual (especially verbal) skills since decades. (And today even many technical skills are less favored compared to verbal ability where it seems that women are simply better on average than men.) The typical modern work environment has been thoroughly "feminised" (or civilised, if you prefer). One is supposed to be clean, thorough, soft-spoken, polite etc. because this is how an office environment is supposed to be.

I am not saying we should go back to shovelling dirt and cussing at each other, not enough job openings and lousy pay, I guess. But there are deep reasons for "toxic m" that are only vaguely related to the "male image". Many of these guys do not just feel emasculated, they *are* emasculated in an important sense because they cannot get decently paid work (note that provider for a family is already a step "down" from "archetypically male" hunter/warrior, or rather a step up in civilization/taming) their strengths are obsolete and they do not have acceptable (or healthy) outlets for them.

Totally disagree. There are very healthy outlets for these strengths (sport, for example) and these men can and absolutely do get decently paid work. People aren't one-dimensional, good at one and only one type of work. Being good at coal-mining doesn't magically make you incapable of being a good carer, administrator, mechanic, joiner, retail manager, whatever. My family includes former steelworkers who found various good jobs that played to their other strengths.

[Lyanna Stark]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

No I'm sure there is a level of sexism involved in those fields as well. But just as a counterpoint to what other people have mentioned here, we should always be aware that in general terms men and women are not exactly the same, they will in general be drawn more in one direction or another and not just because of cultural processing, but because of who they are and things they excel at. Thats just a part of life and we should acknowledge it when trying to examine why imbalances happen.
 

Let's just kill this dead and move on.

Basically this: gender essentialism and this assigning of mythical essences have nothing in common with modern feminism. As this is a feminism thread, as stated in post 1, this is not a discussion for this thread.

Please, everyone, if you want to discuss so called biotruths and evopsych, create a different thread for that. It has nothing to do with feminism, or feminist reasoning. It is, in fact, its opposite.

I urge everyone to

a. not engage these posts

b. report them

since otherwise it is impossible to have any sort of constructive discussion, which is the goal of this thread. There are enough meaningful and interesting issues to discuss (hostile/benevolent sexism, intersection between class and sexism, the watering down of feminism through "empowerment" pandering, women's continued discrimination in the workplace,  toxic masculinity,  women's emotional labour, to name a few) without us constantly having to deal with people derailing with biotruths and their huge need for Feminism 101 stuff which we have heard a hundred times before. A lot of posters have been very helpful in engaging with this and explaining, patiently and in great detail, but let's move on to more constructive things.

 

[Xray the Enforcer]

Agreed, Lyanna. 

Let's get back to, oh, I don't know. Emotional labor over the holidays? Or whatever it was that you posted at the beginning of this thread?

[Lyanna Stark]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

o.k., I certainly do not doubt domestic violence etc. I probably misunderstood. I had the impression that "toxic masculinity" did not refer to something we clearly understand as misbehavior (and usually, if maybe not very effectively) punish with the force of the law but as something silently approved of by most men or by "society". As for the "softer" things that men feel emasculated by powerful (that is usually economically successful because if men weren't physically more powerful in most cases we would have a different problem wrt domestic violence) I am afraid that this belongs to a class of things that cannot be changed quickly. There is also clear evidence that successful women have a problem finding partners because they also prefer their men to be at least as successful as they are...

 

Right so, I don't understand WHY you guys don't read the linked articles or follow the already existing discussions, because the articles on benevolent/hostile sexism and toxic masculinity and its effects deal exactly with this. EXACTLY WITH THIS.

This was why they were linked and discussed to start with, so that the mechanisms can be laid out, the theoretical framework explained, and we can go from there to have a constructive discussion on how this system, combined with the toxic masculinity it creates, help create a straightjacket for both men and women. Your comments earlier about "emasculation" only work if we already assume that a certain type of toxic masculinity is the only way to be a man, that the traditional gender roles are right, and we are moving away from them into not only unknown, but *wrong* territory.

So again, for what feels like the 75th time, I encourage, ask and implore people to please read the articles linked and discussed. They are here for a reason, and that reason is that they are relevant. Consider doing reading first and responding later.

Hostile/benevolent sexism.

Toxic masculinity

Clearly, toxic masculinity and how people expect men to be is harmful to men. As you note yourself, successful women assume they need an at least as successful man, or he is emasculated. Clearly that is built on a view of masculinity that is flawed, wrong and hurtful. Not only men buy into this either, as we have seen. Women also buy in to it and can be just as prone to accept sexism (as can be seen in the benevolent/hostile sexism exchange). This is like a dance, and if you keep performing the steps to it, then you'll never get off the dance floor.

[TrackerNeil]

Deleted.

[Ice Queen]

2 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Noone is denying that may play a role, C4JS. But why does that difference arise? Could it be that it's because girls are taught early on that boys are better at math? You know, that analysis isn't wrong so much as stopping before asking the actual hard and uncomfortable questions.

I'd also say that basically everbody in this thread who comes from a STEM background has acknowledged sexism in the field - including Commodore, if unwittingly.

@Crazy Cat Lady in Training This can get me so riled up. Some of the best mathematicians, physicists, chemists and computer scientists I know are women. But at the same time, I met far too many bone-headed guys at college who thought women couldn't think logically, including some who thought women couldn't write source code even though the first programmer ever was a woman! The mind just absolutely boggles.

One of my high school friends got a full scholarship to MIT to study genetics. She was and is absolutely brilliant, easily THE most intelligent person I've ever known. Even she had problems with the guys treating her like crap--made worse by the fact that she's African American. She used to complain about it all the time, but she hung in there and kept on going. 

She ended up getting a PhD and retired at the ripe old age of 42 as the Global Director of a biotech firm. Not too shabby! 

Women have always gotten the shaft in the sciences. Rosalind Franklin comes to mind...and you should hear what James Watson has to say about her in The Double Helix. I almost didn't finish the book because of it. Totally demeaning and patronizing. Both she and Madame Curie died in pursuit of their life's work.

In astronomy, they weren't allowed anywhere near a telescope and were reduced to the status of "computer". 

As to the other, we have to stop ingraining in girls that they're awful at math. They're not, but they've been conditioned to think they are. If we ever want to have more women in STEM programs, we have to encourage them and stop the boys in their tracks whenever they demean a girl for being good at math and science. What that means is that half of the available talent pool is being squeezed out and made to feel that they're not good enough. 

This goes for teachers as well. Most math and science teachers are men. 

[ljkeane]

18 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

 Philadelphia has a giant Ultimate Frisbee club to which I've belonged for years, and in this sport I've seen what I think is toxic masculinity. Before it was cool to come out, I was closeted to every team I was part of, and I noticed the subtle but undeniable competition between the men to be the fastest, the most daring, whatever. I stayed out of it--I'm not playing to prove how tough I am--but I could see the other men trying to one-up me (and each other) in ways that never quite reached the level of open acknowledgment. (Ultimate is a coed sport, BTW.)

Isn't that kind of the point of competitive sports? You know, being competitive? You might argue that heterosexual men are particularly interested in doing it (if they are) might be a manifestation of masculinity or toxic masculinity but it seems a little odd to expect them not to do it in an activity were competition is explicitly encouraged.

I will say that I do think a significant proportion of men will tend to tone it down a bit when playing sports against women in my experience which is probably a reflection of some degree of sexist attitudes towards women. On the other hand when I've had some involvement in coaching women's sports teams I haven't noticed them being notably uncompetitive.

[mankytoes]

29 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

 

This was just fine with me, BTW, and still is, and in fact in enhances my experience of the game. The men are less guarded around me and I don't have to deal with that stupid kind of competition. But why do they maintain it among themselves? Is this toxic masculinity? Are there women here who participate in coed sports who can speak to this?

I guess it depends on your view on human nature, but I might think competing at frisbee is, quite opposite from being toxic, quite a healthy way to express our masculinity, compared to more traditional ways like, say, beating the shite out of each other.

I've always enjoyed competition, even though I've always been of small stature and average skill. Even as a young boy, I hated anything where the teachers would try and promote "everyone wins" or "playing for fun". Again, I guess you would have to decide whether that is nature or nurture. But, like most questions of "why do they do this" the answer is "because it gives them pleasure".

[mormont]

2 hours ago, ljkeane said:

Isn't that kind of the point of competitive sports? You know, being competitive?

As far as I can see what is being discussed is intra-team (not inter-team) competitive behaviour.