Role Reversed World?
Sallamandrina wrote:
I see, I'm sorry I haven't seen your location. Out of curiosity - in your perception - is it expected in the UK than men pay for everything or most and do women expect to be financially supported? I only visited UK, I couldn't grasp such details. No offence but I would be shocked to hear people still live in the '50s over there ![Shocked 8O](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Shocked 8O](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
Different women have different views regarding women's role in the UK. On average, though, I'd say women want equality in the workplace, but they want more traditional social roles (though not as extreme as the 50s).
Sallamandrina wrote:
Nobody's saying anything about eliminating the differences between sexes - if I understand correctly what Lilya said was that gender roles(not differences) are highly relative and that social construct will play a big part in the way they are defined.
Maybe you could explain what you see as gender roles so we can see if we can find a common ground. For instance, the way I understand what you said until now I wouldn't even have a reason to want a man. I'm highly educated and can comfortably provide for myself, I'm repulsed by the idea of leeching off someone and I don't want children. Would that mean - in your view - that having a partner would be futile?
Edit: LOL, I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious. Your views are quite unusual for me.
Maybe you could explain what you see as gender roles so we can see if we can find a common ground. For instance, the way I understand what you said until now I wouldn't even have a reason to want a man. I'm highly educated and can comfortably provide for myself, I'm repulsed by the idea of leeching off someone and I don't want children. Would that mean - in your view - that having a partner would be futile?
Edit: LOL, I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious. Your views are quite unusual for me.
I believe everyone - male or female - should be able to live as they want. I support a society without restrictions by gender.
But I also believe an enlightened society must tell the truth. If men are better than women at maths - on average - and women are better than men at reading/writing - on average - resulting in more male engineers and more female journalists - we should acknowledge that reality and not try to pretend that gender is entirely socially constructed.
And, most importantly, no-one should be forced to do something they don't want to do in the name of gender social engineering.
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
We are not talking about biological differences between the genders (obviously there are certain, you can confirm this by taking a peak in your pants). The differences in brain you mention are, in all these researches, very minor, and there is no difference in the average IQ. There isn't any non-physical task where men would excel better than their female counterparts.
I don't agree with this, to be honest. The general differences in male/female brains is much more significant than you suggest.
Although the average male IQ is the same as the average female IQ male IQ levels vary much more from the average, i.e. there are many more male geniuses than female geniuses, but there also many more males with very low IQs than females with very low IQs. This is a statistical fact, not just an opinion.
Men ARE better on average at maths, and women ARE better on average at communicating (on paper and orally). This explains why women are 'taking over' the media, but men are still dominant in professions with a high maths content, e.g. computer programming and engineering.
So, yes, there are non-physical tasks where men are better than women - on average - and there are tasks where women are better than men - on average.
http://www.megafoundation.org/Genius/Ge ... nition.htm
<--- IQ 152, autistic. I exist.
Are you referring to: "But while historical figures of genius have typically been male, there are very strong social, political and cultural factors that determine who goes down in our history books...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. The fact that women's achievements have been routinely underrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record."
I don't think that supports your claim very much.
I stand behind what I said. I see women excelling in any non-physical trade as men do. I don't see gender making any significant difference in any of these professions. There are a vast number of highly succesful female mathematicians and engineers in modern world as well as in history. The differences you are speaking of are indeed very minor and non-significant.
I get the impression we are talking about different matters here.
_________________
It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Sallamandrina wrote:
Wait a second Another_Alien I might be missing something here. Are you trying to say that "marriage is collapsing" because more women want to be educated and financially independent? ![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
No, please read what I said. It's collapsing because, generally, they won't marry much less successful men. And most young African American men are less successful than their female peers.
Though I'm bound to add that a woman who won't marry a less successful man doesn't really want to be independent does she?
I think you're putting a little bit too much blame on a woman here. I wouldn't have a problem marrying a less succesful person, but especially foreign males seem embarrassed, if a woman makes more money than he does, and also e.g. seem less reluctant to take her family name.
Is it common for men to take a woman's name in Finland?
Yes, it is very common. However, it is also common to take the man's name or create a combination name.
What ethnicity are the Finns? From what I understand they are not part of the Germanic family found in the rest of Scandinavia and northern Europe.
Another_Alien wrote:
Sallamandrina wrote:
Nobody's saying anything about eliminating the differences between sexes - if I understand correctly what Lilya said was that gender roles(not differences) are highly relative and that social construct will play a big part in the way they are defined.
Maybe you could explain what you see as gender roles so we can see if we can find a common ground. For instance, the way I understand what you said until now I wouldn't even have a reason to want a man. I'm highly educated and can comfortably provide for myself, I'm repulsed by the idea of leeching off someone and I don't want children. Would that mean - in your view - that having a partner would be futile?
Edit: LOL, I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious. Your views are quite unusual for me.
Maybe you could explain what you see as gender roles so we can see if we can find a common ground. For instance, the way I understand what you said until now I wouldn't even have a reason to want a man. I'm highly educated and can comfortably provide for myself, I'm repulsed by the idea of leeching off someone and I don't want children. Would that mean - in your view - that having a partner would be futile?
Edit: LOL, I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious. Your views are quite unusual for me.
I believe everyone - male or female - should be able to live as they want. I support a society without restrictions by gender.
But I also believe an enlightened society must tell the truth. If men are better than women at maths - on average - and women are better than men at reading/writing - on average - resulting in more male engineers and more female journalists - we should acknowledge that reality and not try to pretend that gender is entirely socially constructed.
And, most importantly, no-one should be forced to do something they don't want to do in the name of gender social engineering.
I don't think you actually realize how minor these differences actually are. 0,2% doesn't equal to majority.
I know male nurses and female engineers. I know plenty of men and women who want to pursue careers in sector that have traditionally been dominated by the other sex. I am not fond of the idea at all that these people should be discouraged because of the idea of "traditional" roles.
The reality you refer to is different in every culture. I live in a country where there has been a female president for more than a decade, two female prime ministers, in the past government 60% of the ministers where women. Yet there are cultures where politics isn't seen a suitable trade for women. For the record, Finland is a prominent wellfare country where the educational level has more than once been ranked as the best in the world. I don't see the women in power having harmed the nations well-being despite their "natural" differences.
_________________
It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde
Last edited by Lilya on 02 May 2011, 2:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Suomalainen
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
![User avatar](./images/avatars/gallery/gallery/blank.gif)
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 53
Location: Finland
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Sallamandrina wrote:
Wait a second Another_Alien I might be missing something here. Are you trying to say that "marriage is collapsing" because more women want to be educated and financially independent? ![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
No, please read what I said. It's collapsing because, generally, they won't marry much less successful men. And most young African American men are less successful than their female peers.
Though I'm bound to add that a woman who won't marry a less successful man doesn't really want to be independent does she?
I think you're putting a little bit too much blame on a woman here. I wouldn't have a problem marrying a less succesful person, but especially foreign males seem embarrassed, if a woman makes more money than he does, and also e.g. seem less reluctant to take her family name.
Is it common for men to take a woman's name in Finland?
Yes, it is very common. However, it is also common to take the man's name or create a combination name.
YLE (link) claims that in 2005 only 1.4% of Finnish grooms took either their bride's last name either as only last name or combined it with their own last name as second last name.
Last edited by Suomalainen on 02 May 2011, 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sinestro wrote:
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Sallamandrina wrote:
Wait a second Another_Alien I might be missing something here. Are you trying to say that "marriage is collapsing" because more women want to be educated and financially independent? ![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
No, please read what I said. It's collapsing because, generally, they won't marry much less successful men. And most young African American men are less successful than their female peers.
Though I'm bound to add that a woman who won't marry a less successful man doesn't really want to be independent does she?
I think you're putting a little bit too much blame on a woman here. I wouldn't have a problem marrying a less succesful person, but especially foreign males seem embarrassed, if a woman makes more money than he does, and also e.g. seem less reluctant to take her family name.
Is it common for men to take a woman's name in Finland?
Yes, it is very common. However, it is also common to take the man's name or create a combination name.
What ethnicity are the Finns? From what I understand they are not part of the Germanic family found in the rest of Scandinavia and northern Europe.
Officially Finns belong to the Eastern Baltic race with notable Scandinavian features. There is a surprising link to Dutch heritage as well. Compared to the rest of the Scandinavians there are higher proportion of blonde people in Finland and the Finns have higher cheekbones and more delicate features and build. E.g. the Swedes tend to have low cheekbones and very "square" like features and very prominent jawlines.
_________________
It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde
Suomalainen wrote:
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Sallamandrina wrote:
Wait a second Another_Alien I might be missing something here. Are you trying to say that "marriage is collapsing" because more women want to be educated and financially independent? ![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
No, please read what I said. It's collapsing because, generally, they won't marry much less successful men. And most young African American men are less successful than their female peers.
Though I'm bound to add that a woman who won't marry a less successful man doesn't really want to be independent does she?
I think you're putting a little bit too much blame on a woman here. I wouldn't have a problem marrying a less succesful person, but especially foreign males seem embarrassed, if a woman makes more money than he does, and also e.g. seem less reluctant to take her family name.
Is it common for men to take a woman's name in Finland?
Yes, it is very common. However, it is also common to take the man's name or create a combination name.
YLE (link) claims that in 2005 only 1.4% of Finnish grooms took either their bride's last name either as only last name or as second last name.
I actually doubt that, and especially in the later years the numbers have gone up.
Anna minun nyt vähän kiusata tuota yhtä, sen sovinismi ottaa pannuun
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
_________________
It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde
Lilya wrote:
<--- IQ 152, autistic. I exist.
Are you referring to: "But while historical figures of genius have typically been male, there are very strong social, political and cultural factors that determine who goes down in our history books...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. The fact that women's achievements have been routinely underrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record."
I don't think that supports your claim very much.
I stand behind what I said. I see women excelling in any non-physical trade as men do. I don't see gender making any significant difference in any of these professions. There are a vast number of highly succesful female mathematicians and engineers in modern world as well as in history. The differences you are speaking of are indeed very minor and non-significant.
I get the impression we are talking about different matters here.
Are you referring to: "But while historical figures of genius have typically been male, there are very strong social, political and cultural factors that determine who goes down in our history books...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. The fact that women's achievements have been routinely underrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record."
I don't think that supports your claim very much.
I stand behind what I said. I see women excelling in any non-physical trade as men do. I don't see gender making any significant difference in any of these professions. There are a vast number of highly succesful female mathematicians and engineers in modern world as well as in history. The differences you are speaking of are indeed very minor and non-significant.
I get the impression we are talking about different matters here.
There are some female maths geniuses, of course. And there's no doubt that the vast majority of women were prevented from fulfilling their potential in the past. And I'm not suggesting women aren't as talented as men. I'm saying that - on average - male and female brains vary so that our respective talents, as men and women, are slightly different.
If you don't agree with this please explain why women throughout the world read/write/blog much more than men, whilst men dominate computer programming. There are actually FEWER women studying computer programming at Harvard University today than there were 20 years ago. As the maths aspect of computer programming becomes more complex fewer women want to study it! The glass ceiling doesn't explain this as there are more women than ever in further education in the USA, so why would they choose to study everything apart from computer programming?
And the 4:1 ratio of males:females in the Autistic community is EXTREMELY significant, and can't possibly be explained by culture.
No offence, but I believe you've been brought up in a society where you've been taught that there are absolutely no non-physical differences between the sexes, and you've pretty much accepted this philosophy without question.
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Sallamandrina wrote:
Nobody's saying anything about eliminating the differences between sexes - if I understand correctly what Lilya said was that gender roles(not differences) are highly relative and that social construct will play a big part in the way they are defined.
Maybe you could explain what you see as gender roles so we can see if we can find a common ground. For instance, the way I understand what you said until now I wouldn't even have a reason to want a man. I'm highly educated and can comfortably provide for myself, I'm repulsed by the idea of leeching off someone and I don't want children. Would that mean - in your view - that having a partner would be futile?
Edit: LOL, I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious. Your views are quite unusual for me.
Maybe you could explain what you see as gender roles so we can see if we can find a common ground. For instance, the way I understand what you said until now I wouldn't even have a reason to want a man. I'm highly educated and can comfortably provide for myself, I'm repulsed by the idea of leeching off someone and I don't want children. Would that mean - in your view - that having a partner would be futile?
Edit: LOL, I'm not attacking you, I'm just curious. Your views are quite unusual for me.
I believe everyone - male or female - should be able to live as they want. I support a society without restrictions by gender.
But I also believe an enlightened society must tell the truth. If men are better than women at maths - on average - and women are better than men at reading/writing - on average - resulting in more male engineers and more female journalists - we should acknowledge that reality and not try to pretend that gender is entirely socially constructed.
And, most importantly, no-one should be forced to do something they don't want to do in the name of gender social engineering.
I don't think you actually realize how minor these differences actually are. 0,2% doesn't equal to majority.
I know male nurses and female engineers. I know plenty of men and women who want to pursue careers in sector that have traditionally been dominated by the other sex. I am not fond of the idea at all that these people should be discouraged because of the idea of "traditional" roles.
The reality you refer to is different in every culture. I live in a countyr where there has been a female president for more than a decade, two female prime ministers, in the past government 60% of the ministers where women. Yet there are cultures where politics isn't seen a suitable trade for women. For the record, Finland is a prominent wellfare country where the educational level has more than once been ranked as the best in the world. I don't see the women in power having harmed the nations well-being despite their "natural" differences.
Again, I'm not saying anyone should be discouraged. Everyone should be encouraged. I'm saying that in a free society men and women will gravitate towards different career choices on average, due to different abilities and intellectual persuasions.
Poilitics is not a profession where male/female brain differences come into play. Neither men nor women have any advantage in politics. Male and female politicians are just incompetent and dishonest as each other.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
<--- IQ 152, autistic. I exist.
Are you referring to: "But while historical figures of genius have typically been male, there are very strong social, political and cultural factors that determine who goes down in our history books...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. The fact that women's achievements have been routinely underrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record."
I don't think that supports your claim very much.
I stand behind what I said. I see women excelling in any non-physical trade as men do. I don't see gender making any significant difference in any of these professions. There are a vast number of highly succesful female mathematicians and engineers in modern world as well as in history. The differences you are speaking of are indeed very minor and non-significant.
I get the impression we are talking about different matters here.
Are you referring to: "But while historical figures of genius have typically been male, there are very strong social, political and cultural factors that determine who goes down in our history books...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. The fact that women's achievements have been routinely underrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record."
I don't think that supports your claim very much.
I stand behind what I said. I see women excelling in any non-physical trade as men do. I don't see gender making any significant difference in any of these professions. There are a vast number of highly succesful female mathematicians and engineers in modern world as well as in history. The differences you are speaking of are indeed very minor and non-significant.
I get the impression we are talking about different matters here.
There are some female maths geniuses, of course. And there's no doubt that the vast majority of women were prevented from fulfilling their potential in the past. And I'm not suggesting women aren't as talented as men. I'm saying that - on average - male and female brains vary so that our respective talents, as men and women, are slightly different.
If you don't agree with this please explain why women throughout the world read/write/blog much more than men, whilst men dominate computer programming. There are actually FEWER women studying computer programming at Harvard University today than there were 20 years ago. As the maths aspect of computer programming becomes more complex fewer women want to study it! The glass ceiling doesn't explain this as there are more women than ever in further education in the USA, so why would they choose to study everything apart from computer programming?
And the 4:1 ratio of males:females in the Autistic community is EXTREMELY significant, and can't possibly be explained by culture.
No offence, but I believe you've been brought up in a society where you've been taught that there are absolutely no non-physical differences between the sexes, and you've pretty much accepted this philosophy without question.
Computer programming is not a "sexy" trade. Much more profitable jobs exist that bring more social prestige. More men than women are cleaning sewers as well. Satisfied? Nothing against computer programming, but it's less gain for an average woman than many other options. Considering the amount of women in mathematics, it can't be claimed that women "couldn't" do calculations as well or compete with the males.
Autism is not related to discussion about male and female talents.
It's my nature to question. I analyze, calculate and go for what I see is right. Why do you dislike the idea of such world so much?
_________________
It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
We are not talking about biological differences between the genders (obviously there are certain, you can confirm this by taking a peak in your pants). The differences in brain you mention are, in all these researches, very minor, and there is no difference in the average IQ. There isn't any non-physical task where men would excel better than their female counterparts.
I don't agree with this, to be honest. The general differences in male/female brains is much more significant than you suggest.
Although the average male IQ is the same as the average female IQ male IQ levels vary much more from the average, i.e. there are many more male geniuses than female geniuses, but there also many more males with very low IQs than females with very low IQs. This is a statistical fact, not just an opinion.
Men ARE better on average at maths, and women ARE better on average at communicating (on paper and orally). This explains why women are 'taking over' the media, but men are still dominant in professions with a high maths content, e.g. computer programming and engineering.
So, yes, there are non-physical tasks where men are better than women - on average - and there are tasks where women are better than men - on average.
http://www.megafoundation.org/Genius/Ge ... nition.htm
IQ tests are weighted towards testing male areas of strength, for the most part. so men aren't smatter - it's just that the tests are biased. just like whites aren't any smarter than blacks or first nations peoples, but they tend to do better on the tests. sklightly different reasons why, but essentially the tests are not an objective measure of intelligence.
i got to thinking about sports and athletics also. i believe that men are better at some sports because those sports are designed to exploit their strengths... and women are better at sports that are designed to exploit their strengths. for example sports like rhythmic gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, and synchronized swimming. men can jump higher and go faster, but that doesn't help them when grace and flexibility and timing are required.
funny but as a society we tend to look down upon sports where women predominate, just like we look down upon occupations that are dominated by women. it's like we think that these sports and jobs are lesser, even though they require agreat deal of skill too - just different skills.
_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
<--- IQ 152, autistic. I exist.
Are you referring to: "But while historical figures of genius have typically been male, there are very strong social, political and cultural factors that determine who goes down in our history books...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. The fact that women's achievements have been routinely underrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record."
I don't think that supports your claim very much.
I stand behind what I said. I see women excelling in any non-physical trade as men do. I don't see gender making any significant difference in any of these professions. There are a vast number of highly succesful female mathematicians and engineers in modern world as well as in history. The differences you are speaking of are indeed very minor and non-significant.
I get the impression we are talking about different matters here.
Are you referring to: "But while historical figures of genius have typically been male, there are very strong social, political and cultural factors that determine who goes down in our history books...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. The fact that women's achievements have been routinely underrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record."
I don't think that supports your claim very much.
I stand behind what I said. I see women excelling in any non-physical trade as men do. I don't see gender making any significant difference in any of these professions. There are a vast number of highly succesful female mathematicians and engineers in modern world as well as in history. The differences you are speaking of are indeed very minor and non-significant.
I get the impression we are talking about different matters here.
There are some female maths geniuses, of course. And there's no doubt that the vast majority of women were prevented from fulfilling their potential in the past. And I'm not suggesting women aren't as talented as men. I'm saying that - on average - male and female brains vary so that our respective talents, as men and women, are slightly different.
If you don't agree with this please explain why women throughout the world read/write/blog much more than men, whilst men dominate computer programming. There are actually FEWER women studying computer programming at Harvard University today than there were 20 years ago. As the maths aspect of computer programming becomes more complex fewer women want to study it! The glass ceiling doesn't explain this as there are more women than ever in further education in the USA, so why would they choose to study everything apart from computer programming?
And the 4:1 ratio of males:females in the Autistic community is EXTREMELY significant, and can't possibly be explained by culture.
No offence, but I believe you've been brought up in a society where you've been taught that there are absolutely no non-physical differences between the sexes, and you've pretty much accepted this philosophy without question.
Computer programming is not a "sexy" trade. Much more profitable jobs exist that bring more social prestige. More men than women are cleaning sewers as well. Satisfied? Nothing against computer programming, but it's less gain for an average woman than many other options. Considering the amount of women in mathematics, it can't be claimed that women "couldn't" do calculations as well or compete with the males.
Autism is not related to discussion about male and female talents.
It's my nature to question. I analyze, calculate and go for what I see is right. Why do you dislike the idea of such world so much?
No offence, but that's a terrible answer. Men ARE better than women at maths on average. Every country in the world has proved this - regardless of culture. And computer programming has a very high maths content. It's just silly not to to acknowledge this correlation.
Every woman doesn't study the degree that has the highest income potential. There are huge numbers of women studying history, English literature, South American studies, etc. Subjects that have very poor income potential.
And I wonder why you don't want to discuss the male-female Autistic ratio. Is it because there's no way to explain it without acknowledging significant generalized differences in male female/brains?
hyperlexian wrote:
IQ tests are weighted towards testing male areas of strength, for the most part. so men aren't smatter - it's just that the tests are biased. just like whites aren't any smarter than blacks or first nations peoples, but they tend to do better on the tests. sklightly different reasons why, but essentially the tests are not an objective measure of intelligence.
i got to thinking about sports and athletics also. i believe that men are better at some sports because those sports are designed to exploit their strengths... and women are better at sports that are designed to exploit their strengths. for example sports like rhythmic gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, and synchronized swimming. men can jump higher and go faster, but that doesn't help them when grace and flexibility and timing are required.
funny but as a society we tend to look down upon sports where women predominate, just like we look down upon occupations that are dominated by women. it's like we think that these sports and jobs are lesser, even though they require agreat deal of skill too - just different skills.
i got to thinking about sports and athletics also. i believe that men are better at some sports because those sports are designed to exploit their strengths... and women are better at sports that are designed to exploit their strengths. for example sports like rhythmic gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, and synchronized swimming. men can jump higher and go faster, but that doesn't help them when grace and flexibility and timing are required.
funny but as a society we tend to look down upon sports where women predominate, just like we look down upon occupations that are dominated by women. it's like we think that these sports and jobs are lesser, even though they require agreat deal of skill too - just different skills.
I agree with you about male/female dominated sports.
However, your IQ argument is a load of rubbish.
The content of IQ tests isn't what matters in this context, it's the vastly different distribution of IQ scores by gender. Even if IQ tests are skewed towards males (and I'm not saying they are) why do males have the highest AND lowest IQs.
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
<--- IQ 152, autistic. I exist.
Are you referring to: "But while historical figures of genius have typically been male, there are very strong social, political and cultural factors that determine who goes down in our history books...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. The fact that women's achievements have been routinely underrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record."
I don't think that supports your claim very much.
I stand behind what I said. I see women excelling in any non-physical trade as men do. I don't see gender making any significant difference in any of these professions. There are a vast number of highly succesful female mathematicians and engineers in modern world as well as in history. The differences you are speaking of are indeed very minor and non-significant.
I get the impression we are talking about different matters here.
Are you referring to: "But while historical figures of genius have typically been male, there are very strong social, political and cultural factors that determine who goes down in our history books...and indeed, what goes down in history, period. The fact that women's achievements have been routinely underrepresented in classroom texts is a matter of record."
I don't think that supports your claim very much.
I stand behind what I said. I see women excelling in any non-physical trade as men do. I don't see gender making any significant difference in any of these professions. There are a vast number of highly succesful female mathematicians and engineers in modern world as well as in history. The differences you are speaking of are indeed very minor and non-significant.
I get the impression we are talking about different matters here.
There are some female maths geniuses, of course. And there's no doubt that the vast majority of women were prevented from fulfilling their potential in the past. And I'm not suggesting women aren't as talented as men. I'm saying that - on average - male and female brains vary so that our respective talents, as men and women, are slightly different.
If you don't agree with this please explain why women throughout the world read/write/blog much more than men, whilst men dominate computer programming. There are actually FEWER women studying computer programming at Harvard University today than there were 20 years ago. As the maths aspect of computer programming becomes more complex fewer women want to study it! The glass ceiling doesn't explain this as there are more women than ever in further education in the USA, so why would they choose to study everything apart from computer programming?
And the 4:1 ratio of males:females in the Autistic community is EXTREMELY significant, and can't possibly be explained by culture.
No offence, but I believe you've been brought up in a society where you've been taught that there are absolutely no non-physical differences between the sexes, and you've pretty much accepted this philosophy without question.
Computer programming is not a "sexy" trade. Much more profitable jobs exist that bring more social prestige. More men than women are cleaning sewers as well. Satisfied? Nothing against computer programming, but it's less gain for an average woman than many other options. Considering the amount of women in mathematics, it can't be claimed that women "couldn't" do calculations as well or compete with the males.
Autism is not related to discussion about male and female talents.
It's my nature to question. I analyze, calculate and go for what I see is right. Why do you dislike the idea of such world so much?
No offence, but that's a terrible answer. Men ARE better than women at maths on average. Every country in the world has proved this - regardless of culture. And computer programming has a very high maths content. It's just silly not to to acknowledge this correlation.
Every woman doesn't study the degree that has the highest income potential. There are huge numbers of women studying history, English literature, South American studies, etc. Subjects that have very poor income potential.
And I wonder why you don't want to discuss the male-female Autistic ratio. Is it because there's no way to explain it without acknowledging significant generalized differences in male female/brains?
A petty argument doesn't get a decent answer, but blunt facts thrown in one's face. According to a vast number of researches in any country, men are not better at mathematics. There are very minimal differences, even if you would like to believe otherwise. 0,0X-0,X are not significant numbers enough to justify your claim. Women have the similar chance and ability to excel in mathematics and they indeed have, in history and in modern world.
I am not in charge of deciding what women or men ought to study, men go for lower income trades they are interested as well.
Besides autism, we can discuss about illnesses as well that are related to biological differences of the gender, but to this discussion, they are in no way related.
_________________
It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde
http://uwire.com/2010/10/18/study-men-w ... th-skills/
_________________
It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
In a 1st, Scientists Reversed A Person's Type 1 Diabetes |
13 Nov 2024, 6:45 pm |
What do you think about YT's The Aspie World? |
30 Jan 2025, 6:04 am |
A World That Doesn't See Me |
31 Jan 2025, 12:46 pm |
Looking for the perfect world-building game |
16 Dec 2024, 6:17 pm |